You could achieve that with declaring some of your identities to be the same, and others not. And if only the respective owner of an ID can declare an ID to be identical to another ID, you might have a good control about the spread of your "friendships". You could even have private declarations of identity, which are just here for you to keep track of several IDs of the same person you know, and which are held privately with your own account and don't spread elsewhere.
There is a big difference between "design" and "evolution", which is left out in this discussion for some reason.
There is this old thought experiment which should explain why an organism would need a creator: The Found Watch. It goes like this: You find a watch at your way. What would you rather think: "This one has spontaneously materialized here." or "Someone made it"?
This argument has a big fallacy: Nearly everyone of us would think: "Someone lost it!" first. So we know this was designed because a) it obviously doesn't belong there. b) it has a builtin purpose which cannot be fulfilled by lying in the grass. The fact that we call this one "designed" has nothing to do with its inherent complexity. And thus finding a lost watch is completely different from seeing wildlife surrounding us and wondering how it came into existence here. Here we know: It belongs to here. It is well adapted here. And it doesn't need to be put here on purpose, it can well continue to thrive without someone trying to get to his goal with it.
So the whole idea of "design" is strongly coupled with the idea of "purpose", not with the notion of "complexity". And that's the point where Intelligent Design gets it wrong from the very beginning, and that's also the point where it has to remain untestable and thus unfit to be ever called a hypothesis. It forces us to think about the intent of someone who is per definition ineffable.
And that's also the difference to Monsanto: Here we have a purpose: Selling RoundUp (glyphosat), which can be manufactured relatively cheaply, for high sums to farmers.
Hollywood (and also any story-producing entity) never has any clue about whatever field you specialize in. That's why you work in your field, and storytellers tell stories to people who have no clue either about the field you work in.
As my pre-poster already pointed out: There was the Ediacara-Period. So the Cambrian Radiation is now put in perspective: Most of the new lineages we see in the Cambrium were already pre-formed in the million years before, as the Ediacara reaches back at least until 650 mio year ago. It might even be that the Ediacara/Cambrium transition itself was a mass estinction event. It is quite possible that we discover older formations with the remainings of higher lifeforms than even the Ediacara formation.
As the Austrians like to say: Their greatest achievements in history were to 1) make everyone believe, Ludwig van Beethoven was austrian and 2) Hitler wasn't.
Mozart was from Salzburg. And at the time he was living, Salzburg was not a part of Austria. But it was part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. As a matter of fact I am living in Austria (and in a part of Austria that is austrian or at least habsburgian since the late 14th century).
Mozart died penniless, because he was spending his money everywhere. He gambled, and when he and his family went on a way with a coach, there was a second coach accompanying him with his piano, so he could play whenever inspiration got him. He had literally hundreds of toupets, and coats.
Mozart demanded three florins for a hour of music education he gave. The maid who was working for him and his wife, got 12 florins per annum as a salary. So basicly with half a day of work he made as much as normal people in a year.
Later one his widow died with a wealth of five million florins, just because of the income from her late husbands work. It was not the income thad made Mozart penniless.;)
On the other hand Germany had its greatest and best musicans, when Copyright (or Author's Right) was virtually nonexistant: Heinrich Schütz, Johann Sebastian Bach, Johann Pachelbel, Philipp Telemann, Georg Friedrich Händel, Ludwig van Beethoven, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Josef Haydn, Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, Robert Schumann...
That's one of the reasons shrinkwrap licenses are not valid contracts in Germany for instance. Because of the First Sale doctrin, your contract is with the shop you buy the product from, and not with the company that manufactured the product. So the manufacturing company has only the rights it gets by law, not by contract.
As far as I know the Earth is the strongest source of VHF and UHF radiation in our stellar system, most of them because of the radio waves for radio and TV. Maybe we should have a look if the nause and headache is caused by talk radio?
In the 19th or 18th century everyone with a good education was able to talk fluently in six or seven languages. It is no longer necessary. Most educated people today know their own language and english (even the U.S. americans as the British would point out;) ) Now we can lament about the worsening of our language skills, but on the other hand people in the 19th and 18th century never met so many people from so different countries as we do in our life. Obviously language skills in many languages are not as important as thought previously.
And phone numbers are an arbitrary way to remember people anyway. They were a necessity when the first self dial systems were coming up. They aren't a necessity anymore when you can identify people with their name again. There is actually no point in remembering phone numbers except for self dial phones with a 10 number block. And if they die out, we don't need phone numbers anymore.
No it's not. Copyright is for the creator No. Copyright is for the copyshop. It was created to protect the printing press operators from other printing press operators printing the same work. Copyright was a necessity when technology came available to make cheap copies, because the technology itself was very expensive and thus the investment in copy-technology had to be protected. Otherwise the price of the copies would have dropped to their "fair price" (which is the cost to create yet another copy). If you look at 18th century legal statements, you will always find that copyright was always a debate between copists.
Now the investment to perfect copy technology is so small that virtually everyone can be his own copyshop, and thus most people who do copies don't care if their neighbor is copying exactly the same work.
What you were referring to is the Berne Convention, which is a different kind of beast:)
First of all: The translation is misleading. What Antipatros was compiling was a list of "seven showpieces of the known world", basicly a tourist list to mark off for wealthy travellers with too much time at hand.
If it ever was a Backronym, it was so since the very beginning. When I first learned about Perl (somewhen in 1995/1996), it was already "Practical Extraction and Report Language").
I should clarify 2. GPL actually acknowledges that just copying a work and using it for yourself should be completely free. And that's pretty in line with the argument that nothing is stolen by just making a copy for yourself.
1. There are enough Slashdotters who don't like the GPL for exactly that reason: You can't just copy the code and build something new out of it, and then distribute it without disclosing not only the code you took, but also all the code you wrote solely by yourself (and which according to normal copyright you won't have to distribute). (Yes I know, there is always LGPL and also the "interface code" trick.) Those people tend to be in favor of the BSD License.
2. People who defend the GPL normally argue that copying someone else's work, earning money either with it or a derivative work of it and not giving something back is unethical. That's a different type of fish.
I thought the point in Virtualization would be that there is NO direct hardware access, instead every system call to the hardware is caught and evaluated in an emulation? So even Palladium had to be virtualized.
So that creates two possible scenarios:
1. No software emulation of Palladium ever gets signed by the Palladium consortium, and thus every check against a Palladium key fails. Thus no stuff (DRM or otherwise) relying on Palladium runs in the VM. 2. There is an emulation of Palladium that gets a valid certificate. Thus you can endlessly copy this emulation, and all virtual machines using this emulation look identical to the DRM. Thus nothing bound to the identity of a Palladium chip will be ever able to tell on which instance of said emulation it is running, making Palladium meaningless.
You won't get to much enthusiasm from SonyEricsson and Nokia for the MP3-API. Main reason being that one of the big opportunities for cell phone providers to cash in is selling MP3 download services. If everyone and you can just rip her and his CDs to the phone very easy, cell phone companies will lose revenue, and they might reconsider their phone bundling contracts and look for phone builders whose MP3-cellphone-PC sync is still cumbersome.
Cash doesn't have a history (except you keep book of the serial numbers). Electronic money has. With cash there is no easy way to track social and monetary networks. With electronic money it's easy. What do you think why the U.S. government has cracked down on Somalia's Halawa "banking" system? Because no one was able to follow the money trail, and in the aftermath of 9/11 one of the biggest tasks was to find out who is financing whom in terrorism circles.
* Newton didn't fake/fudge a portion of his data to stumble into something resembling a wanted result (google for 'global warming' 'hockey stick' and 'fraud' all together) Isaac Newton faked and fudged a lot. Luckily not in the parts of science that survived. Isaac Newton was much more interested in alchemy, and here he was doing a lot of stuff he should be ashamed of;) Luckily he was slightly less emotionally involved with physics and mathematics, and so he just looked at his theories and experiments and was able to report more objectively.
* Nations weren't jockeying for power and economic supremacy over the outcome of his experiments Of course they were. Exact astronomy was important for a sea going nation, and having the right methods to determine place and time was the secret sauce to supremacy.
* Newton wasn't running around trying to scare people into thinking that humanity would likely get wiped out if Motion and Gravity were defined He did. He was known to get very emotional if anyone was giving him contra on his scientific ideas. A certain Mr. Leibniz for instance had to fight constant accusations of plagiarism and lying, just because he a) published his calculus, while I. Newton preferred to keep it secret, and b) more imporantly dared to have invented a far better way to describe differentiation and integration than Isaac Newton's fluxion method.
* Things like Motion, Energy, and Gravity are explainable by mathematics, have precise definitions, and don't rely on faulty/incomplete computer modelling to prove/disprove (yet - at least until someone invents an anti-gravity machine or finds a way to stop entropy, etc etc) As we know since Max Planck, Motion, Energy and Gravity are far away from being "precise" (ok, they are calculable for at least 25 digits;) ), and we have to accept the fact that God obviously throws dice.
* Newton didn't have grant money riding on the outcome. He did. He founded the Royal Academy to collect the money and to decide how to distribute it.
* Newton didn't have to worry about a career-killing blackballing if his outcomes didn't match the consensus opinion. He had to worry about it. That was the second motivation behind founding the Royal Academy. To call everyone fringe who was not a member, and to decide who was allowed to be a member;)
As you can see: Isaac Newton is surely an example for a brillant mind able to advance science and to come up with pretty nifty ideas to mold all the little theories and experiments into a few clear, well to handle formulas. He just wasn't a nice person.
Slashdot Mirror
You could achieve that with declaring some of your identities to be the same, and others not. And if only the respective owner of an ID can declare an ID to be identical to another ID, you might have a good control about the spread of your "friendships". You could even have private declarations of identity, which are just here for you to keep track of several IDs of the same person you know, and which are held privately with your own account and don't spread elsewhere.
There is a big difference between "design" and "evolution", which is left out in this discussion for some reason.
There is this old thought experiment which should explain why an organism would need a creator: The Found Watch. It goes like this: You find a watch at your way. What would you rather think: "This one has spontaneously materialized here." or "Someone made it"?
This argument has a big fallacy: Nearly everyone of us would think: "Someone lost it!" first. So we know this was designed because a) it obviously doesn't belong there. b) it has a builtin purpose which cannot be fulfilled by lying in the grass. The fact that we call this one "designed" has nothing to do with its inherent complexity. And thus finding a lost watch is completely different from seeing wildlife surrounding us and wondering how it came into existence here. Here we know: It belongs to here. It is well adapted here. And it doesn't need to be put here on purpose, it can well continue to thrive without someone trying to get to his goal with it.
So the whole idea of "design" is strongly coupled with the idea of "purpose", not with the notion of "complexity". And that's the point where Intelligent Design gets it wrong from the very beginning, and that's also the point where it has to remain untestable and thus unfit to be ever called a hypothesis. It forces us to think about the intent of someone who is per definition ineffable.
And that's also the difference to Monsanto: Here we have a purpose: Selling RoundUp (glyphosat), which can be manufactured relatively cheaply, for high sums to farmers.
Hollywood (and also any story-producing entity) never has any clue about whatever field you specialize in. That's why you work in your field, and storytellers tell stories to people who have no clue either about the field you work in.
Oh... old Babenberger domain :)
As my pre-poster already pointed out: There was the Ediacara-Period. So the Cambrian Radiation is now put in perspective: Most of the new lineages we see in the Cambrium were already pre-formed in the million years before, as the Ediacara reaches back at least until 650 mio year ago. It might even be that the Ediacara/Cambrium transition itself was a mass estinction event. It is quite possible that we discover older formations with the remainings of higher lifeforms than even the Ediacara formation.
As the Austrians like to say: Their greatest achievements in history were to 1) make everyone believe, Ludwig van Beethoven was austrian and 2) Hitler wasn't.
Mozart was from Salzburg. And at the time he was living, Salzburg was not a part of Austria. But it was part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. As a matter of fact I am living in Austria (and in a part of Austria that is austrian or at least habsburgian since the late 14th century).
Still wrong. The whole "Lied der Deutschen " is the national anthem, but only the third stanza shall be performed publically.
Mozart died penniless, because he was spending his money everywhere. He gambled, and when he and his family went on a way with a coach, there was a second coach accompanying him with his piano, so he could play whenever inspiration got him. He had literally hundreds of toupets, and coats.
;)
Mozart demanded three florins for a hour of music education he gave. The maid who was working for him and his wife, got 12 florins per annum as a salary. So basicly with half a day of work he made as much as normal people in a year.
Later one his widow died with a wealth of five million florins, just because of the income from her late husbands work. It was not the income thad made Mozart penniless.
On the other hand Germany had its greatest and best musicans, when Copyright (or Author's Right) was virtually nonexistant: Heinrich Schütz, Johann Sebastian Bach, Johann Pachelbel, Philipp Telemann, Georg Friedrich Händel, Ludwig van Beethoven, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Josef Haydn, Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, Robert Schumann...
So basicly you use many words to say:
The Youth is wasted at the youth.
That's one of the reasons shrinkwrap licenses are not valid contracts in Germany for instance. Because of the First Sale doctrin, your contract is with the shop you buy the product from, and not with the company that manufactured the product. So the manufacturing company has only the rights it gets by law, not by contract.
That's what kubuntu (Ubuntu with KDE as default desktop) is for.
As far as I know the Earth is the strongest source of VHF and UHF radiation in our stellar system, most of them because of the radio waves for radio and TV. Maybe we should have a look if the nause and headache is caused by talk radio?
They don't do online phone books anymore?
I wholeheartedly agree.
;) ) Now we can lament about the worsening of our language skills, but on the other hand people in the 19th and 18th century never met so many people from so different countries as we do in our life. Obviously language skills in many languages are not as important as thought previously.
In the 19th or 18th century everyone with a good education was able to talk fluently in six or seven languages. It is no longer necessary. Most educated people today know their own language and english (even the U.S. americans as the British would point out
And phone numbers are an arbitrary way to remember people anyway. They were a necessity when the first self dial systems were coming up. They aren't a necessity anymore when you can identify people with their name again. There is actually no point in remembering phone numbers except for self dial phones with a 10 number block. And if they die out, we don't need phone numbers anymore.
Now the investment to perfect copy technology is so small that virtually everyone can be his own copyshop, and thus most people who do copies don't care if their neighbor is copying exactly the same work.
What you were referring to is the Berne Convention, which is a different kind of beast
First of all: The translation is misleading. What Antipatros was compiling was a list of "seven showpieces of the known world", basicly a tourist list to mark off for wealthy travellers with too much time at hand.
And for that the new list serves pretty well.
If it ever was a Backronym, it was so since the very beginning. When I first learned about Perl (somewhen in 1995/1996), it was already "Practical Extraction and Report Language").
I should clarify 2.
GPL actually acknowledges that just copying a work and using it for yourself should be completely free. And that's pretty in line with the argument that nothing is stolen by just making a copy for yourself.
1. There are enough Slashdotters who don't like the GPL for exactly that reason: You can't just copy the code and build something new out of it, and then distribute it without disclosing not only the code you took, but also all the code you wrote solely by yourself (and which according to normal copyright you won't have to distribute). (Yes I know, there is always LGPL and also the "interface code" trick.) Those people tend to be in favor of the BSD License.
2. People who defend the GPL normally argue that copying someone else's work, earning money either with it or a derivative work of it and not giving something back is unethical. That's a different type of fish.
I thought the point in Virtualization would be that there is NO direct hardware access, instead every system call to the hardware is caught and evaluated in an emulation? So even Palladium had to be virtualized.
So that creates two possible scenarios:
1. No software emulation of Palladium ever gets signed by the Palladium consortium, and thus every check against a Palladium key fails. Thus no stuff (DRM or otherwise) relying on Palladium runs in the VM.
2. There is an emulation of Palladium that gets a valid certificate. Thus you can endlessly copy this emulation, and all virtual machines using this emulation look identical to the DRM. Thus nothing bound to the identity of a Palladium chip will be ever able to tell on which instance of said emulation it is running, making Palladium meaningless.
You won't get to much enthusiasm from SonyEricsson and Nokia for the MP3-API. Main reason being that one of the big opportunities for cell phone providers to cash in is selling MP3 download services. If everyone and you can just rip her and his CDs to the phone very easy, cell phone companies will lose revenue, and they might reconsider their phone bundling contracts and look for phone builders whose MP3-cellphone-PC sync is still cumbersome.
Cash doesn't have a history (except you keep book of the serial numbers). Electronic money has. With cash there is no easy way to track social and monetary networks. With electronic money it's easy. What do you think why the U.S. government has cracked down on Somalia's Halawa "banking" system? Because no one was able to follow the money trail, and in the aftermath of 9/11 one of the biggest tasks was to find out who is financing whom in terrorism circles.
Luckily he was slightly less emotionally involved with physics and mathematics, and so he just looked at his theories and experiments and was able to report more objectively. * Nations weren't jockeying for power and economic supremacy over the outcome of his experiments Of course they were. Exact astronomy was important for a sea going nation, and having the right methods to determine place and time was the secret sauce to supremacy. * Newton wasn't running around trying to scare people into thinking that humanity would likely get wiped out if Motion and Gravity were defined He did. He was known to get very emotional if anyone was giving him contra on his scientific ideas. A certain Mr. Leibniz for instance had to fight constant accusations of plagiarism and lying, just because he a) published his calculus, while I. Newton preferred to keep it secret, and b) more imporantly dared to have invented a far better way to describe differentiation and integration than Isaac Newton's fluxion method. * Things like Motion, Energy, and Gravity are explainable by mathematics, have precise definitions, and don't rely on faulty/incomplete computer modelling to prove/disprove (yet - at least until someone invents an anti-gravity machine or finds a way to stop entropy, etc etc) As we know since Max Planck, Motion, Energy and Gravity are far away from being "precise" (ok, they are calculable for at least 25 digits
As you can see: Isaac Newton is surely an example for a brillant mind able to advance science and to come up with pretty nifty ideas to mold all the little theories and experiments into a few clear, well to handle formulas. He just wasn't a nice person.