The French Revolution was indeed a history changing event, but France as an political and cultural entity, and as an identity for its inhabitants was stable, even attempted cultural changes like the renaming of the months and the introduction of a new calendar were only temporary measures which never caught on and were dropped a few years later. The French Revolution was building intellectually on the works of Diderot, Rousseau, Montesquieu and Voltaire, and the leaders of the different fractions never doubted that they were acting in the best interest of France (and if others doubted that, they just got sent to the Guillotine). France has undergone several regime changes, the current republic for instance is called the "Fifth Republic". This means that France already had four other republic constitutions;) and some royal dynasties as well, starting with the Merowingians, later one the Carolingians, Capetingians, Valois, Bourbons... But in the end it remained France.
This is quite different than for instance in Germany: There, income from gambling, lottery and similar games are free for the first year (the following year they are taxed as property though (while the property tax in the current form is no longer demanded due to constitutional problems, and a new property tax system is not in place yet)).
I should rephrase "First". If A correlates to B and B correlates to C, then it is to be expected that A correlates to C. There are exceptions, if the data set has some strange properties (we are talking about probabilities after all!). For instance if the set of obese people consists of two subsets: One that is obese and poor, and another one that is obese and intelligent. You would still get a correlation Obesity <-> Poverty (not as strong as if the second subset was small or nearly empty) and another one High IQ <-> High Income, but the correlation Obesity <-> Low IQ would be rather small or nearly insignificant.
So the result of the study actually seems to enforce the observed fact that obese people tend to be poorer than average. If they had an average income, we wouldn't observe a negative correlation between IQ and obesity, because we expect people with a high IQ to get higher wages. It does not tell anything about a direct causality between obesity and IQ.
First: Correlation is (as the name indicates) a relation, and relations are transitive: If A relates to B, and B relates to C, then A relates to C too. This is per definitionem, no point worth arguing about. The correlation just multiplies. Second: The relations Low Income -> Obesity risk and Low IQ -> Low Income are well known for Central Europe, not just some questionable studies (If you understand German, check out Walter Kraemer's work, especially about "Gesundheitswesen" (Public Health) and "Armut" (Poverty). Sorry. There is no mainly English speaking country in Central Europe, so studies there often are not in English:) Third: The causality I was noting was just an example for a possible explanation, and it has to be checked if it is real or just another coincidal correlation. At least it seemed to me more intuitive than a direct causality Obesity -> Low IQ.
It's the same as with the correlation of storks and newborn children: If you have many storks in a region, you can expect higher birthrates. This correlation is correct. It does not mean that the stork carries the newborn. Storks breed in rural areas, where they find their prey (mostly frogs and small rodents), and people in rural areas also tend to have more children than people living in cities.
So obesity is (at least in Western and Central Europe, the study is french after all!) negatively correlated with the social status. People with low income tend to be more obese than people with high income. People with a high IQ also tend to have higher income than people with a lower IQ. Thus both correlations together tell you, that obese people have in average a lower IQ. If there is a causality, it may be this: Lower IQ -> lower wages -> more prone to obesity.
No, it was named after the most stable political entity of whole Europe, with a record setting 1500 years of continious history, founded by the Franconian Chlodwig in 507, an entity which also fought the most wars since the Middle Age (more than the two runners up United Kingdom and Austria combined) and has the oldest orthographic rules (not changed since about 400 years). You may have some issues with its existance, but most of them are caused by the fact, that this entity is so stable and seemingly undestroyable, even though it sometimes does the trick by weaseling out of consequences;)
Don't confuse chemical stability and nuclear stability. Noble gases win the first game, iron and lead the second one (while for instance Francium sucks at both).
But that's completely understandable. Tatras are fascinating because they are designed completely different than all other cars of the last half century (with the exception of the original Beetle). The Tatra trucks are of the same central pipe design (just the engine sits on the front axle), which makes them unique in truck design worldwide. I remember that I wondered always as a kid why the Tatra truck's wheels were slanted inwards, not knowing about the fine details of pendular axles:) Hm... Wasn't there a movie where the streamlined Tatra 603 featured as a futuristic vehicle?
I happen to have still some old Computer Magazines (from 1987 to be exact), and there the names were "Macintosh" and "IBM compatibles". The term "PC" was mainly used to make a difference to the Home Computers.
Microcomputers are a completely different thing: The VAX for instance was a microcomputer. Microcomputer used to have the size of a small fridge, and they were called this to make a difference to midrange computers and the big irons. Today the microcomputer class would be called a "server".
The term Wintel does not refer to the Intel processor, but to the Intel 80x86 instruction set (which was for instance cross licensed by AMD, so AMD was allowed to build Intel 80x86 compatible processors all the time, and they were doing so all the time).
To claim that the company which coined the term "personal computer" back in the 70ies for their Apple ][ never actually sold a PC is somewhat ironic. To call Wintel machines PCs is a quite recent development. When IBM introduced the IBM PC, it was called "the IBM PC", and the clones from Compaq and Tandy et.al. were called "IBM compatibles". It wasn't until the early nineties that PC was a synonym for IBM compatible (but by then IBM was no longer the trendsetter in the business).
Just nitpicking: The 1.5 engine of the more recent Ladas (Samara et.al.) was actually designed by Porsche, Weissach, Germany. Only the older 1.3, 1.5 and 1.6 engines in the Lada NOVA and predecessors were derived from the original FIAT 123 engine.
SoftImage. For this one Microsoft got convicted and in court slapped with a FFr 3 mio fee on Sep 27 2001, after the real copyright holder, Syn'x, filed suit. This one thus is real:)
Re:I'll go for your lesser challenge of five...
on
Ten Geek Business Myths
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I'll just go for five brilliant ideas:
Bundle your OS part with the purchase of any PC compatible machine, not just the hardware we built.
Only license your core apps (Office, SQL Server) on non-threatening operating systems to prevent switching.
Bundle TCP/IP connectivity with the OS.
Bundle a web browser with the OS.
Make LDAP accessible to mere mortals (AD).
At least your third point is mood. TCP/IP was bundled with a lot of other operating systems way before Microsoft Windows. For instance UNIX V3 was basicly build around TCP/IP.
The network connectivity of choice according to Microsoft should have been Pathworks/LANmanager (a.k.a. SMB), but it caught never on really. Windows for Workgroups 3.1 and 3.11 came with SMB, not with TCP/IP, and you had to install Trumpet Winsock to get to the Internet, while at the same time UNIX, TOS and Kickstart already had IP-Stacks. And even with Windows 95 the TCP/IP support was rather halfhearty, and only with Windows 98 IP was the network language of choice for Microsoft's OS.
I don't know what you consider "theme of slashdot", I see "news for nerds, stuff that matters". Nothing of that hints internet, videogames, copyright, online privacy any more than politics. Politics matters. At least to a nerd like me. (And yes, this answer is redundant.)
The biggest flaw I have with the current administration is how on this planet can Bin Laden hide and live for so long.
Very easy: P. Musharraf can only stay on power if he balances out the U.S. pressure to him to do "something about the Taliban and Osama bin Ladin" and the pressure of his own armed forces and security services and the people in North East Pakistan, who are opposed to his appeasement to India or thoroughly supporting the Taliban (most of the Taliban schools are in Northern Pakistan, and they offer the best education, which is easy if the alternative is no education at all). So by silently thwarting all attempts to catch Osama bin Ladin, or at least allow the army and the security services to protect Osama bin Ladin, but on the other hand being an outspoken supporter of the U.S. War on Terror, he tries to survive.
So as an U.S. administration: What's more important for you: Having a big islamic country like Pakistan on your side, which is already a nuclear power, which borderlines Iran, Russia and India, of which two are already nuclear powers, and the third one is suspected to become one very soon, or catch a single person, who seems not to be directing the current wave of islamic terrorism anymore, who is long replaced by local terror chiefs and who just sends a video every three months?
That's a matter of philosophy. BSD says: I don't care what you are doing with the code, as long as you keep my copyright notice intact. Some could call this "freedom", other say: "This is just laissez-faire, without actually caring for freedom". GPL says: You are free to do anything with the code, as long as you give others the same rights to your work I gave you to mine. Some call this "restrictive", others call this "promoting freedom". It depends on your point of view. If you are just looking which license gives you the most freedom in your own actions, BSD wins. If you are looking which license adds most to the heap of code you are being free to use, GPL wins. It also depends on how you look at the original rationale of Copyright. BSD somehow shortcuts copyright by just reducing it to you being forced to admit, that your product based on BSD code is not solely your own idea. GPL says: The idea of copyright is to increase the number of available works by giving the creators some incentives to actually create. Normal copyright solves this by giving the creators a limited control for some tome. GPL solves it by exchanging the control with the ability to get back all modifications others do to your work.
Just because it's not the media, that defines a Work of Art. You can copy a shopping list as often as you want, independent of the media it is stored on. You can make a hundred copies of bird voices in your front yard, no one has a legal right to object. As long as the content of the media is not copyrighted, the media itself is copyable at your will, except for some strange technical hurdle called "copy protection". This is actually the issue I have with copy protection schemes: They forbid you to copy something legally without it necessary being something that actually has a copyright or without the actual act of copying being forbidden.
Media is NOT copyrighted. Works of Art are. And they are copyrighted to further the advance of Knowledge and Arts and increase the available works by encouraging artists to create new works by giving them for a limited time a certain control about the usage of the work.
The rationale behind copyright agrees that one of the necessary conditions to have Works of Art at all is to have a huge amount of Art and Knowledge accessible to everyone, and the more of those are available, the more new works will be created. In the end the right to copy, to modify and to distribute is a precondition for the creation of Art. On the other hand creation of Art takes time and costs money, so there has to be a way to reimburse the artist. Copyright does that by giving the artist a limited control over his works, e.g. giving him the right to stop copies, modifications and distributions he doesn't condone.
Copyright by itself is viral. If you modify someone elses Work of Art (i.e. creating your own work based on the original), you need her permission. To distribute it you need her permission again. And to distribute it for modification, you have to ask for permission again and again. Same is valid for the modificaton of the modification. This is viral by nature. The GPL just gives you all three permissions at once, but it doesn't change the virality.
In fact the same is valid for the BSD licence. The original copyright holder has to be mentioned in all derived works, and also in the derivations of the derivations. In this case the virality is attached to another aspect, but it is still viral.
Accompaning the product with the GPL is only one of the obligations. Making the source code available for copying, modifying and distributing is another one. Obviously D-Link decided not to follow this obligations and rather agreed to stop the distribution.
It's easy. It always depends on the rights you are defending. GPL is defending the right to copy, modify and distribute. *AA is defending the right to stop you from copying, modifying and distributing.
They preferred not to but rather to cease and desist. It's their decicion, not yours. Who knows what other corpses they had in the cellar (to use a german proverb)?
I am currently remastering a cartoon I draw about 15 years ago. Now the paper starts to get yellow, and there are several dust specks on the original. I am using exactly the setup described: digital camera, no flash, GIMP.
It took some experimentation at first, but now the process is quite easy. In GIMP just load the digital print, go to Tools->Color Tools->Contrast, increase the contrast, then to Tools->Color Tools->Treshold, and choose a black/white separation that is a good compromise between completeness of the letters and readability.
Sometimes I have to split the area into several sub areas and work on each separately, because the light levels are too different. That's a nuissance though.
Slashdot Mirror
The French Revolution was indeed a history changing event, but France as an political and cultural entity, and as an identity for its inhabitants was stable, even attempted cultural changes like the renaming of the months and the introduction of a new calendar were only temporary measures which never caught on and were dropped a few years later. The French Revolution was building intellectually on the works of Diderot, Rousseau, Montesquieu and Voltaire, and the leaders of the different fractions never doubted that they were acting in the best interest of France (and if others doubted that, they just got sent to the Guillotine). France has undergone several regime changes, the current republic for instance is called the "Fifth Republic". This means that France already had four other republic constitutions ;) and some royal dynasties as well, starting with the Merowingians, later one the Carolingians, Capetingians, Valois, Bourbons... But in the end it remained France.
This is quite different than for instance in Germany: There, income from gambling, lottery and similar games are free for the first year (the following year they are taxed as property though (while the property tax in the current form is no longer demanded due to constitutional problems, and a new property tax system is not in place yet)).
I should rephrase "First". If A correlates to B and B correlates to C, then it is to be expected that A correlates to C. There are exceptions, if the data set has some strange properties (we are talking about probabilities after all!). For instance if the set of obese people consists of two subsets: One that is obese and poor, and another one that is obese and intelligent. You would still get a correlation Obesity <-> Poverty (not as strong as if the second subset was small or nearly empty) and another one High IQ <-> High Income, but the correlation Obesity <-> Low IQ would be rather small or nearly insignificant.
So the result of the study actually seems to enforce the observed fact that obese people tend to be poorer than average. If they had an average income, we wouldn't observe a negative correlation between IQ and obesity, because we expect people with a high IQ to get higher wages. It does not tell anything about a direct causality between obesity and IQ.
First: Correlation is (as the name indicates) a relation, and relations are transitive: If A relates to B, and B relates to C, then A relates to C too. This is per definitionem, no point worth arguing about. The correlation just multiplies. :)
Second: The relations Low Income -> Obesity risk and Low IQ -> Low Income are well known for Central Europe, not just some questionable studies (If you understand German, check out Walter Kraemer's work, especially about "Gesundheitswesen" (Public Health) and "Armut" (Poverty). Sorry. There is no mainly English speaking country in Central Europe, so studies there often are not in English
Third: The causality I was noting was just an example for a possible explanation, and it has to be checked if it is real or just another coincidal correlation. At least it seemed to me more intuitive than a direct causality Obesity -> Low IQ.
It's the same as with the correlation of storks and newborn children: If you have many storks in a region, you can expect higher birthrates. This correlation is correct. It does not mean that the stork carries the newborn. Storks breed in rural areas, where they find their prey (mostly frogs and small rodents), and people in rural areas also tend to have more children than people living in cities.
So obesity is (at least in Western and Central Europe, the study is french after all!) negatively correlated with the social status. People with low income tend to be more obese than people with high income. People with a high IQ also tend to have higher income than people with a lower IQ. Thus both correlations together tell you, that obese people have in average a lower IQ. If there is a causality, it may be this: Lower IQ -> lower wages -> more prone to obesity.
No, it was named after the most stable political entity of whole Europe, with a record setting 1500 years of continious history, founded by the Franconian Chlodwig in 507, an entity which also fought the most wars since the Middle Age (more than the two runners up United Kingdom and Austria combined) and has the oldest orthographic rules (not changed since about 400 years). You may have some issues with its existance, but most of them are caused by the fact, that this entity is so stable and seemingly undestroyable, even though it sometimes does the trick by weaseling out of consequences ;)
Don't confuse chemical stability and nuclear stability. Noble gases win the first game, iron and lead the second one (while for instance Francium sucks at both).
But that's completely understandable. Tatras are fascinating because they are designed completely different than all other cars of the last half century (with the exception of the original Beetle). The Tatra trucks are of the same central pipe design (just the engine sits on the front axle), which makes them unique in truck design worldwide. I remember that I wondered always as a kid why the Tatra truck's wheels were slanted inwards, not knowing about the fine details of pendular axles :)
Hm... Wasn't there a movie where the streamlined Tatra 603 featured as a futuristic vehicle?
I happen to have still some old Computer Magazines (from 1987 to be exact), and there the names were "Macintosh" and "IBM compatibles". The term "PC" was mainly used to make a difference to the Home Computers.
Microcomputers are a completely different thing: The VAX for instance was a microcomputer. Microcomputer used to have the size of a small fridge, and they were called this to make a difference to midrange computers and the big irons. Today the microcomputer class would be called a "server".
The term Wintel does not refer to the Intel processor, but to the Intel 80x86 instruction set (which was for instance cross licensed by AMD, so AMD was allowed to build Intel 80x86 compatible processors all the time, and they were doing so all the time).
To claim that the company which coined the term "personal computer" back in the 70ies for their Apple ][ never actually sold a PC is somewhat ironic. To call Wintel machines PCs is a quite recent development. When IBM introduced the IBM PC, it was called "the IBM PC", and the clones from Compaq and Tandy et.al. were called "IBM compatibles". It wasn't until the early nineties that PC was a synonym for IBM compatible (but by then IBM was no longer the trendsetter in the business).
Just nitpicking: The 1.5 engine of the more recent Ladas (Samara et.al.) was actually designed by Porsche, Weissach, Germany. Only the older 1.3, 1.5 and 1.6 engines in the Lada NOVA and predecessors were derived from the original FIAT 123 engine.
SoftImage. For this one Microsoft got convicted and in court slapped with a FFr 3 mio fee on Sep 27 2001, after the real copyright holder, Syn'x, filed suit. This one thus is real :)
At least your third point is mood. TCP/IP was bundled with a lot of other operating systems way before Microsoft Windows. For instance UNIX V3 was basicly build around TCP/IP.
The network connectivity of choice according to Microsoft should have been Pathworks/LANmanager (a.k.a. SMB), but it caught never on really. Windows for Workgroups 3.1 and 3.11 came with SMB, not with TCP/IP, and you had to install Trumpet Winsock to get to the Internet, while at the same time UNIX, TOS and Kickstart already had IP-Stacks. And even with Windows 95 the TCP/IP support was rather halfhearty, and only with Windows 98 IP was the network language of choice for Microsoft's OS.
I don't know what you consider "theme of slashdot", I see "news for nerds, stuff that matters". Nothing of that hints internet, videogames, copyright, online privacy any more than politics. Politics matters. At least to a nerd like me. (And yes, this answer is redundant.)
Very easy: P. Musharraf can only stay on power if he balances out the U.S. pressure to him to do "something about the Taliban and Osama bin Ladin" and the pressure of his own armed forces and security services and the people in North East Pakistan, who are opposed to his appeasement to India or thoroughly supporting the Taliban (most of the Taliban schools are in Northern Pakistan, and they offer the best education, which is easy if the alternative is no education at all). So by silently thwarting all attempts to catch Osama bin Ladin, or at least allow the army and the security services to protect Osama bin Ladin, but on the other hand being an outspoken supporter of the U.S. War on Terror, he tries to survive.
So as an U.S. administration: What's more important for you: Having a big islamic country like Pakistan on your side, which is already a nuclear power, which borderlines Iran, Russia and India, of which two are already nuclear powers, and the third one is suspected to become one very soon, or catch a single person, who seems not to be directing the current wave of islamic terrorism anymore, who is long replaced by local terror chiefs and who just sends a video every three months?
David Hasselhoff once had a song about a suicide just being an obstruction? I would never have guessed!
This reminds me of a song text (it is German in original, here a rough translation):
Someone threw himself in front of a train
during commuter traffic,
Disturbed our end of workday
even though it was Soccer on TV.
Obstruction! Obstruction! Obstruction!
Had he waited,
another train had arrived,
other people would be sitting here.
Why we? Why we? Why we?
Obstruction! Obstruction! Obstruction!
That's a matter of philosophy. BSD says: I don't care what you are doing with the code, as long as you keep my copyright notice intact. Some could call this "freedom", other say: "This is just laissez-faire, without actually caring for freedom".
GPL says: You are free to do anything with the code, as long as you give others the same rights to your work I gave you to mine. Some call this "restrictive", others call this "promoting freedom".
It depends on your point of view. If you are just looking which license gives you the most freedom in your own actions, BSD wins. If you are looking which license adds most to the heap of code you are being free to use, GPL wins.
It also depends on how you look at the original rationale of Copyright. BSD somehow shortcuts copyright by just reducing it to you being forced to admit, that your product based on BSD code is not solely your own idea. GPL says: The idea of copyright is to increase the number of available works by giving the creators some incentives to actually create. Normal copyright solves this by giving the creators a limited control for some tome. GPL solves it by exchanging the control with the ability to get back all modifications others do to your work.
Just because it's not the media, that defines a Work of Art. You can copy a shopping list as often as you want, independent of the media it is stored on. You can make a hundred copies of bird voices in your front yard, no one has a legal right to object. As long as the content of the media is not copyrighted, the media itself is copyable at your will, except for some strange technical hurdle called "copy protection". This is actually the issue I have with copy protection schemes: They forbid you to copy something legally without it necessary being something that actually has a copyright or without the actual act of copying being forbidden.
Media is NOT copyrighted. Works of Art are. And they are copyrighted to further the advance of Knowledge and Arts and increase the available works by encouraging artists to create new works by giving them for a limited time a certain control about the usage of the work.
The rationale behind copyright agrees that one of the necessary conditions to have Works of Art at all is to have a huge amount of Art and Knowledge accessible to everyone, and the more of those are available, the more new works will be created. In the end the right to copy, to modify and to distribute is a precondition for the creation of Art. On the other hand creation of Art takes time and costs money, so there has to be a way to reimburse the artist. Copyright does that by giving the artist a limited control over his works, e.g. giving him the right to stop copies, modifications and distributions he doesn't condone.
Copyright by itself is viral. If you modify someone elses Work of Art (i.e. creating your own work based on the original), you need her permission. To distribute it you need her permission again. And to distribute it for modification, you have to ask for permission again and again. Same is valid for the modificaton of the modification. This is viral by nature. The GPL just gives you all three permissions at once, but it doesn't change the virality.
In fact the same is valid for the BSD licence. The original copyright holder has to be mentioned in all derived works, and also in the derivations of the derivations. In this case the virality is attached to another aspect, but it is still viral.
Accompaning the product with the GPL is only one of the obligations. Making the source code available for copying, modifying and distributing is another one. Obviously D-Link decided not to follow this obligations and rather agreed to stop the distribution.
It's easy. It always depends on the rights you are defending. GPL is defending the right to copy, modify and distribute. *AA is defending the right to stop you from copying, modifying and distributing.
They preferred not to but rather to cease and desist. It's their decicion, not yours.
Who knows what other corpses they had in the cellar (to use a german proverb)?
I am currently remastering a cartoon I draw about 15 years ago. Now the paper starts to get yellow, and there are several dust specks on the original. I am using exactly the setup described: digital camera, no flash, GIMP.
It took some experimentation at first, but now the process is quite easy. In GIMP just load the digital print, go to Tools->Color Tools->Contrast, increase the contrast, then to Tools->Color Tools->Treshold, and choose a black/white separation that is a good compromise between completeness of the letters and readability.
Sometimes I have to split the area into several sub areas and work on each separately, because the light levels are too different. That's a nuissance though.