You'd have to modify the drivers or have two drivers running mapped to different com ports. If you want to switch hands, there is a keyboard y-splitter, and I'm sure you could find one for a serial port too. Standard typing speed goes from very slow up to 40-50-60+ wpm for the very fast (and those who have nice macro layouts), but those speeds usually aren't reached until months of usage (or so I've heard).
Wearables Central, almost everything you would want to know about wearable/ubiquitous computing (or a link to it).
They are encouraged by prodding them along, the squeaky wheel gets the greese (or replaced). If people didn't make their dislikes about this license known, it would never be improved.
I had to look up epistemology, it's been too long since I've used the word. Yeah, I'm a complete nihilist (in the nothing sense of the word), though that leads to paradoxes too! Our fundamental precepts (I don't always think nihilistically) are different enough that it is difficult for us to meet a common ground on this issue (or so it appears).
Many of the cracked binaries out there have taken a tremendous amount of effort and skill to crack. Given not as much as designing the original thing (with the exception of encryption algorithms). Don't those crackers deserve something for their labor?
It seems disingenuous of you to also claim what a god-given right to life would be. You are not god. How come you don't go around stoning adulterers? It says to do so in the bible. I agree with your last paragraph (being an ethical nihilist), but for a different point of view perhaps you might like to visit Secular Humanism.
An omnipotent god isn't a complete foundation for morals and ethics either. What gives that god the right to declare what is right or wrong? The ability to punish the transgressors? Like the state has the ability to punish the transgressors of its laws? What gives a god to declare absolute right and wrong? Absolute compared to what? The whole premise falls apart if you look at it even remotely hard.
That's what articles such as this are for! Almost evrey program has features that you have to search for, read the FAQ for, read the online help file for. Most people are aware of this.
Aaahhh! Bad, bad introns! This is scary. Mutations (how many seeds are they going to sell? Mutations happen all the time, and some of them slip through.) All it would take are a couple of inopportune mutations to really mess things up, or to make a derivative of the seed that doesn't have the terminator gene!
I'm getting ridiculous, must be my interests showing through. This is ~ my 20th post or so just to this article.
The incorporation of the terminator gene can happen without human intervention. I seriously doubt there are many people out there who would do it themselves.
It's increasing from the sole point that there are more people with more free time today than at any time in the past. We've gone from inefficient cannons, matchlocks, balloons (that were around for many decades without much change) to orders of magnitude increases. Less than fifty years from heavier than air flight to jets, then to the sound barrier, then to space flight, then to the moon. Look at Moore's law (I hope that's the right one). Today's watch is much faster than yesterdays mainframe is much faster than eniac is much faster than Babbages machines. Hundreds of years passed between the inventino of the arquebus and cannons to the sufficiently more advanced gattling gun, to the hand-held machine guns of the early parts of this century.
Look at the development of my own field, biology. It has increased at a tremendous rate from that of the naturalists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. As little while ago as the 16th century it was still possible for a person to become known as (if not raelly a) Master of All Trades (Descartes). Today it is practically impossible. It's incredibly difficult to be current with the current cutting edge of just biology.
Agreed. It's also very difficult to discuss what would or wouldn't happen in certain situations, because there are too many variables. That seems to be what we slashdotters are doing though.
You're mixing realities. The author's point is that the idea of individual ownership would never come up, or if it did, wouldn't be accepted by anyone else. Why would you want exclusivety? If you want to be the richest person in the world you could be, so could everyone else. Everyone would be equally rich because everything can be used by everyone. The chairmaker wouldn't need a saw, because a saw would already exist somewhere. Such a universe is hard to imagine because so many of it's axioms are alien to our own.
kOffice? Siag? possibly emacs & html? Weren't office *suites* a construct of MS to use their almost monopoly of wordprocessors to help other products that weren't doing as well?
Forceful takeovers of companies deny the full rightful compensation to the creators of the companies, but it is completely legal. What the legal system does and what it should do are to non-necessarily intersecting issues.
The US was founded on these principles. Oh, it must be right, how could the writers and signatories of the constitution possibly be wrong? Just because I agree with some precepts of a body of ideas doesn't mean they are all correct. What happened years past does not dictate to me what is right now. The US was also founded partly upon the precept that slavery was ok.
How many programmers get rich (ie billionaire-like) by programming? Most of the programmers just make a wage, sometimes stock options, while the charismatic ceo gets billions for marketing the company. Maybe it's just me, but I think programming should be on an equal monetary level as managing/marketing. (The ceo would still make more, because there are alot more programmers than ceo's presidents etc...)
Not quite. It was possible for a noble to fall all the way down (they got conquered) and for a peasant to climb the ladder (they conquered). Peasants could also climb the ladder via war, bounty, knightings, merchanting, good harvests, luck,etc.... Over a few generations these could add up to being very wealthy, or very noble, or, if you and your ancestors were lucky, both. Capitalism and democracy aren't the same. You seem to be trying to say that they are.
Aside: The greeks practiced slavery, and a form of welfare for the "gentry" (Socrates, though doing no work, still lived (albeit with aid from friends)). They also created profound scientific advances.
Not as our economic systems have evolved, but as our level of technology has increased. Whether capitalism/patents/copyrights, etc... are the most efficient way to increase technology is a matter of considerable debate here.
Most other forms of government since the dawn of civilization have incorporated capitalism, or a close approximation thereof. Capitalism isn't a form of government, it is a way of exchanging goods, services and ideas that has been around for along time.
The vast majority of nations have conquered other people/lands. There might be a fundamental right to property, but that doesn't mean that I cannot decide to conquer you and take away that property. Might makes right (at least in the official history books, and in the immediate now).
The mother is making a profit. A genetic one. She is ensuring that her genetic line will continue. That is extremely selfish. A truly selfless person wouldn't have children at all; she would instead help others raise their children. That would lead to the extinction of her selfless genetic code (unless she was helping relatives who shared it, as happens sometimes in nature), and her selfless tendecies would die out.
There's nothing wrong with what you want. Patent's aren't fun for the 3 other people who independently came up with an idea but missed the bus and were an hour late to the patent office. (Who was that other guy who supposedly invented the telephone?)
Slashdot Mirror
You'd have to modify the drivers or have two drivers running mapped to different com ports. If you want to switch hands, there is a keyboard y-splitter, and I'm sure you could find one for a serial port too. Standard typing speed goes from very slow up to 40-50-60+ wpm for the very fast (and those who have nice macro layouts), but those speeds usually aren't reached until months of usage (or so I've heard).
Wearables Central, almost everything you would want to know about wearable/ubiquitous computing (or a link to it).
They are encouraged by prodding them along, the squeaky wheel gets the greese (or replaced). If people didn't make their dislikes about this license known, it would never be improved.
I had to look up epistemology, it's been too long since I've used the word. Yeah, I'm a complete nihilist (in the nothing sense of the word), though that leads to paradoxes too! Our fundamental precepts (I don't always think nihilistically) are different enough that it is difficult for us to meet a common ground on this issue (or so it appears).
In my other reply, the first are == our.
Many of the cracked binaries out there have taken a tremendous amount of effort and skill to crack. Given not as much as designing the original thing (with the exception of encryption algorithms). Don't those crackers deserve something for their labor?
I don't agree with your points, but are differences are fundamental enough that I don't see how they can be overcome short of ignoring them :-).
I discuss this point with another person at http://home.earthlink.net/~mlbakke 1/r_rel63a.htm about 1/3 down the page.
It seems disingenuous of you to also claim what a god-given right to life would be. You are not god. How come you don't go around stoning adulterers? It says to do so in the bible. I agree with your last paragraph (being an ethical nihilist), but for a different point of view perhaps you might like to visit Secular Humanism.
An omnipotent god isn't a complete foundation for morals and ethics either. What gives that god the right to declare what is right or wrong? The ability to punish the transgressors? Like the state has the ability to punish the transgressors of its laws? What gives a god to declare absolute right and wrong? Absolute compared to what? The whole premise falls apart if you look at it even remotely hard.
That's what articles such as this are for! Almost evrey program has features that you have to search for, read the FAQ for, read the online help file for. Most people are aware of this.
Aaahhh! Bad, bad introns! This is scary. Mutations (how many seeds are they going to sell? Mutations happen all the time, and some of them slip through.) All it would take are a couple of inopportune mutations to really mess things up, or to make a derivative of the seed that doesn't have the terminator gene!
I'm getting ridiculous, must be my interests showing through. This is ~ my 20th post or so just to this article.
The incorporation of the terminator gene can happen without human intervention. I seriously doubt there are many people out there who would do it themselves.
It's increasing from the sole point that there are more people with more free time today than at any time in the past. We've gone from inefficient cannons, matchlocks, balloons (that were around for many decades without much change) to orders of magnitude increases. Less than fifty years from heavier than air flight to jets, then to the sound barrier, then to space flight, then to the moon. Look at Moore's law (I hope that's the right one). Today's watch is much faster than yesterdays mainframe is much faster than eniac is much faster than Babbages machines. Hundreds of years passed between the inventino of the arquebus and cannons to the sufficiently more advanced gattling gun, to the hand-held machine guns of the early parts of this century.
Look at the development of my own field, biology. It has increased at a tremendous rate from that of the naturalists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. As little while ago as the 16th century it was still possible for a person to become known as (if not raelly a) Master of All Trades (Descartes). Today it is practically impossible. It's incredibly difficult to be current with the current cutting edge of just biology.
That was my point :-)
Agreed. It's also very difficult to discuss what would or wouldn't happen in certain situations, because there are too many variables. That seems to be what we slashdotters are doing though.
You're mixing realities. The author's point is that the idea of individual ownership would never come up, or if it did, wouldn't be accepted by anyone else. Why would you want exclusivety? If you want to be the richest person in the world you could be, so could everyone else. Everyone would be equally rich because everything can be used by everyone. The chairmaker wouldn't need a saw, because a saw would already exist somewhere. Such a universe is hard to imagine because so many of it's axioms are alien to our own.
kOffice? Siag? possibly emacs & html? Weren't office *suites* a construct of MS to use their almost monopoly of wordprocessors to help other products that weren't doing as well?
Forceful takeovers of companies deny the full rightful compensation to the creators of the companies, but it is completely legal. What the legal system does and what it should do are to non-necessarily intersecting issues.
The US was founded on these principles. Oh, it must be right, how could the writers and signatories of the constitution possibly be wrong? Just because I agree with some precepts of a body of ideas doesn't mean they are all correct. What happened years past does not dictate to me what is right now. The US was also founded partly upon the precept that slavery was ok.
How many programmers get rich (ie billionaire-like) by programming? Most of the programmers just make a wage, sometimes stock options, while the charismatic ceo gets billions for marketing the company. Maybe it's just me, but I think programming should be on an equal monetary level as managing/marketing. (The ceo would still make more, because there are alot more programmers than ceo's presidents etc...)
Not quite. It was possible for a noble to fall all the way down (they got conquered) and for a peasant to climb the ladder (they conquered). Peasants could also climb the ladder via war, bounty, knightings, merchanting, good harvests, luck,etc.... Over a few generations these could add up to being very wealthy, or very noble, or, if you and your ancestors were lucky, both. Capitalism and democracy aren't the same. You seem to be trying to say that they are.
Aside: The greeks practiced slavery, and a form of welfare for the "gentry" (Socrates, though doing no work, still lived (albeit with aid from friends)). They also created profound scientific advances.
Not as our economic systems have evolved, but as our level of technology has increased. Whether capitalism/patents/copyrights, etc... are the most efficient way to increase technology is a matter of considerable debate here.
Most other forms of government since the dawn of civilization have incorporated capitalism, or a close approximation thereof. Capitalism isn't a form of government, it is a way of exchanging goods, services and ideas that has been around for along time.
The vast majority of nations have conquered other people/lands. There might be a fundamental right to property, but that doesn't mean that I cannot decide to conquer you and take away that property. Might makes right (at least in the official history books, and in the immediate now).
The mother is making a profit. A genetic one. She is ensuring that her genetic line will continue. That is extremely selfish. A truly selfless person wouldn't have children at all; she would instead help others raise their children. That would lead to the extinction of her selfless genetic code (unless she was helping relatives who shared it, as happens sometimes in nature), and her selfless tendecies would die out.
"but don't get down on people who want a
some monetary compensation for their efforts."
Hypocrit! No, not really, but what you said could be turned around and used against your position very easily.
There's nothing wrong with what you want. Patent's aren't fun for the 3 other people who independently came up with an idea but missed the bus and were an hour late to the patent office. (Who was that other guy who supposedly invented the telephone?)
And why did some slave states stay with the north?