But the message is crystal clear. You can't legally COPY someones work and especially you can't share it. I'm a writer and I want to get paid for copies of what I write. NO ONE has a right to take my work and share it with others or copy it without paying. I have every right to expect that what I write IS MINE TO SELL or give away - but it's MINE.
If you never show it to anybody, it is absolutely yours. If you show it, or distribute it, it is no longer yours in an ownership sense. Copyright is an artificial and temporary right which is granted only as incentive for you to share your creations.
Technically, you don't want to get paid for copies of what you write. You just want to get paid for doing what you like. It just so happens that getting paid for copies of your product is the primary economic mechanism for this compensation in your case. And it is (arguably) worth preserving this mechanism, but not necessarily at the cost of arming abusive corporations so that they can chug along sucking up the lion's share of money derived from OTHER PEOPLE'S creations, while they stifle personal liberty, social and educational commentary, and technological innovation.
I am not a big fan of illegal file sharing, but the *AA have taken advantage of the situation to push a reprehensible agenda.
Interesting idea. Basically would need to establish event triggers on relevant tables. Should also be able to invalidate results that were previously found, and provide updates as well. Would require a lot of memory to persist enough information about the previous results that you don't end up with duplicates. I'll try and check in when you actually have a site.
IANAL, but if you transfer the copyright, they are free to reuse without a license so the version you transfer can still be used by anyone under the GPL, but they are free to modify as needed without any "viral infection". All the same, it would probably still be unacceptable to the lawyers drafting the rules.
The problem is that it is not stated directly what the question is that is being asked, so students are required to infer what the question is. Unfortunately, they just assume the "=" implies a question is "what is 4 + 3 + 2?" since that is the sort of question they are used to being asked. They are probably not used to (a) seeing an equality as a "statement", and (b) inferring from the hole in that statement that there is an implicit question as to what would fill in that hole to make it true.
It's a very easy leap for me, and probably always has been, but for my second-grade son on the autism spectrum it is a nearly insurmountable leap of logic. Our local school system works very hard to encourage this conceptual thinking in math, but at least for my son that is making it even harder for him to shore up the basics.
All that to say, I can understand how this state of affairs could come to be, but am sad to see that middle school kids in general are not exposed to enough logic and inference.
Worse yet, the more safety measures you add on, the less people feel they need to pay attention so it can make the relatively few failures more catastrophic.
By your argument, raising your children within a culture of any sort could be an "abuse of human nature and damages your free will to an extent that is [irreparable]". Religion is just a peculiar sort of culture which is entwined with, but not at all synonymous with, spirituality. As such, it generally does have a stronger impact than, say, what type of music you listen to, but it is still ultimately a culture issue. We all are influenced by our origins, and make choices as a result. Life in the long run is largely about progressing from that origin to a better place, often requiring that we recognize that our free will is not as "damaged" as we think, no matter what we have gone through. Granted, there are exceedingly many examples where religion is used as a cudgel to beat down free will, and it leads people to make horrible choices, and woe to those who wield such weapons. I do not mean in any way to excuse such actual abuse. But you overstate the case that "making" someone into a Christian or Muslim or Jew is in and of itself abusive.
I for one view myself as a Christian (culturally) who pursues Jesus as a spiritual choice. I know plenty of people who share one of the two labels above but not both. I don't advocate abolishing all Christian or religious cultures, but I am totally on board with loosening the coupling between religious cultures and spiritual choices because in the end it will only be good for people.
As pointed out elsewhere, 50/50 split is not so important, since that just impacts the % distribution of outcomes and can be corrected for. However, acheiving metastability without bias from the previous stable state is tricky, and as you mentioned tricks with the power supplies can make a huge difference.
I think you have a high bar for what a "meaningful" level of ASD would be. My son is (as far as the spectrum goes) very high functioning, but it's impact is tremendously meaningful. And my experience is that this end of the spectrum is not a small group at all. It seems to be the broader end of the spectrum, at least as current diagnostic trends seem to me to indicate. As for the clinical relevance, certainly odds are small that this particular drug will be of use for a wide range of ASD sufferers, but I think progress on one aspect of the spectrum at least fills out the picture of this poorly understood class of disorders.
I don't think medical science can "define" autism as uncurable, though it might currently list it in that category. I disagree that the concept of curing it is nonsensical, but it would certainly be along the lines of "curing" amputation, i.e. it would take some serious neurological rewiring to accomplish what could reasonably be considered a cure. And that is certainly beyond the pale of current medicine, but at least for the milder cases like my son's, I have some hope that (should he need and desire it) such a treatment would be available within his lifetime.
Many people will poke fun at the religious angle of it, but frankly I would be critical of this stunt even if it was for a cause I believed in.
And seeing as it _is_ a cause I believe in, I will chime in with said criticism. It's not unlike those tracts that look like money that people sometimes leave as "tips". Great way to get attention, but in the end it's generally the wrong kind of attention, rather anti-persuasive.
Can't use it in court because it hasn't been proven in court. Okay, not exactly circular, but the easy way out is to just prove it in one of these traffic cases, assuming such proof is possibly. Probably worth it to the city and/or state to go to the expense for one simple case so that it can apply to all the others. Woe to the person who has to sit through that trial though just to try to get out of their ticket.
My guess would be inductance would be one limiting factor but probably more limiting would be the abilities of the various grids to pump power in or out across the AC/DC and DC/AC converters.
Comments towards the end of TFA suggest the hackings may be sponsored by the IFPI/MPAA so as to make the Pirate Bay look bad. It would be amusingly absurd to see counter-hacking by TPB supporters keeping the "enemy" sites up.
Not true, start tagging the story diedvorakdie or ohnoitsdvorak.
See, this is why I miss USENET. In the old days it would have been "dvorak.die.die.die". I just don't think you can successfully convey how mind-numbingly stupid he is with only two dies.
Besides the fact that it could be misconstrued as "The, Dvorak, The".
Except that from an engineering standpoint only one is correct, but which one could be determined by real-world characteristics. One of those circumstances is the need to maintain code over time, and a series of if-statements is typically much harder to maintain than a loop. Another circumstance is the time constraints for building the program, which would again generally favor the loop. Someone else has already mentioned a case in which they think the loop could be the incorrect choice.
As an engineer, I have to modify or discard plenty of Theoretically Correct constructs to accommodate all manner of constraints. I love a good proof with airtight logic, but the real world does not afford us the opportunity to construct those when there are other, more pressing concerns.
Absolutely. I remember a PBS documentary that talked about the main driving force behind developing accurate timepieces rather than just using sundials was so that ships could calculate longitude based on the position of the sun.
Warren Buffett made all his money buying undervalued companies or (parts of companies via stocks) and then holding onto them as they reached their appropriate values. Note, he doesn't really sell most of the time. He holds onto things that are valuable, and whenever extra money comes from them he invests them either in what he already has to make them even more valuable, or acquires something else that would appreciate in value.
Note, I didn't say they would appreciate in price, though typically they would do that as well. But Buffett wouldn't buy something just because its price is going to go up if it was not reflective of its true value. Not that that's not a way that people can make money. It's just not a solid investment strategy.
Assuming Google is not overvalued, and in fact will continue to appreciate at a rate better than the market, Buffett would advise buying and holding onto it regardless of whether it gives dividends or its price falls. Dividends, to him, are only for when the company can't make better use of the money to increase its own value than the investors could if it were handed back to them.
Note, investing like this means that most of your wealth is not directly accessible as cash, as it's all tied up in investments, often investments that hold onto their money and reinvest. Not a recipe for a profligate lifestyle, but the surest means of building wealth.
Now as the parent mentions, the trick is in discerning value. Which is why Buffett avoids investing in industries he doesn't know well himself, and in particular avoids high tech. New technology's value is so unclear. Proven technology can be rock solid, but new tech's value is more often than not blown way out of proportion.
The one thing it does help prevent is accidental disclosure of passwords. If the contents of the file are exposed, but not the key to unobfuscating the contents, then there is a significant security benefit.
The average person is not going to be able to tell the difference between "benware" and malware, especially if they are tired of clicking through dialog boxes to approve programs. They'll just ignore it like they ignore clickwraps.
There's not nearly enough digital signing, even from reputable sources, to make "No signatrue? No execute" work. You can't get the things you want by applying this policy, and because people don't apply the policy, nobody bothers to go through the effort of signing. You would need to have such a policy instituted by default by the machine itself in order for it to make any headway, but MS got skewered for their attempts to go in that direction.
Could you further elaborate? My experience with PCI/DSS-compliant COTS doesn't give you any of the features that the big guys have (e.g. storing a CC for use in future purchases), and I don't know any data storage services that can really get you off the hook, because you still need to control (and log) access to that data from your end. Unless the data storage provider handles the processing too, you still need to retrieve the data, and if you can do it, so can anyone who's hacked into your system.
Slashdot Mirror
But the message is crystal clear. You can't legally COPY someones work and especially you can't share it.
I'm a writer and I want to get paid for copies of what I write. NO ONE has a right to take my work and
share it with others or copy it without paying. I have every right to expect that what I write IS MINE
TO SELL or give away - but it's MINE.
If you never show it to anybody, it is absolutely yours. If you show it, or distribute it, it is no longer yours in an ownership sense. Copyright is an artificial and temporary right which is granted only as incentive for you to share your creations.
Technically, you don't want to get paid for copies of what you write. You just want to get paid for doing what you like. It just so happens that getting paid for copies of your product is the primary economic mechanism for this compensation in your case. And it is (arguably) worth preserving this mechanism, but not necessarily at the cost of arming abusive corporations so that they can chug along sucking up the lion's share of money derived from OTHER PEOPLE'S creations, while they stifle personal liberty, social and educational commentary, and technological innovation.
I am not a big fan of illegal file sharing, but the *AA have taken advantage of the situation to push a reprehensible agenda.
The best way to avoid terrorism is to live in fear all the time.
Of course, private business could generate just as much fear as the government, but with much lower cost to the private citizen...
Support deprivatization of the fear industry!
Brilliant. Truly brilliant
Interesting idea. Basically would need to establish event triggers on relevant tables. Should also be able to invalidate results that were previously found, and provide updates as well. Would require a lot of memory to persist enough information about the previous results that you don't end up with duplicates. I'll try and check in when you actually have a site.
IANAL, but if you transfer the copyright, they are free to reuse without a license so the version you transfer can still be used by anyone under the GPL, but they are free to modify as needed without any "viral infection". All the same, it would probably still be unacceptable to the lawyers drafting the rules.
The problem is that it is not stated directly what the question is that is being asked, so students are required to infer what the question is. Unfortunately, they just assume the "=" implies a question is "what is 4 + 3 + 2?" since that is the sort of question they are used to being asked. They are probably not used to (a) seeing an equality as a "statement", and (b) inferring from the hole in that statement that there is an implicit question as to what would fill in that hole to make it true.
It's a very easy leap for me, and probably always has been, but for my second-grade son on the autism spectrum it is a nearly insurmountable leap of logic. Our local school system works very hard to encourage this conceptual thinking in math, but at least for my son that is making it even harder for him to shore up the basics.
All that to say, I can understand how this state of affairs could come to be, but am sad to see that middle school kids in general are not exposed to enough logic and inference.
Worse yet, the more safety measures you add on, the less people feel they need to pay attention so it can make the relatively few failures more catastrophic.
Yeah, definitely the best part of the whole site.
By your argument, raising your children within a culture of any sort could be an "abuse of human nature and damages your free will to an extent that is [irreparable]". Religion is just a peculiar sort of culture which is entwined with, but not at all synonymous with, spirituality. As such, it generally does have a stronger impact than, say, what type of music you listen to, but it is still ultimately a culture issue. We all are influenced by our origins, and make choices as a result. Life in the long run is largely about progressing from that origin to a better place, often requiring that we recognize that our free will is not as "damaged" as we think, no matter what we have gone through. Granted, there are exceedingly many examples where religion is used as a cudgel to beat down free will, and it leads people to make horrible choices, and woe to those who wield such weapons. I do not mean in any way to excuse such actual abuse. But you overstate the case that "making" someone into a Christian or Muslim or Jew is in and of itself abusive.
I for one view myself as a Christian (culturally) who pursues Jesus as a spiritual choice. I know plenty of people who share one of the two labels above but not both. I don't advocate abolishing all Christian or religious cultures, but I am totally on board with loosening the coupling between religious cultures and spiritual choices because in the end it will only be good for people.
As pointed out elsewhere, 50/50 split is not so important, since that just impacts the % distribution of outcomes and can be corrected for. However, acheiving metastability without bias from the previous stable state is tricky, and as you mentioned tricks with the power supplies can make a huge difference.
And at this point, money is more helpful than goods just because of logistics.
I think you have a high bar for what a "meaningful" level of ASD would be. My son is (as far as the spectrum goes) very high functioning, but it's impact is tremendously meaningful. And my experience is that this end of the spectrum is not a small group at all. It seems to be the broader end of the spectrum, at least as current diagnostic trends seem to me to indicate. As for the clinical relevance, certainly odds are small that this particular drug will be of use for a wide range of ASD sufferers, but I think progress on one aspect of the spectrum at least fills out the picture of this poorly understood class of disorders.
I don't think medical science can "define" autism as uncurable, though it might currently list it in that category. I disagree that the concept of curing it is nonsensical, but it would certainly be along the lines of "curing" amputation, i.e. it would take some serious neurological rewiring to accomplish what could reasonably be considered a cure. And that is certainly beyond the pale of current medicine, but at least for the milder cases like my son's, I have some hope that (should he need and desire it) such a treatment would be available within his lifetime.
Many people will poke fun at the religious angle of it, but frankly I would be critical of this stunt even if it was for a cause I believed in.
And seeing as it _is_ a cause I believe in, I will chime in with said criticism. It's not unlike those tracts that look like money that people sometimes leave as "tips". Great way to get attention, but in the end it's generally the wrong kind of attention, rather anti-persuasive.
Can't use it in court because it hasn't been proven in court. Okay, not exactly circular, but the easy way out is to just prove it in one of these traffic cases, assuming such proof is possibly. Probably worth it to the city and/or state to go to the expense for one simple case so that it can apply to all the others. Woe to the person who has to sit through that trial though just to try to get out of their ticket.
My guess would be inductance would be one limiting factor but probably more limiting would be the abilities of the various grids to pump power in or out across the AC/DC and DC/AC converters.
I can clearly not choose the server in front of you.
Comments towards the end of TFA suggest the hackings may be sponsored by the IFPI/MPAA so as to make the Pirate Bay look bad. It would be amusingly absurd to see counter-hacking by TPB supporters keeping the "enemy" sites up.
Not true, start tagging the story diedvorakdie or ohnoitsdvorak.
See, this is why I miss USENET. In the old days it would have been "dvorak.die.die.die". I just don't think you can successfully convey how mind-numbingly stupid he is with only two dies.
Besides the fact that it could be misconstrued as "The, Dvorak, The".
Except that from an engineering standpoint only one is correct, but which one could be determined by real-world characteristics. One of those circumstances is the need to maintain code over time, and a series of if-statements is typically much harder to maintain than a loop. Another circumstance is the time constraints for building the program, which would again generally favor the loop. Someone else has already mentioned a case in which they think the loop could be the incorrect choice.
As an engineer, I have to modify or discard plenty of Theoretically Correct constructs to accommodate all manner of constraints. I love a good proof with airtight logic, but the real world does not afford us the opportunity to construct those when there are other, more pressing concerns.
Navigation depends on time.
Absolutely. I remember a PBS documentary that talked about the main driving force behind developing accurate timepieces rather than just using sundials was so that ships could calculate longitude based on the position of the sun.
Warren Buffett made all his money buying undervalued companies or (parts of companies via stocks) and then holding onto them as they reached their appropriate values. Note, he doesn't really sell most of the time. He holds onto things that are valuable, and whenever extra money comes from them he invests them either in what he already has to make them even more valuable, or acquires something else that would appreciate in value.
Note, I didn't say they would appreciate in price, though typically they would do that as well. But Buffett wouldn't buy something just because its price is going to go up if it was not reflective of its true value. Not that that's not a way that people can make money. It's just not a solid investment strategy.
Assuming Google is not overvalued, and in fact will continue to appreciate at a rate better than the market, Buffett would advise buying and holding onto it regardless of whether it gives dividends or its price falls. Dividends, to him, are only for when the company can't make better use of the money to increase its own value than the investors could if it were handed back to them.
Note, investing like this means that most of your wealth is not directly accessible as cash, as it's all tied up in investments, often investments that hold onto their money and reinvest. Not a recipe for a profligate lifestyle, but the surest means of building wealth.
Now as the parent mentions, the trick is in discerning value. Which is why Buffett avoids investing in industries he doesn't know well himself, and in particular avoids high tech. New technology's value is so unclear. Proven technology can be rock solid, but new tech's value is more often than not blown way out of proportion.
The one thing it does help prevent is accidental disclosure of passwords. If the contents of the file are exposed, but not the key to unobfuscating the contents, then there is a significant security benefit.
The average person is not going to be able to tell the difference between "benware" and malware, especially if they are tired of clicking through dialog boxes to approve programs. They'll just ignore it like they ignore clickwraps.
There's not nearly enough digital signing, even from reputable sources, to make "No signatrue? No execute" work. You can't get the things you want by applying this policy, and because people don't apply the policy, nobody bothers to go through the effort of signing. You would need to have such a policy instituted by default by the machine itself in order for it to make any headway, but MS got skewered for their attempts to go in that direction.
Could you further elaborate? My experience with PCI/DSS-compliant COTS doesn't give you any of the features that the big guys have (e.g. storing a CC for use in future purchases), and I don't know any data storage services that can really get you off the hook, because you still need to control (and log) access to that data from your end. Unless the data storage provider handles the processing too, you still need to retrieve the data, and if you can do it, so can anyone who's hacked into your system.
It is very relevant if you're looking at what people use for interchange of public records, which is a significant aspect of the standards battle.
6/0 * 0 = 6 * nullity!
Therefore
42 = 6 * nullity