The whole concept of scientifically testing prayer is ridiculous, anyway. Prayer is -- at the end of the day -- a request to suspend the concept of cause and effect. "I want this to happen, even though it shouldn't." The problem is, any scientific test of prayer relies on cause and effect to demonstrate that prayer works. "I pray, therefore cause-and-effect don't apply."
Sorry, the rights of the minority have to be protected--but that doesn't mean the tradition of the majority has to be modified or destroyed because a few people can't handle the tradition most of us grew up with.
And in the post I'm replying to, you said:
Those that somehow bring slavery into this discussion lose site of the relative magnitude and importance of each of the issues...
So, what you're saying in sum is: Traditions are important, as long as they don't matter.
You're falling for the fallacy of the Extended Analogy. Your initial comment was that traditions that majorities enjoy shouldn't be altered or ended because a minority "can't handle it". The example of slavery shows that your justification is lacking, not that the pledge and slavery are equivalent.
But, still within the legal definition of effective, how can you say that there's an effective method of copy protection if it can't work on a fair number of systems?
Because using a CD in one of those systems doesn't fall into "the ordinary course of [the measure's] operation".
Referring to the speed limit sign example above, this is like having a speed limit sign that can't be seen from older models from one car manufacturer or homebuilt cars.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, or so they say.
I wonder just how loose the interpretation of 'effective' is... Can you just put a text file on an otherwise normal red book disc and say 'This disc is protected by Craptastic Content Control (tm) and therefore you are unable to copy the data from this disc.'?
I would say not, because a text file doesn't "require[] the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work."
Remember, "effectively" is not used in the sense of, "successfully", but rather, "for all intents and purposes".
The Motion to Dismiss says that even if everything Red Hat says is true, it still doesn't amount to an infringement of Red Hat's legal rights.
I thought that was what happened in a motion for summary judgment. I always took a motion for dismissal to mean that (in this case) Red Hat's claims aren't legally valid, i.e., the legal theory underpinning the case was wrong.
This scheme may not meet the definition of "effective" because it is not a copy-protection scheme on a Mac, Linux, *BSD, etc. - It depends on Windows - IANAL, but it seems to me that in order to be effective, it would have to function (without interference, of course), on all computers that can read the media.
(B) a technological measure ''effectively controls access to a work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
So, the way I (who am not a lawyer) read it, it is effective on Windows/Mac, and not on Linux, etc.
...the question what's on the other side is clearly meaningless.
Why?
For the same reason the question, "What's the location fifty miles north of the north pole?" is meaningless. Just because you can ask a question, doesn't mean it has an answer.
Thanks for the heads-up. The first time I ran across GMX they were still multi-lingual, but I dawdled for a few months and by the time I decided to get an account, they were German-only.
I would also like to recommend GMX. It took me an hour or so to fill out their little forms, jumping back and forth between Babelfish, but it's certainly worth it: I've received no spam in the year and a half I've had my @gmx.net address.
One distinct downside I'd like to mention, though, is that every so often they'll serve up NSFW banner ads. GMX is a portal, and it appears they have their own "adult" content section, which they advertise now and again.
Those wacky Germans and their liberal attitudes toward human sexualtiy!
Just out of curiousity; do you wear black clothes a lot?
Ouch!
My comments on the inevitability of death aren't goth-induced so much as zen-induced (recovering Buddhist). For the record: I wear business-casual to work, even when blue jeans are permitted. I take a fair amount of pride in my appearance (weekends, I tend to wear jeans and polo shirts, but that's just because it means fewer trips to the laundry for work clothes).
Travel is very cool.
I agree. This summer, I drove across the country to visit a friend. I got to see and do a lot of really cool stuff (including visit the Winslow Meteor Crater).
That said, I also had a lot of annoying shit to deal with, not the least of which was that -- while traveling east -- I got caught in the same rain storm every day for the better part of a week.
In sum, though, I still contend that what constitutes a "cool" way to spend time is entriely subjective. The things you mention sound like quite amusing/harrowing/memorable anecdotes, but in most of those cases, I'd rather watch some actor do them on TV than do them myself.
Finally, lest I appear too dull in your eyes, I'll mention that I decided to confront my acrophobia by going skydiving. That I was forced to go the reserve chute only confirmed in my mind that that was a one-time event.
[Traveling] is a very rewarding experience, and exciting too.
That doesn't change the fact that (in the words of torpor) "At the end of it, there will be: nothing."
Face it: everything is a waste of time; something to do between here and death. Some people paint; some people read; some people dork around on their computers. Having "more exciting [] experiences" than the other guy doesn't make you any less a mortal. As long as someone enjoys what they're doing, who are you to tell them they're wasting their life?
Of course, when dealing with division into and summation of infinitely many pieces of virtually zero size, one must resort to calculus. Then, one realizes that the conclusions stated are faulty.
So the "real world" is really just a second layer in the Matrix.
A lot of people have suggested this, and it also occurred to me, but it's highly dissatisfying. Once you accept the premise of layered Matrices, there's no way to know when you've finally broken through the final layer. There could be an infinity of layers, and you'd never know. Even if you did break through to the real world, you'd always be plagued by doubt.
I don't doubt you're right; I was just pointing out that in the first movie, he was shown as dead, resurrected (with a sappy "love conquers all" motif), and then undergoes a literal ascension just prior to the credits.
Sure, people in mech suits with guns on their hips like cowboy's looks pretty cool but shouldn't they have something more advanced? Some automated or remotely controled defenses?
You are, of course, correct, but given who (or rather, what) their enemy is, I suspect they might be a little skittish about letting computers control their weapons.
Well put. When Hannibal came out, the local multiplex ran it on damn near every screen they had, and tossed Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon into the IMAX theater. Let me tell you, subtitles on a screen that large are not fun. Plus, even in the back row, you're still practically on top the screen; it's just not possible to get a good view of everything at once (and I'm sure being slightly far-sighted didn't help).
The industry isn't being shut down, 50 million people are simply telling it in advance that they are "not interested." The DMA should be thanking the government for pre-screening leads for them.
Except, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, telemarketers make a lot of money from people too weak-willed to say No. The odds are good that a significant fraction of the people on this list fall into that category.
(ObOffTopic: Then again, I thought there'd be enough outrage about the 2000 election that we'd see a push for the abolition of the electoral college, but it's just degenerated into whining and sniping..)
The only real problem with the electoral college is that most states implement it poorly. Nowhere does it say that the votes have to be "winner take all". There's no constitutional reason why California's 54(?) votes all have to go to one candidate. A more sensible scheme would be that each candidate gets one electoral vote for each district where they win, with the last two going to (say) the candidate who takes the most districts.
Of course, Republicans and Democrats have no incentive to do that. Under the current scheme, most of the states are assumed to go one way or the other, and they only have to campaign in a few "swing" states. It's a lot more efficient for them, and it makes it all the harder for third-party candidates to get taken seriously ("S/he never got so much as a single electoral vote!").
Slashdot Mirror
The whole concept of scientifically testing prayer is ridiculous, anyway. Prayer is -- at the end of the day -- a request to suspend the concept of cause and effect. "I want this to happen, even though it shouldn't." The problem is, any scientific test of prayer relies on cause and effect to demonstrate that prayer works. "I pray, therefore cause-and-effect don't apply."
Way up there, you said:
And in the post I'm replying to, you said:
So, what you're saying in sum is: Traditions are important, as long as they don't matter.
You're falling for the fallacy of the Extended Analogy. Your initial comment was that traditions that majorities enjoy shouldn't be altered or ended because a minority "can't handle it". The example of slavery shows that your justification is lacking, not that the pledge and slavery are equivalent.
The most notable exception to this being the Linux kernel.
Because using a CD in one of those systems doesn't fall into "the ordinary course of [the measure's] operation".
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, or so they say.
I would say not, because a text file doesn't "require[] the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work."
Remember, "effectively" is not used in the sense of, "successfully", but rather, "for all intents and purposes".
I thought that was what happened in a motion for summary judgment. I always took a motion for dismissal to mean that (in this case) Red Hat's claims aren't legally valid, i.e., the legal theory underpinning the case was wrong.
The relevant text reads:
So, the way I (who am not a lawyer) read it, it is effective on Windows/Mac, and not on Linux, etc.
I hope you pulled that percentage out of your ass. I can't think of any sane company that would willingly turn away every tenth customer.
For the same reason the question, "What's the location fifty miles north of the north pole?" is meaningless. Just because you can ask a question, doesn't mean it has an answer.
Apparently, the various members of the RIAA don't understand that rampant piracy is an indication that the traffic won't bear what they're asking.
Thanks for the heads-up. The first time I ran across GMX they were still multi-lingual, but I dawdled for a few months and by the time I decided to get an account, they were German-only.
Back to Babelfish I go...
I would also like to recommend GMX. It took me an hour or so to fill out their little forms, jumping back and forth between Babelfish, but it's certainly worth it: I've received no spam in the year and a half I've had my @gmx.net address.
One distinct downside I'd like to mention, though, is that every so often they'll serve up NSFW banner ads. GMX is a portal, and it appears they have their own "adult" content section, which they advertise now and again.
Those wacky Germans and their liberal attitudes toward human sexualtiy!
Sure there is. You just need to get a little creative and go with the Greek version: Ouranos.
Ouch!
My comments on the inevitability of death aren't goth-induced so much as zen-induced (recovering Buddhist). For the record: I wear business-casual to work, even when blue jeans are permitted. I take a fair amount of pride in my appearance (weekends, I tend to wear jeans and polo shirts, but that's just because it means fewer trips to the laundry for work clothes).
I agree. This summer, I drove across the country to visit a friend. I got to see and do a lot of really cool stuff (including visit the Winslow Meteor Crater).
That said, I also had a lot of annoying shit to deal with, not the least of which was that -- while traveling east -- I got caught in the same rain storm every day for the better part of a week.
In sum, though, I still contend that what constitutes a "cool" way to spend time is entriely subjective. The things you mention sound like quite amusing/harrowing/memorable anecdotes, but in most of those cases, I'd rather watch some actor do them on TV than do them myself.
Finally, lest I appear too dull in your eyes, I'll mention that I decided to confront my acrophobia by going skydiving. That I was forced to go the reserve chute only confirmed in my mind that that was a one-time event.
That doesn't change the fact that (in the words of torpor) "At the end of it, there will be: nothing."
Face it: everything is a waste of time; something to do between here and death. Some people paint; some people read; some people dork around on their computers. Having "more exciting [] experiences" than the other guy doesn't make you any less a mortal. As long as someone enjoys what they're doing, who are you to tell them they're wasting their life?
#define DORK 1
Of course, when dealing with division into and summation of infinitely many pieces of virtually zero size, one must resort to calculus. Then, one realizes that the conclusions stated are faulty.
A lot of people have suggested this, and it also occurred to me, but it's highly dissatisfying. Once you accept the premise of layered Matrices, there's no way to know when you've finally broken through the final layer. There could be an infinity of layers, and you'd never know. Even if you did break through to the real world, you'd always be plagued by doubt.
I don't doubt you're right; I was just pointing out that in the first movie, he was shown as dead, resurrected (with a sappy "love conquers all" motif), and then undergoes a literal ascension just prior to the credits.
You are, of course, correct, but given who (or rather, what) their enemy is, I suspect they might be a little skittish about letting computers control their weapons.
Dude, that was the first movie.
Just because I can't help being pedantic, I'll point out that "normal" solitaire is called Klondike.
Well put. When Hannibal came out, the local multiplex ran it on damn near every screen they had, and tossed Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon into the IMAX theater. Let me tell you, subtitles on a screen that large are not fun. Plus, even in the back row, you're still practically on top the screen; it's just not possible to get a good view of everything at once (and I'm sure being slightly far-sighted didn't help).
Except, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, telemarketers make a lot of money from people too weak-willed to say No. The odds are good that a significant fraction of the people on this list fall into that category.
Isn't the whole point of the article that it isn't getting the job done?
Linux From Scratch, a source-based disto. I used it for a while, and was quite happy with it, right up until I needed to uninstall some stuff.
The only real problem with the electoral college is that most states implement it poorly. Nowhere does it say that the votes have to be "winner take all". There's no constitutional reason why California's 54(?) votes all have to go to one candidate. A more sensible scheme would be that each candidate gets one electoral vote for each district where they win, with the last two going to (say) the candidate who takes the most districts.
Of course, Republicans and Democrats have no incentive to do that. Under the current scheme, most of the states are assumed to go one way or the other, and they only have to campaign in a few "swing" states. It's a lot more efficient for them, and it makes it all the harder for third-party candidates to get taken seriously ("S/he never got so much as a single electoral vote!").