You didn't write Readline, so why on Earth do you expect the right to be able to do whatever you like with it?
The author(s) of Readline have decided how they want to license their software. Their license allows all users of Readline basically unlimited Freedom to use and redistribute the code however they wish. In addition, the license allows developers *nearly* unlimited freedom to modify and redistribute Readline derivatives. The *only* stipulation is that you may not relicense your modified version. They likely did this so that no one can profit from their community effort by stealing the code. It's a guarantee of future rights, and it works for this purpose extremely well.
Your complaints basically boil down to: "Hey, some free society! I'm not free to smash the window of a jewelry shop and take as much gold as I can carry! WTF?!?!!!!111!"
Yes, Virginia, sometimes individual "freedoms" must be restricted in order to maximize *society's* freedoms. Take a civics class, FFS.
This statement is provably false, and the fact that you believe it vehemently enough to post it in bold-face preceded by "say it with me", is just sad. I really hope you figure out that it's wrong someday.
You will be able to DM using the native linux game, but the Aurora toolset (the module design program) is Windows-only. I hear it works well under WINE, though....
Re:Spielberg Over the Hill?
on
Taken?
·
· Score: 1
Thank you for the insights into the ending of AI. I had also thought it should have ended earlier, but I think you're really onto something here. Great analysis, can't wait to see it again now!
You've committed a (probably intentional) logical fallacy. You assume that because the protesters want these particular trees to be saved, that it must mean that they want no tree in the world to be cut down, and that therefore their use of any natural resource is hypocritical. Have I got your logic right?
And as for wanting a more tactical game, why not just make liberal use of the pause key? I mean, that's basically what you did in BG, right? (except you could tell it to auto-pause every round, but that's clearly overkill when you have only one character).
NWN was never supposed to be like Baldur's Gate, but it really is the closest anyone's come to "real" D&D on a computer. Forget the official campaign. It's sort of fun, but if that's all you've done, no wonder you're disappointed. Try playing a highly-rated custom module online with a group of friends.
It's this heat from the inside that makes Jupiter warm up.
This parses to "Jupiter is hot because it is hot."
You're correct that Jupiter's core is not hot enough for nuclear reactions (core temperature is about 20,000 K).
Just to clarify, Jupiter gives off more heat than it receives because it is still collapsing! Sounds incredible, but the "heavier" elements are still slowly settling out toward its core. As they do, they release gravitational potential energy in the form of heat. This settling process must be incredibly slow, since it's presumably been happening steadily for the past 4.6 Gyr; the fact that it still produces a significant amount of heat demonstrates how damn BIG Jupiter is.
See SEDS.org for more information (about halfway down the page, right after the section on the Great Red Spot).
That was a dig at PG's mention of "streaming huge binary files", as if it was somehow worse than streaming huge text files (yes I know text files are binary-encoded, which is exactly why his use of the word was...amusing).
In their zeal to "free" intellectual property, hackers are destroying the Internet.
First of all, this is a complete non-sequitur. The bill in question is not about "freeing" IP, it's about making the royalty rates for webcast music reasonable. RTFA.
Hackers, with some help from Al Gore, invented the internet as you know and love it today. If it's being destroyed by anybody, it's the large, moneyed corporations who see it as nothig more than a global platform for sending advertisements.
Downloading (or worse, streaming realtime) huge binary files is a classic example of the Tragedy of the Commons.
Oh it is not! Transferring data (binary or otherwise) is the whole point of the internet. That's what it is for. Do you really think that streaming is worse than downloading? That was a joke, right?
A few people have this insatiable need to play music directly from the Internet instead of just buying the CD and the rest of us get enormous ping times.
Shenanigans. The idea that streaming audio is bringing the internet to its knees is too idiotic to be even laughable. I'm streaming right now from Radio Paradise. It's using 8k/s of my bandwidth.
How do we know the Anonymous Poster isn't an employee of Linux?
Maybe because Linux isn't a company? Perhaps you meant to say "...an employee of a Linux company", but it just irks me to see Linux reduced to a mere corporate product in the minds of many. It's much more than that.
You conveniently ignored the part where the ages of the strata are calibrated by an external measurement, radiometric (not radiocarbon) dating.
Still more assumption than fact. What about fossils that cross between layers of strata? (trees, a whale or two) Maybe they stayed half-fossilized for a few million years while the next layer built up?
Yeah, maybe. Can you really not think of a more likely hypothesis for these cases? Or are you simply trolling? If so, congrats, I bit. Go tell all your buddies.:p
(1) the decay rate is exponential, not linear. You don't have to "guess" about this, it's simply the result of a stochastic radioactive decay process, with a fixed probability per parent atom present in the sample. The rate cannot be other than exponential, with a decay constant determined by the atomic physics, which we can safely presume is invariant.
(2) You are correct that radiocarbon dating suffers from the systematic uncertainty that we cannot know what the atmospheric C14/C12 ratio was at the time the sample died. Unfortunately (for your argument), carbon dating has nothing to do with measuring truly geologic timescales of millions or billions of years. For that, we rely on other radiometric processes like Potassium-argon or Uranium-Lead. These methods do not suffer from the same systematic error that radiocarbon dating does.
For example, radioactive Uranium crystallizes with other atoms in a way that is impossible to create with Lead atoms instead of Uranium. However, the Uranium then begins to decay into Lead. So, you find these crystals in rock. You know that when the rock cooled from magma, it formed these crystals with all Uranium and no Lead. Now, some fraction of it has decayed to Lead. Measure the fraction of Lead to Uranium, apply the known exponential-decay rate, and you can very accurately determine how long ago the rock was molten.
Contrary to FUD coming from young-Earth wackos, carbon dating has absolutely nothing to do with determining ages of dinosaur fossils. Carbon dating cannot be used to measure ages older than 10,000 years or so. It is totally inadequate for determining geological timescales. That's why other radiometric methods are used, such as potassium-argon dating or uranium-lead dating.
Scientists probably don't mention how they know the age of every fossil they find because it would get old really quickly. Hell, they'd probably be happy to explain it over and over again; but do you think the reporter's going to put it in the article every time? Not likely.
I'll tell you the basics; to learn more grab any Geology 101 textbook. The Earth's continental crust is stratified: it has many layers like an onion. Unlike an onion, the layers aren't uniform, but basically, there are easily discernible stratigraphic layers in the earth's crust, which you can see in cliff faces, canyons, or where rock has been cut away for a highway. The layers are caused by deposits made over the eons, so deeper layers are from epochs further in the past. Samples can be taken from different layers, and a variety of techniques can be used to calibrate how long ago that layer was deposited at the surface of the Earth (including potassium-argon dating and uranium dating, paleomagnetism, etc.).
Now, because of erosion and tectonic movement, the rocks that are currently exposed at some locations can be from very old layers, that are probably deep underground in most other places. For example, the surface rock in the US state of Montana is largely composed of layers of sedimentary rock that were deposited during the Age of Dinosaurs. That's why lots of dinosaur fossils are found there.
So, a paleontologist finds a fossil in rocks from layer X. He looks up the radiometric age for that layer (or a nearby layer), and associates its age with the fossil. He can also look for smaller fossils in the same rock layer as secondary age indicators (i.e., plant A lived between 100 Mya to 50 Mya, insect B lived between 70 Mya and 20 Mya; if both are found in the same layer as the dinosaur fossil, it probably lived between 70 and 50 Mya).
Yes. Generally, a body should be large enough that gravity makes it roughly spherical, before it can be considered a planet. However, this is apparently a necessary-but-not-sufficient criterion.
The presence of its own sattelites? No. See Mercury and Venus.
An atmosphere? No. See Mercury.
How hard can it be? It's an arbitrary classification that doesn't actually mean anything.
You just answered your own question. It's hard to draw the line between planet and non-planet precisely because the line is arbitrary and has no real meaning.
I think we should just call it a planet if it (1) orbits a star directly; (2) is massive enough to be roughly spherical; and (3) is not so massive that it is either a brown dwarf or a star. However, please note that this definition would include the asteroid Ceres, which is generally not considered a planet...maybe it should be. (Ceres is 900 km in diameter, compared to this new one's 1250-km diameter).
If he does not like Torvald's kernal, then he can write a GNU one. What's the holdup? BSD?
He *does* like the Linux kernel, I think...that's why he's trying to keep it Free. And GNU *is* working on their own kernel: the HURD. It's been in development a long time. I do not know what the holdup is, but I can't imagine it has anything to do with BSD, which is a completely independent, non-GNU project.
RMS is a troll: not because he is wrong, but because he is annoying. (Hey, I can relate WRT OO bashing).
Whether he's annoying or not, I don't think you can really call him a troll. A troll is someone who says divisive or combative statements that they don't really believe, just to induce a flamewar.
Say what you want about RMS, but I don't think anyone would agree that he doesn't Really Believe what he says.
I think you're right, RMS really doesn't care about fame or recognition...he definitely does not seem the type to worry about stuff like that.
I seem to remember reading that the real reason RMS is so pedantic on the "GNU/Linux" thing is that he's afraid that Linux might slip away from the high ideals of Free Software to the amoral pragmatism of Open Source. This would be a real tragedy, if it occurred. However, I don't know how likely it is. I really can't imagine a non-GPL fork of the kernel.
Slashdot Mirror
You didn't write Readline, so why on Earth do you expect the right to be able to do whatever you like with it?
The author(s) of Readline have decided how they want to license their software. Their license allows all users of Readline basically unlimited Freedom to use and redistribute the code however they wish. In addition, the license allows developers *nearly* unlimited freedom to modify and redistribute Readline derivatives. The *only* stipulation is that you may not relicense your modified version. They likely did this so that no one can profit from their community effort by stealing the code. It's a guarantee of future rights, and it works for this purpose extremely well.
Your complaints basically boil down to: "Hey, some free society! I'm not free to smash the window of a jewelry shop and take as much gold as I can carry! WTF?!?!!!!111!"
Yes, Virginia, sometimes individual "freedoms" must be restricted in order to maximize *society's* freedoms. Take a civics class, FFS.
One of them must be: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
Every human act is selfish.
This statement is provably false, and the fact that you believe it vehemently enough to post it in bold-face preceded by "say it with me", is just sad. I really hope you figure out that it's wrong someday.
You will be able to DM using the native linux game, but the Aurora toolset (the module design program) is Windows-only. I hear it works well under WINE, though....
Thank you for the insights into the ending of AI. I had also thought it should have ended earlier, but I think you're really onto something here. Great analysis, can't wait to see it again now!
You've committed a (probably intentional) logical fallacy. You assume that because the protesters want these particular trees to be saved, that it must mean that they want no tree in the world to be cut down, and that therefore their use of any natural resource is hypocritical. Have I got your logic right?
The fallacy of course, is that these particular trees are very unique. They represent some of the last old-growth coastal redwoods left in the world. They are thousands of years old. There used to be a lot more of them, but they've almost all been cut down over the last century, to make crap like this.
These trees should not be cut down. There's plenty of non-unique timber out there.
Me: Hey, Google. Let's do some free association. What do you think of when I say "NWN Camera Hack"?
0 389795.shtml
Google: http://nwvault.ign.com/Files/hakpacks/data/102856
Amazing, no?
And as for wanting a more tactical game, why not just make liberal use of the pause key? I mean, that's basically what you did in BG, right? (except you could tell it to auto-pause every round, but that's clearly overkill when you have only one character).
NWN was never supposed to be like Baldur's Gate, but it really is the closest anyone's come to "real" D&D on a computer. Forget the official campaign. It's sort of fun, but if that's all you've done, no wonder you're disappointed. Try playing a highly-rated custom module online with a group of friends.
My God, did Tim O'Reilly just call me a wookiee? At least he could have gotten the quote right...
Please mod parent down. PhysicsGenius is a known troll; his ridiculous claims about the last chapter are too obviously flamebait.
It's this heat from the inside that makes Jupiter warm up.
This parses to "Jupiter is hot because it is hot."
You're correct that Jupiter's core is not hot enough for nuclear reactions (core temperature is about 20,000 K).
Just to clarify, Jupiter gives off more heat than it receives because it is still collapsing! Sounds incredible, but the "heavier" elements are still slowly settling out toward its core. As they do, they release gravitational potential energy in the form of heat. This settling process must be incredibly slow, since it's presumably been happening steadily for the past 4.6 Gyr; the fact that it still produces a significant amount of heat demonstrates how damn BIG Jupiter is.
See SEDS.org for more information (about halfway down the page, right after the section on the Great Red Spot).
His constituents (Hollywood) stand to benefit from the passage of the bill he's trying to sponsor...why would they vote him out?
Where is LoseNotLooseGuy when we need him?
To the grammarmobile, LNLG!
That was a dig at PG's mention of "streaming huge binary files", as if it was somehow worse than streaming huge text files (yes I know text files are binary-encoded, which is exactly why his use of the word was...amusing).
:)
Thanks for noticing, though
In their zeal to "free" intellectual property, hackers are destroying the Internet.
First of all, this is a complete non-sequitur. The bill in question is not about "freeing" IP, it's about making the royalty rates for webcast music reasonable. RTFA.
Hackers, with some help from Al Gore, invented the internet as you know and love it today. If it's being destroyed by anybody, it's the large, moneyed corporations who see it as nothig more than a global platform for sending advertisements.
Downloading (or worse, streaming realtime) huge binary files is a classic example of the Tragedy of the Commons.
Oh it is not! Transferring data (binary or otherwise) is the whole point of the internet. That's what it is for. Do you really think that streaming is worse than downloading? That was a joke, right?
A few people have this insatiable need to play music directly from the Internet instead of just buying the CD and the rest of us get enormous ping times.
Shenanigans. The idea that streaming audio is bringing the internet to its knees is too idiotic to be even laughable. I'm streaming right now from Radio Paradise. It's using 8k/s of my bandwidth.
How do we know the Anonymous Poster isn't an employee of Linux?
Maybe because Linux isn't a company? Perhaps you meant to say "...an employee of a Linux company", but it just irks me to see Linux reduced to a mere corporate product in the minds of many. It's much more than that.
See my other post in this thread. Or just google "radiometric dating".
No, it isn't.
You conveniently ignored the part where the ages of the strata are calibrated by an external measurement, radiometric (not radiocarbon) dating.
:p
Still more assumption than fact. What about fossils that cross between layers of strata? (trees, a whale or two) Maybe they stayed half-fossilized for a few million years while the next layer built up?
Yeah, maybe. Can you really not think of a more likely hypothesis for these cases? Or are you simply trolling? If so, congrats, I bit. Go tell all your buddies.
(1) the decay rate is exponential, not linear. You don't have to "guess" about this, it's simply the result of a stochastic radioactive decay process, with a fixed probability per parent atom present in the sample. The rate cannot be other than exponential, with a decay constant determined by the atomic physics, which we can safely presume is invariant.
(2) You are correct that radiocarbon dating suffers from the systematic uncertainty that we cannot know what the atmospheric C14/C12 ratio was at the time the sample died. Unfortunately (for your argument), carbon dating has nothing to do with measuring truly geologic timescales of millions or billions of years. For that, we rely on other radiometric processes like Potassium-argon or Uranium-Lead. These methods do not suffer from the same systematic error that radiocarbon dating does.
For example, radioactive Uranium crystallizes with other atoms in a way that is impossible to create with Lead atoms instead of Uranium. However, the Uranium then begins to decay into Lead. So, you find these crystals in rock. You know that when the rock cooled from magma, it formed these crystals with all Uranium and no Lead. Now, some fraction of it has decayed to Lead. Measure the fraction of Lead to Uranium, apply the known exponential-decay rate, and you can very accurately determine how long ago the rock was molten.
Hope that helps.
Contrary to FUD coming from young-Earth wackos, carbon dating has absolutely nothing to do with determining ages of dinosaur fossils. Carbon dating cannot be used to measure ages older than 10,000 years or so. It is totally inadequate for determining geological timescales. That's why other radiometric methods are used, such as potassium-argon dating or uranium-lead dating.
Scientists probably don't mention how they know the age of every fossil they find because it would get old really quickly. Hell, they'd probably be happy to explain it over and over again; but do you think the reporter's going to put it in the article every time? Not likely.
I'll tell you the basics; to learn more grab any Geology 101 textbook. The Earth's continental crust is stratified: it has many layers like an onion. Unlike an onion, the layers aren't uniform, but basically, there are easily discernible stratigraphic layers in the earth's crust, which you can see in cliff faces, canyons, or where rock has been cut away for a highway. The layers are caused by deposits made over the eons, so deeper layers are from epochs further in the past. Samples can be taken from different layers, and a variety of techniques can be used to calibrate how long ago that layer was deposited at the surface of the Earth (including potassium-argon dating and uranium dating, paleomagnetism, etc.).
Now, because of erosion and tectonic movement, the rocks that are currently exposed at some locations can be from very old layers, that are probably deep underground in most other places. For example, the surface rock in the US state of Montana is largely composed of layers of sedimentary rock that were deposited during the Age of Dinosaurs. That's why lots of dinosaur fossils are found there.
So, a paleontologist finds a fossil in rocks from layer X. He looks up the radiometric age for that layer (or a nearby layer), and associates its age with the fossil. He can also look for smaller fossils in the same rock layer as secondary age indicators (i.e., plant A lived between 100 Mya to 50 Mya, insect B lived between 70 Mya and 20 Mya; if both are found in the same layer as the dinosaur fossil, it probably lived between 70 and 50 Mya).
Or you could type your question into google, and follow the first link that it gives you.
What makes an object a planet?
That's a tough question.
Size?
Yes. Generally, a body should be large enough that gravity makes it roughly spherical, before it can be considered a planet. However, this is apparently a necessary-but-not-sufficient criterion.
The presence of its own sattelites?
No. See Mercury and Venus.
An atmosphere?
No. See Mercury.
How hard can it be? It's an arbitrary classification that doesn't actually mean anything.
You just answered your own question. It's hard to draw the line between planet and non-planet precisely because the line is arbitrary and has no real meaning.
I think we should just call it a planet if it (1) orbits a star directly; (2) is massive enough to be roughly spherical; and (3) is not so massive that it is either a brown dwarf or a star. However, please note that this definition would include the asteroid Ceres, which is generally not considered a planet...maybe it should be.
(Ceres is 900 km in diameter, compared to this new one's 1250-km diameter).
Hey, you can buy WFS right here, right now.
You're welcome.
Alan Cox is illusively quoted as saying...
Do you mean that Alan Cox didn't really say that or...?
I had to look up corrigendum, too. Don't really see how it applies, though.
If he does not like Torvald's kernal, then he can write a GNU one. What's the holdup? BSD?
He *does* like the Linux kernel, I think...that's why he's trying to keep it Free. And GNU *is* working on their own kernel: the HURD. It's been in development a long time. I do not know what the holdup is, but I can't imagine it has anything to do with BSD, which is a completely independent, non-GNU project.
RMS is a troll: not because he is wrong, but because he is annoying. (Hey, I can relate WRT OO bashing).
Whether he's annoying or not, I don't think you can really call him a troll. A troll is someone who says divisive or combative statements that they don't really believe, just to induce a flamewar.
Say what you want about RMS, but I don't think anyone would agree that he doesn't Really Believe what he says.
I think you're right, RMS really doesn't care about fame or recognition...he definitely does not seem the type to worry about stuff like that.
I seem to remember reading that the real reason RMS is so pedantic on the "GNU/Linux" thing is that he's afraid that Linux might slip away from the high ideals of Free Software to the amoral pragmatism of Open Source. This would be a real tragedy, if it occurred. However, I don't know how likely it is. I really can't imagine a non-GPL fork of the kernel.