The difference with Sam's is that it's actually stated in the membership agreement that they can check your receipt. But absent such an agreement (such as at Best Buy or Circuit City), they have no right to require you to consent to a search. But many people, when asked, do so without thinking.
That is simply not true. If I write something new, I own the copyright on it, and can choose to place it under the GPL. If someone else then modifies that same software, they own the copyright on their modifications; however, they are bound by the terms of the license under which they obtained the code in the first place (the GPL), which obligates them to release their modifications under the GPL as well. Since they don't own the copyright on all of the code, they cannot choose to release it under a different license.
I, as the original copyright holder, could release my original version under a different license, but I could not change the license on the version that consists of my original version + their modifications. The only way that I could do that is if I had the permission of the other copyright holder(s). This is one reason that some companies are so scared of the GPL: in the general case, it is very hard to get ahold of all of the relevant copyright holders.
For projects submitted to the FSF, they take out some of the confusion by requiring that copyright is transfered to the FSF itself, but the FSF is a special case in this respect.
Okay, here goes:
I like existing. I want to continue existing. If I were alone and never cooperated with other people, existing comfortably would be difficult, if not impossible as all of my time would be devoted to finding food and water, as well as fighting off predators and competition. Therefore, cooperation is good. There are essentially two ways to obtain the cooperation of another person:
Force them; show them that you will cause them harm if they do not cooperate.
Entice them; show them that things will be better if they do cooperate.
If you force them, then a large part of their energy will be focused on removing the threat (i.e. you), which is counterproductive, and potentially dangerous to you for obvious reasons. A large part of your energy would also be devoted to enforcing the threat, and preventing its removal; this is also wasteful. If, on the other hand, you entice them, and show them that the relationship is beneficial to the both of you, all of that energy that would have otherwise gone into fighting for and against your threat can now be channeled into more constructive endeavors. Everyone wins. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is essentially a description of the contract implied by civilization.
Okay, so it was a little more than a single paragraph.
However, I would also argue that there is a case for not stating something is fact beyond all doubt, and teaching people to come to their own conclusions. Of course, it's fine to say things like, "Well, I can't be 100% sure, but when *I* look at all that evidence, it seems obvious to me that it happened this way."
If someone wants to claim that magic does exist, then it is their responsibility to provide evidence.
Claiming that magic exists does not create any "responsibility" to provide evidence. However, if you don't provide evidence you shouldn't be surprised if others don't agree with you.
Then let me amend my statement: If someone wants to claim that magic does exist, and they want to be taken seriously by reasonable people, then it is their responsibility to provide evidence.
Even if the things that they are led to believe are good things on face value (like all of the values at the core of most religions), once people accept those without question, it becomes quite easy for a charismatic leader to attach not-so-good things to those core values like a parasite.
This might be an argument for disqualifying people from voting based on their beliefs, but not from holding office. I'm not terribly concerned that most people who run for President of the US are likely to be swayed by a charismatic leader.
Oh, I'm not worried about the President being swayed by a charismatic leader, I'm worried about the President (or someone close to him) being that charismatic leader. People are, I'd imagine, more likely to vote for people who share their views. If the President suspends reason on a particular subject (or really just claims to do so, his actual views are less important than what he claims they are), then they are likely to have a lot of constituents that are also willing to suspend reason. So then, you've got a situation where you've got a President that is willing to make decisions based on faulty reasoning, and a large chunk of the population that is willing to go along with whatever he says.
In any case, if I had a wide selection of candidates that had compatible political views with my own I might resort to using softer criteria such as this one to make a decision. However, politics is a matter of compromise and in the VERY long list of issues this is one I'm a lot more willing to compromise on as long as the politician makes generally good decisions. Sure, I wouldn't elect Buchannan, but there are a LOT of reasons for that beyond his position on evolution...
You'll get no argument from me on that one. The evolution issue is less important in its own right than many other issues, but it is a straightforward litmus test.
Uh, I certainly don't believe in magic, but there certainly isn't any evidence to suggest that it doesn't exist
Lack of evidence is not support. Lack of evidence is a lack of support. There is no credible evidence that magic exists, therefore until such evidence is presented, it is safe to say that magic does not exist. If someone wants to claim that magic does exist, then it is their responsibility to provide evidence.
Perhaps a belief in magic says something about a person's personality, but it really has nothing to do with ignoring evidence/etc, or lack of moral fortitude. It isn't really even delusional - just a bit odd.
If believing something without evidence isn't delusional, then what is?
Personally I have enough problems finding somebody who agrees with my political stances to worry about whether they belive in magic on the side...
But a willingness to believe in things without evidence goes to the core of a person's ability to make rational decisions. Once a group of people large enough has become accustomed to accepting, as truth, things that have no supporting evidence, they become easy to manipulate.
Even if the things that they are led to believe are good things on face value (like all of the values at the core of most religions), once people accept those without question, it becomes quite easy for a charismatic leader to attach not-so-good things to those core values like a parasite. For example, see the Salem witch trials, the Inquisition, the Crusades, Slavery, Islamic suicide bombers, female genital mutilation, McCarthyism in the 40's and 50's, the treatment of women in Islam, etc. All of these things were/are brought about by the corruption of things that had done many good things for people--a corruption that would have been much more difficult to achieve had more people been objective and less willing to accept ideas without evidence.
Or 3. They were raised by church-going parents who loved them, instilled in them a moral code and taught them how to behave. They had lots of friends growing up who also went to church and believed the same things about life and the universe, and they had a fairly happy life as a child,
aka They were brainwashed. If I was raised, in a loving household, etc. to believe that the sky was purple and that the cookie monster demanded sacrifices on every Tuesday, and were unwilling to face facts when I learned that that simply wasn't the case, nobody would argue against the fact that I had been brainwashed.
and they see no reason to throw away the belief system they were raised with, and are happy practicing, considering that even if their belief system isn't the most factually accurate, it doesn't hurt anyone, it does improve their own life, and it helps the people around them.
But it does hurt; it hurts humanity in general. Truth itself has an intrinsic value, and is something to be sought out. Anytime facts are willfully denied, we as a people are being dishonest and duplicitous. I'd go as far as to say that the search for truth is what separates us from other animals.
It's very hard for people to completely change the beliefs they were raised with, especially if they are happy with life.
Just because something is difficult doesn't make it any less the right thing to do.
I've never met an optimistic atheist who is really happy with life.
You're talking to one. I love my life. I love life in general. I love the wonders of the Universe, and all of the unexplained mysteries therein. I don't need to cheapen it by saying, "Oh, we'll never understand it, so we might as well say that it was created by magic."
I'll mention two people who stand out as being closet atheists: John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. Neither strikes me as being particularly happy or optimistic.
First, how can you know what their religious beliefs are?
We know that Hillary wants total control of the U.S. healthcare system. Atheist totalitarianism is not without precedent in world history.
Wow, Godwin'ed already. So, because you think that Hillary is an atheist, and because she wants to control healthcare, she's like Hitler? There have been many more religious dictators in the history of the world than there have been atheist dictators.
Many "hardcore" atheists conclude that life is absurd or meaningless and that moral behavior is 100% relative to the culture or times we live in.
I have yet to meet one of these "life-is-meaningless", "hardcore" atheists. You're falling into the trap of equating religion with morals. I am a very moral person, but those morals come from within me, from my respect for other human beings; it is not forced upon me by the promise of Heaven or by the threat of Hell.
The difficult philosophical issues of atheism will never be up for debate even if a candidate was pressed to tell people about their atheism.
And this is truly sad. However, I have hope that one day, this will change.
What's the point of bringing it up in an election debate? Aside from educational funding, stance on evolution really isn't even on my radar for politicians.
Because a willingness to believe in magic despite evidence to the contrary is a sign either:
Stupidity - i.e. they are unable to understand the evidence.
Lack of moral fortitude - i.e. they are willing to ignore the truth in order to get money, power, fame, whatever.
KB, MB, GB, TB, etc. have had a well-defined meaning for decades (probably over a half century by now). According to The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English:
n. Comput. a unit of memory or data equal to 1,024 (2^10) bytes.
yes of course it is up to the seller to determine the terms of the sale. its called a contract
I don't remember signing a contract when I bought my PlayStation/GameCube/DS/whatever. There is no contract beyond: I give you $X, you give me hardware.
Re:Big and Old Con that Never has Worked.
on
Zune DRM Cracked
·
· Score: 1
What about the music you "rent" from iTunes.
What do you mean by that? There is no subscription fee for the iTMS, nor is there any other kind of recurring charge. How, exactly, is that "renting"?
The initial goal of such licenses was to encourage community involvement in improving a project but ultimately, most projects end up having improvements coming not from the community but from the original author. It would be unethical for the community to all of a sudden take that work and fork it without having contributed to the original project beforehand.
Nobody is taking the work from anybody. The original author (and all who have contributed to the project) are giving the work to everyone. By your logic, every fork of, for instance, the Linux kernel is theft.
If you decided to start a fork project but you had not ever contributed a single line of code to the project, how would you feel that you had the right to create a fork? Who do you think granted you those rights to you in the first place?
The GPL grants me that right. I am free to make whatever changes to the project that I see fit, as long as I make those changes available.
I never said that it was good that schools don't have the funding to pay teachers what they're worth. I simply stated that that is the way that it is:
Schools don't pay enough -- therefore, the only people who will become teachers are those who either can't get a better paying job, or are willing to teach in spite of the low pay. And I am sad to say that I believe that the former greatly outnumber the later.
Umm, it is ASCII. Since no characters are used outside of the printable, 7-bit characters, it is ASCII, UTF-8 and a whole slew of ISO8859 encodings, all at the same time.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference with Sam's is that it's actually stated in the membership agreement that they can check your receipt. But absent such an agreement (such as at Best Buy or Circuit City), they have no right to require you to consent to a search. But many people, when asked, do so without thinking.
Calling an external program and linking against code are two very different things
What GPL software is Apple using inappropriately?
That is simply not true. If I write something new, I own the copyright on it, and can choose to place it under the GPL. If someone else then modifies that same software, they own the copyright on their modifications; however, they are bound by the terms of the license under which they obtained the code in the first place (the GPL), which obligates them to release their modifications under the GPL as well. Since they don't own the copyright on all of the code, they cannot choose to release it under a different license.
I, as the original copyright holder, could release my original version under a different license, but I could not change the license on the version that consists of my original version + their modifications. The only way that I could do that is if I had the permission of the other copyright holder(s). This is one reason that some companies are so scared of the GPL: in the general case, it is very hard to get ahold of all of the relevant copyright holders.
For projects submitted to the FSF, they take out some of the confusion by requiring that copyright is transfered to the FSF itself, but the FSF is a special case in this respect.
- Force them; show them that you will cause them harm if they do not cooperate.
- Entice them; show them that things will be better if they do cooperate.
If you force them, then a large part of their energy will be focused on removing the threat (i.e. you), which is counterproductive, and potentially dangerous to you for obvious reasons. A large part of your energy would also be devoted to enforcing the threat, and preventing its removal; this is also wasteful. If, on the other hand, you entice them, and show them that the relationship is beneficial to the both of you, all of that energy that would have otherwise gone into fighting for and against your threat can now be channeled into more constructive endeavors. Everyone wins. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is essentially a description of the contract implied by civilization. Okay, so it was a little more than a single paragraph.who says that the blood-sugar has to be the only power source? Stick a backup battery in the thing.
So? "Byte" is not an SI unit.
... so get over it, a kilobyte is 1024 bytes.
KB, MB, GB, TB, etc. have had a well-defined meaning for decades (probably over a half century by now). According to The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English:
n. Comput. a unit of memory or data equal to 1,024 (2^10) bytes.
Probably smoke from burning lithium (i.e. when the battery is punctured).
How does OS X use hovering for progress bars?
wow, "you people"?
I never said that it was good that schools don't have the funding to pay teachers what they're worth. I simply stated that that is the way that it is:
Schools don't pay enough -- therefore, the only people who will become teachers are those who either can't get a better paying job, or are willing to teach in spite of the low pay. And I am sad to say that I believe that the former greatly outnumber the later.
Exactly
...that's where the "look for other employment" comes in.
Umm, it is ASCII. Since no characters are used outside of the printable, 7-bit characters, it is ASCII, UTF-8 and a whole slew of ISO8859 encodings, all at the same time.
Get over yourself.
Last time I checked, the Spam and Dead Parrot Sketches were Monty Python...
I'm sorry, but you are an ignorant sheep. Do you advocate blowing up every neon bar sign because it might be a bomb?