My fiancee and I went up to the Mackinac Bridge area about 3 years ago in preparation for the wedding. We had our cell phones for emergency purposes, but that was it.
The island was great, the bridge is an impressive engineering feat, and the people were much more relaxed.
In fact, the scientific process to get from complete ignorance of the entire world to the collective knowlege all humanity is an analog to evolution. Many lines of reasoning have been proven wrong, some remain to be proven wrong.
Exactly. Science is an iterative process.
Early astronomers developed models of the solar system that showed Earth at the middle and they were able to demonstrate/predict the paths of planets over time. Did this make them correct? No.
Newton's laws are steadily being replaced by Einstein's.
Does this make Newton incorrect? No, he was answering the question of the time and now we have more precise theories/laws to describe the situation.
Some lines of reasoning will be wrong, some will be right, and some will simply be less precise.
For example, evolution nicely explains the following:
* Why are there 10 species of zebra in Africa, but none in Australia?
* Why are there mammals?
If you want to see evolution in action, read up on the evolution of the AIDS virus. Just be cause you can't understand it, it does not mean it is wrong.
I pointed out that variations in a species are quite common and demonstrable.
I'm pointing out that there's no way to demonstrate that a dog can become a cat, that a lizard can become a bird, or that a monkey can become a person.
And the "evolution" of the AIDS virus has everything to do with variations, mutations, etc.
The last time I checked, AIDS did not turn into a frog, plankton, or an amoeba.
Evolution is easily falsifiable. Just find a dead human inside a tyrannosaurus and the Theory of Evolution will have been falsified since the theory says this can't happen. As to hypothesis testing, Evolution provides many specific hypotheses that can be tested. Most of the biology journals are full of such tests. Indeed, much of modern biology simply would not exist without the Theory of Evolution.
Actually "falsifiable" normally applies to the results of an experiment, but I'll accept your point.
A second thing that would demonstrate that it was falsifiable would be if aliens show up and say, "Oh yeah, we created all of this to get the Ultimate Question." I guess that would validate be Intelligent Design...
Actually, I think this is a very interesting definition as it essentially puts the entire Scientific Method into the definition. Basically, something has to be based on concepts that can either be proven or disproven (aka falsifiable).
The key will be "observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building" since Evolution is based entirely on observation and theory building and has no hypothesis testing beyond showing simple species-specific traits can be passed along.
Evolution is non-falsifiable and therefore will not fit this definition of Science.
I've said for years that if someone wanted to discredit the Open Source movement, they'd do this.
Assign a team - undercover of course - to a project like Apache. Once the various team members establish themselves as part of the community, they can quickly take the drivers' seat since the most active people normally make those decisions.
Once this happens, they direct the code where ever they want... including a fork into their company.
Simultaneously they get the codebase and they shipwreck the project.
Why would a company want to use GPL software then?
They either have to pay license fees upfront or they pay license fees later on... and if the FSF/GPL had any sense, it'd be based on the % of revenue or profit.
If the models and data are accurate, then release them to public scrutiny.
*If* the information is as bullet proof as you say, then they have nothing to be concerned about. Since only one side has done this, only one side is opening itself up to peer review.
This is the equivalent to SCO saying "you have our code!", not producing any evidence to demonstrate this, and then IBM delivering truckloads of evidence to the contrary.
Adwords is an auction, so if a company pays top dollar to be #1, another company can outbid them to get control of the word.
We're not talking about Viagra spammers. We're talking about when you put in a name like "Pepsi" and you also find ads for "CocaCola", "RC Cola", and all the others.
Even if you use a bigger database (Oracle, mySQL, MS SQL), you can always connect an Access frontend to the database directly and even use your existing reports.
I did just that when I switch from using an Access-based bug tracking system to using Mantis. I connected to the database, made a view with the proper fields and all of my reports worked beautifully.
Yes. I've set it up within my current company and for other companies when people need a quick solution. After you've done it a time or three, an install can take as little as 15 minutes.
The only down side is that the system does not support table prefixes, so if you're using a hosted solution with a limited number of databases, you might have conflicts.
Slashdot Mirror
And that's not even much of a big deal.
I've had a Cappucino PC ( http://arstechnica.com/reviews/01q2/cappuccino/ca
Don't get me wrong, quieter is better.
My fiancee and I went up to the Mackinac Bridge area about 3 years ago in preparation for the wedding. We had our cell phones for emergency purposes, but that was it.
The island was great, the bridge is an impressive engineering feat, and the people were much more relaxed.
Because you could NEVER stick a ceramic knife between your butt cheeks, right?
This is NOT going to stop someone who is dedicated to wiping out a couple hundred people.
This is purely for that cute blonde in that line over there...
I think Han Solo blew them all away... and he got the Princess.
In fact, the scientific process to get from complete ignorance of the entire world to the collective knowlege all humanity is an analog to evolution. Many lines of reasoning have been proven wrong, some remain to be proven wrong.
Exactly. Science is an iterative process.
Early astronomers developed models of the solar system that showed Earth at the middle and they were able to demonstrate/predict the paths of planets over time. Did this make them correct? No.
Newton's laws are steadily being replaced by Einstein's.
Does this make Newton incorrect? No, he was answering the question of the time and now we have more precise theories/laws to describe the situation.
Some lines of reasoning will be wrong, some will be right, and some will simply be less precise.
For example, evolution nicely explains the following:
* Why are there 10 species of zebra in Africa, but none in Australia?
* Why are there mammals?
If you want to see evolution in action, read up on the evolution of the AIDS virus. Just be cause you can't understand it, it does not mean it is wrong.
You are using the term species incorrectly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
I pointed out that variations in a species are quite common and demonstrable.
I'm pointing out that there's no way to demonstrate that a dog can become a cat, that a lizard can become a bird, or that a monkey can become a person.
And the "evolution" of the AIDS virus has everything to do with variations, mutations, etc.
The last time I checked, AIDS did not turn into a frog, plankton, or an amoeba.
Evolution is easily falsifiable. Just find a dead human inside a tyrannosaurus and the Theory of Evolution will have been falsified since the theory says this can't happen. As to hypothesis testing, Evolution provides many specific hypotheses that can be tested. Most of the biology journals are full of such tests. Indeed, much of modern biology simply would not exist without the Theory of Evolution.
Actually "falsifiable" normally applies to the results of an experiment, but I'll accept your point.
A second thing that would demonstrate that it was falsifiable would be if aliens show up and say, "Oh yeah, we created all of this to get the Ultimate Question." I guess that would validate be Intelligent Design...
Actually, I think this is a very interesting definition as it essentially puts the entire Scientific Method into the definition. Basically, something has to be based on concepts that can either be proven or disproven (aka falsifiable).
The key will be "observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building" since Evolution is based entirely on observation and theory building and has no hypothesis testing beyond showing simple species-specific traits can be passed along.
Evolution is non-falsifiable and therefore will not fit this definition of Science.
And protect it with the DMCA.
I shred mine and add them to the used kitty litter.
I figure that if they go to effort at that point, they deserve anything they can get.
That was great.
I've said for years that if someone wanted to discredit the Open Source movement, they'd do this.
Assign a team - undercover of course - to a project like Apache. Once the various team members establish themselves as part of the community, they can quickly take the drivers' seat since the most active people normally make those decisions.
Once this happens, they direct the code where ever they want... including a fork into their company.
Simultaneously they get the codebase and they shipwreck the project.
Why would a company want to use GPL software then?
They either have to pay license fees upfront or they pay license fees later on... and if the FSF/GPL had any sense, it'd be based on the % of revenue or profit.
It'd be too risky for me.
Somehow these appointments remind me of 1984.
Man you're old. I can't remember anything earlier than '85 or so.
This is the clause that you're looking for... commonly called the "Commerce Clause"
Article I, Section 8:
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
I was working on this project just a few years back (2001-2002).
Our estimates projected that by 2005, it would be take about 4 TB of digitization EACH day to keep pace.
The first storage phase called for 180TB server.
If the models and data are accurate, then release them to public scrutiny.
*If* the information is as bullet proof as you say, then they have nothing to be concerned about. Since only one side has done this, only one side is opening itself up to peer review.
This is the equivalent to SCO saying "you have our code!", not producing any evidence to demonstrate this, and then IBM delivering truckloads of evidence to the contrary.
5% is high.
I normally just make "X"'s.
I've even signed it for my wife just to prove the point to her that the signature is meaningless.
Even though she handed them the card and I signed, they didn't question it.
Uh... what happens if the EU wins and they further demonstrate that they hold total contempt for software licenses?
Does this mean that the EU can allow companies to use GPL'd stuff without fulfilling the terms?
I already had an install of SugarCRM so I just used that.
It's essentially the same thing, especially when you consider that what you're selling is yourself and your skills.
I'm going to give you $10.
;)
No wait, I'm only going to give you $6.
Have you, at this point in time and because of the above two lines, lost $4 in real cash?
No.
This is why one political party always calls things "budget cuts" when they're actually "a smaller increase than requested".
Tell your wife that you're going to have an extra $10 and only bring home $6 and see what happens.
If the stock options you get are worth nothing, is that really an expense?
Choosing numbers out of nowhere...
If a VC buys 5% of the company for $2M, then yes, the other stock would defnitely have some value as that puts an initial valuation on the company.
Of course that valuation can be wildly off...
Adwords is an auction, so if a company pays top dollar to be #1, another company can outbid them to get control of the word.
We're not talking about Viagra spammers. We're talking about when you put in a name like "Pepsi" and you also find ads for "CocaCola", "RC Cola", and all the others.
I whole-heartedly agree.
Even if you use a bigger database (Oracle, mySQL, MS SQL), you can always connect an Access frontend to the database directly and even use your existing reports.
I did just that when I switch from using an Access-based bug tracking system to using Mantis. I connected to the database, made a view with the proper fields and all of my reports worked beautifully.
Yes. I've set it up within my current company and for other companies when people need a quick solution. After you've done it a time or three, an install can take as little as 15 minutes.
The only down side is that the system does not support table prefixes, so if you're using a hosted solution with a limited number of databases, you might have conflicts.