As a definition-by-demonstration of hard sci-fi, I offer the Ringworld books. When some of Niven's readers pointed out that his structure was unstable, he didn't blow them off -- he incorporated their calculations in the later books.
Hard science fiction does the math, and breaks the rules with concious effort. Soft science fiction is more relaxed, and more concerned with internal logic than physics. Space opera neither knows no cares (Star Wars, Flash Gordon), making up the rules as it goes along, and then breaking them anyway.
Perhaps I needed to format my post differently. I realize that it is not Christian dogma (hell, I'm not sure there is "Christian dogma", although clearly there are points of Catholic dogma, or Russian Orthodox dogma, or I suppose Crazy Bob's Snake-Handling Car Wash Church dogma).
My point is that it is American liberal dogma that anybody who has doubts as to abortion or fetal research must be a fundamentalist Christian, and must have an agenda of the oppression of women. No other motive, and no other possibility, is considered.
Speaking for myself, I have some serious doubts, I'm an atheist, and I can't believe I'm completely alone in the American landscape.
magical invisible souls of these precious groups of cells
Can I assume that your soul is both practical and visible, or is your life also of no consequence or value?
Why is it that so many people are inclined to err on the side of caution in every area but this one? Demonstrated multiple murderers might reform someday. Let's give them a chance. We can't prove that nuclear power plants won't cause problems, so go slowly, or stop altogether. Global warming might be caused by CO2, so we'd better change how we do everything right now. But fetuses human? Obviously you're just a Christian fundamentalist who wants barefoot women in the kitchen -- there's no issue here.
Not "want to give up the hunk of metal...even though it never weighs the same twice", but "they've been calling a kilogram, even though it never weighs the same twice."
Or envision (and I am most certainly envisioning this, because it's right in front of me) a business with two offices, close together but not close enough to run wire ourselves. Two DSL's? Two T-1's? Classic telco solution is ISDN between the two buildings. Homegrown DSL sounds pretty good to me. One T-1 and a little more...
Well, I can't find any references earlier than the 8008, but for sure they were selling PL/M by the time the 8080 rolled out, along with big and ugly (but solid) development systems (My personal favorite was the Series IV, which looked almost exactly like a low-profile toilet, especially if you opened the card cage.)
I wouldn't mind having a Series III to sit in my office now, but they're probably beyond the dumpster phase...off to eBay!
In part, yes, but my point was not personal information per se but rather voluntary agreements between two people. I was simply giving a common example of an NDA.
Yes, Stallman says that he would have to add a proviso to his agreement, and I'll assume that he's an honourable man and would say, "Whoa! Before you speak, understand that I may, under certain circumstances I will detail if you like, and others that I may not have thought of yet, reveal what you say. If you aren't comfortable with these provisions, please don't continue." He is, however, referring to extraordinary circumstances. I'm not sure that Gates himself would describe Word as, "something that
humanity could tremendously benefit from knowing". It's not the cure for AIDS, it's a tool, and it has many peers.
The moment I start distributing it, I have no moral right to dictate what the ones who use it should or should not do with it. I.e., it's THEIR software now, not mine.
Remind me never to tell you anything "in confidence" or "off the record".
I'm not arguing, because I simply don't know, but it occurs to me that the cost issue isn't addressed in that link, except for the $25 million for the helo itself (and that's a production unit). If hourly or mileage costs were mentioned in that page, then I missed them.
Generally speaking, helicopters are expensive to operate, which is why you don't see a lot of Delta Airlines helicopters -- commercial carriers will used fixed-wing whenever they can, and resort to helicopters when they have to (obviously if you need to put it down in a parking lot, a 747 won't do). Are there any estimates floating around for Cargolifter costs?
Well, it does say $145M in revenue, not profit, but let it pass.
I assume that they are calculating based on some sort of assumption that every d/l'ed song would have been purchased at full price, and while that's an obvious over-simplification it's difficult to come up with any other measurement. What the hell -- it seems reasonable to me that scale plays a part here, and scale implies measurement.
Certainly if physical assets had been swiped we'd be pretty comfortable saying that "$145M worth of goat-scented dildoes were stolen", even though the total market for such a product might be just that one guy (you know the one), and he doesn't have $145M to spend.
I may be wrong, but judging from the rest of the post I think this was a typo and that Bonker meant that most priests would work toward the penitent's taking responsibility.
Not to quibble, because it's been a long time since I was Catholic, but I recall that pennance is not a requirement for forgiveness, which like God's grace is a gift not to be bargained for, but rather a task for the good of the sinner. If nothing else, final contrition would be pretty pointless otherwise: "Oh, too bad, we're out of time! Maybe you could come back next week on... no, I guess not."
Well, that's probably why you're not an attorney (nor am I). Criminal lawyers tend to avoid grand concepts like "truth" and "justice" (and no, I'm not being sarcastic.) Instead they deal with what can be shown in court, which is a much more hard-nosed arena.
It's not too dissimilar from science. A scientist might reject certain theories, not because he knows them to be right or wrong, but because they can't be tested, and his field deals with testing.
Presenting the case for your friend's guilt is the state's job, presenting the case for his innocence is his lawyer's job, and judging is what the court does. The only reason I know the defense might want to avoid some questions is that the rules forbid him to lie in court.
Look at the bright side. In theory, even if a lawyer believes his client to be guilty as hell (perhaps because he's a member of some despised minority, or he's been well-framed), this system lets him have a defense.
To me, "information wants to be free" is more of a statement than an ideal -- people tend to blab, ideas are often created independently, someone else saw you do it... in short, it may be impossible to keep a secret forever.
Whether or not information should be free is a different question.
How does attorney-client privilege make lawyers black-hat? Aside from the fact that this would also make doctors and priests black-hat, it just sems like an odd criterion: "They retain confidences and refuse to kiss and tell -- the bastards!"
I could be wrong, but I think there were horse-drawn rail vehicles somewhat earlier. Rails could (and still can) support a great deal of weight and don't turn to mud when it rains.
Slashdot Mirror
Hard science fiction does the math, and breaks the rules with concious effort. Soft science fiction is more relaxed, and more concerned with internal logic than physics. Space opera neither knows no cares (Star Wars, Flash Gordon), making up the rules as it goes along, and then breaking them anyway.
My point is that it is American liberal dogma that anybody who has doubts as to abortion or fetal research must be a fundamentalist Christian, and must have an agenda of the oppression of women. No other motive, and no other possibility, is considered.
Speaking for myself, I have some serious doubts, I'm an atheist, and I can't believe I'm completely alone in the American landscape.
Can I assume that your soul is both practical and visible, or is your life also of no consequence or value?
Why is it that so many people are inclined to err on the side of caution in every area but this one? Demonstrated multiple murderers might reform someday. Let's give them a chance. We can't prove that nuclear power plants won't cause problems, so go slowly, or stop altogether. Global warming might be caused by CO2, so we'd better change how we do everything right now. But fetuses human? Obviously you're just a Christian fundamentalist who wants barefoot women in the kitchen -- there's no issue here.
Not "want to give up the hunk of metal...even though it never weighs the same twice", but "they've been calling a kilogram, even though it never weighs the same twice."
Could the key word here be "sells", as distinct from "distributes"? (And of course, FreeBSD represents a 0% share of the Linux market.)
Or envision (and I am most certainly envisioning this, because it's right in front of me) a business with two offices, close together but not close enough to run wire ourselves. Two DSL's? Two T-1's? Classic telco solution is ISDN between the two buildings. Homegrown DSL sounds pretty good to me. One T-1 and a little more...
I wouldn't mind having a Series III to sit in my office now, but they're probably beyond the dumpster phase...off to eBay!
I find that life itself is a strangely apropos Simpson's reference, at least on Mondays.
Yeah, but a whorehouse in a mall? It would be all plastic and fake, I bet. The girls wouldn't really care about you at all.
Yes, Stallman says that he would have to add a proviso to his agreement, and I'll assume that he's an honourable man and would say, "Whoa! Before you speak, understand that I may, under certain circumstances I will detail if you like, and others that I may not have thought of yet, reveal what you say. If you aren't comfortable with these provisions, please don't continue." He is, however, referring to extraordinary circumstances. I'm not sure that Gates himself would describe Word as, "something that
humanity could tremendously benefit from knowing". It's not the cure for AIDS, it's a tool, and it has many peers.
Ironic choice in a universe that seems to be mostly vacuum. Like many cliches, perhaps it only reflects a parochial view.
Remind me never to tell you anything "in confidence" or "off the record".
Cool stuff. Alternatives are always good.
Would that be "Lynx"? Even IE lets you use links.
Generally speaking, helicopters are expensive to operate, which is why you don't see a lot of Delta Airlines helicopters -- commercial carriers will used fixed-wing whenever they can, and resort to helicopters when they have to (obviously if you need to put it down in a parking lot, a 747 won't do). Are there any estimates floating around for Cargolifter costs?
Newspapers? Do they still make those?
Administer your box -- it's the right thing to do.
I assume that they are calculating based on some sort of assumption that every d/l'ed song would have been purchased at full price, and while that's an obvious over-simplification it's difficult to come up with any other measurement. What the hell -- it seems reasonable to me that scale plays a part here, and scale implies measurement.
Certainly if physical assets had been swiped we'd be pretty comfortable saying that "$145M worth of goat-scented dildoes were stolen", even though the total market for such a product might be just that one guy (you know the one), and he doesn't have $145M to spend.
Not to quibble, because it's been a long time since I was Catholic, but I recall that pennance is not a requirement for forgiveness, which like God's grace is a gift not to be bargained for, but rather a task for the good of the sinner. If nothing else, final contrition would be pretty pointless otherwise: "Oh, too bad, we're out of time! Maybe you could come back next week on... no, I guess not."
It's not too dissimilar from science. A scientist might reject certain theories, not because he knows them to be right or wrong, but because they can't be tested, and his field deals with testing.
Presenting the case for your friend's guilt is the state's job, presenting the case for his innocence is his lawyer's job, and judging is what the court does. The only reason I know the defense might want to avoid some questions is that the rules forbid him to lie in court.
Look at the bright side. In theory, even if a lawyer believes his client to be guilty as hell (perhaps because he's a member of some despised minority, or he's been well-framed), this system lets him have a defense.
Whether or not information should be free is a different question.
How does attorney-client privilege make lawyers black-hat? Aside from the fact that this would also make doctors and priests black-hat, it just sems like an odd criterion: "They retain confidences and refuse to kiss and tell -- the bastards!"
I could be wrong, but I think there were horse-drawn rail vehicles somewhat earlier. Rails could (and still can) support a great deal of weight and don't turn to mud when it rains.
As exemplified by your apparent belief that only one comment has ever been made on the subject.
"Informative" caught me off-guard, too. I'm thinking it was a slip of the mouse, but just to be sure I'm staying away from the bars tonight...