Most theories aren't "provable" nor did the previous poster suggest they are. However they must be testable, as the previous poster said "It needs to be able to be proved wrong". It must make predictions which you can go forward and test.
String theory is certainly a very immature theory but people are working on performing tests which could falsify or further refine the theory.
If the books contents are written so as to imply that evolution is fact then such a sticker is probably appropriate.
If however the book glosses over all theories as fact then the sticker is innappropriate for singling out evolution and a more general sticker (or preferably a different text) would be appropriate.
If no such glossing over is done then the sticker is innappropriate.
Any science book however should teach that theories are there to be challenged by scientific means. Science's strength is that theories can be improved upon or replaced when a demonstrably better (not merely "alternate") theory eventuates.
Science should be proud of it's theories, proud that they represent accumulated knowledge and proud that science is honest enough to let them go if we get something better (not merely "alternate").
When it rarely gets too hot in my apartment I change the climate by turning on the air conditioning because it makes the climate more suitable for me.
I don't see why humans shouldn't seek to make the global climate better for us. If moving to resist global warming (whether 'natural' or not) helps us make the world a better place for sustaining our life then it sounds like a reasonable idea on the face of it.
Saying "it's been happening from the dawn of time" is stupid. So have tsunamis. So has disease. It remains sensible for us human beings to avoid contact with them where we can. Global warming may not be rushing upon us with such speed as the recent Asian disaster but if it, natural or not, is going to cause us damage it is only sensible to try and minimise that damage.
A patent for patent commons makes sense but "other intellectual property rights" is certainly too vague.
I suppose it makes sense as a counter to vague "Intellectual property" threats similar to SCO's various legal wafflings but it is too wide for "normal". If IBM's patents become a critical part of Linux (or something) then all of a sudden you can't sue IBM for copyright infringement if they take some of your code (maybe available under one Open Source licence) and put it in an open source project under a (different) Open Source licence without risking losing access to Linux?
Not that it's likely but all sides need protection and a concrete understanding.
I presume you're just spouting off rather than actually knowing what you are talking about.
Their revenue off of a half a dozen mainframes probably challenges their Linux revenue.
Those mainframes run Linux.
A friend of mine hacks Linux for IBM and the impression I get is that it is very popular. He's always being sent somewhere or other to install or configure some absurdly large sounding box or other.
It's not anti-free market at all. Patents distort a free market by creating artificial barriers to entry.
Nor are the motives "socialist" or necessarily "magnanimous". IBM's contributions to Linux could hardly be called that because they make them serious money. The revocation clause also buys something serious for IBM. As long as you use Open Source software that employs these IBM patents then you can't sue another Open Source project that IBM may rely on (or created themselves) for using your own patents without risking IBM pulling the rug out from under you.
Releasing these patents (if they are used) buys IBM an additional degree of legal protection/ammunition for the future.
The way the licence is worded (as I understand it anyway) they help protect IBM and other Open Source software. If you use "Open Source software A" with one of IBMs patents in it and decide to leverage your own patents against "Open source software B" then IBM can make life difficult for you by revoking your right to use the patent in software A.
I guess it's a sort of "mutually assured destruction" which should stop discourage people from firing their lawyers off willy nilly.
The only thing I can think of is that strictly speaking such a revocable patent licence of any sort might make it unuseable under the current GPL.
They are only revocable from people who seek to leverage patents against Open Source themselves first. From the PDF:
IBM's Legally Binding Commitment Not To Assert the 500 Named Patents Against OSS
The pledge will benefit any Open Source Software. Open Source Software is any computer
software program whose source code is published and available for inspection and use by
anyone, and is made available under a license agreement that permits recipients to copy,
modify and distribute the programs source code without payment of fees or royalties. All
licenses certified by opensource.org and listed on their website as of 01/11/2005 are Open
Source Software licenses for the purpose of this pledge..
Subject to the exception provided below, and with the intent that developers, users and
distributors of Open Source Software rely on our promise, IBM hereby commits not to
assert any of the 500 U.S. patents listed above, as well as all counterparts of these patents
issued in other countries against the development, use or distribution of Open Source
Software.
In order to foster innovation and avoid the possibility that a party will take advantage of this
pledge and then assert patents or other intellectual property rights of its own against Open Source
Software, thereby limiting the freedom of IBM or any other Open Source Software developer to
create innovative software programs, or the freedom of others to distribute and use Open Source
Software, the commitment not to assert any of these 500 U.S. patents and all counterparts of
these patents issued in other countries is irrevocable except that IBM reserves the right to
terminate this patent pledge and commitment only with regard to any party who files a lawsuit
asserting patents or other intellectual property rights against Open Source Software
There are clear parallel's here between:
a)Guillaume Tena analyzing a piece of software and determined it's insecure.
b)A virus scanner analyzing a piece of software to see if it contains a virus.
Now while Tegam seem to be trying to leverage copyright law into prosecuting Tena it seems fairly clear that it's the actual analysis they don't like and that the copyright issue is the nearest stick they could find.
So on the one hand they think it's legitimate for you to use their software to analyze other software but it isn't something you are allowed to do to their software.
I don't know about that. I'm not sure I'd want my trip to be as dull and controlled as a trip on a 747. These days when you fly somewhere it's about the destination, not about the trip.
Personally I think sitting on the top of a big rocket type thing sounds pretty exciting as travel for travels sake goes. As long as I had a few moments to look down at the earth from a long way away then I think I'd find the destination worthwhile too.
I want real space travel, and that requires being a little harsh on all the marketing that surrounds this.
Yeah, I'm sure it helps a great deal.
Beastie Boys Criterion Collection
on
Top 50 DVDs
·
· Score: 1
This is a great DVD for showing off some of the features of DVD. Multiple different camera views and multiple audio mixes for various tracks. Very nice.
These days you're lucky to get a reply to an email when offering to contribute code to an open source project, let alone someone actually thanking you for going to the effort of making something for others to enjoy.
You do still get nice responses those but at a guess I'd think people are more likely to face email overload today. It's not that people themselves are rude as such, they just get more email than they can cope with satisfactorally.
A good friend of mine works on Linux and it's scary watching him open his mailbox. We're best mates and I don't often get timely responses to emails I send him!
His email is at least fairly focused. I imagine people who work on things that are more user facing (GNOME, KDE etc) must get a whole lot of stuff coming their way...
Israel has heavy private weapon ownership and is hardly short on "righteous" citizens yet is still forced to 'tolerate' terrorism.
Private gun ownership certainly pursuades against certain types of terrorism (hostage taking as an example) and this can be seen in Israel. However it doesn't (and won't) stop terrorism and certainly doesn't stop car bombs and suicide bombings.
Probably the main reason you don't have "retail terrorism" in the USA is because (and this may come as a bit of a shock) there aren't actually that many people out to get you! That is the _only_ credible reason because, as you point out, it would be a piece of piss for anyone so inclined to walk into a school or a hospital etc or park a bomb in front of somewhere popular and make a hell of a mess, regardless private gun ownership.
Re:How Israeli Companies Are Succeeding...
on
Business Under Fire
·
· Score: 1
It didn't say that the US was being hampered, just that Israel couldn't operate as it does without US help. That's undoubtably true.
I was playing trivial pursuit the other day and a question came up asking which country was the recipient of the most US foreign aid. Apparently it's Israel. I found that surprising at first given how desperate some other places in the world are but when you consider what a bloody mess the middle east is (and how much worse it could get if outright war broke out) it's not that surprising.
Beagle is a search tool that ransacks your personal information space to find whatever you're looking for. Beagle can search in many different domains.
Slashdot Mirror
Most theories aren't "provable" nor did the previous poster suggest they are. However they must be testable, as the previous poster said "It needs to be able to be proved wrong". It must make predictions which you can go forward and test.
String theory is certainly a very immature theory but people are working on performing tests which could falsify or further refine the theory.
Similarly people do think up ways of testing and refining evolution .
If the books contents are written so as to imply that evolution is fact then such a sticker is probably appropriate.
If however the book glosses over all theories as fact then the sticker is innappropriate for singling out evolution and a more general sticker (or preferably a different text) would be appropriate.
If no such glossing over is done then the sticker is innappropriate.
Any science book however should teach that theories are there to be challenged by scientific means. Science's strength is that theories can be improved upon or replaced when a demonstrably better (not merely "alternate") theory eventuates.
Science should be proud of it's theories, proud that they represent accumulated knowledge and proud that science is honest enough to let them go if we get something better (not merely "alternate").
Because he is indeed dead. The two other people in the car who were wearing seatbelts aren't....
The sequel is a kicker.
I'd have thought an increase in droughts is climate change rather than a cause or effect of same.
When it rarely gets too hot in my apartment I change the climate by turning on the air conditioning because it makes the climate more suitable for me.
I don't see why humans shouldn't seek to make the global climate better for us. If moving to resist global warming (whether 'natural' or not) helps us make the world a better place for sustaining our life then it sounds like a reasonable idea on the face of it.
Saying "it's been happening from the dawn of time" is stupid. So have tsunamis. So has disease. It remains sensible for us human beings to avoid contact with them where we can. Global warming may not be rushing upon us with such speed as the recent Asian disaster but if it, natural or not, is going to cause us damage it is only sensible to try and minimise that damage.
A patent for patent commons makes sense but "other intellectual property rights" is certainly too vague.
I suppose it makes sense as a counter to vague "Intellectual property" threats similar to SCO's various legal wafflings but it is too wide for "normal". If IBM's patents become a critical part of Linux (or something) then all of a sudden you can't sue IBM for copyright infringement if they take some of your code (maybe available under one Open Source licence) and put it in an open source project under a (different) Open Source licence without risking losing access to Linux?
Not that it's likely but all sides need protection and a concrete understanding.
A friend of mine hacks Linux for IBM and the impression I get is that it is very popular. He's always being sent somewhere or other to install or configure some absurdly large sounding box or other.
It's not anti-free market at all. Patents distort a free market by creating artificial barriers to entry.
Nor are the motives "socialist" or necessarily "magnanimous". IBM's contributions to Linux could hardly be called that because they make them serious money. The revocation clause also buys something serious for IBM. As long as you use Open Source software that employs these IBM patents then you can't sue another Open Source project that IBM may rely on (or created themselves) for using your own patents without risking IBM pulling the rug out from under you.
Releasing these patents (if they are used) buys IBM an additional degree of legal protection/ammunition for the future.
The way the licence is worded (as I understand it anyway) they help protect IBM and other Open Source software. If you use "Open Source software A" with one of IBMs patents in it and decide to leverage your own patents against "Open source software B" then IBM can make life difficult for you by revoking your right to use the patent in software A.
I guess it's a sort of "mutually assured destruction" which should stop discourage people from firing their lawyers off willy nilly.
The only thing I can think of is that strictly speaking such a revocable patent licence of any sort might make it unuseable under the current GPL.
here
There are clear parallel's here between:
a)Guillaume Tena analyzing a piece of software and determined it's insecure.
b)A virus scanner analyzing a piece of software to see if it contains a virus.
Now while Tegam seem to be trying to leverage copyright law into prosecuting Tena it seems fairly clear that it's the actual analysis they don't like and that the copyright issue is the nearest stick they could find.
So on the one hand they think it's legitimate for you to use their software to analyze other software but it isn't something you are allowed to do to their software.
War is peace and freedom is a bullet proof car
Personally I think sitting on the top of a big rocket type thing sounds pretty exciting as travel for travels sake goes. As long as I had a few moments to look down at the earth from a long way away then I think I'd find the destination worthwhile too.Yeah, I'm sure it helps a great deal.
This is a great DVD for showing off some of the features of DVD. Multiple different camera views and multiple audio mixes for various tracks. Very nice.
A good friend of mine works on Linux and it's scary watching him open his mailbox. We're best mates and I don't often get timely responses to emails I send him!
His email is at least fairly focused. I imagine people who work on things that are more user facing (GNOME, KDE etc) must get a whole lot of stuff coming their way...
Power lines are ugly enough without even more crap hanging off them.
Israel has heavy private weapon ownership and is hardly short on "righteous" citizens yet is still forced to 'tolerate' terrorism.
Private gun ownership certainly pursuades against certain types of terrorism (hostage taking as an example) and this can be seen in Israel. However it doesn't (and won't) stop terrorism and certainly doesn't stop car bombs and suicide bombings.
Probably the main reason you don't have "retail terrorism" in the USA is because (and this may come as a bit of a shock) there aren't actually that many people out to get you! That is the _only_ credible reason because, as you point out, it would be a piece of piss for anyone so inclined to walk into a school or a hospital etc or park a bomb in front of somewhere popular and make a hell of a mess, regardless private gun ownership.
It didn't say that the US was being hampered, just that Israel couldn't operate as it does without US help. That's undoubtably true.
I was playing trivial pursuit the other day and a question came up asking which country was the recipient of the most US foreign aid. Apparently it's Israel. I found that surprising at first given how desperate some other places in the world are but when you consider what a bloody mess the middle east is (and how much worse it could get if outright war broke out) it's not that surprising.
Beagle is a search tool that ransacks your personal information space to find whatever you're looking for. Beagle can search in many different domains.
The latest edition of the Beagle newsletter has just been released.
But from looking at the illustration in the article the tires sit in rectangular boxes! That's never going to roll!
Take heart, you aren't the only person this stupid!