1).... Another way is to say that they fall up to local discretion.....
Why not leave the whole issue up to local discretion?
2) Gee... how feasible is trying to eliminate crime. oh, it's impossible, I guess we should get rid of the legal system then. WRONG! You do the best you can and you try to get better at it.
More like "let's detain everyone who looks suspicious. Who cares if most of them are innocent, we'll still cut down on crime, right?" Oh wait, we actually do that.
Well, I guess that the constitution really isn't worth much these days anyways. Remind me again why public-school students have no First Amendment rights?
Also, check out this page. It's much more general (replies to stuff that wasn't brought up in the Fox special).
Actually, while your at it, check out this site, which reveals that the existence of the moon itself is just a conspiracy! (Yes, it's a spoof).
Re:Pro GPL people with mod points are delusional.
on
xMach GPL Free
·
· Score: 2
Well, you're right about the pro-GPL slant of slashdot. I really don't have anything against the BSD license, but it really has a different function from the GPL. I use both of them for different projects.
I agree that the actual text of the GPL is somewhat complex, but the gist of the GPL can be summarized quite succinctly: "You can use this program for anything you want. If you distribute it you must also distribute the source code. If you distribute modified copies of this program, the modified copy must also fall under this license."
The complexities mostly come in in defining in which circumstances GPL'ed software can be used with proprietary software. For people that exclusively write free software, this doesn't become an issue. For the others, well, remember that part of the purpose of the GPL is to motivate people to write free software;-)
Re:Pro GPL people are delusional.
on
xMach GPL Free
·
· Score: 3
If the GPL is so well understood, then why did Corel have 2 brushes with GPL violations? How about the Virgin Webplayer? Or AMD's latest hammer emulator?
Because these are companies whose business in is proprietary software, and the whole concept of free software is new to them.
At any rate, the GPL is, for the most part, internally consistent and complete, and can therefor be fully understood without referring to very much external documentation. The concept is really not very complicated at all. Really, it only gets complicated if you are looking for some loophole to break the spirit of it, without breaking the letter.
Well, if you're actually paying 39% of your salary in federal income taxes, you must have a very bad accountant/tax planner/whatever. Obviously I don't know your situation, but before you even get into the more creative (but legal) means of sheltering your income, you certainly must have some decent deductions: do you have no dependants? Do you have a mortgage? If you're self employed or own your own business there's tons of stuff you can deduct/depreciate.
I also might add that you make approximately double the median income of a 4-person family in the U.S., so relatively speaking, you are rich.
Wait a second. Who said anything about abolishing copyrights? The GPL relies on copyrights to do its work. Take away copyright and you lose the GPL. Contrast this with the BSDL. Since the BSDL essentially has no limitations, BSD software would remain basically unaffected in the absence of copyright.
Also, I don't understand what you mean by "Is the central theme of the FSF user ownership of software? Yes." I don't see what the FSF or the GPL have to do with ownership of software. Care to explain?
Oh yeah, I hadn't thought about that. You're probably right. Well, maybe more people will have their own SSL servers now that the RSA patent is over.
I'm still surprised that anyone would actually ship stuff that was ordered this way. I can picture someone now -- "hmmm.... I know we usually charge $800 for these, but this order just says $25. Well, I guess the computer knows better.... let's ship it!"
You don't need to upload a page to their site. You just need to make an HTML page with a form that submits to their server.
This is really such an obvious problem, I can't believe that anyone would be stupid enough to code their application to accept a clients version of the price. I wonder if most of these problems are caused by one or two widely used but badly designed programs?
''Up until a few years ago, nobody knew this painting existed,'' said physics and astronomy professor Donald Olson, who led the field trip. ''Now we've solved all the questions about it. We used to know nothing about it, and now we know virtually everything.''
It seems to me that the answered the time and date that it was painted, and from that obviously you can fit it into Van Gogh's biography to know what else was happening in his life around that time. Nevertheless, it seems a little arrogant to claim that you know everything about a painting. I mean, there are psychological factors that we can never really understand -- particularly in a painter like Van Gogh.
Of course I don't take the bible literally. But the people to whom I'm responding do take the bible literally, for the most part, except when they don't, and there's no method to their reasoning. Remember that I'm responding to a guy who claimed that the bible states that the earth is spherical. I'm just pointing out that it really doesn't. At best (if you believe that all these references are analogies) it has no position one way or the other on the issue. I actually believe that, but I also believe that the writers' beliefs come through in subtle ways, and it is possible to reconstruct some aspects of their world view. In my opinion, it seems fairly likely that the writers of the bible thought the earth was flat.
Of course even if they didn't it doesn't prove the divine inspiration of the bible, as it is very probable that people knew the earth was spherical before the bible was written.
There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell.
really doesn't prove that whoever wrote the bible knew the earth was spherical. In fact, if this translation is to be believed, they thought it was flat -- just like a circle. There are some who argue that the hebrew word used can also be translated as sphere, though it seems clear by the imagery used that a circle is meant -- if a sphere were meant they probably wouldn't have referred to the heavens as being spread out like a tent.
At any rate, there are plenty of other passages that clearly imply that the writer(s) of the bible believed the earth was flat. Check out Daniel 4:10-11:
Now the visions of my head upon my bed I happened to be beholding, and, look! a tree in the midst of the earth, the height of which was immense. The tree grew up and became strong, and its very height finally reached the heavens, and it was visible to the extremity of the whole earth.
and Matthew 4:8:
Again the Devil took him along to an unusually high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.
In order for a tree to be visible "to the extremity of the whole earth" in the first passage, or to be able to see "all the kingdoms of the world" in the second, the world would have to be flat.
God, how many times have I heard the argument "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" Well, actually I've heard it as an actual question, which I think is completely legitimate, but otherwise is such a spurious argument...
See this article in Scientific American (from 1996). Yes, there is such a thing as Ice-9 (actually Ice-IX), but it doesn't have the properties of the substance in the Vonnegut book.
I don't think there's much value to MS in the marathon engine, being about 2 generations out of date now. There may still be value in the Marathon franchise (artwork, plot, etc. etc.), but they still retain copyright on that.
Re:Unions are a Two-Edged Sword
on
The Jungle
·
· Score: 2
In all fairness, the movie production unions are no longer like this, and haven't been for some time. While there are a number of aparently silly rules still on the books, they mostly haven't been enforced for many years, as filmmaking has become to be seen as an art in addition to a industrial enterprise.
It is also much easier to join the unions than it once was, and the decision on whether to join or not comes down largely to a matter of where you live -- if you live in New York or LA and you want to work on productions with a decent budget, you'd better join the union.
This is also an industry where being in the union brings significant benefits beyond the pension. Movie making is a dangerous profession, with working days of 14 hours not uncommon. Union rules about hours and turn-around time (the number of hours required between wrapping one day and starting again the next) save lives.
Yeah this sucks. Most people (including me;-) no longer use HTTP authentication for security critical applications for this (and a other) reason -- much better to write your own auth (or use a library) as part of your session management. That way you can simulate a stateful connection reasonably well.
Oh, another thing that pisses me off about IE on the Mac (probably most other browsers as well, but I'm running into this now on Mac IE5.0) -- why the hell can't I use the standard editing conventions for my platform in a TEXTAREA? There's no way to move a word or paragraph at a time (like option or command arrow...)
Slashdot Mirror
DMCA = Digital Millenium Copyright Act
Oh, I see.... [backing away]....
Well, I'm not getting involved in that debate right now....
Just out of curiosity, is your sig a joke?
Why not leave the whole issue up to local discretion?
More like "let's detain everyone who looks suspicious. Who cares if most of them are innocent, we'll still cut down on crime, right?" Oh wait, we actually do that.
Well, I guess that the constitution really isn't worth much these days anyways. Remind me again why public-school students have no First Amendment rights?
Also, check out this page. It's much more general (replies to stuff that wasn't brought up in the Fox special).
Actually, while your at it, check out this site, which reveals that the existence of the moon itself is just a conspiracy! (Yes, it's a spoof).
Well, you're right about the pro-GPL slant of slashdot. I really don't have anything against the BSD license, but it really has a different function from the GPL. I use both of them for different projects.
;-)
I agree that the actual text of the GPL is somewhat complex, but the gist of the GPL can be summarized quite succinctly: "You can use this program for anything you want. If you distribute it you must also distribute the source code. If you distribute modified copies of this program, the modified copy must also fall under this license."
The complexities mostly come in in defining in which circumstances GPL'ed software can be used with proprietary software. For people that exclusively write free software, this doesn't become an issue. For the others, well, remember that part of the purpose of the GPL is to motivate people to write free software
Because these are companies whose business in is proprietary software, and the whole concept of free software is new to them.
At any rate, the GPL is, for the most part, internally consistent and complete, and can therefor be fully understood without referring to very much external documentation. The concept is really not very complicated at all. Really, it only gets complicated if you are looking for some loophole to break the spirit of it, without breaking the letter.
Well, if you're actually paying 39% of your salary in federal income taxes, you must have a very bad accountant/tax planner/whatever. Obviously I don't know your situation, but before you even get into the more creative (but legal) means of sheltering your income, you certainly must have some decent deductions: do you have no dependants? Do you have a mortgage? If you're self employed or own your own business there's tons of stuff you can deduct/depreciate.
I also might add that you make approximately double the median income of a 4-person family in the U.S., so relatively speaking, you are rich.
That's not what you said before. Well, actually it is what you said before, but with different interpretation, perhaps.
Man, I wasted 5 minutes writing a response to this before I got to the end a realized it was a troll!
are on more crack than usual today. How the hell was that off topic?
Wait a second. Who said anything about abolishing copyrights? The GPL relies on copyrights to do its work. Take away copyright and you lose the GPL. Contrast this with the BSDL. Since the BSDL essentially has no limitations, BSD software would remain basically unaffected in the absence of copyright.
Also, I don't understand what you mean by "Is the central theme of the FSF user ownership of software? Yes." I don't see what the FSF or the GPL have to do with ownership of software. Care to explain?
Oh yeah, I hadn't thought about that. You're probably right. Well, maybe more people will have their own SSL servers now that the RSA patent is over.
I'm still surprised that anyone would actually ship stuff that was ordered this way. I can picture someone now -- "hmmm.... I know we usually charge $800 for these, but this order just says $25. Well, I guess the computer knows better.... let's ship it!"
You don't need to upload a page to their site. You just need to make an HTML page with a form that submits to their server.
This is really such an obvious problem, I can't believe that anyone would be stupid enough to code their application to accept a clients version of the price. I wonder if most of these problems are caused by one or two widely used but badly designed programs?
Here's a picture of the original Tucker telephone: http://www.state.ar.us/doc/images/gal28.jpg (interestingly enough on the Arkansas Dept. of Corrections' own web site.)
It seems to me that the answered the time and date that it was painted, and from that obviously you can fit it into Van Gogh's biography to know what else was happening in his life around that time. Nevertheless, it seems a little arrogant to claim that you know everything about a painting. I mean, there are psychological factors that we can never really understand -- particularly in a painter like Van Gogh.
Yes.
Yes it does.
Of course I don't take the bible literally. But the people to whom I'm responding do take the bible literally, for the most part, except when they don't, and there's no method to their reasoning. Remember that I'm responding to a guy who claimed that the bible states that the earth is spherical. I'm just pointing out that it really doesn't. At best (if you believe that all these references are analogies) it has no position one way or the other on the issue. I actually believe that, but I also believe that the writers' beliefs come through in subtle ways, and it is possible to reconstruct some aspects of their world view. In my opinion, it seems fairly likely that the writers of the bible thought the earth was flat.
Of course even if they didn't it doesn't prove the divine inspiration of the bible, as it is very probable that people knew the earth was spherical before the bible was written.
really doesn't prove that whoever wrote the bible knew the earth was spherical. In fact, if this translation is to be believed, they thought it was flat -- just like a circle. There are some who argue that the hebrew word used can also be translated as sphere, though it seems clear by the imagery used that a circle is meant -- if a sphere were meant they probably wouldn't have referred to the heavens as being spread out like a tent.
At any rate, there are plenty of other passages that clearly imply that the writer(s) of the bible believed the earth was flat. Check out Daniel 4:10-11:
and Matthew 4:8:
In order for a tree to be visible "to the extremity of the whole earth" in the first passage, or to be able to see "all the kingdoms of the world" in the second, the world would have to be flat.
So if you're not a creationist, and you don't believe in evolution, just out of curiosity, what do you believe?
God, how many times have I heard the argument "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" Well, actually I've heard it as an actual question, which I think is completely legitimate, but otherwise is such a spurious argument...
See this article in Scientific American (from 1996). Yes, there is such a thing as Ice-9 (actually Ice-IX), but it doesn't have the properties of the substance in the Vonnegut book.
I don't think there's much value to MS in the marathon engine, being about 2 generations out of date now. There may still be value in the Marathon franchise (artwork, plot, etc. etc.), but they still retain copyright on that.
In all fairness, the movie production unions are no longer like this, and haven't been for some time. While there are a number of aparently silly rules still on the books, they mostly haven't been enforced for many years, as filmmaking has become to be seen as an art in addition to a industrial enterprise.
It is also much easier to join the unions than it once was, and the decision on whether to join or not comes down largely to a matter of where you live -- if you live in New York or LA and you want to work on productions with a decent budget, you'd better join the union.
This is also an industry where being in the union brings significant benefits beyond the pension. Movie making is a dangerous profession, with working days of 14 hours not uncommon. Union rules about hours and turn-around time (the number of hours required between wrapping one day and starting again the next) save lives.
Yeah this sucks. Most people (including me ;-) no longer use HTTP authentication for security critical applications for this (and a other) reason -- much better to write your own auth (or use a library) as part of your session management. That way you can simulate a stateful connection reasonably well.
Oh, another thing that pisses me off about IE on the Mac (probably most other browsers as well, but I'm running into this now on Mac IE5.0) -- why the hell can't I use the standard editing conventions for my platform in a TEXTAREA? There's no way to move a word or paragraph at a time (like option or command arrow...)
Oh well....