printed myself a boarding pass for one of my flights, and couldn't find it in the morning. I knew all of the information (flight #, seat, boarding group), so I took an earlier boarding pass and edited it (the mac doesn't have a printer, so I save things as.pdf files and print them from the PC).
Am I missing something? Every self-printed boarding pass I've ever used had a barcode on it. I sincerely doubt that you were able to forge that, especially since you were lacking the original.
I imagine the parent was modded down for the last sentence. It's too bad, because the second sentence was actually quite insightful. Counterfeiting is in the process. The resulting product may be physically IDENTICAL to the original on which it is based, but that doesn't make it any less counterfeit.
And the previous argument doesn't even take into account the second part of the definition of "counterfeit," which reads on intent -- namely, the intent to commit fraud.
Taking my chain of definitions one step further, what is fraud? According to the thesaurus, fraud is...
An act of cheating
Anyone care to argue that pirating software isn't cheating?
I'm surprised you didn't quote the second definition of "genuine" from Dictionary.com:
Not spurious or counterfeit; authentic.
And the definition of counterfeit?
To make a copy of, usually with the intent to defraud; forge:
Inasmuch as pirated copies of Windows are fraudulent copies, they are NOT genuine. It doesn't take a linguist to understand this. Just goes to show you that claiming authority in a given field doesn't make it so.
Research now ongoing that I am aware of: -- Transponder system to provide electronic relay between severed spinal cord sections. -- Artificial eye that connects to the optic nerve.
Links? I'm especially interested in the artificial eye, since I'm blind in one eye myself. I'm sure there are plenty of other Slashdot readers who would be equally interested in learning more about these projects.
Or should we jump in too, cull the internet, everything, for any evidence of anyone, any group, etc. with even the remotest hint of infringing on something you can claim you own?
They're not just "claiming they own" it -- they have copyrights on the designs. Which means, presumably, that the (C) symbol was to be found somewhere on or near the design. Maybe it was just too small to make out with granny's failing eyesight?
It also goes to show that, if software patents are bad for Microsoft, they should be considered generally as a Bad Thing for the software business in general.
What a crock. That's like saying that because gasoline is bad to sell to pyromaniacs, nobody should ever be sold gasoline.
Here is a diagram to illustrate a view of the world that you might find enlightening:
black---gray---white
Your statement is also a logical fallacy. Here's a series of logic statements to illustrate the problem:
Monkeys have brown hair. Bill Gates has brown hair. Therefore, Bill Gates is a monkey.
Then again, maybe that wasn't the best example for this crowd.
From TFA: "The bulbs come on quickly; their light is bright, white, steady, and silent."
In my experience, the problem with non-traditional lightbulbs isn't that they're weak -- it's that they cast a harsh light. Many people I know would refuse to place even the most efficient light bulb in their living room if they didn't find the light warm and pleasing. When TFA says the light is "white," this makes me think that there is at least one problem remaining to be solved -- though perhaps it would be as simple as using lightly tinted glass for the bulb.
The original research papers still exist. Many of the scientists still exist. Their methods are documented and repeatable (or, if not repeatable, subject to rejection by the scientific community).
In other words, it's the transparency of science that makes itless of a leap of faith. I have the OPTION of conducting a test to confirm the passage of genetic traits from parents to their child. But I have absolutely no way of confirming that Jesus walked on water.
So, to demand that this average citizen believe in evolution is to demand the same leap of faith as for that citizen to believe in creation.
Except that for many of us, there's a HUGE difference between believing the findings of rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific exploration, and believing the (highly interpreted) word of some guys who lived 2000 years ago. "The same leap of faith"? I think not.
I'm a little confused by such a serious reply to a clearly non-serious post... still, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. The fact that two swans don't have the particular strain of virus that people are worried about doesn't seem like much of a factual smack-down, as it were...
No, evolution is based on the notion that one group of creatures evolved from another group of creatures, a notion that is supporpted by tangible evidence such as genetics, the fossil record, etc.
You're referring to the question of the origin of life (i.e. the very first living organism), which is arguably a separate issue from that of evolution.
Slashdot Mirror
So... some people copy copyrighted software, so no software should be copyrighted?
Some people steal cars, too -- should cars be illegal?
Actually, you know what? Some people kill other people. We should make people illegal too, so they can't be killed.
printed myself a boarding pass for one of my flights, and couldn't find it in the morning. I knew all of the information (flight #, seat, boarding group), so I took an earlier boarding pass and edited it (the mac doesn't have a printer, so I save things as .pdf files and print them from the PC).
Am I missing something? Every self-printed boarding pass I've ever used had a barcode on it. I sincerely doubt that you were able to forge that, especially since you were lacking the original.
Except that a "counterfeit" copy of Windows is identical in every conceivable way to a "genuine" copy.
No it isn't. The physical medium wasn't prepared by Microsoft or one of its legitimate manufacturing partners.
Having a fake hundred dollar bill that's identical right down to the fiber doesn't make it any less counterfeit.
I imagine the parent was modded down for the last sentence. It's too bad, because the second sentence was actually quite insightful. Counterfeiting is in the process. The resulting product may be physically IDENTICAL to the original on which it is based, but that doesn't make it any less counterfeit.
And the previous argument doesn't even take into account the second part of the definition of "counterfeit," which reads on intent -- namely, the intent to commit fraud.
Taking my chain of definitions one step further, what is fraud? According to the thesaurus, fraud is...
An act of cheating
Anyone care to argue that pirating software isn't cheating?
I'm surprised you didn't quote the second definition of "genuine" from Dictionary.com:
Not spurious or counterfeit; authentic.
And the definition of counterfeit?
To make a copy of, usually with the intent to defraud; forge:
Inasmuch as pirated copies of Windows are fraudulent copies, they are NOT genuine. It doesn't take a linguist to understand this. Just goes to show you that claiming authority in a given field doesn't make it so.
... and this is what happens when they let the editors of US run Slashdot for a day...
Research now ongoing that I am aware of:
-- Transponder system to provide electronic relay between severed spinal cord sections.
-- Artificial eye that connects to the optic nerve.
Links? I'm especially interested in the artificial eye, since I'm blind in one eye myself. I'm sure there are plenty of other Slashdot readers who would be equally interested in learning more about these projects.
Or should we jump in too, cull the internet, everything, for any evidence of anyone, any group, etc. with even the remotest hint of infringing on something you can claim you own?
They're not just "claiming they own" it -- they have copyrights on the designs. Which means, presumably, that the (C) symbol was to be found somewhere on or near the design. Maybe it was just too small to make out with granny's failing eyesight?
It also goes to show that, if software patents are bad for Microsoft, they should be considered generally as a Bad Thing for the software business in general.
What a crock. That's like saying that because gasoline is bad to sell to pyromaniacs, nobody should ever be sold gasoline.
Here is a diagram to illustrate a view of the world that you might find enlightening:
black---gray---white
Your statement is also a logical fallacy. Here's a series of logic statements to illustrate the problem:
Monkeys have brown hair.
Bill Gates has brown hair.
Therefore, Bill Gates is a monkey.
Then again, maybe that wasn't the best example for this crowd.
I played Deathtrack or Wing Commander till my joysticks wore out - every Leisure Suit Larry
Yeah, I played Leisure Suit Larry until my joystick wore out, too.
If you'd had a quantum computer, perhaps you would have known your blink tags wouldn't work BEFORE you hit the submit button! ;)
From TFA: "The bulbs come on quickly; their light is bright, white, steady, and silent."
In my experience, the problem with non-traditional lightbulbs isn't that they're weak -- it's that they cast a harsh light. Many people I know would refuse to place even the most efficient light bulb in their living room if they didn't find the light warm and pleasing. When TFA says the light is "white," this makes me think that there is at least one problem remaining to be solved -- though perhaps it would be as simple as using lightly tinted glass for the bulb.
So you want all patents gone?
;)
What I really want is a pony. But failing that, I'll settle for people laughing at my jokes.
This just goes to show that software should not be paten... oh. Nevermind.
leaks broke out over the internet
Well, that explains it. I *thought* the Internet was running a bit slow today...
Badware is software that's really good when it's good, but better when it's bad.
Alternatively, badware can refer to software that gets lots of plastic surgery and lives with a monkey.
No, that's more like yanking the power cord from the wall.
Can somebody tell me where to find the Ctrl, Alt, and Delete buttons for my brain???
The original research papers still exist. Many of the scientists still exist. Their methods are documented and repeatable (or, if not repeatable, subject to rejection by the scientific community).
In other words, it's the transparency of science that makes itless of a leap of faith. I have the OPTION of conducting a test to confirm the passage of genetic traits from parents to their child. But I have absolutely no way of confirming that Jesus walked on water.
I'm amused by the ironic lack of apostrophes in your otherwise informative post.
So, to demand that this average citizen believe in evolution is to demand the same leap of faith as for that citizen to believe in creation.
Except that for many of us, there's a HUGE difference between believing the findings of rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific exploration, and believing the (highly interpreted) word of some guys who lived 2000 years ago. "The same leap of faith"? I think not.
I'm a little confused by such a serious reply to a clearly non-serious post... still, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. The fact that two swans don't have the particular strain of virus that people are worried about doesn't seem like much of a factual smack-down, as it were...
Since "Americans" could be singular or plural
I think my brain just exploded.
No, evolution is based on the notion that one group of creatures evolved from another group of creatures, a notion that is supporpted by tangible evidence such as genetics, the fossil record, etc.
You're referring to the question of the origin of life (i.e. the very first living organism), which is arguably a separate issue from that of evolution.
Worrying about Bird Flu is so 2005. ... but that whoooshing sound of a joke flying over someone's head NEVER gets old!