Good thing that people who rant about out of control government are always so reasoned and intellectual about it. They'd never post poorly proofread rants with dubious historical analogies or anything.
Replacing one set of loons with another, even loonier set is not an improvement.
part of those who deny that climate changes naturally.
And the straw men come out in force. I am not aware of anyone sane who denies that there is such a thing a natural climate change. If that's the best you've got, you are even weaker ground.
Interestingly enough, the Heartland Institute used to work for the Phillip Morris to deny that tobacco was a health risk. While this does not make their position automatically invalid, it doesn't help that they've been involved in the past to put profits ahead of scientific fact. Are you unwilling to cast any skepticism toward their positions based on that track record of paid for lies?
I think the real problem is that if humans are causing global warming, it is feared that there is no Libertarian solution to the problem, thus disproving the "markets, markets, uber alles" dogma rather conclusively. Rather than accepting the science and trying to find a solution that is compatible with deeply held political views, it is easier to deny the science. We see the same from the Greens with regard to modern nuclear plants, which are far cleaner suppliers of baseline power overall than the current alternatives.
As long as you recognize that those lows utterly erase the highs. Stallman represents the very example of Churchill's definition of a fanatic: someone who can't change their mind and won't change the subject.
Yes you can, you simply change the law. Patents are not inherent to the organization of the universe, and a compulsory license requirement would be in no way unconstitutional.
Nothing could be farther from his point than your misinterpretation of it. The reasons why I leave as an exercise for the reader of the article. In other words, someone other than you. One hint, you know the author's point is not going to be summed up in an easily tweetable soundbite when midway through one of the paragraphs leads with "BUT the analogy isn’t perfect."
I have never used any Apple server, don't know anybody using them or having used them and I never even heard about them.
Ah yes, the opinion of an Anonymous idiot on the Internet. I should definitely trust that you are the end all and be all of experience on this matter, as I don't know anyone who knows you or knew you and I have never heard of you.
Jimmy Carter all but left us to the Soviets mercy and pretty much every one elses.
Bullshit. Some of us lived through the period. We were never "at the Soviets mercy." You are entitled to your own opinion about the man, but buddy you are not entitled to your own facts, particularly ones that can only be found on films from your last colonoscopy / ear exam. Must be nice to see one specialist for both, however.
The first three manned boosters in the American space program were not designed as man-rated initially: they were all IRBMs (Redstone) or ICBMs (Atlas, Titan) rebuilt to NASA's specifications. Hell, in the original Grumman concept for the SRB assisted Shuttle, the SRBs were not custom made: they were off the shelf Minuteman IIIs to save money. The Soviets similarly used military hardware for most of their early program.
Slashdot Mirror
Then what, pray tell, are you doing here?
I was agreeing with you. My "idiocy" remark was about the parent comment.
So you are stating that you think the researchers and peer reviewers at the NCI would not vet such an elementary statistical mistake?
Came here to say this. This is the equivalent of people saying they don't want chemicals in their food. Utter and complete idiocy.
Dude, whatever the dosage is, cut it in half. It's seriously warping your perceptions and making you act like an ass in public.
Or L'Oréal?
Show me a reasoned argument and I'll respond in kind. This crap is the sort of thing I hear from people pushing shopping carts around on the street.
Good thing that people who rant about out of control government are always so reasoned and intellectual about it. They'd never post poorly proofread rants with dubious historical analogies or anything.
Replacing one set of loons with another, even loonier set is not an improvement.
Or an American built VW Rabbit.
And tmosely wanders in and proves my point. Thanks buddy!
And the straw men come out in force. I am not aware of anyone sane who denies that there is such a thing a natural climate change. If that's the best you've got, you are even weaker ground.
Interestingly enough, the Heartland Institute used to work for the Phillip Morris to deny that tobacco was a health risk. While this does not make their position automatically invalid, it doesn't help that they've been involved in the past to put profits ahead of scientific fact. Are you unwilling to cast any skepticism toward their positions based on that track record of paid for lies?
I think the real problem is that if humans are causing global warming, it is feared that there is no Libertarian solution to the problem, thus disproving the "markets, markets, uber alles" dogma rather conclusively. Rather than accepting the science and trying to find a solution that is compatible with deeply held political views, it is easier to deny the science. We see the same from the Greens with regard to modern nuclear plants, which are far cleaner suppliers of baseline power overall than the current alternatives.
As long as you recognize that those lows utterly erase the highs. Stallman represents the very example of Churchill's definition of a fanatic: someone who can't change their mind and won't change the subject.
Well the other alternative is to Cage the criminals, and that is expensive.
Considering Mr. Stallman's history of placing nothing in anything less than a black and white context, why should we be extending him the courtesy?
The power to grant copyrights and trademarks, and therefore to establish the conditions pertaining to them, is right there in the damn document.
Steve?
Yes you can, you simply change the law. Patents are not inherent to the organization of the universe, and a compulsory license requirement would be in no way unconstitutional.
Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility
Nothing could be farther from his point than your misinterpretation of it. The reasons why I leave as an exercise for the reader of the article. In other words, someone other than you. One hint, you know the author's point is not going to be summed up in an easily tweetable soundbite when midway through one of the paragraphs leads with "BUT the analogy isn’t perfect."
Ah yes, the opinion of an Anonymous idiot on the Internet. I should definitely trust that you are the end all and be all of experience on this matter, as I don't know anyone who knows you or knew you and I have never heard of you.
This is Slashdot. That goes without saying.
Bullshit. Some of us lived through the period. We were never "at the Soviets mercy." You are entitled to your own opinion about the man, but buddy you are not entitled to your own facts, particularly ones that can only be found on films from your last colonoscopy / ear exam. Must be nice to see one specialist for both, however.
Am I the only one here who can't read those words without setting them to music? Damn you Schoolhouse Rock!
The first three manned boosters in the American space program were not designed as man-rated initially: they were all IRBMs (Redstone) or ICBMs (Atlas, Titan) rebuilt to NASA's specifications. Hell, in the original Grumman concept for the SRB assisted Shuttle, the SRBs were not custom made: they were off the shelf Minuteman IIIs to save money. The Soviets similarly used military hardware for most of their early program.
And you have the audacity to call others idiots when you don't have a clue about US History? Hawaii was the last state admitted to the Union, in 1959.