a) Fraud is a criminal offence, prosecuted by some representative of "the people". Breaches of contracts are not criminal acts, they are not even "illegal", but each side may sue the other under civil law to have the terms of the contract enforced and/or redress.
I.e. you seem confused about law, and appear to be mixing up different parts of it.
(At least, above is generally true in English jurisprudence and its derivatives, such as Canada, Ireland, the USA, etc.. - approaching half the world.).
b) Casinos in the past *have* retained winnings of customers who "cheated", and the *customer* sued and *won*. In both the UK and in Spain (well, i didn't read who sued who in the spanish case, but the Casino lost either way).
c) UK courts have ruled that using skill, without influencing the game in any way, is *not* cheating.
d) If you'd read the article, it covers why the UK super-casinos are not keen on overbearing measures, such as contracts, to try counter "clever players" - it would do them more harm than good. Would you gamble large amounts of money if the Casino made you sign a contract to say it could arbitrarily not pay you if you won?
When will slashdot learn that US jurisprudence (or common practice), particularly region-specific in a region uncommonly beholden to some industry, has 0 bearing on the rest of the world? Particularly when the story is about *some other part of the world*???
You UKians and your daft, archaic measures. When are you going to switch? (Ireland switched speed limits and posted signs the other year from mph kph).
Despite all the blather in this thread, Opteron are SMP machines, by general definitions anyway. Many of the posters in other threads appear to be confused between AMP and ccNUMA.
because they're the environments I'm the most productive in
Ditto.
If you have a binary-only-driver video card: How much time do you spend fooling around with trying to get your binary-only to work again after software updates? (E.g. kernel).
If you have older hardware or intel integrated video: How do you feel about the lack of choice?
Ever since day one there have been manufacturer's that release zero documentation for their hardware,
Well, at least since that printer that Stallman encountered.;)
Basically, in the past the response from the community was "fine, you don't want to give us the info, we'll figure it out ourselves".
I don't think that's true though. In the past, most manufacturers would give documentation. Even where a manufacturer would not, there were always at least 3+ other manufacturers with parts of equivalent function. Most of the major graphics manufacturers gave out documentation (some willingly, some more reluctantly). I have the documentation here somewhere for my old Matrox MGA1064W, and even NVidia used to provide documentation.
What has changed is the consolidation in the industry, there are very few manufacturers anymore, only of whom is enlightened (and even so, they don't make cards for general use - only integrated graphics for their own CPU).
The other thing that has changed is that most users no long care a jot about documentation, as long as they have their binary only drivers they'll pay and say nothing. That's the sad part IMHO.
I've been in the linux world since 1993 (yes, that's right, over 13 years now).
Ah, well I'm a newbie in comparison. Using Unix and Linux for just over 10 years.
The fact that I've been around the linux community significantly longer than most of the people on here is probably why I don't see closed source as the great big evil people seem to play it up as.
This has nothing to do with closed source being evil.
I don't have a problem per se with closed source. People are free to run what they like, where they like, when they like - within the confines of licensing, I have no problem with it, I'll even make use of it myself. Typically, there are always open alternatives to closed software, where the software is there to achieve some mildly common purpose. And if there is not, people are still free to do so (modulo patents).
Hardware is a different ball game. It isn't that binary drivers are bad, not at all - run them if you like, regardless of availability of open drivers, knock yourself out. It's the lack of documentation. It makes it impossible to write those open drivers. What's galling is all those users who are perfectly happy to completely forget about documentation as long as they get their binary drivers, who are essentially rewarding these manufacturers with their wallets and reducing the chances significantly of open drivers being written.
It's not about closed source == evil (not at all) - it's about short-sighted behaviour on part of many users conspiring (economically at least) to deprive *all* of us of the prospect of open drivers.
Yep. A PCI Radeon 9250 in a 533MHz Miata (the later revision backplane too - without the PCI bridge problems). Works a charm - 3D works too:).
As for selling it, well I said I "have" it, not own it. Technically it belongs to someone else, but I doubt they'd want it back. It's not actually being used at the moment, as the disk died a while ago and I havn't yet gotten around to throwing in a new one.
YOU demand documentation for your other free *nixen and your mainstream platforms.
Right - cause they don't make any difference to your chosen platform, do they? Except that 99% of graphics work on Unix platforms is done in userspace, in Mesa and Xorg code, so work done by FreeBSD, Sun, etc.. engineers also tends to apply to your Linux machines (and vice versa).
You're simply an ignoramus: you're using a system (only parts of which are either Linux or Linux specific) which tens of thousands of people have donated to by way of their time and expertise and you're completely ignorant of the dynamics behind why those people did so. You'd be quite happy to kill the "golden goose" for the sake of short-term benefit simply cause you're clueless of the reasons why that stable and free system you use exists. Saddest of all, in your ignorance you don't even realise you're doing so.
I bet if ATI was putting out first rate drivers it might influence quite a few purchases in that direction
Sigh. This detrimentally short-sighted acceptance of binary-only drivers that users like you have is precisely why there are no good drivers for recent ATi hardware, or most recent graphics besides Intel. And until users like yourself start demanding that vendors provide documentation, not binary blobs, graphics support will continue to suck.
Binary drivers kill kittens (thanks airlied for that one). They don't help if you run other free Unixen, they don't help if you use a non-mainstream platform (e.g. PPC, AMD64 up until recently, it doesn't help the Radeon in the Alpha I have here).
Demand DOCUMENTATION - even if it's gibberish to you personally, it's will benefit you far more than binary blobs eventually...
The X.org drivers do support 3D, and quite well, on the older R100 and R200 cards. R300/400 are also supported for 3D, but those have needed extensive reverse engineering, and hence are not quite as mature (though, getting there apparently), also they have only really reverse engineered the equivalent of the R200 feature set, so they're not getting the most out of the cards - all thanks to ATis silly attitude about supplying documentation.
Actually, the X.org drivers for ATis are probably the best out there. The problem is they lack support for recent ATi hardware (lacking good 3D support for vaguely recent, e.g. R300 and up, though it's getting there apparently, and completely lacking any support 2D or 3D, for the most recent R500 hardware), as ATi havn't made documentation available in a *long* time.
If you meant ATis' own drivers, yeah, they suck. But really, if ATi just made docs available, the much better X.org drivers would be able to support far more of their hardware..
If the rumour is truee, I hope AMD care about open drivers..
I couldn't tell from the pictures how the enclosures worked, either; handles didn't seem evident.
They pop-up partially out of the bay. You then slide the bare drive in or out of the protruding enclosure - the disk cage/enclosure is actually part of the drive bay.
If they could manage to integrate the data cable
No cables. It uses a backplane with standard SATA+power connectors, the normal way for hot-swap drive bays.
The tribes I'm talking about are extremely xenophobic.
Interesting, the one in the documentary I saw were too, or at least, they were extremely territorial. Yet, they had a meeting with another tribe in order to make peace (had been a long-standing feud, even some killings in previous clashes, iirc).
Their culture is extremely exclusive. I see no reason to believe in the "possibility" of their interbreeding just because our own culture makes that possible. Theirs does not, unless I learn otherwise.
For me, there are two things wrong with the reasoning in this paragraph:
1. You are assuming inter-breeding between populations is a cultural phenomenom peculiar to (say) western people. But inter-breeding a biological *neccessity*, shared not just among humans but all sexually reproducing animals. It should be fairly obvious that small populations, no matter how xenophobic, *need* to at least *occasionally* inter-breed with other populations to avoid dying out completely.
2. You are assuming that individual behaviour is bounded by the social norm. This is clearly wrong. Just because the social norms of some tribe are highly xenophobic and eschew external contact, it does not restrict individuals behaviour. (Especially younger individuals, who can be more curious and 'foolhardy' - particularly where social norms are heavily influenced by older, more conservative members of the population, such as tribal elders).
The original paper would be interesting to read for such bias. I'd like to read some peer reviews which critique its statistical premise. But the article linked to neither.
Well, (joking - no offence intended) you apparently were too busy looking for the hidden creationist agenda, which no one else saw it seems (I thought it was a good pop-science article on how statistics, networking theory and computer modelling can provide rather unexpected and interesting insights into connectedness of the human population), to notice they mentioned the book, Mapping Human History right near the beginning. He's a journalist though it seems, not a scientist. The work may have done by the DCU computer scientist, Mark Humphrys quoted in the same AP article, as this article more clearly suggests. I'd love to read a paper too, can't find one, but Dr. Humphrys has some articles on his site at least it seems.
Note that even if some Amazonian tribes have indeed been fully disconnected genetically from humanity for the last 600 years, that the conclusion instead becomes "we all, except for some statistically insignificant disconnected populations, share a common ancestor from as little as 2k years ago", which remains an interesting thought.
There is a large, well-funded theocrat movement at work in America today, priotitizing science in the media for subversion.
That's a great reason to start attacking one of the better-writen pop *science* articles, isn't it?:). FWIW, if the actual work was done (in part) by a DCU scientist, the (waning, thankfully) vested theocratic movement (Catholic and Anglican churches) over here at least strongly support the scientific method and evolutionary theories arising from it.
Most have just argued with me without logic, just defensively against the idea that theocrats have gotten so far in the media.
Most of those arguing this line with you, to my reading, have been trying to highlight the lack of evidence in the article to support your notion it's some kind of subtle pro-creationism piece. I'm wondering did you somehow read a different article to the rest of us.:)
Try forgetting about BushCo, Rove and the creationist nutters for ten minutes and reading the article again. You might find the interesting and enjoyable pop-sci article the rest of us read.
And yet we know about them, so they've not been perfectly isolated at least. Which means it is quite possible that some individuals, despite any tribal norms, inter-bred with europeans, by choice or otherwise. Never mind inter-breeding with other tribes.
Yes, my knowledge of amazonian tribes is virtually non-existent, I admit. What little I know is from a recentish documentary (unfortunately I forget) of a man who spent quite some time (I think at least several months) with a deep-amazon tribe. Things I remember:
a) Promiscuity was socially acceptable and the norm b) Contact with other tribes was indeed uncommon and avoided, however to settle feuds, meetings were held between them when absolutely required. (and see a). c) Some individuals had left tribe life, for the more 'modern' life (this was how the documentary maker managed to introduce himself IIRC), but still maintained contact.
Extrapolate backward over several hundred years.
There's just no reason to think that these Amazonian tribes, contrary to all other known overlapping human societies, did not have some inter-breeding. Societal norms are one thing, individual desires and happen-stance are another. I.e. to my thinking, the claim that no inter-breeding could have occured is the extra-ordinary one and demands the additional burden of proof.
Finally, I note that in this debate your comments seem to be tinged/side-tracked due to a pre-occupation with creationism and religion. You seem opposed to the (mostly) mathematical postulate more because of (not immediately relevant) concerns about what creationists might do with it, than with the the idea itself. I don't say this to offend, rather because my memory is that your comments here usually are well-reasoned and/or insightful and I was surprised by the general position of some of your comments to this article.
because Civil War is exactly what most political scientists expected would happen.
Not because of any factor inherent to Iraq or Sunnis and Shia. Rather, because civil war is not uncommon after the downfall of a ruling regime, where factions struggle between each other for dominance and to create the next regime. The phrase "power vacuum" comes to mind.
But when they don't bother to explain how isolated populations
And exactly how many perfectly isolated populations of humans are there in the universe?
like deep Amazonian tribes
The Spanish and Portuguese have been all over that continent for, what, approaching 500 years? And the Amazonian aboriginal peoples themselves are mobile between populations.
Nice try, but there's been 200 years+ of white, asian, etc.. immigration into Australia so even for once highly isolated populations like Australian aboriginals, their current population still likely is inter-connected.
The two most populous nations in the world and seven of the top 10 have no representation in Germany this World Cup
That would be because they didn't qualify for the finals.
All countries are first drawn into qualifying groups within their supra-regional-FA (e.g. UEFA for Europe). Group winners (and/some/ 2nd placers, depending on the number of finals places that regional-FA has) then qualify for the finals. The 32 countries at the finals therefore are the 'best' from each supra-region.
From the UEFA zone, the notable 'failed to qualify for the finals' countries were Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Ireland and Greece (all of which have had some successes at previous World Cup finals, and/or at European Cup finals).
The event being held in Germany over the next month is the culmination of nearly 2 years of international football, between *all* nations (that have a FIFA recognised national FA at least).
Notes:
- FA = Football Association (in general terms. E.g. the FAI is the Rep. of Ireland. UEFA is the conglomerate body, to which all European FAs are associated and which in turn governs them. FIFA, to which all the supra-regional FA-conglomerates are associated. Not to be confused with "The FA", which is the english FA, which don't have their country in the name of their FA, as they were the first.)
- Football: The game, involving a ball (that means spherical;) ), played with the feet, hence "football".
The word "soccer", deriving from "'socca", deriving from the "association" in "association football", referring to football as it was governed by the english FA, is used only by those who play/follow sports derived from football. Initially used by Rugby football followers (a game played with a non-ball shaped "ball", mostly with the hands), then also used by followers of Gaelic football and hence also used by followers of their derivatives (such as Rugby League, American Football or Australian Rules football (which is a mix between Rugby and Gaelic football)).
Serious use of the word "soccer" immediately identifies the user as being a football heathen.;)
The argument against mine was that the FAQ clarified this, which I found laughable.
It's not laughable though, in english jurisprudence, because of estoppel.
Sun can not first tell you "Well, look, we think that that interpretation of the licence, which we wrote, which tries to claim ABC might not be allowed, isn't valid. That interpretation definitely is not what we intended. What we intended was XYZ, which you means it is perfectly ok for you to do ABC.", and then later sue for having done ABC.
Let's get some perspective here. Sun-jre is *not* in Debian main, it's in non-free. The clauses which people are *so* concerned with are clauses present even in licences of software in *main*. Even if we presume the concerns raised are valid, well Sun have not only stated it doesn't think the concerns raised are a problem but also barred themselves from "making use of" the problematic interpretations in doing so.
So the "problem" seems to be an emotive one, because it involves Sun and/or Java.
Slashdot Mirror
You're missing some salient facts:
a) Fraud is a criminal offence, prosecuted by some representative of "the people". Breaches of contracts are not criminal acts, they are not even "illegal", but each side may sue the other under civil law to have the terms of the contract enforced and/or redress.
I.e. you seem confused about law, and appear to be mixing up different parts of it.
(At least, above is generally true in English jurisprudence and its derivatives, such as Canada, Ireland, the USA, etc.. - approaching half the world.).
b) Casinos in the past *have* retained winnings of customers who "cheated", and the *customer* sued and *won*. In both the UK and in Spain (well, i didn't read who sued who in the spanish case, but the Casino lost either way).
c) UK courts have ruled that using skill, without influencing the game in any way, is *not* cheating.
d) If you'd read the article, it covers why the UK super-casinos are not keen on overbearing measures, such as contracts, to try counter "clever players" - it would do them more harm than good. Would you gamble large amounts of money if the Casino made you sign a contract to say it could arbitrarily not pay you if you won?
When will slashdot learn that US jurisprudence (or common practice), particularly region-specific in a region uncommonly beholden to some industry, has 0 bearing on the rest of the world? Particularly when the story is about *some other part of the world*???
I'm still waiting for opensolaris' complete sources to go through
See cvs.opensolaris.org. Every bit that Sun can release has been released.
Australian film called "The Castle"
:).
Excellent film! Ever since "How do you do it?" still regularly rings around the table whenever the family sit down to a meal cooked by my mother
120km/h more like ;).
You UKians and your daft, archaic measures. When are you going to switch? (Ireland switched speed limits and posted signs the other year from mph kph).
Despite all the blather in this thread, Opteron are SMP machines, by general definitions anyway. Many of the posters in other threads appear to be confused between AMP and ccNUMA.
I just bought a Dell D420 with a U2500 1.2GHz Core Duo. Battery life is just over 3 hours, if you turn down brightness and fix CPUs to 800MHz.
Care to show me a 3-way SMP system, with similar processors ?
Upgrade one CPU in a two single-core SMP machine to a dual-core. (Quite possible with Opterons).
--paulj
because they're the environments I'm the most productive in
Ditto.
If you have a binary-only-driver video card: How much time do you spend fooling around with trying to get your binary-only to work again after software updates? (E.g. kernel).
If you have older hardware or intel integrated video: How do you feel about the lack of choice?
Ever since day one there have been manufacturer's that release zero documentation for their hardware,
;)
Well, at least since that printer that Stallman encountered.
Basically, in the past the response from the community was "fine, you don't want to give us the info, we'll figure it out ourselves".
I don't think that's true though. In the past, most manufacturers would give documentation. Even where a manufacturer would not, there were always at least 3+ other manufacturers with parts of equivalent function. Most of the major graphics manufacturers gave out documentation (some willingly, some more reluctantly). I have the documentation here somewhere for my old Matrox MGA1064W, and even NVidia used to provide documentation.
What has changed is the consolidation in the industry, there are very few manufacturers anymore, only of whom is enlightened (and even so, they don't make cards for general use - only integrated graphics for their own CPU).
The other thing that has changed is that most users no long care a jot about documentation, as long as they have their binary only drivers they'll pay and say nothing. That's the sad part IMHO.
I've been in the linux world since 1993 (yes, that's right, over 13 years now).
Ah, well I'm a newbie in comparison. Using Unix and Linux for just over 10 years.
The fact that I've been around the linux community significantly longer than most of the people on here is probably why I don't see closed source as the great big evil people seem to play it up as.
This has nothing to do with closed source being evil.
I don't have a problem per se with closed source. People are free to run what they like, where they like, when they like - within the confines of licensing, I have no problem with it, I'll even make use of it myself. Typically, there are always open alternatives to closed software, where the software is there to achieve some mildly common purpose. And if there is not, people are still free to do so (modulo patents).
Hardware is a different ball game. It isn't that binary drivers are bad, not at all - run them if you like, regardless of availability of open drivers, knock yourself out. It's the lack of documentation. It makes it impossible to write those open drivers. What's galling is all those users who are perfectly happy to completely forget about documentation as long as they get their binary drivers, who are essentially rewarding these manufacturers with their wallets and reducing the chances significantly of open drivers being written.
It's not about closed source == evil (not at all) - it's about short-sighted behaviour on part of many users conspiring (economically at least) to deprive *all* of us of the prospect of open drivers.
Yep. A PCI Radeon 9250 in a 533MHz Miata (the later revision backplane too - without the PCI bridge problems). Works a charm - 3D works too :).
As for selling it, well I said I "have" it, not own it. Technically it belongs to someone else, but I doubt they'd want it back. It's not actually being used at the moment, as the disk died a while ago and I havn't yet gotten around to throwing in a new one.
YOU demand documentation for your other free *nixen and your mainstream platforms.
Right - cause they don't make any difference to your chosen platform, do they? Except that 99% of graphics work on Unix platforms is done in userspace, in Mesa and Xorg code, so work done by FreeBSD, Sun, etc.. engineers also tends to apply to your Linux machines (and vice versa).
You're simply an ignoramus: you're using a system (only parts of which are either Linux or Linux specific) which tens of thousands of people have donated to by way of their time and expertise and you're completely ignorant of the dynamics behind why those people did so. You'd be quite happy to kill the "golden goose" for the sake of short-term benefit simply cause you're clueless of the reasons why that stable and free system you use exists. Saddest of all, in your ignorance you don't even realise you're doing so.
sigh.
I bet if ATI was putting out first rate drivers it might influence quite a few purchases in that direction
Sigh. This detrimentally short-sighted acceptance of binary-only drivers that users like you have is precisely why there are no good drivers for recent ATi hardware, or most recent graphics besides Intel. And until users like yourself start demanding that vendors provide documentation, not binary blobs, graphics support will continue to suck.
Binary drivers kill kittens (thanks airlied for that one). They don't help if you run other free Unixen, they don't help if you use a non-mainstream platform (e.g. PPC, AMD64 up until recently, it doesn't help the Radeon in the Alpha I have here).
Demand DOCUMENTATION - even if it's gibberish to you personally, it's will benefit you far more than binary blobs eventually...
The X.org drivers do support 3D, and quite well, on the older R100 and R200 cards. R300/400 are also supported for 3D, but those have needed extensive reverse engineering, and hence are not quite as mature (though, getting there apparently), also they have only really reverse engineered the equivalent of the R200 feature set, so they're not getting the most out of the cards - all thanks to ATis silly attitude about supplying documentation.
Actually, the X.org drivers for ATis are probably the best out there. The problem is they lack support for recent ATi hardware (lacking good 3D support for vaguely recent, e.g. R300 and up, though it's getting there apparently, and completely lacking any support 2D or 3D, for the most recent R500 hardware), as ATi havn't made documentation available in a *long* time.
If you meant ATis' own drivers, yeah, they suck. But really, if ATi just made docs available, the much better X.org drivers would be able to support far more of their hardware..
If the rumour is truee, I hope AMD care about open drivers..
I couldn't tell from the pictures how the enclosures worked, either; handles didn't seem evident.
They pop-up partially out of the bay. You then slide the bare drive in or out of the protruding enclosure - the disk cage/enclosure is actually part of the drive bay.
If they could manage to integrate the data cable
No cables. It uses a backplane with standard SATA+power connectors, the normal way for hot-swap drive bays.
OpenSolaris iSCSI target support is underway.
The tribes I'm talking about are extremely xenophobic.
:). FWIW, if the actual work was done (in part) by a DCU scientist, the (waning, thankfully) vested theocratic movement (Catholic and Anglican churches) over here at least strongly support the scientific method and evolutionary theories arising from it.
:)
Interesting, the one in the documentary I saw were too, or at least, they were extremely territorial. Yet, they had a meeting with another tribe in order to make peace (had been a long-standing feud, even some killings in previous clashes, iirc).
Their culture is extremely exclusive. I see no reason to believe in the "possibility" of their interbreeding just because our own culture makes that possible. Theirs does not, unless I learn otherwise.
For me, there are two things wrong with the reasoning in this paragraph:
1. You are assuming inter-breeding between populations is a cultural phenomenom peculiar to (say) western people. But inter-breeding a biological *neccessity*, shared not just among humans but all sexually reproducing animals. It should be fairly obvious that small populations, no matter how xenophobic, *need* to at least *occasionally* inter-breed with other populations to avoid dying out completely.
2. You are assuming that individual behaviour is bounded by the social norm. This is clearly wrong. Just because the social norms of some tribe are highly xenophobic and eschew external contact, it does not restrict individuals behaviour. (Especially younger individuals, who can be more curious and 'foolhardy' - particularly where social norms are heavily influenced by older, more conservative members of the population, such as tribal elders).
The original paper would be interesting to read for such bias. I'd like to read some peer reviews which critique its statistical premise. But the article linked to neither.
Well, (joking - no offence intended) you apparently were too busy looking for the hidden creationist agenda, which no one else saw it seems (I thought it was a good pop-science article on how statistics, networking theory and computer modelling can provide rather unexpected and interesting insights into connectedness of the human population), to notice they mentioned the book, Mapping Human History right near the beginning. He's a journalist though it seems, not a scientist. The work may have done by the DCU computer scientist, Mark Humphrys quoted in the same AP article, as this article more clearly suggests. I'd love to read a paper too, can't find one, but Dr. Humphrys has some articles on his site at least it seems.
Note that even if some Amazonian tribes have indeed been fully disconnected genetically from humanity for the last 600 years, that the conclusion instead becomes "we all, except for some statistically insignificant disconnected populations, share a common ancestor from as little as 2k years ago", which remains an interesting thought.
There is a large, well-funded theocrat movement at work in America today, priotitizing science in the media for subversion.
That's a great reason to start attacking one of the better-writen pop *science* articles, isn't it?
Most have just argued with me without logic, just defensively against the idea that theocrats have gotten so far in the media.
Most of those arguing this line with you, to my reading, have been trying to highlight the lack of evidence in the article to support your notion it's some kind of subtle pro-creationism piece. I'm wondering did you somehow read a different article to the rest of us.
Try forgetting about BushCo, Rove and the creationist nutters for ten minutes and reading the article again. You might find the interesting and enjoyable pop-sci article the rest of us read.
And yet we know about them, so they've not been perfectly isolated at least. Which means it is quite possible that some individuals, despite any tribal norms, inter-bred with europeans, by choice or otherwise. Never mind inter-breeding with other tribes.
Yes, my knowledge of amazonian tribes is virtually non-existent, I admit. What little I know is from a recentish documentary (unfortunately I forget) of a man who spent quite some time (I think at least several months) with a deep-amazon tribe. Things I remember:
a) Promiscuity was socially acceptable and the norm
b) Contact with other tribes was indeed uncommon and avoided, however to settle feuds, meetings were held between them when absolutely required. (and see a).
c) Some individuals had left tribe life, for the more 'modern' life (this was how the documentary maker managed to introduce himself IIRC), but still maintained contact.
Extrapolate backward over several hundred years.
There's just no reason to think that these Amazonian tribes, contrary to all other known overlapping human societies, did not have some inter-breeding. Societal norms are one thing, individual desires and happen-stance are another. I.e. to my thinking, the claim that no inter-breeding could have occured is the extra-ordinary one and demands the additional burden of proof.
Finally, I note that in this debate your comments seem to be tinged/side-tracked due to a pre-occupation with creationism and religion. You seem opposed to the (mostly) mathematical postulate more because of (not immediately relevant) concerns about what creationists might do with it, than with the the idea itself. I don't say this to offend, rather because my memory is that your comments here usually are well-reasoned and/or insightful and I was surprised by the general position of some of your comments to this article.
--paulj
because Civil War is exactly what most political scientists expected would happen.
Not because of any factor inherent to Iraq or Sunnis and Shia. Rather, because civil war is not uncommon after the downfall of a ruling regime, where factions struggle between each other for dominance and to create the next regime. The phrase "power vacuum" comes to mind.
But when they don't bother to explain how isolated populations
And exactly how many perfectly isolated populations of humans are there in the universe?
like deep Amazonian tribes
The Spanish and Portuguese have been all over that continent for, what, approaching 500 years? And the Amazonian aboriginal peoples themselves are mobile between populations.
Nice try, but there's been 200 years+ of white, asian, etc.. immigration into Australia so even for once highly isolated populations like Australian aboriginals, their current population still likely is inter-connected.
A chip fabrication plant can cost tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars,
FABs were hundreds of millions about 20 to 15 years ago. Today they're billions. Intel's FAB-24A cost $2B I think.
The two most populous nations in the world and seven of the top 10 have no representation in Germany this World Cup
/some/ 2nd placers, depending on the number of finals places that regional-FA has) then qualify for the finals. The 32 countries at the finals therefore are the 'best' from each supra-region.
;) ), played with the feet, hence "football".
;)
That would be because they didn't qualify for the finals.
All countries are first drawn into qualifying groups within their supra-regional-FA (e.g. UEFA for Europe). Group winners (and
From the UEFA zone, the notable 'failed to qualify for the finals' countries were Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Ireland and Greece (all of which have had some successes at previous World Cup finals, and/or at European Cup finals).
The event being held in Germany over the next month is the culmination of nearly 2 years of international football, between *all* nations (that have a FIFA recognised national FA at least).
Notes:
- FA = Football Association (in general terms. E.g. the FAI is the Rep. of Ireland. UEFA is the conglomerate body, to which all European FAs are associated and which in turn governs them. FIFA, to which all the supra-regional FA-conglomerates are associated. Not to be confused with "The FA", which is the english FA, which don't have their country in the name of their FA, as they were the first.)
- Football: The game, involving a ball (that means spherical
The word "soccer", deriving from "'socca", deriving from the "association" in "association football", referring to football as it was governed by the english FA, is used only by those who play/follow sports derived from football. Initially used by Rugby football followers (a game played with a non-ball shaped "ball", mostly with the hands), then also used by followers of Gaelic football and hence also used by followers of their derivatives (such as Rugby League, American Football or Australian Rules football (which is a mix between Rugby and Gaelic football)).
Serious use of the word "soccer" immediately identifies the user as being a football heathen.
The argument against mine was that the FAQ clarified this, which I found laughable.
;) )
It's not laughable though, in english jurisprudence, because of estoppel.
Sun can not first tell you "Well, look, we think that that interpretation of the licence, which we wrote, which tries to claim ABC might not be allowed, isn't valid. That interpretation definitely is not what we intended. What we intended was XYZ, which you means it is perfectly ok for you to do ABC.", and then later sue for having done ABC.
Let's get some perspective here. Sun-jre is *not* in Debian main, it's in non-free. The clauses which people are *so* concerned with are clauses present even in licences of software in *main*. Even if we presume the concerns raised are valid, well Sun have not only stated it doesn't think the concerns raised are a problem but also barred themselves from "making use of" the problematic interpretations in doing so.
So the "problem" seems to be an emotive one, because it involves Sun and/or Java.
--paulj
(And yes, I might be very biased.