>So, please, try to explain to me why the GPL has *anything* to do with Linux's success. I'd love to hear it, because I sure don't believe it.
The GPL attracts more programmers than BSD. Many of us don't appreciate the idea that we might spend our time writing a quality piece of software and turn it over to the community, only to have a company turn around and make a tiny change and start selling it.
The forced openness of the GPL is a big part of what makes Linux successful.
>Because he is arguing, correctly IMHO, that these are two completely different phenomemons: the inheriting of certain genetic traits from one generation to the nest, and the evolving of a new species from an existing one.
They are not fundamentally different things. Through mutation, you can acquire traits that your parents (and siblings) don't possess. If enough of these traits accumulate, your offspring will be different enough from your sibling's offspring that you are two different species. There is nothing magical going on here.
>Breeding dogs, you can change the breed, but it's still a dog. You can't breed dogs into sheep, or even wolves.
All dogs are wolves. And yes, if you isolate a lineage of dogs for long enough, they would no longer be able to successfully interbreed with 'normal' dogs. Genetic incompatibilities would make it impossible.
>Thus, calling one "microevolution" and the other "macroevolution" and implying they are the same phenomenon is simply cheating, a cheap parlor trick.
Both labels describe the exact same thing over different timescales.
>If the test says that monkey is my kid, then yes, I'd say it's invalid. And, genetically, I'm as close to some plants as I am to that monkey.
No, you aren't. Download a few gene sequences from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ and find me even one plant that is more similar to a human than a monkey.
>Some call the similarity of DNA signs of evolution. Some call it the fingerprints of their Creator.
If the creator could have made us any way he liked, why make it appear that we are closely related to some species (that just happen to share a great many morphological characteristics) than others?
>Scientifically speaking, neither side is anywhere close to being able to offer conclusive proof, and sadly, both sides are guilty of intellectual dishonesty.
Science doesn't deal in conclusive proof, only evidence. Evolution has so much evidence in its favor that ignoring it is willful ignorance.
>There's nothing to stop them from becoming ATM machines either, given enough time. That's why it's such a rediculous argument.
*sigh*
You admit that microevolution takes place over short periods of time, so what's to stop macroevolution from occuring over long periods of time? We plainly observe the fact that species change over time. If you think there is some limit on the amount they can change, please explain why.
As an aside, do you believe that genetic paternity tresting is valid? If so, how do you feel about the same test showing that you are related to the monkey in the zoo down the street?
Incorrect. You don't have to agree to any EULA in order to use the software that you have legally purchased. If you really want, you can strip all of the text out of the EULA and agree to that. That doesn't really make a difference though because you've already bought a copy of the software. That copy is your to do with as you like - within the bounds of copyright law of course. It's laughable that they think they can retroactively apply terms after the sale is completed.
>However, if you are listening on a real stereo with decent speakers, then listening to a well made SACD compared to a CD will blow you away.
Are you sure about that? Until I see a few double blind ABX tests comparing a SACD with a CD mastered from the same source, I'm going to have to consider it all marketing. "Ooh! This format can store *four times* more sound than the human ear can discern, where a CD can just produce a little more than anyone can possibly hear!"
So what? They still won't be getting your money, which will cause actual harm to their business. They cannot make a law that says that you have to buy new CDs.
Absolutely. Myself being of Celtic descent, I intend to purchase wedding bands engraved with Celtic knots or other Celtic imagery rather than spend the money on a sweater-snagging diamond.
Might I recommend Tradeshop.com as a place to check out. My wife and i got our wedding rings there and were very happy with the result.
Well, then, what is theft? Do you assume that theft can only be of physical items? Therefore, if someone steals your credit card and charges up a long list of sales, that it is not theft simply because he only shifted numbers in your account?
Of course it is theft. Those numbers directly represent dollar bills. If you are taking dollars out of my account, you are stealing from me. If I build a business on the hopes that some dollars will someday appear in my account but they never do, I should have picked a better business plan.
Or is it not theft because someone has taken your social security number to use it for himself. After all, he hasn't removed your ability to use your SS#, and he certainly never took it all for himself, you still have it. Therefore, by your definition, it's not theft, so it shouldn't be considered theft.
It's not theft. It's fraud. Two things that are just as different as theft and copyight violation.
Theft is the taking of personal property without permissions, or the possession and removal of said property, or otherwise larceny.
If I copy an album from a friend or download a few songs, I have not taken any personal property. Nor have I removed or possessed anyone's property. All I have done is make a copy of some information. If nothing is missing, nothing is stolen.
If you take a DVD, rip it, encode it with DivX, then place it on a public FTP server, you've infringed on that copyright, obviously, and you've commited theft of copyright.
There is no 'theft of copyright' law. There is 'violation of copyright', but even the law knows that it is not theft.
So stop fooling yourself with these generalizations that infringement != theft
The general public doesn't want to spend money on HDTV's or even digital TV's because there's not enough content off the air
That's not the problem. The problem is that people *already* get the content they want. The government is basically saying, "We know you are almost all perfectly happy with the television you have right now, but won't it be neato if it were 'digital' instead?"
Why spend all that money to get such a marginal benefit?
How can the public be satisfied when they can't see the difference?
I don't know about you, but my vision isn't quite 20/20, so when I'm sitting 10 feet away from my TV, I'm not going to be able to tell the difference between normal and HDTV anyway...;)
Where did you get the idea that any parties actually want HDTV? Most people are perfectly happy with the televisions they have right now. Manufacturers don't want it because they know that people aren't going to want to pay more for something they don't want anyway. Broadcasters don't want it because it's a huge expense to implement something that they know consumers don't even want.
The government is the *only* entity that really wants this so they can sell off the extra frequencies.
Actually, no. The only way it becomes illegal is if I distribute my circumvention device. Of course, mod chips probably fit this bill, but if I can make my own, I'm in the clear.
The DMCA is a bad law no matter how we look at it.
If I walk into my local Best Buy and walk out with a PlayStation, I no longer have to care about "Sony's rules". I have bought that piece of hardware. It is mine. If I want to rearrange the guts in any way, it is my choice to do so.
Bank One may be running.Net for some things, but it certainly not standardized on it. I know for a fact that their commerical banking portal (theonenet.com) is based on JSP because I was on the team that wrote it.:)
How many times does it have to be said: without a signed agreement, there is no contract. I own the software in my computer and dvd player in *exactly* the same way I own a book. I put my money down and walked away, which is called a sale - not a license.
Slashdot Mirror
Open Mouth, Insert Foot.
Did you even read the rest of my comment?
>So, please, try to explain to me why the GPL has *anything* to do with Linux's success. I'd love to hear it, because I sure don't believe it.
The GPL attracts more programmers than BSD. Many of us don't appreciate the idea that we might spend our time writing a quality piece of software and turn it over to the community, only to have a company turn around and make a tiny change and start selling it.
The forced openness of the GPL is a big part of what makes Linux successful.
>Because he is arguing, correctly IMHO, that these are two completely different phenomemons: the inheriting of certain genetic traits from one generation to the nest, and the evolving of a new species from an existing one.
They are not fundamentally different things. Through mutation, you can acquire traits that your parents (and siblings) don't possess. If enough of these traits accumulate, your offspring will be different enough from your sibling's offspring that you are two different species. There is nothing magical going on here.
>Breeding dogs, you can change the breed, but it's still a dog. You can't breed dogs into sheep, or even wolves.
All dogs are wolves. And yes, if you isolate a lineage of dogs for long enough, they would no longer be able to successfully interbreed with 'normal' dogs. Genetic incompatibilities would make it impossible.
>Thus, calling one "microevolution" and the other "macroevolution" and implying they are the same phenomenon is simply cheating, a cheap parlor trick.
Both labels describe the exact same thing over different timescales.
>If the test says that monkey is my kid, then yes, I'd say it's invalid. And, genetically, I'm as close to some plants as I am to that monkey.
No, you aren't. Download a few gene sequences from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ and find me even one plant that is more similar to a human than a monkey.
>Some call the similarity of DNA signs of evolution. Some call it the fingerprints of their Creator.
If the creator could have made us any way he liked, why make it appear that we are closely related to some species (that just happen to share a great many morphological characteristics) than others?
>Scientifically speaking, neither side is anywhere close to being able to offer conclusive proof, and sadly, both sides are guilty of intellectual dishonesty.
Science doesn't deal in conclusive proof, only evidence. Evolution has so much evidence in its favor that ignoring it is willful ignorance.
>There's nothing to stop them from becoming ATM machines either, given enough time. That's why it's such a rediculous argument.
*sigh*
You admit that microevolution takes place over short periods of time, so what's to stop macroevolution from occuring over long periods of time? We plainly observe the fact that species change over time. If you think there is some limit on the amount they can change, please explain why.
As an aside, do you believe that genetic paternity tresting is valid? If so, how do you feel about the same test showing that you are related to the monkey in the zoo down the street?
There is nothing to stop one species from becoming another given enough time and enough "selective breeding". Nothing.
People who argue against evolution usually don't have a clue what the mechanisms of evolution actually are.
Incorrect. You don't have to agree to any EULA in order to use the software that you have legally purchased. If you really want, you can strip all of the text out of the EULA and agree to that. That doesn't really make a difference though because you've already bought a copy of the software. That copy is your to do with as you like - within the bounds of copyright law of course. It's laughable that they think they can retroactively apply terms after the sale is completed.
Breaking a license (as if the EULA is enforcable anyway) is not piracy.
x + y never overflows on my computer... ;)
If we are just talking about numbers:
:)
y = x + y
x = y - x
y = y - x
>However, if you are listening on a real stereo with decent speakers, then listening to a well made SACD compared to a CD will blow you away.
Are you sure about that? Until I see a few double blind ABX tests comparing a SACD with a CD mastered from the same source, I'm going to have to consider it all marketing. "Ooh! This format can store *four times* more sound than the human ear can discern, where a CD can just produce a little more than anyone can possibly hear!"
Bleah.
So what? They still won't be getting your money, which will cause actual harm to their business. They cannot make a law that says that you have to buy new CDs.
Absolutely. Myself being of Celtic descent, I intend to purchase wedding bands engraved with Celtic knots or other Celtic imagery rather than spend the money on a sweater-snagging diamond.
Might I recommend Tradeshop.com as a place to check out. My wife and i got our wedding rings there and were very happy with the result.
Just make sure that she will *never ever* find out that it is USED, or you are in deep shlop.
Why? Do you think it's worn out or something?
That is probably why it is not done very often.
No, it's done because most people are sheep and believe whatever the television tells them.
I've got an older sis 6326 card with tv-out. MPlayer with framebuffer output works like a charm.
Well, then, what is theft? Do you assume that theft can only be of physical items? Therefore, if someone steals your credit card and charges up a long list of sales, that it is not theft simply because he only shifted numbers in your account?
Of course it is theft. Those numbers directly represent dollar bills. If you are taking dollars out of my account, you are stealing from me. If I build a business on the hopes that some dollars will someday appear in my account but they never do, I should have picked a better business plan.
Or is it not theft because someone has taken your social security number to use it for himself. After all, he hasn't removed your ability to use your SS#, and he certainly never took it all for himself, you still have it. Therefore, by your definition, it's not theft, so it shouldn't be considered theft.
It's not theft. It's fraud. Two things that are just as different as theft and copyight violation.
Theft is the taking of personal property without permissions, or the possession and removal of said property, or otherwise larceny.
If I copy an album from a friend or download a few songs, I have not taken any personal property. Nor have I removed or possessed anyone's property. All I have done is make a copy of some information. If nothing is missing, nothing is stolen.
If you take a DVD, rip it, encode it with DivX, then place it on a public FTP server, you've infringed on that copyright, obviously, and you've commited theft of copyright.
There is no 'theft of copyright' law. There is 'violation of copyright', but even the law knows that it is not theft.
So stop fooling yourself with these generalizations that infringement != theft
Stop fooling ourselves with the truth? How silly.
Copyright is exactly that - the exclusive right to copy a work for a limited period of time. It does not confer any ownership rights.
The general public doesn't want to spend money on HDTV's or even digital TV's because there's not enough content off the air
That's not the problem. The problem is that people *already* get the content they want. The government is basically saying, "We know you are almost all perfectly happy with the television you have right now, but won't it be neato if it were 'digital' instead?"
Why spend all that money to get such a marginal benefit?
How can the public be satisfied when they can't see the difference?
;)
I don't know about you, but my vision isn't quite 20/20, so when I'm sitting 10 feet away from my TV, I'm not going to be able to tell the difference between normal and HDTV anyway...
Where did you get the idea that any parties actually want HDTV? Most people are perfectly happy with the televisions they have right now. Manufacturers don't want it because they know that people aren't going to want to pay more for something they don't want anyway. Broadcasters don't want it because it's a huge expense to implement something that they know consumers don't even want.
The government is the *only* entity that really wants this so they can sell off the extra frequencies.
Actually, no. The only way it becomes illegal is if I distribute my circumvention device. Of course, mod chips probably fit this bill, but if I can make my own, I'm in the clear.
The DMCA is a bad law no matter how we look at it.
If I walk into my local Best Buy and walk out with a PlayStation, I no longer have to care about "Sony's rules". I have bought that piece of hardware. It is mine. If I want to rearrange the guts in any way, it is my choice to do so.
Bank One may be running .Net for some things, but it certainly not standardized on it. I know for a fact that their commerical banking portal (theonenet.com) is based on JSP because I was on the team that wrote it. :)
"By opening this package..." is not a contract in any sense of the word.
How many times does it have to be said: without a signed agreement, there is no contract. I own the software in my computer and dvd player in *exactly* the same way I own a book. I put my money down and walked away, which is called a sale - not a license.