While it may be the case that these inherently online services have our personal information, the original commentor's post voices a viable concern. Why should I be forced to give *another* online outfit my personal information just so that I can play a game:
(1) that I purchased from a brick-and-mortar store;
(2) that either has no online component or where I do not plan to use any such component; and
(3) where the requirement that I provide my personal information to such an online outfit is not clear until *after* I have opened the package and tried to install the software from the CD or DVD that I hold in my hot little hands and *after* I have eliminated my ability to return the game to the store for a refund!
I should be free to choose with whom I share my personal information *before* being committed to providing that information or being out the money I paid for the game. That is a dichotomy which should not exist. That said, now that I have been bitten by the infernal catch-22 once, I am closely scrutinizing every single game that I consider buying and if I see "Steam" or "Valve" anywhere on the writing on the outside of the box it goes back on the shelf. I may be disappointed, but "Steam" is *not* getting any of my business and no retail establishment will benefit from receiving any money from me for any games infected with the "Steam" requirement.
Except that your argument proves the very statement you tried to refute. Just because supply and demand can be manipulated artificially does not mean that the laws of supply and demand do not control the price. Monopolies of every ilk, governmental and business, can limit the supply of a resource which will impact the price for any given level of demand. Thus, whether manipulated artificially or limited naturally, the laws of supply and demand control the price of oil.
Except that he didn't "abolish" any program or stop funding research. The Congress of the United States passed an omnibus budget reconciliation bill, and one of the provisions of that bill shut down the federal corporation which performed the research; President Reagan signed that bill into law. Congress is free at any time to restart such research or fund any private research efforts.
So, someone at/. needs to proofread the titles that are actually posted on the main page of/. On the main page, this story had the title "Computer Error Caused Qantas Jet[.]" When I saw that, I thought that a computer error had caused a certain Quantas jet to exist, which gave me a quick laugh for the morning.
Actually, there would be no cause of action for slander on these facts -- identity theft, maybe, but not slander. Other requirements aside, slander requires an oral statement, and an email is a "written" statement not an oral one. The correct tort, if it applied, would be libel. However, the other requirements for libel would most likely not be met. The more appropriate tort would be invasion of privacy, either appropriation or maybe even false light, though those may be a stretch.
You -DO- know that this is the primary source of energy in France, as well as in other countries like Lithuania, Belgium, and Slovakia, right? If it is so horribly inefficient, would those countries rely on it for their primary source of energy?
The concern is not that the information is classified, it is that the information came from a portion of the court record that was sealed. There is a crucial difference between the two concepts. Portions of court records are kept under seal for various reasons, including privacy concerns as well as safety and security reasons. Whereas certain information is classified because of national security interests. Just because a court record, or a portion thereof, is sealed tells you nothing about *why* it was sealed. To say otherwise is bare speculation.
I used to be like you. I would try to help out by correcting usage, grammar, spelling, and punctuation.
But now I'm cured. After 6 months in a penal facility run by the military and being awakened to a sergeant shouting that "it's for [my] own good," I now accept the fact that people are going to butcher usage, grammar, spelling, and punctuation. I am now at peace with that fact. Now, have the courage I did. Go to your local chapter of "Curing Grammar Obsessiveness" and get cured yourself. Hopefully no one will smuggle in a copy of Strunk & White or the Chicago Manual of Style to prolong your addiction and agony.
How Ironic. The group / organization which wants software to be FREE as in LIBERTY -- i.e., you can do anything you want with it -- has now threatened to RESTRICT the FREEDOM of a company to distribute that FREE software.
So, if this "threat" by the FSF is true, the organization needs to change its name. Maybe it should be the FUD Software Foundation or the Fraudulent Software Foundation. The truth of the matter is that, while the FSF may be able to release new versions of its GNU software under the new GPL/v3, which may have some restrictions in it, they cannot prevent Novell from continuing to distribute and improve the versions that were released under GPL/v2.
If true, this has done nothing but harm the FSF's "cred." Nothing more need be said.
A quick, cursory reading of the treaty referenced by the poster will show that there is no banning of such a space-based missile defense system. In fact, the claim that the militarization of space is forbidden is not grounded in fact.
The treaty bans the following:
Space-based nuclear weapons
Space-based weapons of mass destruction
That's it. It does not ban a State that is a Party to the treaty (member state) from placing weaponry in orbit to shoot down incoming ICBMs. It does not ban a member state from proactively destroying the satellites of another state, esp. when the destroying state is under attack by the state owning the targeted material.
Certainly, space-based systems designed to provide a member state with defense against incoming weapons of mass destruction do not themselves qualify as weapons of mass destruction. Similarly, as long as the weapons to not contain nuclear warheads, they are not in violation of this treaty.
Following are few places in the treaty where weapons are mentioned.
Preamble: Recalling resolution 1884 (XVIII), calling upon States to refrain from placing in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction or from installing such weapons on celestial bodies . ..
Article IV: . . . not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space . ..
Article IV: The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used . . . exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden.
As can be plainly seen, none of these items ban the installation of conventional defensive weaponry in space. The treaty explicitly deals with installation of nuclear weapons and offensive weapons of mass destruction, as well as using the moon or other celestial bodies for military bases, installations, or fortifications, or for the conducting of military maneuvers.
ARRRGH! How can you even jokingly insinuate that others make mistakes when you blatantly make your own? I have repressed this for far too long! I am finally snapping. Prepare for some education.
Apostrophes serve the following TWO purposes and NO MORE.
Indicate one noun's possession of another noun. For example, you write about "a moderator's spelling problems." The spelling problems are possessed by the moderator. You do not write of "spelling problems of moderator's."
Create a contraction out of two words by replacing letters from one word with an apostrophe.
An example of the proper first use would be writing about "a moderator's spelling problems" not "a moderators spelling problem's".
An example of the proper second use would be writing about how "it's a moderator's duty to correct his spelling problems".
That's it. Finito. No other purpose. Please, please, please get it right people!
"...name from an epic poem penned circa 1000 A.D."
That should be A.D. 1000. A.D. means "Anno Domini", Latin for "in the year of Our Lord", and should properly *precede* the year. B.C., on the other hand means "Before Christ" and properly *follows* the year.
The conclusion that the earth rotates around the sun is based on observation. The conclusion that the sun rotates around the earth at one time was an inference. Because it was an inference, was it true???
That is not quite true. Ptolemy's epicycle theory explained the motion of planets around the Earth, even when they occasionally appeared to slow down and reverse direction. That was a theory that explained observations. The fact that the universe was Earth-centric also fit observations made at that time where the sun, planets, and stars appeared to orbit the Earth.
The Earth-centric universe and epicycle theories were disproven by more refined observations and calculations. Because it fit the observations better, the Copernican system was chosen over the Ptolemaic system. It was later proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Copernican system was superior.
Follow the link below for some basic information on the Ptolemaic epicycle theory:
http://www.jimloy.com/cindy/ptolemy.htm
Not quite correct. What killed the Amiga is that Medhi Ali (sp?) did not market the Amiga at all. Commodore did not understand the need for marketing to attract the masses. That is what killed the Amiga.
The downside to this is that this can be used maliciously to attack unsuspecting users. They may think that they downloaded one type of file and find out that it is another...after it is too late.
Here we go again. We see something announced for Linux/FreeBSD and assume that that is all it is for. We don't do our research.
If you had done simple research and visited the blender site you would have found that the blender creator software exists for Windoze and the Mac and that the plugin already exists for Windows. By following this URL:
And France has nothing like states' rights that the US has to cope with that makes us a patchwork of sometimes conflicting laws.
Cope with? Cope with? Please, study American History and realize that States' Rights is what this country was founded upon. Unfortunately, in today's leftist education system, we are miseducating our own people to disdain our history as well as why America is how it is.
France and England are both dominated by a large central government. That kind of government situation lends itself to one large storehouse of information. The United States of America is a union of (ideally) independent states.
The federal government's purview does not cover the information that is of most relevance to the citizenry. The service that the federal government could provide would be limited to searching for information and paying taxes (which the majority of us don't do anyway because of the payroll deduction, but that's a separate discussion).
The utility of this service to the average citizen would be far less than the cost of developing it and maintaining it. This service is better left up to the states where the people live. Those states who want it can pay for the development and maintenance of their own portal, but we all shouldn't be forced to pay for something that would not benefit us.
I don't know if this is a myth or once was true but I heard that dll's can be shared, but exe's cannot.
No, it's not true. Modern OSen utilize a technique called memory-mapping of files that allow the code of an application to be shared among its running instances. Only its private data areas (data segment, stack, and heap) cannot be shared. So, much of an executable is still shareable in memory between instances of it.
Slashdot Mirror
While it may be the case that these inherently online services have our personal information, the original commentor's post voices a viable concern. Why should I be forced to give *another* online outfit my personal information just so that I can play a game:
I should be free to choose with whom I share my personal information *before* being committed to providing that information or being out the money I paid for the game. That is a dichotomy which should not exist. That said, now that I have been bitten by the infernal catch-22 once, I am closely scrutinizing every single game that I consider buying and if I see "Steam" or "Valve" anywhere on the writing on the outside of the box it goes back on the shelf. I may be disappointed, but "Steam" is *not* getting any of my business and no retail establishment will benefit from receiving any money from me for any games infected with the "Steam" requirement.
Except that your argument proves the very statement you tried to refute. Just because supply and demand can be manipulated artificially does not mean that the laws of supply and demand do not control the price. Monopolies of every ilk, governmental and business, can limit the supply of a resource which will impact the price for any given level of demand. Thus, whether manipulated artificially or limited naturally, the laws of supply and demand control the price of oil.
Except that he didn't "abolish" any program or stop funding research. The Congress of the United States passed an omnibus budget reconciliation bill, and one of the provisions of that bill shut down the federal corporation which performed the research; President Reagan signed that bill into law. Congress is free at any time to restart such research or fund any private research efforts.
So, someone at /. needs to proofread the titles that are actually posted on the main page of /. On the main page, this story had the title "Computer Error Caused Qantas Jet[.]" When I saw that, I thought that a computer error had caused a certain Quantas jet to exist, which gave me a quick laugh for the morning.
Actually, there would be no cause of action for slander on these facts -- identity theft, maybe, but not slander. Other requirements aside, slander requires an oral statement, and an email is a "written" statement not an oral one. The correct tort, if it applied, would be libel. However, the other requirements for libel would most likely not be met. The more appropriate tort would be invasion of privacy, either appropriation or maybe even false light, though those may be a stretch.
You -DO- know that this is the primary source of energy in France, as well as in other countries like Lithuania, Belgium, and Slovakia, right? If it is so horribly inefficient, would those countries rely on it for their primary source of energy?
You also know that world use of nuclear energy is growing and is substantial, right?
The concern is not that the information is classified, it is that the information came from a portion of the court record that was sealed. There is a crucial difference between the two concepts. Portions of court records are kept under seal for various reasons, including privacy concerns as well as safety and security reasons. Whereas certain information is classified because of national security interests. Just because a court record, or a portion thereof, is sealed tells you nothing about *why* it was sealed. To say otherwise is bare speculation.
I used to be like you. I would try to help out by correcting usage, grammar, spelling, and punctuation.
But now I'm cured. After 6 months in a penal facility run by the military and being awakened to a sergeant shouting that "it's for [my] own good," I now accept the fact that people are going to butcher usage, grammar, spelling, and punctuation. I am now at peace with that fact. Now, have the courage I did. Go to your local chapter of "Curing Grammar Obsessiveness" and get cured yourself. Hopefully no one will smuggle in a copy of Strunk & White or the Chicago Manual of Style to prolong your addiction and agony.
/s/ Your Brother in Proper Usage
Or even better yet, offer tax and other financial incentives for people to switch.
How Ironic. The group / organization which wants software to be FREE as in LIBERTY -- i.e., you can do anything you want with it -- has now threatened to RESTRICT the FREEDOM of a company to distribute that FREE software.
So, if this "threat" by the FSF is true, the organization needs to change its name. Maybe it should be the FUD Software Foundation or the Fraudulent Software Foundation. The truth of the matter is that, while the FSF may be able to release new versions of its GNU software under the new GPL/v3, which may have some restrictions in it, they cannot prevent Novell from continuing to distribute and improve the versions that were released under GPL/v2.
If true, this has done nothing but harm the FSF's "cred." Nothing more need be said.
A quick, cursory reading of the treaty referenced by the poster will show that there is no banning of such a space-based missile defense system. In fact, the claim that the militarization of space is forbidden is not grounded in fact.
The treaty bans the following:
- Space-based nuclear weapons
- Space-based weapons of mass destruction
That's it. It does not ban a State that is a Party to the treaty (member state) from placing weaponry in orbit to shoot down incoming ICBMs. It does not ban a member state from proactively destroying the satellites of another state, esp. when the destroying state is under attack by the state owning the targeted material.Certainly, space-based systems designed to provide a member state with defense against incoming weapons of mass destruction do not themselves qualify as weapons of mass destruction. Similarly, as long as the weapons to not contain nuclear warheads, they are not in violation of this treaty.
Following are few places in the treaty where weapons are mentioned.
As can be plainly seen, none of these items ban the installation of conventional defensive weaponry in space. The treaty explicitly deals with installation of nuclear weapons and offensive weapons of mass destruction, as well as using the moon or other celestial bodies for military bases, installations, or fortifications, or for the conducting of military maneuvers.
ARRRGH! How can you even jokingly insinuate that others make mistakes when you blatantly make your own? I have repressed this for far too long! I am finally snapping. Prepare for some education.
Apostrophes serve the following TWO purposes and NO MORE.
An example of the proper first use would be writing about "a moderator's spelling problems" not "a moderators spelling problem's".
An example of the proper second use would be writing about how "it's a moderator's duty to correct his spelling problems".
That's it. Finito. No other purpose. Please, please, please get it right people!
OK...ok...must...breathe...normally...now...whew!
...and NOR. NANDs and NORs are "logically complete" and can each can be combined with others of its kind to create any of the other operations.
That is not quite true. Ptolemy's epicycle theory explained the motion of planets around the Earth, even when they occasionally appeared to slow down and reverse direction. That was a theory that explained observations. The fact that the universe was Earth-centric also fit observations made at that time where the sun, planets, and stars appeared to orbit the Earth.
The Earth-centric universe and epicycle theories were disproven by more refined observations and calculations. Because it fit the observations better, the Copernican system was chosen over the Ptolemaic system. It was later proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Copernican system was superior.
Follow the link below for some basic information on the Ptolemaic epicycle theory:
http://www.jimloy.com/cindy/ptolemy.htm
Not quite correct. What killed the Amiga is that Medhi Ali (sp?) did not market the Amiga at all. Commodore did not understand the need for marketing to attract the masses. That is what killed the Amiga.
The downside to this is that this can be used maliciously to attack unsuspecting users. They may think that they downloaded one type of file and find out that it is another...after it is too late.
Um...am I missing something, or isn't that the definition of "porting"?
Um...it's not legal there and hasn't been since Utah was admitted as a state. That was a requirement of their admittance to the Union.
FYI, using the Classic environment, OSX can run OS9 proggies.
Here we go again. We see something announced for Linux/FreeBSD and assume that that is all it is for. We don't do our research.
o wnload_general.php
If you had done simple research and visited the blender site you would have found that the blender creator software exists for Windoze and the Mac and that the plugin already exists for Windows. By following this URL:
http://www.blender3d.com/BlenderProducts/plugin_d
You will be able to download the windows plugin for Netscape AND IE.
Research is such a wonderful thing to help prevent you from putting your foot in your mouth.
Actually, MacOS X does not use Display Postscript. That was replaced by Display PDF.
Cope with? Cope with? Please, study American History and realize that States' Rights is what this country was founded upon. Unfortunately, in today's leftist education system, we are miseducating our own people to disdain our history as well as why America is how it is.
France and England are both dominated by a large central government. That kind of government situation lends itself to one large storehouse of information. The United States of America is a union of (ideally) independent states.
The federal government's purview does not cover the information that is of most relevance to the citizenry. The service that the federal government could provide would be limited to searching for information and paying taxes (which the majority of us don't do anyway because of the payroll deduction, but that's a separate discussion).
The utility of this service to the average citizen would be far less than the cost of developing it and maintaining it. This service is better left up to the states where the people live. Those states who want it can pay for the development and maintenance of their own portal, but we all shouldn't be forced to pay for something that would not benefit us.
I don't know if this is a myth or once was true but I heard that dll's can be shared, but exe's cannot.
No, it's not true. Modern OSen utilize a technique called memory-mapping of files that allow the code of an application to be shared among its running instances. Only its private data areas (data segment, stack, and heap) cannot be shared. So, much of an executable is still shareable in memory between instances of it.