Also the next time I show I have a quarrel with my local mayor, if I voted invalid he doesn't know if I voted for him or if I didn't... However if I didn't vote at all, he does know that I didn't vote for him!
We use pen&paper voting, we know who won 4 hours after the poll closes.
Whooo 4 hours every 4-6 years... how can you wait so much..?
The votes are counted by seperatly by the different parties monitoring the poll. Different results -> count again. So counting errors are *very* unlikely also.
I live in Austria in we also vote with pen and paper.
The results are usually available 4 hours after the election sites closed. So this is efficient enough!
I also think the multi-pary system is what makes fraud just much less likely as in example the US with their 2-party system. We usually have 4 parties in every election office, watching and guarding each other things are done correctly, never heared of a case of election fraud here. Well not quite at one point some members of one of this parties tried to make some vote invalid by adding another cross, but they were cought by the other 3 parites.
English is not my native language. I speak 4 languages, not all *that* well. How about you? I guess you are monolinguist, and belittle everyone who isn't fluent in YOUR mother tongue.
IANAE (I am not an expert), but underground nuclear explosions do usually not emmit radioactivity, at least at the moment.
As far I understood an article I read some time ago, the gigantic heat of the explosion melts the surronding soil into a glass cave which conceils the radioactive mess.
The problem is only after years of even decades, this glass sealing can (and at some point will) break and set the radioactivity free. Then the radiation levels will boost up... Thats another problem of humanity waiting we create now (our legacy for our kids).. all this sealed nuke-eggs from past underground expiriments loosing integrity at some future point.
"but there's nothing to stop you doing it, other than the FSF deciding to enforce its copyright on the wording of the licence."
Exactly. Altering the GPL License is * copyright violation of the FSF * another legal issue, is that as "signer" of a license you are misguided in what you sign, if there is "GPLv2" labeled above it, and somebody alters some issue in middle of the text, on court you can argue with success that you didn't expect it to have changed, and expected to license under a GPLv2. You may not "sneak" in things... this goes as well e.g. showing somebody a copy of the contract but then on the one to sign silently alter something without giving explicit notice etc. This goes also very much e.g. for "general terms and conditions" you cannot alter them to existing customers without giving explicit notice, if you don't, the old ones are still in charge for him, as you cannot expect them to study them every time.
--- Anyway as you said its not relevant, that is correct. But I don't know which notable other things beside the linux kernel have been released without that phrase... Most GPL software I've seen stick to the recommendation of FSF. Does projects that weren't as paranoid about the FSF as Torvaldis now have no problem "upgrading" to GPLv3.
Or maybe to reword it differently where the aboth poster is wrong.
You do NOT need the expressive permition from an GPLv2 author to republish in GPLv3. However you do need to NOT have him expressibly prohibited "upgrading" from the author when he published it under GPLv2.
You cannot just alter the GPL license, by changing or deleting text from the middle of it.
However some applications have an extra addendum like: the Linux Kernel that prohibit that clause. If you look back in/. history thats exactly what I wrote. However despite the Linux kernel I think only very few projects have that addendum. Sourcecode without that addendum can freely be "upgraded" to GPLv3
"This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."
IANAL, but this gives every user the option to "upgarde" the license with his redistribution.
IANAL, but you can take GPLv2 stuff into any GPLv3 project, but not the other way around.
As the GPLv2 has already an upward compability clause, as it says something like "You may use this software at your opinion with any newer GPL version.
The only exception are software packages where the author add an addendum that you do not have this freedom of free GPL "upgrades". (linux kernel e.g., since they didn't want to give the FSF the power to freely alter the license out of their powerrange.)
Think of the complexity of the new astrology that would be needed to cater for 50 planets that then influence our fortunes, I would like my destiny be determined by just 9 planets...
Planet: A celestial object orbiting a star that is massive enough for its own gravity...
While that massive object orbiting a star to classify as "planet" has addidionally to be: * not a star itself * not a black hole
However I'll stick to "my" usual definition: A planet is any non lucent object that orbits a star, where the object has at least the mass of mercur except it's called pluto.
from the i-do-not-think-that-word-means-what-you-think-it-m eans dept. United States Science Politics Stern Thinker writes "In a 2005 poll covering 33 countries, Americans are the least likely (except for Turkish) to assert that they have evolved. Iceland, meanwhile, has an 85% acceptance rating for their evolution. The blurb on the site for Science magazine is less circumspect about the findings: "The advancement of evolution is lower in the United States than in Japan or Europe, largely because of widespread fundamentalism and the politicization of science in the United States."
Evolution is the acceptance that evolution exists!
Yes I read that argument long time ago, *really* liked it, and so reused it. I thought you liked it, if it would become a prominent running-joke. But maybe you want also get a red hat, refer to your copyright and kill your own creation that just started to get its own life. please choose if you want to be offenden or flattered.
>>If the speed of gravity is greater than the speed of light, does that violate the general relativity? >Yes. It also violates special relativity and the laws of cause and effect.
What about the tunneleffect, does it violate the laws of cause and effect? If the electron tunnels through a barrier, at what speed does it tunnel? There are mainly 2 possibilities: * If it is instant it's greater than the speed of light. * If it is not instant (for example speed of light) where the hell is it, when it vanished on one side until it appears on the other side. * And if it only travels at the speed of light, since the electron with it's electric charge can never be INSIDE the barrier. Where is the charge when it does not travel instant, does this violate the symmetry of eletric charges?
AC on wikipedia like on many other webpage is most to encourage activity altough user laziness.
It just a good start to be able to just participate, without having do go through the "complicated" process to create an account. Its just to move one barrier away, to become a wikipedian. Once you feel more comfortable you will create an account nevertheless.
Slashdot Mirror
Also the next time I show I have a quarrel with my local mayor, if I voted invalid he doesn't know if I voted for him or if I didn't... However if I didn't vote at all, he does know that I didn't vote for him!
Voting blank or invalid is a democratic right.
Why is this different instead of not voting at all?
Look, what you vote is absolutely secret, but it's not secret data IF you voted at all.
We use pen&paper voting, we know who won 4 hours after the poll closes.
Whooo 4 hours every 4-6 years... how can you wait so much..?
The votes are counted by seperatly by the different parties monitoring the poll. Different results -> count again.
So counting errors are *very* unlikely also.
I live in Austria in we also vote with pen and paper.
The results are usually available 4 hours after the election sites closed. So this is efficient enough!
I also think the multi-pary system is what makes fraud just much less likely as in example the US with their 2-party system. We usually have 4 parties in every election office, watching and guarding each other things are done correctly, never heared of a case of election fraud here. Well not quite at one point some members of one of this parties tried to make some vote invalid by adding another cross, but they were cought by the other 3 parites.
English is not my native language. I speak 4 languages, not all *that* well. How about you? I guess you are monolinguist, and belittle everyone who isn't fluent in YOUR mother tongue.
How about, explain the acronym the first time you use it in non abbriviated form?
IANAE (I am not an expert), but underground nuclear explosions do usually not emmit radioactivity, at least at the moment.
As far I understood an article I read some time ago, the gigantic heat of the explosion melts the surronding soil into a glass cave which conceils the radioactive mess.
The problem is only after years of even decades, this glass sealing can (and at some point will) break and set the radioactivity free. Then the radiation levels will boost up... Thats another problem of humanity waiting we create now (our legacy for our kids).. all this sealed nuke-eggs from past underground expiriments loosing integrity at some future point.
"but there's nothing to stop you doing it, other than the FSF deciding to enforce its copyright on the wording of the licence."
Exactly. Altering the GPL License is
* copyright violation of the FSF
* another legal issue, is that as "signer" of a license you are misguided in what you sign, if there is "GPLv2" labeled above it, and somebody alters some issue in middle of the text, on court you can argue with success that you didn't expect it to have changed, and expected to license under a GPLv2. You may not "sneak" in things... this goes as well e.g. showing somebody a copy of the contract but then on the one to sign silently alter something without giving explicit notice etc. This goes also very much e.g. for "general terms and conditions" you cannot alter them to existing customers without giving explicit notice, if you don't, the old ones are still in charge for him, as you cannot expect them to study them every time.
---
Anyway as you said its not relevant, that is correct. But I don't know which notable other things beside the linux kernel have been released without that phrase... Most GPL software I've seen stick to the recommendation of FSF. Does projects that weren't as paranoid about the FSF as Torvaldis now have no problem "upgrading" to GPLv3.
Or maybe to reword it differently where the aboth poster is wrong.
You do NOT need the expressive permition from an GPLv2 author to republish in GPLv3.
However you do need to NOT have him expressibly prohibited "upgrading" from the author when he published it under GPLv2.
You cannot just alter the GPL license, by changing or deleting text from the middle of it.
/. history thats exactly what I wrote. However despite the Linux kernel I think only very few projects have that addendum. Sourcecode without that addendum can freely be "upgraded" to GPLv3
However some applications have an extra addendum like: the Linux Kernel that prohibit that clause. If you look back in
Common give me you last remaining moderations points also! (Hint: Overrated)
Real bad, bad, bad moderation, how can something be "overrated" that has not even been rated before?
If you don't like the content, then say so.
"although the super-computer thing doesn't make a lot of sense to me."
/.)
Be bold!
Just hit the edit button yourself! (instead of complaining at
"This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
of the License, or (at your option) any later version."
IANAL, but this gives every user the option to "upgarde" the license with his redistribution.
IANAL, but you can take GPLv2 stuff into any GPLv3 project, but not the other way around.
As the GPLv2 has already an upward compability clause, as it says something like "You may use this software at your opinion with any newer GPL version.
The only exception are software packages where the author add an addendum that you do not have this freedom of free GPL "upgrades". (linux kernel e.g., since they didn't want to give the FSF the power to freely alter the license out of their powerrange.)
For those in with a desperate need of caps can have a software solution for their OS that makes double-hit-shift to a capslock...
Really the capslock key is just from the mechanical typewrites where a double-hit-shift would not have been possible.
"Why is the idea of over 50 planets so abhorent?"
Think of the complexity of the new astrology that would be needed to cater for 50 planets that then influence our fortunes, I would like my destiny be determined by just 9 planets...
Planet: A celestial object orbiting a star that is massive enough for its own gravity...
While that massive object orbiting a star to classify as "planet" has addidionally to be:
* not a star itself
* not a black hole
However I'll stick to "my" usual definition: A planet is any non lucent object that orbits a star, where the object has at least the mass of mercur except it's called pluto.
Evolution is optimization.
Yes maybe we would WANT to have bigger brains... but would they really pay off?
from the i-do-not-think-that-word-means-what-you-think-it-m eans dept.
United States Science Politics
Stern Thinker writes "In a 2005 poll covering 33 countries, Americans are the least likely (except for Turkish) to assert that they have evolved. Iceland, meanwhile, has an 85% acceptance rating for their evolution. The blurb on the site for Science magazine is less circumspect about the findings: "The advancement of evolution is lower in the United States than in Japan or Europe, largely because of widespread fundamentalism and the politicization of science in the United States."
Evolution is the acceptance that evolution exists!
Yes I read that argument long time ago, *really* liked it, and so reused it.
I thought you liked it, if it would become a prominent running-joke.
But maybe you want also get a red hat, refer to your copyright and kill your own creation that just started to get its own life.
please choose if you want to be offenden or flattered.
Inhale deeply, put your arms in a circle and say "Embraaaace", then exhale slowly pushing your arms out and say "Exteeeend"
>>If the speed of gravity is greater than the speed of light, does that violate the general relativity?
>Yes. It also violates special relativity and the laws of cause and effect.
What about the tunneleffect, does it violate the laws of cause and effect?
If the electron tunnels through a barrier, at what speed does it tunnel?
There are mainly 2 possibilities:
* If it is instant it's greater than the speed of light.
* If it is not instant (for example speed of light) where the hell is it, when it vanished on one side until it appears on the other side.
* And if it only travels at the speed of light, since the electron with it's electric charge can never be INSIDE the barrier. Where is the charge when it does not travel instant, does this violate the symmetry of eletric charges?
Smallest Positive Mersenne Prime-Number ever: 3
Hey, also small is beatuiful.
AC on wikipedia like on many other webpage is most to encourage activity altough user laziness.
It just a good start to be able to just participate, without having do go through the "complicated" process to create an account. Its just to move one barrier away, to become a wikipedian. Once you feel more comfortable you will create an account nevertheless.