I assume this is the same as the documentary of the same name which aired on the BBC in the UK a couple of months after DNA's death. Highly recommended for fans, and non-fans should see something to get them interested as well.
Any imaginative author or deluded "holy man" can define the universe and then find details and create a history
that is logically consistent, and can adapt such a theory to any and all data that might refute it.
Imagination is not enough to create a theory which fits in with all observations of the real world, from the expansion of the universe to the movements of galaxies to the chemical reactions of life. Science has always been trying to produce such a theory, but has so far failed. Religion has never even tried.
The strength of science is that it claims no ultimate unshakable truths, and it can and must adapt itself "to any and all data that might refute it". Hawking's work is at the theoretical end of physics, but, like all science, it is firmly anchored in the real world. His theories accurately predicted the existence and behaviour of black holes before any had been found, just as the ancient Greeks used maths to accurately calculate the size of this planet thousands of years before we could observe it from the outside.
Those same Greeks badly miscalculated the distance to the Sun, but later scientists corrected their mistakes. Had they made a religion out of their calculations, I might now be sentenced to death for daring to contradict them.
No; according to the xanim home page, Sorenson has an exclusive agreement with Apple. The details of the codec cannot be released to anyone, even under NDA, unless both Apple and Sorenson renegotiate this agreement. Whenever people ask them about this, they take the easy way out, and blame each other.
No; according to the xanim home page, Sorenson has an exclusive agreement with Apple. The details of the codec cannot be released to anyone, even under NDA, unless both Apple and Sorenson renegotiate this agreement. Whenever people ask them about this, they take the easy way out, and blame each other.
No, you fool, that only searches for sites with the phraselink slashdot.org. Surely the fact that only 26 results were found should tip you off that something was wrong?
I don't understand why google can't accept both link: and -site: at the same time; it's probably meant to.
Most British police don't carry guns, but those who do operate under the policy "If you do shoot, shoot to kill", which raised a number of questions after two people were killed by the police in the space of one week. One of them was carrying a replica gun, and the other was not merely unarmed but naked (and wasn't even the right guy).
"The reason the US Department of Justice has proposed relief that is significantly narrower than the [public interest]... is no secret either. We bribed them to advance the commercial interests of Microsoft.
Right, so this is another example of Slashdot's thourough checking of their sources. But imagine if they had been right. Would the copyright holders have been able to follow MySQL's example and ban Morpheus from distributing their program for all time, unless they got down on their knees and begged for forgiveness for their henious 12-hour violation of the GPL?
Am I the only one who doesn't like the idea of the GPL being used in an apparently spiteful and vindictive way?
If I found a program like 'Netscape' freely available for anyone to download on the internet, is there anything
illegial about making a new frontend for it that enhances 'Netscape' (such as Galeon does with Mozilla)?
Depends what you mean by `making a new frontend'. If your front end stands alone, and contains no part of Netscape, then, like Galeon, you're fine. If it is a complete copy of Netscape with a modified front end, then you do need Netscape's permission.
The interesting thing about the GPL is that most projects don't FORCE you to agree to it. If it's found that my above
senerio is legal, than it would seem that extending freely available code (where you haven't agreed to any
particular license) would fall under fair use as well.
Under copyright law, the default is for no-one but the copyright holder to have any rights to copy, distribute, modify or derive from the program. The GPL sets out the conditions you must agree to if you want to do these things. It is far less restrictive than any proprietary license. In particular, it unconditionally grants all rights to use, copy for personal use, and modify for personal use.
(It's laughable that people think Microsoft can't
embrase and extend GPLed software, even while conforming to the GPL).
Given that Microsoft is acting like the GPL is their worst nemesis, I don't think they have any plans to ever try doing this.
Mind you, if the judgement turns out like I believe it will, I'll be the first downloading all the GPLed software I can,
and making it freely downloadable under it's non-binding GPL v2 license!
Eh? Most GPLed software is already freely downloadable under the GPL v2 license. But if you mean you plan on writing your own new version of the GPL, then no, you idiot, only the copyright holder can do that.
The total ownership of the DVD standard presents a second way to force unwanted hardware down the
customer's throats: patent a standard, license keys, and use the DMCA to enforce the keyring.
CSS was never patented, because there was nothing original or novel about it. In fact, it was a thouroughly poor encryption system (partly because of the restrictive encryption export laws in force at the time of its development).
CSS was `protected' by the DMCA, because its language is so vague that it even covers rot13 encryption. Let me put it this way: they found it easier and cheaper to bribe Congress to enforce legal restrictions than to develop technological restrictions of their own.
In Scotland, the law of trespass is the reverse of most places. As long as you don't damage anything you can go anywhere you like, unless forbidden (i.e. in person, by signs, or by high razor-wire fences).
In other words, the default is to allow access rather than to deny it.
When programming was just getting started, it was viewed as nothing more than secretarial work: transcribing the ideas of the male designers into the computer's code (or punch cards, switches, etc.) This changed dramatically in the 50s, but I'm sure that programming using toggle switches and actual rewiring was a hell of a lot harder than assembly language.
We're talking about political parties here! No need for an explicit offer, just the implicit understanding that the money keeps on flowing as long as the legislation does. It's the AmericanWay(tm)!
Yeah, but what if I promised another $1m every year, as long as you continued to do what I want? That is the position the political parties are in. $1m is not as much to the Republicans as it would be to you, although it's not exactly the drop in the ocean that it is to M$.
Please insert all hilarious voice recognition puns in this thread....
"Thank you for calling 999, which service do you require?"
FIRE!!
"[pause]Your request has been passed on. In order to optimise future use of this service, please repeat the following list of words in a steady voice: cat, dog, bar, sky, foo..."
"You are under arrest for violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. You do not have to say anything, but... What? You're Anonymous?! Right, that does it! All Anonymous Cowards are under arrest!"
No, because you pay for what you use and get paid for what you supply. `Leeches' would have to pay for the difference in dollars. Theoretically though, if all processor time was utilizable, the cost per second of processing would be vanishingly small.
What is a mind? What is consciousness? I'm inclined to believe that they are emergent phenomena produced by the immense complexity and paralellism of the brain. Just as a flock of birds is not deliberately formed by the actions of individual birds, but results from the interactions of each bird with its neighbour, I suspect that the mind is produced from the huge number of relatively simple neuron-to-neuron interactions taking place concurrently. I freely admit that I have no evidence to back this up, but it's no less plausible than your viewpoint.
I hope you realise why I don't view embryos as people to be accorded rights. They have no brain, therefore they cannot be people. I expect you will disagree with me on this point.
However, I see from your website that you are an anti-abortionist. As far as aborting fetuses in advanced stages of development goes, we are in complete agreement.
Human: A symetrical mass of geneticaly identical cells that have the ability to produce diferent protiens given certain enviornmental factors.
A bit vague, I think. It certainly applies to all humans, but it also applies to all animals. In fact, by that definition, any part of any living thing is human.
it is stil a person by any wildest stretch of the imagination.
I don't know about you, but I would say the only prerequisite for being a person is posession of a mind. All humans are people, after a certain stage of development. Some apes might be people. I don't discount the possibility of extraterrestrial people, or artificial people. Does an embryo have a mind? It doesn't even have any bodily structures, let alone a brain.
the death rate from conception until 6
months old out of the womb is rather high. Many parents are saddened each year by the failure to carry pregnacys to term, and those that die within a
short time of leaving the womb.
Sorry, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I'm talking about embryos, not fetuses or babies. An embryo is made of a small number of physically identical cells. It has no shape or structure. It could be described as a human. It could never be described as a person.
Slashdot Mirror
I assume this is the same as the documentary of the same name which aired on the BBC in the UK a couple of months after DNA's death. Highly recommended for fans, and non-fans should see something to get them interested as well.
Those who almost can, support
Those who can't, teach
Those who really can't, manage.
Imagination is not enough to create a theory which fits in with all observations of the real world, from the expansion of the universe to the movements of galaxies to the chemical reactions of life. Science has always been trying to produce such a theory, but has so far failed. Religion has never even tried.
The strength of science is that it claims no ultimate unshakable truths, and it can and must adapt itself "to any and all data that might refute it". Hawking's work is at the theoretical end of physics, but, like all science, it is firmly anchored in the real world. His theories accurately predicted the existence and behaviour of black holes before any had been found, just as the ancient Greeks used maths to accurately calculate the size of this planet thousands of years before we could observe it from the outside.
Those same Greeks badly miscalculated the distance to the Sun, but later scientists corrected their mistakes. Had they made a religion out of their calculations, I might now be sentenced to death for daring to contradict them.
No; according to the xanim home page, Sorenson has an exclusive agreement with Apple. The details of the codec cannot be released to anyone, even under NDA, unless both Apple and Sorenson renegotiate this agreement. Whenever people ask them about this, they take the easy way out, and blame each other.
No; according to the xanim home page, Sorenson has an exclusive agreement with Apple. The details of the codec cannot be released to anyone, even under NDA, unless both Apple and Sorenson renegotiate this agreement. Whenever people ask them about this, they take the easy way out, and blame each other.
We bought them.
How does the Red Hat/ArsDigita deal complement Red Hat's business?
They make us bigger.
How will Red Hat change the ArsDigita business?
We'll swallow them.
Will Red Hat continue to develop ACS for the Java Platform (ACSJ)?
Yes.
When will the 5.0 version of ACSJ be released?
Whenever we damn well feel like it.
Will ACSJ remain Open Source?
Yes.
Will Red Hat change the license for ACSJ from ADPL to GPL?
Yes. Well, probably.
Will ACS continue to be called "ACS"?
Yes. Well, maybe.
What will happen to www.arsdigita.com?
We'll swallow it.
Will Red Hat continue to operate ArsDigita's public discussion forums (web/db, "ACS Core & CMS", etc.)?
Yes.
I don't understand why google can't accept both link: and -site: at the same time; it's probably meant to.
Most British police don't carry guns, but those who do operate under the policy "If you do shoot, shoot to kill", which raised a number of questions after two people were killed by the police in the space of one week. One of them was carrying a replica gun, and the other was not merely unarmed but naked (and wasn't even the right guy).
- a = b
- a^2 = ab
- a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2
- (a - b)(a + b) = b(a - b)
- a + b = b
- 2b = b
- 2 = 1
For anyone who's interested, the mistake is a division by zero (a = b --> a - b = 0) between lines 4 and 5.Am I the only one who doesn't like the idea of the GPL being used in an apparently spiteful and vindictive way?
Depends what you mean by `making a new frontend'. If your front end stands alone, and contains no part of Netscape, then, like Galeon, you're fine. If it is a complete copy of Netscape with a modified front end, then you do need Netscape's permission.
Under copyright law, the default is for no-one but the copyright holder to have any rights to copy, distribute, modify or derive from the program. The GPL sets out the conditions you must agree to if you want to do these things. It is far less restrictive than any proprietary license. In particular, it unconditionally grants all rights to use, copy for personal use, and modify for personal use.
Given that Microsoft is acting like the GPL is their worst nemesis, I don't think they have any plans to ever try doing this.
Eh? Most GPLed software is already freely downloadable under the GPL v2 license. But if you mean you plan on writing your own new version of the GPL, then no, you idiot, only the copyright holder can do that.
CSS was `protected' by the DMCA, because its language is so vague that it even covers rot13 encryption. Let me put it this way: they found it easier and cheaper to bribe Congress to enforce legal restrictions than to develop technological restrictions of their own.
In other words, the default is to allow access rather than to deny it.
Not one dominating party, but five. Not much better, I think.
When programming was just getting started, it was viewed as nothing more than secretarial work: transcribing the ideas of the male designers into the computer's code (or punch cards, switches, etc.) This changed dramatically in the 50s, but I'm sure that programming using toggle switches and actual rewiring was a hell of a lot harder than assembly language.
We're talking about political parties here! No need for an explicit offer, just the implicit understanding that the money keeps on flowing as long as the legislation does. It's the AmericanWay(tm)!
Yeah, but what if I promised another $1m every year, as long as you continued to do what I want? That is the position the political parties are in. $1m is not as much to the Republicans as it would be to you, although it's not exactly the drop in the ocean that it is to M$.
Let's try an experiment. I am going to give you $1m. Now, do you think I might, just possibly, want something in return...?
"Thank you for calling 999, which service do you require?"
FIRE!!
"[pause]Your request has been passed on. In order to optimise future use of this service, please repeat the following list of words in a steady voice: cat, dog, bar, sky, foo..."
"You are under arrest for violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. You do not have to say anything, but... What? You're Anonymous?! Right, that does it! All Anonymous Cowards are under arrest!"
No, because you pay for what you use and get paid for what you supply. `Leeches' would have to pay for the difference in dollars. Theoretically though, if all processor time was utilizable, the cost per second of processing would be vanishingly small.
Just about everyone had that complaint. That's why it's nominated for Sound, not for Sound Editing. What the hell is `Sound' for then?
I hope you realise why I don't view embryos as people to be accorded rights. They have no brain, therefore they cannot be people. I expect you will disagree with me on this point.
However, I see from your website that you are an anti-abortionist. As far as aborting fetuses in advanced stages of development goes, we are in complete agreement.