Not all love is sexual, and I knew after I posted that you'd think that's what I meant.
What about the love that one has for another; when he gives his life up for another person -- a soldier who takes a bullet for his friend? How is it rational for him to do this? This goes against the idea of self-preservation and the instinct of survival - irrational.
What about a firefighter who risks his life to save a pet for a young child? This is rational? Isn't it love for the child that he does it?
I could go on all day on stories of love that are irrational, yet love does exist (love can be both rational and irrational at times, but when it is irrational it does not prove that it does not exist.)
But you also said that if religion was rational then it could be proven.
Religion is simply not rational, its emotional. No offense, but thats a fact. If it was rational it could be proven and there would be no need for faith.
I disagree, but I'll try to prove that it is rational on some level using your own argument:
Religion is rational from an evolutionary aspect. With religion comes a force on morality, and morality is certainly a logical element if a society is to grow, be productive, and remain stable. Is it possible to achieve a moral society without religion? Possible, but not likely. Thus, the institution of religion gets better results.
But I think if you look, you'll find it is not those who are religious who think a nipple is evil, but the act of lewdness itself; afterall even many churches have nude statues and paintings in them. In other words, it's not that the nipple was shown, it's how.
You must be insane. Kerry a good leader? This guy says whatever people want him to say. He hasn't held a steady position on any major issue in his entire record of public office.
Why do you think Iran and North Korea endorse Kerry?
Also, you should probably know that in 1997, Kerry actually supported unilateral military operations to unseat Saddam Hussein in Iraq. (CNN's "Crossfire", on Nov. 12, 1997) Go look it up.
We gave Hussein many many chances to comply with the weapons inspectors and he kicked them out, do you remember this?
And this wound you're referring to must be about WMD. Please keep saying that. But also research that it was Clinton's intelligence that said Hussein had WMD in the first place, not Bush. Clinton even launched a missile into an Aspirin factory, if you recall, right around the time of the Lewinsky debacle (probably as a distraction that didn't work).
War was and is the last resort (we don't want to kill people), but you have to keep in mind several things: The troops in Iraq are there because they want to be (we don't draft people), and the people in Iraq want us there (despite what the liberal media shows you). They don't show you the good things that our troops are doing to rebuild that country.
Finally, you ARE going to have a war, like it or not. There are no two ways about it. These insurgents *hate* Americans and everything we stand for, and have declared war on US. The only thing you can do now is pick WHERE to have your war. I choose to have it in Iraq.
You're absolutely right about everything. No arguments here, and I'm not saying its acceptable nor that it's right.
What I'm saying is that I just don't care anymore. I hear about so many vulnerabilities that I submit to defeat in running an insecure OS and web browser.
You're attacking the wrong point. Trust me that I say it's easy to have a repetitious job in web design without needing to see new sites.
The point I was trying to make is that there are lots of people who think like I do, whether it's right or wrong. Point is: I just don't care anymore. Maybe I'm only describing part of the problem.
"See, Bobs, it's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care."
I am a web designer, and I am fully aware of the problems with IE - security and otherwise. But personally, I really don't care about its vulnerabilities. My job is to make my web pages look correct in maybe this version and a few versions back of IE, but that's really it.
Ok. So you can take over my computer with a web page. Well, I'm not going to YOUR web page.
My email filters out spam. Not going. I don't look for warez, don't check out pr0n, don't download any hip new software.
I DO go to my bank's web site and look at my balance, read/., check for updates for Trillian or some other software I might use, or update a driver. Yes, I'm a boring user. But I really don't have time for much else, and since I don't think my bank nor any of those other sites I visit have an interest in doing malicious things to me... I just don't care, plain and simple.
I know it's not a safe way to live, and I think that if my computer were destroyed right now I'd shrug and say "meh." And then build another one.
I had a 386 back in '93. The thing had 2 megs of memory and a 540MB Conner harddrive. It wasn't cutting edge, but it was better than what all my friends had.
A while later, the Internet came to town. I could use Windows 3.1 and Trumpet Winsock to dial in and use my Netscape browser.
Well, it was VERY hungry for memory. And it surely wanted more than 2 measly megabytes.
So every web page I ever saw made the memory page out to the HD hardcore... it churned and spun and clicked and whirred... until one day, it just decided it didn't want to do that and "took a break."
There was this distinct "clickety, clickety, clickety, PING!, Whiiirrr...." then the drive powered down. About 30 seconds passed... "Whiirrrrr" spun back up and decided to work again.
I decided it was time for my computer to have 4 megabytes and the HD never complained again.
Since ISP's give you so many email addresses, or you could run your own mail server, or whatever - when I sign up for something on the net that requires a valid email address, I create an email address just for them.
This serves two purposes. One, if I start getting spam then I know who did it. Second, I can simply shut down that email address.
So, for example, if I wanted to download AVG, then I'd create an alias email address "avg@zerion.com" that simply gets routed to my normal email address, that way when I check it I get my serial number for AVG, and if they start spamming, I know it was AVG because no one else knows that address.
Huh? You don't have to license a patent at all to anyone. It's a US Gov't granted legal monopoly and a patent holder can either choose to or not to license it.
Excuse me? No they *don't* have to license the technology. A patent is a legal monopoly that the U.S. Government grants to the patent holder. They do NOT have to license it to anyone if they don't want to. And the fees don't have to be fair.
You weren't aware that you can get an exclusive license on a patent?
Patents exist to protect physical objects, since you can't copyright an object, only a document. Copyrights offer equivalent protection to documents as patents do to objects. Therefore, software patents are redundant and should be disallowed.
You're obviously misinformed on many aspects of intellectual property.
First, utility patents give much more protection than copyrights do (they are also much, much more expensive to obtain, and take longer). I think you meant to say that design patents give equivalent protection to copyrights.
You can patent many things that are abstract. You can patent a business process. You can patent any process for manufacturing an item. You can patent a type of plant. You can patent a drug. And, of course, software.
Design patents are pretty much useless. They really amount to nothing more than a copyright on an object. For example, Nike might get a design patent on a particular type of shoe. There is no utility protection in a design patent, and all it is meant to do is deter a competitor from copying an object exactly (a simple design change gets around that). Design patents have *no* requirements for originality other than they cannot have been patented before, and the design cannot have been for sale or offered for sale for over a year before filing a patent application, and a few other small things.
Though your argument for the LZW patent seems too ambiguous to debate, I'll try to point out a few reasons why you MIGHT not be able to do what you describe without infringing.
Let's assume there is no prior art, no patents, and you have invented a box with wheels and have obtained a patent. If I invent a better box with wheels, say one made of steel and that has rubber coated wheels, I still infringe on your patent. It doesn't matter that mine's improved or better, because I still infringe. Now, I could get a patent on the process of manufacturing the box with wheels, or the use of steel and rubber on my box with wheels, but I STILL INFRINGE the original patent. The only difference now is that *you* can't make a box using steel and rubber wheels.
However, Unisys interprets its patent as covering the bitstream format, and any program I write which works with the format infringes. This is like saying that any machine which uses steam pressure infringes on the original steam engine patent. This is obviously (patently) incorrect.
Wrong, somewhat. You could make a program that converts LZW bitstream formats to an audible sound wave, for example, because you're neither compressing nor de-compressing the LZW file format. The patent says nothing about accessing the file nor playing it as a sound.
If a patent covers elements A,B, and C, and your invention has elements A,B, and D, then your invention doesn't infringe. If your invention includes elements A,B,C, and D, then your invention infringes, but you can also get a patent on D only. Get it?
There are many bad patents. And I think the terms are too long on patents. And I think the USPTO doesn't do a good job of rejecting patents and conducting prior art searches outside of already patented inventions. But, they are there and we have to live with them. Hope this clears things up a bit.
Slashdot Mirror
Not all love is sexual, and I knew after I posted that you'd think that's what I meant.
What about the love that one has for another; when he gives his life up for another person -- a soldier who takes a bullet for his friend? How is it rational for him to do this? This goes against the idea of self-preservation and the instinct of survival - irrational.
What about a firefighter who risks his life to save a pet for a young child? This is rational? Isn't it love for the child that he does it?
I could go on all day on stories of love that are irrational, yet love does exist (love can be both rational and irrational at times, but when it is irrational it does not prove that it does not exist.)
But you also said that if religion was rational then it could be proven.
Religion is simply not rational, its emotional. No offense, but thats a fact. If it was rational it could be proven and there would be no need for faith.
I disagree, but I'll try to prove that it is rational on some level using your own argument:
Religion is rational from an evolutionary aspect. With religion comes a force on morality, and morality is certainly a logical element if a society is to grow, be productive, and remain stable. Is it possible to achieve a moral society without religion? Possible, but not likely. Thus, the institution of religion gets better results.
But I think if you look, you'll find it is not those who are religious who think a nipple is evil, but the act of lewdness itself; afterall even many churches have nude statues and paintings in them. In other words, it's not that the nipple was shown, it's how.
Is love rational? Yet it exists, doesn't it.
I'm a student at the University of Cosmotology at Berkley, and I think virtual obervathingies are great!!!
I'm currently working on my master's at the University of Cosmotology in Berkley, and I think black holes are great!!!
You must be insane. Kerry a good leader? This guy says whatever people want him to say. He hasn't held a steady position on any major issue in his entire record of public office.
Why do you think Iran and North Korea endorse Kerry?
Also, you should probably know that in 1997, Kerry actually supported unilateral military operations to unseat Saddam Hussein in Iraq. (CNN's "Crossfire", on Nov. 12, 1997) Go look it up.
Excuse me, I think we did.
We gave Hussein many many chances to comply with the weapons inspectors and he kicked them out, do you remember this?
And this wound you're referring to must be about WMD. Please keep saying that. But also research that it was Clinton's intelligence that said Hussein had WMD in the first place, not Bush. Clinton even launched a missile into an Aspirin factory, if you recall, right around the time of the Lewinsky debacle (probably as a distraction that didn't work).
War was and is the last resort (we don't want to kill people), but you have to keep in mind several things: The troops in Iraq are there because they want to be (we don't draft people), and the people in Iraq want us there (despite what the liberal media shows you). They don't show you the good things that our troops are doing to rebuild that country.
Finally, you ARE going to have a war, like it or not. There are no two ways about it. These insurgents *hate* Americans and everything we stand for, and have declared war on US. The only thing you can do now is pick WHERE to have your war. I choose to have it in Iraq.
Thank you.
Your mom puts out?
And the next
Unfortunately, they found out later that a nanometer also looks bigger submerged, too. :-/
I, for one, welcome our new foreign software overlords...
Everytime I think about HL, that one part where you're crawling around on the side of that mountain looking off in the canyon...
Still makes my palms sweat.
You're absolutely right about everything. No arguments here, and I'm not saying its acceptable nor that it's right.
What I'm saying is that I just don't care anymore. I hear about so many vulnerabilities that I submit to defeat in running an insecure OS and web browser.
I used to care. Just not anymore.
You're attacking the wrong point. Trust me that I say it's easy to have a repetitious job in web design without needing to see new sites.
The point I was trying to make is that there are lots of people who think like I do, whether it's right or wrong. Point is: I just don't care anymore. Maybe I'm only describing part of the problem.
"See, Bobs, it's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care."
/., check for updates for Trillian or some other software I might use, or update a driver. Yes, I'm a boring user. But I really don't have time for much else, and since I don't think my bank nor any of those other sites I visit have an interest in doing malicious things to me... I just don't care, plain and simple.
I am a web designer, and I am fully aware of the problems with IE - security and otherwise. But personally, I really don't care about its vulnerabilities. My job is to make my web pages look correct in maybe this version and a few versions back of IE, but that's really it.
Ok. So you can take over my computer with a web page. Well, I'm not going to YOUR web page.
My email filters out spam. Not going. I don't look for warez, don't check out pr0n, don't download any hip new software.
I DO go to my bank's web site and look at my balance, read
I know it's not a safe way to live, and I think that if my computer were destroyed right now I'd shrug and say "meh." And then build another one.
Maybe others feel the same?
Can you imagine a beow... aw, crap! He already stole the joke!
You're a 26-year-old supermodel wife?
Elvish? Elvish Preshley?
What they didn't tell you is that you have to swing your hips when you write in this script.
The lid is either open or it is not.
I had a 386 back in '93. The thing had 2 megs of memory and a 540MB Conner harddrive. It wasn't cutting edge, but it was better than what all my friends had.
A while later, the Internet came to town. I could use Windows 3.1 and Trumpet Winsock to dial in and use my Netscape browser.
Well, it was VERY hungry for memory. And it surely wanted more than 2 measly megabytes.
So every web page I ever saw made the memory page out to the HD hardcore... it churned and spun and clicked and whirred... until one day, it just decided it didn't want to do that and "took a break."
There was this distinct "clickety, clickety, clickety, PING!, Whiiirrr...." then the drive powered down. About 30 seconds passed... "Whiirrrrr" spun back up and decided to work again.
I decided it was time for my computer to have 4 megabytes and the HD never complained again.
You had sulfurous pitch? You were lucky...
Sorry to nit-pick... but to keep the rhyme it's:
"...when sounding like 'ay' as in neighbor and weigh
Of course, there are plenty of words that violate the rule:
cleidoic, feisty, gneiss, greisen, heigh-ho, height, heist, leitmotiv, seidel, seismic, eider, codeine, either, neither, protein, seize, teiid, conscience, foreign, forfeit, prescient, sovereign, surfeit, heifer, heir, caffeine, casein, deil, disseize, geisha, inveigle, keister, leisure, monteith, obeisance, phenolphthalein, phthalein, protein, seize, seizin, sheik, sheila, specie, species, teiid, weir, (and of course,) weird -- just to name a few.
Therefore, instead of trying to defend the rule why don't we all just agree that it's dumb and useless.
Since ISP's give you so many email addresses, or you could run your own mail server, or whatever - when I sign up for something on the net that requires a valid email address, I create an email address just for them.
This serves two purposes. One, if I start getting spam then I know who did it. Second, I can simply shut down that email address.
So, for example, if I wanted to download AVG, then I'd create an alias email address "avg@zerion.com" that simply gets routed to my normal email address, that way when I check it I get my serial number for AVG, and if they start spamming, I know it was AVG because no one else knows that address.
Huh? You don't have to license a patent at all to anyone. It's a US Gov't granted legal monopoly and a patent holder can either choose to or not to license it.
Excuse me? No they *don't* have to license the technology. A patent is a legal monopoly that the U.S. Government grants to the patent holder. They do NOT have to license it to anyone if they don't want to. And the fees don't have to be fair.
You weren't aware that you can get an exclusive license on a patent?
You're obviously misinformed on many aspects of intellectual property.
First, utility patents give much more protection than copyrights do (they are also much, much more expensive to obtain, and take longer). I think you meant to say that design patents give equivalent protection to copyrights.
You can patent many things that are abstract. You can patent a business process. You can patent any process for manufacturing an item. You can patent a type of plant. You can patent a drug. And, of course, software.
Design patents are pretty much useless. They really amount to nothing more than a copyright on an object. For example, Nike might get a design patent on a particular type of shoe. There is no utility protection in a design patent, and all it is meant to do is deter a competitor from copying an object exactly (a simple design change gets around that). Design patents have *no* requirements for originality other than they cannot have been patented before, and the design cannot have been for sale or offered for sale for over a year before filing a patent application, and a few other small things.
Though your argument for the LZW patent seems too ambiguous to debate, I'll try to point out a few reasons why you MIGHT not be able to do what you describe without infringing.
Let's assume there is no prior art, no patents, and you have invented a box with wheels and have obtained a patent. If I invent a better box with wheels, say one made of steel and that has rubber coated wheels, I still infringe on your patent. It doesn't matter that mine's improved or better, because I still infringe. Now, I could get a patent on the process of manufacturing the box with wheels, or the use of steel and rubber on my box with wheels, but I STILL INFRINGE the original patent. The only difference now is that *you* can't make a box using steel and rubber wheels.
Wrong, somewhat. You could make a program that converts LZW bitstream formats to an audible sound wave, for example, because you're neither compressing nor de-compressing the LZW file format. The patent says nothing about accessing the file nor playing it as a sound.
If a patent covers elements A,B, and C, and your invention has elements A,B, and D, then your invention doesn't infringe. If your invention includes elements A,B,C, and D, then your invention infringes, but you can also get a patent on D only. Get it?
There are many bad patents. And I think the terms are too long on patents. And I think the USPTO doesn't do a good job of rejecting patents and conducting prior art searches outside of already patented inventions. But, they are there and we have to live with them. Hope this clears things up a bit.