Parents make decisions based in part on the ESRB's rating. If a game company is suspected of deceiving the ESRB and (thereby parents) then it's the role of gov't to step in and investigate.
Why? The ESRB is not a government organization, is not established by any law, and game publishers don't even have to apply for a rating.
It was created by the Entertainment Software Association (a private entity that represents member publishers) as a way to "self-regulate" (fancy term for "avoid lawsuits").
Why should the government step in? Under what law? The ESRB has ways to punish member groups that cheated the rating system. They can and have been policing their own members for years. Should one high-profile incident be used as a precedent to punish everyone else who has been playing fair?
That's all assuming you agree with the re-rating to AO, which I personally think is bullsh!t and do not agree with. (Though Rockstar wasn't too smart when they didn't remove the actual content.) The content under question can't be accessed from the game, as sold.
Actual liberals have peoples best interests at heart.
Best interests according to who? Funny enough, I've had plenty of liberals tell me what they think is good for me, but I've never had one ask me what *I* think is good for me.
Still, I wish that somebody would build new workstation-quality computers that had an elegant 64-bit RISC architecture, kind of like the Power Mac G5...
...Remember Alpha, SPARC, PowerPC, Motorola 68k, and PA-RISC? I wish that we had this diversity in chipsets again.
Ummm... I take it you've never played with one of these.
And just as soon as Apple subsumes Palm they'll have my whole personal-computing niche sewn up.
Dear God, no!
Just what we need is for Apple to subsume Palm and give it the success of the Newton! Even better, put an Apple logo on it and mark it up another 10%. Or, have it come in an ugly translucent white color with a white fade-in-fade-out standby light. Maybe they'll make an ugly clamshell Palm reminiscent of the toilet-seat iBook, or make it round like the iMac hockey-puck mouse.
I happen to *like* Palm as it is now. Of course, I've always wanted a good push to go buy a Zaurus. Apple buying Palm would certainly be a good push.
I think what would be best for the both of us if Apple licenses PalmOS, and puts it in an iPod-PDA hybrid. You get your Apple-branded handheld, and I get to keep my Palm-branded handheld without any Apple contamination.
Don't get me wrong, some things Apple has done recently are great, like OS X. But I'm afraid the last Apple I am going to own (and I started with a an Apple II+) is my old Power Macintosh 6400.
$exyNerdie wrote: Motorola IMFree Handheld Instant Messenger Kit for $19.99
Local walmart has the same on sale for $15...
It never ceases to amaze me how many self-declared "nerds", "geeks", and "hackers" completely miss why something is cool.
If you think it's cool because it does wireless IM, and there's something similar at Wal*Mart, so it must be cool too, and it's a lot cheaper, you aren't really a nerd, geek, or hacker.
It's cool because:
It uses WiFi, not some proprietary wireless technology, and therefore can be used anywhere you have WiFi access. (Open AP, friend's AP, etc.)
It runs Linux, not some proprietary OS.
It can be hacked. The OS can be re-flashed, your own programs can be run, and is therefore much more capable than "just IM".
It's all the above for less than $100.
That is why it is cool. Not because it does IM.
Your "cheaper one" only does IM, only does one protocol, must be within range of the USB computer that has the base station, doesn't run Linux, doesn't use 802.11, and the reason it's so cheap is due to the fact that nobody wants one. They started out at $100 over a year ago. Now Wal*Mart has them for $15 because they want the shelf space back for products that will sell.
First, congratulations to her: yes, it's an accomplishment. The only reason we think it's a major accomplishment, though, is we've been fooled into thinking kids can't learn complex things... [snip]
Somewhat agreed.
Many kids can't learn certain complex things. When I was a kid, couldn't play basketball. Music was complex. Painting a picture was complex. I couldn't do any of these.
Complexity is often a matter of perception, and quite often has a lot to do with natural talent. Half the people on Slashdot would say the average football jock is incapable of learning anything complex. I imagine those who would say that have never memorized the contents of a football playbook and probably can't catch or throw very well, either. Then again, the football jock probably wouldn't do well at a bash prompt and doesn't know the nuances of C syntax. He probably doesn't understand why a lot of nerds can't grasp football.
I was definitely on the computer side of things. When I was nine, I wrote a rudimentary operating system (a CP/M clone) in 6502 assembly language. The only part I didn't write myself was the disk driver, taken from Apple DOS 3.3 (RWTS for those of you in the know), which I disassembled from machine code so I could assemble it at another location and make some modifications. The system booted up to a command prompt and could load files that were pre-placed on the disk by hand, but I didn't know enough about storage techniques at the time to complete a good file system. Eventually I lost interest.
Somewhere around that time, I also wrote a RAM disk driver for said Apple DOS 3.3, again in 6502 assembly language. Did I mention that I also knew Z80 assembly language, too? I wrote CP/M programs as well.
Nobody would have sent me to college to learn anything, though... you see, I kept failing classes in public school. I did fifth grade twice. I almost didn't graduate high school, and when I did, I barely scraped up a 2.0 GPA.
There are may factors in my performance, but basically I was disinterested in school. I started skipping a lot in high school, not to do drugs or smoke or even anything at all. Just to get away from school.
I'm still a bit disinterested in school, but when I'm paying for it (sort of... I have a full ride), it's different - as evidenced by my 3.8 GPA in college.
So now, after having been in the military, and then college?
Music is still complex. I've taken 15 credits in music, and gained a rudimentary understanding, but it is still really complex. I've tried playing basketball off and on, but making the ball go into the basket is a complex task, to me anyway. I still have trouble drawing anything more complex than a stick figure. My wife is a natural at west coast swing dancing, but when she made me take lessons, it turned out to be the hardest thing I ever tried to learn. (Yeah, I said 'wife'... for many slashdotters, though, just getting a woman to talk to them is a complex task!)
Perceived complexity. What one person thinks is "easy", another thinks is "hard". It may even be true, because we have different talents and minds don't all function the same.
Basically there is no way to get people to follow. You would assume that those who wish to follow that system would do so. Those that don't wish to follow it may leave at any time. The goal isn't to "convert people". The goal is to live according to one's wishes to be free from governmental and corporate control while doing one's part in bettering the community.
Suppose your society existed...
What makes you think that a person with ambition will simply leave, rather than convert a few people to their side and roll all over the rest of you?
At any rate, even if nobody wants to conquer the rest of you, this philosphy that you are describing seems to promote the idea that it is possible to get a large quantity of human beings to simply contribute to society for no benefit over what the guy next door is getting.
Clearly, the winner in this system (like any socialist system) is the guy who does the least amount of work. Unless you are going to make them work (or leave)... and where is the liberty in that?
Looked up lake Baikal (a very large lake in Siberia, 445m above sea-level) after remembering I had a poster on my wall for years showing the surface temperature of the lake from ATSR satellite imagery.. wondered what it looked like in more realistic colour.. but what is this huge line that crosses it?
If you zoom in and look carefully, you will see that it is likely cloth tape on the photograph. Probably put there for a reason (torn image, seam, etc.), prior to scanning.
What I can't explain is why it looks like it disappears into the lake at several points, but I'm guessing they touched up areas where there was no detail to worry about, such as the wide blue splotches of water. Maybe they had data for specific areas that they could blend in.
Either that, or the Russians have engineering technology that makes it unlikely that they would have lost the cold war... That object, if on the surface of the earth, would be fscking huge.
Maby i'm just very thick... but... why would these two companies merge ? (is it a really merger btw, or really one company buying out the other?)
A large storage company, and a maker of security software? Where's the "synergy" ? Maby i'm missing a concept or two...
Symantec doesn't just provide security software, it provides security services as well.
Their combined forces will be able to offer customers complete data security, from protected machines all the way to secure backups.
Symantec has been integrating enterprise services like this for a while now, and I'm sure they Veritas' services as part of a good overall product and service line.
Don't forget that Symantec has grown through the last 15 years by by swallowing up other corporations that have products, solutions, and technology they want.
NOW YOU HAVE NO EYES AND OGG GO BACK TO CAVE PAINTING ALL DAY!!!!
.
(In other news, the Slashdot's lameness filter is attempting to remove all the humor in my post. Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Well, that *was* the point of using all caps.)
It is not clear that you have added that restriction, since such a restriction might well only be enforcible if you have made a contract with the program's recipient. Since your program is licensed under the GPL, you do not have a contract.
That is not necessarily true.
If the program is distributed under the GPL, the GPL only covers the program itself. Adding restrictions to the program that are outside the scope of the GPL is not a problem.
The GPL only guarantees the right to distribute a program and derive works from it and have available the source, it does not grant you the right to execute the program, though distributing software usually implies that the right to do so is included.
Restricting what can be done with the output of the program does not appear infringe on the GPL, since the GPL specifically says it does not cover output (except when the output is a derivative work of the program), and does not restrict the act of running the program. It also does not say that these cannot be covered by additional restrictions.
So, what if I say: "The source and binary forms of this program are licensed under the GPL. The output of this program, however, is copyrighted by me and licensed to you for your exclusive personal use. Your decision to execute the program constitutes acceptance of this condition."
The GPL does not have a conflict with this (see section 0 of the GPL), so I see no reason why this restriction would not hold. Then again, IANAL.
So the output only claims to be copyrighted by you, and in practice, you might have some difficulty proving to a court that you own it. If you wrote the output yourself, then sure, it's yours. If the program wrote it, it's not so clear.
Not clear, but not necessarily untrue or unenforceable.
I suspect we'll be waiting to hear what the courts say. It's only a matter of time.
Taking a screenshot is clearly "running" the program, so that is not restricted. And clearly a screenshot (an image) is not a derived work of the program, so that's fine too.
Only the most technically incompetant or clinically paranoid legal team could have a problem with this.
What is says is that the output of the program is not restricted by the GPL, because the GPL does not cover the output, only the program.
I can write and release a program under the GPL... say it writes bad haiku, and the output is thus:
The following is (c) 2005 Kymermosst, All Rights Reserved:
Nineteen ninety-five Is but only one less than Nineteen ninety-six
The output is copyrighted by me. Also, since the GPL specifically says that it does not cover the output, nothing is stopping me from adding that restriction.
I'll grant that some pyrethroids appear to be relatively non-toxic to humans, but everything I've read about permethrin is that it is carcinogentic and mutagenic when human cell cultures are exposed to it.
I'm not suggesting that their use should be banned, but that they should be used *carefully*, like any other chemical that disrupts fundamental chemical processes in organisms.
More info on this confusion, and the Eddie Bauer "nude-ins" here.
My problem with the article you linked is that it lumps asbestos with bovine growth hormone and DDT, and makes the implication that asbestos is the result of chemistry as performed by humans.
Asbestos has nothing to do with chemical engineering or nanotechnology. It is a natural substance.
Asbestos is mined out of the ground, and the term itself, while usually referring to asbestiform serpentine (chrysotile), can occasionally refer to certain elongated crystal forms of several other minerals, all occurring naturally.
It is a shame that an article attempting to eliminate confusion is itself confused.
So much for "completely safe". "Completely safe" means no toxicity to unintended targets.
Also, you said about DDT:... it is genotoxic, very carcinogenic, neurotoxic, damages the liver and kidnes, is teratogenic, and is transferred in breast milk.
Almost all of those have been said about pyrethroids, too (read the bold text in the last link above). I don't know what "testing" you have read up on, but obviously it's not the same as what I have read.
I used a diamond from my great grandmother's ring. No more money to the cartel, it was a special stone, and my wife likes it just fine. (Yes, she knows where I got it... she thinks heirloom stones are cool and wants it to go on to a great granddaughter someday.)
I had the diamond set in a custom engagement ring, and we had our jeweler make two additional bands that were affixed to each side of the engagement ring for the wedding.
Why dream up a complicated, expensive solution like manufacturing your own diamond, when you can have a simple solution?
Of course, the moment I read this story I figured that the submitter was either having a good laugh for a good troll or just too out of touch with reality for their own good.
Other solutions that other people have suggested: Get a Canadian stone (no blood), or get one from a pawn shop.
My addendum: If you get one from a pawn shop, do *not* give her the ring from the pawn shop. Have the stone set into a new custom ring. It'll be special that way. Get the stone appraised by a certified gemologist. Finally, she doesn't need to know it's not a "new" diamond. But she'd better be sure the ring as a package is "new".
Sir, clearly you know what you are talking about. What are you doing here on slashdot?;-)/me wishes it was still like the late 90s when people on slashdot were mostly above-average types
Sadly, I'm still trying to decide whether to stick with CIS for my undergrad major, switch to Geology, do a dual major, or finish my BS in CIS and do Geology for my MS.
Either way, I enjoy the Geology more than the Computer Science, and as a Geologist, I wouldn't have to sit in a cubicle all day, every day.
For now, I've got a Geology minor assumimg I pass the final in Structural Geology tomorrow.
I was under the impression than Mars has no appreciable magnetic field, and that a potential explanation for this was the dynamo of molten iron that the earth enjoys had cooled to solidification on Mars.
The key word is potential. I'm not saying that Mars has a liquid core... but perhaps a mushy "plastic" one.
There should still be a lot of heat. Remember that the pressures we are talking about at a planet's core would mean many materials were solid to semi-solid at much higher temperatures than they would be at the surface.
Serpentinization is a low-temperature, low-pressure process where ultramafic minerals (like olivine) are introduced to water. They metamorphose into serpentine-group minerals. It is a common surface to near-surface process on Earth. (It is the opposite of most other metamorphic reactions, where an increase of pressure/temperature causes the change... in this case, it is the decrease.)
1) yeah there was water there at one point in history but it's not around much anyomre in liquid form.
Yes, but we don't know what is below the surface. It is likely that mars is still fairly warm in the middle due to remnant heat and radioactive decay.
2) Mars is tiny, less than 20% the size of the earth, while there was at one time tectonic activity which could have provided the necessary heat / pressure to do this, the planet is currently frozen solid and has been for some time. It just doesn't have the mass (like earth does...) to keep tectonic activity going on.
Io, moon of Jupiter, is smaller than Mars and has ongoing tectonic activity. It has nothing to do with the mass of a body, it has everything to do with heat, which Mars has little of, for sure, but once had plenty of... look at Olympus Mons.
There is no evidence that Mars is "frozen solid". It could still have a soft core. In any case, it is likely to be rather warm in the middle, still.
3) without a constant (and modern) method for creating this methane, it all would have blown away like the rest of the Martian atmosphere, the planet is cold, nothing geologic is going on there anymore.
I agree with the geologists. The explanation is rather simple: There isn't a whole lot of water on Mars, so water contact with olivine is scarce. Thus, the reaction is very slow. If there were sh*tloads of olivine in the subsurface Mars, and there may be, then serpentinization could go on for a long time.
Why do I think there's a lot of olivine in Mars? Because there is a lot of olivine in the Earth. The bulk of the mantle is peridotite, an olivine-pyroxene rock.
But wait, there's more! There might be a large amount of olivine on the surface of mars. Olivine is a quite common mineral to find in basalt flows on Earth, existing as phenocrysts or mantle xenoliths. Matter of fact, I was looking at some olivine crystals in some basalt in central Oregon yesterday.
Now, bedrock exposures at the surface of Mars have been observed to be largely a basalt-like rock. In fact, it appears to be the main rock type on most of the surface of mars.
(Interestingly enough, basalt also happens to be the most common crustal surface rock type on Earth, given that it is the surface rock of oceanic crust.)
It may be that there is a large amount of olivine on Mars, and a limited supply of water would cause the reaction to be slow and sustained. It could go on for a long time.
I'm not saying life does not exist, in fact I defended the idea in my Slashdot journal a year or so ago, but I wouldn't pin all the methane production on life when another simple explanation exists.
Slashdot Mirror
Parents make decisions based in part on the ESRB's rating. If a game company is suspected of deceiving the ESRB and (thereby parents) then it's the role of gov't to step in and investigate.
Why? The ESRB is not a government organization, is not established by any law, and game publishers don't even have to apply for a rating.
It was created by the Entertainment Software Association (a private entity that represents member publishers) as a way to "self-regulate" (fancy term for "avoid lawsuits").
Why should the government step in? Under what law? The ESRB has ways to punish member groups that cheated the rating system. They can and have been policing their own members for years. Should one high-profile incident be used as a precedent to punish everyone else who has been playing fair?
That's all assuming you agree with the re-rating to AO, which I personally think is bullsh!t and do not agree with. (Though Rockstar wasn't too smart when they didn't remove the actual content.) The content under question can't be accessed from the game, as sold.
Actual liberals have peoples best interests at heart.
Best interests according to who? Funny enough, I've had plenty of liberals tell me what they think is good for me, but I've never had one ask me what *I* think is good for me.
I have an Ultra 30 that I play with. At work we've got a very large number of Sun servers.
They are a pleasure to work with, and no viruses, and no common x86 exploits, as you mentioned.
I'd love to get something faster, though. I'm thinking about an Ultra 60, perhaps.
Still, I wish that somebody would build new workstation-quality computers that had an elegant 64-bit RISC architecture, kind of like the Power Mac G5...
...Remember Alpha, SPARC, PowerPC, Motorola 68k, and PA-RISC? I wish that we had this diversity in chipsets again.
Ummm... I take it you've never played with one of these.
And just as soon as Apple subsumes Palm they'll have my whole personal-computing niche sewn up.
Dear God, no!
Just what we need is for Apple to subsume Palm and give it the success of the Newton! Even better, put an Apple logo on it and mark it up another 10%. Or, have it come in an ugly translucent white color with a white fade-in-fade-out standby light. Maybe they'll make an ugly clamshell Palm reminiscent of the toilet-seat iBook, or make it round like the iMac hockey-puck mouse.
I happen to *like* Palm as it is now. Of course, I've always wanted a good push to go buy a Zaurus. Apple buying Palm would certainly be a good push.
I think what would be best for the both of us if Apple licenses PalmOS, and puts it in an iPod-PDA hybrid. You get your Apple-branded handheld, and I get to keep my Palm-branded handheld without any Apple contamination.
Don't get me wrong, some things Apple has done recently are great, like OS X. But I'm afraid the last Apple I am going to own (and I started with a an Apple II+) is my old Power Macintosh 6400.
It never ceases to amaze me how many self-declared "nerds", "geeks", and "hackers" completely miss why something is cool.
If you think it's cool because it does wireless IM, and there's something similar at Wal*Mart, so it must be cool too, and it's a lot cheaper, you aren't really a nerd, geek, or hacker.
It's cool because:
That is why it is cool. Not because it does IM.
Your "cheaper one" only does IM, only does one protocol, must be within range of the USB computer that has the base station, doesn't run Linux, doesn't use 802.11, and the reason it's so cheap is due to the fact that nobody wants one. They started out at $100 over a year ago. Now Wal*Mart has them for $15 because they want the shelf space back for products that will sell.
First, congratulations to her: yes, it's an accomplishment. The only reason we think it's a major accomplishment, though, is we've been fooled into thinking kids can't learn complex things... [snip]
Somewhat agreed.
Many kids can't learn certain complex things. When I was a kid, couldn't play basketball. Music was complex. Painting a picture was complex. I couldn't do any of these.
Complexity is often a matter of perception, and quite often has a lot to do with natural talent. Half the people on Slashdot would say the average football jock is incapable of learning anything complex. I imagine those who would say that have never memorized the contents of a football playbook and probably can't catch or throw very well, either. Then again, the football jock probably wouldn't do well at a bash prompt and doesn't know the nuances of C syntax. He probably doesn't understand why a lot of nerds can't grasp football.
I was definitely on the computer side of things. When I was nine, I wrote a rudimentary operating system (a CP/M clone) in 6502 assembly language. The only part I didn't write myself was the disk driver, taken from Apple DOS 3.3 (RWTS for those of you in the know), which I disassembled from machine code so I could assemble it at another location and make some modifications. The system booted up to a command prompt and could load files that were pre-placed on the disk by hand, but I didn't know enough about storage techniques at the time to complete a good file system. Eventually I lost interest.
Somewhere around that time, I also wrote a RAM disk driver for said Apple DOS 3.3, again in 6502 assembly language. Did I mention that I also knew Z80 assembly language, too? I wrote CP/M programs as well.
Nobody would have sent me to college to learn anything, though... you see, I kept failing classes in public school. I did fifth grade twice. I almost didn't graduate high school, and when I did, I barely scraped up a 2.0 GPA.
There are may factors in my performance, but basically I was disinterested in school. I started skipping a lot in high school, not to do drugs or smoke or even anything at all. Just to get away from school.
I'm still a bit disinterested in school, but when I'm paying for it (sort of... I have a full ride), it's different - as evidenced by my 3.8 GPA in college.
So now, after having been in the military, and then college?
Music is still complex. I've taken 15 credits in music, and gained a rudimentary understanding, but it is still really complex. I've tried playing basketball off and on, but making the ball go into the basket is a complex task, to me anyway. I still have trouble drawing anything more complex than a stick figure. My wife is a natural at west coast swing dancing, but when she made me take lessons, it turned out to be the hardest thing I ever tried to learn. (Yeah, I said 'wife'... for many slashdotters, though, just getting a woman to talk to them is a complex task!)
Perceived complexity. What one person thinks is "easy", another thinks is "hard". It may even be true, because we have different talents and minds don't all function the same.
Basically there is no way to get people to follow. You would assume that those who wish to follow that system would do so. Those that don't wish to follow it may leave at any time. The goal isn't to "convert people". The goal is to live according to one's wishes to be free from governmental and corporate control while doing one's part in bettering the community.
Suppose your society existed...
What makes you think that a person with ambition will simply leave, rather than convert a few people to their side and roll all over the rest of you?
At any rate, even if nobody wants to conquer the rest of you, this philosphy that you are describing seems to promote the idea that it is possible to get a large quantity of human beings to simply contribute to society for no benefit over what the guy next door is getting.
Clearly, the winner in this system (like any socialist system) is the guy who does the least amount of work. Unless you are going to make them work (or leave)... and where is the liberty in that?
Looked up lake Baikal (a very large lake in Siberia, 445m above sea-level) after remembering I had a poster on my wall for years showing the surface temperature of the lake from ATSR satellite imagery.. wondered what it looked like in more realistic colour.. but what is this huge line that crosses it?
If you zoom in and look carefully, you will see that it is likely cloth tape on the photograph. Probably put there for a reason (torn image, seam, etc.), prior to scanning.
What I can't explain is why it looks like it disappears into the lake at several points, but I'm guessing they touched up areas where there was no detail to worry about, such as the wide blue splotches of water. Maybe they had data for specific areas that they could blend in.
Either that, or the Russians have engineering technology that makes it unlikely that they would have lost the cold war... That object, if on the surface of the earth, would be fscking huge.
because the eruption was a quarter century ago
Except for the fact that Mt. St. Helens has been erupting since Oct 1, 2004. New lava has been building on the surface daily since October 11.
When someone says "the eruption", they don't necessarily mean "The Eruption".
"Current" means the latest imagery available for a specific area.
Current != recent.
Maby i'm just very thick... but... why would these two companies merge ? (is it a really merger btw, or really one company buying out the other?)
A large storage company, and a maker of security software? Where's the "synergy" ? Maby i'm missing a concept or two...
Symantec doesn't just provide security software, it provides security services as well.
Their combined forces will be able to offer customers complete data security, from protected machines all the way to secure backups.
Symantec has been integrating enterprise services like this for a while now, and I'm sure they Veritas' services as part of a good overall product and service line.
Don't forget that Symantec has grown through the last 15 years by by swallowing up other corporations that have products, solutions, and technology they want.
Anyone miss Lithography ... or cave painting?
OGG STILL LIKE CAVE PAINTING!!!
YOU NO TELL OGG WHAT OGG CAN AND CAN NOT DO!!!
OGG BEAT YOU WITH CLUB!
OGG POKE YOU WITH BIG STICK!
NOW YOU HAVE NO EYES AND OGG GO BACK TO CAVE PAINTING ALL DAY!!!!
.
(In other news, the Slashdot's lameness filter is attempting to remove all the humor in my post. Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Well, that *was* the point of using all caps.)
Ah well, it doesn't realy matter. It would be neat to know, but I'm certainly not going to spend too much effort tracking KFG down ;)
:)
Yeah, I suppose that at some point you are no longer "just curious", you are stalking.
I'm immensely curious to know who you are. But I have a feeling you won't enlighten me.
I think I've got it figured out, depending on whether or not KFG is from Chapel Hill.
It is not clear that you have added that restriction, since such a restriction might well only be enforcible if you have made a contract with the program's recipient. Since your program is licensed under the GPL, you do not have a contract.
That is not necessarily true.
If the program is distributed under the GPL, the GPL only covers the program itself. Adding restrictions to the program that are outside the scope of the GPL is not a problem.
The GPL only guarantees the right to distribute a program and derive works from it and have available the source, it does not grant you the right to execute the program, though distributing software usually implies that the right to do so is included.
Restricting what can be done with the output of the program does not appear infringe on the GPL, since the GPL specifically says it does not cover output (except when the output is a derivative work of the program), and does not restrict the act of running the program. It also does not say that these cannot be covered by additional restrictions.
So, what if I say: "The source and binary forms of this program are licensed under the GPL. The output of this program, however, is copyrighted by me and licensed to you for your exclusive personal use. Your decision to execute the program constitutes acceptance of this condition."
The GPL does not have a conflict with this (see section 0 of the GPL), so I see no reason why this restriction would not hold. Then again, IANAL.
So the output only claims to be copyrighted by you, and in practice, you might have some difficulty proving to a court that you own it. If you wrote the output yourself, then sure, it's yours. If the program wrote it, it's not so clear.
Not clear, but not necessarily untrue or unenforceable.
I suspect we'll be waiting to hear what the courts say. It's only a matter of time.
restricted. And clearly a screenshot (an image) is not a derived work
of the program, so that's fine too.
Only the most technically incompetant or clinically paranoid legal
team could have a problem with this.
What is says is that the output of the program is not restricted by the GPL, because the GPL does not cover the output, only the program.
I can write and release a program under the GPL
The output is copyrighted by me. Also, since the GPL specifically says that it does not cover the output, nothing is stopping me from adding that restriction.
Now what?
I'll grant that some pyrethroids appear to be relatively non-toxic to humans, but everything I've read about permethrin is that it is carcinogentic and mutagenic when human cell cultures are exposed to it.
I'm not suggesting that their use should be banned, but that they should be used *carefully*, like any other chemical that disrupts fundamental chemical processes in organisms.
More info on this confusion, and the Eddie Bauer "nude-ins"
here.
My problem with the article you linked is that it lumps asbestos with bovine growth hormone and DDT, and makes the implication that asbestos is the result of chemistry as performed by humans.
Asbestos has nothing to do with chemical engineering or nanotechnology. It is a natural substance.
Asbestos is mined out of the ground, and the term itself, while usually referring to asbestiform serpentine (chrysotile), can occasionally refer to certain elongated crystal forms of several other minerals, all occurring naturally.
It is a shame that an article attempting to eliminate confusion is itself confused.
for example, pyrethoids [sic] seem to be completely safe in testing, but more effective than DDT and seem to have the same cost potential.
... it is genotoxic, very carcinogenic, neurotoxic, damages the liver and kidnes, is teratogenic, and is transferred in breast milk.
Oh yeah? Try spraying pyrethroids around your pet cat and see what happens. (Note that this is the effect of permethrin, which is a pyrethroid.
So much for "completely safe". "Completely safe" means no toxicity to unintended targets.
Also, you said about DDT:
Almost all of those have been said about pyrethroids, too (read the bold text in the last link above). I don't know what "testing" you have read up on, but obviously it's not the same as what I have read.
Thanks for playing.
I used a diamond from my great grandmother's ring. No more money to the cartel, it was a special stone, and my wife likes it just fine. (Yes, she knows where I got it... she thinks heirloom stones are cool and wants it to go on to a great granddaughter someday.)
I had the diamond set in a custom engagement ring, and we had our jeweler make two additional bands that were affixed to each side of the engagement ring for the wedding.
Why dream up a complicated, expensive solution like manufacturing your own diamond, when you can have a simple solution?
Of course, the moment I read this story I figured that the submitter was either having a good laugh for a good troll or just too out of touch with reality for their own good.
Other solutions that other people have suggested: Get a Canadian stone (no blood), or get one from a pawn shop.
My addendum: If you get one from a pawn shop, do *not* give her the ring from the pawn shop. Have the stone set into a new custom ring. It'll be special that way. Get the stone appraised by a certified gemologist. Finally, she doesn't need to know it's not a "new" diamond. But she'd better be sure the ring as a package is "new".
Sir, clearly you know what you are talking about. What are you doing here on slashdot? ;-) /me wishes it was still like the late 90s when people on slashdot were mostly above-average types
Sadly, I'm still trying to decide whether to stick with CIS for my undergrad major, switch to Geology, do a dual major, or finish my BS in CIS and do Geology for my MS.
Either way, I enjoy the Geology more than the Computer Science, and as a Geologist, I wouldn't have to sit in a cubicle all day, every day.
For now, I've got a Geology minor assumimg I pass the final in Structural Geology tomorrow.
This post sums up my point in regards to that.
Obviously, Mars isn't being heated (much) by tidal energy.
(Thanks, khallow.)
I was under the impression than Mars has no appreciable magnetic field, and that a potential explanation for this was the dynamo of molten iron that the earth enjoys had cooled to solidification on Mars.
The key word is potential. I'm not saying that Mars has a liquid core... but perhaps a mushy "plastic" one.
There should still be a lot of heat. Remember that the pressures we are talking about at a planet's core would mean many materials were solid to semi-solid at much higher temperatures than they would be at the surface.
I don't buy it.
I do.
Serpentinization is a low-temperature, low-pressure process where ultramafic minerals (like olivine) are introduced to water. They metamorphose into serpentine-group minerals. It is a common surface to near-surface process on Earth. (It is the opposite of most other metamorphic reactions, where an increase of pressure/temperature causes the change... in this case, it is the decrease.)
1) yeah there was water there at one point in history but it's not around much anyomre in liquid form.
Yes, but we don't know what is below the surface. It is likely that mars is still fairly warm in the middle due to remnant heat and radioactive decay.
2) Mars is tiny, less than 20% the size of the earth, while there was at one time tectonic activity which could have provided the necessary heat / pressure to do this, the planet is currently frozen solid and has been for some time. It just doesn't have the mass (like earth does...) to keep tectonic activity going on.
Io, moon of Jupiter, is smaller than Mars and has ongoing tectonic activity. It has nothing to do with the mass of a body, it has everything to do with heat, which Mars has little of, for sure, but once had plenty of... look at Olympus Mons.
There is no evidence that Mars is "frozen solid". It could still have a soft core. In any case, it is likely to be rather warm in the middle, still.
3) without a constant (and modern) method for creating this methane, it all would have blown away like the rest of the Martian atmosphere, the planet is cold, nothing geologic is going on there anymore.
I agree with the geologists. The explanation is rather simple: There isn't a whole lot of water on Mars, so water contact with olivine is scarce. Thus, the reaction is very slow. If there were sh*tloads of olivine in the subsurface Mars, and there may be, then serpentinization could go on for a long time.
Why do I think there's a lot of olivine in Mars? Because there is a lot of olivine in the Earth. The bulk of the mantle is peridotite, an olivine-pyroxene rock.
But wait, there's more! There might be a large amount of olivine on the surface of mars. Olivine is a quite common mineral to find in basalt flows on Earth, existing as phenocrysts or mantle xenoliths. Matter of fact, I was looking at some olivine crystals in some basalt in central Oregon yesterday.
Now, bedrock exposures at the surface of Mars have been observed to be largely a basalt-like rock. In fact, it appears to be the main rock type on most of the surface of mars.
(Interestingly enough, basalt also happens to be the most common crustal surface rock type on Earth, given that it is the surface rock of oceanic crust.)
It may be that there is a large amount of olivine on Mars, and a limited supply of water would cause the reaction to be slow and sustained. It could go on for a long time.
I'm not saying life does not exist, in fact I defended the idea in my Slashdot journal a year or so ago, but I wouldn't pin all the methane production on life when another simple explanation exists.