Since when is wind chill factor a measure of actual temperature, genius? (hint: it's not, it's a "normalization" of the rate of heat loss to familiar ideas of temperature)
That's all beside the point, though - based on the numbers I put forth before, the $3B from IBM would do way more for their market cap than Linux licensing revenue
No one but a mad, drooling fool believes $CO is getting $3B out of this, even if they do manage to pull off a win in court. The "IBM payment" would suffer the attrition of appeals.
There are good reasons why they wouldn't release this code. If they did, the Linux community would make sure that the offending code wasn't in the next kernal release (which would probably be all of a week in coming) and then SCO could only go after users for past use of their code.
You can't claim damages on something you not only made no attempt to remedy, but resisted every attempt at remedy. That alone would kill any damage claim.
No, I can't. In every open society there are legal clauses prohibiting you from exercising your freedom by taking away liberties from other people. The GPL does this in software society.
No it DOES NOT. Where did you get such a poor poor interpretation? COPYRIGHT LAW takes away your freedom to do as you please with others' creations.
The GPL gives many of those freedoms back to you, but in a way that allows the work to remain available. It prevents you from highjacking someone elses work and calling it your own.
Sheesh, how many times do I have to read these ill-conceived and transparently false notions?
Maybe not. Perhaps he's nothing more than a mouth, repeating what he hears in the community around him. And he lacks the intelligence or insight to notice that he's surrounded himself with "experts" that are experts in all things Microsoft and not in computing in general.
That's a nice link, but it's outdated. From the fine manual:
Bash provides onedimensional array variables. Any variable may be used as an array; the declare builtin will explicitly declare an array. There is no maximum limit on the size of an array, nor any requirement that members be indexed or assigned contiguously. Arrays are indexed using integers and are zerobased.
Couldn't they have linked out into more in depth treatments, and saved the complexity for the interested (technically) reader while saving 'readability' for the non-technical ppl?
Refering to Scientific American as a benchmark
of scholarly consensus is not helpful. Since the late 80s SA has devolved into a bully political pulpit, thanks to changes in editorship.
Yeah, the SA editors discredited the guy he's parroting, the author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (neither very skeptical nor environmentalist) whereas, if it's in "The Skeptical Environmentalist", it must be true!!!
I think that when you are taking recorded audio directly from another source, and you are incorporating it into your own work, you should realize that you are stealing.
Like, how retarded ARE you to not figure that out?
Ok, you appear to be interested in an open discussion about science and religion, so I will bite, and try to get inside your message. I will tell you what you are saying to me, and you tell me if you are in agreement, and if not, why not.
My only request is that we follow the rules of logic, and that we otherwise remain open to the others ideas. I've actually never seen evidence contradicting the existance of a god so, strictly speaking I am not an athiest.
I am a skeptic though, which leads me to analytical methods that help me to identify good and erroneous elements of a given approach to a question. And which leads me as well to methodologies employed in science. The main one I will be bringing up in my discussion with you will be the notion of little truths, and larger ideas they comprise. On to it!
But ultimately, if you believe in objective truth at all, you have to wind up believing in God as well.
I'm trying to put together the logic in your statement here. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I think you are using an unspoken syllogism, and I think it looks like: "Major: God embodies all (objective) truth, Minor: we find objective truth in the world around us, Conclusion: There is a god" But I have problems with both premises. The presupposition of the first makes it flawed (this doesn't establish the existance of God, it presupposes it) and I will agree to a very limited extent to the second one, but only in the very tiniest of details of what we know about the world (like, blood is red (damn, colorblind people will argue this, and the sky is blue.) You probably have a more accurate portrayal of what leads you to this assertion (that objective truth in the world is evidence of the existence of a god) but you haven't offered it up.
This is why postmodern philosophers all reach the same (correctly reasoned) conclusion: that there can be no good or evil, everything is relative, and the best we can hope for is to sink into a nihilistic morass.
I was pretty much with you for the first part of "what postmodernists think", but the last part seems to be your own addition. I haven't heard that post-modern philosophers have concluded this. I think the postmodernist believes we create a subjective reality, but nothing is concluded about the afterlife. Most postmodernists probably believe we cease to create our reality (most that I've conversed with do). I'm not inclined to disagree with this view, since I run into people all the time that have very peculiar notions of reality in comparison to those of my own, and because I've never had a real tangible experience with denizens of the spirit world. I think the nihilistic morass is something we live in from day to day, it is nothingness, and we build ourselves a comforting place (or try) within it.
God and the very concept of absolute, objective truth are inseparable. If objective truth exists, it can only exist because it is embodied in the nature of God. This is the battle that has been raging for millenia, and will continue to the end of this world...
I'm in agreement. You're telling me objective truth is a subset or attribute of god, right? Or what I thought earlier, that all objective truth is a part of god? The more we know of god, the easier this conversation can proceed. I'm not in disagreement with you. I also don't remember there ever being any controversy over this. I've heard god is everything, as well, all of creation is a part of god.
The realms of science and religion are not contrary, nor are they "non-overlapping magisteria" as Gould proposed.
You assert this, but could you demonstrate why you think this is so? I believe I read SJ Gould's ideas on this but will have to refresh myself as to his argument against their commonality. I think I recall he argued what is essentially reiterated in the subject of this thread, that faith is just that, a statement of belief that transcends objectivism, and science is a methodology for testing our ideas about the physical nature of the world. These appear quite distinct to me, although I suppose there is a point beyond which the scientist might be tempted to ask himself as to the correctness of his model of the physical world. There is much less of a "leap" of faith than for the religiously inquisitive, though (well, hopefully, cold-fusion doesn't always happen.)
but science is a subset, and cannot provide a full picture since it begins by presupposing that nothing can exist outside itself.
Not quite sure I understand you. Science is a methodology that makes no conclusions outside the realm of small, testable facts about the world. An incremental advance in the number of small facts in favor of a grand theory (of Evolution, for example) is the result of science, not the conclusion of the theories factual nature. Again, science doesn't "exist", it's just a method of testing ideas.
It is this act of philosohical hubris will always separate the two realms.
Science is the humblest, egoless world view, the scientist is at the whim of his physical world, limited by his own ability to see, and a slave to his reality. The scientist takes his que from nature.
I'm interested in reading your response to my observations, and if you agree as to the criticisms regarding your argument that I've raised.
Well, slapper hasn't really hit the newsstands yet, but some sites are really trying to 1) Scare the hell^Wliberty out of people, and 2) give open source a black eye.
I found this at google:
New Linux virus creates peer-to-peer terror network... The Slapper worm virus writers had unfettered access to the source code of both OpenSSL and Apache, more effectively utilizing their administration features...
The pictures of the voynich manuscript are linked on the page indicated in the announcement, so why you needed to search them?
Also, Roger Bacon was who Rudolph II was told wrote it. I don't think that makes it a theory, especially since Bacon has never been known to have used this language before. In fact, because he'd recently lectured near the emperor's beat and because of the emperor's known dalliance in zoroastry (guess they were all occultists back in the day) there's every reason to believe that he was hoodwinked into believing it was Bacon's text. That's a closer approximation of the "running theory", IMHO.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey buddy,
Google water triple point
An eskimo, an african, and a pastry chef walk into a bar...
[insert next line of joke, here]
s/overall/corporate/gi
My interests no longer coincide with those of the multi-nats. Why should I be in support of anything they do?
Why shouldn't I avoid purchasing anything from HP, Walmart, Dell, etc?
Since when is wind chill factor a measure of actual temperature, genius? (hint: it's not, it's a "normalization" of the rate of heat loss to familiar ideas of temperature)
Other than the factual flaws, nice response.
Which would mean the universe is already *in*
Hmm, I wonder if a case-mod using a klein-bottle would work.
That's all beside the point, though - based on the numbers I put forth before, the $3B from IBM would do way more for their market cap than Linux licensing revenue
No one but a mad, drooling fool believes $CO is getting $3B out of this, even if they do manage to pull off a win in court. The "IBM payment" would suffer the attrition of appeals.
There are good reasons why they wouldn't release this code. If they did, the Linux community would make sure that the offending code wasn't in the next kernal release (which would probably be all of a week in coming) and then SCO could only go after users for past use of their code.
You can't claim damages on something you not only made no attempt to remedy, but resisted every attempt at remedy. That alone would kill any damage claim.
No, I can't. In every open society there are legal clauses prohibiting you from exercising your freedom by taking away liberties from other people. The GPL does this in software society.
No it DOES NOT. Where did you get such a poor poor interpretation? COPYRIGHT LAW takes away your freedom to do as you please with others' creations.
The GPL gives many of those freedoms back to you, but in a way that allows the work to remain available. It prevents you from highjacking someone elses work and calling it your own.
Sheesh, how many times do I have to read these ill-conceived and transparently false notions?
I had to follow the link to shake the notion I got from your .sig, that of : Wm. Shatner, Lord Of The Dins.
Did I mention that Daniel Lyons is a troll?
Maybe not. Perhaps he's nothing more than a mouth, repeating what he hears in the community around him. And he lacks the intelligence or insight to notice that he's surrounded himself with "experts" that are experts in all things Microsoft and not in computing in general.
What he needs are more informed friends.
The
mv $file $(echo ${file%%.pls})
seems silly, too.
mv $file ${file%%.pls}
works just fine, in a script.
I checked at IBM, they are selling desktops with DVD-R, and my G5 has DVD-R. And Toshiba is selling DVD-R laptops.
Dell must be dumping, but you'd think they'd at least offer a non-free DVD-R option until they've foisted^Wgotten rid of all their DVD+R drives.
Where does the organization end, an another begin?
If the source code is provide to the recipient, it is a moot point. The GPL has been satisfied.
Presumably this would only happen where (satellite) security concerns have been satisfied.
Using Linux in any way you choose is not restricted by the GPL.
Restrictions based on agreement with the licensing conditions of the GPL are limited to the manner by which YOU offer code up for distribution.
So if NASA chooses not to distribute their copy of the code, how are they in violation of the GPL?
(I admit I'm not sure how, in this case, distribution within an organization might be regarded by the FSF law team.)
Isn't that what a sidebar is for?
Couldn't they have linked out into more in depth treatments, and saved the complexity for the interested (technically) reader while saving 'readability' for the non-technical ppl?
No. He said Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended
and it was later altered (without a notice indicating it) to say Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended
When caught in this lie, the Bush administration web-masters made it harder to catch these revisionist tactics by disallowing spiders on the web-site
Another link:
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001619.shtm
Yeah, the SA editors discredited the guy he's parroting, the author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (neither very skeptical nor environmentalist) whereas, if it's in "The Skeptical Environmentalist", it must be true!!!
Can someone mod this +1 Funny?
My only request is that we follow the rules of logic, and that we otherwise remain open to the others ideas. I've actually never seen evidence contradicting the existance of a god so, strictly speaking I am not an athiest.
I am a skeptic though, which leads me to analytical methods that help me to identify good and erroneous elements of a given approach to a question. And which leads me as well to methodologies employed in science. The main one I will be bringing up in my discussion with you will be the notion of little truths, and larger ideas they comprise. On to it!
I'm trying to put together the logic in your statement here. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I think you are using an unspoken syllogism, and I think it looks like: "Major: God embodies all (objective) truth, Minor: we find objective truth in the world around us, Conclusion: There is a god" But I have problems with both premises. The presupposition of the first makes it flawed (this doesn't establish the existance of God, it presupposes it) and I will agree to a very limited extent to the second one, but only in the very tiniest of details of what we know about the world (like, blood is red (damn, colorblind people will argue this, and the sky is blue.) You probably have a more accurate portrayal of what leads you to this assertion (that objective truth in the world is evidence of the existence of a god) but you haven't offered it up.
I was pretty much with you for the first part of "what postmodernists think", but the last part seems to be your own addition. I haven't heard that post-modern philosophers have concluded this. I think the postmodernist believes we create a subjective reality, but nothing is concluded about the afterlife. Most postmodernists probably believe we cease to create our reality (most that I've conversed with do). I'm not inclined to disagree with this view, since I run into people all the time that have very peculiar notions of reality in comparison to those of my own, and because I've never had a real tangible experience with denizens of the spirit world. I think the nihilistic morass is something we live in from day to day, it is nothingness, and we build ourselves a comforting place (or try) within it.
I'm in agreement. You're telling me objective truth is a subset or attribute of god, right? Or what I thought earlier, that all objective truth is a part of god? The more we know of god, the easier this conversation can proceed. I'm not in disagreement with you. I also don't remember there ever being any controversy over this. I've heard god is everything, as well, all of creation is a part of god.
You assert this, but could you demonstrate why you think this is so? I believe I read SJ Gould's ideas on this but will have to refresh myself as to his argument against their commonality. I think I recall he argued what is essentially reiterated in the subject of this thread, that faith is just that, a statement of belief that transcends objectivism, and science is a methodology for testing our ideas about the physical nature of the world. These appear quite distinct to me, although I suppose there is a point beyond which the scientist might be tempted to ask himself as to the correctness of his model of the physical world. There is much less of a "leap" of faith than for the religiously inquisitive, though (well, hopefully, cold-fusion doesn't always happen.)
Not quite sure I understand you. Science is a methodology that makes no conclusions outside the realm of small, testable facts about the world. An incremental advance in the number of small facts in favor of a grand theory (of Evolution, for example) is the result of science, not the conclusion of the theories factual nature. Again, science doesn't "exist", it's just a method of testing ideas.
Science is the humblest, egoless world view, the scientist is at the whim of his physical world, limited by his own ability to see, and a slave to his reality. The scientist takes his que from nature.
I'm interested in reading your response to my observations, and if you agree as to the criticisms regarding your argument that I've raised.
I found this at google:
Can somebody with mod points boost the parent?
[OT] I feel the same way regarding the student's news
site writers/editors. I pray they aren't English
majors, while wishing they were.
The pictures of the voynich manuscript are linked on the page indicated in the announcement, so why you needed to search them?
Also, Roger Bacon was who Rudolph II was told wrote it. I don't think that makes it a theory, especially since Bacon has never been known to have used this language before. In fact, because he'd recently lectured near the emperor's beat and because of the emperor's known dalliance in zoroastry (guess they were all occultists back in the day) there's every reason to believe that he was hoodwinked into believing it was Bacon's text. That's a closer approximation of the "running theory", IMHO.
Maybe not better so much as more mature (and targeted at the platform so effort could be concentrated on the one architecture.)
/and/ an RS6000.
It'll be interesting to see if they can get it on a palm pc
Compaq had a perfect opportunity to do this, and passed it up for the ia-64 platform.
Compaq is neglecting the alpha when they should be pushing it into the desktop class.
And Compaq is pushing True64 over Linux on their clusters.
um, Canada has a tenth the population of the U.S.