However.... Christian tradition and even the writings of Paul are horribly conflicted over the place of Leviticus in Christianity. On one hand, you have Paul condemning homosexuals by inventing words based on Leviticus 20:13 (and thus inherently citing Leviticus as moral authority). A certain portion of Christians side with Paul on this matter. On the other hand, you have Paul suggesting that the Law (presumably including Leviticus) is not the judge of things and a certain portion of Chistians side with Paul on this issue. Those of us who while not ignorant of Christian doctrine are not Christians ourselves look on with amusement.
We also have to assume that these documents were written by the same person and have not been altered.
The problem is not only that those ideas are mutually exclusive, but also that Leviticus equally condemns wearing clothing made from two different kinds of material, plowing the corners of a field, trimming the corners of one's beard, and breeding mules.
As well as plenty of other things. Most of which may have actually made sense to people living South West Asia in the Bronze Age...
While one can cite Christian tradition to get out of eating kosher, the only way out of these other prohibitions is to side with the idea that the Law (including Leviticus) does not bind Christians. In doing so, you reject Leviticus 20:13.
Indeed many parts of The Torah which enumarate rules.
...How long before the definition of "hate" is expanded to speech politicians don't like?
That's easy, exactly zero seconds! Politically correct "hate" will, as usual, not be be restricted at all. (Quite possibly encouraged.) The only vaguely interesting thing which might happen is where politically correct in part of the EU is politically incorrect in another part of the EU. Combined with a high proportion of politicians being complely hypocritical.
Ah, the old arts vs engineering troll raises its head again. I don't know about the UK, but here in Sweden most people I meet who have studied at university level don't see an inherent conflict there, in fact many (like myself) have studied both, and value both.
It definitly appears to be cultural. Not withstanding the fact that many forms of art require mathematics and you have historical figures such as Leonardo da Vinci...
Usually there's no partial credit, so the thought process could be correct but the mistake could be in execution.
I was taught to "always show your working"
You also have the problem of people not following the "obvious" path and taking more/less time, as well as not necessarily demonstrating the knowledge you were looking for.
In tests of the form "complete the number sequence" it's possible that there may be more than one possible "right" answer. The compilers omit to state things like "use only addition/subtraction"...
So... the chinese one is harder spacially and terminolically, but not mathematically? I would argue that those are a part of math. Furthermore, three dimensions *is* more difficult mathematically than two.
Mathematics will work with an arbitrary number of dimensions. Three dimensions happens to be rather useful when we need to apply mathematics to the 3D world we inhabit.
If you read TFA, it actually states the Chinese test is a entrance exam but the UK test is while studying in the first year at uni. I learnt the knowledge to answer the UK test school at 14. I have not idea how to start the Chinese test.
Both involve trigonometry and pythagoras's theorem. The UK one appears simpler because it uses a 2D shape (as opposed to 3D) and all the numbers involved are integers and simple fractions. About the only thing more complex about the Chinese test is that you might need a set of trig tables, unless arctan(x) is considered an acceptable answer.
He believed that there are micro-organisms; just as you've described, living all through the Earth's crust, that excrete hydrocarbons and thus are the source of natural gas and petroleum. Thus there never was or will be "peak oil"; we'll never run out of "fossil" fuels because they're always being replenished.
Only if the rate of replenishment is greater than or equal to the rate at which we are extracting oil. There's also the issue that there is quite a bit of oil which isn't worth extracting (at least as a fuel).
Standard netiquette is "below", that is why the default is below.
Actually the reason has more to do with most languages reading from the top of the page to the bottom. Hence you have "footnotes" rather than "headnotes". Giving an "answers" before a "questions" or a comment prior to whatever is being commented upon simply does not make sense. Things make most sense if they are directly after whatever they refer to. Whilst postfixing everything to the end of the message might be necessary with a paper letter this restriction has never applied to email (or derivatives).
I still don't understand why I need to have multiple copies of gecko shared libraries / dlls in memory since the split-up of mozilla into firefox, thunderbird, and sunbird. How is this waste of space supposed to be more efficient?
Presumably because someone wanted the Windows version to be installable as a non privileged user, thus not requiring write access to C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32. But Windows isn't smart enough to spot when a DLL is already resident...
One other thing that annoyed me (maybe that was a setup i did not find) was that when you answered the e-mail it worked like MAC the answer was at the bottom so you had to scroll down to read the answer,,,very very annoying.
Maybe in america, where elections are first-past-the-post travesties you can count the ballots without any mathematical knowledge, but the rest of the world uses preferential (aka, fair) voting. There are plenty of places which use FPTP voting systems. It's also probably the case that there exist different voting systems in parts of the US. Even something like STV uses basic arithmatic thus is hardly something only a "mathematician" could understand. The basic point is that a well designed manual voting system can be verified as "fair" by an average member of the public. Whereas this is not possible with "voting machines", especially those based around general purpose computers.
I would not be so sure about that. If this decision withstands the test of time, many lawyers will be willing to take on at least some of the cases, since the salary will now come out of **AA's pockets.
In such cases you'd have the defeating the RIAA being in the interests of the lawyers as much as the clients.
It is unfair that only the mathematicians can check the counting.
You just need someone with basic numaracy to check ballot counting. It's a matter of are there X bundles containing Y ballot papers marked in the same way . (Where Y is some constant.)
It is unfair that only the literate can read the ballot.
If people can recognise a logo, photograph, etc they don't need to be able to read in order to either vote or count ballot papers. It is also perfectly possible to design a fairly dumb machine (the dumber the better) to collate ballots which are perfectly human readable.
You can call me old fashion but I am against all kinds of voting machines.
Democracy works when free elections can be held and its results checked by any common citizen.
I don't know in the US, but in Europe, any participant in the elections has the right to a representative in all the pooling stations. Any common person can count the votes and confirm its results. When voting machines exist there's no real way for this kind of direct check.
You need as much transparancy as possible. There are ways to use technology to help with this, e.g. having cameras watching ballot boxes and counters.
First, because even if the code is open source, only programmers can check it.
Even then you have the issue of verifying that specific code is running on a specific piece of hardware.
The mobilization of thousands of people in election days, counting the votes is a blessing and a grant of democracy.
With a lot of people in order to rig the election you'd need a conspiracy involving a large number of people. (Which is by itself unlikely, even before you consider that you have interests unlikely to conspire together).
All elections planning must assume 100% turnout - otherwise, you're planning for disenfranchisement. Typically, over 100% paper ballots will be allocated to polling stations, to allow for spoiled papers etc.
Far less of a problem to have too many ballot papers than too few. Paper/card is also recyclable/biodegradable/usable as fuel...
All major parties are against voting machines since before the election.
Why bother with them at all? It's not as if the French electoral system is obviously broken in the first place. With "voting machines" tending to have a very poor history...
Even that term is quite long in terms of the useful life of software. Especially software produced as a "widget" rather than that custom written for a specific situation. (With the possible exception of embedded systems, assuming the hardware is capable of lasting that long.)
the source must be placed in a government approved repository
The appropriate entity in the US would probably be the Library of Congress, considering that this is akin to it's originally intended function.
(which releases software when the copyright expires, or before with company approval or company end).
There would need to be some mechanism to track the current copyright owner.
The downside to putting your software in the public domain is that it gives you no way to disclaim liability for any damages that your software might inadvertently cause.
Liability dosn't appear to be a big issue in the first place.
If you want to give your software away without any strings at all, it's still better to retain copyright and distribute it under a permissive license like X11 or BSD that gives you the opportunity to attach a liability disclaimer.
Such a disclaimer is subject to the "law of the land". Whilst the copyright still exists a court ruling or statute could render such a disclaimer null and void. Which would be rather harder to do if there is no copyright holder...
Think about the 'wireless e-mail' patent the blackberry fell over, this was just a normal technological step and actually no invention at all.
Especially when you consider "layered" networking models. e.g. an application using an IP protocol dosn't care what the physical transport is. Indeed an individual datagram will typically be sent over serveral different physical links.
The problem seems to be that people all have been patenting the future about 10 years ago and it actually would be worth a patent if they sold it as a product back then.
Email and wireless networking have been around since the 1970's, even digital cellular telephones have been around longer than 10 years.
And if you compare software patents with normal hardware patent the problem quickly becomes obvious. In the real world people patent for example the inner working of a lock.
Possibly including such things as engineering drawings even working models...
In the software world, people actually manage to patent the lock itself as a device that "only allows the owner to access the room"
Possibly including the "using a computer" somewhere in the patent.
The problem is that the USPTO does not have the authority to decide that a patent is obvious. The only way to declare a patent application as obvious is to find evidence that someone else proposed doing _the exact thing in the exact way proposed in the patent_.
The more obvious something is the less likely it is to be documented. Even teaching material is more likely to only address general cases. Then you have the issue of obfuscation within the patent application itself. Which is part of the reason why examiners should be "skilled in the art"...
...with a wooden stake. Don't forget the wooden stake. That's the most important part, because they'll just rise from the grave if you don't.
Maybe several, but where do you get a suitable nailgun?
Although maybe exposure in full sunshine will do them in too, I never remember which remedy works best on which kind of monster.
Decapitation is also known to be effective as is fire. So a flame thrower might be the best weapon. IIRC there's a guy in Chicago who might be able to help out with this...
It does, but they like to call it copyleft because it basically plays the system to ensure openness, and not restriction. You could say the GPL beat copyright at its own game. Or something like that.
e.g. more in tune with the original intent, as described in the US Constitution.
True however using algae hydrogen can pretty much be produced anywhere it's needed.
Where do you find this super algae capable of producing hydrogen fast enough to propel a vehicle at anything over the speed humans can walk? Will you run into problems if you can't park your car in a sunny place...
Then again so could alcohols, but hydrogen has a higher energy density.
Only if you go by mass. If you go by volume hydrogen is of little practical use. Ethanol can go straight into a regular "gas" tank, hydrogen can't. At least part of the idea of bio-fuels is that they are replacements for existing petro-fuels. Thus you don't need to scrap existing vehicles and infrastructure.
Otherwise WiFi is useless on flights over 3 hours, where its actually needed. Weather its a regular outlet, cigarette ligher adapter or some fixed voltage DC source, notebook makers will come up with adapters. Alternatively, show me a notebook that can last 10 hours while actually working - hardrrive/CPU on - AND using the network.
Whilst this WiFi can apparently be fitted overnight. Fitting power outlets to each seat position is likely a lot longer, together with all the associated cabling. There's also the little matter of where you actually get the power from.
Slashdot Mirror
However.... Christian tradition and even the writings of Paul are horribly conflicted over the place of Leviticus in Christianity. On one hand, you have Paul condemning homosexuals by inventing words based on Leviticus 20:13 (and thus inherently citing Leviticus as moral authority). A certain portion of Christians side with Paul on this matter. On the other hand, you have Paul suggesting that the Law (presumably including Leviticus) is not the judge of things and a certain portion of Chistians side with Paul on this issue. Those of us who while not ignorant of Christian doctrine are not Christians ourselves look on with amusement.
We also have to assume that these documents were written by the same person and have not been altered.
The problem is not only that those ideas are mutually exclusive, but also that Leviticus equally condemns wearing clothing made from two different kinds of material, plowing the corners of a field, trimming the corners of one's beard, and breeding mules.
As well as plenty of other things. Most of which may have actually made sense to people living South West Asia in the Bronze Age...
While one can cite Christian tradition to get out of eating kosher, the only way out of these other prohibitions is to side with the idea that the Law (including Leviticus) does not bind Christians. In doing so, you reject Leviticus 20:13.
Indeed many parts of The Torah which enumarate rules.
...How long before the definition of "hate" is expanded to speech politicians don't like?
That's easy, exactly zero seconds! Politically correct "hate" will, as usual, not be be restricted at all. (Quite possibly encouraged.)
The only vaguely interesting thing which might happen is where politically correct in part of the EU is politically incorrect in another part of the EU. Combined with a high proportion of politicians being complely hypocritical.
Ah, the old arts vs engineering troll raises its head again. I don't know about the UK, but here in Sweden most people I meet who have studied at university level don't see an inherent conflict there, in fact many (like myself) have studied both, and value both.
It definitly appears to be cultural. Not withstanding the fact that many forms of art require mathematics and you have historical figures such as Leonardo da Vinci...
Usually there's no partial credit, so the thought process could be correct but the mistake could be in execution.
I was taught to "always show your working"
You also have the problem of people not following the "obvious" path and taking more/less time, as well as not necessarily demonstrating the knowledge you were looking for.
In tests of the form "complete the number sequence" it's possible that there may be more than one possible "right" answer. The compilers omit to state things like "use only addition/subtraction"...
So ... the chinese one is harder spacially and terminolically, but not mathematically? I would argue that those are a part of math. Furthermore, three dimensions *is* more difficult mathematically than two.
Mathematics will work with an arbitrary number of dimensions. Three dimensions happens to be rather useful when we need to apply mathematics to the 3D world we inhabit.
If you read TFA, it actually states the Chinese test is a entrance exam but the UK test is while studying in the first year at uni. I learnt the knowledge to answer the UK test school at 14. I have not idea how to start the Chinese test.
Both involve trigonometry and pythagoras's theorem. The UK one appears simpler because it uses a 2D shape (as opposed to 3D) and all the numbers involved are integers and simple fractions.
About the only thing more complex about the Chinese test is that you might need a set of trig tables, unless arctan(x) is considered an acceptable answer.
He believed that there are micro-organisms; just as you've described, living all through the Earth's crust, that excrete hydrocarbons and thus are the source of natural gas and petroleum. Thus there never was or will be "peak oil"; we'll never run out of "fossil" fuels because they're always being replenished.
Only if the rate of replenishment is greater than or equal to the rate at which we are extracting oil. There's also the issue that there is quite a bit of oil which isn't worth extracting (at least as a fuel).
Standard netiquette is "below", that is why the default is below.
Actually the reason has more to do with most languages reading from the top of the page to the bottom. Hence you have "footnotes" rather than "headnotes".
Giving an "answers" before a "questions" or a comment prior to whatever is being commented upon simply does not make sense. Things make most sense if they are directly after whatever they refer to. Whilst postfixing everything to the end of the message might be necessary with a paper letter this restriction has never applied to email (or derivatives).
I still don't understand why I need to have multiple copies of gecko shared libraries / dlls in memory since the split-up of mozilla into firefox, thunderbird, and sunbird. How is this waste of space supposed to be more efficient?
Presumably because someone wanted the Windows version to be installable as a non privileged user, thus not requiring write access to C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32. But Windows isn't smart enough to spot when a DLL is already resident...
One other thing that annoyed me (maybe that was a setup i did not find) was that when you answered the e-mail it worked like MAC the answer was at the bottom so you had to scroll down to read the answer,,,very very annoying.
What's wrong with your "End" key?
Most email users have never had anyone try and fake messages from them to other people.
With the "obvious" exceptions of spam and viruses spread by email.
Maybe in america, where elections are first-past-the-post travesties you can count the ballots without any mathematical knowledge, but the rest of the world uses preferential (aka, fair) voting.
There are plenty of places which use FPTP voting systems. It's also probably the case that there exist different voting systems in parts of the US.
Even something like STV uses basic arithmatic thus is hardly something only a "mathematician" could understand.
The basic point is that a well designed manual voting system can be verified as "fair" by an average member of the public. Whereas this is not possible with "voting machines", especially those based around general purpose computers.
I would not be so sure about that. If this decision withstands the test of time, many lawyers will be willing to take on at least some of the cases, since the salary will now come out of **AA's pockets.
In such cases you'd have the defeating the RIAA being in the interests of the lawyers as much as the clients.
It is unfair that only the mathematicians can check the counting.
You just need someone with basic numaracy to check ballot counting. It's a matter of are there X bundles containing Y ballot papers marked in the same way . (Where Y is some constant.)
It is unfair that only the literate can read the ballot.
If people can recognise a logo, photograph, etc they don't need to be able to read in order to either vote or count ballot papers.
It is also perfectly possible to design a fairly dumb machine (the dumber the better) to collate ballots which are perfectly human readable.
You can call me old fashion but I am against all kinds of voting machines. Democracy works when free elections can be held and its results checked by any common citizen. I don't know in the US, but in Europe, any participant in the elections has the right to a representative in all the pooling stations. Any common person can count the votes and confirm its results. When voting machines exist there's no real way for this kind of direct check.
You need as much transparancy as possible. There are ways to use technology to help with this, e.g. having cameras watching ballot boxes and counters.
First, because even if the code is open source, only programmers can check it.
Even then you have the issue of verifying that specific code is running on a specific piece of hardware.
The mobilization of thousands of people in election days, counting the votes is a blessing and a grant of democracy.
With a lot of people in order to rig the election you'd need a conspiracy involving a large number of people. (Which is by itself unlikely, even before you consider that you have interests unlikely to conspire together).
All elections planning must assume 100% turnout - otherwise, you're planning for disenfranchisement. Typically, over 100% paper ballots will be allocated to polling stations, to allow for spoiled papers etc.
Far less of a problem to have too many ballot papers than too few. Paper/card is also recyclable/biodegradable/usable as fuel...
All major parties are against voting machines since before the election.
Why bother with them at all? It's not as if the French electoral system is obviously broken in the first place. With "voting machines" tending to have a very poor history...
Imagine if copyright for software is 15-20 years
Even that term is quite long in terms of the useful life of software. Especially software produced as a "widget" rather than that custom written for a specific situation. (With the possible exception of embedded systems, assuming the hardware is capable of lasting that long.)
the source must be placed in a government approved repository
The appropriate entity in the US would probably be the Library of Congress, considering that this is akin to it's originally intended function.
(which releases software when the copyright expires, or before with company approval or company end).
There would need to be some mechanism to track the current copyright owner.
The downside to putting your software in the public domain is that it gives you no way to disclaim liability for any damages that your software might inadvertently cause.
Liability dosn't appear to be a big issue in the first place.
If you want to give your software away without any strings at all, it's still better to retain copyright and distribute it under a permissive license like X11 or BSD that gives you the opportunity to attach a liability disclaimer.
Such a disclaimer is subject to the "law of the land". Whilst the copyright still exists a court ruling or statute could render such a disclaimer null and void. Which would be rather harder to do if there is no copyright holder...
Think about the 'wireless e-mail' patent the blackberry fell over, this was just a normal technological step and actually no invention at all.
Especially when you consider "layered" networking models. e.g. an application using an IP protocol dosn't care what the physical transport is. Indeed an individual datagram will typically be sent over serveral different physical links.
The problem seems to be that people all have been patenting the future about 10 years ago and it actually would be worth a patent if they sold it as a product back then.
Email and wireless networking have been around since the 1970's, even digital cellular telephones have been around longer than 10 years.
And if you compare software patents with normal hardware patent the problem quickly becomes obvious. In the real world people patent for example the inner working of a lock.
Possibly including such things as engineering drawings even working models...
In the software world, people actually manage to patent the lock itself as a device that "only allows the owner to access the room"
Possibly including the "using a computer" somewhere in the patent.
The problem is that the USPTO does not have the authority to decide that a patent is obvious. The only way to declare a patent application as obvious is to find evidence that someone else proposed doing _the exact thing in the exact way proposed in the patent_.
The more obvious something is the less likely it is to be documented. Even teaching material is more likely to only address general cases.
Then you have the issue of obfuscation within the patent application itself. Which is part of the reason why examiners should be "skilled in the art"...
...with a wooden stake. Don't forget the wooden stake. That's the most important part, because they'll just rise from the grave if you don't.
Maybe several, but where do you get a suitable nailgun?
Although maybe exposure in full sunshine will do them in too, I never remember which remedy works best on which kind of monster.
Decapitation is also known to be effective as is fire. So a flame thrower might be the best weapon. IIRC there's a guy in Chicago who might be able to help out with this...
It does, but they like to call it copyleft because it basically plays the system to ensure openness, and not restriction. You could say the GPL beat copyright at its own game. Or something like that.
e.g. more in tune with the original intent, as described in the US Constitution.
True however using algae hydrogen can pretty much be produced anywhere it's needed.
Where do you find this super algae capable of producing hydrogen fast enough to propel a vehicle at anything over the speed humans can walk? Will you run into problems if you can't park your car in a sunny place...
Then again so could alcohols, but hydrogen has a higher energy density.
Only if you go by mass. If you go by volume hydrogen is of little practical use. Ethanol can go straight into a regular "gas" tank, hydrogen can't.
At least part of the idea of bio-fuels is that they are replacements for existing petro-fuels. Thus you don't need to scrap existing vehicles and infrastructure.
Otherwise WiFi is useless on flights over 3 hours, where its actually needed. Weather its a regular outlet, cigarette ligher adapter or some fixed voltage DC source, notebook makers will come up with adapters. Alternatively, show me a notebook that can last 10 hours while actually working - hardrrive/CPU on - AND using the network.
Whilst this WiFi can apparently be fitted overnight. Fitting power outlets to each seat position is likely a lot longer, together with all the associated cabling. There's also the little matter of where you actually get the power from.