I think I see why you're confused. The curse was an effective way to kick off the revolt, yes. Not any way to start an earthquake, though. Reality doesn't work that way.
I never believed the 2010 Haiti Erthquake was caused by a voodoo curse, and I'm astonished that anyone interpreted that post in that way. What I found anthropologically interesting is that something like Robertson's "satanic" invocation seems actually to have taken place. Not actually "satanic", but within Robertson's impoverished terms of reference that's about the only way he could describe an invocation of the loa.
I believe, and have repeatedly said, that the supposed "scientific consensus" on CAGW is not a conspiracy but an error cascade. I think most scientists are honestly trying to do right, but have been overly credulous about data and models that have been (and continue to be) fraudulently manipulated by a tiny minority of them. Those of you who think this makes me some sort of nut are going to have some explaining to do when measured GAT drops out of the bottom of the IPCC's 95% confidence band, which looks set to happen before the end of 2014.
I might reply to some of these other questions at more length, but these two deserved to be dispatched immediately
Yes, Kuhn was full of horse puckey. Not only doesn't his book describe science outside of physics at all well, it doesn't even correctly describe 20th-century physics, its ostensible paradigm (using the word correctly now) case.
The only amplification I'd write today is that the shifts between large theoretical models generally (and contrary to Kuhn's claims) go smoothly in physics because test by correct prediction of experimental results is so difficult to argue with. The soft sciences have more trouble setting up repeatable experiments, so it's easier for people to hold on to broken theoretical models.
Cost of Windows is much less to an OEM. I've heard figures as low as $10 were leaked for the really large OEMs, though that may be after the crapware subsidy rather than before.
And I know why the effect didn't bite. It's because the big OEMs get their cost of Windows installation offset by the fees that crapware manufacturers play to get their demo versions and adware and spyware bundled into the distro. For an outfit like Dell, those fees are probably large enough to make installing Windows a net profit generator.
This would also explain why Linux configurations generally cost more that Windows configurations with identical hardware. It's not conspiracy, they're just trying to maintain margin in the absence of the crapware fees.
And in answer to the implied question -- yes, I do believe the things Rob Landley and I wrote in "World Domination 201" helped this happen sooner. I know we influenced Kevin Carmony's thinking because he's said so, and we also know that Mark Shuttleworth read a draft of the paper.
This is only part of what I was going on about. The distribution-independent codec installer that Linspire is working on -- what Kevin Carmony now tells me they'll be calling "LinCodex" will be just as important, if not more so.
When once a single worker could bring in enough money to support himself, his spouse, and his 2.5 kids, now it is almost necessary for both parents to work to be able to make ends meet.
This is not capitalism's fault. Taxes have risen a lot since the 1960s, especially income-tax rates through bracket creep and mechanisms like the Alternative Minimum Income Tax. What actually happened is that the government 'adapted' to women workers by confiscating more of everybody's earnings. Thus, though real wages have gone up significantly, disposable income has changed much less.
That having been said, thread parent is probably correct about the treadmill effect of these drugs. It will happen with lawyers first...
I'm very seldom moved to post on Slashdot, but this article did it. The nonsense starts with the author's blithe assertion that an asymtotic-to-zero cost of software distribution over the Internet implies zero cost of production, and proceeds from there.
In fact there are lots of goods that have a high cost to produce the first copy and near-zero-cost to produce the second copy, but any self-described 'economist' who uses that cost pattern as an excuse to ignore the production cost of the first copy is exhibiting severe brain damage.
The little that is true in this paper (the argument on the high costs of IPR) just gets overwhelmed by the tide of toxic nonsense. If anyone asks *me* what I think of this government-funding scheme, it'll get both barrels...
That quiz reads like an implicit description of ex-president Bill Clinton, the most consummate political animal of modern times. It's all there, the lying and manipulativelessness and obsessive self-reinvention and evasion of responsibility.
I've been saying for years that the reason criminals as a population are so stupid is that the intelligent sociopaths go into politics, where the identical same behaviors are rewarded and encouraged. This quiz pretty much confirms that.
I had breakfast with Jimmy Doohan once. This was years before I was a famous geek, so I doubt he remembered it long. But I remember him -- a very warm, human, unassuming person. He had the quiet self-confidence of a man who's seen it all, done most of it, lived an upright life, and has nothing left to prove to anybody. The contrast with the brittle personalities and huge fragile egos of some other Trek stars I've met was very noticeable.
For the record, my political views are neither "vaguely liberal-moderate" nor "moderate to neconservative". I'm a radical libertarian anarchist, so if I'm projecting anything it's the third category. But does anyone doubt that there are a lot of libertarians among us, even if most aren't as extreme as me?
Actually, my pre-libertarian background was as a centrist Democrat, not a left-winger. I worked for Henry Jackson's campaign in 1975. I found myself repelled both by the racist conservatives of the 1960s and the Communist-sympathizing "New Left". I loathed both the anti-drug crowd and the anti-war crowd. So my history of rejecting both ends of the spectrum goes back a long way.
I wrote the intro for Paul's book and he's a good friend of mine. The reviewer is wrong on one point: Paul's politics are not "conservative" or "right-wing". Like me, he is a libertarian who stands outside the left/right spectrum and wants as little as possible to do with those who inhabit it.
Yes, that was me at the Orbit/Crystal Method concert -- I think I was wearing the fire-engine-red Metallica-parody shirt that has "Obey Your Master!" above a picture of Tux. The "walking problem" is spastic palsy, not a club foot. Astute of you to notice; many people don't.
But for changes of that kind, the burden of proof is heavy and on the party alleging infringement. The comparator tool isn't designed to try to catch such deliberate obfuscation, because that would get into murky territory near the boundary of expression and idea. Did you really think I failed to study the legal questions before I wrote this?
Re:sale of property an "accident"?
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 1
Don't put words in my mouth. I do not claim that nobody can own intellectual property, either in this paper or elsewhere. You think there is a contradiction only because, as others have pointed out, you don't understand what "accidental" means in a legal context.
I have taken the excellent suggestion of substituting the word "adventitious".
As a martial artist myself (1st Dan TKD, 2 years of
aikido) I'm always on the lookout for martial-arts
films that don't insult my intelligence. CTHD
joins a depressingly short list that began with
"The Challenge" (1982), and includes both "The
Matrix" and "Shanghai Noon" (which was only stupid
deliberately and as a form of send-up).
Great movie, visually gorgeous, fine performances.
Easily blows away anything else I've seen this
year, and I doubt any movie I've heard or read
about would change that.
I don't think those paragraphs were added in reaction to the OSD.
I don't think they were either. They were added
in reaction to APSL 1.0. While this is not `inconsistent', it does constitute publishing requirements nobody knew about before.
Slashdot Mirror
I think I see why you're confused. The curse was an effective way to kick off the revolt, yes. Not any way to start an earthquake, though. Reality doesn't work that way.
OK, let's squash some of this nonsense right now.
I never believed the 2010 Haiti Erthquake was caused by a voodoo curse, and I'm astonished that anyone interpreted that post in that way. What I found anthropologically interesting is that something like Robertson's "satanic" invocation seems actually to have taken place. Not actually "satanic", but within Robertson's impoverished terms of reference that's about the only way he could describe an invocation of the loa.
I believe, and have repeatedly said, that the supposed "scientific consensus" on CAGW is not a conspiracy but an error cascade. I think most scientists are honestly trying to do right, but have been overly credulous about data and models that have been (and continue to be) fraudulently manipulated by a tiny minority of them. Those of you who think this makes me some sort of nut are going to have some explaining to do when measured GAT drops out of the bottom of the IPCC's 95% confidence band, which looks set to happen before the end of 2014.
I might reply to some of these other questions at more length, but these two deserved to be dispatched immediately
Yes, Kuhn was full of horse puckey. Not only doesn't his book describe science outside of physics at all well, it doesn't even correctly describe 20th-century physics, its ostensible paradigm (using the word correctly now) case.
Years ago I wrote a more detailed takedown in Brother, can you Paradigm?
The only amplification I'd write today is that the shifts between large theoretical models generally (and contrary to Kuhn's claims) go smoothly in physics because test by correct prediction of experimental results is so difficult to argue with. The soft sciences have more trouble setting up repeatable experiments, so it's easier for people to hold on to broken theoretical models.
Since he quoted me, I have replied to the report on Spadaro's article at Imprimatur me!
Cost of Windows is much less to an OEM. I've heard figures as low as $10 were leaked for the really large OEMs, though that may be after the crapware subsidy rather than before.
That's right, I did make this claim.
And I know why the effect didn't bite. It's because the big OEMs get their cost of Windows installation offset by the fees that crapware manufacturers play to get their demo versions and adware and spyware bundled into the distro. For an outfit like Dell, those fees are probably large enough to make installing Windows a net profit generator.
This would also explain why Linux configurations generally cost more that Windows configurations with identical hardware. It's not conspiracy, they're just trying to maintain margin in the absence of the crapware fees.
And in answer to the implied question -- yes, I do believe the things Rob Landley and I wrote in "World Domination 201" helped this happen sooner. I know we influenced Kevin Carmony's thinking because he's said so, and we also know that Mark Shuttleworth read a draft of the paper.
This is only part of what I was going on about. The distribution-independent codec installer that Linspire is working on -- what Kevin Carmony now tells me they'll be calling "LinCodex" will be just as important, if not more so.
This is not capitalism's fault. Taxes have risen a lot since the 1960s, especially income-tax rates through bracket creep and mechanisms like the Alternative Minimum Income Tax. What actually happened is that the government 'adapted' to women workers by confiscating more of everybody's earnings. Thus, though real wages have gone up significantly, disposable income has changed much less.
That having been said, thread parent is probably correct about the treadmill effect of these drugs. It will happen with lawyers first...
Darren Davis: I'd like to discuss this bit of history with you. Please email
me at esr@thyrsus.com
My reply won't be published until Wednesday.
I'm very seldom moved to post on Slashdot, but this article did it.
The nonsense starts with the author's blithe assertion that an asymtotic-to-zero cost of software distribution over the Internet implies zero cost of production, and proceeds from there.
In fact there are lots of goods that have a high cost to produce the first copy and near-zero-cost to produce the second copy, but any self-described 'economist' who uses that cost pattern as an excuse to ignore the production cost of the first copy is exhibiting severe brain damage.
The little that is true in this paper (the argument on the high costs of IPR) just gets overwhelmed by the tide of toxic nonsense. If anyone asks *me* what I think of this government-funding scheme, it'll get both barrels...
That quiz reads like an implicit description of ex-president Bill Clinton, the most consummate political animal of modern times. It's all there, the lying and manipulativelessness and obsessive self-reinvention and evasion of responsibility.
I've been saying for years that the reason criminals as a population are so stupid is that the intelligent sociopaths go into politics, where the identical same behaviors are rewarded and encouraged. This quiz pretty much confirms that.
I had breakfast with Jimmy Doohan once. This was years before I was a famous geek, so I doubt he remembered it long. But I remember him -- a very warm, human, unassuming person. He had the quiet self-confidence of a man who's seen it all, done most of it, lived an upright life, and has nothing left to prove to anybody. The contrast with the brittle personalities and huge fragile egos of some other Trek stars I've met was very noticeable.
I'll miss you, Jimmy.
Yes, as a matter of fact, it *did* feel good to
see my work used in this comparison. Extremely good.
Indeed. I was not joking, or to the extent I was it was a ha-ha-only-serious. I'm amused that the reporter thought I was joking.
For the record, my political views are neither
"vaguely liberal-moderate" nor "moderate to
neconservative". I'm a radical libertarian anarchist, so if I'm projecting anything it's
the third category. But does anyone doubt that
there are a lot of libertarians among us, even if
most aren't as extreme as me?
Actually, my pre-libertarian background was as a
centrist Democrat, not a left-winger. I worked
for Henry Jackson's campaign in 1975. I found
myself repelled both by the racist conservatives
of the 1960s and the Communist-sympathizing "New
Left". I loathed both the anti-drug crowd and
the anti-war crowd. So my history of rejecting
both ends of the spectrum goes back a long way.
I wrote the intro for Paul's book and he's a good friend of mine. The reviewer is wrong on one point: Paul's politics are not "conservative" or "right-wing". Like me, he is a libertarian who stands outside the left/right spectrum and wants as little as possible to do with those who inhabit it.
Yes, that was me at the Orbit/Crystal Method concert -- I think I was wearing the fire-engine-red Metallica-parody shirt that has "Obey Your Master!" above a picture of Tux. The "walking problem" is spastic palsy, not a club foot. Astute of you to notice; many people don't.
The Berkeley and BBN implementations were independent. In fact, they competed against each other, and the rivalry became somewhat bitter.
But for changes of that kind, the burden of proof
is heavy and on the party alleging infringement.
The comparator tool isn't designed to try to catch
such deliberate obfuscation, because that would get
into murky territory near the boundary of expression and idea. Did you really think I failed to study the legal questions before I wrote this?
Don't put words in my mouth. I do not claim that
nobody can own intellectual property, either in this paper or elsewhere. You think there is a contradiction only because, as others have pointed out, you don't understand what "accidental" means in a legal context.
I have taken the excellent suggestion of substituting the word "adventitious".
As a martial artist myself (1st Dan TKD, 2 years of
aikido) I'm always on the lookout for martial-arts
films that don't insult my intelligence. CTHD
joins a depressingly short list that began with
"The Challenge" (1982), and includes both "The
Matrix" and "Shanghai Noon" (which was only stupid
deliberately and as a form of send-up).
Great movie, visually gorgeous, fine performances.
Easily blows away anything else I've seen this
year, and I doubt any movie I've heard or read
about would change that.
I don't think they were either. They were added in reaction to APSL 1.0. While this is not `inconsistent', it does constitute publishing requirements nobody knew about before.