If it gets approved, my guess is that they will loudly say that MS-PL is an approved open source license. Then they will release code under the MS-LPL license. Most people won't understand or see that extra L, and assume it's similar.
Of course, the MS-LPL is one of the worst licenses you can get (It can only run on MS Windows etc). They will purposefully confuse people with the distinction.
Poor Microsoft. They try so hard to fit in. They make three licenses, two of which contain a clause saying that you can only run them on MS Windows, and for some reason they aren't embraced into the community!
You are benefiting from many many technologies around you. A lot of them were paid for by people who didn't live long enough to benefit from them themselves.
If you want to use the internet as an example, then okay. It doesn't matter that it's changed - the basis of the internet was most likely not paid for by your taxes. ( I don't know how old you are. If you are old enough, then just pick any other older technology).
You are benefiting from the accumulation of hard work done by people since the dawn of time. Yet you want to turn around and say that everything you pay for must benefit you directly.
I get your points, and do agree, but that doesn't address why China and Japan are still perfectly capable of high population growth without a religion. Religion doesn't seem to be as needed as much as you imply.
Modern grass is much more efficient at converting sunlight to energy, whereas the grass that evolved first is very inefficient - reeds etc. There are tons of other examples where some process has become more efficient as evolution takes its toll.
If you were going to do code reuse, wouldn't you have made everything equally as efficient?
You have redefined creationism to mean just the creation of the very first few bacteria etc. That is not what most creationists would define it as. You are the one that is reframing the debate.
Just as a counter point to "The truth is if it wasn't for religion many of us would not have been born, nor had a somewhat stable family life". The Chinese are mostly non-religious, but they have no problem in producing kids. Likewise for Japan.
I'm not quite sure how the stable family life comes into it. I can see that religion might keep couples together when they otherwise would have split up, but often it's better for the kid for the parents to just break up rather than stay together and argue all the time.
We just don't know to within an accuracy of a day?
So we could know which week it will happen?
Biblical rapture seems to just say it will happen soon. That doesn't contradict the bible if the bible simply says we don't know to the accuracy of a day.
Religions put down rules based on the in-built morals that humans have. Some morals are clearly 'nurture' (do not eat shelfish etc), and other morals are 'nature' - morals that gave an evolutionary advantage to groups that had them, e.g. do not kill.
So religions just simply wrote down their nurture and nature morals. It's not surprising that atheists and theists pretty much agree on the nature morals.
If I read your post correctly, you claim that religion set the morals in the first place. This is obviously wrong. Simply look at any tribe that has been isolated. Or even look at other mammals - monkeys etc are pack animals that will help each other even when there's no individual benefit, punish those who are bad and so on.
The reason you act moral is because you have a conscience telling you to. The reason you have a conscience is because there was an evolutionary advantage to groups that behaved well with each other.
It's nature's solution to the prisoner's dilemma.
You can explain our sense of morals etc as just a solution to game theory.
That's probably just a problem with the English language. I can't think of an equally short way to ask such a question. Try to ask the question correctly is fairly long winded.
Heh, ignorant? I assumed that it would be obvious that you'd use a DC-DC convertor to step up the voltage. Clearly some people get confused by even that *sigh*.
I never said voltage of a battery does tell you anything about its energy storage capacity. My whole post was to correct the parent who thought that the voltage does tell you about the energy storage capacity. My point being that you could simply step up the voltage of a battery. Thus the voltage itself is no measurement of the energy in it.
I don't know how long I'll keep my light on. However I still know that it is using 100W of energy.
Batteries come in different voltages because it's easier for devices and for making the batteries. I could connect a 2V battery to a transformer and get 120V. But it wouldn't last very long.
Slashdot Mirror
Other than paying a million dollars a year to students to help out on open source projects?
Well they also host various linux meetings. The last ubuntu meeting was in google last year. Best food I've eaten.
Reacting negatively?
i censingbasics/limitedpermissivelicense.mspx
Go look at the MS-LPL license: http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/l
and read the bits about the restrictions to MS Windows only. Can you honestly say that MS is trying hard to just get along?
If it gets approved, my guess is that they will loudly say that MS-PL is an approved open source license. Then they will release code under the MS-LPL license. Most people won't understand or see that extra L, and assume it's similar.
Of course, the MS-LPL is one of the worst licenses you can get (It can only run on MS Windows etc). They will purposefully confuse people with the distinction.
My complaint is the naming.
They have released the MS-PL and MS-LPL, with names purposefully similar to the GPL and LGPL.
The MS-PL is mostly okay, but the MS-LPL says the software can only run on MS Windows.
I see this as an attempt to confuse the situation and muddle up the name space.
Poor Microsoft. They try so hard to fit in. They make three licenses, two of which contain a clause saying that you can only run them on MS Windows, and for some reason they aren't embraced into the community!
Correct is rather dodgy.. Does it mean 100%, no errors at all, utterly correct? Or just correct to within a high error of certainty?
I don't think there are any theories that I could say for sure are 100% correct. There's always a non-zero margin for error.
You are benefiting from many many technologies around you. A lot of them were paid for by people who didn't live long enough to benefit from them themselves.
If you want to use the internet as an example, then okay. It doesn't matter that it's changed - the basis of the internet was most likely not paid for by your taxes. ( I don't know how old you are. If you are old enough, then just pick any other older technology).
You are benefiting from the accumulation of hard work done by people since the dawn of time. Yet you want to turn around and say that everything you pay for must benefit you directly.
Don't you see the selfishness in that?
How long does it take to boot to do that?
When has science been wrong? Theories have been refined and improved over the years, but that's the _aim_ of science.
I get your points, and do agree, but that doesn't address why China and Japan are still perfectly capable of high population growth without a religion. Religion doesn't seem to be as needed as much as you imply.
I think you are reading a stronger meaning of "believe" that he intended.
Simply reread what he wrote, mentally substituting the word "believe in" for "think that the best known theory is"
You believe man was created directly from dust by God, _and_ you believe man evolved?
Wow.
Counterexample:
Modern grass is much more efficient at converting sunlight to energy, whereas the grass that evolved first is very inefficient - reeds etc. There are tons of other examples where some process has become more efficient as evolution takes its toll.
If you were going to do code reuse, wouldn't you have made everything equally as efficient?
You have redefined creationism to mean just the creation of the very first few bacteria etc. That is not what most creationists would define it as. You are the one that is reframing the debate.
But you have no problems with using technology that was invented before your time, paid for with taxes that you didn't pay?
Hypocrite.
Just as a counter point to "The truth is if it wasn't for religion many of us would not have been born, nor had a somewhat stable family life". The Chinese are mostly non-religious, but they have no problem in producing kids. Likewise for Japan.
I'm not quite sure how the stable family life comes into it. I can see that religion might keep couples together when they otherwise would have split up, but often it's better for the kid for the parents to just break up rather than stay together and argue all the time.
We just don't know to within an accuracy of a day?
So we could know which week it will happen?
Biblical rapture seems to just say it will happen soon. That doesn't contradict the bible if the bible simply says we don't know to the accuracy of a day.
Religions put down rules based on the in-built morals that humans have. Some morals are clearly 'nurture' (do not eat shelfish etc), and other morals are 'nature' - morals that gave an evolutionary advantage to groups that had them, e.g. do not kill.
So religions just simply wrote down their nurture and nature morals. It's not surprising that atheists and theists pretty much agree on the nature morals.
If I read your post correctly, you claim that religion set the morals in the first place. This is obviously wrong. Simply look at any tribe that has been isolated. Or even look at other mammals - monkeys etc are pack animals that will help each other even when there's no individual benefit, punish those who are bad and so on.
The reason you act moral is because you have a conscience telling you to. The reason you have a conscience is because there was an evolutionary advantage to groups that behaved well with each other.
It's nature's solution to the prisoner's dilemma.
You can explain our sense of morals etc as just a solution to game theory.
That seems fine as well. You find out what type of people they listen to. That seems an equally good test.
> The Fact that Evolution occurs is not the same thing as Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
In what way?
That's probably just a problem with the English language. I can't think of an equally short way to ask such a question. Try to ask the question correctly is fairly long winded.
Heh, ignorant? I assumed that it would be obvious that you'd use a DC-DC convertor to step up the voltage. Clearly some people get confused by even that *sigh*.
I never said voltage of a battery does tell you anything about its energy storage capacity. My whole post was to correct the parent who thought that the voltage does tell you about the energy storage capacity. My point being that you could simply step up the voltage of a battery. Thus the voltage itself is no measurement of the energy in it.
I don't know how long I'll keep my light on. However I still know that it is using 100W of energy.
Batteries come in different voltages because it's easier for devices and for making the batteries. I could connect a 2V battery to a transformer and get 120V. But it wouldn't last very long.
That's only the text, and only in English.
:)
Images are another 17GB when I last checked a few years ago. Probably an order larger now