Re-reading what you quoted, I see no requirement that an implementation be willing to execute any part of the content of the document: just run an "application" that is already installed on the machine. It also seems reasonable that an implemention could refuse to execute code located in the user's home directory.
> He might have done better to suggest that political parties need to overcome > their differences and regard climate change and the need for a response to > it as a settled, undeniable fact...
In effect, you've saved your enemy's life even though the intent was to cause harm. Clearly, this cannot be a moral act. By example, one can understand that purely reviewing the consequences of an action cannot define that action moral or immoral.
But the intent of an action can never be objectively determined, so its morality cannot be determined either.
I thought it was quite clear. To summarize: the judge still has to rule on a few things, but he is unlikely to rule in favor of SCO. Even if he did SCO would get nothing of significant value.
All the Linux-related claims were dismissed long ago. This case has not been about Linux for years. Even if SCO had won this trial they could not have done anything to Linux.
Perhaps you should read the article. If you were to do so you might learn that the magnetic field involved is an AC field of specific intensity, frequency, waveform, and orientation applied to a specific part of the brain.
> Except Milgram showed that a few people are completely immune to coercion by > authority.
Milgram used no coercion.
> This equipment will probably work on anyone.
But it won't make them follow your orders. "Here's a gun. I'll pay you $10,000 if you'll take it and kill that guy." "No, that would be wrong." "Put this helmet on." "Ok." "Now again, I'll pay you $10,000 if you'll kill that guy." "Naw. Too much trouble. I'll just kill you and take the money." BAM!
> I wouldn't be surprised to see them very interested in tools to make that > piece of the training easier to accomplish, even if it involves very > expensive tools.
Unfortunately, they don't need them. Social approval is far more powerful than any magnet. What your social reference group does is _right_.
What did they do to distinguish scrambling of moral judgement from simple scrambling of judgement? Seems to me that people who are simply having trouble thinking clearly are likely to make these mistakes. Someone whose ability to think at all is impaired might very well assert that the guy who let his girl walk across the unsafe bridge was blameless because they lost track of the fact that he knew it was unsafe.
Only the judge can rule the case frivolous. Thus it has to "make it to the courtroom" though there need not be any trial. The preliminary injunction has already been denied. Hopefully the motion for dismissal will be granted and the defendant will be awarded costs and fees. That is the proper way to handle frivolous suits.
Nothing is equivalent to the "big bang". The "big bang" is a singularity. 14TeV isn't even equivalent to some of the natural collisions that happen in the upper atmosphere.
Slashdot Mirror
Re-reading what you quoted, I see no requirement that an implementation be willing to execute any part of the content of the document: just run an "application" that is already installed on the machine. It also seems reasonable that an implemention could refuse to execute code located in the user's home directory.
> ...does that mean I've committed a child porn crime?
No, because _you_ have done nothing inside USA jurisdiction. It may mean Google has, though.
So it appears that you have found the bug in the spec.
> All which correctly implement the PDF spec.
Which is therefor buggy.
...you'd be flaming them for invading your "privacy".
Come the revolution you will wear your Birkenstocks and like it.
> He might have done better to suggest that political parties need to overcome
> their differences and regard climate change and the need for a response to
> it as a settled, undeniable fact...
And make denying it a crime, no doubt.
Angels _are_ magnets.
Better light.
> I don't think it would be difficult to prove that being driven by greed,
> pride and envy can have very dangerous consequences in the real world.
Yes. Just look at the consequences of the actions of every single person on the planet.
But the intent of an action can never be objectively determined, so its morality cannot be determined either.
...stepping on a human face forever.
It's going to be a Birkenstock.
...I see "This site requires Flash".
I thought it was quite clear. To summarize: the judge still has to rule on a few things, but he is unlikely to rule in favor of SCO. Even if he did SCO would get nothing of significant value.
> What part of "convicted monopolist" is hard to understand?
There is the fact that being a monopolist is not a crime, to start with...
All the Linux-related claims were dismissed long ago. This case has not been about Linux for years. Even if SCO had won this trial they could not have done anything to Linux.
All the Linux-related claims were dismissed years ago.
Perhaps you should read the article. If you were to do so you might learn that the magnetic field involved is an AC field of specific intensity, frequency, waveform, and orientation applied to a specific part of the brain.
> Except Milgram showed that a few people are completely immune to coercion by
> authority.
Milgram used no coercion.
> This equipment will probably work on anyone.
But it won't make them follow your orders. "Here's a gun. I'll pay you $10,000 if you'll take it and kill that guy." "No, that would be wrong." "Put this helmet on." "Ok." "Now again, I'll pay you $10,000 if you'll kill that guy." "Naw. Too much trouble. I'll just kill you and take the money." BAM!
> I wouldn't be surprised to see them very interested in tools to make that
> piece of the training easier to accomplish, even if it involves very
> expensive tools.
Unfortunately, they don't need them. Social approval is far more powerful than any magnet. What your social reference group does is _right_.
What did they do to distinguish scrambling of moral judgement from simple scrambling of judgement? Seems to me that people who are simply having trouble thinking clearly are likely to make these mistakes. Someone whose ability to think at all is impaired might very well assert that the guy who let his girl walk across the unsafe bridge was blameless because they lost track of the fact that he knew it was unsafe.
> Which is why Dutch fatality rates are a factor of two lower than American
> ones.
Because, after all, there are absolutely no other differences.
> ...city planners would prefer it if just nobody drove at all...
Of course they'd rather you didn't drive. It's much easier to control people when you can force them to use government-owned mass transit.
Only the judge can rule the case frivolous. Thus it has to "make it to the courtroom" though there need not be any trial. The preliminary injunction has already been denied. Hopefully the motion for dismissal will be granted and the defendant will be awarded costs and fees. That is the proper way to handle frivolous suits.
Nothing is equivalent to the "big bang". The "big bang" is a singularity. 14TeV isn't even equivalent to some of the natural collisions that happen in the upper atmosphere.