As open source is a superior production system, companies and individuals that don't participate in it (that is, take open source code and make it closed source) are hurting themselves as they are shutting themselves of from the superior system that is open source.
Circular logic (eg begging the question).
That's why the GPL isn't neede(sic) and why the GPL would only make sense if open source were in fact an inferior system.
The first assertation wasn't proven by the circular reasoning. It is completely plausible that 'open source' (in the context you're using) is a superiour production system because of the GPL.
Now I don't say that you have to agree with him on that, but it's at least an interesting and well thought out argument.
I was just about to post the same thing from the faq. This "challenge" proves little to nil considering their server wasn't capable of handling the network traffic. There's a million analogies that come to mind, but I think a good one would be a boxing match. Their victory is tantamount to a boxer claiming to be the heavyweight championship because nobody beat them in a fight, but the reason nobody beat them is that all the potential challengers were stuck in the doorway into the arena. It doesn't prove a victory, it proves the doors need to be bigger. Bringing that thought back around to this hack challenge, all that was proved is their hardware is insufficient for any moderately high traffic load. I don't think a victory dance is in order.
Your periodic table tells you the average atomic mass of naturally occuring hydrogen. Which includes all naturally occuring variations including isotopes. So er, 1.00794 is definitely not the atomic mass of non-isotopic hydrogen, 1 is a much better estimate, especially for the purposes of our calculations. To avoid trollish responses such as your own you'll also notice I didn't say 1.00000000000000, and if you're going to troll correct numbers considering the sig figs, why not also troll my use of Avogadro's number? You do realize that 6.02*10^23 isn't the most precise representation of it either right? Maybe you didn't have a handy reference telling you that though to let you troll and feel smart. Lets try to cloud the issue for the guy who says he doesn't understand chemistry and math well with irrelevant precision shall we? Now which one of us has at best mastered only high school chem? STFU troll.
Nope, atomic mass is based off of carbon-12, not hydrogen. Apparently it was a comprise between physicists and chemists. But you're right, for all casual intents and purposes hydrogen has an atomic mass of 1.
A kilogram of non-isotopic hydrogen would be the atomic mass of the substance (1), times the entire mass of the sample in grams (1000), times Avogadro's number (6.02 * 10^23), which would equal 6.02 * 10^26 atoms.
I'm still holding to the whole idea of the conservation of energy (conservation of energy and mass if you want to be specific). Recapturing some expended energy doesn't make the net energy of the system greater (or as you and the transformers put it, energon), it simply makes the energy loss from the system due to braking less severe. There is no third source of energy (there isn't even a second really). The process is there to retain as much energy in the system as possible. This was the entirety of my point in the first place, energy isn't 'created' or released from anything by this process. Kinetic energy is transformed to potential energy, and from potential to kinetic. With each transformation there is loss from the system due to heat and sound. It is more efficient to retain some of the energy in the process, but there are still losses and the vehicle would be more efficient if braking wasn't involved at all.
My original question of 'mysterious energy sources' was rhetorical.
How can you get *better* mileage by expending energy into getting the car moving, then reclaiming a portion of it when slowing it down? I would think energy would be lost as heat and sound in this process, not gained from an unknown third source. How does reclaiming only part of the energy equal an increase in total energy that would be required for a hybrid to get better gas mileage under stop and go conditions?
I'm fairly certain a hybrid only fairs better than a traditional car under these conditions, and not better than it would if the conditions weren't present. If it got better overall gas mileage by braking a lot, why not just stop and go so much that you never use fuel? It makes no sense.
Many of the Americans that I most admire are more than capable of making a fortune with their talents but instead choose to do something worthwhile.
I agree with your comment, except making a fortune or doing something worthwhile are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I wish more people mainly concerned with making a fortune realized it can be done by doing something worthwhile if they wanted, instead of only being concerned with the bottom line. I suppose many people feel they can never be too rich, and only the almighty dollar dictates their behavior.
Some wealth may have to be foregone to do something worthwhile, but fortunes can still be made.
Untrue, according to my logic, I don't have a right to life because you could kill me, and that's absolutely correct. I only have a right to life in as much as I can defend it.
Mark your calendar on this special occasion, for slashdot is having someone use the term 'begging the question' properly, because you my friend, are begging the question.
You proved your logic by referencing your original argument, and you do nothing to show how my assertation that my ability (and to be quite honest, my desire) to kill you, therefore I have granted you life, is not analagous to your statement that an entities ability to suppress ones rights is tantamount to having created those rights.
Who granted you these rights?
That was the entire point of my original statement. Look at it again and sound out any big words you have trouble reading. Rights are not granted by ANYONE or ANYTHING. They are not granted by any entity, any political party, group, class, or man with a big beard floating on the clouds. They just are. Perhaps you have difficulty in grasping the of existence of something that you can't hold in meaty paws or that isn't written on a piece of paper.
Obviously you're still confused about the definition of a right. Did you bother clicking the link to merriam websters website I provided in my first post for your enlightenment? Can you tell me, what's it like to prove points by simply changing the definition of words? Does it make it easier? Would my response (and sadly, waste of time, but I digress) be easier if I practiced your method instead of clearly stating what I'm saying, referencing material, and relying on the actual definitions of the words I use?
Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it so.
Are you still breathing? If so, I suppose I'll have to concede that just because I want something to be true doesn't make it so. It's strange though, I don't remember saying wanting something to be true will make it so.
What if I said I had a basic human right to sell crack cocaine? Or rape women, or have slaves, or any other number of things that you and I would concider[sic] wrong? It's no more true than saying you have a basic human right to privacy, or free speech.
Then you would be an idiot, but that's already been established. You would also be presumptious in assuming I would 'concider' (is that like apple cider?) that one doesn't have the right to sell whatever they want, so long as they rightfully own it. You would be correct with your last two statements about rape and slavery, they definitely are "no more true" than my statements about free speech and privacy, infact they are 'less' true. I feel strange using 'true' as a metric instead of a state, but I'll go along with you.
The abstract of my original post was that a right is something one deserves. A right cannot be created or destroyed, and as much as oppressive entities and morons like yourself would like, it is not something that can be granted. It is something that can only be denied.
I do not thank my government for the existence of the rights that I have, they did not create them, and I hate them for the rights they try to deny. However, I am grateful to them for the rights they do protect, but I am not simple minded enough to equate protection or defense with creation.
Fact of the matter being that your (and mine, even though it's not the same document) constitution GRANTS you these privledges, and we both are happy for that fact. The difference between you and me is I don't decieve myself in to thinking that God granted us these rights.
How exactly do they grant these rights? Was it the act of writing them down? Was it the act of agreeing it was a good idea? Do you think perhaps your idea of being 'granted' free speech is the act of not silencing you when you speak? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm only guessing that is what you mean by being 'granted'
It might be a well-established priveledge, but really, when it comes down to it, the only right you have is whatever "rights" you can take due to the force you command (might makes right, essentially)
That would be your opinion, not fact.
My interpretation of a "right" is that which is justly due a person, not that which some authoritarian power allows. Merriam Webster seems to agree in the sense that a right is something due a person, and can be stated in law. A right is not a right only if observed, granted, or allowed.
2 : something to which one has a just claim: as a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled b (1) : the interest that one has in a piece of property -- often used in plural (2) plural : the property interest possessed under law or custom and agreement in an intangible thing especially of a literary and artistic nature
3 : something that one may properly claim as due
"Might makes right" has nothing to do with what is due a person. It is essentially "might makes correct", and stems from a completely different meaning than the term 'right(s)' which I was (obviously) referring to.
Not to feed a troll, but can't you find something a little less important than a humans basic entitlements to trivialize? The state cannot create or give rights (in the personal liberty sense), they exist regardless of the state. All the state can do is deny them, and it is logically fallacious to assume that just because an entity can take something away, that the entity must have created or granted that which it has the power to deny.
By your logic, I created your life because I could kill you.
If H3 proves to be a viable source of endless energy, then we must keep this technology secret. Otherwise, the Chinese would use it to fuel their ultimate ambition: a space-based particle-beam weapon...blah blah blah
For your point of view to get even a second glance, you must be able to differentiate between H and He.
...By contrast, NASA is an entirely civilian effort.
hahahahaha. Right.
I wouldn't fear some spaced based particle weapon from the chinese as much as I would the improved ballistic missle capabilities that a space program really gives its parent nation. Perhaps that is too rational and entrenched in reality for you to grasp.
The "Man of The Year" award is awarded to the person who has the most profound effect on the world, not he who is thought to be the best person out there. Osama Bin Laden was considered for the "Man of The Year" award in 2001 because of his effect on the world, not because he's a nice guy and loved by everyone.
Someone please explain this to me. Did they plan on crashing the thing into this guy's roof?
Yes, that was the exact purpose of the mission. You see the guy had been evading taxes, and well, the Chinese can be known to go a bit overboard when making a point. It was a two part mission really, to show how precisely they can land their satellites, and to remind the population that they had better pay their f*&#ing taxes. Any other bright questions you need answers to?
Can you at least *try* to grasp that currency conversions aren't one for one? Just because X currency converts to 7.50 USD doesn't mean jack about what it can buy or what its worth in its native land.
Why would aircraft manufacturers sell tickets for a space flight? If Boing or Airbus became involved in space tourism, I'm thinking they'd stick to their core business model of designing and building their own vehicles. I'm pretty sure they're not dreaming of shifting their entire business model to become ticketing agents in the space tourism industry.
I believe when the parent used the word selective, s/he/it was implying a specific group was being selectively targetted by law enforcement, not necessarily the most flagrant.
To use your own analagy of "Does everyone who speeds get a ticket?", no of course not. But if law enforcement selectively enforced the law so the only people that got speeding tickets were black people, well, I think the majority of people will think there may be a problem. I believe the parents use of "selective" falls under this context, and not under the context of "everyone who speeds should get a speeding ticket or no one at all" or "why do only the most flagrant violators get speeding tickets?" as your post implies.
Selective law enforcement is a very real and dangerous threat to every individual's rights, and without taking sides on whether or not the violator in the article was targetted soley for his opinion, or if it was just for his flagrant disregard of law, I still think it is very important for everyone to be watchful and wary of selective law enforcement. Whether or not this is a case of it, I think it is completely reasonable to question if it were, and the parent's post focuses on this very important issue.
Just because law enforcement is selectively targetting a group you may not agree with does not make it ok or not a very real and specific threat to you. "Unfavorable" groups can change on a whim and you may find yourself the member of one through no fault of your own and regardless of whether or not you are a good moral person.
Even worse, if this kind of law enforcement is allowed, it significantly increases the likelyhood of rights violating behavior being imposed on everyone, and with the possibility that the majority of people wouldn't object because of commonplace acceptance of selective enforcement in the past.
Slashdot Mirror
As open source is a superior production system, companies and individuals that don't participate in it (that is, take open source code and make it closed source) are hurting themselves as they are shutting themselves of from the superior system that is open source.
Circular logic (eg begging the question).
That's why the GPL isn't neede(sic) and why the GPL would only make sense if open source were in fact an inferior system.
The first assertation wasn't proven by the circular reasoning. It is completely plausible that 'open source' (in the context you're using) is a superiour production system because of the GPL.
Now I don't say that you have to agree with him on that, but it's at least an interesting and well thought out argument.
No it's not.
Source? Last I knew the 'average Chinese' was an uneducated peasant farmer.
(Not a troll, it's a valid and true statement)
I was just about to post the same thing from the faq. This "challenge" proves little to nil considering their server wasn't capable of handling the network traffic. There's a million analogies that come to mind, but I think a good one would be a boxing match. Their victory is tantamount to a boxer claiming to be the heavyweight championship because nobody beat them in a fight, but the reason nobody beat them is that all the potential challengers were stuck in the doorway into the arena. It doesn't prove a victory, it proves the doors need to be bigger. Bringing that thought back around to this hack challenge, all that was proved is their hardware is insufficient for any moderately high traffic load. I don't think a victory dance is in order.
Your periodic table tells you the average atomic mass of naturally occuring hydrogen. Which includes all naturally occuring variations including isotopes. So er, 1.00794 is definitely not the atomic mass of non-isotopic hydrogen, 1 is a much better estimate, especially for the purposes of our calculations. To avoid trollish responses such as your own you'll also notice I didn't say 1.00000000000000, and if you're going to troll correct numbers considering the sig figs, why not also troll my use of Avogadro's number? You do realize that 6.02*10^23 isn't the most precise representation of it either right? Maybe you didn't have a handy reference telling you that though to let you troll and feel smart. Lets try to cloud the issue for the guy who says he doesn't understand chemistry and math well with irrelevant precision shall we? Now which one of us has at best mastered only high school chem? STFU troll.
Nope, atomic mass is based off of carbon-12, not hydrogen. Apparently it was a comprise between physicists and chemists. But you're right, for all casual intents and purposes hydrogen has an atomic mass of 1.
A kilogram of non-isotopic hydrogen would be the atomic mass of the substance (1), times the entire mass of the sample in grams (1000), times Avogadro's number (6.02 * 10^23), which would equal 6.02 * 10^26 atoms.
Speak for yourself, there's not much spare room for exploration in my jeans.
My original question of 'mysterious energy sources' was rhetorical.
I'm fairly certain a hybrid only fairs better than a traditional car under these conditions, and not better than it would if the conditions weren't present. If it got better overall gas mileage by braking a lot, why not just stop and go so much that you never use fuel? It makes no sense.
I agree with your comment, except making a fortune or doing something worthwhile are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I wish more people mainly concerned with making a fortune realized it can be done by doing something worthwhile if they wanted, instead of only being concerned with the bottom line. I suppose many people feel they can never be too rich, and only the almighty dollar dictates their behavior.
Some wealth may have to be foregone to do something worthwhile, but fortunes can still be made.
Mark your calendar on this special occasion, for slashdot is having someone use the term 'begging the question' properly, because you my friend, are begging the question.
You proved your logic by referencing your original argument, and you do nothing to show how my assertation that my ability (and to be quite honest, my desire) to kill you, therefore I have granted you life, is not analagous to your statement that an entities ability to suppress ones rights is tantamount to having created those rights.
Who granted you these rights?
That was the entire point of my original statement. Look at it again and sound out any big words you have trouble reading. Rights are not granted by ANYONE or ANYTHING. They are not granted by any entity, any political party, group, class, or man with a big beard floating on the clouds. They just are. Perhaps you have difficulty in grasping the of existence of something that you can't hold in meaty paws or that isn't written on a piece of paper.
Obviously you're still confused about the definition of a right. Did you bother clicking the link to merriam websters website I provided in my first post for your enlightenment? Can you tell me, what's it like to prove points by simply changing the definition of words? Does it make it easier? Would my response (and sadly, waste of time, but I digress) be easier if I practiced your method instead of clearly stating what I'm saying, referencing material, and relying on the actual definitions of the words I use?
Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it so.
Are you still breathing? If so, I suppose I'll have to concede that just because I want something to be true doesn't make it so. It's strange though, I don't remember saying wanting something to be true will make it so.
What if I said I had a basic human right to sell crack cocaine? Or rape women, or have slaves, or any other number of things that you and I would concider[sic] wrong? It's no more true than saying you have a basic human right to privacy, or free speech.
Then you would be an idiot, but that's already been established. You would also be presumptious in assuming I would 'concider' (is that like apple cider?) that one doesn't have the right to sell whatever they want, so long as they rightfully own it. You would be correct with your last two statements about rape and slavery, they definitely are "no more true" than my statements about free speech and privacy, infact they are 'less' true. I feel strange using 'true' as a metric instead of a state, but I'll go along with you.
The abstract of my original post was that a right is something one deserves. A right cannot be created or destroyed, and as much as oppressive entities and morons like yourself would like, it is not something that can be granted. It is something that can only be denied.
I do not thank my government for the existence of the rights that I have, they did not create them, and I hate them for the rights they try to deny. However, I am grateful to them for the rights they do protect, but I am not simple minded enough to equate protection or defense with creation.
Fact of the matter being that your (and mine, even though it's not the same document) constitution GRANTS you these privledges, and we both are happy for that fact. The difference between you and me is I don't decieve myself in to thinking that God granted us these rights.
How exactly do they grant these rights? Was it the act of writing them down? Was it the act of agreeing it was a good idea? Do you think perhaps your idea of being 'granted' free speech is the act of not silencing you when you speak? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm only guessing that is what you mean by being 'granted'
If it's not observed, then it's not a right.
It might be a well-established priveledge, but really, when it comes down to it, the only right you have is whatever "rights" you can take due to the force you command (might makes right, essentially)
That would be your opinion, not fact.
My interpretation of a "right" is that which is justly due a person, not that which some authoritarian power allows. Merriam Webster seems to agree in the sense that a right is something due a person, and can be stated in law. A right is not a right only if observed, granted, or allowed.
2 : something to which one has a just claim: as a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled b (1) : the interest that one has in a piece of property -- often used in plural (2) plural : the property interest possessed under law or custom and agreement in an intangible thing especially of a literary and artistic nature 3 : something that one may properly claim as due
"Might makes right" has nothing to do with what is due a person. It is essentially "might makes correct", and stems from a completely different meaning than the term 'right(s)' which I was (obviously) referring to.
Not to feed a troll, but can't you find something a little less important than a humans basic entitlements to trivialize? The state cannot create or give rights (in the personal liberty sense), they exist regardless of the state. All the state can do is deny them, and it is logically fallacious to assume that just because an entity can take something away, that the entity must have created or granted that which it has the power to deny.
By your logic, I created your life because I could kill you.
So don't talk back to daddy.
Everything up until: "consider god a libertarian"
Are you trying to say god voted for Badnarik?
"IRC, where the men are men, the women are men, and the 13 year old girls are FBI agents."
You will always have a right to privacy. It's whether or not that right will be observed that's being (further) threatened.
Yes.
Or was he???
Hmm...
Man, I'd feel sorry for his mom, that'd be one difficult birth.
Everyone I know.
For your point of view to get even a second glance, you must be able to differentiate between H and He.
hahahahaha. Right.
I wouldn't fear some spaced based particle weapon from the chinese as much as I would the improved ballistic missle capabilities that a space program really gives its parent nation. Perhaps that is too rational and entrenched in reality for you to grasp.
Anyone with a heritage from the middle east is asian.
The "Man of The Year" award is awarded to the person who has the most profound effect on the world, not he who is thought to be the best person out there. Osama Bin Laden was considered for the "Man of The Year" award in 2001 because of his effect on the world, not because he's a nice guy and loved by everyone.
Yes, that was the exact purpose of the mission. You see the guy had been evading taxes, and well, the Chinese can be known to go a bit overboard when making a point. It was a two part mission really, to show how precisely they can land their satellites, and to remind the population that they had better pay their f*&#ing taxes. Any other bright questions you need answers to?
Can you at least *try* to grasp that currency conversions aren't one for one? Just because X currency converts to 7.50 USD doesn't mean jack about what it can buy or what its worth in its native land.
Why would aircraft manufacturers sell tickets for a space flight? If Boing or Airbus became involved in space tourism, I'm thinking they'd stick to their core business model of designing and building their own vehicles. I'm pretty sure they're not dreaming of shifting their entire business model to become ticketing agents in the space tourism industry.
To use your own analagy of "Does everyone who speeds get a ticket?", no of course not. But if law enforcement selectively enforced the law so the only people that got speeding tickets were black people, well, I think the majority of people will think there may be a problem. I believe the parents use of "selective" falls under this context, and not under the context of "everyone who speeds should get a speeding ticket or no one at all" or "why do only the most flagrant violators get speeding tickets?" as your post implies.
Selective law enforcement is a very real and dangerous threat to every individual's rights, and without taking sides on whether or not the violator in the article was targetted soley for his opinion, or if it was just for his flagrant disregard of law, I still think it is very important for everyone to be watchful and wary of selective law enforcement. Whether or not this is a case of it, I think it is completely reasonable to question if it were, and the parent's post focuses on this very important issue.
Just because law enforcement is selectively targetting a group you may not agree with does not make it ok or not a very real and specific threat to you. "Unfavorable" groups can change on a whim and you may find yourself the member of one through no fault of your own and regardless of whether or not you are a good moral person.
Even worse, if this kind of law enforcement is allowed, it significantly increases the likelyhood of rights violating behavior being imposed on everyone, and with the possibility that the majority of people wouldn't object because of commonplace acceptance of selective enforcement in the past.