What they should do is allow any patents or patent law changes that big business pushes for. However what they should also do is allow for an opt-out clause for anybody who wants it.
Any individual or company could renounce the protection of patents completely and in return be free from interference by patent holding entities.
Those who want to play the game can play it. Those who don't can "choose freedom", so to speak.
Podcasts are nice, but actually I don't listen to podcasts on my ipod. I listen on my PC at work or at home. I don't think they are as closely connected to iPods as people make out.
Well, I live in Tokyo and I gotta disagree with you on the ubiquity of iPods here. Seems like every second person on the train during the morning commute has one.
Even though unlike life, we actually know pieces of lint exist in other shirt pockets, I think I can say with reasonable expectation of being correct that the lint in your shirt pocket originated from your laundry, and did not arrive there from someone elses. Of course it's possible it originated in someone elses, and arrived in your pocket as a part of a lint panspermia, but the balance of probability is that lint has started independantly many times in suitable environments, your pocket being one of them.
The fact that life is on earth, and nowhere else we can see so far, seems like a reasonable reason to favour earth as our working assumption for the origin of earthly life.
Sure there are other possibilities, but in the absence of evidence of life, let alone origins of life in other locations, those ideas must remain speculation at best.
While I understand what you mean, I don't really buy it as an excuse. You could just as easily argue that postscript is not a graphics format, or hell even jpeg. All files tell the computer to "do something", and you need to be careful when doing whatever it is they tell you. Just becasue the contents of the file match up to function calls in a dll, that doesn't mean you have to pass it directly to the particular funciton.
And, the fact that you can make a malicious.exe for windows is a bug..EXE is a file format same as any other, be careful what you allow them to do on your OS implementation.
I know how to workaround it. Having to bugs the hell out of me as I said.
Also, I don't really see why it is a C compatability issue. The enums only live in the source code. They don't make it to the binary.
Who cares if C thinks the values of:
enum animal { cat, dog };
should be referenced globally as "cat" and "dog"? You are writing C++, why not reference them as "animal::cat" and "animal::dog"? It'll all become the same integer value in the function call to whatever C library you use anyway.
All your atoms are replaced in a about a year anyway. Are you the same person? What is continuous is the "pattern". It's arguable that the transporter introduces a discontinuity in the pattern, and so you are not the same person before and after. Of course it's also arguable that the pattern is more of less identical discontinuity or no, so what's the big difference between a transporter and travelling for a year, besides the speed.
It's an interesting contrast to Richard Dawkin's idea on a similar subject, though I think Dawkin's arguments are basically flawed (even though I generally agree with him on most other things).
The cost is offset somewhat by the strange fact that 95% of PC's won't sell until you install Windows on them. A small margin is better than no margin at all.
I think his oh so clever point was that even if his service is nothing special, it is still he who is making the money, not the developer. In your words, he is getting "Exactly as much as that repackaging service is worth". The developer is getting zilch.
I'm going to disagree with you all. The specific details of his achievement are largely irellevant, only the fact that he is a genius in some vague sense is important. That combined with Einstein's haircut, moustache and accent are what made him a household name.
Well, for me wikipedia IS something (I won't say lame assed, because it is obviously a nice resource) that I only use twice a year. And where else to find those things? The internet! it's a big place, and all that wikipedia is doing is concentrating the information in one place and making itself a critical resource. That is a good thing in the sense that it's easy to find, but bad in the sense that if they don't meet their funding all that information could just up and disappear. Since they get so much traffic, and deliberately positioning themselves to become this critical resource they really have some sort of obligation to figure out a reliable way to make some money out of it and become self sufficient.
because people are greedy for the ad revenue. find a way to guarentee the revenue in an rss package and people would be more than happy. as it is they want to redirect you to their website to increase the page views.
Actually what bugs me even more than that is that the AP and Reuters stories that I know enough about to judge about are also obviously spun themselves, but with no journalist's name attached, as if this item is a self evident fact that sprung fully formed into existance rather than being written by some AP or Reuters journalist.
I don't know enough/anything about quantum mechanics to agree or disagree, but I don't really like your distinction between our minds and reality/nature. Our minds are a part of nature, and all the knowledge contained in them is a part of nature. Anything we observe is through interaction with other parts of nature. Perhaps you can rephrase your arguments to take that into account?
Slashdot Mirror
What they should do is allow any patents or patent law changes that big business pushes for. However what they should also do is allow for an opt-out clause for anybody who wants it.
Any individual or company could renounce the protection of patents completely and in return be free from interference by patent holding entities.
Those who want to play the game can play it. Those who don't can "choose freedom", so to speak.
Podcasts are nice, but actually I don't listen to podcasts on my ipod. I listen on my PC at work or at home. I don't think they are as closely connected to iPods as people make out.
Well, I live in Tokyo and I gotta disagree with you on the ubiquity of iPods here. Seems like every second person on the train during the morning commute has one.
No, he was associated with Charlton Heston, but hey, maybe that's racist too.
Well your analogy is all off, but anyway...
Even though unlike life, we actually know pieces of lint exist in other shirt pockets, I think I can say with reasonable expectation of being correct that the lint in your shirt pocket originated from your laundry, and did not arrive there from someone elses. Of course it's possible it originated in someone elses, and arrived in your pocket as a part of a lint panspermia, but the balance of probability is that lint has started independantly many times in suitable environments, your pocket being one of them.
The fact that life is on earth, and nowhere else we can see so far, seems like a reasonable reason to favour earth as our working assumption for the origin of earthly life.
Sure there are other possibilities, but in the absence of evidence of life, let alone origins of life in other locations, those ideas must remain speculation at best.
While I understand what you mean, I don't really buy it as an excuse. You could just as easily argue that postscript is not a graphics format, or hell even jpeg. All files tell the computer to "do something", and you need to be careful when doing whatever it is they tell you. Just becasue the contents of the file match up to function calls in a dll, that doesn't mean you have to pass it directly to the particular funciton.
.exe for windows is a bug. .EXE is a file format same as any other, be careful what you allow them to do on your OS implementation.
And, the fact that you can make a malicious
Whatever the problem is, it is not due to a lack of video standards :)
I know how to workaround it. Having to bugs the hell out of me as I said.
Also, I don't really see why it is a C compatability issue. The enums only live in the source code. They don't make it to the binary.
Who cares if C thinks the values of:
enum animal { cat, dog };
should be referenced globally as "cat" and "dog"? You are writing C++, why not reference them as "animal::cat" and "animal::dog"? It'll all become the same integer value in the function call to whatever C library you use anyway.
The USA (which used to be a democracy) had higher literacy rates prior to organised state schooling than after.
Only if they also learn to think for themselves. badaboom!
All your atoms are replaced in a about a year anyway. Are you the same person? What is continuous is the "pattern". It's arguable that the transporter introduces a discontinuity in the pattern, and so you are not the same person before and after. Of course it's also arguable that the pattern is more of less identical discontinuity or no, so what's the big difference between a transporter and travelling for a year, besides the speed.
He'll be here all week folks!
It's an interesting contrast to Richard Dawkin's idea on a similar subject, though I think Dawkin's arguments are basically flawed (even though I generally agree with him on most other things).
pretty minor issues in comparison, but:
* automatic namespaces for enums. This omission in the original language bugs the hell out of me.
* standard for automatic/inline documentation. So that it's not just randomly dependent on whatever the developer happens to like.
People who pay for ads bitch all the time about google.
The cost is offset somewhat by the strange fact that 95% of PC's won't sell until you install Windows on them. A small margin is better than no margin at all.
That's why we won't be sending him any money :)
that would be spelling out the joke for the hard of understanding.
I think his oh so clever point was that even if his service is nothing special, it is still he who is making the money, not the developer. In your words, he is getting "Exactly as much as that repackaging service is worth". The developer is getting zilch.
I'm going to disagree with you all. The specific details of his achievement are largely irellevant, only the fact that he is a genius in some vague sense is important. That combined with Einstein's haircut, moustache and accent are what made him a household name.
Well, for me wikipedia IS something (I won't say lame assed, because it is obviously a nice resource) that I only use twice a year. And where else to find those things? The internet! it's a big place, and all that wikipedia is doing is concentrating the information in one place and making itself a critical resource. That is a good thing in the sense that it's easy to find, but bad in the sense that if they don't meet their funding all that information could just up and disappear. Since they get so much traffic, and deliberately positioning themselves to become this critical resource they really have some sort of obligation to figure out a reliable way to make some money out of it and become self sufficient.
because people are greedy for the ad revenue. find a way to guarentee the revenue in an rss package and people would be more than happy. as it is they want to redirect you to their website to increase the page views.
Actually what bugs me even more than that is that the AP and Reuters stories that I know enough about to judge about are also obviously spun themselves, but with no journalist's name attached, as if this item is a self evident fact that sprung fully formed into existance rather than being written by some AP or Reuters journalist.
I don't know enough/anything about quantum mechanics to agree or disagree, but I don't really like your distinction between our minds and reality/nature. Our minds are a part of nature, and all the knowledge contained in them is a part of nature. Anything we observe is through interaction with other parts of nature. Perhaps you can rephrase your arguments to take that into account?