I'll base it on sort of mythological motifs and icons.
Nah; Lucas didn't say that until much later. After people noticed he'd used all the elements of an epic hero, he retrofitted on this idea that he was deliberately trying to do something to match Joseph Campbell's work. When the whole point of Campbell's work was that these motifs arise unconsciously, without deliberate attempt.
Most libertarians believe intellectual property is a right to be protected more or less like normal property although, like most Americans, many feel that the system has probably gotten out of hand and should be curtailed (i.e., 28 year copyrights intead of 95 year). There is a minority viewpoint within the libertarian party that views intellectual property as an artificially created government monopoly and thus something to be removed from our system of government.
I'm one of those minority guys.:) When I finally acknowledged I was a libertarian I was shocked to death when I realized most libertarians did not agree with me.
If they're billing my credit card, and I want to cancel, and they make me jump through unreasonable hoops, I just won't. My credit card company will happily take my call and my instructions that any charges from Netflix are fraudulent because I have notified them in writing or using any means I choose that I am no longer a subscriber to their service. Then if Netflix wants to make a big deal about it, I'll bet they'll take the call from my credit card company.
Denemo is specifically designed as just that. The others, I think, may be able to produce output designed to be fed into Lilypond. So, yes, it's possible.
The interesting thing is that so far, many Lilypond users seem to prefer the textual interface.
Re:The losing Final Jeopardy question of Ken Jenni
on
They Killed Ken!
·
· Score: 1
I agree, but I don't trust any source without a lot of confirmation. And in this case just because the "official" media also reports it doesn't make it so... because they, in fact, got it off of this guy's blog.
If it makes you feel any better, I had trouble figuring it out, too. My only clue was "Mr. Trebek." I was wondering what this new "SFGate" game show was, and if the host "Mr. Trebek" was the same one who hosted that old Jeopardy show I used to watch ten years ago.
I agree with you that the war from 30 years ago does not matter. And I keep saying it constantly, but it doesn't seem to help.:)
I also hasten to point out, as I'm sure you already know, that Michael Badnarik is the ONLY anti-war candidate, given that Kerry recently stated he STILL would have voted for the war, even knowing what he knows today about the absence or presence of WMD's. I can't believe all the Bush-haters, who primarily hate Bush because of the war issue, would vote for Kerry, who is also for the war. Kerry is getting a free ride on this.
For me the race is between Bush and Badnarik, as the war is not my issue.
Bet you don't know what they did. They wanted good software for producing high quality music notation layouts. So they wrote it. And, thankfully, they made it free software to share with the world, so the next person who wanted good software for producing high quality music notation layouts could use what they had and improve on it instead of starting over.
The result is GNU Lilypond. Currently it performs better than proprietary alternatives like Finale, but the interface is still text-based. But musicians tend to feel it does a superior layout job.
If the guy who I had an email conversation with awhile back manages to get the Aiken 7-shape shaped note system implemented for Lilypond, I'll sing his name, too.
Thank you for posting. I have a question. If you feel it is very likely interference or noise, can't work be done to verify the source? I was under the impression this had been done in the past with a few promising SETI signals. If this is not to be done, why not?
I'm betting it's an "Oh wow!... Oh no, wait, nothing," but I'd like to know what they found that made them say "wait, nothing." Since they said, "We're not investigating it further," I'd like to know why not. That makes it sound like they just decided ahead of time it couldn't be anything, so they won't look at it. Well, how did they know to decide that?
You've still got some definitions confused. You have conflated "evidence that a person possesses faith" with "evidence that God exists."
You are very right about the fact that the phrase "faith alone" DOES occur in the Bible, and the Wikipedia article is wrong.
But "faith alone" is STILL not talking about "blind faith." When Protestants refer to "faith alone," they are referring to their doctrine that you can only be saved through faith/belief, and that there is absolutely NOTHING you can or must do in order to obtain salvation. It has nothing to do with whether the supporting evidence is present or not, or examined or not.
Relevant Bible quotes are: Romans 3:28, Romans 9:32, Galatians 2:16, and Ephesians 2:8-9. The context is not talking about whether faith falls apart when a person tries to investigate God's existence, as in the Douglas Adams quote that started this discussion.
Most Protestants wrongly use these passages to teach "there is nothing you must do to be saved; simply believe." As you have demonstrated, the Bible contradicts this, in the book of James, chapter 2. But it doesn't go on to say what you said it did.;)
"Faith alone," in addition to not being a Bible doctrine, does not mean "blind faith." It means, in the usage of Protestants (who as I have said are are not teaching the way the Bible does) "all you have to do to be saved is believe (have faith)." They use it to mean "faith without action," not "faith without logical proof."
No, no; you are equating "faith" with "blind faith." "By faith alone" does not mean "by blind faith alone." Sola fide means salvation is by (not necessarily blind) faith alone. It does not mean "do not try to prove the existence of God.
Check out the Wikipedia article on the subject. Nothing in there against trying to prove God.
Wouldn't work, though, because there's a hole in the argument:
`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
That's not a description of Biblical faith. "Blind faith" is not the same as the "faith" described by the Christian religion. There is no religious tenet against proving God.
Basically, the government is forcing you to accept the US Dollar at gunpoint. If you do not, they can arrest you. (seriously, they can!)
I'm at least as anti-fiat money as yourself (being an anarcho-capitalist, I do not believe the government should engage in any decrees of value for any item; means of exchange can be developed by the free market), but you are actually wrong on this point. Nobody is required to accept the US Dollar. Unlike taxes, you will not be shot for refusing to particpate.:)
This is actually a common misunderstanding arising from the phrase legal tender. Check out that link and you'll find the following:
There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.
Unless this is a British/American English spelling issue, "amendment" has only one "m." I asked recently on a website with an international audience why so many otherwise intelligent people seemed to make this misspelling commonly, and noone answered, so I'm assuming so far that it's not a variant spelling.
I think they're going to go out, not with a bang, but a whimper. Their ability to construct a case is just going to wither away and die. We'll quit hearing about them (thankfully); then, 20 years from now, we'll hear a "Whatever happened to SCO" retrospective?
This is a little unfortunate. I was counting on their legal shenannigans to destroy them in a publicly enjoyable way.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll base it on sort of mythological motifs and icons.
Nah; Lucas didn't say that until much later. After people noticed he'd used all the elements of an epic hero, he retrofitted on this idea that he was deliberately trying to do something to match Joseph Campbell's work. When the whole point of Campbell's work was that these motifs arise unconsciously, without deliberate attempt.
Two websites I would like every libertarian reader of this article to know about:
Most libertarians believe intellectual property is a right to be protected more or less like normal property although, like most Americans, many feel that the system has probably gotten out of hand and should be curtailed (i.e., 28 year copyrights intead of 95 year). There is a minority viewpoint within the libertarian party that views intellectual property as an artificially created government monopoly and thus something to be removed from our system of government.
I'm one of those minority guys. :) When I finally acknowledged I was a libertarian I was shocked to death when I realized most libertarians did not agree with me.
Here's a nice article called the libertarian case against intellectual property, addressed to those who already accept libertarianism.
most Americans may not be concerned with these little intricacies of the Senate, Senators tend to take it seriously.
Another excellent argument for term limits.
If they're billing my credit card, and I want to cancel, and they make me jump through unreasonable hoops, I just won't. My credit card company will happily take my call and my instructions that any charges from Netflix are fraudulent because I have notified them in writing or using any means I choose that I am no longer a subscriber to their service. Then if Netflix wants to make a big deal about it, I'll bet they'll take the call from my credit card company.
In a recent article, Stanford Law Professor Mark Lemley argues that intellectual property is not 'property' in the traditional sense.
I thought we all already knew that.
Denemo is specifically designed as just that. The others, I think, may be able to produce output designed to be fed into Lilypond. So, yes, it's possible.
The interesting thing is that so far, many Lilypond users seem to prefer the textual interface.
I agree, but I don't trust any source without a lot of confirmation. And in this case just because the "official" media also reports it doesn't make it so ... because they, in fact, got it off of this guy's blog.
If it makes you feel any better, I had trouble figuring it out, too. My only clue was "Mr. Trebek." I was wondering what this new "SFGate" game show was, and if the host "Mr. Trebek" was the same one who hosted that old Jeopardy show I used to watch ten years ago.
creditor != business
A creditor is a type of business. If you run some other type, that law doesn't say you must accept anything as payment.
I agree with you that the war from 30 years ago does not matter. And I keep saying it constantly, but it doesn't seem to help. :)
I also hasten to point out, as I'm sure you already know, that Michael Badnarik is the ONLY anti-war candidate, given that Kerry recently stated he STILL would have voted for the war, even knowing what he knows today about the absence or presence of WMD's. I can't believe all the Bush-haters, who primarily hate Bush because of the war issue, would vote for Kerry, who is also for the war. Kerry is getting a free ride on this.
For me the race is between Bush and Badnarik, as the war is not my issue.
Han-Wen Nienhuys and Jan Nieuwenhuizen
Bet you don't know what they did. They wanted good software for producing high quality music notation layouts. So they wrote it. And, thankfully, they made it free software to share with the world, so the next person who wanted good software for producing high quality music notation layouts could use what they had and improve on it instead of starting over.
The result is GNU Lilypond. Currently it performs better than proprietary alternatives like Finale, but the interface is still text-based. But musicians tend to feel it does a superior layout job.
If the guy who I had an email conversation with awhile back manages to get the Aiken 7-shape shaped note system implemented for Lilypond, I'll sing his name, too.
How about Chris Nandor who continues to improve and extend Slash?
Half the design is up there. Why doesn't somebody finish that and write the language?
Looking at the Hall of Fame articles, it would seem that politics is what brings us all here, anyway.
Thank you for posting. I have a question. If you feel it is very likely interference or noise, can't work be done to verify the source? I was under the impression this had been done in the past with a few promising SETI signals. If this is not to be done, why not?
I'm betting it's an "Oh wow! ... Oh no, wait, nothing," but I'd like to know what they found that made them say "wait, nothing." Since they said, "We're not investigating it further," I'd like to know why not. That makes it sound like they just decided ahead of time it couldn't be anything, so they won't look at it. Well, how did they know to decide that?
You've still got some definitions confused. You have conflated "evidence that a person possesses faith" with "evidence that God exists."
You are very right about the fact that the phrase "faith alone" DOES occur in the Bible, and the Wikipedia article is wrong.
But "faith alone" is STILL not talking about "blind faith." When Protestants refer to "faith alone," they are referring to their doctrine that you can only be saved through faith/belief, and that there is absolutely NOTHING you can or must do in order to obtain salvation. It has nothing to do with whether the supporting evidence is present or not, or examined or not.
Relevant Bible quotes are: Romans 3:28, Romans 9:32, Galatians 2:16, and Ephesians 2:8-9. The context is not talking about whether faith falls apart when a person tries to investigate God's existence, as in the Douglas Adams quote that started this discussion.
Most Protestants wrongly use these passages to teach "there is nothing you must do to be saved; simply believe." As you have demonstrated, the Bible contradicts this, in the book of James, chapter 2. But it doesn't go on to say what you said it did. ;)
"Faith alone," in addition to not being a Bible doctrine, does not mean "blind faith." It means, in the usage of Protestants (who as I have said are are not teaching the way the Bible does) "all you have to do to be saved is believe (have faith)." They use it to mean "faith without action," not "faith without logical proof."
No, no; you are equating "faith" with "blind faith." "By faith alone" does not mean "by blind faith alone." Sola fide means salvation is by (not necessarily blind) faith alone. It does not mean "do not try to prove the existence of God.
Check out the Wikipedia article on the subject. Nothing in there against trying to prove God.
Wouldn't work, though, because there's a hole in the argument:
`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
That's not a description of Biblical faith. "Blind faith" is not the same as the "faith" described by the Christian religion. There is no religious tenet against proving God.
Actually that's almost exactly the way it is apparently defined in the U.S.
Basically, the government is forcing you to accept the US Dollar at gunpoint. If you do not, they can arrest you. (seriously, they can!)
I'm at least as anti-fiat money as yourself (being an anarcho-capitalist, I do not believe the government should engage in any decrees of value for any item; means of exchange can be developed by the free market), but you are actually wrong on this point. Nobody is required to accept the US Dollar. Unlike taxes, you will not be shot for refusing to particpate. :)
This is actually a common misunderstanding arising from the phrase legal tender. Check out that link and you'll find the following:
Unless this is a British/American English spelling issue, "amendment" has only one "m." I asked recently on a website with an international audience why so many otherwise intelligent people seemed to make this misspelling commonly, and noone answered, so I'm assuming so far that it's not a variant spelling.
IIRC cell phones were invented in 1948
Not sure if that was a typo. It was 1984.
I think they're going to go out, not with a bang, but a whimper. Their ability to construct a case is just going to wither away and die. We'll quit hearing about them (thankfully); then, 20 years from now, we'll hear a "Whatever happened to SCO" retrospective?
This is a little unfortunate. I was counting on their legal shenannigans to destroy them in a publicly enjoyable way.