Think about it: If an opinion can't stand an open debate, doesn't that prove it's falsehood?
No, of course not! Don't be an idiot.
The idea that you can prove the truth or falsity of something by merely refering to how people talk about it is the worst kind of postmodernist balderdash. (Okay there might be exceptions, like sentences that refer to how they themselves are talked about. But I'm talking in general here.)
a=b therefore a-b=0, division by zero is illegal therefore you can't cancel the (a-b) from both sides, because it equals 0. Try it with any number, you'll see e.g. 1=1 suddenly change to something stupid after that cancellation.
The ISP will have to handle 10,000 user requests of ME. And you can't reiterate the B.S. about throttling search requests
I dont see your point. Each 10,000 ME's would have their own ISP,
WTF??? No more than one user per ISP?
and would use their own bandwidth.
My God, you are so fucking stupid. Bandwith is never entirely "your own" - unless we're talking about an isolated home LAN - it is shared with many other users of your ISP (because the ISP has only a limited number of outgoing pipes) and from there on with the other users of the intervening networks. If 1000 people on one ISP start clogging up that ISPs pipes with this crap, and that ISP has a clue, they will kick those people off.
You obviously have no clue about real world networking problems. You'd even make a bad marketroid. I suggest you become a management consultant.
I can understand this action, it stems from a fundamental philosophical principal. In order to have rights, a creature
must also be responsible (this is why talk of animal rights is so much crap. If animals had rights, my cat would have to
incarcerated for murdering mice).
This was debunked decades ago. Search for "moral agents and moral patients".
No, but you'd think it wouldn't be too much effort for a search engine to do a dynamic fetch, and return the link the user typed in if it's a valid link [and then index it later]. That would make it work as the cluebies expect. After all, a search engine's got to be judged a bit crap if, for example, it doesn't return www.microsoft.com if you type in microsoft.com.
It's bizarre, since virtual machines promote
cross-platformness
There's a big gap between promise and reality here. How many IL VMs are there right now for non-Windows platforms? Just as importantly, how many non-Windows platforms will support the.NET API?
Java has a really existing cross-platform API;.NET doesn't.
You could argue that even x86 Windows code is cross-platform because you can emulate it on Mac and Linux - which is true to an extent, but that kinda misses the whole point of this discussion.
Ok then. I've written some papers on this, and, as you might expect, it gets more complicated. More complicated than I was able to cover in this paper, in fact.
I agree - and what's more, libertarian ideas are just completely ridiculous. Under libertarianism basic things like the right to a fair trial would cease to exist because it's not "use of force" to keep someone locked up forever. There is more to morality than use of force, for goodness sake.
He has obviously either never read the Good Samaritan, or never understood it. (Not that I'm a Christian, but it's a good parable nevertheless.)
If you use Java (JDK 1.3), you can use the java.awt.Robot class to feed mouse and keyboard events to the app (I think the app needs to be written in Java as well, though I'm not 100% sure about that). You can even make the mouse slowly move accross the screen!
Possibly. An interesting analogy here is with sex education. Countries with more comprehensive sex education tend to have lower teenage pregnancy rates - and when you look behind the quantitative statistics and actually ask teenagers why they had sex early, or conversly why they are "putting off" having sex, it's often related, again, to how much they really knew/understood about sex.
It depends on the project. All official GNU projects require submitted changes to be copyright-assigned to the FSF. You can make changes, but they will reject them from the official CVS if you don't assign copyright. This is nowhere stated in the GPL, it's just what the FSF does so that if they need to enforce the GPL in court, it's feasible. The ASF is the same but they don't use the GPL. Many projects don't have such a requirement.
So copyright-ownership and license are othogonal issues. You can have a project which is under GPL and no central copyright, or not under GPL but does have central copyright, or any combination.
But this sort of thing (medical sheer bad luck) is another good reason to have a well-funded, socialised National Health Service - because it lets society as a whole absorb the cost of medical care for those who have had the great misfortune to be born with a genetic disorder and to know this, such that insurance companies either won't touch them or raise their premiums enormously.
"Libertarians" might say it's unfair to take (what in fact amounts to a tiny fraction of) people's hard-earned wealth to pay for this person's care, but I say it's much more unfair for those with hereditary diseases to be charged exorbitant rates for something which is not their fault.
I think you're jumping the gun a bit there. Facial recognition (at anywhere like human levels of ability) is one of the hardest problems in AI, and it's nowhere near to being solved just yet.
Hmmm... I regularly post to open source mailing lists. While the lists themselves are totally spam-free, due to being moderated, my email gets mentioned tons of times in mail archives, so I get loads of spam. How can this kind of thing be prevented?
Anyway the damage has been done now so it's a bit of a moot point.
Slashdot Mirror
No, of course not! Don't be an idiot.
The idea that you can prove the truth or falsity of something by merely refering to how people talk about it is the worst kind of postmodernist balderdash. (Okay there might be exceptions, like sentences that refer to how they themselves are talked about. But I'm talking in general here.)http://silentsurf.com/ can do that.
I dont see your point. Each 10,000 ME's would have their own ISP,
WTF??? No more than one user per ISP?
and would use their own bandwidth.
My God, you are so fucking stupid. Bandwith is never entirely "your own" - unless we're talking about an isolated home LAN - it is shared with many other users of your ISP (because the ISP has only a limited number of outgoing pipes) and from there on with the other users of the intervening networks. If 1000 people on one ISP start clogging up that ISPs pipes with this crap, and that ISP has a clue, they will kick those people off.
You obviously have no clue about real world networking problems. You'd even make a bad marketroid. I suggest you become a management consultant.
This was debunked decades ago. Search for "moral agents and moral patients".
The ultimate extension of so-called "libertarianism": "quit whining and move to another country".
Peace!
There's a big gap between promise and reality here. How many IL VMs are there right now for non-Windows platforms? Just as importantly, how many non-Windows platforms will support the .NET API?
Java has a really existing cross-platform API; .NET doesn't.
You could argue that even x86 Windows code is cross-platform because you can emulate it on Mac and Linux - which is true to an extent, but that kinda misses the whole point of this discussion.
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/socs/lumss/nephridium/essay -pool/essay_storage/essay20.doc
Don't worry I'm not a "libertarian"!
He has obviously either never read the Good Samaritan, or never understood it. (Not that I'm a Christian, but it's a good parable nevertheless.)
That's because it is a server. It serves files.
Of course, people like us just read it and laugh, but this is primarily aimed at investors, and some investors can be very stupid.
If you read the press release, you'll read that MS paid Sun $20 million to be allowed to keep using Java technology.
What's wrong with it?
It depends on the project. All official GNU projects require submitted changes to be copyright-assigned to the FSF. You can make changes, but they will reject them from the official CVS if you don't assign copyright. This is nowhere stated in the GPL, it's just what the FSF does so that if they need to enforce the GPL in court, it's feasible. The ASF is the same but they don't use the GPL. Many projects don't have such a requirement.
So copyright-ownership and license are othogonal issues. You can have a project which is under GPL and no central copyright, or not under GPL but does have central copyright, or any combination.
But this sort of thing (medical sheer bad luck) is another good reason to have a well-funded, socialised National Health Service - because it lets society as a whole absorb the cost of medical care for those who have had the great misfortune to be born with a genetic disorder and to know this, such that insurance companies either won't touch them or raise their premiums enormously.
"Libertarians" might say it's unfair to take (what in fact amounts to a tiny fraction of) people's hard-earned wealth to pay for this person's care, but I say it's much more unfair for those with hereditary diseases to be charged exorbitant rates for something which is not their fault.
Anyway the damage has been done now so it's a bit of a moot point.
So you'd outlaw private security firms then? And guns?
I don't think so. You libertarians are all stupidly inconsistent.