That has actually been done, it's been called "electronic civil disturbance", but in this case it would be censorship just the same (by the people instead of by a government).
Re the haiku: I could write a program to write that in three lines.
10 PRINT "You broke my soul" 20 PRINT "the juice of eternity" 30 PRINT "the spirit of my lips"
Thus, as I expect you already know, just looking at a printout is useless for determining whether a program really illustrates intelligence - only an interactive test like the Turing Test is any use for that. And so far, all AI software fails miserably at that.
Again, this is just covering up the real problem, which is not "Lack of school uniforms", but rampant consumerism (bad for the environment as well) and valuing people based on trivial things. The problem would still continue outside school and after leaving school! That's the whole point!!
In Britain we have all-school-uniforms in public schools, and I hated it.
In Britain there is already a growing market in hemp-based products. I don't know why it only started so recently (not counting the pre-1900's when pot was legal anyways). Couldn't have been a change in the law - so it must have been a change in technology... (?)
It's also ignorant. If a person is an American, s/he is not hyphenated (i.e. African-American). Another point of view is that they're not being ignorant, but rather, the concept of nationality has changed, for them. There isn't some universal scientific law that says "Nationality is defined as x y z". And words can have multiple senses. And the meanings of words can change over time. It's how language changes.
Rather than applauding you for "daring to speak radical thoughts", I think I'll ask why you have such a chip on your shoulder.
it's racist for them to assume that skin color automatically entitles them to special treatment.
Some degree of racism in ethnic minorities does exist, I'll agree, but don't you think racism by whites is a far more widespread problem, at least in predominantly white nations?
If you run an Open Source project and you don't get contributed code assigned to you (and then forward it to RMS) then you DO NOT own that code. You do not have rights to distribute that code.
The first sentence is true (but what's with the RMS reference??? What have you been smoking?). The second one is false. Open Source licenses explictly give you the right to distribute open-sourced code, under certain conditions, without getting any further permission.
Okay, there might be some risk of contamination, but if we all tried to lead a zero-risk lifestyle we'd never cross the street.
Of course popularity matters! The more developers you have in (well-managed) OSS projects, the better your code will be, and the more apps you'll have (leaving aside the "too many cooks spoil the broth" phenomenon;)
True, it's important to figure out these loopholes - but doesn't common-sense and applying the intended spirit of the agreement have any place here? IANAL but aren't judges supposed to be able to override the letter of the law or the letter of an agreement if its implications are perverse with regard to the intended spirit?
Not with a 2GB database you wouldn't want that. I've seen a quite nifty database select on the microsoft.com site that execs a query without refreshing the whole page like most sites do (and no it doesn't use frames for that). It would be even nicer if it actually gave you something useful, but that's microsoft for you.
Yes, it can be, but it's also much more than that. I read an insightful analogy explaining it in "rational" terms recently. Basically, the idea is this (I've embellished it to make it life-threatening): Imagine you have only two plausible theories on which to base a life-critical decision. If you make a wrong decision you and your family will all die slowly and painfully. The two theories predict all the experimental evidence equally well, and both seem equally plausible (you can't rationally decide). The only difference is, the first theory has two fundamental assumptions which aren't independently verifiable, whilst the second theory has ten.
I know which one I'd choose - and I think this says something fundamental about rationality.
(Where the above argument is weakest, though, is the idea that the number of assumptions is independent of the plausibility - I guess what I really mean is "plausibility except for the number of assumptions".)
We are model builders and not Truth finders. Truth is unacessible.
Postmodern claptrap (taken in context). I advise you read some of the many excellent books critiquing these kinds of ideas:
Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont, "Intellectual Impostures" (spelling varies so don't flame!)
David Deutsch, "Fabric of Reality"
John Searle (take your pick!)
Alan Chalmers, "What is this thing called Science?"
I have read the Demon Haunted World, and let me tell you, "Alternative Science", by Richard Milton, makes a very well-argued counterpoint. Milton assembles a wide variety of case studies from "cold fusion" to parapsychology to show just how irrational scientists can be. Highly recommended. He also has a website, http://www.alternativescience.com/
Well, if you're right, it's interesting that Arthur C. Clarke was duped. Doesn't prove anything, but it's interesting.
Personally, from reading the book "Alternative Science" by Richard Milton (he's an Darwinism-skeptic, which unfairly prejudices some people against him!) I don't think the cold fusion debate is so open-and-shut as you make out.
Slashdot Mirror
10 PRINT "You broke my soul"
20 PRINT "the juice of eternity"
30 PRINT "the spirit of my lips"
Thus, as I expect you already know, just looking at a printout is useless for determining whether a program really illustrates intelligence - only an interactive test like the Turing Test is any use for that. And so far, all AI software fails miserably at that.
In Britain we have all-school-uniforms in public schools, and I hated it.
I am a Molecular Biologist and I can tell you that this story is not in any way 'new' news.
In other words, MSNBC are lying. Not simplifying, lying. The MSNBC writer seems to be even more clueless than JonKatz, if that's possible.
I only ask because I find it unbelievable that anti-pot-legalisers would not use this argument more often if it were actually true.
Either you're making a bad joke, or you have no clue. This is about patent licensing, not software licensing per se.
Rather than applauding you for "daring to speak radical thoughts", I think I'll ask why you have such a chip on your shoulder.
it's racist for them to assume that skin color automatically entitles them to special treatment.
Some degree of racism in ethnic minorities does exist, I'll agree, but don't you think racism by whites is a far more widespread problem, at least in predominantly white nations?
The first sentence is true (but what's with the RMS reference??? What have you been smoking?). The second one is false. Open Source licenses explictly give you the right to distribute open-sourced code, under certain conditions, without getting any further permission.
Okay, there might be some risk of contamination, but if we all tried to lead a zero-risk lifestyle we'd never cross the street.
Of course it does! M$ is (one of?) GNU/Linux's biggest competitors.
Slash isn't GPLed so that's irrelevant. Moreover, Rob owns all the code AFAIK so isn't bound by the "license", so it's kinda doubly irrelevant.
NSA contracting with a company to secure Linux.
And... ? You're not seriously suggesting NSA are going to start selling Linux by "employing" people for $10??
I think it is somehting that needs to be cleared up
I think it has been cleared up.
True, it's important to figure out these loopholes - but doesn't common-sense and applying the intended spirit of the agreement have any place here? IANAL but aren't judges supposed to be able to override the letter of the law or the letter of an agreement if its implications are perverse with regard to the intended spirit?
Exactly. Wasted effort. See xml.apache.org for XML parsers and other tools, some implemented in multiple languages.
Or Metamata Parse, which is not open source but still has some nice features.
Not with a 2GB database you wouldn't want that. I've seen a quite nifty database select on the microsoft.com site that execs a query without refreshing the whole page like most sites do (and no it doesn't use frames for that). It would be even nicer if it actually gave you something useful, but that's microsoft for you.
That's different. The key word here is "point-and-click" - meaning the user is in control.
Well, not totally new - try reading some of RMS's notes on the "good old days" at www.gnu.org
See also www.sourceforge.net - they have even more free features, but like Linuxbox it's for OSS projects only.
Yes, it can be, but it's also much more than that. I read an insightful analogy explaining it in "rational" terms recently. Basically, the idea is this (I've embellished it to make it life-threatening): Imagine you have only two plausible theories on which to base a life-critical decision. If you make a wrong decision you and your family will all die slowly and painfully. The two theories predict all the experimental evidence equally well, and both seem equally plausible (you can't rationally decide). The only difference is, the first theory has two fundamental assumptions which aren't independently verifiable, whilst the second theory has ten.
I know which one I'd choose - and I think this says something fundamental about rationality.
(Where the above argument is weakest, though, is the idea that the number of assumptions is independent of the plausibility - I guess what I really mean is "plausibility except for the number of assumptions".)
We are model builders and not Truth finders. Truth is unacessible.
Postmodern claptrap (taken in context). I advise you read some of the many excellent books critiquing these kinds of ideas:
Personally, from reading the book "Alternative Science" by Richard Milton (he's an Darwinism-skeptic, which unfairly prejudices some people against him!) I don't think the cold fusion debate is so open-and-shut as you make out.