Yeah, sure. People who use "copyright" seem to know this.. after all, it says it right there in the word.. copyright, copy+right, the right to make copies, presumably at the exclusion of others. But when idiots use the words "intellectual property" they think it means they have the right to own intellects or something..
I, personally, think each and every one of those definitions fails to capture the essence of the word in any context of usage that you might care to mention. But definition 8 needs "get off my lawn" at the end of it.
Thanks. Here's another one I've heard. People are apprehensive about teaching chimps sign language, because, ya know, if those chimps are released back into the wild they will take over the world!!! Never mind that teaching chimps to sign is basically just a trained animal act and shows nothing about their mental capabilities. Just imagine if dolphins had thumbs!
I'm a big freakin libertarian too, but the fact is that without licensing what you get is exactly this situation: jokesters who lie through their teeth and get away with it.
What a bunch of cocks. Don't they understand that it's the combination of collecting the information and presenting it in court that is the issue here?
The fact that the universe looks the same no matter what direction you look tells us that the earth is nothing special and, as such, if it can happen here, it can happen anywhere.
As much as the scientists at the LHC think it is hilarious that these idiots think they are going to destroy the world, they know there's a real chance that they just might (no good scientist can rule it out), and that chance is about as likely as someone actually carrying out one of these ridiculous death threats.
So it's just rational to ignore both, assuming you've taken at least some precautions.
Well that's just too easy. Human intuition about the physical world is pretty good, so long as you stand well back. Take a closer look and most all human intuition falls apart. That's kind of the point of science.
Ya know what I'd like to see? Standards revision. It's great to tote out "standards compliance" as the holy grail, but the problem is that there are plenty of things that the standard just does not define.. and those things get discovered by web developers who work around the issues and it never gets back to the standards drafters. For example, how do you prefetch images? For a long time there was no standard way. Now there's the link tag but it's optional.. yeah, that's right, the standard says that a browser can optionally implement the tag.. what kind of standard is that anyway? So no-one used it. Instead, they use the img tag and set the width and height of the image to 0.. unfortunately, the standard never said "if the width of the image is zero, thou shalt not render anything." Yeah, yeah, I know, should be implied, by some browsers render a white pixel and figure that's good enough.. the fact that this isn't good enough should be fed back to the standard and made explicit.
Thankfully the interest in Acid tests has taken on this role. Unfortunately even a lot of stuff that is in the acid test never makes it back to the standard, so browser developers have to reverse engineer the Acid test!
I wasn't making an argument against evolution.. I was suggesting some remotely sensible arguments against evolution and asking why people who are against evolution never come up with anything similar.
And I guess you just answered my question, there's idiots on both sides of the debate who drown out the people with anything sensible to say.
Oh dear. It's a fat lipid with some RNA in it, not a magic eight ball. It's trivial to see exactly what would happen if this stuff was released into the environment: extinction, and likely in seconds. To work on this stuff they have to build huge clean rooms for precisely this reason.
My grasp of physics is much better than my limited knowledge of biology.
And yet you feel the need to open your mouth and proclaim doom.
Seeing as we're having the inevitable Intelligent Design conversation (I'd much rather be discussing how we can use the awesome power of nanotechnology to change the world, but hey), I guess I should discuss my sig.
Why are all Creationists so uncreative? They don't seem to have any opinions of their own, they just regurgitate whatever they've been told. Are we to believe "it looks like someone made it" is the best argument they can come up with? Or maybe the "random chance couldn't have made life" argument? Any reasonably intelligent person who knows a few things about evolution can come up with some examples of predictions that are made by the theory and yet are just not true, and yet this kind of legitimate scientific objection isn't even entertained by the Creationist and Intelligent Design mob.
Let me give you a few examples:
* Why are chicken eggs so tasty? Animals have been stealing eggs from birds for millions of years, shouldn't they have evolved some non-tasty additives by now? * Iron is an essential part of metabolism. Brains and nervous systems are basically electrical systems. Some animals even have a compass. So why do no animals have radios? Not even primitive ones. * Impressive results have been seen in modeling evolution - for example, genetic algorithms - but all of these systems plateau after a certain amount of runtime. This is the so called "local maxima" problem. Yet biologists claim with a straight face that Darwinian evolution is open ended. * Horizontal gene transfer has been observed in the lab between multi-cellular organisms.. doesn't this just completely blow away the traditionalist "tree of life" assumption?
and I could go on, and on and on. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Creationist.. but if I can think this stuff up, how come all I ever hear from the Intelligent Design people is the same tired old bunk?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, in this post you've clearly indicated that you think a song is the property of someone.
Yeah, sure. People who use "copyright" seem to know this.. after all, it says it right there in the word.. copyright, copy+right, the right to make copies, presumably at the exclusion of others. But when idiots use the words "intellectual property" they think it means they have the right to own intellects or something..
Oh, you're not a "you mean cracker" adherent. Good.
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/H/hacker.html
See definition 8.
I, personally, think each and every one of those definitions fails to capture the essence of the word in any context of usage that you might care to mention. But definition 8 needs "get off my lawn" at the end of it.
BTW, I otherwise like ESR
Thanks. Here's another one I've heard. People are apprehensive about teaching chimps sign language, because, ya know, if those chimps are released back into the wild they will take over the world!!! Never mind that teaching chimps to sign is basically just a trained animal act and shows nothing about their mental capabilities. Just imagine if dolphins had thumbs!
See "hacker v. cracker"
Bahaha, you don't actually buy Eric S. Raymond's attempt to reclaim "hacker" in the jargon file do you?
People have been doing this shit with dictionaries since the beginning of the written word.. it never works.
You really do think that copyright gives music companies the power to own information don't you?
"Intellectual Property" refers to ownership of the exclusive right to make copies, not to ownership of information.
Necessary but not sufficient.
Learn the difference.
I'm a big freakin libertarian too, but the fact is that without licensing what you get is exactly this situation: jokesters who lie through their teeth and get away with it.
What a bunch of cocks. Don't they understand that it's the combination of collecting the information and presenting it in court that is the issue here?
It almost sounds like you're saying something interesting here.
Could you elaborate?
what's an "un-structural markup"?
The fact that the universe looks the same no matter what direction you look tells us that the earth is nothing special and, as such, if it can happen here, it can happen anywhere.
Because we're not just making web pages anymore.
Philistian.
I disagree.
As much as the scientists at the LHC think it is hilarious that these idiots think they are going to destroy the world, they know there's a real chance that they just might (no good scientist can rule it out), and that chance is about as likely as someone actually carrying out one of these ridiculous death threats.
So it's just rational to ignore both, assuming you've taken at least some precautions.
Well that's just too easy. Human intuition about the physical world is pretty good, so long as you stand well back. Take a closer look and most all human intuition falls apart. That's kind of the point of science.
They're certainly better than "looks like God did it".
Surely you can agree with that. So why argue beside the point?
Yes, that's a suitable workaround.. but you should be able to assume that the browser will do what you tell it.
Ya know what I'd like to see? Standards revision. It's great to tote out "standards compliance" as the holy grail, but the problem is that there are plenty of things that the standard just does not define.. and those things get discovered by web developers who work around the issues and it never gets back to the standards drafters. For example, how do you prefetch images? For a long time there was no standard way. Now there's the link tag but it's optional.. yeah, that's right, the standard says that a browser can optionally implement the tag.. what kind of standard is that anyway? So no-one used it. Instead, they use the img tag and set the width and height of the image to 0.. unfortunately, the standard never said "if the width of the image is zero, thou shalt not render anything." Yeah, yeah, I know, should be implied, by some browsers render a white pixel and figure that's good enough.. the fact that this isn't good enough should be fed back to the standard and made explicit.
Thankfully the interest in Acid tests has taken on this role. Unfortunately even a lot of stuff that is in the acid test never makes it back to the standard, so browser developers have to reverse engineer the Acid test!
You look around and see something that is everywhere and you conclude that it much be very unlikely.
Makes perfect sense.
You're an idiot. Seriously.
I wasn't making an argument against evolution.. I was suggesting some remotely sensible arguments against evolution and asking why people who are against evolution never come up with anything similar.
And I guess you just answered my question, there's idiots on both sides of the debate who drown out the people with anything sensible to say.
Oh dear. It's a fat lipid with some RNA in it, not a magic eight ball. It's trivial to see exactly what would happen if this stuff was released into the environment: extinction, and likely in seconds. To work on this stuff they have to build huge clean rooms for precisely this reason.
My grasp of physics is much better than my limited knowledge of biology.
And yet you feel the need to open your mouth and proclaim doom.
Awesome sarcasm +1.
Seeing as we're having the inevitable Intelligent Design conversation (I'd much rather be discussing how we can use the awesome power of nanotechnology to change the world, but hey), I guess I should discuss my sig.
Why are all Creationists so uncreative? They don't seem to have any opinions of their own, they just regurgitate whatever they've been told. Are we to believe "it looks like someone made it" is the best argument they can come up with? Or maybe the "random chance couldn't have made life" argument? Any reasonably intelligent person who knows a few things about evolution can come up with some examples of predictions that are made by the theory and yet are just not true, and yet this kind of legitimate scientific objection isn't even entertained by the Creationist and Intelligent Design mob.
Let me give you a few examples:
* Why are chicken eggs so tasty? Animals have been stealing eggs from birds for millions of years, shouldn't they have evolved some non-tasty additives by now?
* Iron is an essential part of metabolism. Brains and nervous systems are basically electrical systems. Some animals even have a compass. So why do no animals have radios? Not even primitive ones.
* Impressive results have been seen in modeling evolution - for example, genetic algorithms - but all of these systems plateau after a certain amount of runtime. This is the so called "local maxima" problem. Yet biologists claim with a straight face that Darwinian evolution is open ended.
* Horizontal gene transfer has been observed in the lab between multi-cellular organisms.. doesn't this just completely blow away the traditionalist "tree of life" assumption?
and I could go on, and on and on. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Creationist.. but if I can think this stuff up, how come all I ever hear from the Intelligent Design people is the same tired old bunk?
Put some effort in crackpots, you're boring me.
Why? You don't imagine that something as fragile and immature as this could actually compete outside the lab do you?
Hell, take an existing microbe and remove the genes that regulate its pH level and it will kill itself in a few generations.
It wasn't you who sent the death threats to the LHC physicists was it?
Quick! Run to Congress and buy some laws to protect your ailing business model!
There's no time to waste!
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22armadillo+aerospace%22&scoring=t
Fuck I wish Carmack would stop using his Time Machine to get 1957 publicity.