This is not at issue here. You can have all of the material critial of evolution you want in any biology class anywhere in the United States. Criticism is a fundamental part of the scientific process.
Except evolution. In my experience proponents of evolution are extremely closed-minded when any evidence or positions are put forward that don't agree 100% with their position. I've seen the most otherwise pleasant and mild-mannered science teacher become quite hostile when challenged on this issue. I'm sure a lot of it can be put down to being sick of uneducated creationists, but to them their faith has become as dogmatic as any fundamentalist religion.
Except that the Vatican has a long history of compromising key articles of faith to keep the peace. A compromising faith is the folly of much of catholicism, sadly.
You know, all that stuff about there being no death before Adam & Eve was a big mistake. And of course man can't really be made in God's image since the present day is just a step in a big long evolutionary path. Never mind that Genesis mentions creation in six days while going to great pains to define 'day' as the period of the suns position in the sky, just in case anyone misunderstands what a 'day' might mean. Not to mention the fossil record.
It's this watering down of basic Christianity that has allowed the really dangerous belief systems to infiltrate (PC-veilied Pantheism in the US and pacific, and Islam in Europe, Africa and the former Soviet countries).
Think the dark ages were bad? Wait till you see what's around the corner.
Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to suggest that OpenGL should be limited to FOSS implementations. I'm just trying to prevent commercial interests from stopping FOSS implementations. While nothing will stop FOSS software implementing the OpenGL spec, they can be stopped from calling it 'OpenGL'.
I guess I'm more referring to the trademark 'OpenGL', which I think can be owned by one entity, but one that will not restrict it's use.
I'm suggesting a defensive trademark, similar to Linux(tm).
Each version of the GPL won't take rights away from the original author (that's pretty much, literally impossible.) it just defines how the author designates that others can use it. In the case of saying "v1 or later" you let anyone use v1 of the license if they darn well so please.
Yes, but that choice is left up to the viewer if you specify "or later".
This means that if the GPL review board goes insane and the GPL v3.0 does away with the "must provide source code" clauses, your program can suddenly be locked up in commercial software and any improvements made not given back to the community. You will be legally powerless to do anything about this since, even though you retain copyright, you have licenced the software for use with anything that calls itself "GPL", even if it's completely different to good old GPL 1.0.
Is that really what you want? If so, why not just go for a BSD licence?
However in this case we have a legal precedent already set that implies Microsoft can do what it likes and the toothless DOJ is powerless to do anything about it.
"I'm with Microsoft on this one". Patents on software and business practises are the greater evil here.
However with Microsoft's extensive patent portfolio, I wonder just how hard they're trying with this case. Perhaps they intend to lose in order to set a legal precedent for software patents. Maybe Eolas has offerred them several key patents if they 'take one for the team', that would both make Eolas rich(er) and allow MS to pursue litigation against other firms.
Let's face it, if MS did start defending all its patents and winning, they would manage to close down just about every small software house left.
Of course if he actually cared about those kids he'd be lobbying (read:bribing) governments for overturning ridiculous IP laws that allow med companied to lock down such vaccines in the first place.
He could then fund a manufacturing plant in Africa that produces the vaccines and makes them accessable to all. You know, actually help Africa to be independent from foreign aid. Teach a man how to fish, and all that.
But somehow I don't think we'll be seeing that.
Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book
on
Blizzcon Writeup
·
· Score: 1
But you have to think like a conference organizer:
As a side note, this problem isn't limited to SF. I can't count the number of times I've heard the "tires squealing on pavement" sound when a car spins out on gravel or dirt. Those wacky TV folks.
Don't worry, the car doesn't even need to spin out. Any ac/de-celeration of a car in just about all telly shows have that tyre squealing sound. Cops on a stakeout pull away from the curb to follow another car slowly and inconspicuously: tyre squeal. Mum drops the kids off at soccer and drives away at 10Mph: tyre squeal.
For years I just thought that roads in America were covered in diesel. Either that or american tyres were made of solid granite.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not at issue here. You can have all of the material critial of evolution you want in any biology class anywhere in the United States. Criticism is a fundamental part of the scientific process.
Except evolution. In my experience proponents of evolution are extremely closed-minded when any evidence or positions are put forward that don't agree 100% with their position. I've seen the most otherwise pleasant and mild-mannered science teacher become quite hostile when challenged on this issue. I'm sure a lot of it can be put down to being sick of uneducated creationists, but to them their faith has become as dogmatic as any fundamentalist religion.
Except that the Vatican has a long history of compromising key articles of faith to keep the peace. A compromising faith is the folly of much of catholicism, sadly.
You know, all that stuff about there being no death before Adam & Eve was a big mistake. And of course man can't really be made in God's image since the present day is just a step in a big long evolutionary path. Never mind that Genesis mentions creation in six days while going to great pains to define 'day' as the period of the suns position in the sky, just in case anyone misunderstands what a 'day' might mean. Not to mention the fossil record.
It's this watering down of basic Christianity that has allowed the really dangerous belief systems to infiltrate (PC-veilied Pantheism in the US and pacific, and Islam in Europe, Africa and the former Soviet countries).
Think the dark ages were bad? Wait till you see what's around the corner.
So are you saying that Science == Evolution?
If so, I guess you are also saying that any process that is not totally in agreement with evolution is by definition unscientific.
Tell me, when was science redefined to reflect this?
Don't give Microsoft any ideas.
*shudder*
Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to suggest that OpenGL should be limited to FOSS implementations. I'm just trying to prevent commercial interests from stopping FOSS implementations. While nothing will stop FOSS software implementing the OpenGL spec, they can be stopped from calling it 'OpenGL'.
I guess I'm more referring to the trademark 'OpenGL', which I think can be owned by one entity, but one that will not restrict it's use.
I'm suggesting a defensive trademark, similar to Linux(tm).
That's right, they can't take away those four freedoms.
They can of course add the Fifth Software Freedom, which is missing from the GPL v2:
5. The freedom to improve the program, and withold changes from the public.
Would you want your software released under such a licence? I don't know, perhaps you would.
Each version of the GPL won't take rights away from the original author (that's pretty much, literally impossible.) it just defines how the author designates that others can use it. In the case of saying "v1 or later" you let anyone use v1 of the license if they darn well so please.
Yes, but that choice is left up to the viewer if you specify "or later".
This means that if the GPL review board goes insane and the GPL v3.0 does away with the "must provide source code" clauses, your program can suddenly be locked up in commercial software and any improvements made not given back to the community. You will be legally powerless to do anything about this since, even though you retain copyright, you have licenced the software for use with anything that calls itself "GPL", even if it's completely different to good old GPL 1.0.
Is that really what you want? If so, why not just go for a BSD licence?
They also provided us with the likes of OpenGL.
So what's going to happen to the OpenGL trademark if SGI do go under?
Who would stand the most to gain from buying it? I would suggest MS would try to get its greasy fingers on it and sit on it.
Perhaps the FSF or the EFF should start a fund to buy the OpenGL trademark to secure its future in Open Source software.
Fourth movie: "power converterrrrrrs"
Fifth movie: "aw, you're making a mess"
Sixth movie: "yub yub"
Normally I would agree with you.
However in this case we have a legal precedent already set that implies Microsoft can do what it likes and the toothless DOJ is powerless to do anything about it.
You say the patent was awarded in 1998.
But when was it filed? That's the date that matters when claiming prior art.
"I'm with Microsoft on this one". Patents on software and business practises are the greater evil here.
However with Microsoft's extensive patent portfolio, I wonder just how hard they're trying with this case. Perhaps they intend to lose in order to set a legal precedent for software patents. Maybe Eolas has offerred them several key patents if they 'take one for the team', that would both make Eolas rich(er) and allow MS to pursue litigation against other firms.
Let's face it, if MS did start defending all its patents and winning, they would manage to close down just about every small software house left.
Yet another pay-as-you-go phone service.
What we really need is for someone to port eMule or bitTorrent implementations to mobile phones.
That's called 'gift culture'. Nothing more.
Of course if he actually cared about those kids he'd be lobbying (read:bribing) governments for overturning ridiculous IP laws that allow med companied to lock down such vaccines in the first place.
He could then fund a manufacturing plant in Africa that produces the vaccines and makes them accessable to all. You know, actually help Africa to be independent from foreign aid. Teach a man how to fish, and all that.
But somehow I don't think we'll be seeing that.
But you have to think like a conference organizer:
A cover charge keeps the riff-raff out.
As a side note, this problem isn't limited to SF. I can't count the number of times I've heard the "tires squealing on pavement" sound when a car spins out on gravel or dirt. Those wacky TV folks.
Don't worry, the car doesn't even need to spin out. Any ac/de-celeration of a car in just about all telly shows have that tyre squealing sound. Cops on a stakeout pull away from the curb to follow another car slowly and inconspicuously: tyre squeal. Mum drops the kids off at soccer and drives away at 10Mph: tyre squeal.
For years I just thought that roads in America were covered in diesel. Either that or american tyres were made of solid granite.
Doesn't the DRM prevent playing these things on anything other than an iPod or iTunes?
/. would scream bloody murder!
I don't know, but if it does (and can't be circumvented in the name of interoperability), Apple might have a antitrust suit on their hands.
Imagine if MS opened a music store tomorrow, but you needed Windows to play anything you bought there.
But how many of those downloads are going to video iPods?
I wonder if most of those downloads are actually going on iRivers...
Creationism does not provide these.
And evolution does?
References, please?
Actually both sides are saying "Scientific ideas should be taught in science class".
They only differ on whether they hold Evolution or Intelligent Design to be scientific.
Anti-Evolution does not in any way suggest anti-Science, though you will always find some people who are both.
that Star Trek is actual science fiction.
The others aren't.
Instead of getting mostly science with a bit of creationism thrown it, now it's no science at all.
Of course neither is actually science. The real issue here is one idealogy over another.
No, but then again lots of animals practise homosexuality, rape and cannibalism.
If it's morality we seek, the animal kingdom is not the place to look.
It is curious many people (don't know your position about this) who object to abortion never do so about death penalty.
I've heard this repeated often but have never come across someone who holds those (seemingly contradictory) values.
It's looking more like a strawman argument used to tar pro-lifers as hypocrites.
Now now, you can't just go about saying that a fertilized egg is 'life'.
That could lead you down a path that might interfere with a womans right to choose what to do with her body.
Utopia forbid.