Here is the difference: Copyright and patent laws represent a government interference in the free market. People voluntarily donating their intellectual property to a private organization in an attempt to mitigate that interference hardly fits the definitions of socialism and communism you've provided. If you're saying that the terms of the GPL are socialistic, bear in mind that the GPL's legal standing derives entirely from existing copyright law. If the GPL is communist, so are copyrights! In fact, there are probably many in the free software community that would welcome the day that the GPL became unenforcible - because the government would then not be able to tell you what software you could and couldn't write. That actually sounds like the opposite of communism to me:)
...though, I believe if they thought they could get away with it, most Evangelical Christians wouldn't mind killing homosexuals and those that disagree with them.
"Operation Rescue"-types have already crossed THAT line. Eric Rudolph anyone?
and then...
Stop the fearmongering.
Lol. How does this sort of tripe get modded insightful?
It is however very interesting that the US form of voting is so extremely sensitive to fraud and other irregularities. Nothing of this scale has, as far as I know, ever happened in any other country in the Western world.
Ahem. Mexico? Also, many (most?) western nations have their Prime Minister chosen by a Parliment. MP elections might be rigged, but they have to do that one at a time. I might also point out that our Electoral College, as antiquated as it seems to some, has one great feature that (to me) redeems all of its faults: it tends to limit the scope of fraud (and the motivation to commit fraud) to a small subset of closely contested states. Florida was bad, but at least it was just Florida. Can you imagine how much worse it would have been if teams of lawyers were examining hanging chads in every precinct across the country?
Are the American politicians that much more corrupt, or does the simple process of counting votes go beyond the capabilities of the American populace?
For some, heart disease is a lifestyle issue. Then there's people like me. Every single male person (that I know) on my father's side of the family has had heart attacks and subsequent bypass, many at a relatively early age. My dad had his emergency quintuple bypass at 43. His veins were already in such bad shape, that they had to cut all the way down both legs to harvest enough suitable segments. He was not overweight and exercised regularly. Needless to say, I try to practice a very heart-healthy lifestyle. I don't really have much reason to believe it will do a lot of good, though.If I follow my family history, I'll have my first heart attack in about 10 years, Get bypass surgery, be in the hospital about every 10 years after that, and finally die (if I'm lucky) of a massive stroke. Lifestyle changes haven't helped anyone in my family. So I welcome any new scientific advances in this area.
This is a private civil suit, not a government antitrust action. Why would the future occupant of the Whitehouse make any difference? The outcome of this case rests on the judge, the jury pool, and of course how strong a case AMD can bring to the courtroom.
Actually, by far the most likely outcome will be a settlement, but the terms will be determined by the above three factors.
Why is this +5 interesting? Is there really such a great majority of people with mod points that love seeing other people's beliefs denigrated and ridiculed? I don't agree with what the ID people are saying either, but that's no reason to take gratuitous potshots at it at every conceivable opportunity. Besides, it's getting really old. Why must we wade through this stuff in every other science article? Can we start modding these ID posts (for or against) troll or offtopic? pretty please?
We've seen all the studies that claim it's not the cell phone causing the distractions, it's the act of talking to someone. I know I'm going to get into trouble for this, but I'd like to see these studies broken down by gender. Based on my personal observations, women devote far more mental energy to their conversations than men do.
I observed a perfect example of this just yesterday at a McDonalds play area. A lady comes in with her boy and two girls, and they sit down to eat. I can tell immediately that this is one of those super-attentive micromanaging moms that lets no detail of her kids' behavior escape her notice. "Timmy, sit up." "Suzie, tuck in your shirt." All this sort of stuff in a constant stream. Discipline is fine, but give the poor kids a little breathing room sometime.
After lunch, as the kids start playing, this attentiveness continues. Timmy must put both his shoes into a single bin. Suzie is not to climb on the outside of the play structures. Sally must not roll her toy truck down the slide.
Then the phone comes out. The transformation is instantaneous.
Sally is upset about being pushed aside by a bigger girl (mine, in fact, who I immediately chastise, even though I too am on the phone). Mom, who did not notice the incident right in front of her, says, "I'm on the phone honey, go play." Meanwhile, Timmy is eating french fries off the floor. Later on, Suzie, who has resumed her illegal climbing and is now at the height of my head, announces that she is stuck, and asks me, the nearest adult, to help her down. I hesitate. The times being what they are, I am reluctant to lay hands on a stranger's child for any reason. You never know what you might be accused of. I glance toward Mom. Although she is not far away and is facing in our direction, her eyes are clearly not focused on much of anything. I shrug and get Suzie down from her perch. Mom never noticed that her 5-year-old was momentarilly in the arms of a complete stranger.
When the call is over, Mrs. attentiveness is immediately back in action. Sally is consoled, Suzie is plucked (again) off the playscape, and Timmy is roundly berated for eating food off the floor.
This is of course only one extreme example, but in my experience, at home and among friends and relatives, this sort of change in behavior is almost universal among conversing women, whether on the phone or face to face. All else takes a back seat to the conversation. I have not seen the same sort of thing occur with men, in general. For myself, I frequently have to ask people to repeat themselves (much to their annoyance) after I switch my attention to something else. This raises the question: if a study were to confirm that women are much more distracted than men by conversation, should we make driving while on the phone illegal just for women?
Translation: I like what they're saying, so I don't want to associate them with conservatism.
I've talked to a lot of libertarians, to try to figure out what really motivates them, and found that by and large each of them is enthusiastic about one particular piece of the libertarian platform, and willing to go along with the rest of it. Some want smaller government, some want more privacy, some want legalized drugs, etc. My conclusion is that libertarians are made up of: 1) conservatives who don't want to call themselves conservative, and 2) liberals who don't want to call themselves liberal, in about equal numbers.
If this court decision is the final say and starts a chain reaction in court decisions everywhere, then I'm going to sue RIAA and MPA for every cent they have. Because, technically according to the decision of this court, all 3000 mp3's I've burned and 250 movies (give or take) are new creations that I created that didn't exist before, and I had a hand in "making" them. So I want my damned money : recording fees, sales percentages, box office royalties, rental and DVD royalties. With interest.
I don't want to stir up the whole "RIAA is evil|justified" debate, but this argument is fairly trivial to refute. Copyright law doesn't assert that you're not "making" something when you copy a work, it just states that you are not allowed to copy someone else's work without permission. So, assuming that there is no special provision of copyright law that exempts child porn from copyright protection (I have no idea whether this is true or not), it is possible that the pervert in question broke both copyright and criminal law at the same time.
Seriously, I don't condone child porn in any way, shape, or form. But this ruling is a rediculous scare tactic, created by old, wrinkled retards who still think it's 1946 and that LCD and iPod are some kind of illegal drugs us punk kids are taking.
Yeah, this ruling probably is not in line with the original intent of the lawmakers, but in this case I have a hard time getting too worked up about it...
there is a point at which adding more of any greenhouse to the atmosphere does not change the absorption spectra of the atmosphere since the absorbable light from the sun is already being fully absorbed.
This implies that there is an upper limit to the damage that can be done by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. How close are we to that limit?
... courtesy of the federal government. Until that changes, I see no reason to open my wallet any further. I like a lot of thier programming, but something about a state-sponsored media outlet just gives me the heebie-jeebies. Besides, it seems like the only time they have the really good stuff on is during their stupid fund raisers. Frankly, I'd rather have commercials. Once the fund raiser is over, it's back to the pipe organ music show...
the vast majority of molestations come from close friends and family members
Let's say that the number of molestations that happen through the internet remained the same, while the number of molestations from family members dropped by 50%. Would you then say that interet molestations are suddenly much more of a problem? If the number of family molestations doubled, would internet molestations be even less of a problem? Perhaps my small town shouldn't worry so much about investigating last month's murder since the vast majority of murders occur in big cities...
I actually did it, but then I had to start from scratch with the Gentoo cd, since you can't do an AMD64 install while booted from a 32-bit distro. Since then, a 64-bit knoppix has come out, so this should not be an issue. Of the two methods, I found the Knoppix bootstrap procedures to be *much* more straight-forward, not to mention being able to surf the web and do other stuff while the install was going on. What wasn't matching up for you? Once you do the chroot, the directory tree should match up with the docs.
Slashdot Mirror
vi vs. emacs...
Here is the difference: Copyright and patent laws represent a government interference in the free market. People voluntarily donating their intellectual property to a private organization in an attempt to mitigate that interference hardly fits the definitions of socialism and communism you've provided. If you're saying that the terms of the GPL are socialistic, bear in mind that the GPL's legal standing derives entirely from existing copyright law. If the GPL is communist, so are copyrights! In fact, there are probably many in the free software community that would welcome the day that the GPL became unenforcible - because the government would then not be able to tell you what software you could and couldn't write. That actually sounds like the opposite of communism to me :)
and then
Lol. How does this sort of tripe get modded insightful?
Nah, they're planning on giving 110% to the project.
Hypocrite: Anyone having opinions or beliefs you disagree with.
Ahem. Mexico? Also, many (most?) western nations have their Prime Minister chosen by a Parliment. MP elections might be rigged, but they have to do that one at a time. I might also point out that our Electoral College, as antiquated as it seems to some, has one great feature that (to me) redeems all of its faults: it tends to limit the scope of fraud (and the motivation to commit fraud) to a small subset of closely contested states. Florida was bad, but at least it was just Florida. Can you imagine how much worse it would have been if teams of lawyers were examining hanging chads in every precinct across the country?
We have more lawyers.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Me too. "Picture", "Picture", "Picture", "Picture", ... We were on a roll.
Actually, it has stayed the same. By definition, the average I.Q. is always 100.
For some, heart disease is a lifestyle issue. Then there's people like me. Every single male person (that I know) on my father's side of the family has had heart attacks and subsequent bypass, many at a relatively early age. My dad had his emergency quintuple bypass at 43. His veins were already in such bad shape, that they had to cut all the way down both legs to harvest enough suitable segments. He was not overweight and exercised regularly. Needless to say, I try to practice a very heart-healthy lifestyle. I don't really have much reason to believe it will do a lot of good, though.If I follow my family history, I'll have my first heart attack in about 10 years, Get bypass surgery, be in the hospital about every 10 years after that, and finally die (if I'm lucky) of a massive stroke. Lifestyle changes haven't helped anyone in my family. So I welcome any new scientific advances in this area.
This is a private civil suit, not a government antitrust action. Why would the future occupant of the Whitehouse make any difference? The outcome of this case rests on the judge, the jury pool, and of course how strong a case AMD can bring to the courtroom.
Actually, by far the most likely outcome will be a settlement, but the terms will be determined by the above three factors.
Why is this +5 interesting? Is there really such a great majority of people with mod points that love seeing other people's beliefs denigrated and ridiculed? I don't agree with what the ID people are saying either, but that's no reason to take gratuitous potshots at it at every conceivable opportunity. Besides, it's getting really old. Why must we wade through this stuff in every other science article? Can we start modding these ID posts (for or against) troll or offtopic? pretty please?
We've seen all the studies that claim it's not the cell phone causing the distractions, it's the act of talking to someone. I know I'm going to get into trouble for this, but I'd like to see these studies broken down by gender. Based on my personal observations, women devote far more mental energy to their conversations than men do.
I observed a perfect example of this just yesterday at a McDonalds play area. A lady comes in with her boy and two girls, and they sit down to eat. I can tell immediately that this is one of those super-attentive micromanaging moms that lets no detail of her kids' behavior escape her notice. "Timmy, sit up." "Suzie, tuck in your shirt." All this sort of stuff in a constant stream. Discipline is fine, but give the poor kids a little breathing room sometime.
After lunch, as the kids start playing, this attentiveness continues. Timmy must put both his shoes into a single bin. Suzie is not to climb on the outside of the play structures. Sally must not roll her toy truck down the slide.
Then the phone comes out. The transformation is instantaneous.
Sally is upset about being pushed aside by a bigger girl (mine, in fact, who I immediately chastise, even though I too am on the phone). Mom, who did not notice the incident right in front of her, says, "I'm on the phone honey, go play." Meanwhile, Timmy is eating french fries off the floor. Later on, Suzie, who has resumed her illegal climbing and is now at the height of my head, announces that she is stuck, and asks me, the nearest adult, to help her down. I hesitate. The times being what they are, I am reluctant to lay hands on a stranger's child for any reason. You never know what you might be accused of. I glance toward Mom. Although she is not far away and is facing in our direction, her eyes are clearly not focused on much of anything. I shrug and get Suzie down from her perch. Mom never noticed that her 5-year-old was momentarilly in the arms of a complete stranger.
When the call is over, Mrs. attentiveness is immediately back in action. Sally is consoled, Suzie is plucked (again) off the playscape, and Timmy is roundly berated for eating food off the floor.
This is of course only one extreme example, but in my experience, at home and among friends and relatives, this sort of change in behavior is almost universal among conversing women, whether on the phone or face to face. All else takes a back seat to the conversation. I have not seen the same sort of thing occur with men, in general. For myself, I frequently have to ask people to repeat themselves (much to their annoyance) after I switch my attention to something else. This raises the question: if a study were to confirm that women are much more distracted than men by conversation, should we make driving while on the phone illegal just for women?
Translation: I like what they're saying, so I don't want to associate them with conservatism.
I've talked to a lot of libertarians, to try to figure out what really motivates them, and found that by and large each of them is enthusiastic about one particular piece of the libertarian platform, and willing to go along with the rest of it. Some want smaller government, some want more privacy, some want legalized drugs, etc. My conclusion is that libertarians are made up of: 1) conservatives who don't want to call themselves conservative, and 2) liberals who don't want to call themselves liberal, in about equal numbers.
It turns out that any search containing the word "perl" and any number produces this result. Seems like more work is needed.
I don't want to stir up the whole "RIAA is evil|justified" debate, but this argument is fairly trivial to refute. Copyright law doesn't assert that you're not "making" something when you copy a work, it just states that you are not allowed to copy someone else's work without permission. So, assuming that there is no special provision of copyright law that exempts child porn from copyright protection (I have no idea whether this is true or not), it is possible that the pervert in question broke both copyright and criminal law at the same time.
Yeah, this ruling probably is not in line with the original intent of the lawmakers, but in this case I have a hard time getting too worked up about it...
This implies that there is an upper limit to the damage that can be done by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. How close are we to that limit?
... courtesy of the federal government. Until that changes, I see no reason to open my wallet any further. I like a lot of thier programming, but something about a state-sponsored media outlet just gives me the heebie-jeebies. Besides, it seems like the only time they have the really good stuff on is during their stupid fund raisers. Frankly, I'd rather have commercials. Once the fund raiser is over, it's back to the pipe organ music show...
Let's say that the number of molestations that happen through the internet remained the same, while the number of molestations from family members dropped by 50%. Would you then say that interet molestations are suddenly much more of a problem? If the number of family molestations doubled, would internet molestations be even less of a problem? Perhaps my small town shouldn't worry so much about investigating last month's murder since the vast majority of murders occur in big cities...
So, you've spent a lot of time sitting in UK police stations watching policemen type, eh? What were you in for?
I actually did it, but then I had to start from scratch with the Gentoo cd, since you can't do an AMD64 install while booted from a 32-bit distro. Since then, a 64-bit knoppix has come out, so this should not be an issue. Of the two methods, I found the Knoppix bootstrap procedures to be *much* more straight-forward, not to mention being able to surf the web and do other stuff while the install was going on. What wasn't matching up for you? Once you do the chroot, the directory tree should match up with the docs.
Gentoo. It's called Knoppix
When you reboot it, do you have to do a Cluster Fsck?
"he doesn't keep up with technology news, so he's not sure what the most relevant dilemmas are."
Doesn't this about sum up the state of our education system today?