The parent describe a seemingly feasible security system for general delivery of wireless power. Ie, where you can pay for the wireless power you use, and make sure that only you use it. Two reads was necessary to understand it, though.
while I agree with you that a very small number of lives are ruined by porn, your second point is way off base. Giving porn to a rapist is like giving an arsonist a small fire to play with.
Do you have any references to back that up with? I'd be seriously interested in seeing studies that indicate this - it is an area I've been curious about and haven't seen anything published around.
Of course, if you don't have any studies, I'd recommend you get some pride in yourself - so much pride that you stop forming opinions until you have enough knowledge to make them informed.
80+% of people work in small businesses, and 80+% of innovation is done in small businesses (which are then bought by the large businesses). What were you saying, again?
PRIMARY: Make development technique a priority in your group. Add a biweekly meeting where you discuss how your present processes are working and find out one thing to change per meeting. And DO hold the meeting, religiously.
I have two important specific methodologies that I've had good experience with:
Get everybody in your group on a single IRC channel and make them talk about code there, instead of face to face. This change the dynamic and tend to make things more transparent.
Make everybody review the diffs that people come up with. A good way to get this to be done reasonably easily is to make your version control mail out diffs, and then delegate review to each person in turn - say, one week each.
The guy owned the venue, so the performer and the owner would be one and the same. Also, he had a court injunction against him for doing the same thing earlier.
I know this feels like pedantry, but it's copyright infringer, not thief. And until you really make that distinction, you can't think clearly about these two very different crimes.
What's this idea of my computer "using" energy? It transforms electricity to heat. I would be producing heat with electricity anyway, because it is autumn/winter. Keeping my computer and lights and stuff on makes no[1] difference to my electricity bill - it just gives me utility for the power that would otherwise go to my electric heater.
If you're going to care about the environment, do something that matters, like getting rid of your car. Move somewhere reasonable if you can't get rid of it where you are. (I did.)
Eivind.
[1] For you nitpickers: Yes, there's an energy leak in the form of the photons that leaves my apartment. This is in the order of 1% of the power consumed for each lightbulb; I can live with that.
Contrary to popular opinion, money seems to make relatively little difference as to who wins US elections. Check out Freakonomics for background.
IMO, the major problem with the US election system is "winner takes all" by area, rather than a proportional system. This leads to a two-party system, with the parties being very similar in a lot of areas and strongly different in some core areas. Ie, you take the largest common area, extract the core ideas from that as the base for both parties, and then you take the two largest subgroups of opinion (after having removed the variation due to the core ideas), and create two parties based on the combination.
Other election systems lead to more varied parties *and* the availability of moderate parties, because being large (or being at all) matter *even if you don't have any chance of winning outright*. The winner-takes-all mess up this dynamic, disenfranchise voters, and add noise to the already noisy field of politics.
BTW: Nice to see politicans actually posting on/., nevertheless:)
What seems to be most effective against depression is full body exercise - basically weightlifing, especially squats and deadlifts. The generic advice of "exercise" isn't good enough for all.
Could you please argue for that viewpoint? I'm genuinely interested in arguments in favour of it, as I'm in favour of increased effective freedom - I just don't see any sign that the present US is overall better than the present Europe in the area, and arguments would be interesting for getting a better opinion.
He has no arguments, so far. He is arguing from personal incredulity - he can't believe that rocket fuel may be less dangerous than gasoline, and he's so totally emotionally embedded in that thought that he even asks people to "Stop trying to convince me".
If he HAD arguments, I would see it as unfair for him to lose his karma. However, when he posts without arguments and instead just throw out feelings, I find it reasonable for him to lose his bonus. His posts are a net negative contribution.
IQ is also strongly correlated with real world success, examplified as how much money you're likely to earn, and how stable your relationships are likely to be. The averages here are seriously skewed, and at least for earnings correlate more strongly with IQ than any other factor. IQ predicts much more strongly than family history.
For me, life is too short to mess about in GUIs to do stuff I do regularly. I'd rather take the hit up front to learn a command for it. For things that I do seldom or that fit well with GUIs, I prefer a good GUI to command line.
All your direct examples are technology, while I am talking of the process of science. Crucial to this was the introduction of the debate, something that only occured once, in Greece. The tradition was carried along from there through the arabic countries and partially the East, and re-introduced to Europe during the end of the Renaissance.
This is completely ignored in the reference you came with. The way of thinking underlying science is completely ignored, instead focusing on certain surface-level artifacts. In other words: Ignoring historical fact and ignoring the nature of science, instead attempting to broaden the definition of science to include all forms of knowledge and all forms of technology. In the reference you provide, astrology is considered a science, at which point you've obviously diverged from the definition any scientist would use.
As far as I can tell, you are doing a post-modern rewrite of history, based (as usual) on not understanding how modern scientific processes work and what distinguish them.
Read the reference I provided you to learn more of what science is and how it historically occured. There is an influx of knowledge from the Chinese, sure, but the idea that they had science rests on not understanding scientific process and human psychology (confirmation bias and how unnatural scientific thinking is).
What you say apply to technology; it does not really apply to science, which started occuring in the last half of the 1600s in Britain (under the name natural philosophy). Britain was already a (partial) democracy; the introduction started in the mid-1200s. Anyway, that's somewhat besides the point: My point was that science - a fairly formal discipline based on the debate - and hierarchies and loyalty are pulling in the opposite directions, and that censorship and science do not make a good match. There is no "different forms of science", as some relativists and postmodernists want you to believe. In known history, science was invented once, based on the legacy from Greece, and has since spread everywhere. That is the ONLY science - anything else may be knowledge, or technology, but it isn't science, because it's not been done according to scientific methods, where we purposefully try to *invalidate* ideas, instead of validating them. This is a very unnatural way of thinking, and has turned out to be a very practical one.
What I am saying is that those 3000 years are not "A-OK", unless you count people starving to death as "A-OK". How you constructed this as comparative to other cultures in that timeframe I have no idea of - I wasn't comparing to those cultures, I was comparing to the capabilities we have NOW, due to a single occurence: The greek civilization inventing debate, leading (after a while) to science and democracy. This is a singular occurence.
The chinese did not have science. Your belief that they did shows a misunderstanding of science and/or China. The chinese system has always been based on authority, hierarchies and loyalty, which is the opposite of how science works: Science is based on investigation of how the world works and ultimately only accepts the world as an authority.
As for relating to a timescale that "only they are comfortable with" - I'm not an american, so my culture stretch over a thousand years back locally, with known history. And I personally relate to all of history, including evolutionary time. However, I also relate to the fact that the time now is unique in history, as is the present kind of culture.
"They are embedded very deeply in our cultural vocabulary" is correct. The entire rest of the post, as far as it is specific enough to be deemed correct or incorrect, is incorrect. In particular, the idea of where and when and how science, free press, and democracy took hold show a remarkable lack of knowledge, as does the idea that China had been doing "A-OK" for 3000 years. At least, having large parts of the population regularly starve is far from my personal definition of "A-OK".
Google is using their brand strength, not their search dominance per se. I don't think brand strength legally can count as a monopoly, though maybe some lawyers can comment.
It *is* a legal statement, and it is also a piece of propaganda - and according to people around Stallman at the time he wrote it, it was intended as both - Stallman actually spent time studying influence and conversion methods before writing it. As a piece of propaganda, it is beautifully crafted. Notice the use of "you" instead of "the licensee" (which would be legal terminology and how to write directly towards a judge), notice the carefuly reloading of "freedom" to be a particular set of freedoms instead of all freedoms, and then "we will remove some of your rights in order to protect your rights", notice the use of us vs some vague "them", etc. This isn't a dry and precise "intent of license" statement - it's an emotional piece to move masses. And it is well done, and has worked - it's moved people to the GPL, for better or worse.
GPL approach include the propaganda part of the GPL. This may be more important than any (real or imaginary) levelling of the playing field. What actually seems to be the primary effect is sating a fear of feeling exploited by action that actually make zero difference to the person beyond that feeling.
"Healability" of forks is a myth. Forks are not "healable" unless the people that do the fork put in work to make sure it can be healed, or the fork is really really minimal. License is mostly irrelevant. See e.g, the egcs forking (never healed - on set of code was thrown away), or the Joomla! fork of Mambo.
Note that I find your way of writing quite arrogant, especially as it seems you are missing elementary information. Different licenses are better for different goals. There are situations where the GPL is the best choice, and there are situations where the BSD license is the best choice.
Mixing BSD-licensed code into GPL v2 is in violation of the GPL v2, because the requirement for exact reproduction of the BSD style license is an additional restriction compared to the GPL. This is not so obvious when you talk about incorporating a single piece of BSD licensed code - the GPL already contains requirements to credit developers etc, so how can it be so bad to use the specific format required by a BSD license? However, when you start adding in 120 slightly differently worded BSD style licenses, you get a reproduction problem. When you then have to have lawyers verify these licenses, you find that it actually is a very significant extra restriction.
Utilizing BSD-licensed code in GPLed code is a violation of the GPL. If you are the original author of the GPLed code, you can of course license it differently - say, GPL with an exception - but if you use GPLed code where you don't have that exception, using BSDed code is in violation of the GPL.
Try Ruby. It's got an object model that can function like JavaScript's, and it is a cleaner language than Perl 6. It's sort of a fixed Perl and JavaScript, while also picking the good from a ton of other languages, and keeping the result simple and clean.
There's a couple of minor annoyances with it, of course, like with everything - but overall, it's clearly the most pleasant language I've programmed in.
Slashdot Mirror
Eivind.
Do you have any references to back that up with? I'd be seriously interested in seeing studies that indicate this - it is an area I've been curious about and haven't seen anything published around.
Of course, if you don't have any studies, I'd recommend you get some pride in yourself - so much pride that you stop forming opinions until you have enough knowledge to make them informed.
Eivind.
80+% of people work in small businesses, and 80+% of innovation is done in small businesses (which are then bought by the large businesses). What were you saying, again?
I have two important specific methodologies that I've had good experience with:
Get everybody in your group on a single IRC channel and make them talk about code there, instead of face to face. This change the dynamic and tend to make things more transparent.
Make everybody review the diffs that people come up with. A good way to get this to be done reasonably easily is to make your version control mail out diffs, and then delegate review to each person in turn - say, one week each.
Eivind.
The guy owned the venue, so the performer and the owner would be one and the same. Also, he had a court injunction against him for doing the same thing earlier.
I know this feels like pedantry, but it's copyright infringer, not thief. And until you really make that distinction, you can't think clearly about these two very different crimes.
If you're going to care about the environment, do something that matters, like getting rid of your car. Move somewhere reasonable if you can't get rid of it where you are. (I did.)
Eivind.
[1] For you nitpickers: Yes, there's an energy leak in the form of the photons that leaves my apartment. This is in the order of 1% of the power consumed for each lightbulb; I can live with that.
IMO, the major problem with the US election system is "winner takes all" by area, rather than a proportional system. This leads to a two-party system, with the parties being very similar in a lot of areas and strongly different in some core areas. Ie, you take the largest common area, extract the core ideas from that as the base for both parties, and then you take the two largest subgroups of opinion (after having removed the variation due to the core ideas), and create two parties based on the combination.
Other election systems lead to more varied parties *and* the availability of moderate parties, because being large (or being at all) matter *even if you don't have any chance of winning outright*. The winner-takes-all mess up this dynamic, disenfranchise voters, and add noise to the already noisy field of politics.
BTW: Nice to see politicans actually posting on /., nevertheless :)
Eivind.
Eivind.
What seems to be most effective against depression is full body exercise - basically weightlifing, especially squats and deadlifts. The generic advice of "exercise" isn't good enough for all.
Eivind.
If he HAD arguments, I would see it as unfair for him to lose his karma. However, when he posts without arguments and instead just throw out feelings, I find it reasonable for him to lose his bonus. His posts are a net negative contribution.
Eivind.
Of course, that may be academic to you ;)
Eivind.
Eivind.
This is completely ignored in the reference you came with. The way of thinking underlying science is completely ignored, instead focusing on certain surface-level artifacts. In other words: Ignoring historical fact and ignoring the nature of science, instead attempting to broaden the definition of science to include all forms of knowledge and all forms of technology. In the reference you provide, astrology is considered a science, at which point you've obviously diverged from the definition any scientist would use.
As far as I can tell, you are doing a post-modern rewrite of history, based (as usual) on not understanding how modern scientific processes work and what distinguish them.
Read the reference I provided you to learn more of what science is and how it historically occured. There is an influx of knowledge from the Chinese, sure, but the idea that they had science rests on not understanding scientific process and human psychology (confirmation bias and how unnatural scientific thinking is).
Eivind.
Eivind.
The chinese did not have science. Your belief that they did shows a misunderstanding of science and/or China. The chinese system has always been based on authority, hierarchies and loyalty, which is the opposite of how science works: Science is based on investigation of how the world works and ultimately only accepts the world as an authority.
I recommend "Uncommon Sense" by Alan Cromer for background on this.
As for relating to a timescale that "only they are comfortable with" - I'm not an american, so my culture stretch over a thousand years back locally, with known history. And I personally relate to all of history, including evolutionary time. However, I also relate to the fact that the time now is unique in history, as is the present kind of culture.
Eivind.
Eivind.
Eivind.
Eivind.
"Healability" of forks is a myth. Forks are not "healable" unless the people that do the fork put in work to make sure it can be healed, or the fork is really really minimal. License is mostly irrelevant. See e.g, the egcs forking (never healed - on set of code was thrown away), or the Joomla! fork of Mambo.
Note that I find your way of writing quite arrogant, especially as it seems you are missing elementary information. Different licenses are better for different goals. There are situations where the GPL is the best choice, and there are situations where the BSD license is the best choice.
Eivind.
Utilizing BSD-licensed code in GPLed code is a violation of the GPL. If you are the original author of the GPLed code, you can of course license it differently - say, GPL with an exception - but if you use GPLed code where you don't have that exception, using BSDed code is in violation of the GPL.
Eivind.
The parent is unmodded; the user just has negative karma (due to abusive language in other threads.)
There's a couple of minor annoyances with it, of course, like with everything - but overall, it's clearly the most pleasant language I've programmed in.
Eivind.