Good goddamn. Judging by your list of authors, I think you mean the "best new crap." Okay, so Roger Zelazny's Lord of Light book was a masterpiece, but I figure his inclusion into your list was some sort of typo. If you really want to find the next Piers Anthony or Weis, try to avoid anthologies like "The Year's Best Science Fiction," edited by Gardner Dozois, which never fails to contain a number of high quality short stories. Avoid science fiction by people like Gene Wolfe--whose books have such obvious characteristics of good literature that they regularly get reviewed in the NYT review of books. Stick with the book-store isle that has all of the Star Trek(TM)/Star Wars(TM) universe stories--don't you hate how libraries never seem to pick those up?
And whatever you do, try to avoid non-SF writers like Wolfe, Updike, or Bellows, I'm sure that you will realize that they suck just from the lack of busty women with laser guns shooting aliens on the cover.
I asked a question. I made no accusations. However, if you'd like me to justify even posing question, Lindows has violated the GPL in the past: http://www.lindowsos.info/print.php?sid=16
It was only last year that solar neutrino output from the sun was finally reconciled with theory--suggesting that neutrinos must have mass, even! Quantum field theory has no place for gravity. And quantum gravity has few experimental consequences that we can test, but it is fundamentally necessary to explain the initial stages of the big bang. Nobody seems to know whats up with supernova brightness results that seem to suggest that the universe is expanding faster and faster. Theory is not is such a splendid state at the moment.
Now I'm not saying that our current theories will be overthrown--but they will certainly be revised.
I agree, except that there is no incentive to uncheck the karma bonus. In fact, there is no incentive to ever think about karma again--except for those with negative karma.
Now I understand why they're getting rid of it all. With the one to five system, +2 was just a bit too loud. I wish they had tried to find a better system though, instead of giving up.
Maybe they could have let comments range from 1 to 10, with it taking progressively more mod points to raise comment scores.
True--I think that they are making more controversy over this than there probably is. On the other hand, Physicists' gut feeling doesn't stack up to observation, and everyone would like this to be settled by experiment.
As for your other point, quantum mechanics isn't relativistically invarient. Quantum field theory is, but that's not finshed--though there are experimentally confirmed results. And quantum gravity remains a pipe dream
That's the point, Doc Fishboy. Is general relativity correct about the propagation of gravity? After all, GR certainly doesn't agree with quantum mechanics--meaning that one of the theories will have to be revised. And does this experiment prove GR to be correct, or were they measuring the speed of light, as that Japanese dude, Hideki Asada, suggested in his paper last year?
Thanks--it's user preferences, comments, just in case anyone else can't find it.
Apparently everyone gets to independantly set the karma bonus that they see on posts.
I like this change to the system. But I do think it will make it harder for new users since the default is no change. If slashdot really wanted to fix everything they'd change moderation.
Trademark law does not prevent people from using said trademark to refer to the corporation or their products. There is nothing to this except for a suprious cease and desist letter.
I didn't see the 'Jews in space'--gotta love Mel Brooks--as racist either, otherwise the figure would have been 75%. I disagree about your other point though. Anyone seriously suggesting that Israel knew about 9/11 is anti-Semitic, and terribly so--there is no other reason to propagate libel like that. It's all part of the original story that was getting passed through the Arab world about how 'the Jews all left the WTC before the planes hit'.
When you posted there were four posts criticizing Israel. One post comparing Israelis to domesticated animals and another alleging complicity in the 9/11 attacks. One post said that the Israelis should move to the moon so that the Palestinians could get their land back and another post spoke about how the average Palestinian might react to this news.
That seems to me to be about 50% anti-Semite and 50% anti-Israel. The original poster's statement was therefore spot-on.
Yes, they do something almost exactly like it. Simply buy two processors and a multi-processor motherboard. That defeats the purpose of this technology, of course, but it nearly accomplishes the same thing.
Other than that, well, I'm--still--waiting for Hammer. AMD is dropping a long ways behind Intel. Price is all they've got, and AMD isn't even competeing on price-performance real well at the moment. My guess is that Intel hyperthreaded systems will probably be better price-performance wise than AMD before long--if they aren't already.
For this to apply, there must be some sort of voluntary transfer of title--even if there was fraud or what not, making it a voidable title. Therefore this will never apply to items that were stolen. Statutes of limitations are relevant, of course, but that should be assumed.
A good faith purchaser doesn't gain title to stolen goods.
More or less correct, but I was replying to his mistaken assumption that a good faith buyer can buy from a thief and expect to keep the goods.
Entrustment a common principle in the law, but only applies in cases when a good is transfered to a "buyer in the ordinary course of business." I don't see where that comes into our discussion.
Here in America, a good faith purchase of stolen goods is void. The stolen goods go back to the original owner, and the purchaser's recourse is against the thief.
It is generally illegal to distribute copyrighted material. There are few places with laws against receiving pirated material--mainly because the laws evolved from restrictions on publishers who are generally big and easy to find.
Slashdot Mirror
Good goddamn. Judging by your list of authors, I think you mean the "best new crap." Okay, so Roger Zelazny's Lord of Light book was a masterpiece, but I figure his inclusion into your list was some sort of typo. If you really want to find the next Piers Anthony or Weis, try to avoid anthologies like "The Year's Best Science Fiction," edited by Gardner Dozois, which never fails to contain a number of high quality short stories. Avoid science fiction by people like Gene Wolfe--whose books have such obvious characteristics of good literature that they regularly get reviewed in the NYT review of books. Stick with the book-store isle that has all of the Star Trek(TM)/Star Wars(TM) universe stories--don't you hate how libraries never seem to pick those up?
And whatever you do, try to avoid non-SF writers like Wolfe, Updike, or Bellows, I'm sure that you will realize that they suck just from the lack of busty women with laser guns shooting aliens on the cover.
Claws would work, but evolution can't think ahead--it only selects.
Are you saying that birds aren't modern animals?
I asked a question. I made no accusations. However, if you'd like me to justify even posing question, Lindows has violated the GPL in the past: http://www.lindowsos.info/print.php?sid=16
Very cool. After their closed source beta distribution, I hadn't heard any updates on GPL compliance.
Any source code yet? Is Lindows stealing from open source programers?
No, the maximum copyright term would remain the same--70 years after death of the author.
Does it run like on, on regular unleaded gasoline?
Unfortunately, no. It requires something with a little more kick . . . plutonium!
Imagine that you are trying to run fast up a tree. Do you want the 'spoiler' to press your legs against the tree or to pull you away from it?
It was only last year that solar neutrino output from the sun was finally reconciled with theory--suggesting that neutrinos must have mass, even! Quantum field theory has no place for gravity. And quantum gravity has few experimental consequences that we can test, but it is fundamentally necessary to explain the initial stages of the big bang. Nobody seems to know whats up with supernova brightness results that seem to suggest that the universe is expanding faster and faster. Theory is not is such a splendid state at the moment.
Now I'm not saying that our current theories will be overthrown--but they will certainly be revised.
I agree, except that there is no incentive to uncheck the karma bonus. In fact, there is no incentive to ever think about karma again--except for those with negative karma.
Now I understand why they're getting rid of it all. With the one to five system, +2 was just a bit too loud. I wish they had tried to find a better system though, instead of giving up.
Maybe they could have let comments range from 1 to 10, with it taking progressively more mod points to raise comment scores.
That's not how it works--you are setting the level at which YOU view all 'karma bonus' comments.
True--I think that they are making more controversy over this than there probably is. On the other hand, Physicists' gut feeling doesn't stack up to observation, and everyone would like this to be settled by experiment.
As for your other point, quantum mechanics isn't relativistically invarient. Quantum field theory is, but that's not finshed--though there are experimentally confirmed results. And quantum gravity remains a pipe dream
That's the point, Doc Fishboy. Is general relativity correct about the propagation of gravity? After all, GR certainly doesn't agree with quantum mechanics--meaning that one of the theories will have to be revised. And does this experiment prove GR to be correct, or were they measuring the speed of light, as that Japanese dude, Hideki Asada, suggested in his paper last year?
Thanks--it's user preferences, comments, just in case anyone else can't find it.
Apparently everyone gets to independantly set the karma bonus that they see on posts.
I like this change to the system. But I do think it will make it harder for new users since the default is no change. If slashdot really wanted to fix everything they'd change moderation.
Since this is slashback: What's up with the new karma system?
A lawyer wrote a silly letter.
Trademark law does not prevent people from using said trademark to refer to the corporation or their products. There is nothing to this except for a suprious cease and desist letter.
I didn't see the 'Jews in space'--gotta love Mel Brooks--as racist either, otherwise the figure would have been 75%. I disagree about your other point though. Anyone seriously suggesting that Israel knew about 9/11 is anti-Semitic, and terribly so--there is no other reason to propagate libel like that. It's all part of the original story that was getting passed through the Arab world about how 'the Jews all left the WTC before the planes hit'.
When you posted there were four posts criticizing Israel. One post comparing Israelis to domesticated animals and another alleging complicity in the 9/11 attacks. One post said that the Israelis should move to the moon so that the Palestinians could get their land back and another post spoke about how the average Palestinian might react to this news.
That seems to me to be about 50% anti-Semite and 50% anti-Israel. The original poster's statement was therefore spot-on.
Your post manages to agree with the poster by pointing out that he is full of shit.
+1 for Irony--Hell I've even got a web log in my sig, make it +2
Yes, they do something almost exactly like it. Simply buy two processors and a multi-processor motherboard. That defeats the purpose of this technology, of course, but it nearly accomplishes the same thing.
Other than that, well, I'm--still--waiting for Hammer. AMD is dropping a long ways behind Intel. Price is all they've got, and AMD isn't even competeing on price-performance real well at the moment. My guess is that Intel hyperthreaded systems will probably be better price-performance wise than AMD before long--if they aren't already.
For this to apply, there must be some sort of voluntary transfer of title--even if there was fraud or what not, making it a voidable title. Therefore this will never apply to items that were stolen. Statutes of limitations are relevant, of course, but that should be assumed.
A good faith purchaser doesn't gain title to stolen goods.
More or less correct, but I was replying to his mistaken assumption that a good faith buyer can buy from a thief and expect to keep the goods.
Entrustment a common principle in the law, but only applies in cases when a good is transfered to a "buyer in the ordinary course of business." I don't see where that comes into our discussion.
Here in America, a good faith purchase of stolen goods is void. The stolen goods go back to the original owner, and the purchaser's recourse is against the thief.
It is generally illegal to distribute copyrighted material. There are few places with laws against receiving pirated material--mainly because the laws evolved from restrictions on publishers who are generally big and easy to find.
The New Zork Times