A remix or a cover version of a song is the greatest tribute a musician can give to another musician. (Another matter is to take without crediting...).
If EMI wants money from it, which they definitly have a claim to if money can be made from the remix, then make an agreement with the artist and make an official release. In a way, they probably already have made money from the remix since it introduces (parts) of the White Album to new listeners who might buy the record.
EMI is not doing the Beatles or music as an industri and as an art a favor by shutting this artist out.
The Operton is 100% backwards compatible with i386 binaries. I dont know about the compiler and native binaries, but thats not Fedora's issue to resolve.
That might be, but you don't buy an Opteron machine to rune i386 binaries. Besides, is it clear that it is straight forward to run any i386 binaries on a AMD64 compiled kernel?
Anyone knows if the AMD64 version of Fedora will contain most of the same programs as these i386 iso's when it is released? (AMD64 Fedora is still beta it seems) or are there still significant amount of programs not ready for AMD64?
Thinking seriously about buying an opteron machine...
If it was equal, across the board, I'd have a different opinion - but the attitude that "America has already been developed, so they need to be punished more than the others" was hogwash. That's not a treaty. That's economic suicide.
As far as I understood the argument, the attitude is that it is the developed countries that created the mess and are the countries that still are producing the most green house gases, so they should do the biggest cuts. It is kind of natural, since if you want to reduce the amount of CO2, you can more easily do it where most of the CO2 is produced. Of the developed nations, USA is the country that produced the most CO2 per person, but all the developed nations would have to contribute equally.
Of course, under Bush the USA won't contribute anything, but it seems like the Kyoto countries will try, at least on paper. We will see how it plays out.
Economically Kyoto also makes sense. It is economically recless to neglet the global warming. There are two ways that one should deal with it; 1) try to reduce the rate of warming and 2) find technological solutions to deal with the warming (or cooling; the weather is a very complex dynamic system that is now in unbalance) that is coming. For instance, what to do if the oceans water leavels increase by 10 cm? The first point is what Kyoto tries to address.
Economically, it is also better to have an energy efficient industry. There is nothing inherently bad in that, I mean it is in the word itself, energy efficient. If your car burns less fuel, it is good for the environment but also for your bank account. Where is the threat to the economy that lies in making higher standards for energy efficiency? In the short term, sure there are costs, but a president should think further than his election prospects, at least a good president.
Ah, let's go down the list. Hmm, let's see...not a lot of industrialized nations on this list. In fact, the vast majority of the worlds economic and productive nations aren't anywhere to be found in this list!
Ah, I see you did not bother to look at the list. The countries that have signed number 120 (including the USA) and the countries that have ratified number 84. This is out of a total of 191 member countries in the UN.
Among the backwater, third-world nations is Germany, France, UK, Spain, Poland, Switzerland, China, Japan, Malaysia, South Africa, Mexico, Canada, etc. This is a much more impressive list than the "coalition of the semi-willing and black-mailed". It seems like the Bush administration is the backwater guys again.
Of course, I could also take the tack that all the Bush-hating, Saddam-loving liberals have taken in the war against Iraq.
Reason not to invade a sovereign nation like Iraq is much more than about loving Saddam or any other petty dictator. World affairs and international order are complex issues. Even Bush supporters are getting cold feet on the carelessness and ineptness of the Bush administration has shown when sacrificing 530 US soldiers lives in an unnecessary war.
Why don't you just come out and say what you're really feeling? You hate the U.S. It's that simple.
Where does all your hatred come from? Is it from having your illusions shattered? Free speech is very powerful and challenging. I am glad people like you don't represent a majority in the great country of the USA.
You talk about the wrongness of the US boycotting the Kyoto Accord, but you don't mention that while we didn't sign it, neither did a single other country.
A huge amount of countries have signed the Kyoto Protocol and most of them have even ratified the Protocol. Even the US (by Pres. Clinton) have signed the treaty, but Clinton knew that congress would not ratify it and did it just before leaving office as a symbolic act.
This is what Kerry said on the Senate floor October 9, 2002. It seems like Bush has a lot more to explain about the choices done before the Iraq-war than Kerry does:
In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.
Being elected Senator means it's your job to represent the people by voting.
Senator Kerry voted in the Senate when his vote could make a difference or was there to speak for the people who voted for him when it was appropriate. For the rest, Kerry naturally spend more time last year fighting cancer and fighting for the opportunity to be the one to get rid of the current administration.
Where did senator Kerry fail to perform his duty to his country again? It is not like Kerry has done an AWOL on his duty last year.
Kadanoff both discuss the strong points of the book:
First, it is an excellent pedagogical tool for introducing a reader, even one who has no knowledge of advanced mathematics, to some of the concepts of modern computer science, mathematics, and physics. [...] This is a
tour de force of clarity and simplicity.
But Kadanoff also points out several weaknesses:
However, the reporting of history is spotty and sometimes quite weak. [...] From my reading, I cannot support the view that any "new kind of science" is displayed in Wolfram's new book. I see no new kinds of calculations, no new analytic theory, and no comparison with experiment.
Wigner probably made a good point (and so are you), but Wigner's quote is not so new and original in itself since it is usually attributed to Samuel Johnson:
Your manuscript is both good and original, but the part that is good is not original and the part that is original is not good.
---Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)
That the BBC is being criticized worldwide for making unfounded claims.
BBC has not been criticized worldwide for making unfounded claims. That is an unfound claim you are making there (or are your main source of information FOX?)
Lord Hutton criticized a BBC reporter for misrepresenting his source (the reporter called him a senior intelligence officer, the source was actually the most respected expert on WMD in Britain, a scientist working in the Ministry of Defence) and for not accurately quoting him. The reporter accepted that in an improvised report given live early one morning he used improper wording when presenting the story. Just to repeat that important point, the so-called unfounded claim by the BBC, was given by one reporter in a one time live report one early morning in May 2003. This in contrast to the british goverment who was caught copying a PhD thesis from the internet and presenting it as top secret intelligence...
The main part of the BBC reporters story that morning, that the british intelligence service had serious doubts about there being WMD in Iraq, has shown to be very relevant for the public (any news organization wants to inform the public) and the concerns raised were also shown to be correct (while Blair and Bush have been shown to be recless with the intelligence).
It was of course a smart tactic for Blair to pick a fight with the BBC on a small technicality, with the focus on small details while leaving out the whole picture of the story, where Blair has lost the argument.
They decided to go with a GSM-based cell phone system, for example, even though it would please the US companies to go with the incompatible US standard.
Even for neo-cons beliving everything can be done their way because they want them to happen, reality of things always catches up. Even if congress members tried to force the US system, the reality is that all the countries around and all the existing infra-structure is using the world standard (d-oh). So, it was not the iraqies democratic rights, just neo-cons again failling in their knowledge of what is happening at the ground.
The fact that Iraqis have already influenced both the timeline and election plans is a good demonstration they know what they are doing.
No, they have influence because the Bush adminstration realizes that they have made a mess of it and want out so that they don't loose this years presidential election (which they probably will anyway, you saw it here first). Because of their incompetence the administration has painted themselves into a corner and the shiias leader have the skill to use it to their advantage. This is 101 diplomacy, it is supricing how little the neo-cons knows about diplomacy, it is a very powerful tool.
What are you talking about? Go to the OPEC site and see for yourself. Of course it depends who you ask, but I have yet to see anyone say Iraq. Try to provide a link with more credibility than OPEC.
Of known oil resources Saudia-Arabia is number one. But when geologist start guessing who is on top when counting still-not-found resources, then you get different answers, but most agree that Iraq which has not had a properly run oil industry for decades probably is number one, since it not far behind the well run Saudia-Arabia's in known resources before properly survied. Of course, Russia might find new huge oil fields in Siberia, so it is a bit of guess work.
It is good that you have not fallen for the WMD bullshit. But your blue-sky-view of this adminstrations motives are naive, this administration is far ahead of anything the US has seen before in cynic and dangerous policies.
Like any other Middle-Eastern country, they can contract with whoever they want.
Oh, they can can they? Or is this how it will be in the near future, you know, just after WMD has been finally found?
With oil-for-food they had a nice guaranteed contract however.
Yes, and Saddam could influence who the oil was sold to and in what currencies it was paid (euro), but not what could be bought with the money (UN would make sure of that). Of course, for his own mis-use Saddam could count on the oil sold illegally to Syria and Turkey. Must have pissed off the oil-buddies of Bush a lot not to control all that precious oil.
They have the second largest, not the largest.
According to most estimates, Iraq has more oil than Saudia-Arabia. Hard to tell after years of war and mismanagment.
Oh please. He has a country to run, possibly the most complex organization that ever existed. Keeping up with the news himself is a collossally bad use of his time -
So, do you think Bush kept up-to-date with the news before he got this complex job that needs overview and insight about the world affairs? The picture Bush himself paints in interviews (with pride it seems) is a guy who has his whole life only found time for sports on the TV or second rate movies (Chuck Norris) while newspapers are left unread. Or do you think generals become generals because they start as young lieutenent not worrying about any details.
$90B would have bought a whole lot more oil than the US would ever save on oil from post-war Iraq.
A huge part of those $90B goes from the pockets of middle class tax-payers and directly into the coffers of Halliburton (and thereby indirectly to Dick Cheney who still pay kickbacks to their man in the White House). And hopefully the oil friends of Bush will have easy access to the biggest oil reserves in the world (i.e. in Iraq) for many years to come, while US soldiers are killed protecting the pipe-lines.
But what I want to know is when did it become OK to make fun of people for their learning disabilites? I thought Hollywood Liberals were sensitive and caring? I guess it's OK to pick on disabled people if they're conservatives.
Ah, you bleeding heart conservatives make me sick. The moron is supposed to take decision that influences literally life and death of thousands and influences the whole worlds military and economic stability now and in many years to come. That Bush has a mental handicap is definitely something that should be made known and discussed. If this serious issue is only noticed by the general public through humor so let that be. It is funny at first then you start thinking about a world leader with no knowledge and who doesn't read the news.
As Field Marshall Rommel said, no nation goes to war more incompetently than the United States, but no nation ends a war better than the United States. We might not keep the lessons very long, but we learn them quickly.
Doubt Rommel said that since he was executed by Hitler before the war ended.
Just wondering, how many slashdotters have actually noticed the global warming locally?
Myself, where I grew up there was always snow that stayed in November-December (15 years ago). Now it is not usually permanent snow on the ground before January. Also, where I live now, everyone used to go skating on the canals every single winter (told by local people). Last time it happened here was 8 years ago (so I have not had the pleasure yet).
And since Bush's argument for not caring about the environment is that it is bad for the economy, what is the economical impact of 15% of plants and species extintion?
The temperature of the earth and the surface climate have radically changed many times in the past, and without any any artificial greenhouse emmissions from humans.
The temperature has also never changed as fast as it has in this century, at least that is what Greenlands ice tells us with its record of thousands of years. The thing is, we can be looking at possible very warm or very cold future. The problem is that when you perturbe a dynamical system too much, the system becomes unstable and it will be very unpredictable until it finds a new stable point (do a simple experiment with a pendilum and then extrapolate). What that stable point is, is very hard to predict with a complex dynamical system as the atmosphere and the oceans. What is sure is that by perturbing the world this way as we have done the last hundred years, we will get more storms and changes in weather patterns, the mean temperature will continue to change rapidly, but can suddenly start plunging (more clouds, changes of ocean streams etc). The seriousness is of course that places that are now economically and culturally important (port cities, north europe, etc) can become places impossible to live, storms damage crops and living areas, and more serious, animals and plants don't manage to adapt and become extinct. One can call the scientist that work on climate models scaremongers, but the models they use are in principle similar to the models that predict your weather or that can explain the sesonal changes in the weather we have today. The weather man is right, what, 40% of the times? Should you not listen a bit to them then?
Slashdot Mirror
If EMI wants money from it, which they definitly have a claim to if money can be made from the remix, then make an agreement with the artist and make an official release. In a way, they probably already have made money from the remix since it introduces (parts) of the White Album to new listeners who might buy the record.
EMI is not doing the Beatles or music as an industri and as an art a favor by shutting this artist out.
No, this is not true. Just look at history. But the "Coalition of the willing" is a joke, even Bush-lovers admit as much.
You just did.
But assuming they find some lines of GPL, can't microsoft just deny that the source code in the wild is the propert code for Win2000?
seems like we agree about a lot of things... cheers karl
That might be, but you don't buy an Opteron machine to rune i386 binaries. Besides, is it clear that it is straight forward to run any i386 binaries on a AMD64 compiled kernel?
Thinking seriously about buying an opteron machine...
As far as I understood the argument, the attitude is that it is the developed countries that created the mess and are the countries that still are producing the most green house gases, so they should do the biggest cuts. It is kind of natural, since if you want to reduce the amount of CO2, you can more easily do it where most of the CO2 is produced. Of the developed nations, USA is the country that produced the most CO2 per person, but all the developed nations would have to contribute equally.
Of course, under Bush the USA won't contribute anything, but it seems like the Kyoto countries will try, at least on paper. We will see how it plays out.
Economically Kyoto also makes sense. It is economically recless to neglet the global warming. There are two ways that one should deal with it; 1) try to reduce the rate of warming and 2) find technological solutions to deal with the warming (or cooling; the weather is a very complex dynamic system that is now in unbalance) that is coming. For instance, what to do if the oceans water leavels increase by 10 cm? The first point is what Kyoto tries to address.
Economically, it is also better to have an energy efficient industry. There is nothing inherently bad in that, I mean it is in the word itself, energy efficient. If your car burns less fuel, it is good for the environment but also for your bank account. Where is the threat to the economy that lies in making higher standards for energy efficiency? In the short term, sure there are costs, but a president should think further than his election prospects, at least a good president.
Ah, I see you did not bother to look at the list. The countries that have signed number 120 (including the USA) and the countries that have ratified number 84. This is out of a total of 191 member countries in the UN.
Among the backwater, third-world nations is Germany, France, UK, Spain, Poland, Switzerland, China, Japan, Malaysia, South Africa, Mexico, Canada, etc. This is a much more impressive list than the "coalition of the semi-willing and black-mailed". It seems like the Bush administration is the backwater guys again.
Reason not to invade a sovereign nation like Iraq is much more than about loving Saddam or any other petty dictator. World affairs and international order are complex issues. Even Bush supporters are getting cold feet on the carelessness and ineptness of the Bush administration has shown when sacrificing 530 US soldiers lives in an unnecessary war.
Where does all your hatred come from? Is it from having your illusions shattered? Free speech is very powerful and challenging. I am glad people like you don't represent a majority in the great country of the USA.
A huge amount of countries have signed the Kyoto Protocol and most of them have even ratified the Protocol. Even the US (by Pres. Clinton) have signed the treaty, but Clinton knew that congress would not ratify it and did it just before leaving office as a symbolic act.
Without the US on-board, the Kyoto Protocol is not legally binding without Russia, while Russia has lately used the Bush administration's line as an excuse for not signing up (lead by example). The reason Russia has gained importance, is because: The protocol would have entered into force when 55 signatories had ratified it, including industrialised countries responsible for 55% of the developed world's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in 1990.
Why don't you explain that to mr. "Evil axis" guy instead of the parent post, which seems very reflected.
Senator Kerry voted in the Senate when his vote could make a difference or was there to speak for the people who voted for him when it was appropriate. For the rest, Kerry naturally spend more time last year fighting cancer and fighting for the opportunity to be the one to get rid of the current administration.
Where did senator Kerry fail to perform his duty to his country again? It is not like Kerry has done an AWOL on his duty last year.
The best way Kerry can serve his country is to get rid of the current administration.
Kadanoff both discuss the strong points of the book:
But Kadanoff also points out several weaknesses:
BBC has not been criticized worldwide for making unfounded claims. That is an unfound claim you are making there (or are your main source of information FOX?)
Lord Hutton criticized a BBC reporter for misrepresenting his source (the reporter called him a senior intelligence officer, the source was actually the most respected expert on WMD in Britain, a scientist working in the Ministry of Defence) and for not accurately quoting him. The reporter accepted that in an improvised report given live early one morning he used improper wording when presenting the story. Just to repeat that important point, the so-called unfounded claim by the BBC, was given by one reporter in a one time live report one early morning in May 2003. This in contrast to the british goverment who was caught copying a PhD thesis from the internet and presenting it as top secret intelligence...
The main part of the BBC reporters story that morning, that the british intelligence service had serious doubts about there being WMD in Iraq, has shown to be very relevant for the public (any news organization wants to inform the public) and the concerns raised were also shown to be correct (while Blair and Bush have been shown to be recless with the intelligence).
It was of course a smart tactic for Blair to pick a fight with the BBC on a small technicality, with the focus on small details while leaving out the whole picture of the story, where Blair has lost the argument.
Even for neo-cons beliving everything can be done their way because they want them to happen, reality of things always catches up. Even if congress members tried to force the US system, the reality is that all the countries around and all the existing infra-structure is using the world standard (d-oh). So, it was not the iraqies democratic rights, just neo-cons again failling in their knowledge of what is happening at the ground.
No, they have influence because the Bush adminstration realizes that they have made a mess of it and want out so that they don't loose this years presidential election (which they probably will anyway, you saw it here first). Because of their incompetence the administration has painted themselves into a corner and the shiias leader have the skill to use it to their advantage. This is 101 diplomacy, it is supricing how little the neo-cons knows about diplomacy, it is a very powerful tool.
Of known oil resources Saudia-Arabia is number one. But when geologist start guessing who is on top when counting still-not-found resources, then you get different answers, but most agree that Iraq which has not had a properly run oil industry for decades probably is number one, since it not far behind the well run Saudia-Arabia's in known resources before properly survied. Of course, Russia might find new huge oil fields in Siberia, so it is a bit of guess work.
It is good that you have not fallen for the WMD bullshit. But your blue-sky-view of this adminstrations motives are naive, this administration is far ahead of anything the US has seen before in cynic and dangerous policies.
Oh, they can can they? Or is this how it will be in the near future, you know, just after WMD has been finally found?
Yes, and Saddam could influence who the oil was sold to and in what currencies it was paid (euro), but not what could be bought with the money (UN would make sure of that). Of course, for his own mis-use Saddam could count on the oil sold illegally to Syria and Turkey. Must have pissed off the oil-buddies of Bush a lot not to control all that precious oil.According to most estimates, Iraq has more oil than Saudia-Arabia. Hard to tell after years of war and mismanagment.
So, do you think Bush kept up-to-date with the news before he got this complex job that needs overview and insight about the world affairs? The picture Bush himself paints in interviews (with pride it seems) is a guy who has his whole life only found time for sports on the TV or second rate movies (Chuck Norris) while newspapers are left unread. Or do you think generals become generals because they start as young lieutenent not worrying about any details.
A huge part of those $90B goes from the pockets of middle class tax-payers and directly into the coffers of Halliburton (and thereby indirectly to Dick Cheney who still pay kickbacks to their man in the White House). And hopefully the oil friends of Bush will have easy access to the biggest oil reserves in the world (i.e. in Iraq) for many years to come, while US soldiers are killed protecting the pipe-lines.
Ah, you bleeding heart conservatives make me sick. The moron is supposed to take decision that influences literally life and death of thousands and influences the whole worlds military and economic stability now and in many years to come. That Bush has a mental handicap is definitely something that should be made known and discussed. If this serious issue is only noticed by the general public through humor so let that be. It is funny at first then you start thinking about a world leader with no knowledge and who doesn't read the news.
Doubt Rommel said that since he was executed by Hitler before the war ended.
I am a uniter, not a divider
Myself, where I grew up there was always snow that stayed in November-December (15 years ago). Now it is not usually permanent snow on the ground before January. Also, where I live now, everyone used to go skating on the canals every single winter (told by local people). Last time it happened here was 8 years ago (so I have not had the pleasure yet).
Any other having noticed changes locally?
And since Bush's argument for not caring about the environment is that it is bad for the economy, what is the economical impact of 15% of plants and species extintion?
The temperature has also never changed as fast as it has in this century, at least that is what Greenlands ice tells us with its record of thousands of years. The thing is, we can be looking at possible very warm or very cold future. The problem is that when you perturbe a dynamical system too much, the system becomes unstable and it will be very unpredictable until it finds a new stable point (do a simple experiment with a pendilum and then extrapolate). What that stable point is, is very hard to predict with a complex dynamical system as the atmosphere and the oceans. What is sure is that by perturbing the world this way as we have done the last hundred years, we will get more storms and changes in weather patterns, the mean temperature will continue to change rapidly, but can suddenly start plunging (more clouds, changes of ocean streams etc). The seriousness is of course that places that are now economically and culturally important (port cities, north europe, etc) can become places impossible to live, storms damage crops and living areas, and more serious, animals and plants don't manage to adapt and become extinct. One can call the scientist that work on climate models scaremongers, but the models they use are in principle similar to the models that predict your weather or that can explain the sesonal changes in the weather we have today. The weather man is right, what, 40% of the times? Should you not listen a bit to them then?