* "[...] everyone should share everything equally" - hahaha! sorry, but i find that also naive...
Like it or not, that's what communism stands for. The fact that it was implemented poorly (or not at all) by many supposedly communist (but actually fascist, totalitarian) states is neither here nor there.
I know you americans like to use "communist" to mean "anything we don't like", but seriously, what does being against porn have to do with being very left wing to the point of saying everyone should share everything equally?
I'll be willing to bet that in fact this is another incidence of uncommanded engine rollback, as caused the heathrow crash just short of the runway. Unfortnately, I have no buttcoins to bet with you though.
Have you been to a big city? Palo Alto/Mountain View/Cupertino are like small towns in terms of level of bustle. Sure they have big roads, but they are generally otherwise pretty quiet places.
On the other hand, the whole are would feel much more closed in, much less spacious, and generally more urban. The reason people pay less for apartments in high rises (or even relatively small buildings) is because it's a lot less pleasant to live in them than it is to live in suburban sprawl.
So what you actually mean is "Either Office for Mac has a bug causing it to collapse some sentences incorrectly, or Office for Windows has a bug causing it to display sentences collapsed incorrectly." not "Office for Mac is incompatible with Office for Windows."
In your science, mathematics and engineering classes, you're given facts, answers, knowledge, truth. Your professors say, 'This is how things are.' They give you certainty.
Humanist misunderstands what Science and the Scientific method are, tells us we need to be taught to question things, when the entire basis of the field is questioning things, and never believing anything to be fact, knowledge or truth.
Because 1) No one's managed to get relativity and quantum effects to line up with each other yet. 2) Relativity doesn't ban traveling faster than light, it bans accelerating to the speed of light.
And yet, I still 100% support the idea that if a police officer sees a guy in a back alley passing a package to another guy, and trying to hide it, that they should investigate what just happened.
Right, what's being argued over is the definition of "evidence". Typically the police take it as "it looked like he was handing something suspicious over, I think that was a drug deal", and I think that's a fair enough interpretation. Similarly, I see nothing wrong with the interpretation "it looked like they were trying to transfer data in a way specifically designed to evade other people knowing who transferred the data, that's pretty fucking dodgy, I think something illegal just happened, and we should investigate it".
I don't really get it... The entire reason you might use Tor is because you want to hide what you're doing from the authorities... Why on earth would the authorities not consider it interesting what you're hiding if you're doing so?
It's like suggesting that a cop shouldn't go and investigate a guy handing a package to another guy in a back alley because back allies are common places for drug deals to take place.
They have suspicion that something dodgy is going on, and they're investigating it, that's what we pay them to do.
Blocking child porn and other illegal things is quite different from blanket blocking porn. Similarly, blocking illegal things on the internet is quite different from blocking all data on the internet.
The entire reason for putting rebar in concrete is that it gets you the best of both worlds –you get a composite material with the tensile strength of steel and the compressive strength of concrete.
stainless steel is not 100% immune to such problems, and has much lower tensile strength than normal steel, and I'm unaware of any protective coating that would be up to the job.
Not quite, I think. Even after a program gets free, honest people still tend to pay for their copy especially if support may be involved.
Right Which is exactly what the parent said – it's dishonest to steal that work;). That's fundamentally what's being argued here. Don't take things without paying for them (unless given a license that allows you to do so). It's dishonest, and directly impacts someone else's income.
I cannot remember anyone claiming that artist should not be credited. There have been arguments that you should be allowed to copy their stuff for free, but I've never ever seen anyone claiming that you should be allowed to claim you had written that stuff if you haven't.
Then why are they calling for the abolition of copyright and IP? They should be calling for the use of BSD like copyright licenses instead. Copyright law is exactly what stops someone copying your work and taking the credit, if you want to say "take this, but cite me" then the BSD is what you're after.
Even then: there is a difference between "ownership" or "intellectual property" (what many here dismiss) and getting credit where it is due (this case).
No, actually, getting credit is exactly what ownership and copyright is about. You get to get credit for it because you made it and own it, copyright is the law saying that someone else can't take it and take the credit (amongst other things). This is exactly what most people around here seem not to understand.
Slashdot Mirror
* "[...] everyone should share everything equally" - hahaha! sorry, but i find that also naive...
Like it or not, that's what communism stands for. The fact that it was implemented poorly (or not at all) by many supposedly communist (but actually fascist, totalitarian) states is neither here nor there.
It's almost like she's doing what politicians are meant to be doing –representing their constituent's views!
Woe betide the politician who actually finds out what their constituents views are before deciding what to do!
I know you americans like to use "communist" to mean "anything we don't like", but seriously, what does being against porn have to do with being very left wing to the point of saying everyone should share everything equally?
I'll be willing to bet that in fact this is another incidence of uncommanded engine rollback, as caused the heathrow crash just short of the runway. Unfortnately, I have no buttcoins to bet with you though.
The issue I've hit in the past with this is that phone screens are bright. Someone texting in the seat in front of you is really distracting.
Have you been to a big city? Palo Alto/Mountain View/Cupertino are like small towns in terms of level of bustle. Sure they have big roads, but they are generally otherwise pretty quiet places.
yes, so to be incredibly brave one would have to be brave to the point where most people would not find it credible. That is, extremely brave.
On the other hand, the whole are would feel much more closed in, much less spacious, and generally more urban. The reason people pay less for apartments in high rises (or even relatively small buildings) is because it's a lot less pleasant to live in them than it is to live in suburban sprawl.
So what you actually mean is "Either Office for Mac has a bug causing it to collapse some sentences incorrectly, or Office for Windows has a bug causing it to display sentences collapsed incorrectly." not "Office for Mac is incompatible with Office for Windows."
Go file a bug in MS's bug reporter.
In your science, mathematics and engineering classes, you're given facts, answers, knowledge, truth. Your professors say, 'This is how things are.' They give you certainty.
Humanist misunderstands what Science and the Scientific method are, tells us we need to be taught to question things, when the entire basis of the field is questioning things, and never believing anything to be fact, knowledge or truth.
Because
1) No one's managed to get relativity and quantum effects to line up with each other yet.
2) Relativity doesn't ban traveling faster than light, it bans accelerating to the speed of light.
And yet, I still 100% support the idea that if a police officer sees a guy in a back alley passing a package to another guy, and trying to hide it, that they should investigate what just happened.
Right, what's being argued over is the definition of "evidence". Typically the police take it as "it looked like he was handing something suspicious over, I think that was a drug deal", and I think that's a fair enough interpretation. Similarly, I see nothing wrong with the interpretation "it looked like they were trying to transfer data in a way specifically designed to evade other people knowing who transferred the data, that's pretty fucking dodgy, I think something illegal just happened, and we should investigate it".
I don't really get it... The entire reason you might use Tor is because you want to hide what you're doing from the authorities... Why on earth would the authorities not consider it interesting what you're hiding if you're doing so?
It's like suggesting that a cop shouldn't go and investigate a guy handing a package to another guy in a back alley because back allies are common places for drug deals to take place.
They have suspicion that something dodgy is going on, and they're investigating it, that's what we pay them to do.
11 people were killed by toddlers accidentally firing guns in 2013 and 4 by terrorists on US soil.
To be fair –most europeans would argue that this is pretty retarded ;)
Blocking child porn and other illegal things is quite different from blanket blocking porn. Similarly, blocking illegal things on the internet is quite different from blocking all data on the internet.
I hate to tell you, but many of us have a more refined sense of humor than "zomg, he said dickfuck lawlawlawlawlawl" ;)
The entire reason for putting rebar in concrete is that it gets you the best of both worlds –you get a composite material with the tensile strength of steel and the compressive strength of concrete.
But still has extremely low tensile strength, which is what they're after when adding rebar to concrete.
stainless steel is not 100% immune to such problems, and has much lower tensile strength than normal steel, and I'm unaware of any protective coating that would be up to the job.
You realise that that's exactly how airbus has been building planes for years, and exactly how the A350 XWB will be built too.
On the other hand, carbon composites often suffer slow degradation and eventual delamination through simple sun exposure.
Not quite, I think. Even after a program gets free, honest people still tend to pay for their copy especially if support may be involved.
Right Which is exactly what the parent said – it's dishonest to steal that work ;). That's fundamentally what's being argued here. Don't take things without paying for them (unless given a license that allows you to do so). It's dishonest, and directly impacts someone else's income.
I cannot remember anyone claiming that artist should not be credited. There have been arguments that you should be allowed to copy their stuff for free, but I've never ever seen anyone claiming that you should be allowed to claim you had written that stuff if you haven't.
Then why are they calling for the abolition of copyright and IP? They should be calling for the use of BSD like copyright licenses instead. Copyright law is exactly what stops someone copying your work and taking the credit, if you want to say "take this, but cite me" then the BSD is what you're after.
Even then: there is a difference between "ownership" or "intellectual property" (what many here dismiss) and getting credit where it is due (this case).
No, actually, getting credit is exactly what ownership and copyright is about. You get to get credit for it because you made it and own it, copyright is the law saying that someone else can't take it and take the credit (amongst other things). This is exactly what most people around here seem not to understand.