I admire your willingness to see the world in black and white.
Nevertheless, the world is gray and the people who insist on absolute, uncompromising moral standpoints are the most dangerous ones. They are the ones who have waged genocidal wars throughout the history.
i.e. people who don't carry guns and don't make it their business to kill others
How about this: "These people are legitimate targets since they elected leaders who provide political and material aid to those people who use it to kill our people. The friend of our enemy is also our enemy".
Please, Please, tell me why the AMD Roadmap is not updated. AMD is much better than Intel. While people keep thinking that Intel is the best and in the websites people do not care about what the say about AMD and Intel, Intel will continue its bad way and will be the first.
Here in your page, there is a good example of the power of Intel. You do not update anymore the AMD side and keep putting the news for Intel, you can not tell that there is no news to put about AMD.
It's like simulating something on a computer and then claiming that it's real, without conducting any experiments to confirm the validity of the model in the first place. Sadly, such "science" is published today even in high impact journals such as Phys. Rev. Lett.
I bet this nonsensical "Utah is a perfectly good model for Mars" study will end up in Science or Nature.
One of the most heinous trends in the computing world today is the use of the GNU General Public License. In fact, the license is itself a virus. The whole of the problems with it stem from clause 2b, which reads:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
What this means is that if I'm working on a program, and I use even one function from a GPLed program, not only do I have to redistribute the program I took code from, but my entire project must now fall under the GPL and be released into the public domain.
Why is this bad? Isn't this just helping the coder of the original program to maintain control over his work and prevent it being abused to make someone else rich? No. That goal could be reached easily by only requiring that the user of the code release only that code as source along with the other program and requiring the user of the code to negotiate a licensing agreement with the original coder if the new program contained a significant amount of his code.
Truly "free" software doesn't force you to adopt a license and give up your rights to intellectual property. Forcing you to release all of your source code, in addition to the code you might have used, comes at a very high price, up to and including loss of patent rights. Giving up your intellectual property rights is an incredible price to pay. For this reason, large companies (the ones RMS fears will get rich off GPL software) avoid GPL code like the plague; they have the resources to develop in-house anything that GPLware might have given them.
So who gets hurt then? Why the very people RMS wants to protect of course. Small-time coders and low-budget operations- the poor if you will- who can't afford to spend the resources on developing their own code, are suckered into using GPL code in products. They are subsequently forced to give up the one thing that could have stopped their being low-budget: their intellectual property rights, now forfeited to the GPL virus.
Naturally this doesn't bother RMS. You see, RMS is a socialist at best, and a communist at worst. Look at some of his comments which reveal his true agenda:
If anything deserves a reward, it is social contribution. Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs...
The real reason programmers will not starve is that it will still be possible for them to get paid for programming; just not paid as much as now...
In the long run, making programs free is a step toward the post-scarcity world, where nobody will have to work very hard just to make a living. People will be free to devote themselves to activities that are fun, such as programming, after spending the necessary ten hours a week on required tasks such as legislation, family counseling, robot repair and asteroid prospecting. There will be no need to be able to make a living from programming.
So you see, RMS wants to make programming a profession that pays little monetary reward in exchange for social contribution instead. This is what the books call "socialism". Using a software license with a political agenda of this magnitude is unconscionable. Cooperation with RMS is impossible.
If you think I'm exaggerating about corporations avoiding the GPL like the plague because of loss of intellectual property, read the words of Terry Lambert:
To many in the commercial community, the GPL is poison. It represents the potential for dilution of intellectual property, including patents.
When the startup I work for was acquired by a large patent-owning company, we were required to purge our product of GPL'ed code so as to not dilute patents held by that corporation (the particular case in question was the requirement that we remove the SQUID proxy server). This was a non-negotiable deal breaker.
Other companies in our market niche, even though we were the market leader in both units and mindshare, were seen as more attractive by the purchasing company -- until it was revealed that they had incorporated code unacceptably licensed under the GPL, and not removable in the time to market window.
As things now stand, the purchasing company pays significant lip-service to Linux in the press; this is to obtain press, and is not in support of the GPL. If one wishes to use GPL'ed code for any purpose in company products, it must be completely severable, and it is required that you take a company educational course on use of the code; this mostly boils down to an 18 page presentation on how to treat GPL'ed code as if it were barely sub-critical nuclear waste. In addition, it is required that this code be obtained from internal company FTP server, rather than the Internet at large, so that it has been verified as not incorporating any company patents at the time it a snapshot is taken for the project for which you wish to use it.
What's even more amusing about the FSF Nazis is they proclaim constantly how evil Microsoft is, and how mean it was of them to give away Internet Explorer to destroy Netscape. Here's an ironic commentary about that from Brett Glass:
GPL considered harmful.... Yes, the explicit purpose of the GPL is to hurt programmers' livelihoods. See Richard Stallman's essay, "The GNU Manifesto," for a frank statement that this is the case. Mr. Stallman does not care whether the programmers harmed by the GPL are working for Microsoft or trying to eke out an honest living despite Microsoft; he wishes to put all of them out of business. Trouble is, it's much easier to hurt the little guy than it is to hurt Microsoft, so guess who suffers?
It is, in fact, ironic just how much the FSF's strategies resemble those of Microsoft.
Microsoft seeks to put other companies such as Netscape out of business by giving away free equivalents of every product they make. The Free Software Foundation seeks to put other companies out of business by giving away free equivalents of every products they make.
Bill Gates has all the money he wants but is motivated by a lust for power and control. Richard Stallman has all of the money he wants but is motivated by a lust for power and control.
Microsoft has a vast hoard of software whose development and licensing it controls. The FSF has an even larger hoard of software whose development and licensing it controls.
Meet the new boss -- same as the old boss.
So yes, the GPL is harmful. It forces its twisted political agenda upon others, robs individuals of their intellectual property, spreads itself like a virus, and causes the same kind of predatory behaviour that its proponents lament. It must be avoided at all cost.
I've been recently thinking about how huge investments are being made in the telco sector the applications of which are insignificant to something like biotech or genetics.
Telecommunications really only affects a small fraction of the people on this planet whereas biotechnology and genetics can make a difference to everyone (genetically modified food and increased crops, for instance).
Now that the IT bubble has collapsed (sold my stock in time, fortunately), maybe it is a good time to start investing in biotech and drug companies instead?
I can't find any experiments validating the claim that it would also work in vacuum. All I see is a lot of handwaving about mass changing electrons and basic electrostatics. Just saying that "it will work in vacuum because our theory says so!" will not do. In natural sciences we only believe the experimental observation.
If these guys submitted something like this to a scientific journal and I were to the referee it, I would reject it and suggest that:
-The authors repeat their experiment in good vacuum (10E-5 mbar or better) to discount the ion reaction drive.
-Alternatively, the authors should show that there is no ion current away from the apparatus.
-Authors provide extraordinary evidence for their extraordinary claim that the mass of electrons and nuclei changes. An observation like this would actually warrant a manuscript in itself!
-Authors thoroughly examine how the potential energy of the system and the used electrical energy correlate. In other words, what is the efficiency of the system.
Divided we'll stand
regardless we'll fall
how subtle the words we've come to know,
divided we stand, determined to fall
just like this hollow world
that sleeps inside of me
Yes, this is true. We do belong in the food-chain afterall. There is a cycle. We cannot survive without veggie matter. Then you must look at plant structure as opposed to animal structure. Specifically note the absence of a central nervous system in plants. Some argue that we might just not know about plant nerves yet. This is also true. This doesn't in any way change the fact that we do know about animal nervous systems, though, and doesn't change my choice to not cause them unnecessary pain. Why would the chance that I might inflict pain on a plant cause me to knowingly, definitely inflict pain on an animal?
"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
-Albert Einstein
Prove that animals don't have a choice, where is your all encompasing proof.
Prove that animals do have a choice. Where's your all encompassing proof. All that pretty much academic, anyway.
The fact remains that as humans we do know we have a choice and it is up to us what we do with that freedom. You cannot set human moral standards by looking at the behaviour in the Nature in general -- the Nature is not moral or immoral but amoral. Human societies clearly are not amoral and that's because we have DECIDED that certain things should not be tolerated. Deciding that eating meat is bad would be just another (good) decision.
Slashdot Mirror
Besides, bombing purely civilian targets in Europe was done by the Allies in the WWII, too.
Nevertheless, the world is gray and the people who insist on absolute, uncompromising moral standpoints are the most dangerous ones. They are the ones who have waged genocidal wars throughout the history.
i.e. people who don't carry guns and don't make it their business to kill others
How about this: "These people are legitimate targets since they elected leaders who provide political and material aid to those people who use it to kill our people. The friend of our enemy is also our enemy".
There's never only one side to the story.
Please, Please, tell me why the AMD Roadmap is not updated. AMD is much better than Intel. While people keep thinking that Intel is the best and in the websites people do not care about what the say about AMD and Intel, Intel will continue its bad way and will be the first.
Here in your page, there is a good example of the power of Intel. You do not update anymore the AMD side and keep putting the news for Intel, you can not tell that there is no news to put about AMD.
I've always been curious as to whether the Soviet/Russian space program allowed vodka on Mir?
It's like simulating something on a computer and then claiming that it's real, without conducting any experiments to confirm the validity of the model in the first place. Sadly, such "science" is published today even in high impact journals such as Phys. Rev. Lett.
I bet this nonsensical "Utah is a perfectly good model for Mars" study will end up in Science or Nature.
The GPL is Harmful
One of the most heinous trends in the computing world today is the use of the GNU General Public License. In fact, the license is itself a virus. The whole of the problems with it stem from clause 2b, which reads:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
What this means is that if I'm working on a program, and I use even one function from a GPLed program, not only do I have to redistribute the program I took code from, but my entire project must now fall under the GPL and be released into the public domain.
Why is this bad? Isn't this just helping the coder of the original program to maintain control over his work and prevent it being abused to make someone else rich? No. That goal could be reached easily by only requiring that the user of the code release only that code as source along with the other program and requiring the user of the code to negotiate a licensing agreement with the original coder if the new program contained a significant amount of his code.
Truly "free" software doesn't force you to adopt a license and give up your rights to intellectual property. Forcing you to release all of your source code, in addition to the code you might have used, comes at a very high price, up to and including loss of patent rights. Giving up your intellectual property rights is an incredible price to pay. For this reason, large companies (the ones RMS fears will get rich off GPL software) avoid GPL code like the plague; they have the resources to develop in-house anything that GPLware might have given them.
So who gets hurt then? Why the very people RMS wants to protect of course. Small-time coders and low-budget operations- the poor if you will- who can't afford to spend the resources on developing their own code, are suckered into using GPL code in products. They are subsequently forced to give up the one thing that could have stopped their being low-budget: their intellectual property rights, now forfeited to the GPL virus.
Naturally this doesn't bother RMS. You see, RMS is a socialist at best, and a communist at worst. Look at some of his comments which reveal his true agenda:
If anything deserves a reward, it is social contribution. Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs...
The real reason programmers will not starve is that it will still be possible for them to get paid for programming; just not paid as much as now...
In the long run, making programs free is a step toward the post-scarcity world, where nobody will have to work very hard just to make a living. People will be free to devote themselves to activities that are fun, such as programming, after spending the necessary ten hours a week on required tasks such as legislation, family counseling, robot repair and asteroid prospecting. There will be no need to be able to make a living from programming.
So you see, RMS wants to make programming a profession that pays little monetary reward in exchange for social contribution instead. This is what the books call "socialism". Using a software license with a political agenda of this magnitude is unconscionable. Cooperation with RMS is impossible.
If you think I'm exaggerating about corporations avoiding the GPL like the plague because of loss of intellectual property, read the words of Terry Lambert:
To many in the commercial community, the GPL is poison. It represents the potential for dilution of intellectual property, including patents.
When the startup I work for was acquired by a large patent-owning company, we were required to purge our product of GPL'ed code so as to not dilute patents held by that corporation (the particular case in question was the requirement that we remove the SQUID proxy server). This was a non-negotiable deal breaker.
Other companies in our market niche, even though we were the market leader in both units and mindshare, were seen as more attractive by the purchasing company -- until it was revealed that they had incorporated code unacceptably licensed under the GPL, and not removable in the time to market window.
As things now stand, the purchasing company pays significant lip-service to Linux in the press; this is to obtain press, and is not in support of the GPL. If one wishes to use GPL'ed code for any purpose in company products, it must be completely severable, and it is required that you take a company educational course on use of the code; this mostly boils down to an 18 page presentation on how to treat GPL'ed code as if it were barely sub-critical nuclear waste. In addition, it is required that this code be obtained from internal company FTP server, rather than the Internet at large, so that it has been verified as not incorporating any company patents at the time it a snapshot is taken for the project for which you wish to use it.
What's even more amusing about the FSF Nazis is they proclaim constantly how evil Microsoft is, and how mean it was of them to give away Internet Explorer to destroy Netscape. Here's an ironic commentary about that from Brett Glass:
GPL considered harmful.... Yes, the explicit purpose of the GPL is to hurt programmers' livelihoods. See Richard Stallman's essay, "The GNU Manifesto," for a frank statement that this is the case. Mr. Stallman does not care whether the programmers harmed by the GPL are working for Microsoft or trying to eke out an honest living despite Microsoft; he wishes to put all of them out of business. Trouble is, it's much easier to hurt the little guy than it is to hurt Microsoft, so guess who suffers?
It is, in fact, ironic just how much the FSF's strategies resemble those of Microsoft.
Microsoft seeks to put other companies such as Netscape out of business by giving away free equivalents of every product they make. The Free Software Foundation seeks to put other companies out of business by giving away free equivalents of every products they make.
Bill Gates has all the money he wants but is motivated by a lust for power and control. Richard Stallman has all of the money he wants but is motivated by a lust for power and control.
Microsoft has a vast hoard of software whose development and licensing it controls. The FSF has an even larger hoard of software whose development and licensing it controls.
Meet the new boss -- same as the old boss.
So yes, the GPL is harmful. It forces its twisted political agenda upon others, robs individuals of their intellectual property, spreads itself like a virus, and causes the same kind of predatory behaviour that its proponents lament. It must be avoided at all cost.
I strongly suggest you send your scripts to FOX.
Perhaps the regulations have been relaxed to better compete with Ariane and other space launch programs abroad?
So, did you get any?
Would that be UK gallons or US gallons?
Filesize = 21,278,068 bytes.
Even in the age of cable modems and DSL, it's ridiculous to expect that people would download something as huge as that.
Looks like I have to keep on dual-booting to WinXP to use my stock-broker's services...
Natalie Portman in a leather outfit is a sight to behold...
CmdrTaco's spelling has spread to the ads, too.
Telecommunications really only affects a small fraction of the people on this planet whereas biotechnology and genetics can make a difference to everyone (genetically modified food and increased crops, for instance).
Now that the IT bubble has collapsed (sold my stock in time, fortunately), maybe it is a good time to start investing in biotech and drug companies instead?
I can't find any experiments validating the claim that it would also work in vacuum. All I see is a lot of handwaving about mass changing electrons and basic electrostatics. Just saying that "it will work in vacuum because our theory says so!" will not do. In natural sciences we only believe the experimental observation.
If these guys submitted something like this to a scientific journal and I were to the referee it, I would reject it and suggest that:
-The authors repeat their experiment in good vacuum (10E-5 mbar or better) to discount the ion reaction drive.
-Alternatively, the authors should show that there is no ion current away from the apparatus.
-Authors provide extraordinary evidence for their extraordinary claim that the mass of electrons and nuclei changes. An observation like this would actually warrant a manuscript in itself!
-Authors thoroughly examine how the potential energy of the system and the used electrical energy correlate. In other words, what is the efficiency of the system.
The pseudoscientists on that website?
And as always, the physical explanation the crackpots give looks like physics, smells like physics but it sure as hell is not physics.
Gotta keep /. ideologically pure, I guess.
Until Sun does the StarOffice 6.x trick and stops distributing free versions.
Like it or not, the future belongs to .NET.
Divided we'll stand
regardless we'll fall
how subtle the words we've come to know,
divided we stand, determined to fall
just like this hollow world
that sleeps inside of me
This is just plain wrong and nonsense. Meat is easy to replace.
Yes, this is true. We do belong in the food-chain afterall. There is a cycle. We cannot survive without veggie matter. Then you must look at plant structure as opposed to animal structure. Specifically note the absence of a central nervous system in plants. Some argue that we might just not know about plant nerves yet. This is also true. This doesn't in any way change the fact that we do know about animal nervous systems, though, and doesn't change my choice to not cause them unnecessary pain. Why would the chance that I might inflict pain on a plant cause me to knowingly, definitely inflict pain on an animal?
"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
-Albert Einstein
Feeling a bit insecure, aren't we?
Prove that animals do have a choice. Where's your all encompassing proof. All that pretty much academic, anyway.
The fact remains that as humans we do know we have a choice and it is up to us what we do with that freedom. You cannot set human moral standards by looking at the behaviour in the Nature in general -- the Nature is not moral or immoral but amoral. Human societies clearly are not amoral and that's because we have DECIDED that certain things should not be tolerated. Deciding that eating meat is bad would be just another (good) decision.