All we need now is a Truthipedia to collect the worst of Wikipedia's partisan edit wars and lunatic fringe theories demanding equal consideration under POV rules.
Anyway, another truly profound misunderstanding of why Wikipedia is useful: all compendia of knowledge are full of bullshit, "expert" vetting can do nothing to prevent that. But, with Wikipedia you can see who and why stuck any particular instance of bullshit in there - that makes all the difference.
We currently have an idea that we are considering patenting and implementing in GPL, with the express intention being that people that don't want to agree to the GPL cannot use our idea without paying us a reasonable commercial fee.
Isn't this perfectly fine under the GPL?
As I understand it, GPLv3 tries (for better or worse) to prevent discriminatory patent license deals, I don't think it changes the way that regular patent licenses are dealt with.
First of all, this is obvious and doesn't need to be restated every five minutes (with weird smug superiority, no less). It's not that we don't get how the "real world" works.
Point is, he's one of the most influential people in the world when it comes to Free Software and he's more than earned the right to dress however he damn pleases without people whining about how he represents "their" community all the damn time.
I mean seriously, the man basically created the Free Software movement from scratch, but every random dipshit on Slashdot feels the need to give him pointers on etiquette. Way to contribute there: "I know that some people like it if you wear shoes when you evangelize to them." Yeah, no shit Sherlock.
Sorry, rant over (it's a pet peeve: useless whining about people who actually do things)
You pay ever-increasing costs for your health insurance only to find that a catastrophic illness or accident leaves you in debt for years.
If a catastrophic illness has left you in debt for a couple of years, I'd say the insurance did its job. Without it, you are looking at "Destroys your and your family's lives forever".
I suppose the argument will be "Well, now it's practically free, so if I just help myself to the torrent, it's not really piracy now, is it?"
There's to be a big difference between "free" and "practically free". In this case, "pirating" something that is available for free may technically be violating copyright, but I really doubt a lot of people would be able to work up any outrage over that.
Yeah, "habit" my ass - have you seen that website?
Half the time nothing loaded, and even when it did, I had a really hard time trying to figure out what the hell it wanted from me. (I do want to give them some money, once I get past their website)
Incidentally, do they really give a crap if people "pirate" their free downloads? It seems like the point of the exercise was to get some people to pay for it, which seems to be working pretty well (last figure I was was $8 average for the downloads, including the $0 ones).
Uh, it will give you instant access to all the music, movies, and games you could possibly imagine, at basically unlimited speeds? Yeah, that would be terrible...
Given that hard drives usually have a MTBF of something like 3-5 years
Pet peeve: MTBF is not life expectancy, it's the average time between failures if you replace the drives before they are expected to die. Common MTBF are currently anywhere between 50 and 150 years (mostly made up numbers), whereas life expectancy is in the 3-5 years range (at best).
I love the way the OP makes this sound like a serious criminal violation.
I love the way you just make shit up. All I got from the summary was that they are violating the RFC, I can't imagine what kind of synaptic misfire would lead anyone to think "criminal" when they read that.
Is overzealous MS reverse-bashing the in thing now?
Science is not common speech, and attempts to make it so result in misunderstanding and sensationalism.
I'm confused. You are saying that the strict technical meaning of "animal" includes humans - fine. So how is "human-animal hybrids" more sensationalistic than "hybrids of humans and other animals"?
To me, the description seems to be technically accurate, if likely to be misinterpreted by some of the non-biologically-inclined readers. Really doesn't seem like they are trying to purposefully obfuscate what's going on, though.
In fact, the only problem may be that they are being overly technical, but that's exactly what you are advocating!
In common speech the word "animal" is used to refer to animals that are not humans. There is really no way that anyone did not understand what they meant.
1.5 million people jump through hoops to get unauthorized copies of something they can't get any other way. What do you do?
Their main problem at this point is that the illegitimate way is so much more convenient than any of the legitimate ones I've ever seen - you do a quick search, click a link, and you have the show/movie as fast as your bandwidth will allow (assuming we are talking about more or less popular things). Better yet, with RSS support in all modern BT clients, it's just waiting for you a couple of hours after it aired.
Two problems with that: some people feel it necessary to install upwards of 20 apps, it's annoying to go through them all (and the interface still ends up kinda cluttered), and new pointless applications are added all the time - as far as I can see there is no way to set them to minimize by default.
No, I'm much happier with the blanket rules (makes it feel like it's 2005 again).
Slashdot Mirror
All we need now is a Truthipedia to collect the worst of Wikipedia's partisan edit wars and lunatic fringe theories demanding equal consideration under POV rules.
Anyway, another truly profound misunderstanding of why Wikipedia is useful: all compendia of knowledge are full of bullshit, "expert" vetting can do nothing to prevent that. But, with Wikipedia you can see who and why stuck any particular instance of bullshit in there - that makes all the difference.
That's twice the price of the Eee thing.
Also, you have an impressively flexible definition of "runs Linux just fine".
Yeah, and AutoCAD - anyone know how well it will run AutoCAD? And what about POV-Ray, that's gotta run pretty well, right?
We currently have an idea that we are considering patenting and implementing in GPL, with the express intention being that people that don't want to agree to the GPL cannot use our idea without paying us a reasonable commercial fee.
Isn't this perfectly fine under the GPL?
As I understand it, GPLv3 tries (for better or worse) to prevent discriminatory patent license deals, I don't think it changes the way that regular patent licenses are dealt with.
First of all, this is obvious and doesn't need to be restated every five minutes (with weird smug superiority, no less). It's not that we don't get how the "real world" works.
Point is, he's one of the most influential people in the world when it comes to Free Software and he's more than earned the right to dress however he damn pleases without people whining about how he represents "their" community all the damn time.
I mean seriously, the man basically created the Free Software movement from scratch, but every random dipshit on Slashdot feels the need to give him pointers on etiquette. Way to contribute there: "I know that some people like it if you wear shoes when you evangelize to them." Yeah, no shit Sherlock.
Sorry, rant over (it's a pet peeve: useless whining about people who actually do things)
You pay ever-increasing costs for your health insurance only to find that a catastrophic illness or accident leaves you in debt for years.
If a catastrophic illness has left you in debt for a couple of years, I'd say the insurance did its job. Without it, you are looking at "Destroys your and your family's lives forever".
If he didn't have the annoying tendency to be right all the damn time, I think I might care about his footwear.
I suppose the argument will be "Well, now it's practically free, so if I just help myself to the torrent, it's not really piracy now, is it?"
There's to be a big difference between "free" and "practically free". In this case, "pirating" something that is available for free may technically be violating copyright, but I really doubt a lot of people would be able to work up any outrage over that.
The Asymmetric Threat Response and Analysis Project, known as ATRAP
What is this, Fark?
The extra mass is Dark Mass, right?
After all, that's how we deal with all cosmological phenomena we don't understand - prefix it with "Dark" and you're all set!
Yeah, "habit" my ass - have you seen that website?
Half the time nothing loaded, and even when it did, I had a really hard time trying to figure out what the hell it wanted from me. (I do want to give them some money, once I get past their website)
Incidentally, do they really give a crap if people "pirate" their free downloads? It seems like the point of the exercise was to get some people to pay for it, which seems to be working pretty well (last figure I was was $8 average for the downloads, including the $0 ones).
It was probably Legal Seafoods. That's right near the aquarium.
Ugh.
usenet will go the way of bittorrent
Uh, it will give you instant access to all the music, movies, and games you could possibly imagine, at basically unlimited speeds? Yeah, that would be terrible...
Given that hard drives usually have a MTBF of something like 3-5 years
Pet peeve: MTBF is not life expectancy, it's the average time between failures if you replace the drives before they are expected to die. Common MTBF are currently anywhere between 50 and 150 years (mostly made up numbers), whereas life expectancy is in the 3-5 years range (at best).
Aside from their archive of "least used verbs throughout history" where else do you find these words?
That is a grievous insult to the English language - shrive yourself or I will smite your ass!
(ok, so I don't have occasion to use "shrive" too often, but "smite" is a very useful word)
I love the way the OP makes this sound like a serious criminal violation.
I love the way you just make shit up. All I got from the summary was that they are violating the RFC, I can't imagine what kind of synaptic misfire would lead anyone to think "criminal" when they read that.
Is overzealous MS reverse-bashing the in thing now?
Science is not common speech, and attempts to make it so result in misunderstanding and sensationalism.
I'm confused. You are saying that the strict technical meaning of "animal" includes humans - fine. So how is "human-animal hybrids" more sensationalistic than "hybrids of humans and other animals"?
To me, the description seems to be technically accurate, if likely to be misinterpreted by some of the non-biologically-inclined readers. Really doesn't seem like they are trying to purposefully obfuscate what's going on, though.
In fact, the only problem may be that they are being overly technical, but that's exactly what you are advocating!
Technically they're not hybrids either, because they just mix up the starting stem cells and don't actually mix up DNA.
TFA seems to be talking about actual hybrids (they mention that chimeras will be allowed as well, though).
Let me get this straight.....I can fuse a human with a shark
I'm really curious to find out what your conception of a "human-animal hybrid embryo" is in this context.
In common speech the word "animal" is used to refer to animals that are not humans. There is really no way that anyone did not understand what they meant.
You really are just trying too hard.
Mouse knock-out models have been paying my salary for the last 5 years, so I'm inclined to agree that it's about time.
Do you see a popular buzzword in "Knock-out mouse models"? I didn't think so.
"Stem cells" it is.
In real-life scenarios, they don't safe power, and they are most definitely not faster than 2.5 inch drives.
I'm somewhat skeptical about that one - is there a non-German source for those tests?
1.5 million people jump through hoops to get unauthorized copies of something they can't get any other way. What do you do?
Their main problem at this point is that the illegitimate way is so much more convenient than any of the legitimate ones I've ever seen - you do a quick search, click a link, and you have the show/movie as fast as your bandwidth will allow (assuming we are talking about more or less popular things). Better yet, with RSS support in all modern BT clients, it's just waiting for you a couple of hours after it aired.
There's just no hoops to jump through anymore.
Two problems with that: some people feel it necessary to install upwards of 20 apps, it's annoying to go through them all (and the interface still ends up kinda cluttered), and new pointless applications are added all the time - as far as I can see there is no way to set them to minimize by default.
No, I'm much happier with the blanket rules (makes it feel like it's 2005 again).