Which part of the DVD in question is unencrypted to facilitate this?
Point a camera at the TV set. Or better yet, just take the output from the DVD player to get your exerpts. Who said 'fair use' had to mean an exact digital copy of the original? This is basically the response the judge had in the original MPAA vs. 2600 case and I think it makes sense.
True, but according to the RIAA, intent isn't what matters, it's ability.
Wrong. The copyright holders have given permission to DVD manufacturers to decrypt their content. That means that DVD players do not break the DMCA because the law states it has to be without permission of the original copyright holder.
Whenever a story on copyrights is posted, I can't believe the FUD ratio we get in posts. It's ridiculous.
Auto-enumerating fors look very useful, and I think C# does not have them, ditto with the enums. Good work, Sun.
I'm not a big C# developer (yet), but C# does have the auto enumerating. See "foreach". I don't know about enums. And except for generics, C# has all the rest, including the metadata feature.
Has anyone listened to the commentary on Tron? If you have tried, and failed, make sure to listen past the first 15 minutes or so. They just sit there talking about why they made Tron, etc. It's all a rehash of documentary. But after that, it gets really interesting. Eventually they start making fun of their own movie. Then, eventually, they start talking in detail about special effects and it gets really boring again.
The percentage of these calls on any good dialer is usually 5% of the total connections made
Well, then most must be using some pretty crappy systems. My wife honestly gets around 5 calls during the day like this, where no one is on the other line.
After skimming it again, I'm wondering if I didn't read the whole thing. Looks like there may have been some problems with the methodoligy. Again, not enough time to read in detail, but that article was what was sitting in the back of my head.
Ok, the definition of evolution that you presented is rather all encompassing. There are definately parts of that I would say I agree with, but other parts that I wouldn't (yet). Ultimately, the disagreement stems over how much change can result from random genetic mutation combined with natural selection. Like here:
it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions
When the defintion is so broad, it makes it difficult to have real conversations about the subject. A change of alleles within a population is not something anyone should doubt at all as it is something we can observe and test. However, the small successive changes that result in new species and the life we have today are something that some don't agree with. Yes, we do see a progression in life from simple to complex in the record, but it is not gradular in the sense that we see every intermediate life form that could have existed if evolution happened the way I've always heard it described (minus punctual equilibriam - excuse my spelling, it sucks). So just to say that we see a progressive increase in complexity doesn't mean one has to come to the conclusion that each generation stemmed from the previous.
It might have been. I really should get out of the habit of referencing studies that I read about months or years before without finding the original article or paper I was reading back then.:-)
Just an idea, but including that part basically ruined the effectiveness of your point to most of the people you're trying to convince.
First off, I'm not going to convince the people that respond to me. Second, I didn't say that I believe the study, I was only reporting what I remember reading in Wired. Third, if there was such a study and it was scientifically conducted, shouldn't the armchair "scientists" here at Slashdot be happy to see more knowledge gained by science? Or does this show that they are just as dogmatic as the people they claim are idiots?
Prayer, like placebos, are all in the mind so your study is irrelevant to the discussion if it does not detail the type of people which these prayers are helpful for. Never mind the fact that you cannot do a proper scientific experiment without a control group. What are you going to do, tell the religious people in the control group that they cannot pray for themselves?
No, the article in Wired was speaking of a scientist who actually had a control group and the study was not people praying for themselves, but other people praying for them. And if I remember correctly, the two grouops did not know whether people were praying for them or not. I'll try to look it up if I can.
And as for the irreducible complexity, I happen to disagree with you. Any explanation I've heard of intermediate steps, especially for the eye, sound like pure conjecture and don't stand the test of common sense.
If someone accepts, based on the evidence, that evolution has occurred, but does not believe that the modern synthesis is sufficient to explain it, I believe that is still a scientific (if unusual) point of view and certainly shouldn't disqualify anyone from being a doctor.
How do you define evolution then? And what exactly do you define as the "modern synthesis" that explains it? If I said "I believe that the fossil record shows an increasingly complexity in life, but I believe that rather that coming about because of some completely natural laws that exist at random, I believe there is a supernatural force that guided and created the various levels of life either at will or through the specific creation of those physical laws" does that mean I "have no business practicing medicine"?
Any change in the allele frequency of a population over time is evolution.
That's the point I am trying to make. When I say "biological macro-evolution", I'm talking about a completely new species being evolved into something different. Simply pointing out two existing variations within a species and showing how natural conditions can lead one to become more predominent over the other is not what I would call macro-evolution. It is simply a change in population levels. This is not something most people would deny. What I am talking about is the formation of new traits because of genetic mutation.
The issue I believe is that strict creationists (emphasis on strict) refuse in many instances to believe the very tenets that make modern medicine and other sciences possible.
That is true to a point and I would agree. Most people I know who don't believe in evolution simply refuse to believe in a lot of scientific proof that the earth is very old, for instance.
However, if the person has a good knowledge and understanding of how current biological processes work in human beings and how viruses, bacteria, etc. work and how to treat those symptoms, they would probably make an ok doctor, don't you think?
It is unscientific because they give no scientifically valid reasons why they think evolution is not adequate.
That's simply not true. There are scientists out there, who are not "creationists" who don't believe in biological macroevolution. They don't disbelieve it because of religious dogma. Here's one example: there are many biological constructs that are complex to the point that intermediate steps would not be beneficial to the organism. Now I realize there is effort underway to explain such constructs, but that is one example of the type of scientific thinking that one can use to argue against biological macroevolution. You may want to look into the theory of "intelligent design".
Personally I'd rather have a doctor who treats me rather than prays for me.
Pure flamebait, but I'll respond anyway. I've had plenty of doctor's that I know were Christians. Now, I don't know if they believed in evolution or not, but they were extremely caring and knowledgable doctors who took care of me and my family. And as for prayer, I know there has been at least one recent study that was showing that prayer does have affect on health. I believe it was in Wired. I unfortunately don't have the link, nor the time right now to look it up.
Your Sony is using a quasi-bastardized version of DV (Digital8 anyways).
Are you sure about that? How come I can pull the video off my Sony Digital 8 camcorder and edit it without installing any special codec from Sony? Every video editing program I've used just uses the normal DV codec. Just because it's stored on a 8mm tape rather than a DV tape doesn't mean the actual data has to be different.
Slashdot Mirror
Point a camera at the TV set. Or better yet, just take the output from the DVD player to get your exerpts. Who said 'fair use' had to mean an exact digital copy of the original? This is basically the response the judge had in the original MPAA vs. 2600 case and I think it makes sense.
Wrong. The copyright holders have given permission to DVD manufacturers to decrypt their content. That means that DVD players do not break the DMCA because the law states it has to be without permission of the original copyright holder.
Whenever a story on copyrights is posted, I can't believe the FUD ratio we get in posts. It's ridiculous.
Perhaps we could get a new moderation category: -1: Joke made everytime topic comes up.
I'm not a big C# developer (yet), but C# does have the auto enumerating. See "foreach". I don't know about enums. And except for generics, C# has all the rest, including the metadata feature.
Wow, and you are the only one in the whole world who has ever noticed that too.
Of course, "Linux" is a substring of "Linux is the suXX0rs". So?
What, do you think paper grows on TREES??
Yes, just like we know that Slashdot submissions never have typos.
Has anyone listened to the commentary on Tron? If you have tried, and failed, make sure to listen past the first 15 minutes or so. They just sit there talking about why they made Tron, etc. It's all a rehash of documentary. But after that, it gets really interesting. Eventually they start making fun of their own movie. Then, eventually, they start talking in detail about special effects and it gets really boring again.
Um, what was my point again?
Kind of like someone who doesn't apply a critical security patch is largely at fault?
Tell me: do you really think that there is any software of any real complexity that has exactly zero bugs?
Well, then most must be using some pretty crappy systems. My wife honestly gets around 5 calls during the day like this, where no one is on the other line.
No, you are not the only one. Anytime I hear someone say that, I have to repeat it outloud just like he does in the movie. It's quite sad.
After skimming it again, I'm wondering if I didn't read the whole thing. Looks like there may have been some problems with the methodoligy. Again, not enough time to read in detail, but that article was what was sitting in the back of my head.
Here was that article I was talking about.
Ok, the definition of evolution that you presented is rather all encompassing. There are definately parts of that I would say I agree with, but other parts that I wouldn't (yet). Ultimately, the disagreement stems over how much change can result from random genetic mutation combined with natural selection. Like here:
When the defintion is so broad, it makes it difficult to have real conversations about the subject. A change of alleles within a population is not something anyone should doubt at all as it is something we can observe and test. However, the small successive changes that result in new species and the life we have today are something that some don't agree with. Yes, we do see a progression in life from simple to complex in the record, but it is not gradular in the sense that we see every intermediate life form that could have existed if evolution happened the way I've always heard it described (minus punctual equilibriam - excuse my spelling, it sucks). So just to say that we see a progressive increase in complexity doesn't mean one has to come to the conclusion that each generation stemmed from the previous.
It might have been. I really should get out of the habit of referencing studies that I read about months or years before without finding the original article or paper I was reading back then. :-)
First off, I'm not going to convince the people that respond to me. Second, I didn't say that I believe the study, I was only reporting what I remember reading in Wired. Third, if there was such a study and it was scientifically conducted, shouldn't the armchair "scientists" here at Slashdot be happy to see more knowledge gained by science? Or does this show that they are just as dogmatic as the people they claim are idiots?
No, the article in Wired was speaking of a scientist who actually had a control group and the study was not people praying for themselves, but other people praying for them. And if I remember correctly, the two grouops did not know whether people were praying for them or not. I'll try to look it up if I can.
And as for the irreducible complexity, I happen to disagree with you. Any explanation I've heard of intermediate steps, especially for the eye, sound like pure conjecture and don't stand the test of common sense.
How do you define evolution then? And what exactly do you define as the "modern synthesis" that explains it? If I said "I believe that the fossil record shows an increasingly complexity in life, but I believe that rather that coming about because of some completely natural laws that exist at random, I believe there is a supernatural force that guided and created the various levels of life either at will or through the specific creation of those physical laws" does that mean I "have no business practicing medicine"?
That's the point I am trying to make. When I say "biological macro-evolution", I'm talking about a completely new species being evolved into something different. Simply pointing out two existing variations within a species and showing how natural conditions can lead one to become more predominent over the other is not what I would call macro-evolution. It is simply a change in population levels. This is not something most people would deny. What I am talking about is the formation of new traits because of genetic mutation.
That makes sense. I guess it doesn't make much difference to me then. :-)
That is true to a point and I would agree. Most people I know who don't believe in evolution simply refuse to believe in a lot of scientific proof that the earth is very old, for instance.
However, if the person has a good knowledge and understanding of how current biological processes work in human beings and how viruses, bacteria, etc. work and how to treat those symptoms, they would probably make an ok doctor, don't you think?
That's simply not true. There are scientists out there, who are not "creationists" who don't believe in biological macroevolution. They don't disbelieve it because of religious dogma. Here's one example: there are many biological constructs that are complex to the point that intermediate steps would not be beneficial to the organism. Now I realize there is effort underway to explain such constructs, but that is one example of the type of scientific thinking that one can use to argue against biological macroevolution. You may want to look into the theory of "intelligent design".
Pure flamebait, but I'll respond anyway. I've had plenty of doctor's that I know were Christians. Now, I don't know if they believed in evolution or not, but they were extremely caring and knowledgable doctors who took care of me and my family. And as for prayer, I know there has been at least one recent study that was showing that prayer does have affect on health. I believe it was in Wired. I unfortunately don't have the link, nor the time right now to look it up.
Are you sure about that? How come I can pull the video off my Sony Digital 8 camcorder and edit it without installing any special codec from Sony? Every video editing program I've used just uses the normal DV codec. Just because it's stored on a 8mm tape rather than a DV tape doesn't mean the actual data has to be different.
It's Meacham (I think), and he was impeached and removed.