Have you ever seen an album with different cover art for every track? No? Thought so.
Actually, yeah...the new Less Than Jake Album has a different piece of art for each track, each one done by an underground artist.
It's actually very cool, I would like to see that sort of thing happen more often.
(Thinks about the days of LPs, when artists had ~a sq. ft. to work with)
These are some notable definitions that Stallman does not mean by free software:
1. Having personal liberty. 2. Having civil, political, or religious liberty. 15. Given or provided for without charge or cost: free seats.
This definition is all well and good here in print, but the actual usage of the word "free" in general society can lead to misunderstanding. I now know what RMS means when he says free software, but that is only because I just went and read his definition of "free software".
The problem I have with RMS's writings and so on is that he does not work hard to define what it is he means by free software. This can easily lead to people believing that free software is like "free beer".
(i) enable the connected computers to transmit files or data to other connected computers... (B) does not permanently route all file or data inquiries or searches through a designated, central computer located in the United States
It would seem that any online gaming not on a central server (like EverQuest) would fall under this law. Not sure what that means, but...
"Just because something is irreducably complex *now* does not mean it was irreducably complex at the point at which the crucial beneficial change was made which allows the current behaviour. "
Last time I checked a dictionary, irreduceably means that it cannot be broken down into smaller parts, i.e. that if it is irreduceably complex now, it has always been irreduceably complex since the beginning of time.
I find it interesting that you would refer to those people who would ban the teaching of evolution in public school "nuts." Professors and teachers of evolution themselves admit that it is nothing more than a theory. Creationism is also, admitted by the professors of said doctrine, to also be a theory. What makes it right for the kids to arbitrarily learn only one of these theories. It seems that under the First Amendment, that both theories should be taught, and let everyone decide for themselves. This seems to be yet another instance of the government telling us what we should think.
As always, and as you stated, evolution is a theory. There is easily as much evidence, if not more, of the same type for the theory of creationism. It seems kind of narrow minded to categorically throw out the theory of creationism all together, without looking at the evidence for both.
siggidy.sig and so on
Slashdot Mirror
How do you figure? The music really belongs to the person who created it, regardless of copyrights or anything else.
Have you ever seen an album with different cover art for every track? No? Thought so. Actually, yeah...the new Less Than Jake Album has a different piece of art for each track, each one done by an underground artist. It's actually very cool, I would like to see that sort of thing happen more often. (Thinks about the days of LPs, when artists had ~a sq. ft. to work with)
Just build a self-destruct button into the watch. See someone messing with your laptop? Blow it up in their face. Sure sounds like fun.
This definition is all well and good here in print, but the actual usage of the word "free" in general society can lead to misunderstanding. I now know what RMS means when he says free software, but that is only because I just went and read his definition of "free software".
The problem I have with RMS's writings and so on is that he does not work hard to define what it is he means by free software. This can easily lead to people believing that free software is like "free beer".
It would seem that any online gaming not on a central server (like EverQuest) would fall under this law. Not sure what that means, but...
"Just because something is irreducably complex *now* does not mean it was irreducably complex at the point at which the crucial beneficial change was made which allows the current behaviour. " Last time I checked a dictionary, irreduceably means that it cannot be broken down into smaller parts, i.e. that if it is irreduceably complex now, it has always been irreduceably complex since the beginning of time.
I find it interesting that you would refer to those people who would ban the teaching of evolution in public school "nuts." Professors and teachers of evolution themselves admit that it is nothing more than a theory. Creationism is also, admitted by the professors of said doctrine, to also be a theory. What makes it right for the kids to arbitrarily learn only one of these theories. It seems that under the First Amendment, that both theories should be taught, and let everyone decide for themselves. This seems to be yet another instance of the government telling us what we should think.
As always, and as you stated, evolution is a theory. There is easily as much evidence, if not more, of the same type for the theory of creationism. It seems kind of narrow minded to categorically throw out the theory of creationism all together, without looking at the evidence for both. siggidy .sig and so on
Actually, statistics show that 77% of statistics are made up on the spot