You have a right to copy the program into RAM in order to run it, if that copy is going to be used for a purpose that complies with the EULA.
The problem with this is that it doesn't explain how you get the rights to run the program that shows you the EULA.
Of course, there's an obvious answer you already have them via the doctrine of first sale.
Eventually all these EULAs that show up after you already exchanged money are going to be tossed out. It's just a matter of time. It's like buying a house, having a closing, then showing up to see a sticker on your door that says, "by breaking this seal you agree to the following terms and conditions...."
It's nonsense. EULAs will be held as valid when agreed to at the point of purchase and TOS will be held as valid when presented at the connection to a network.
It may take 20 years for the courts to reach this conclusion, but anything else will eventually be exposed as nonsense. After all what if this guy put in his EULA the Blizzard can't sue him or reverse engineer his software? Aren't they then likely to be in the same legal postion as him?
An alive "you" can't be stolen, duplicated, or forgotten
Haven't you heard of kidnapping and blackmail?
As a victim of identity theft don't you think perhaps much of the responsibility falls with the credit agency that granted credit in your name without actually contacting you?
Of course it was your job to fix the problem... and they didn't reimbuse your for your time, did they?
Wounldn't it be nice if you could force anyone wanting to grant credit in your name to actually call you on the phone or send you a letter beforehand? The problem here isn't technical, it's LEGAL.
Loans were granted way before SSID's ever existed, but creditors actually did research to verify someone's story. I don't see what's so wrong with doing that. Nowadays they just grant credit based on the flimsiest authentication and then destroy *somebody's* credit if they don't get paid. Do you think 200 years ago you could walk into a bank where no one knew you, write down some shit that you could find out any number of ways and walk out with a pile of cash?
There are a million technical solutions to this, but none will matter until ID theft starts costing these people big chunks of money.
A simple public/private RSA key pair (signed by TBD) is all that's needed, and you can actually change it and revoke it if you get mugged. It's much harder to replace and arm, eyeball, or family member.
It's even worse than that, they're fundamentally not suited for the task at hand. A) They're not secret.
B) They're not changable.
Biometrics are at their best when someone is trying NOT to be identified as themselves.
Step 1: Get a job as a waiter.
Step 2: Fingerprint glasses.
Step 3: Profit!
The concept is appalingly stupid. It is much worse than the current system of having to show every bouncer your home address and having a number that people at least make a token effort to pretend is secret.
So, you're implying that getting it wrong quickly is better than getting it right slowly?
This is a classic straw-man argument.
You may not want to admit it, but time matters.
Did you learn greek so that you could learn geometry for original sources, or were you satisfied "getting it wrong quickly".
if it's unreliable then what is the motivation for using it?
I suppose this comes down to a division between world views. Some of us are going to check things anyways, they're just looking for a stepping stone to get started. We're always checking, regardless of the source... proving to ourselves that both the information we're being given isn't flawed and that our application of that information is not flawed. You don't know everything, but you do know some things, so you use those things you do know to check new information.
Do you judge an idea based on its own merit, or based on the authority of the person telling it to you? If you can't understand and judge for yourself, are you really learning anything at all or are you just repeating what someone else tells you?
The irony is that this is just the sort of person you actually want at the top, and now he is gone.
Exactly, the point is not to "take one for the team", the point is to stand up and fight until the end.
Patton said it best:
"The object of war is not to die for ones country, its to make the other poor bastard die for his"
This isn't just applicable to war. It's also a lesson about life. What's better than taking the heat for someone else? Fixing the broken system and making the world a better place.
A real encyclopedia rests on authority, that is its sole reason for existance.
Bzzzt.... WRONG!
There is another key reason for an encyclopedia's existence:
Ease of access to information.
Encyclopedias are right there on your shelf and are well indexed.
Think of it as having information in you cache, vs having to look it up in a filesystem.
Some people care about how long it takes them to get something done.
Actually serious academic community bans the use of ANY encyclopedia.
Any SERIOUS adademic ccommunity doesn't ban the use of ANY type of source.
What you are talking about is undergrad classes, where they are trying to teach you to develop research skills, RATHER than always looking things up in an encyclopedia.
Hell, what if you're writing a paper ABOUT encyclopedias?
What if you're writing a history paper and just happen to metion something like the Bessemer Process and it's effect on the economy? The obvious question is then: "What is the Bessemer Process?" You're supposed to cite hard to find original sources rather then an easy to find source out of pure elitism?
Your paper isn't about the details of the Bessemer Process, it's just supplemental information to answer an obvious question. Just give one, easy to find reference and you're done. The concept of citing original sources for everything is silly. If you talk about an octagon, it really is sufficient to cite an encyclopedia article that describes what an octagon is. There's no sense forcing your reader to find ancient texts in languages they don't speak simply because you don't understand when original sources are important, and when they are not.
Stallman has said unequivocally that Novell has not violated GPLv2.
Got a link to back that statement up?
Stallman seems to be a pretty careful guy. I'm not sure that hearsay from a stranger on the internet is enough to convince me he did say exactly this.
There seems to be an obvious case to be made that this agreement violated the spirt of the GPL, and a pretty good case to be made that this agreement violated the letter of the GPL v2 as well.
The relevant text would be:
"For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."
If you buy a CD from Novell and then burn me a copy, I've just indirectly reveived a copy from Novell, but I have NOT been transferred all the patent licenses that you have.
It's also worth noting that RMS can issue whatever statement he wants, but if someone else doesn't like Novell distributing their GPLv2 software in this manner, Novell could still be on the receiving end of a lawsuit.
You can't just expect a company to decide to scrap exchange for something else.
Why not?
It's should actually be EASIER for large organizations as they have the ability to psuh updates company wide.
It's a pretty simple thing to do.
State that Outlook will be shutfown on date X.
Install new software. State that all new work should be done in the new software.
Shutdown old software on date X.
It's really not that hard. Temporarily uncomfortable, yes. Completely infeasible, hell no.
Will users bitch and moan?
Of course. Any time you force people to learn something new, a fraction of the population complains. This does not mean that the change is bad, and reasonable executives will understand this.
Maybe they do where you live, but most parts of the world, they have these laws that prevent price fixing, and companies actually compete for the customer's business.
Where the hell do you live where you have a plethora of broadband providers to choose from?
A typical American has a choice of either one or two providers, that's it. We have competition for milk, eggs and beer, not broadband.
Of course, if you have any evidence of price fixing, maybe you shouldn't be talking to me, maybe you should be talking to a lawyer, cause you could have some sweet class action lawsuit payout coming.
Yeah right. "Sweet payout" Maybe you'll get back the money that was swindled from you illegally, but probably you'll just get a discount coupon. Take a look here to get an idea of what a typical settlement with a megacorp looks like.
Similarly, if you're so sure that ISPs are price fixing, in clear violation of the law, then why bother supporting a new law? Won't they just break that one too?
This is bullshit logic. Just because one law is ineffective it does not mean that:
A) Any other law would also be ineffictive
B) We should give up and let crimnals do whatever they want
Yeah, sorry, the market was ruined by the consumers, not the producers. If you don't demand competition, then don't be surprised when producers don't compete.
That's stupid. What the fuck is this law doing besides demanding competition?
Voting with your wallet isn't the ONLY way to vote.
you let it get this bad. Now you're crying to the government for regulation.
So because it's broken we shouldn't try and fix it?
Fantasic reasoning there!
What it comes down to is that:
A) Regulation is necessary to ensure a free market
B) Markets change and so must regulations
The concept that because people don't have enough money influence the market and force things to be the way they want, they deserve what they get is so incredibly morally bankrupt I don't even know where to start. Based on that logic you could argue for the elimination of every single law and law enforcement body we have. Don't want to be robbed? You should have hired a private security force. It's you fault for not all hiring private security forces to keep you safe. After all, if everyone just did that, they could all consolidate and be SOO much more efficient than the police, right? But you stupid consumers didn't spend your money wisely and now you deserve to get robbed!
You seem completely ignorant of the reasons people create governments in the first place.
I don't see why modern technology can not come up with a pocketable 99 cent storage medium with capacity of around 128MB, but so far there is nothing else with a feature set of a floppy.
From a technical standpoint, Minidisc is exactly that.
Unfortunately, Sony has pretty successfully killed their own format.
They're too afraid of piracy, to actually sell decent products. Instead they always offer too little, too late.
This claim is bullshit.
All you have to do is click "cite this article" and you'll get a link not a non-changing version of the page, complete with all the information necessary to properly cite it in a variety of standard formats.
Please read about the subject rather than spreading false information.
What are you trying to deny here?
That creationism is a scientific theory. I agree with you that creationism is not a scientific theory.
So it would seem.... I disagree with you because I also think evolutionism is not a scientific theory.
I have not mentioned evolution.
There is no theorem that says creationism holds if and only if evolutionism is false.
So what! Who cares about creationism? We've already established that it is not a valid scientific theory, so of couse there's no valid scientific theory predicated on an unscientific theory. It's a freakin tautology.
It's funny how you accuse me of ignoring rules of science
Because you ARE! You say that creationism is not a scientific theory, but you fail to grasp the implications of that statement. Creationism is to be dropped when you admit that it's not scientific, to not do this is the very definition of being unscientific.
Your attempt to drift discussion
I've been VERY clear with my statements. Up until this posting I have made ONE SINGLE CLAIM: CREATIONISM IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY
It is you who have been broadening the discussion.
Strange why you guys are obsessed with the word "debunk" so much.
Strange that you apparently didn't read my post as the word "debunk" did not appear.
Try actually reading what I said, then replying.
There was one, central, key point in my post: CREATIONISM IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY
I'll repeat that one more time: CREATIONISM IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY
Get it now. That's the point right there. Creationism simply does not satisfy the criteria for a scientific theory any more than "I have an undetectable Nerf ball that floats above my head."
Creationism may be your personal belief, but that does not make it science. Science has rules, which you are trying to ignore.
Why the hell are COLLEGE students citing encyclopedias in papers in the first place? That's what you do for those papers in sixth grade on why Tony Hawk is awesome or whatever, but if you're older than 14, you shouldn't be citing an encyclopedia (or *pedia) of any sort. That's just a sign of poor research skills.
BUT WHY?!
Give me one good reason why I should not cite an encyclopedia for commonly availible, non-contraversial information?
I double freakin dog dare you.
People like you only say this crap because your teachers drilled it into your head and you never questioned the reasoning behind it.
The REASON why you weren't allowed to cite encyclopedias is so that you would learn how to use a library. Presuming you've now learned how to do that, there's no good reason not to recognize encyclopedias for just what they are: a convenient soure of commonly useful information.
Once your goal is no longer to prove that you can do what your teacher tells you, but to effectively communicate, using commonly availbile, easy to find sources becomes a great idea.
Exactly. I'd ban the citing of wikipedia from any class I taught also. It's made to be a starting point for research, not an endpoint. Kids these days just don't know how to go the library and do real research.
I see people making this point over and over again and I'm sorry but it's just plain stupid. There are many cases where it is simply not necessary to travel 200 miles to the nearest library that has an original printing of a primary source. 100% banning any source is just as stupid as 100% trusting any source.
If I'm writing a paper that includes doing a Fourier Transform, I'm going to cite a convenient, easy to find source on how to do one. Web sources are just that. I'll check the source I'm citing against something I trust, but my intention is to have a reference a mouse click away for everyone who reads it. It makes no sense for me to cite the "primary source". I don't speak french and my readers don't either.
Did you learn physics from Newton's Principia Mathematica? Did you learn geometery from Euclid's Elements?
People go through the effort to write encyclopedias for a reason. If you're doing original research on a nuanced concept that isn't widely understood, that's one thing, but a great many of the papers I've written include basic information to bring the reader up to speed and that's exactly what encyclopedias are for.
It's nothing but fear and elitism behind total bans like this. A good teacher would teach what types of sources are approporiate when, not place a total ban on a vast source of information.
only on talkorigins, which is blatantly a anticreationist site with a deceptively named domain.
Wow, like Kool-aid much?
I hate to break it to you but creationism is not a scientific theory. NO respectable scientific publication could be described as anything but "blatantly anticreationist".
Thus, in order to use Octave as a graphing calculator, you would have to use, say, a standard Linux distro. It presumably wouldn't run on a 150$ handheld.
Actually, back when I was in school, I had Octave + Gnuplot running on my Sharp Zaurus.
Yes, you really can run it on a $150 handheld.
Also worth mentioning is that there are convenient packages for Windows which include Octave and Gnuplot.
The term is definately much abused these days however, knowledge of "engines" is a defining characteristic of an engineer only if you use the most archaic meaning of the word.
Or maybe the problem is your personality rather than your gender.
Really, where do you think you get off telling someone that their opinion doesn't matter on this subject because they aren't female? Were you just as condescending to your coworkers?
You wouldn't be the first person to choose a circumstance beyond their control as a scapegoat for their failure in a particular field. Maybe you're actually a nice person who plays well with others, but based on the sarcastic, know-it-all tone of your post I get the feeling that might not be true.
Slashdot Mirror
Physics as we understand is is well-known to break down at very low and very high energy levels.
Neither of which are involved here.
It's not as if RF energy is something we've just discoved in that last 5 years.
People have been studying this for quite a while, some of them want it deliberately use it to cause harm to other people.
This isn't string theory, this is well understood science.
If you know something everybody else doesn't know, get it published in a peer-reviewed technical journal.
If not start reading up on the subject.
You may be particularly interested in EHS.
You have a right to copy the program into RAM in order to run it, if that copy is going to be used for a purpose that complies with the EULA.
The problem with this is that it doesn't explain how you get the rights to run the program that shows you the EULA.
Of course, there's an obvious answer you already have them via the doctrine of first sale.
Eventually all these EULAs that show up after you already exchanged money are going to be tossed out. It's just a matter of time. It's like buying a house, having a closing, then showing up to see a sticker on your door that says, "by breaking this seal you agree to the following terms and conditions...."
It's nonsense. EULAs will be held as valid when agreed to at the point of purchase and TOS will be held as valid when presented at the connection to a network.
It may take 20 years for the courts to reach this conclusion, but anything else will eventually be exposed as nonsense. After all what if this guy put in his EULA the Blizzard can't sue him or reverse engineer his software? Aren't they then likely to be in the same legal postion as him?
If that's the case, I invite you to come swim in Onondaga Lake.
Oh wait... you can't.
An alive "you" can't be stolen, duplicated, or forgotten
Haven't you heard of kidnapping and blackmail?
As a victim of identity theft don't you think perhaps much of the responsibility falls with the credit agency that granted credit in your name without actually contacting you?
Of course it was your job to fix the problem... and they didn't reimbuse your for your time, did they?
Wounldn't it be nice if you could force anyone wanting to grant credit in your name to actually call you on the phone or send you a letter beforehand? The problem here isn't technical, it's LEGAL.
Loans were granted way before SSID's ever existed, but creditors actually did research to verify someone's story. I don't see what's so wrong with doing that. Nowadays they just grant credit based on the flimsiest authentication and then destroy *somebody's* credit if they don't get paid. Do you think 200 years ago you could walk into a bank where no one knew you, write down some shit that you could find out any number of ways and walk out with a pile of cash?
There are a million technical solutions to this, but none will matter until ID theft starts costing these people big chunks of money.
A simple public/private RSA key pair (signed by TBD) is all that's needed, and you can actually change it and revoke it if you get mugged. It's much harder to replace and arm, eyeball, or family member.
It's even worse than that, they're fundamentally not suited for the task at hand.
A) They're not secret.
B) They're not changable.
Biometrics are at their best when someone is trying NOT to be identified as themselves.
Step 1: Get a job as a waiter.
Step 2: Fingerprint glasses.
Step 3: Profit!
The concept is appalingly stupid. It is much worse than the current system of having to show every bouncer your home address and having a number that people at least make a token effort to pretend is secret.
So, you're implying that getting it wrong quickly is better than getting it right slowly?
This is a classic straw-man argument.
You may not want to admit it, but time matters.
Did you learn greek so that you could learn geometry for original sources, or were you satisfied "getting it wrong quickly".
if it's unreliable then what is the motivation for using it?
I suppose this comes down to a division between world views. Some of us are going to check things anyways, they're just looking for a stepping stone to get started. We're always checking, regardless of the source... proving to ourselves that both the information we're being given isn't flawed and that our application of that information is not flawed. You don't know everything, but you do know some things, so you use those things you do know to check new information.
Do you judge an idea based on its own merit, or based on the authority of the person telling it to you? If you can't understand and judge for yourself, are you really learning anything at all or are you just repeating what someone else tells you?
The irony is that this is just the sort of person you actually want at the top, and now he is gone.
Exactly, the point is not to "take one for the team", the point is to stand up and fight until the end.
Patton said it best:
"The object of war is not to die for ones country, its to make the other poor bastard die for his"
This isn't just applicable to war. It's also a lesson about life. What's better than taking the heat for someone else? Fixing the broken system and making the world a better place.
Quitting isn't always the best solution.
A real encyclopedia rests on authority, that is its sole reason for existance.
Bzzzt.... WRONG!
There is another key reason for an encyclopedia's existence:
Ease of access to information.
Encyclopedias are right there on your shelf and are well indexed.
Think of it as having information in you cache, vs having to look it up in a filesystem.
Some people care about how long it takes them to get something done.
Actually serious academic community bans the use of ANY encyclopedia.
Any SERIOUS adademic ccommunity doesn't ban the use of ANY type of source.
What you are talking about is undergrad classes, where they are trying to teach you to develop research skills, RATHER than always looking things up in an encyclopedia.
Hell, what if you're writing a paper ABOUT encyclopedias?
What if you're writing a history paper and just happen to metion something like the Bessemer Process and it's effect on the economy? The obvious question is then: "What is the Bessemer Process?" You're supposed to cite hard to find original sources rather then an easy to find source out of pure elitism?
Your paper isn't about the details of the Bessemer Process, it's just supplemental information to answer an obvious question. Just give one, easy to find reference and you're done. The concept of citing original sources for everything is silly.
If you talk about an octagon, it really is sufficient to cite an encyclopedia article that describes what an octagon is. There's no sense forcing your reader to find ancient texts in languages they don't speak simply because you don't understand when original sources are important, and when they are not.
Stallman has said unequivocally that Novell has not violated GPLv2.
Got a link to back that statement up?
Stallman seems to be a pretty careful guy. I'm not sure that hearsay from a stranger on the internet is enough to convince me he did say exactly this.
There seems to be an obvious case to be made that this agreement violated the spirt of the GPL, and a pretty good case to be made that this agreement violated the letter of the GPL v2 as well.
The relevant text would be:
"For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."
If you buy a CD from Novell and then burn me a copy, I've just indirectly reveived a copy from Novell, but I have NOT been transferred all the patent licenses that you have.
It's also worth noting that RMS can issue whatever statement he wants, but if someone else doesn't like Novell distributing their GPLv2 software in this manner, Novell could still be on the receiving end of a lawsuit.
Why not?
It's should actually be EASIER for large organizations as they have the ability to psuh updates company wide.
It's a pretty simple thing to do.
It's really not that hard. Temporarily uncomfortable, yes. Completely infeasible, hell no.
Will users bitch and moan?
Of course. Any time you force people to learn something new, a fraction of the population complains. This does not mean that the change is bad, and reasonable executives will understand this.
Maybe they do where you live, but most parts of the world, they have these laws that prevent price fixing, and companies actually compete for the customer's business.
Where the hell do you live where you have a plethora of broadband providers to choose from?
A typical American has a choice of either one or two providers, that's it. We have competition for milk, eggs and beer, not broadband.
Of course, if you have any evidence of price fixing, maybe you shouldn't be talking to me, maybe you should be talking to a lawyer, cause you could have some sweet class action lawsuit payout coming.
Yeah right. "Sweet payout" Maybe you'll get back the money that was swindled from you illegally, but probably you'll just get a discount coupon. Take a look here to get an idea of what a typical settlement with a megacorp looks like.
Similarly, if you're so sure that ISPs are price fixing, in clear violation of the law, then why bother supporting a new law? Won't they just break that one too?
This is bullshit logic. Just because one law is ineffective it does not mean that:
A) Any other law would also be ineffictive
B) We should give up and let crimnals do whatever they want
Yeah, sorry, the market was ruined by the consumers, not the producers. If you don't demand competition, then don't be surprised when producers don't compete.
That's stupid. What the fuck is this law doing besides demanding competition?
Voting with your wallet isn't the ONLY way to vote.
you let it get this bad. Now you're crying to the government for regulation.
So because it's broken we shouldn't try and fix it?
Fantasic reasoning there!
What it comes down to is that:
A) Regulation is necessary to ensure a free market
B) Markets change and so must regulations
The concept that because people don't have enough money influence the market and force things to be the way they want, they deserve what they get is so incredibly morally bankrupt I don't even know where to start. Based on that logic you could argue for the elimination of every single law and law enforcement body we have. Don't want to be robbed? You should have hired a private security force. It's you fault for not all hiring private security forces to keep you safe. After all, if everyone just did that, they could all consolidate and be SOO much more efficient than the police, right? But you stupid consumers didn't spend your money wisely and now you deserve to get robbed!
You seem completely ignorant of the reasons people create governments in the first place.
I don't see why modern technology can not come up with a pocketable 99 cent storage medium with capacity of around 128MB, but so far there is nothing else with a feature set of a floppy.
From a technical standpoint, Minidisc is exactly that.
Unfortunately, Sony has pretty successfully killed their own format.
They're too afraid of piracy, to actually sell decent products. Instead they always offer too little, too late.
Since wikipedia is neither unmodifiable
This claim is bullshit.
All you have to do is click "cite this article" and you'll get a link not a non-changing version of the page, complete with all the information necessary to properly cite it in a variety of standard formats.
Please read about the subject rather than spreading false information.
What are you trying to deny here?
That creationism is a scientific theory.
I agree with you that creationism is not a scientific theory.
So it would seem....
I disagree with you because I also think evolutionism is not a scientific theory.
I have not mentioned evolution.
There is no theorem that says creationism holds if and only if evolutionism is false.
So what! Who cares about creationism? We've already established that it is not a valid scientific theory, so of couse there's no valid scientific theory predicated on an unscientific theory. It's a freakin tautology.
It's funny how you accuse me of ignoring rules of science
Because you ARE! You say that creationism is not a scientific theory, but you fail to grasp the implications of that statement. Creationism is to be dropped when you admit that it's not scientific, to not do this is the very definition of being unscientific.
Your attempt to drift discussion
I've been VERY clear with my statements. Up until this posting I have made ONE SINGLE CLAIM:
CREATIONISM IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY
It is you who have been broadening the discussion.
Strange why you guys are obsessed with the word "debunk" so much.
Strange that you apparently didn't read my post as the word "debunk" did not appear.
Try actually reading what I said, then replying.
There was one, central, key point in my post:
CREATIONISM IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY
I'll repeat that one more time:
CREATIONISM IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY
Get it now. That's the point right there. Creationism simply does not satisfy the criteria for a scientific theory any more than "I have an undetectable Nerf ball that floats above my head."
Creationism may be your personal belief, but that does not make it science. Science has rules, which you are trying to ignore.
Why the hell are COLLEGE students citing encyclopedias in papers in the first place? That's what you do for those papers in sixth grade on why Tony Hawk is awesome or whatever, but if you're older than 14, you shouldn't be citing an encyclopedia (or *pedia) of any sort. That's just a sign of poor research skills.
BUT WHY?!
Give me one good reason why I should not cite an encyclopedia for commonly availible, non-contraversial information?
I double freakin dog dare you.
People like you only say this crap because your teachers drilled it into your head and you never questioned the reasoning behind it.
The REASON why you weren't allowed to cite encyclopedias is so that you would learn how to use a library. Presuming you've now learned how to do that, there's no good reason not to recognize encyclopedias for just what they are: a convenient soure of commonly useful information.
Once your goal is no longer to prove that you can do what your teacher tells you, but to effectively communicate, using commonly availbile, easy to find sources becomes a great idea.
Exactly. I'd ban the citing of wikipedia from any class I taught also. It's made to be a starting point for research, not an endpoint. Kids these days just don't know how to go the library and do real research.
I see people making this point over and over again and I'm sorry but it's just plain stupid. There are many cases where it is simply not necessary to travel 200 miles to the nearest library that has an original printing of a primary source. 100% banning any source is just as stupid as 100% trusting any source.
If I'm writing a paper that includes doing a Fourier Transform, I'm going to cite a convenient, easy to find source on how to do one. Web sources are just that. I'll check the source I'm citing against something I trust, but my intention is to have a reference a mouse click away for everyone who reads it. It makes no sense for me to cite the "primary source". I don't speak french and my readers don't either.
Did you learn physics from Newton's Principia Mathematica?
Did you learn geometery from Euclid's Elements?
People go through the effort to write encyclopedias for a reason. If you're doing original research on a nuanced concept that isn't widely understood, that's one thing, but a great many of the papers I've written include basic information to bring the reader up to speed and that's exactly what encyclopedias are for.
It's nothing but fear and elitism behind total bans like this.
A good teacher would teach what types of sources are approporiate when, not place a total ban on a vast source of information.
only on talkorigins, which is blatantly a anticreationist site with a deceptively named domain.
Wow, like Kool-aid much?
I hate to break it to you but creationism is not a scientific theory. NO respectable scientific publication could be described as anything but "blatantly anticreationist".
Actually, back when I was in school, I had Octave + Gnuplot running on my Sharp Zaurus.
Yes, you really can run it on a $150 handheld.
Also worth mentioning is that there are convenient packages for Windows which include Octave and Gnuplot.
Here are some links:
then they're reasonably safe
This assumes the shells are unable to correct their own course.
which means they get a shot every few hours or they blow all their shots in a few hours.
This assumse they only have one gun, which would be a very silly plan indeed. Taking on a whole aircraft carrier with ONE gun?
Can you possibly call anyone an engineer who has no training at all in anything close to an engine?
The term "engineer" predates engines.
The term is definately much abused these days however, knowledge of "engines" is a defining characteristic of an engineer only if you use the most archaic meaning of the word.
Or maybe the problem is your personality rather than your gender.
Really, where do you think you get off telling someone that their opinion doesn't matter on this subject because they aren't female? Were you just as condescending to your coworkers?
You wouldn't be the first person to choose a circumstance beyond their control as a scapegoat for their failure in a particular field. Maybe you're actually a nice person who plays well with others, but based on the sarcastic, know-it-all tone of your post I get the feeling that might not be true.