Not to mention that positing a Creator doesn't get you anywhere, since there's no explanation for how the Creator came into being.
Have you never heard of the idea that God is eternal? Something outside time would not need to come into being, in fact it could not come into being, there being no time in which the event of it coming into being could occur.
Of course you could attack the idea of things existing outside time, but that is a very different argument.
Religious faith typically means belief without empirical evidence.
Many people believe on the basis of a personal experience of God (i.e. the equivalent of eyewitness evidence), the rest are usually convinced (sometimes rather indirectly) by this group.
I surmise that they need DRM because the BBC Trust requires that only TV tax-paying Britons can watch the taxpayer-funded content.
NO, it was because commercial broadcasters and music publishers complained that having the whole BBC back-catalogue available free would be too much competition. An earlier BBC announcement explained this.
The DRM (AFAIK) does not control who watches it, it does definitely control how long the material can be kept for, so they cannot keep a collection of BBC broadcasts. Of course, you can always record a permanent copy off the TV broadcast, so how much efect this actually has is questionable.
No its not. It is a network effect (albeit one involving several different products).
Vendor lock-in is the problem a particular consumer faces in switching products: for example because they have a lot of data they cannot transfer out of a proprietary format, or because their new camera has to use their existing lenses.
Although MS does benefit from vendor lock-in as well, the main reason for its monopoly are network effects (which it deliberately strengthens).
God demands faith. God does not provide proof, because proof kills faith.
That something from The Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy - a good bit though!
Not that you are wrong, but I think it would be more accurate to say that God only provides evidence of his existence to individuals as and when they are ready to benefit from it.
It's awesome!" but a literal-read weenie will look at it and say, "Don't say nuthin about that in da bible.
I never quite understood it either. Part of it is, I think, the natural craving for certainty. Part is simply a result of not thinking about it very deeply. Part is a result of ignorance of history and theology - for example, anyone who realises the Bible is essentially a library put together partly be tradition and committee has a very different attitude to someone who thinks Gos just wrote it.
Do the Japanese use other calenders for businesses purposes?
Religious calenders are usually used to determine dates for religious festivals, which are known well in advance and can be overlaid on the Gregorian calendar: I do not see why the fact the Eid, Diwali, Yom Kippur or Vesak take place on different day each year, is any more of a problem than the fact that Easter does. All these can simply be imported into iCal anyway.
Realize that a given day might be someone's birthday (celebrated on the religious calendar)
Where does that happen? I guess, by a process of elminiation, that its most likely to be somewhere in the Middle East or East Asia.
Yes it probably is, which presumeably means that frankShoook and Zonk think its a really good idea to explain the GPL by first explaining source code to an audience who have never heard of it before.
Pfff you are one sad sucker! Why don't you start reading more than just the British tabloid press?
Oh, an ad hominem attack - and about as off target as you could get. The number of times I have read British tabloid newspapers in the last four years: 2
My main general news sources are those in my RSS reader: BBC, Spiegel (International English edition), People's Daily, Christain Science Monitor, The Guardian, Scientific American, New Scientist.
I also read several economics blogs (my blog has a partial list), some IT news sources (/., The Register, Inquirer, Techmeme), and a few political blogs(Jonathan Calder and Craig Murray are the political bloggers I read most freqently).
The members of the EU council of ministers are elected in their respective countries of origin and (their parties) will have to explain their actions in their home parliaments.
They are not elected to the council. They are elected as MPs, and them appointed to the far more powerful post of a minister, then get the still more powerful position on the council of ministers.
I think it was perfectly clear to other posters who replied that I was talking about direct vs indirect election, because direct election is only a minor pre-qualification for the important job - and, given that ministers do not have to be in the House of Commons, it is not essential that they are elected at all.
How often are British ministers called to account for how they voted in the Council of Ministers? What can parliament do to reverse they decisions? How much debate is there compared to that over bills that pass through the the British legislative process?
Because the British government (meaning the cabinet and prime minister) love to have the EU do the sort of things they want to do, but might not be able to do if Britain was independant because of parliament and public opinion.
The EU concil of ministers, being unelected, are not bothered by MPs or public opinion.
This is also similar to software that removes the adds from web pages. A web page without the adds is like a derivative work, created by the viewer, with the assistance of the add block software.
There is no redistribution involved in that case. They have an implicit license to store a copy in RAM for the purpose of viewing the page, they are just processing it differently.
What the ISPs are doing is altering the content and re-distributing the derivative work: it like posting the HTML of a page as it appeared after going through an ad blocking proxy on your own site.
It simply concerns me that I hear the terms "shill" and "astroturfer" thrown around so easily recently. I personally believe that its harmful to discussion (Ad hominem and all).
The astroturfers also harm the discussion. They spread FUD and biased views, and also, as a result, distract people from real discussions. The latter effect is like a subtle troll.
Apple releasing Safari for Windows will increase consumer choice and the competition will help all browsers improve. It will also help web developers realize they can't develop for only one or two browsers, but instead should develop according to standards unless they want to turn away significant fractions of visitors. I see only good coming out of the release, regardless of what Jobs' intentions are.
I agree, with one caveat. Unless Safari on Wondows is better than IE7, it will reinforce the impression that web browsers are all much alike, and therefore it is not worth switching.
He has added a note clarifying that userland programs making system calls are not derivative works. That is clarifying his interpretation of the license. At the most, it adds an exemption, which is common practice.
The "and later versions" clause is not part of the GPL, it lies outside it. In effect, it makes the work automatically multiple licensed as and when new versions of the GPL comes out: so if you distribute something under GPL v2 with that clause, when v3 comes you it will become dual licensed under 2 and 3, when v 4 comes out it will be triple licensed etc. This allows people to redistribute under v2 or any later version, with or without the "and later versions" clause.
Tell me a single alternative your mom can use My father uses Mandriva. So does my wife. My four year old daughter currently uses Kubuntu.
None of them could install Linux for themselves, but they have no problems using it.
shell out 2K on Mac just_to_get_on_internet
1) A bottom of the range Mac costs nothing like that 2) Install Linux, say "this icon starts the web browser, this icon starts the email program". What is so difficult about that?
That's the same as with oh-so-many "artists" who rant away how they would rather see their songs pirated than not heard. It does not matter jack whether they say they would
The fact that the media companies (who are middlemen) are in charge rather than the creator, is the biggest problem.
That is why they are scared of internet pricay in particular (as opposed to pirated CDs and DVDs), it shows the potential for distribution that bypasses the.
Well it may be physically impossible but also essential for our survival. Thus in the end we're really screwed.
So what?
If the universe will have an end (whether heat death or big crunch) our descendants will not be able to escape it either. SO worrying about ultimate ends is pretty pointless anyway.
In any case, a humanity that survives that long is unlikely resemble us. There is no guarantee that it will evolve into anything we even like. Why should we care about it more than the species we are destroying right now?
Most of my current income (such as it is, I am still building it up) is mostly from the site linked to in my sig.
I have never yet refused permission to quote from the site for no fee, in return for a link back by way of attribution.
I would put the whole work under a creative commons attribution license, but I am worried that, if I ever wanted to sell the site, it would make it harder because CC licensing would be too weird and hippy for most businesses.
Why can't your employer just force you to work for free?
I would stop work if an employer refused to pay. Similarly, if people do not want to work without the royalties they can make from copyright, I would be quite happy for them to find another way to make a living.
I can buy discs from Amazon.co.uk. Why can't you?
Impractical, inconvenient and very expensive. I would have to go to a main post office to clear it and pay import duty, I would have to pay hefty postage, I would have to wait weeks for it to arrive, and there is a significant risk of theft in the post (which means emailing Amazon and starting the wait again). Simply to worth the hassle.
Absolute rubbish there is no such thing as a radio license. Do your research.
The same goes for all the other idiots (or possibly music and TV industry shills) claiming that the BBC has to use DRM because of their charter. The BBC has to use DRM because of lobbying (of the government, the BBC trustees, and Ofcom) by its competitors that want to hobble the distribution of free content. This was clear from the BBC's own announcement on the decision to use DRM (you did read it? No? How odd!).
Slashdot Mirror
Of course you could attack the idea of things existing outside time, but that is a very different argument.
It is not practical to expect every single person who has to admin a small server, let alone every desktop user, to be a security geek.
NO, it was because commercial broadcasters and music publishers complained that having the whole BBC back-catalogue available free would be too much competition. An earlier BBC announcement explained this.
The DRM (AFAIK) does not control who watches it, it does definitely control how long the material can be kept for, so they cannot keep a collection of BBC broadcasts. Of course, you can always record a permanent copy off the TV broadcast, so how much efect this actually has is questionable.
Vendor lock-in is the problem a particular consumer faces in switching products: for example because they have a lot of data they cannot transfer out of a proprietary format, or because their new camera has to use their existing lenses.
Although MS does benefit from vendor lock-in as well, the main reason for its monopoly are network effects (which it deliberately strengthens).
That something from The Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy - a good bit though!
Not that you are wrong, but I think it would be more accurate to say that God only provides evidence of his existence to individuals as and when they are ready to benefit from it.
I never quite understood it either. Part of it is, I think, the natural craving for certainty. Part is simply a result of not thinking about it very deeply. Part is a result of ignorance of history and theology - for example, anyone who realises the Bible is essentially a library put together partly be tradition and committee has a very different attitude to someone who thinks Gos just wrote it.
Religious calenders are usually used to determine dates for religious festivals, which are known well in advance and can be overlaid on the Gregorian calendar: I do not see why the fact the Eid, Diwali, Yom Kippur or Vesak take place on different day each year, is any more of a problem than the fact that Easter does. All these can simply be imported into iCal anyway.
Where does that happen? I guess, by a process of elminiation, that its most likely to be somewhere in the Middle East or East Asia.Yes it probably is, which presumeably means that frankShoook and Zonk think its a really good idea to explain the GPL by first explaining source code to an audience who have never heard of it before.
My main general news sources are those in my RSS reader: BBC, Spiegel (International English edition), People's Daily, Christain Science Monitor, The Guardian, Scientific American, New Scientist.
I also read several economics blogs (my blog has a partial list), some IT news sources (/., The Register, Inquirer, Techmeme), and a few political blogs(Jonathan Calder and Craig Murray are the political bloggers I read most freqently).
They are not elected to the council. They are elected as MPs, and them appointed to the far more powerful post of a minister, then get the still more powerful position on the council of ministers.I think it was perfectly clear to other posters who replied that I was talking about direct vs indirect election, because direct election is only a minor pre-qualification for the important job - and, given that ministers do not have to be in the House of Commons, it is not essential that they are elected at all.
How often are British ministers called to account for how they voted in the Council of Ministers? What can parliament do to reverse they decisions? How much debate is there compared to that over bills that pass through the the British legislative process?
Because the British government (meaning the cabinet and prime minister) love to have the EU do the sort of things they want to do, but might not be able to do if Britain was independant because of parliament and public opinion.
The EU concil of ministers, being unelected, are not bothered by MPs or public opinion.
What the ISPs are doing is altering the content and re-distributing the derivative work: it like posting the HTML of a page as it appeared after going through an ad blocking proxy on your own site.
Because the people who are hurt by this are the sites (which lose revenue), not the ISPs customers.
How can I "vote with my feet" with regard to ISPs used by visitors to my site? Is there, for example, a reliable way of blocking ISPs that do this?
In addition, most people probably do not even know that their ISP is doing this.
There were problems, but the original KHTML developer apparently regards those problems as solved.
Confirmed directly by François Bancilhon: http://corp.mandriva.com/webteam/2007/06/19/we-wil l-not-go-to-canossa/
I tried a couple of times to post an apology for saying rubbish, but they never shows: perhaps it gets filtered out as an un-slashdotter thing to say.
He has added a note clarifying that userland programs making system calls are not derivative works. That is clarifying his interpretation of the license. At the most, it adds an exemption, which is common practice.
The "and later versions" clause is not part of the GPL, it lies outside it. In effect, it makes the work automatically multiple licensed as and when new versions of the GPL comes out: so if you distribute something under GPL v2 with that clause, when v3 comes you it will become dual licensed under 2 and 3, when v 4 comes out it will be triple licensed etc. This allows people to redistribute under v2 or any later version, with or without the "and later versions" clause.
My father uses Mandriva. So does my wife. My four year old daughter currently uses Kubuntu.
None of them could install Linux for themselves, but they have no problems using it.
1) A bottom of the range Mac costs nothing like that
2) Install Linux, say "this icon starts the web browser, this icon starts the email program". What is so difficult about that?
That is why they are scared of internet pricay in particular (as opposed to pirated CDs and DVDs), it shows the potential for distribution that bypasses the.
So what?
If the universe will have an end (whether heat death or big crunch) our descendants will not be able to escape it either. SO worrying about ultimate ends is pretty pointless anyway.
In any case, a humanity that survives that long is unlikely resemble us. There is no guarantee that it will evolve into anything we even like. Why should we care about it more than the species we are destroying right now?
I have never yet refused permission to quote from the site for no fee, in return for a link back by way of attribution.
I would put the whole work under a creative commons attribution license, but I am worried that, if I ever wanted to sell the site, it would make it harder because CC licensing would be too weird and hippy for most businesses.
I would stop work if an employer refused to pay. Similarly, if people do not want to work without the royalties they can make from copyright, I would be quite happy for them to find another way to make a living. Impractical, inconvenient and very expensive. I would have to go to a main post office to clear it and pay import duty, I would have to pay hefty postage, I would have to wait weeks for it to arrive, and there is a significant risk of theft in the post (which means emailing Amazon and starting the wait again). Simply to worth the hassle.Absolute rubbish there is no such thing as a radio license. Do your research. The same goes for all the other idiots (or possibly music and TV industry shills) claiming that the BBC has to use DRM because of their charter. The BBC has to use DRM because of lobbying (of the government, the BBC trustees, and Ofcom) by its competitors that want to hobble the distribution of free content. This was clear from the BBC's own announcement on the decision to use DRM (you did read it? No? How odd!).