No you didn't, and claiming otherwise doesn't make it so. Nor do your subsequent remarks that fail to address this point.
He asked what "right" I [...] had to own property
Yes, and your answer was:
I can stop anyone else having it.
Your ability to stop anyone else having it is not what gives you the right to own it. To claim otherwise conflates ownership with posession/occupation, which you do a lot of in that earlier post. However, if you own it, that does give you the right to stop anyone else from having it, which was my subsequent point, about the question you were really answering, even if you continue to fail, as I note below, to recognize it as such.
One of the points of my answer is that you don't have a "right" to own anything.
You didn't say that. You said:
I can stop anyone else having it.
Furthermore, just because you claim someone doesn't have the right to own anything doesn't make it so. Granted, rights must be interpreted in some context. Perhaps in the context of drsmithy's imaginary fantasy world view, nobody has the right to own anything. But in the real world, there exists a legal framework, dependent on jurisdiction, upon which the concept of ownership, and the rights which derive from it, are clearly defined. You allude to this in your next statement regarding the "legal concept of ownership", but utterly fail to recognize that this is precisely what the "right to own" something refers to in this context.
You answered a different question, namely, "What right does owning the land give you?". However, the confusion is understandable.
Uh, no, that's not a question I answered at all. Nothing like it, in fact.
I've already demonstrated otherwise above, and there's no need to repeat it here, despite your continued failure to recognize it as such.
> Exactly. What gives you the right to own the land ? Did you create it ?
I can stop anyone else having it.
You did not answer his question. You answered a different question, namely, "What right does owning the land give you?". However, the confusion is understandable.
These vehicles are heavily subsidized by the states where you may sell them, and they're interested in getting their investment back. California lays out wads of cash for some cleaner vehicles, so California wants them driven in California
Usually, when I invest money in somebody to develop something, I want them to sell that something far and wide and give me a cut. But I'm funny that way.
So by saying that my ability to comprehend theory is greater than my ability to solve math problems, you immediately jump to the conclusion that I have zero math ability? How does that follow?
It doesn't. But then again, that isn't what I claimed. I never said you had zero math ability. I also never said that this conclusion followed from the premise that your ability to comprehend theory is greater than your ability to solve math problems. Rather, I'm suggesting that people sometimes over-estimate their understanding of theory by downplaying the role of math in understanding theory that is inherently mathematical.
You obviously consider yourself a math whiz, but your logic is lacking.
I don't consider myself a math whiz. As for logical fallacies, you are the one who has jumped to three false conclusions so far in this message.
Typical snobbery.
How so? I never claimed to be part of the "I understand quantum theory because I can solve the wave equation" camp. I am simply acknowledging that if all I can do is "hold my own in a conversation" about a complex physics theory and not actually apply the math (or, more to the point *explain* the math to someone else), then my understanding of it is superficial at best. In all likelihood, I'm in roughly the same boat as you are, but I don't go around claiming to have a "kickin" understanding of theory. So, which one of us is really the snob?
I'm basically saying that I think multiple choice should be phased out and problem solving should be emphasized,
Go back and re-read what I wrote. I said, if you can't solve the problems, you don't truly understand it. You rebutted the converse, that is, if you don't truly understand it, you can't solve the problems. The latter is not what I claimed.
my capacity to understand theory is kickin but my math skills don't match.
The only way to know if you understand the theory is if you can apply the theory to solve actual problems. If you can't do that, you don't truly understand it. Furthermore, math is the language of physics, so if you don't have the math skills, you can't solve the problems that the theory addresses. So, what makes you think your ability to understand theory is "kickin"?
Talking about theory doesn't mean you understand it. Answering multiple choice questions means you memorized a few facts.
I wrote: Thus, MICROSOFT can continue to redistribute the software to someone else (the "Recipient") under the GPL2 license.
Sorry for replying to my own post, but I felt the need to clarify something I just said. When I say Microsoft "redistributes under the GPL2 license", I do not mean that MS gives the GPL2 license to the Recipient as the means by which the Recipient has the right to possess/use/redistribute the software. In this context, the license is with respect to the redistributor, i.e. Microsoft, in that if someone asks Microsoft, "What gives you the right to redistribute this software that's copyrighted by someone else?", Microsoft can point to GPL2 and say "This gives us the right. We're abiding by the terms in this document.".
Bruce, I've been reading your posts for a long while now, and with all due respect, I think you're misinterpreting the "and any later version" verbiage. (And if it were anybody other than you, I wouldn't even have this twinge of doubt in my mind about that.) The idea is pretty darn clear: MICROSOFT wants to redistribute the software. MICROSOFT needs a license to do so in order to avoid copyright infringement. The copyright owner has granted to the public (and therefore to MICROSOFT in particular) a license to do so, under GPL2. The fact that the copyright holder has proclaimed in advance that they intend to ALSO release the software under GPL3 does not, and in fact *can* not, constitute a revocation of the existing GPL2 license to redistribute. Thus, MICROSOFT can continue to redistribute the software to someone else (the "Recipient") under the GPL2 license. Once the Recipient has received the software from Microsoft, anything the Recipient does with it is between him and the copyright holder. The copyright holder has released the software under GPL2 and GPL3. If the Recipient wishes to redistribute the software, he may decide whether the terms of GPL2 or GPL3 are preferable to him. His choice to do something with the copyright holder's software, under terms provided by the copyright holder, has no bearing on Microsoft and cannot be construed as imposing any ex-post-facto constraint on Microsoft.
IANAL, but I really think this is just common sense, isn't it?
Gotta love the subtle differences between British and American English. If you put a torch up someone's ass here in the states [blah blah blah] if you're able to deal with your bonfire running around, flailing and screaming
A screaming donkey? Really? You yanks got the coolest animals.
When people ask "Do you believe in evolution?", what are they really asking? This could be equivalent to several different questions, and the answers that people give to each of them can be different. For example:
1) Do you believe that species can evolve over time? (This has been demonstrated in laboratory settings.) 2) Do you believe that species can fork and create new species over time? 3) Do you believe that random genetic mutations are the impetus behind evolution? 4) Do you believe that natural selection determines whether those random genetic mutations stick around? 5) Do you believe that humans evolved from monkeys? 6) Do you believe that humans and other primates evolved from a common ancestor? 7) Do you believe that all organisms evolved from common ancestors, if you go back far enough? 8) Do you believe that all this mutation and natural selection stuff occurred but with a "higher power" guiding it along the way? 9) Do you believe that God created the universe at the Big Bang and endowed it with physical laws that would have allowed all this stuff to have occurred through natural causes without any guiding? 10) Do you believe that God created the universe 6000 years ago, created Adam out of dirt, created eve from his rib, and planted carbon-datable dinosaur fossils to trick us?
Oops. I must be recalling from memory some variant of the problem, or a different problem entirely, in which the start and end points are inputs to the problem and you need to find the shortest path between them. Nevermind. It's been a while.:)
To our knowledge it is the first time that a method for the reduction of non-polynomial[sic] time to quadratic time has been proposed.
Let n = number of cities.
1. Cut strings to length of path between cities: O(n^2)) 2. Tie together ends of links that meet at same city: O(n^2)) 3. Grab start and destination endpoints in each hand, and pull taut: O(1) 4. Mark route along links that have tension in them: O(n)
My understanding is that Australian is its own language. I have it on good authority (a television commercial in the U.S.) that "Foster's" is the Australian word for "beer". That's about all the Australian I know.
... farmers whose crops get pollinated with their GM material because the farmers are now infringing on Monsanto's patents, can't the farmers just sue Monsanto right back for vandalizing their crops?
I think Gore would have found a completely different way to bungle things after 9/11
With Gore, 9/11 wouldn't have happened, because Gore would have read his Presidential Daily Briefings, and wouldn't have ignored Richard Clark for 9 months while he was jumping up and down about Al Qaeda.
Slashdot Mirror
> You did not answer his question.
Yes, I did.
No you didn't, and claiming otherwise doesn't make it so. Nor do your subsequent remarks that fail to address this point.
He asked what "right" I [...] had to own property
Yes, and your answer was:
Your ability to stop anyone else having it is not what gives you the right to own it. To claim otherwise conflates ownership with posession/occupation, which you do a lot of in that earlier post. However, if you own it, that does give you the right to stop anyone else from having it, which was my subsequent point, about the question you were really answering, even if you continue to fail, as I note below, to recognize it as such.
One of the points of my answer is that you don't have a "right" to own anything.
You didn't say that. You said:
Furthermore, just because you claim someone doesn't have the right to own anything doesn't make it so. Granted, rights must be interpreted in some context. Perhaps in the context of drsmithy's imaginary fantasy world view, nobody has the right to own anything. But in the real world, there exists a legal framework, dependent on jurisdiction, upon which the concept of ownership, and the rights which derive from it, are clearly defined. You allude to this in your next statement regarding the "legal concept of ownership", but utterly fail to recognize that this is precisely what the "right to own" something refers to in this context.
I've already demonstrated otherwise above, and there's no need to repeat it here, despite your continued failure to recognize it as such.
You did not answer his question. You answered a different question, namely, "What right does owning the land give you?". However, the confusion is understandable.
Please do not let this color your opinion of the evidence for the creationist position.
Don't worry, it won't.
(Pssssst. I knew that.)
Who?
It's "have". Would have detonated. Would have been a radiation leak.
These vehicles are heavily subsidized by the states where you may sell them, and they're interested in getting their investment back. California lays out wads of cash for some cleaner vehicles, so California wants them driven in California
Usually, when I invest money in somebody to develop something, I want them to sell that something far and wide and give me a cut. But I'm funny that way.
So by saying that my ability to comprehend theory is greater than my ability to solve math problems, you immediately jump to the conclusion that I have zero math ability? How does that follow?
It doesn't. But then again, that isn't what I claimed. I never said you had zero math ability. I also never said that this conclusion followed from the premise that your ability to comprehend theory is greater than your ability to solve math problems. Rather, I'm suggesting that people sometimes over-estimate their understanding of theory by downplaying the role of math in understanding theory that is inherently mathematical.
You obviously consider yourself a math whiz, but your logic is lacking.
I don't consider myself a math whiz. As for logical fallacies, you are the one who has jumped to three false conclusions so far in this message.
Typical snobbery.
How so? I never claimed to be part of the "I understand quantum theory because I can solve the wave equation" camp. I am simply acknowledging that if all I can do is "hold my own in a conversation" about a complex physics theory and not actually apply the math (or, more to the point *explain* the math to someone else), then my understanding of it is superficial at best. In all likelihood, I'm in roughly the same boat as you are, but I don't go around claiming to have a "kickin" understanding of theory. So, which one of us is really the snob?
I'm basically saying that I think multiple choice should be phased out and problem solving should be emphasized,
On that we agree.
Go back and re-read what I wrote. I said, if you can't solve the problems, you don't truly understand it. You rebutted the converse, that is, if you don't truly understand it, you can't solve the problems. The latter is not what I claimed.
my capacity to understand theory is kickin but my math skills don't match.
The only way to know if you understand the theory is if you can apply the theory to solve actual problems. If you can't do that, you don't truly understand it. Furthermore, math is the language of physics, so if you don't have the math skills, you can't solve the problems that the theory addresses. So, what makes you think your ability to understand theory is "kickin"?
Talking about theory doesn't mean you understand it. Answering multiple choice questions means you memorized a few facts.
I wrote:
Thus, MICROSOFT can continue to redistribute the software to someone else (the "Recipient") under the GPL2 license.
Sorry for replying to my own post, but I felt the need to clarify something I just said. When I say Microsoft "redistributes under the GPL2 license", I do not mean that MS gives the GPL2 license to the Recipient as the means by which the Recipient has the right to possess/use/redistribute the software. In this context, the license is with respect to the redistributor, i.e. Microsoft, in that if someone asks Microsoft, "What gives you the right to redistribute this software that's copyrighted by someone else?", Microsoft can point to GPL2 and say "This gives us the right. We're abiding by the terms in this document.".
Bruce, I've been reading your posts for a long while now, and with all due respect, I think you're misinterpreting the "and any later version" verbiage. (And if it were anybody other than you, I wouldn't even have this twinge of doubt in my mind about that.) The idea is pretty darn clear: MICROSOFT wants to redistribute the software. MICROSOFT needs a license to do so in order to avoid copyright infringement. The copyright owner has granted to the public (and therefore to MICROSOFT in particular) a license to do so, under GPL2. The fact that the copyright holder has proclaimed in advance that they intend to ALSO release the software under GPL3 does not, and in fact *can* not, constitute a revocation of the existing GPL2 license to redistribute. Thus, MICROSOFT can continue to redistribute the software to someone else (the "Recipient") under the GPL2 license. Once the Recipient has received the software from Microsoft, anything the Recipient does with it is between him and the copyright holder. The copyright holder has released the software under GPL2 and GPL3. If the Recipient wishes to redistribute the software, he may decide whether the terms of GPL2 or GPL3 are preferable to him. His choice to do something with the copyright holder's software, under terms provided by the copyright holder, has no bearing on Microsoft and cannot be construed as imposing any ex-post-facto constraint on Microsoft.
IANAL, but I really think this is just common sense, isn't it?
Possibly MS is obligated for "GPL2 and later" software, although that is less clear.
I don't see how. MS if free to distribute such software under the GPL2 license.
A screaming donkey? Really? You yanks got the coolest animals.
We didn't evolve *from* apes. we *are* apes.
When people ask "Do you believe in evolution?", what are they really asking? This could be equivalent to several different questions, and the answers that people give to each of them can be different. For example:
1) Do you believe that species can evolve over time? (This has been demonstrated in laboratory settings.)
2) Do you believe that species can fork and create new species over time?
3) Do you believe that random genetic mutations are the impetus behind evolution?
4) Do you believe that natural selection determines whether those random genetic mutations stick around?
5) Do you believe that humans evolved from monkeys?
6) Do you believe that humans and other primates evolved from a common ancestor?
7) Do you believe that all organisms evolved from common ancestors, if you go back far enough?
8) Do you believe that all this mutation and natural selection stuff occurred but with a "higher power" guiding it along the way?
9) Do you believe that God created the universe at the Big Bang and endowed it with physical laws that would have allowed all this stuff to have occurred through natural causes without any guiding?
10) Do you believe that God created the universe 6000 years ago, created Adam out of dirt, created eve from his rib, and planted carbon-datable dinosaur fossils to trick us?
...what their opinions are on: the atomic theory of matter, special relativity, evolution, and the round-earth theory.
Oops. I must be recalling from memory some variant of the problem, or a different problem entirely, in which the start and end points are inputs to the problem and you need to find the shortest path between them. Nevermind. It's been a while. :)
To our knowledge it is the first time that a method for the reduction of non-polynomial[sic] time to quadratic time has been proposed.
Let n = number of cities.
1. Cut strings to length of path between cities: O(n^2))
2. Tie together ends of links that meet at same city: O(n^2))
3. Grab start and destination endpoints in each hand, and pull taut: O(1)
4. Mark route along links that have tension in them: O(n)
Overall complexity: O(n^2)
what causes Teflon to stick to the pan.
I think they sent a tachyon pulse through the phase plasma conduit.
My understanding is that Australian is its own language. I have it on good authority (a television commercial in the U.S.) that "Foster's" is the Australian word for "beer". That's about all the Australian I know.
one which wanted faster server-to-switch connections at 40Gbps and one which wanted a more robust network backbone at 100Gbps
Why is the 40 Gbps one considered "faster" and the 100 Gbps one considered "more robust"?
... farmers whose crops get pollinated with their GM material because the farmers are now infringing on Monsanto's patents, can't the farmers just sue Monsanto right back for vandalizing their crops?
I think Gore would have found a completely different way to bungle things after 9/11
With Gore, 9/11 wouldn't have happened, because Gore would have read his Presidential Daily Briefings, and wouldn't have ignored Richard Clark for 9 months while he was jumping up and down about Al Qaeda.