(5) There is no quick and easy way to uninstall these programs, either from Sony BMG or the so-called anti-virus/spyware/adware companies. Jury is out on whether collusion or incompetence is to blame.
I would venture a third guess, which is fear of blundering into the DMCA. It's not inconceivable that software that uninstalls the DRM functionality could be considered a circumvention tool. And for that matter, any attempt to manually remove this crap from one's own machine might be considered circumvention.
I am not a lawyer, and this is not intended to be taken as legal advice.
1) The brake pads will wear less because of regenerative braking
It seems to me that a hybrid's greater weight would create an opposing effect. The end result then depends on which effect is bigger: the benefit of converting a smaller portion of the car's kinetic energy to heat at the brake pads, or the cost of having more kinetic energy to convert in the first place.
Same applies to your engine wear claims. Which is the bigger effect? Load sharing and lighter engine, or having a greater mass to accelerate?
You may be right. But I won't be convinced of it without some additional supporting information.
The Senate is there to provide each state with equal representation. Each state gets 2 senators.
That's true, but it has always struck me as being a bit screwey. I see no reason why states should have equal representation. Citizens should have equal representation. By equalizing state representation, representation of citizens is made unequal. In some cases, grossly unequal. As a resident of the second most populous state (Texas), I have only about 1/42nd as much representation in the Senate as does a resident of the least populous state (Wyoming). Californians have even less representation at about 1/68th, and New Yorkers only slightly better at 1/38th.
That seems pretty unjust to me. Representation should belong to people, not land.
God Forbid the student's may run across people who might post ideas that run counter to the church
Heh, that reminds me of a cartoon I saw in a magazine many years ago (like 20 or so). A woman is in a school principal's office, chewing out the principal for corrupting her child's morals. The principal says "What did I do?". She replies "You taught him to read!".
Re:Watch a little more closely ...
on
Deep in the Core
·
· Score: 1
I think you missed my point. As Trinn said, the interesting thing here is not the slingshot effect, but that an orbit that large with such a short period requires an extraordinarily large mass. Vastly more than the much smaller yet much longer period Pluto/Sun orbit, even considering that this star itself contributes much more mass to the orbital system than does Pluto. I'm well aware that all orbits are eliptical and obey Kepler's equal area in equal time law. With only a little thought, it's fairly intiutive that an orbit will speed up as the objects draw near, and slow down as they separate, even without reference to Kepler. I'm no scientist, but I'm not quite the ignoramus you seem to have assumed me to be.
Re:Watch a little more closely ...
on
Deep in the Core
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
So if a star (and just think how much mass is in a star compared to you) orbits something in 15 years, you don't think it's just a bit interesting that it covers about half of its entire orbit in one fifteenth of the total time?
Good point. Also consider that Pluto orbits the sun once every 248 years. This star's nearest approach to the object is about 3 times the distance from pluto to the sun, and since it has an extremely eliptical orbit, it spends most of its time much further away than even that. For it to orbit in 15 years, and to cover the near half of that orbit in only about 1 year, means that the thing it's orbiting is incredibly massive. Even if it isn't a black hole, and even if the fundamental ideas about black holes turned out to be very wrong, you can still bet that, whatever it is, it is something that is similarly strange and interesting.
Sometimes it's about greed coupled with low ethics. Same motive as most other kinds of extortion. And occasionally, it's about fair compensation and/or punishment for a legitimate wrong. But outside of laissez-faire fantasy-land, it's rarely about envy.
"They're just jealous because they're not as successful as us" is, more often than not, a dodge used by those who find themselves facing legitimate criticism and/or charges.
If it was really about envy, IBM and Google would be as much despised as Microsoft.
What pisses off people who believe in intelligent design is not people who don't believe in intelligent design, but people who are trying to completely erase their beliefs from the curriculum.
ID proponets' religious beliefs do not belong in a science curriculum. Only science belongs in a science curriculum. Keeping ID out of a science curriculum is no different from keeping astrology or faith healing out of a science curriculum. It just doesn't belong there.
... and people trying to erase intelligent design from the curriculum are just as close-minded and just as guilty of forcing their beliefs on others as those who try to erase evolutionary theory from the curiculum
Apples and oranges. Evolutionary theory is science. ID is not. If these "close-minded" pro-science people were trying to ban discussion of creationism from comparative religion classes, or requiring promotion of evolution in such, then you'd have a valid comparison. But that isn't what's happening.
The two sides of this issue are not equivalent. Not by a long shot. The "forcing of beliefs on others" is coming exclusively from the ID camp. You're not required to believe in evolution any more than you're required to believe in plate tectonics. They're just proper topics to cover in a science curriculum. If ID is to be covered at all in a publicly funded school, it should be in a comparative religion class and should be called what it is: a religious belief. I have no issue with you voicing your religious beliefs. But I vehemently object to your attempts to lie to my child and undermine her understanding of science. Even moreso when teachers are being pressured, and even required to propagate these lies.
Oddly, you cannot have a scientific mindset about religious topics. If you try to (for instance) deny the existence of a deity because of your 'scientific' mindset, then you are not in fact exhibiting a scientific mindset. Science has nothing to do with the supernatural, for or against.
I mostly agree with the point you're making, but not necessarily with your example. A "scientific mindset" regarding the existence of a deity does not conclude that deities (or more specifically, creators) can not exist *, but only that we have not adequate evidence to conclude that one does. "I don't know" can be a very scientific answer. Much more so than claiming certainty about knowlege that one does not actually posess.
As to the existence of a deity being a "supernatural" matter, I'd have to say that if a "deity" could be scientifically shown to exist, then it could no longer be considered supernatural at all. "Supernatural" is a word that we apply to that which is either outside of our knowlege, or that which does not exist. If it is objectively and demonstrably real, then what else would it be but a part of nature? The word "nature" is a lot like the word "universe". It expands to encompass whatever we have knowlege of. I suspect that this "deity" would also cease to be thought of as a deity, along with it's demotion from the misterious world of the supernatural (or promotion, depending on your point of view).
But I do agree that it is possible for a person to posess a religious mindset about religious matters, yet still be capable of approaching scientific matters scientifically. If that were not possible, a great many accomplished scientists could not have existed.
* One can reasonably conclude that a specific deity (as opposed to deities in general) does not exist, if the definition of that deity includes characteristics that are readily testable.
But anyone could break it open and tap off the analogue from the speaker wires. Unless they weld the
whole speaker box up.
Or more likely some kind of anti-tampering arangement that makes it stop working when you try to open it. Then you toss it in a dumpster and buy a new one so you don't get charge you with violating the DMCA when you bring it in for repair.
Not to mention, how many people rent a DVD, watch it, and then tell their friend "That was a GREAT movie...you HAVE to come over and watch it." They then procede to watch the DVD a second time. Something you can't do with a Self-Destructing DVD.
I think that's one of the selling points. (The "customer" being the movie industry, not you or me.)
Companies buy MS Office licenses. Probably the vast majority of MS Office licenses. And that's not likely to change just to facilitate a switch to Linux desktops. But it's also not likely to change just because some of their users are running it on Linux instead of Windows (if a Linux version existed). I think that if a company's MS Office site license included both Windows and Linux versions, the resistance to allowing at least some of their users to switch to Linux desktops would be reduced. So, Office for Windows might not "drive" linux adoption, but it would remove a significant road block.
Of course, that's not the only road block. So, all by itself, it wouldn't magically make Linux a viable desktop OS for everyone. But it would almost certainly result in SOME increase in useage. It wouldn't be overwhelming, but it might be enough for other software publishers to start feeling some pressure to support it. It doesn't have to be a majority to be worth supporting. A significant minority market share, say 20%, would be hard for software vendors to ignore. Because many environments are mixed, ignoring 20% of the platforms could drive away much more than 20% of your customers. All else being equal, which are they going to choose: a product that supports 80% of their desktops, or one that supports 100% of their desktops? And as it gains wider support, that paves the way for growing even more market share. Though I would actually hope that it never achieves quite the dominance that MS enjoys. Diversity and competition are good things.
"Office for Linux" may not be enough to get Linux to that point. But it would be a very good step in that direction.
The numbers (and growth in adoption of Linux in government and the enterprise) tell me that Firefox is here to stay.
Agreed. If total size of the market hasn't changed, then Firefox's market share growth from 6.75% to 7.86% would translate to an absolute growth of about 16.4% in 5 months (more if the market itself grew any). Keep that up for another 10 months and it's over 35% growth in less than a year. That doesn't seem too shabby to me.
The vile odour present in the domestic natural gas supply is due to the deliberate addition of a stenching agent such as an ethyl mercaptan. Of course, the purpose of the stenching agent is to alert people to the presence of uncombusted gas.
Slashdot Mirror
Same applies to your engine wear claims. Which is the bigger effect? Load sharing and lighter engine, or having a greater mass to accelerate?
You may be right. But I won't be convinced of it without some additional supporting information.
(I'm kidding. Just in case that wasn't obvious enough.)
That seems pretty unjust to me. Representation should belong to people, not land.
I think you missed my point. As Trinn said, the interesting thing here is not the slingshot effect, but that an orbit that large with such a short period requires an extraordinarily large mass. Vastly more than the much smaller yet much longer period Pluto/Sun orbit, even considering that this star itself contributes much more mass to the orbital system than does Pluto. I'm well aware that all orbits are eliptical and obey Kepler's equal area in equal time law. With only a little thought, it's fairly intiutive that an orbit will speed up as the objects draw near, and slow down as they separate, even without reference to Kepler. I'm no scientist, but I'm not quite the ignoramus you seem to have assumed me to be.
Sometimes it's about greed coupled with low ethics. Same motive as most other kinds of extortion. And occasionally, it's about fair compensation and/or punishment for a legitimate wrong. But outside of laissez-faire fantasy-land, it's rarely about envy.
"They're just jealous because they're not as successful as us" is, more often than not, a dodge used by those who find themselves facing legitimate criticism and/or charges.
If it was really about envy, IBM and Google would be as much despised as Microsoft.
The two sides of this issue are not equivalent. Not by a long shot. The "forcing of beliefs on others" is coming exclusively from the ID camp. You're not required to believe in evolution any more than you're required to believe in plate tectonics. They're just proper topics to cover in a science curriculum. If ID is to be covered at all in a publicly funded school, it should be in a comparative religion class and should be called what it is: a religious belief. I have no issue with you voicing your religious beliefs. But I vehemently object to your attempts to lie to my child and undermine her understanding of science. Even moreso when teachers are being pressured, and even required to propagate these lies.
As to the existence of a deity being a "supernatural" matter, I'd have to say that if a "deity" could be scientifically shown to exist, then it could no longer be considered supernatural at all. "Supernatural" is a word that we apply to that which is either outside of our knowlege, or that which does not exist. If it is objectively and demonstrably real, then what else would it be but a part of nature? The word "nature" is a lot like the word "universe". It expands to encompass whatever we have knowlege of. I suspect that this "deity" would also cease to be thought of as a deity, along with it's demotion from the misterious world of the supernatural (or promotion, depending on your point of view).
But I do agree that it is possible for a person to posess a religious mindset about religious matters, yet still be capable of approaching scientific matters scientifically. If that were not possible, a great many accomplished scientists could not have existed.
* One can reasonably conclude that a specific deity (as opposed to deities in general) does not exist, if the definition of that deity includes characteristics that are readily testable.
Companies buy MS Office licenses. Probably the vast majority of MS Office licenses. And that's not likely to change just to facilitate a switch to Linux desktops. But it's also not likely to change just because some of their users are running it on Linux instead of Windows (if a Linux version existed). I think that if a company's MS Office site license included both Windows and Linux versions, the resistance to allowing at least some of their users to switch to Linux desktops would be reduced. So, Office for Windows might not "drive" linux adoption, but it would remove a significant road block.
Of course, that's not the only road block. So, all by itself, it wouldn't magically make Linux a viable desktop OS for everyone. But it would almost certainly result in SOME increase in useage. It wouldn't be overwhelming, but it might be enough for other software publishers to start feeling some pressure to support it. It doesn't have to be a majority to be worth supporting. A significant minority market share, say 20%, would be hard for software vendors to ignore. Because many environments are mixed, ignoring 20% of the platforms could drive away much more than 20% of your customers. All else being equal, which are they going to choose: a product that supports 80% of their desktops, or one that supports 100% of their desktops? And as it gains wider support, that paves the way for growing even more market share. Though I would actually hope that it never achieves quite the dominance that MS enjoys. Diversity and competition are good things.
"Office for Linux" may not be enough to get Linux to that point. But it would be a very good step in that direction.
Yeah, it certainly could have been worse. From the subject line I was expecting: "... a beowulf cluster of these."
Does anyone mistake vandalism for theft?
Those would go great on one of these.
That happens with hardware too.
It looks like you missed the memo. This is supposed to be a discussion about the missing editions.
That will work.
Thanks.