Data is not property, that's true. But the magnetic fields on my physical magnetic media are. If you want me to change them you'd better have a good reason... or a judge ordering me to.
My point is, did the drone actually enter the property? They state it was still over public land. If that's true, there is no basis for the "sneaking into" argument. Could they still be prosecuted por other reasons? Perhaps, but that's not what I'm asking about.
Mark my words, it's only a matter of time before someone discovers that what were previously thought to be imperfections in the design of the eyes of vertebrates actually make it far superior to the octopus eye...
Excuse me if I don't hold my breath. I'm not an octopus, mind you;)
I respect science and research but some of this stuff is just the opinion of arrogant men who are obsessed with their own ideas of how things should be (i.e. they are delusional). Remember Fred Hoyle?
What would you need to not consider it "just the opinion of arrogant men"? Actually, I think that considering the human/mammal eye to be suboptimal shows more humbleness than arrogance, at least if you consider the millennia during which humans have asserted their being at the cusp of everything. And then it was discovered that the Earth wasn't the center of the solar system, that the solar system wasn't the center of the universe... I really think that finding out that the human is inherently suboptimal is quite humble. But that's just my opinion.
...unsubstantiated claim that our retinas are turned inside out...
What would you call a retina that has the photoreceptors hidden behind the axons and the blood vessels so the blood vessels and the axons are inside the sphere area corresponding to the photoreceptors? Compare it to the octopus eye which has no extra layers between the light and the photoreceptors.
...are flawed and could be better designed - isn't what's "right" or "correct" here also subjective by your own argument?
They are flawed since they could be much more efficient "just" by having the layers in the right order, as in cephalopods. It just happens that evolution didn't have a plan at all (that's what evolution does, anyway) and, when animals needed better night sight, patches like reflective areas in the front of the eye had to be evolved, because turning back and redoing it all again wasn't an option any more.
If anything, an evolutionist should argue that the best design to gaurantee our survival is what we currently have because all the other randomly generated attempts failed.
It is the least worst that survived, not the best. If it was the best we would copy it down to the details, and I know of no artificial camera that puts anything between the lens and the photosensible material that isn't really needed there. At least, I don't know of any camera with a blind spot designed into it.
What can I say, you're either easily impressed or helplessly delusional. Even the article presents the same argument and tries to justify their work to make it seem less vain
I'm sure qualifying people so easily that helps your arguments a lot. Anyway, I find it impressive because it certainly isn't easy: otherwise someone would have probably done it decades ago. And, if the article tries to make it less vain, please tell me, why on Earth did the previous AC (I can't tell whether it was you) write this?:
Now we're invited to celebrate the achievement/intelligence of these ones who managed to fold a simple protein that would have folded itself into something far complex and useful, given enough time to "evolve"?
Either the article is celebrating an achievement and the quote is right, or it isn't as you write now and the quote was wrong, your choice:)
Now we're invited to celebrate the achievement/intelligence of these ones who managed to fold a simple protein that would have folded itself into something far complex and useful, given enough time to "evolve"? Am I the only one who sees the vanity in this reasoning?
What vanity is there in doing it right in the first try? It is a very interesting achievement, one that relies not on the blind luck of evolution but on the application of a limited set of rules.
If evoultion worked like this, perhaps our retinas wouldn't be turned inside out as the currently are (for example).
How about we stay quiet until we can create a living thing from scratch that's more impressive than the life-forms the random unintelligent process of evolution has come up with.
Impressive is a subjective quality: while you may only find a whale-size elephant impressive, I find it quite impressive that someone has managed to do from scratch what evolution might only do after a relatively long time and probably with lots of inefficiencies and side-effects.
That's not a loss. If someone writes new code, you don't lose anything. You always retain the BSD code. You've just extended the base of people using BSD code, and may well get future contributions back from them.
Yes, you have... as long the new code keeps being BSD.
There is a simpler explanation: BSD is about freedom of the code, GPL is about freedom of the user.
Actually I think you can't have both kinds of freedom at the same time: the freedom to do whatever you want with the code (and its license) allows you to limit the freedom of your users to do the same. This can be considered a minor problem (as BSD does) or a major one (as GPL does).
Let say you release a part of your software under GPL and "draw a line" for the rest, I'm entitled to ask you to release the whole thing under GPL, unless you're able to prove that the part you put on the other side of the line is not a derivative work of GPL'd part. In other word, you cannot release half of a software as GPL.
You can ask me to release the source code. But there is a problem: if everything we are talking about was completely made by me, then I own the rights to it. It doesn't matter whether I create new versions of it and don't publish the source code to them: it is my code. GPL applies to people who don't own the copyright to the work (that is you and everyone else in this case). So you can ask until you are blue in the face and I may ignore you as it suits me. Nothing personal to it, mind you.
Of course, if I try to close my version of someone else's source code which is licensed under the GPL, then you would be entitled to obtain it from me if you bought a copy of my binaries... and I should comply.
I'm sure the new security theater measures in USA airports have helped a lot in finding and killing bin Laden. Sorry, but military actions aren't usually considered security in normal parlance.
And the reason might be the invisible teapot orbiting Jupiter. Given the options, I will stay with the one that has real proof backing it up: vendor lock-in.
I'd suggest reassessing that, but it doesn't sound like your empathy is going to be engaged when you do.
You are asking him to apply logic, not empathy, so it is a self-fulfilling prophecy;)
Getting back to the point, not automatically trusting new people doesn't mean automatically distrusting them. You may just have a wait-and-see attitude. But perhaps I'm overanalyzing this and go with your hunch:)
While I can't really comment on the search bars because I don't know it you are complaining about the extra bars in the browser (which are not Microsoft's responsibility AFAIK), I can comment on the activation problems, and I fear it's a case of PEBKAC: I have had no problems activating Windows 7 Home or Pro when using legit keys. Were you doing that? On the file saving from, I have never had any of the browsers I use put those files anywhere but where they are supposed to be put by configuration options, i.e., at some predefined directory like Downloads or where they ask me to.
Actually, there were two suggested effects of excessive water extraction:
Descent of the soil, which changed the stresses affecting the fault that ultimately produced the earthquake. Thus there was an effect on the timeline of the earthquake, which would have happened later if not so much water had been removed
Localized growth of the fault stresses bringing them closer to living areas. Thus an earthquake that could have had its epicenter farther from Lorca had it near the town
I hope this helps you understand that massive water extraction acted as a catalyst for the impending (for some values of impending) earthquake and as a magnifier of its destructive power by bringing it nearer to populated areas.
Ultraviolet radiation _is_ ionizing. But not all UV is made equal: UVC (the more energetic part of the UV spectrum) is ionizing on its own right, UVB and UVA are able to ionize some materials... which include DNA.
Actually, chimpanzees also get cancer, even if at a much lower rate. Perhaps it has to do with accumulated evolutionary mutations, an hypothesis that has been tested more than once and which finds out differences in the apoptosis mechanism between chimpanzees and humans. Why these differences show up and what are they useful for can be debated: it could be a way for not killing too many of our brains' neurons.
And I say so, with the same degree of certainty the post I answered to say it is perfectly OK to write proprietary software.
but you can't force people to give their source to anyone
I can't, that's a given. But I can certainly consider it unethical and criticize them accordingly.
but take away my freedom to choose to release my software under FOSS license and I'd be mad.
As I said, I can't make you do anything about your software licensing. At most I can do what I have done: tell you it is unethical and that it is wrong.
There is no way you could ethically ban proprietary software
Of course there is: copyright is a state-given monopoly and can thus be revoked. Actually, this already happens after a (very long) time: it is called public domain.
you are basically saying that it was not OK for me to provide that online application
Exactly. You may not like it, but you can do as much about it as I can do to make you provide it. Your application is yours, my opinion is mine:)
You are right, mass relates to density by distance. Yet you glossed over the fact (stated in the comment you answer to) that the first definition of gram was water density * distance (cubed). Please read carefully before calling an argument both rational and based on historic facts retarded. It may be useless, it may be pissing against the wind, but isn't retarded.
By the way your argument about being able to choose any gas and compress it is interesting, but it doesn't even match history. Nobody ever used compressed gas as a reference for mass, AFAIK.
Slashdot Mirror
No, "my own" is the hard disk, as it is. Changing it isn't different than overwriting my printed papers with anything else (even if using Tippex).
Data is not property, that's true. But the magnetic fields on my physical magnetic media are. If you want me to change them you'd better have a good reason... or a judge ordering me to.
My point is, did the drone actually enter the property? They state it was still over public land. If that's true, there is no basis for the "sneaking into" argument. Could they still be prosecuted por other reasons? Perhaps, but that's not what I'm asking about.
Did that drone sneak onto that private property?
Mark my words, it's only a matter of time before someone discovers that what were previously thought to be imperfections in the design of the eyes of vertebrates actually make it far superior to the octopus eye...
Excuse me if I don't hold my breath. I'm not an octopus, mind you ;)
I respect science and research but some of this stuff is just the opinion of arrogant men who are obsessed with their own ideas of how things should be (i.e. they are delusional). Remember Fred Hoyle?
What would you need to not consider it "just the opinion of arrogant men"? Actually, I think that considering the human/mammal eye to be suboptimal shows more humbleness than arrogance, at least if you consider the millennia during which humans have asserted their being at the cusp of everything. And then it was discovered that the Earth wasn't the center of the solar system, that the solar system wasn't the center of the universe... I really think that finding out that the human is inherently suboptimal is quite humble. But that's just my opinion.
...unsubstantiated claim that our retinas are turned inside out...
What would you call a retina that has the photoreceptors hidden behind the axons and the blood vessels so the blood vessels and the axons are inside the sphere area corresponding to the photoreceptors? Compare it to the octopus eye which has no extra layers between the light and the photoreceptors.
...are flawed and could be better designed - isn't what's "right" or "correct" here also subjective by your own argument?
They are flawed since they could be much more efficient "just" by having the layers in the right order, as in cephalopods. It just happens that evolution didn't have a plan at all (that's what evolution does, anyway) and, when animals needed better night sight, patches like reflective areas in the front of the eye had to be evolved, because turning back and redoing it all again wasn't an option any more.
If anything, an evolutionist should argue that the best design to gaurantee our survival is what we currently have because all the other randomly generated attempts failed.
It is the least worst that survived, not the best. If it was the best we would copy it down to the details, and I know of no artificial camera that puts anything between the lens and the photosensible material that isn't really needed there. At least, I don't know of any camera with a blind spot designed into it.
What can I say, you're either easily impressed or helplessly delusional. Even the article presents the same argument and tries to justify their work to make it seem less vain
I'm sure qualifying people so easily that helps your arguments a lot. Anyway, I find it impressive because it certainly isn't easy: otherwise someone would have probably done it decades ago. And, if the article tries to make it less vain, please tell me, why on Earth did the previous AC (I can't tell whether it was you) write this?:
Now we're invited to celebrate the achievement/intelligence of these ones who managed to fold a simple protein that would have folded itself into something far complex and useful, given enough time to "evolve"?
Either the article is celebrating an achievement and the quote is right, or it isn't as you write now and the quote was wrong, your choice :)
Now we're invited to celebrate the achievement/intelligence of these ones who managed to fold a simple protein that would have folded itself into something far complex and useful, given enough time to "evolve"? Am I the only one who sees the vanity in this reasoning?
What vanity is there in doing it right in the first try? It is a very interesting achievement, one that relies not on the blind luck of evolution but on the application of a limited set of rules.
If evoultion worked like this, perhaps our retinas wouldn't be turned inside out as the currently are (for example).
How about we stay quiet until we can create a living thing from scratch that's more impressive than the life-forms the random unintelligent process of evolution has come up with.
Impressive is a subjective quality: while you may only find a whale-size elephant impressive, I find it quite impressive that someone has managed to do from scratch what evolution might only do after a relatively long time and probably with lots of inefficiencies and side-effects.
That's not a loss. If someone writes new code, you don't lose anything. You always retain the BSD code. You've just extended the base of people using BSD code, and may well get future contributions back from them.
Yes, you have... as long the new code keeps being BSD.
Actually I think you can't have both kinds of freedom at the same time: the freedom to do whatever you want with the code (and its license) allows you to limit the freedom of your users to do the same. This can be considered a minor problem (as BSD does) or a major one (as GPL does).
Let say you release a part of your software under GPL and "draw a line" for the rest, I'm entitled to ask you to release the whole thing under GPL, unless you're able to prove that the part you put on the other side of the line is not a derivative work of GPL'd part. In other word, you cannot release half of a software as GPL.
You can ask me to release the source code. But there is a problem: if everything we are talking about was completely made by me, then I own the rights to it. It doesn't matter whether I create new versions of it and don't publish the source code to them: it is my code. GPL applies to people who don't own the copyright to the work (that is you and everyone else in this case). So you can ask until you are blue in the face and I may ignore you as it suits me. Nothing personal to it, mind you.
Of course, if I try to close my version of someone else's source code which is licensed under the GPL, then you would be entitled to obtain it from me if you bought a copy of my binaries... and I should comply.
I'm sure the new security theater measures in USA airports have helped a lot in finding and killing bin Laden. Sorry, but military actions aren't usually considered security in normal parlance.
It's called cherry-picking: he only picks the data that support his hypothesis.
Man=1000, right?
When you get that defence, answer: "Well, since nobody cares I'll keep criticizing your writing" :)
And the reason might be the invisible teapot orbiting Jupiter. Given the options, I will stay with the one that has real proof backing it up: vendor lock-in.
I'd suggest reassessing that, but it doesn't sound like your empathy is going to be engaged when you do.
You are asking him to apply logic, not empathy, so it is a self-fulfilling prophecy ;)
Getting back to the point, not automatically trusting new people doesn't mean automatically distrusting them. You may just have a wait-and-see attitude. But perhaps I'm overanalyzing this and go with your hunch :)
While I can't really comment on the search bars because I don't know it you are complaining about the extra bars in the browser (which are not Microsoft's responsibility AFAIK), I can comment on the activation problems, and I fear it's a case of PEBKAC: I have had no problems activating Windows 7 Home or Pro when using legit keys. Were you doing that? On the file saving from, I have never had any of the browsers I use put those files anywhere but where they are supposed to be put by configuration options, i.e., at some predefined directory like Downloads or where they ask me to.
I hope this helps you understand that massive water extraction acted as a catalyst for the impending (for some values of impending) earthquake and as a magnifier of its destructive power by bringing it nearer to populated areas.
Ultraviolet radiation _is_ ionizing. But not all UV is made equal: UVC (the more energetic part of the UV spectrum) is ionizing on its own right, UVB and UVA are able to ionize some materials... which include DNA.
Actually, chimpanzees also get cancer, even if at a much lower rate. Perhaps it has to do with accumulated evolutionary mutations, an hypothesis that has been tested more than once and which finds out differences in the apoptosis mechanism between chimpanzees and humans. Why these differences show up and what are they useful for can be debated: it could be a way for not killing too many of our brains' neurons.
No no, they don't don't ;)
We've always been at war with Eastasia... ;)
you can say that it's not ethical or whatever
And I say so, with the same degree of certainty the post I answered to say it is perfectly OK to write proprietary software.
but you can't force people to give their source to anyone
I can't, that's a given. But I can certainly consider it unethical and criticize them accordingly.
but take away my freedom to choose to release my software under FOSS license and I'd be mad.
As I said, I can't make you do anything about your software licensing. At most I can do what I have done: tell you it is unethical and that it is wrong.
There is no way you could ethically ban proprietary software
Of course there is: copyright is a state-given monopoly and can thus be revoked. Actually, this already happens after a (very long) time: it is called public domain.
you are basically saying that it was not OK for me to provide that online application
Exactly. You may not like it, but you can do as much about it as I can do to make you provide it. Your application is yours, my opinion is mine :)
By the way your argument about being able to choose any gas and compress it is interesting, but it doesn't even match history. Nobody ever used compressed gas as a reference for mass, AFAIK.
I cannot understand how I have missed that text after reading the GPL many times over the years .