What is the advantage of the BSD license over the Apache license (which they did mention)?
But it is not ridiculous anyway. It details what they think about how software should be licensed in order to further their goals. Now your goals may be different to their goals, so the advice doesn't fit your goals. So what? You may not share the goals, but the article isn't about the goals, but how to reach them. It would be ridiculous if the advice obviously did not further their(!) goals. But it is totally irrelevant if they further your goals (except if your goals coincide with theirs). If you don't share their goals, then this article is not for you.
Of course you can argue whether their goals are right. But that's a different topic, unrelated to the question how to reach them.
I don't pretend to understand the proof, but physicists are adamant that hidden variables have been ruled out.
Actually, local hidden variables have been ruled out. Non-local hidden variables are not ruled out, but are incompatible with Lorentz invariance from special relativity (i.e. you additionally have to add a hidden absolute frame of reference if you go that way).
yblockquote>"Subject" and "Object" is a bad context. It suggests both a timeline and a state of transitiveness. It's a very state-machine way of looking at things.
I don't see that. "Subject" is just "I", and "Object" is "everything I observe". It doesn't imply a timeline (perceptions can be concurrent, and there's even the possibility of perceptions where you can tell they weren't at the same time, but you cannot tell, which one was first). I don't know what you mean with a "state of transitiveness", but if it has anything to do with the mathematical notion of transitive, then it's clearly not applicable, because the only subject I can perceive is my own; which is exactly the problem: There is no way to objectify the subject.
With QM, you get to have multiple states, and multiple dependencies, each with multiple states. Asking computers, which are state machines, is a silly thing to do. They think like computers. We store memories and have cognition concurrently in multiple areas. To exacerbate the problem, we have two brains in the same head-- mostly.
First, I cannot make any sense of your sentence on QM (and I work with QM for a living!). About computers, maybe you have heard of the concept of parallel computing? Heck, even normal desktop computers are multi-core today. However, that doesn't really matter, because all this parallelity gives you is additional speed and some randomness. It definitively doesn't allow you to do things which are strictly impossible otherwise (although they may be practically impossible). Note that the same is true for quantum mechanics as well: Quantum computers give a speedup for certain problems, but there's nothing you can do on a quantum computer which you cannot do, at least in principle, on a classical computer.
About asking a computer: If you want to know if a certain computer has conciousness, then asking it is the only way you might even get a hint about it. There's no measurement device for measuring consciousness. Of course your "solution" to just declare the computer non-conscious from the beginning because it is "just a state machine" is a non-solution. It's defining away the problem. If someone would build a computer capable of simulating a complete human brain (don't worry if than computer would have to have the size of a planet; that imaginary person has the resources to do it), would it then not also produce consciousness?
Macs are not computers. Computers are supposed to be fully programmable (i.e. you can do what you want with it). Macs are just big and shiny calculators.
I'm pretty sure Macs are fully programmable. You can even run Linux on them. Maybe you are confusing them with iPads?
Maybe he feels like student loans hold people back from starting new businesses... compelling people to get a full time job as soon as possible. Just a thought.
If so, he could just pay the college for those people, instead of paying them for not going to college.
Maybe because there are people working at the plant, and working under water isn't that easy. Also remember that things like Diesel generators don't like water (actually, that's how the whole thing started in Fukushima, the Diesel generators being damaged by the Tsunami).
Another thing to consider is that sea water is an excellent electric conductor. I leave it to your imagination what it means for an under-water power plant.
There is and was NO THREAT to anyone's health at Fukushima.
Sure, that must be the reason why they created an evacuation zone around Fukushima. Governments just like to evacuate people for no reason, right?
But the ejection of graphite and 9 day burning of the core obviously referred to Chernobyl. He doubted the claim that Fukushima was the same scale as Chernobyl, of which you hopefully don't deny that it had graphite ejection and burning. And since you even claim that there was no thread at all for anyone's health at Fukushima (which you hopefully don't claim for Chernobyl), you actually confirmed his doubt, after calling him a liar.
Next time before you answer a post, maybe you first read and understand the post you answer to, instead of blindly reacting on a few trigger words.
- The topic of Wikipedia articles should always look outward, not inward at Wikipedia itself.* -- Make entire section about Wikipedia!
The page you linked is not a Wikipedia article, as can be seen by the fact that it's not in the article name space, but in the project name space ("Wikipedia:"), as are the pages linked in the section you quoted.
One thing I read a lot is "modally". I hate modal dialogs. There are a few cases where modal dialogs are the right choice, but 99% of the modal dialogs shouldn't be modal.
It's inconspicuous and unlabeled in your current browser because you rarely refer to it. Most of it is meaningless, to you if not to the server. This URL is http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/05/25/1532246/Mozilla-Labs-the-URL-Bar-Has-To-Go [slashdot.org]. "Slashdot" and the article title are repeated in the browser's frame bar (and in fact the server probably ignores it). A Slashdot reader can eke out more meaning, but nearly all other users find it impenetrable.
It tells me that I'm really on Slashdot, and not on a site which claims to be Slashdot (remember, the title can be set by the web page).
But that gives me an idea: If they display the URL in the window title (and provide a way to get a version I can copy/paste), then the URL bar can go away.
(and can see it with a single set of keypresses or presumably a mouse click if Mozilla has their way)
Looking at the URL bar is basically effortless. Pressing a key or clicking a certain place with the mouse isn't. If it isn't effortless, you'll not do it. The dream for phishing sites!
Slashdot Mirror
What is the advantage of the BSD license over the Apache license (which they did mention)?
But it is not ridiculous anyway. It details what they think about how software should be licensed in order to further their goals.
Now your goals may be different to their goals, so the advice doesn't fit your goals. So what? You may not share the goals, but the article isn't about the goals, but how to reach them. It would be ridiculous if the advice obviously did not further their(!) goals. But it is totally irrelevant if they further your goals (except if your goals coincide with theirs). If you don't share their goals, then this article is not for you.
Of course you can argue whether their goals are right. But that's a different topic, unrelated to the question how to reach them.
Actually, local hidden variables have been ruled out. Non-local hidden variables are not ruled out, but are incompatible with Lorentz invariance from special relativity (i.e. you additionally have to add a hidden absolute frame of reference if you go that way).
yblockquote>"Subject" and "Object" is a bad context. It suggests both a timeline and a state of transitiveness. It's a very state-machine way of looking at things.
I don't see that. "Subject" is just "I", and "Object" is "everything I observe". It doesn't imply a timeline (perceptions can be concurrent, and there's even the possibility of perceptions where you can tell they weren't at the same time, but you cannot tell, which one was first). I don't know what you mean with a "state of transitiveness", but if it has anything to do with the mathematical notion of transitive, then it's clearly not applicable, because the only subject I can perceive is my own; which is exactly the problem: There is no way to objectify the subject.
First, I cannot make any sense of your sentence on QM (and I work with QM for a living!). About computers, maybe you have heard of the concept of parallel computing? Heck, even normal desktop computers are multi-core today. However, that doesn't really matter, because all this parallelity gives you is additional speed and some randomness. It definitively doesn't allow you to do things which are strictly impossible otherwise (although they may be practically impossible). Note that the same is true for quantum mechanics as well: Quantum computers give a speedup for certain problems, but there's nothing you can do on a quantum computer which you cannot do, at least in principle, on a classical computer.
About asking a computer: If you want to know if a certain computer has conciousness, then asking it is the only way you might even get a hint about it. There's no measurement device for measuring consciousness. Of course your "solution" to just declare the computer non-conscious from the beginning because it is "just a state machine" is a non-solution. It's defining away the problem. If someone would build a computer capable of simulating a complete human brain (don't worry if than computer would have to have the size of a planet; that imaginary person has the resources to do it), would it then not also produce consciousness?
His proof is wrong. [Postscript file]
Turn off download safe files? But if they are safe files, why is there a problem downloading them? They are safe, right?
"Slashdot Crashes and Burns in Worldwide Brain Fart"? It would be about as accurate as the original headline.
What, you mean Slashdot doesn't do that? :-)
<conspiracytheory>Maybe it's Microsoft trying to get the price of Skype down.</conspiracytheory>
Macs are not computers. Computers are supposed to be fully programmable (i.e. you can do what you want with it). Macs are just big and shiny calculators.
I'm pretty sure Macs are fully programmable. You can even run Linux on them. Maybe you are confusing them with iPads?
Anti-microsoft garbage. Written by a 12 year-old, and sparse on facts.
Who needs facts? Everyone knows that crashing software can only be Microsoft's fault.
Maybe he feels like student loans hold people back from starting new businesses... compelling people to get a full time job as soon as possible. Just a thought.
If so, he could just pay the college for those people, instead of paying them for not going to college.
I have Fukushima in my pants.
Ah, I understand: You weren't able to keep your containment closed, and now your pants are contaminated. :-)
Maybe because there are people working at the plant, and working under water isn't that easy. Also remember that things like Diesel generators don't like water (actually, that's how the whole thing started in Fukushima, the Diesel generators being damaged by the Tsunami).
Another thing to consider is that sea water is an excellent electric conductor. I leave it to your imagination what it means for an under-water power plant.
Sure, that must be the reason why they created an evacuation zone around Fukushima. Governments just like to evacuate people for no reason, right?
But the ejection of graphite and 9 day burning of the core obviously referred to Chernobyl. He doubted the claim that Fukushima was the same scale as Chernobyl, of which you hopefully don't deny that it had graphite ejection and burning. And since you even claim that there was no thread at all for anyone's health at Fukushima (which you hopefully don't claim for Chernobyl), you actually confirmed his doubt, after calling him a liar.
Next time before you answer a post, maybe you first read and understand the post you answer to, instead of blindly reacting on a few trigger words.
What about making Open Source world heritage?
Oops ... s/quoted/linked to/
- The topic of Wikipedia articles should always look outward, not inward at Wikipedia itself.* -- Make entire section about Wikipedia!
The page you linked is not a Wikipedia article, as can be seen by the fact that it's not in the article name space, but in the project name space ("Wikipedia:"), as are the pages linked in the section you quoted.
Bugfix should be more prestigious than feature creep, do you hear me Mozilla Foundation and Slashdot Editors?
... and Slashdot programmers?
One thing I read a lot is "modally". I hate modal dialogs. There are a few cases where modal dialogs are the right choice, but 99% of the modal dialogs shouldn't be modal.
What are intensive purposes?
It tells me that I'm really on Slashdot, and not on a site which claims to be Slashdot (remember, the title can be set by the web page).
But that gives me an idea: If they display the URL in the window title (and provide a way to get a version I can copy/paste), then the URL bar can go away.
Looking at the URL bar is basically effortless. Pressing a key or clicking a certain place with the mouse isn't. If it isn't effortless, you'll not do it. The dream for phishing sites!
So you are telling me I shouldn't trust any tweets with sp.am in them then?
Actually, the really dangerous links go to ev.il :-)
this is Your Rights Online.
Looking at the location bar, this seems to be idle.
Actually, I'm not sure it's a bad thing. After the dominance of Skype is broken, maybe a truly open solution will win.
Then Duke Nukem Forever. What will the third sign of the apocalypse be?
The Hurd 1.0