It is possible, however absurdly unlikely for it to be passed via contamination. The concentration of HIV in the blood stream is relatively low, so the chances of infected blood entering a person, either from the mouth parts of the mosquito or from the stomach, aren't even worth considering.
So why can infection happen through the needle of a drug addict? After all, I'd expect that the blood contamination of such a needle should also be extremely low.
Your second paragraph kinda shows my point perfectly...what good is the code if you can't run it on anything but some PC emulator?
You can run it on another hardware explicitly built for that purpose. That may not be that useful for the hobbyist, but it's damn useful for a potential competitor who only has to develop the hardware, not also the software (and often the hardware consists of mostly standard components anyway). And more competition (or even more potential competition that the existing providers have to avoid being created) is always good for the customers.
Of course the CLI would still need to show you the video (so in that sense it would be graphic), but other than that, I can well imagine editing with a CLI. For example, you could have a display window above and a CLI window below, and then you could issue commands like
open "movie.dv" play <em>(wait for the point where you want to cut)</em> stop back 1s fwd 2f cut part1 part2 delete part1 open part2 play fwd 40m <em>(wait for the point where you want to cut)</em> stop back 2s fwd 3f fwd 1f cut part1 part2 delete part2 save "edited.dv"
Of course the other question is whether this would be better than a GUI. For playback control I'd say clearly no (esp. you want to stop as quickly as possible; typing "stop" just takes unnecessary time). For actual editing, the CLI might be an advantage for some tasks (especially if there are more advanced tools like automatically detecting a cut).
Ugh, I stopped taking you seriously when I saw you used "orders of magnitude" in an attempt to seem smarter.
Why do you think he attempted to seem smarter by using that term? As far as I'm concerned, that's a perfect normal term, which I'd also use without thinking about it. Using the term has to do with being used to the term, not with a desire to appear smart. Indeed, it would never have appeared to me to connect that term with smartness in any way.
That gives lots of opportunities. Imagine a porn producer who decides that he wants to force any women he wants to play in his porn movies. So he arranges for a "women's guild" made of porn actresses, draws some of their members for his porn movies, those sue, make a class action of it, and settle that he indeed can force any women to play in his porn movies if he pays that "women's guild" some money.:-)
A browser doesn't help much without an internet connection. And I'd not expect that anyone with a fraction of a brain would allow a stranger to run an.exe on his computer.
Absolutely wrong. Your EGCS example directly refutes your argument: the open fork won in features, efficiency, stability and pace of development.
Which, while true, is completely unrelated to the question of being open source. The original gcc was open source, despite of its closed development model (otherwise egcs would not have been possible).
Degree of openness does matter
Yes, an open development model is better than a closed development model. But that's orthogonal to being open source. Also, following open standards is generally better than not following them (unless those open standards are genuinely bad). But yet you can write open source software which doesn't follow any standard, and closed source software which follows the standard religiously. And of course you can write software following open standards using a closed development model and vice versa.
As I wrote, there are many aspects of open, and open source is just one of them.
That's not critical thinking. Critical thinking is about doubting. When you have to proof something (at least in school, and that's what we are talking about) then you can assume that it's true. You can also assume that anything you were taught before and which you might use for your proof is true.
For critical thinking, probably non-Euclidean geometry is best (if taught that way): It is actually based on doubt (about the axiom of parallels), and when proceeding, you simply cannot take for granted what you learned from Euclidean geometry. You start with an alternative to the axiom of parallels, proof things which just seem wrong, and then, after you have basically been convinced that it is nonsense, you are given an explicit example where you see that all that "nonsense" indeed holds.
Correlation doesn't equal causation, but it does correlate with it. If the people who studied Algebra II in high school tend to have more successful careers than those who didn't, that would seem to be pretty strong evidence that it's an important subject and should be taught.
It might also be pretty strong evidence that the same traits which make them have a successful carreer later also cause them to more likely take Algebra II, in which case the fact that they took Algebra II would be a quite good indicator (high correlation), but forcing all others to take Algebra II would do nothing to increase their carreer chances.
But what if the presentation has to run from another computer? Most likely it won't have Prezi installed. I prefer to use a format where I'm sure I can give the presentation at all. Which means PDF (yes, PDF, not PowerPoint; I've seen several cases where PowerPoint presentations on different computers had font problems; I never had that problem with PDF).
Actually there's something between complete sentences and pure noun lists.
For example:
Full sentence:
N is even, therefore N^2 is a multiple of 4.
Noun list:
N even N^2 multiple of 4
What I'd put on the slide:
N is even => N^2 is multiple of 4
It's not the complete sentence (e.g. adjectives are removed, also "therefore" is replaced by "=>"), but it's also not just a noun list (the logical structure is still visible).
Slashdot Mirror
So why can infection happen through the needle of a drug addict? After all, I'd expect that the blood contamination of such a needle should also be extremely low.
Ah, I understand: To get laid, I should keep myself fit, get a credit card, and start my own version of facebook. :-)
You can run it on another hardware explicitly built for that purpose. That may not be that useful for the hobbyist, but it's damn useful for a potential competitor who only has to develop the hardware, not also the software (and often the hardware consists of mostly standard components anyway). And more competition (or even more potential competition that the existing providers have to avoid being created) is always good for the customers.
Unless you're using XEmacs, of course.
Anyone who thinks that a command line prompt starts with a 'C:\' has no idea what they're talking about.
Indeed. Everyone knows that the command line prompt reads "A>"!
No, it's true. You can start up a terminal emulator and type your commands there, without leaving the GUI!
I think you meant: the metaphor the GUI is built around.
Of course it's easy to make a CLI which is worse than any GUI you could dream of :-)
If you write one that can do it: Yes.
Of course the CLI would still need to show you the video (so in that sense it would be graphic), but other than that, I can well imagine editing with a CLI. For example, you could have a display window above and a CLI window below, and then you could issue commands like
Of course the other question is whether this would be better than a GUI. For playback control I'd say clearly no (esp. you want to stop as quickly as possible; typing "stop" just takes unnecessary time). For actual editing, the CLI might be an advantage for some tasks (especially if there are more advanced tools like automatically detecting a cut).
So they should always know where their towel is.
Why do you think he attempted to seem smarter by using that term? As far as I'm concerned, that's a perfect normal term, which I'd also use without thinking about it. Using the term has to do with being used to the term, not with a desire to appear smart. Indeed, it would never have appeared to me to connect that term with smartness in any way.
He already accounted for the software bloat. :-)
Because the one party didn't really represent all those the deal would apply to?
Couldn't they instead pull a DDR RAM?
That gives lots of opportunities. Imagine a porn producer who decides that he wants to force any women he wants to play in his porn movies. So he arranges for a "women's guild" made of porn actresses, draws some of their members for his porn movies, those sue, make a class action of it, and settle that he indeed can force any women to play in his porn movies if he pays that "women's guild" some money. :-)
A browser doesn't help much without an internet connection. And I'd not expect that anyone with a fraction of a brain would allow a stranger to run an .exe on his computer.
Which, while true, is completely unrelated to the question of being open source. The original gcc was open source, despite of its closed development model (otherwise egcs would not have been possible).
Yes, an open development model is better than a closed development model. But that's orthogonal to being open source.
Also, following open standards is generally better than not following them (unless those open standards are genuinely bad). But yet you can write open source software which doesn't follow any standard, and closed source software which follows the standard religiously. And of course you can write software following open standards using a closed development model and vice versa.
As I wrote, there are many aspects of open, and open source is just one of them.
That's not critical thinking. Critical thinking is about doubting. When you have to proof something (at least in school, and that's what we are talking about) then you can assume that it's true. You can also assume that anything you were taught before and which you might use for your proof is true.
For critical thinking, probably non-Euclidean geometry is best (if taught that way): It is actually based on doubt (about the axiom of parallels), and when proceeding, you simply cannot take for granted what you learned from Euclidean geometry. You start with an alternative to the axiom of parallels, proof things which just seem wrong, and then, after you have basically been convinced that it is nonsense, you are given an explicit example where you see that all that "nonsense" indeed holds.
Abstract thinking, obviously. But critical thinking?
What is pre-calculus?
It might also be pretty strong evidence that the same traits which make them have a successful carreer later also cause them to more likely take Algebra II, in which case the fact that they took Algebra II would be a quite good indicator (high correlation), but forcing all others to take Algebra II would do nothing to increase their carreer chances.
I hated them. But I hated them only because I was required to write a complete sentence as answer.
Not to mention causing harmful affects! :-)
But what if the presentation has to run from another computer? Most likely it won't have Prezi installed.
I prefer to use a format where I'm sure I can give the presentation at all. Which means PDF (yes, PDF, not PowerPoint; I've seen several cases where PowerPoint presentations on different computers had font problems; I never had that problem with PDF).
err ...
should of course have been "articles are removed"
Actually there's something between complete sentences and pure noun lists.
For example:
Full sentence:
N is even, therefore N^2 is a multiple of 4.
Noun list:
N even
N^2 multiple of 4
What I'd put on the slide:
N is even
=> N^2 is multiple of 4
It's not the complete sentence (e.g. adjectives are removed, also "therefore" is replaced by "=>"), but it's also not just a noun list (the logical structure is still visible).