It seems Stallman is exposing the ridiculousness of his own arguments. It's immoral to write bad code! Those one letter variable names you're so fond of? They take away the childrens' freedom!
No, you're ALWAYS entitled to replace their javascript with something of your own. It doesn't matter whether it's free or not.
There are disadvantages to using software that you don't have the source for. Personally, I think those disadvantages are balanced with advantages for most people, most of the time. But for javascript the only disadvantage to proprietary code is that the owner of the website has to pay to use it. It doesn't affect the user's freedom in any way. This is just the FSF trying to push people around because "stuff you pay for bad."
Well, if you're asking me for money and you say "if you give me $20 now I might give you back $25 in twenty or twenty-five years" I'm probably not going to give you any money. If you say the same thing but with "... in five years" in front of it, I'm more likely to take you up on it.
In bigger picture terms, if it's going to take you twenty years worth of two or three year product cycles to start making a profit, there are two likely scenarios: 1) profit margins in that industry are razor thin and competition is fierce or 2) you're going to throw money at the problem and hope everyone else quits. If (1), why bother? If (2), why bother?
You should get out more. You mentioned parks and stadiums. There are lots of public buildings other than courthouses, including government offices, public bus terminals, subway stations, community centres, museums, fire halls, police stations, military installations including ships and aircraft, public universities (which in many countries are virtually all of them), and public schools. Lots of cities also have public toilets downtown and in tourist areas. Also, related to gyms, here in Canada we don't have many public weight gyms but most community pools are publicly owned, as well as many tennis courts, baseball/football/soccer/etc. fields, arenas, curling rinks and rec centres. Fitness and recreation facilities that are part of schools and universities are also frequently publicly owned.
Also, toilets and changing facilities located on private property but that are intended for customer use, such as the bathroom in Subway, may be governed by laws that are essentially the same as for actual public toilets with minor exceptions.
True. But as soon as we manage to ditch DirectX it won't even be a different API. Consoles moving to less custom hardware will probably also involve them moving to more standard APIs, ditching their one-off almost-openGLs for the real thing.
The other way around. The maximum resolution of a lens is limited by diffraction. The only way around that limitation is to increase the number of lenses (compound eyes), or increase the size (simple eyes). Increasing the number is a simple solution and works pretty well when you're tiny and so can't have high resolution vision anyway. As you get bigger, the increase-the-size-of-the-lens solution becomes much more efficient, so most bigger organisms have simple eyes. If humans had compound eyes, they would have to be ridiculously large (the size of a house, by one estimation) to give equivalent resolution: http://web.neurobio.arizona.edu/gronenberg/nrsc581/eyedesign/visualacuity.pdf.
Sure. They listen to music on their phones. Their smart phones. Their pocket-sized personal computers they carry around everywhere and store all their information on.
Absolutely. This study isn't about that. They used a sensitive test for bias. If you don't like fat people (like the majority of the population) then you'll likely test positive. That has nothing to do with how you treat fat people. What they're saying is that med students should be taught about anti-fat bias to make sure that, despite their quite natural biases, they're treating fat people well. They're already taught to manage their biases against assholes, mass murderers and other difficult patients.
I'm pretty sure it is. You can verify this for yourself by going outside twice a day. It's particularly evident if one of those times is, for example, around noon and the other is around midnight. You can also verify other types of movement by watching for the maximum height the sun achieves each day, and by checking it's position relative to the background stars.
More seriously, recognizing the Sun's movement relative to... the galaxy presumably, and the factors controlling that movement, is important to debunking the OP. Illustrative of this, someone made a very pretty, but physically inaccurate, rendering of the sun flying through the galaxy with the Earth trailing along behind it and uploaded it to YouTube in support of his "vortex gravity" theory: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/04/vortex_motion_viral_video_showing_sun_s_motion_through_galaxy_is_wrong.html.
"We've had great difficulty duplicating that on a smaller scale."
and the OP's:
"...difficulties in containing a stable reaction using equipment a bit more compact than a star."
We don't have any problem getting the temperatures and pressures necessary for fusion. You can do that on your kitchen table as a high school science fair project if you want to deal with the alarmist fallout. We have trouble getting the temperatures and pressures necessary for fusion without using more energy than we get out of the fusion reaction. The Sun keeps beating us on over-breakeven fusion because it gets the containment for free. Gravity, on the scale of a star, makes an ideal fusion containment field.
For a period of time. Each collision changes velocities and some (most, actually) of those changes will act to lower orbits, reducing the amount of mass in orbit. I don't know what the half life is though.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems Stallman is exposing the ridiculousness of his own arguments. It's immoral to write bad code! Those one letter variable names you're so fond of? They take away the childrens' freedom!
No, you're ALWAYS entitled to replace their javascript with something of your own. It doesn't matter whether it's free or not.
There are disadvantages to using software that you don't have the source for. Personally, I think those disadvantages are balanced with advantages for most people, most of the time. But for javascript the only disadvantage to proprietary code is that the owner of the website has to pay to use it. It doesn't affect the user's freedom in any way. This is just the FSF trying to push people around because "stuff you pay for bad."
Nope, I grew up in western Canada and Europe was always in the middle. Its the orientation that involves cutting the least amount of land.
These "centre good" and "up good" prejudices never occurred to us.
Hey, pointless racism! Awesome!
Perhaps everyone uses English because you can talk to anyone, regardless of their name, using it.
Correction, thirty years. Plus.
Translating a movie from twenty years ago seems like the perfect way to do it!
Well, if you're asking me for money and you say "if you give me $20 now I might give you back $25 in twenty or twenty-five years" I'm probably not going to give you any money. If you say the same thing but with "... in five years" in front of it, I'm more likely to take you up on it.
In bigger picture terms, if it's going to take you twenty years worth of two or three year product cycles to start making a profit, there are two likely scenarios: 1) profit margins in that industry are razor thin and competition is fierce or 2) you're going to throw money at the problem and hope everyone else quits. If (1), why bother? If (2), why bother?
You should get out more. You mentioned parks and stadiums. There are lots of public buildings other than courthouses, including government offices, public bus terminals, subway stations, community centres, museums, fire halls, police stations, military installations including ships and aircraft, public universities (which in many countries are virtually all of them), and public schools. Lots of cities also have public toilets downtown and in tourist areas. Also, related to gyms, here in Canada we don't have many public weight gyms but most community pools are publicly owned, as well as many tennis courts, baseball/football/soccer/etc. fields, arenas, curling rinks and rec centres. Fitness and recreation facilities that are part of schools and universities are also frequently publicly owned.
Also, toilets and changing facilities located on private property but that are intended for customer use, such as the bathroom in Subway, may be governed by laws that are essentially the same as for actual public toilets with minor exceptions.
True. But as soon as we manage to ditch DirectX it won't even be a different API. Consoles moving to less custom hardware will probably also involve them moving to more standard APIs, ditching their one-off almost-openGLs for the real thing.
20 years is kind of a long time to start making profit on an entertainment device. A nuclear power plant, sure, but a video game console brand?
That statement said absolutely nothing about profit.
Where do you live that they don't have public toilets??
The other way around. The maximum resolution of a lens is limited by diffraction. The only way around that limitation is to increase the number of lenses (compound eyes), or increase the size (simple eyes). Increasing the number is a simple solution and works pretty well when you're tiny and so can't have high resolution vision anyway. As you get bigger, the increase-the-size-of-the-lens solution becomes much more efficient, so most bigger organisms have simple eyes. If humans had compound eyes, they would have to be ridiculously large (the size of a house, by one estimation) to give equivalent resolution: http://web.neurobio.arizona.edu/gronenberg/nrsc581/eyedesign/visualacuity.pdf.
Sure. They listen to music on their phones. Their smart phones. Their pocket-sized personal computers they carry around everywhere and store all their information on.
Java and Flash attacks on the USPTO web site? PDF worms in the documents?
Wacky recommendations don't have to be practical!
Those are generally the problems people run on massively parallel supercomputers.
Obese people don't like to look at obese people either. We're evolutionarily programmed to prefer to look at and be around healthy, fit people.
Because you want to be healthier?
Absolutely. This study isn't about that. They used a sensitive test for bias. If you don't like fat people (like the majority of the population) then you'll likely test positive. That has nothing to do with how you treat fat people. What they're saying is that med students should be taught about anti-fat bias to make sure that, despite their quite natural biases, they're treating fat people well. They're already taught to manage their biases against assholes, mass murderers and other difficult patients.
I'm pretty sure it is. You can verify this for yourself by going outside twice a day. It's particularly evident if one of those times is, for example, around noon and the other is around midnight. You can also verify other types of movement by watching for the maximum height the sun achieves each day, and by checking it's position relative to the background stars.
More seriously, recognizing the Sun's movement relative to... the galaxy presumably, and the factors controlling that movement, is important to debunking the OP. Illustrative of this, someone made a very pretty, but physically inaccurate, rendering of the sun flying through the galaxy with the Earth trailing along behind it and uploaded it to YouTube in support of his "vortex gravity" theory: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/04/vortex_motion_viral_video_showing_sun_s_motion_through_galaxy_is_wrong.html.
Thus the sentence:
"We've had great difficulty duplicating that on a smaller scale."
and the OP's:
"...difficulties in containing a stable reaction using equipment a bit more compact than a star."
We don't have any problem getting the temperatures and pressures necessary for fusion. You can do that on your kitchen table as a high school science fair project if you want to deal with the alarmist fallout. We have trouble getting the temperatures and pressures necessary for fusion without using more energy than we get out of the fusion reaction. The Sun keeps beating us on over-breakeven fusion because it gets the containment for free. Gravity, on the scale of a star, makes an ideal fusion containment field.
Being blind is a cultural thing now?
Then presumably you can use those geometric optics to do well on this test.
"Then you're fucked."
For a period of time. Each collision changes velocities and some (most, actually) of those changes will act to lower orbits, reducing the amount of mass in orbit. I don't know what the half life is though.