But bad for the suspect. Surely the justification for armed policemen is that they can shoot to stop a suspect that poses a threat to them and others rather than to kill them outright?
More 'effective' ammunition then would be a way of bypassing your legal system by having fewer suspects survive to stand trial.
The question then is whether the deaths of, potentially innocent, suspects that might have otherwise survived being shot is a fair price to pay to reduce risk to bystanders. I am unconvinced there is an easy answer.
no. The mass of the stars is big, but they are very far away.
Consider:
density of sun = ~1400 kg/m^3
let us assume these stars have the same density (they don't, it will be lower, but that is ok for our purposes here) diameter 1.5 billion km = 1.5E12 m
volume (assume a perfect sphere) = 4/3 pi r^3 ~ 1.8E36 cubic metres giving a mass of 2.5E39Kg (about 1 billion times that of the sun)
the gravitational field strength on an object obeys an inverse square relationship F=GM/r^2 The nearest of these stars is 5200 light years away, or 5E19 metres G is the universal gravitational constant, about 7E-11
so F=7E-11 * 2.5E39 / (5E19*5E19) F~ 1E-10 N/kg
for comparison, the gravitational field strength on earth is about 10 N/kg, ie 100 billion times larger./me waits for someone to point out an error in my arithmatic
I don't care about the right to use your software if it is non-free, I want the right to *NOT* use your software, unfortunatly American legislation is leaking out into the rest of the world and forcing us to use bad software to access data and speak to people.
The 'Right' you claim to produce non-free software can not be absolute, because when a non-Free implementation is forced (think the DCMA, the broadcast flag, software patents). With Free software I can always change something I find obnoxious, and no one can stop me, with non-Free software I can not.
Insofar as standands exist then, I require the existance of Free software to implement those standards, and standards that do not have complete Free implementations force a restricted choice of software (eg Microsoft Office).
To argue from a free-market perspective you must grant competition, and the only way to do that is with interchangable software and real, documented standards and/or Free reference implementations.
The problem with that, is that it discourages more advanced (and expensive) creation if there is no control at all.
I think there is an error here, you think that creativity should be rewarded, and I agree, but there are multiple ways to reward creativity and not all of these require the control of this output.
Historically control did not exist on any creative work, remember that copyright is a modern concept, previously artists were funded by patrons, the greatness of their work reflecting well on their benefactors.
This is also what happens with contributors to linux, or KDE or Gnome, etc, it is just that today the patrons are Red hat and Suse.
To attempt to control creative output is to limit the degree to which other creative works can build on top of it. Art and Science are iterative processes, trying to control works of art & science (for often there is no clear division, look at architects) is to have to power to stop that iterative process, and it is the contention of the supporters of Free culture and Free Software that no one person should have that power.
But it does mean that you can make debian/gentoo/slackware/FreeBSD etc stop including it. With Free Software you can always change it (look at the list of 4 freedoms), with the support of all major distros the clean version would be the standard. Look at how quickly X11 took over from XFree86, and that wasn't even 'bad' software.
There is a flaw in that reasoning, this being that you assume that every person has to do that independently.
There are people who read code fluently in various languages. They/do/ read the source code of Free software (even moreso when there are bug bounty schemes like mozilla have).
The point is that once the source code is available, and berefit of freedom-curtailing restrictions then/no one/ can stop an independent entity studying the source code. Furthermore, they can prove their results to be correct to any neutral party.
If any program is sufficantly important then it will be audited by those set of people who have the time, inclination and ability to do so (the NSA for example)
The availabilty of Free software to curtail evil coding practices is the same as that of CCTV cameras to curtail crime. Because someone might be watching (and indeed are watching as often as not) only the stupid or drunk people will try to act in view of the cameras, most criminals will slink off to darkened alleyways just as most coders will slink off to darkened code bases.
It is this ease of discovery that makes Free software inherently safer from spyware/scumware, not anyhing to do with funding from Gator.
NB: safer != safe
just because something is inherently less likely, doesn't mean it won't occur.
Whether it is a valid loophole or not is unclear, certainly it is against the intent of the GPL, section 3 defines that:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it.
The argument would be that something like you describe would not be the preferred form for making modifications. Whether a court would see it that way is an entirely seperate issue.
But this group will be squeezed from both ends. Once Lindows^H^H^H^Hdash^H^H^H^Hspire and its ilk leach all of the utter newbies, there will be fewer joining the ranks of windows 'power user wannabes', and those that remain will (one would hope) eventually GAFC and install $DISTRO_OF_CHOICE, either out of curiousity or having been bitten once too often by windows systems crapping out on them.
Sure, I figure a lot of them are/not/ windows users, or at least not directly, but an awful lot of things like webspiders, toolbars, and other add-ons that are not identifable as browsers and probably don't send a proper OS string.
Uh, vegetarian is vegetarian. If you have a moral objection to eating a cow, why wouldn't that same objection apply to a shrimp or a salmon or a chicken?
Simple, cows, sheep, pigs etc are mammals. Fish and chicken are not, to contradict (somewhat) the other poster on this thread it *is* possible to be an 'idealogical' vegetarian and eat fish (or indeed chicken although personally I do not). In my case it is due to a disgust at the notion of eating dead mammals, go to any abbatoir and you will understand why I fell that way. I stuggle to see these as food and therefore find eating them repellent.
I have no objection to killing animals, in fact I am a strong supporter of vivisection as a means to saving people's lives in the course of medical research. Fish are not flea-ridden furry disease vectors that occupy farmland, I find these far easier to eat (and tastier too, but that is another point).
Unfortunatly too many vegetarians are members of the cute fluffy animals brigade whose brains have been addled by too many disney cartoons. I try to disassociate myself with them, as a result if asked "Are you a vegetarian?" I typically reply "no, I just don't eat meat"
There are tools around that can resolve most of the issues with compiling from source already, for example checkinstall (found in extra in slackware 9.0 and above) will create slackware packages of anything installed from source. In most cases then you merely./configure && make && checkinstall. The resulting package can then be removed cleanly with removepkg. It also works for RPM's and DEB's although I know not how well it likes dependancy checking, but that is what ldd is for:)
Re:... at the same time as the IPv6 upgrade! ???
on
Replacing SMTP?
·
· Score: 1
What's ridiculous about it?
Certainly in the UK two rail guages existed at the start of the railway era, Great Western Railways used a wider guage than everyone else, this allowed faster and safer trains than the narrower guage, http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RAgauge.htm has a more detailed account.
And with the DVORAK keyboard layout there exists a markedly superior solution to qwerty, I am using one right now, but I had to do that by prying off the keycaps because it is almost impossible to by keyboards like that.
The OP conceded the usefulness of SMTP, I am hard pressed to disagree, some standards are useful. but just because a standard exists doesn't mean it can't be replaced, if we took that approach all of Europe would be speaking Latin
Did anybody consider that games are influenced by movies, and thus making a movie based on a game that was inspired by a movie is a little redundant?
In the case of Driver it *was* a film, the 'original' game (can't comment on the sequals) was to a large extent ripped from the 1970's film 'the driver'
http://us.imdb.com/Details?0077474 most noticably the test in the car park although other things seem to be heavily insrired by it and other maps ripped from bullit. However the plot in the game is massively watered down compared to the film, you play a good guy undercover cop, Ryan O'Neil plays a getaway driver not a good guy. Seems to me they want to do a remake but not play the owners of the original film.
perhaps more interesting is the possiblities for space ttourism, at 1/12th the cost of China (and presumably Russia) then the cost to an individual to travel into space could fall drastically in the next few years. It would still be ridiculously expensive but affordable to more than the excessivly wealthy. With sufficantly quick developmet in this field (and a sufficiantly good safety record even at a lower cost) India may set themselves up as the first extra terrestial budget airline.
Theme Park (anyone remember that?) was sponsered by the Midland Bank (certainly in the UK version on the Amiga). It certainly succeeded in making the game date quickly, Midland is now owned by HSBC.
Slashdot Mirror
More 'effective' ammunition then would be a way of bypassing your legal system by having fewer suspects survive to stand trial.
The question then is whether the deaths of, potentially innocent, suspects that might have otherwise survived being shot is a fair price to pay to reduce risk to bystanders. I am unconvinced there is an easy answer.
no. The mass of the stars is big, but they are very far away.
/me waits for someone to point out an error in my arithmatic
Consider:
density of sun = ~1400 kg/m^3
let us assume these stars have the same density (they don't, it will be lower, but that is ok for our purposes here)
diameter 1.5 billion km = 1.5E12 m
volume (assume a perfect sphere) = 4/3 pi r^3 ~ 1.8E36 cubic metres
giving a mass of 2.5E39Kg (about 1 billion times that of the sun)
the gravitational field strength on an object obeys an inverse square relationship
F=GM/r^2
The nearest of these stars is 5200 light years away, or 5E19 metres
G is the universal gravitational constant, about 7E-11
so
F=7E-11 * 2.5E39 / (5E19*5E19)
F~ 1E-10 N/kg
for comparison, the gravitational field strength on earth is about 10 N/kg, ie 100 billion times larger.
The 'Right' you claim to produce non-free software can not be absolute, because when a non-Free implementation is forced (think the DCMA, the broadcast flag, software patents). With Free software I can always change something I find obnoxious, and no one can stop me, with non-Free software I can not.
Insofar as standands exist then, I require the existance of Free software to implement those standards, and standards that do not have complete Free implementations force a restricted choice of software (eg Microsoft Office).
To argue from a free-market perspective you must grant competition, and the only way to do that is with interchangable software and real, documented standards and/or Free reference implementations.
Historically control did not exist on any creative work, remember that copyright is a modern concept, previously artists were funded by patrons, the greatness of their work reflecting well on their benefactors.
This is also what happens with contributors to linux, or KDE or Gnome, etc, it is just that today the patrons are Red hat and Suse.
To attempt to control creative output is to limit the degree to which other creative works can build on top of it. Art and Science are iterative processes, trying to control works of art & science (for often there is no clear division, look at architects) is to have to power to stop that iterative process, and it is the contention of the supporters of Free culture and Free Software that no one person should have that power.
But it does mean that you can make debian/gentoo/slackware/FreeBSD etc stop including it. With Free Software you can always change it (look at the list of 4 freedoms), with the support of all major distros the clean version would be the standard. Look at how quickly X11 took over from XFree86, and that wasn't even 'bad' software.
There is a flaw in that reasoning, this being that you assume that every person has to do that independently. There are people who read code fluently in various languages. They /do/ read the source code of Free software (even moreso when there are bug bounty schemes like mozilla have).
The point is that once the source code is available, and berefit of freedom-curtailing restrictions then /no one/ can stop an independent entity studying the source code. Furthermore, they can prove their results to be correct to any neutral party.
If any program is sufficantly important then it will be audited by those set of people who have the time, inclination and ability to do so (the NSA for example)
The availabilty of Free software to curtail evil coding practices is the same as that of CCTV cameras to curtail crime. Because someone might be watching (and indeed are watching as often as not) only the stupid or drunk people will try to act in view of the cameras, most criminals will slink off to darkened alleyways just as most coders will slink off to darkened code bases.
It is this ease of discovery that makes Free software inherently safer from spyware/scumware, not anyhing to do with funding from Gator.
NB: safer != safe
just because something is inherently less likely, doesn't mean it won't occur.
Look at the four richest countries in the world.
America - english (or at least something that pretends to be) and spanish
Japan - japanese (can't place any others, doubtless someone will expand on this list)
Germany - german, danish, low german, sorbian, romany and frisian
United Kingdom - english, welsh, scots gaelic, manx (pretty much dead, but still...), cornish, shelta
Seems like a fair bit of diversity of language there....
the United Kingdom actually has the highest frequency of reported tornadoes per unit area in the world. It is just that they tend to be small, not particularly destructive, and for the most part off-shore. Nonetheless, they have hit towns before, ask the people of selsey
But this group will be squeezed from both ends. Once Lindows^H^H^H^Hdash^H^H^H^Hspire and its ilk leach all of the utter newbies, there will be fewer joining the ranks of windows 'power user wannabes', and those that remain will (one would hope) eventually GAFC and install $DISTRO_OF_CHOICE, either out of curiousity or having been bitten once too often by windows systems crapping out on them.
Sure, I figure a lot of them are /not/ windows users, or at least not directly, but an awful lot of things like webspiders, toolbars, and other add-ons that are not identifable as browsers and probably don't send a proper OS string.
this is why you should use the accessible odeon site instead, not only is it not completely b0rked, it is also faster to use and better laid out
I have no objection to killing animals, in fact I am a strong supporter of vivisection as a means to saving people's lives in the course of medical research. Fish are not flea-ridden furry disease vectors that occupy farmland, I find these far easier to eat (and tastier too, but that is another point).
Unfortunatly too many vegetarians are members of the cute fluffy animals brigade whose brains have been addled by too many disney cartoons. I try to disassociate myself with them, as a result if asked "Are you a vegetarian?" I typically reply "no, I just don't eat meat"
There are tools around that can resolve most of the issues with compiling from source already, for example checkinstall (found in extra in slackware 9.0 and above) will create slackware packages of anything installed from source. In most cases then you merely ./configure && make && checkinstall. The resulting package can then be removed cleanly with removepkg. It also works for RPM's and DEB's although I know not how well it likes dependancy checking, but that is what ldd is for :)
perhaps more interesting is the possiblities for space ttourism, at 1/12th the cost of China (and presumably Russia) then the cost to an individual to travel into space could fall drastically in the next few years. It would still be ridiculously expensive but affordable to more than the excessivly wealthy. With sufficantly quick developmet in this field (and a sufficiantly good safety record even at a lower cost) India may set themselves up as the first extra terrestial budget airline.
Theme Park (anyone remember that?) was sponsered by the Midland Bank (certainly in the UK version on the Amiga). It certainly succeeded in making the game date quickly, Midland is now owned by HSBC.