Satire looks to be a no-go, and the farting would appear to fall under this as well.
You do realise that the fart noise was added by the Daily Show, don't you?
From what I gather, the images themselves cannot be used for satire. Satire of the politicians, while using perfectly acceptable images, is fine.
Interesting that the media didn't comment on the increase of powers that they have now. For example, it was previously illegal to splice "reaction" shots while the speaker was talking. This is now acceptable behaviour (read "Television coverage rules" number three). Also, if you look further into the bill, you will see that even Dr Cullen admits that "The matters around satire, ridicule, and denigration I think will need to be watched carefully and interpreted carefully, and not interpreted in a foolish or unnecessarily restrictive fashion.".
Basically, this is a sessional order, and will be reviewed after the next election, if not sooner. Based on current popular opinion, it won't last...
Methinks this was introduced because, as others have pointed out, it's much easier for New Zealand's TV stations to fill the 10 minutes between ad breaks with name-calling and napping politicians than it is to actually do some proper journalism. Seriously, the journalism here is so pathetic; with this order in place, TV3's "political editor", Duncan Garner, is screwed.
Also, what Jon Stewart did on the Daily show, as far as I can tell, isn't in breach of the order. Satire of the politician is fine, however showing images of them picking their nose isn't...
"The equations underlying weather prevent one from ever accurately..."
Um, there are no equations underlying weather. There are equations that model weather patterns, however (I presume that's what you meant...). These current models are limited by, for example, available processing power. New technologies allow for alternative models, which may be more accurate at making predictions about future weather patterns. So to say that "It's going to remain short" is a bit short-sighted.
this memory could be aimed toward gamers who want what they paid for
Well, the article says the RAM is DDR2-667 which (I'm pretty sure) implies a clock rate of 333MHz (somebody correct me if I wrong). So gamers are still getting more than they paid for...
What I want to know is where do Tom's Hardware get off thinking this is statiscally significant? Basically their saying "We took one part from the suppliers, and one part from retail sources. The retail parts performed worse. OH MY GOD, that must mean they're cheating!!!" Compare numerous examples from each source and then I'll be more easily swayed to their argument...
To me, the increased voltage on Gigabyte's motherboard is far more interesting...
Well, since you compile the compiler as well as everything else. It does accumulate...
Does a custom-compiled compiler create different binaries to a pre-packaged compiler? I was under the impression that it might compile the application faster, but the resulting linked-up, ready-to-run binary is no different. So "it does accumulate" doesn't add up to me...
Our bodies have evolved to accomodate the natural magnetic field surrounding the Earth. Could someone please tell me, just how much more are we exposed to now with the ever-increasing adoption of wireless technologies. More importantly, how much of this increase is actually needed? I mean, how many people at the University in question would have actually used the services? Would it really be that great? How many people here on/. leave their routers (when their computers are turned off) on when they leave their homes? Does all this "wasted" capacity add up to a point where it may be actually be dangerous?
Somebody please enlighten me here, I could easily go a bit bonkers over this one...
Off to my Faraday cage now, if you'll excuse me...
Current gen lasted 5 years, that's 6 games per year, or a on average, a game every other month. How is that "hardcore"?
I'd call it hardcore.
Most people I know buy one maybe two games a year, and they tend to be games with a lot a replayability (eg. GT4 and the like). They'd rather rent games for the weekend, instead of paying NZD $100 on a game they'll play a few times then shelve.
But then again, most people who are early adopters of machines are "hardcore" and probably do buy that many games. So you may have a point. Your average player waits for the console to hit a much lower price before they buy in.
But any employee can legally then take it and redistribute it under the GPL license, whether you like it or not
Sorry to nitpick here, but wouldn't that count as someone from the company distributing the application? So yes, you would have to provide source if requested.
I stand by my argument, from my point of view the GPL says nothing about what happens behind closed doors in a company. The second an application is made publically available (by whatever means, as you point out) is when the GPL "kicks in".
I'm not entirely sure why I'm debating this to be honest, as I agree with what you said earlier (LPGL for client libraries makes life easier). I just wanted to point out the distribution != deployment thingy.
The way I understand it, the GPL kicks in anytime copyright law would, i.e., when you copy it and it's not covered by fair use. And copying windows 100 times in an office certainly isn't legally fair use.
You can't copy windows 100 times because of a little item in the EULA:
1. GRANT OF LICENSE.
Manufacturer grants you the following rights provided that
you comply with all terms and conditions of this EULA:
1.1 Installation and use. You may install, use, access,
display and run one copy of the SOFTWARE on
the COMPUTER. The SOFTWARE may not be used
by more than two (2) processors at any one time on the
COMPUTER, unless a higher number is
indicated on the COA.
You'll not see anything like the above in the GPL. In fact under "TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION":
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
The GPL is a "distribution" license (don't know if that is an official term, I've just seen it used here before), it doesn't care how you use the code, so long that any publicly available derivation includes access to the source code
That's a pretty strong restriction, considering that organizations usually want to deploy many copies of an application, even if they are only using it internally. Particularly a database driven application.
Deployment isn't the same as distribution. The GPL (as far as I am aware, haven't read it completely) says nothing about the deployment of an application within an organisation, it only restricts what happens when that organisation provides that application for others to use.
Don't know what I did to deserve this, but I'll bite
Evolutionist will tell you we all came from the same primortial soup. They say animals of one kind gave birth to animals of another kind.
Anyone with an elementary understanding of evolution would never make such an absurd statement. Care to back that statement up with examples where this was said?
I do agree with you that a monkey will never give birth to a cat, but what the hell does that have to do with evolution? Evolution is the changing of gene frequencies over time, not some mysterious process whereby new species appear literally overnight...
Talk about a long title! Darwin's book was a bullet from the smoking gun of RACISM!...If you don't understand how this title speaks of RACISM then read the book and it won't take you long to see why evelution(sic) is favored by RACISTS world wide
A lot of Klu Klux Klan members are devout christians, who refute evolution. Does that mean you equate all christianity with racism (you seem to be implying the same for proponents of natural selection)
My personal belief is that theories like natural selection go a long way towards making racist sentiments idiotic. How can one state that one "race" is superior to another when each is equally well adapted to its environment?
Isn't that the same thing as new genetic information?
You're ignoring/missing part of what I said... The second part to that paragraph mentioned English Pepper Moths. During the industrial revolution in England, you could find two variations of moth, dark and light. The light coloured moths were predominant in country areas and the dark moths were more often found in the major cities, where carbon was deposited onto the trees the moths inhabited. The light moths in the cities died off quickly (easily spotted by predators) and hence did not breed.
In the case of these moths, no mutation of genes was necessary, the genes for both colours of moths was already present. Hence natural selection worked on existing genetic information.
So, to put my response another way, is it enough for life to merely change gene frequencies, or must the lack of beneficial mutations in our ecosystem be what falsifies natural evolution?
Evolution is the change in gene frequencies over time, that's all. Natural selection is one component of evolution as we know it. There are other forces acting on populations of individuals, but natural selection tends to be the most talked about by the general public. Speciation is a by-product of evolution, not the driving force.
As to lack of beneficial mutations, tell that to people with sickle-cell anaemia. Sure, they might find it difficult to breathe, but they have an immunity to maleria. In places where maleria is prominent (eg. parts of Africa), that could be of benefit.
Also, according to the theory of random genetic drift, evolution works on all mutations, whether they are "beneficial" or selectively neutral.
Finally, you have encompassed too much into your definition of evolution. I don't know any evolutionary biologists that would equate evolution to "the mechanism that created all of life". Evolution explains observable diversity in life as we see it, but does not explain the trigger that created life itself.
Isn't new genetic information what natural selection uses to drive natural evolution's development of new life forms?
In short, no. Natural selection merely alters the gene frequencies within a population. Indeed, if a new mutation is beneficial to an organism, natural selection will tend to favour that mutation and increase its presence within the population. Natural selection also works to alter the frequencies of existing genes, as seen during the industrial revolution in England with moths (explaination here)
But the minds behind it are not. If Oracle snaps up key talent behind innodb, it could mean a big slowdown for that aspect of MySQL.
Isn't that one of the major points of open source software that if developers leave for whatever reason, that other brilliant minds will take their place? If so, why should slashdot be concerned?
I would have thought the recent events in the USA (Katrina) and Asia (Tsunami) over the last 12 months would be more than enough proof that we humans aren't that flash at predicting/preventing disasters
The original poster is correct, stick a typical human in a gorilla's natural environment and they're screwed.
Where Hofmeyr differs from the other researchers in this field is that he is the first (at least the first I am aware of) to attempt to make a viable product using the negative selection paradigm.
I'm guessing he probably doesn't know either. More likely this is what he meant:
"I'm going to mention a lot of obscure project names so you'll think that (a) my kung fu is stronger than yours and (b) my penis must be huge!"
As to your question I found this:
MOO stands for "MUD, Object Oriented." MUD, in turn, has been said to stand for many different things, but I tend to think of it as "Multi-User Dungeon" in the spirit of those ancient precursors to MUDs, Adventure and Zork.
MOO, the programming language, is a relatively small and simple object-oriented language designed to be easy to learn for most non-programmers; most complex systems still require some significant programming ability to accomplish, however.
The graphs are taken from 37 days (ie. just over five weeks) after the advert, and the final "week" is fourteen. Take that five off and you get week nine, which is probably (or at least, possibly) the week of the advert
Yes, avida was coded by "intelligent design", but that doesn't mean that the organisms within avida are coded as such. Quite often in alife, they are randomly generated with basic building blocks that allow them to do "stuff" (eat, move, sleep). Initally, the individuals are pretty dumb, and don't do a heck of a lot of interesting stuff. However, during the evolutionary course, which is guided by fitness and stochastic events such as mutation and reproduction, these building blocks are extended and recombined to produce new behaviours. There is no direct intervention by the main program on these individuals.
The whole point of my ramblings here is to say that at not point in programs like avida is there code that says things like, "you need to walk, so grow some legs" or "you'd be fitter if you had a pair of wings". Instead, the most information an individual gets it "there's some resources at (x,y)"
Sadly, my university moved away from teaching Pascal (at 100-level) in 2000 and started teaching Java instead. Has caused headaches for the teaching staff and tutors ever since ever since:
Instead of learning the purely the basics of programming (statements, operators, conditions, looping...) they are thrown in the deep end. Now they have a little bit of programming knowledge, and a lot of a freaking huge api... End result, they have a huge api to play with, but they don't know how to...When I first started tutoring, at least the students knew the difference between calling a function and declaring one, now they aren't so sure...
In addition to reducing the amount of time learning the basics, they've thrown more at them. Before it was procedures, functions, looping recursion etc. Now on top of that they have inheritance, polymorphism, abstract classes and so on to deal with...
And here I was thinking it was just the students getting dummer...
In particular: "If you are interested in doing anything different than the foregoing, you must first obtain Google's written consent. If you fail to do so, Google reserves the right to take legal action." Surely this would preclude the use of the API in most projects?
I've not used the API for a commercial project, so I've never had to ask for google's written permission, but I'd imagine their permission doesn't come cheaply. Hope I'm wrong though, as it is a pretty cool wee tool...
Slashdot Mirror
You do realise that the fart noise was added by the Daily Show, don't you?
From what I gather, the images themselves cannot be used for satire. Satire of the politicians, while using perfectly acceptable images, is fine.
Interesting that the media didn't comment on the increase of powers that they have now. For example, it was previously illegal to splice "reaction" shots while the speaker was talking. This is now acceptable behaviour (read "Television coverage rules" number three). Also, if you look further into the bill, you will see that even Dr Cullen admits that "The matters around satire, ridicule, and denigration I think will need to be watched carefully and interpreted carefully, and not interpreted in a foolish or unnecessarily restrictive fashion.".
Here's the actual link to the order in question:/ b/2/0/48HansD_20070628_00000893-Standing-Orders-Se ssional.htm
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates
Basically, this is a sessional order, and will be reviewed after the next election, if not sooner. Based on current popular opinion, it won't last...
Methinks this was introduced because, as others have pointed out, it's much easier for New Zealand's TV stations to fill the 10 minutes between ad breaks with name-calling and napping politicians than it is to actually do some proper journalism. Seriously, the journalism here is so pathetic; with this order in place, TV3's "political editor", Duncan Garner, is screwed.
Also, what Jon Stewart did on the Daily show, as far as I can tell, isn't in breach of the order. Satire of the politician is fine, however showing images of them picking their nose isn't...
"The equations underlying weather prevent one from ever accurately..."
Um, there are no equations underlying weather. There are equations that model weather patterns, however (I presume that's what you meant...). These current models are limited by, for example, available processing power. New technologies allow for alternative models, which may be more accurate at making predictions about future weather patterns. So to say that "It's going to remain short" is a bit short-sighted.
Well, the article says the RAM is DDR2-667 which (I'm pretty sure) implies a clock rate of 333MHz (somebody correct me if I wrong). So gamers are still getting more than they paid for...
What I want to know is where do Tom's Hardware get off thinking this is statiscally significant? Basically their saying "We took one part from the suppliers, and one part from retail sources. The retail parts performed worse. OH MY GOD, that must mean they're cheating!!!" Compare numerous examples from each source and then I'll be more easily swayed to their argument...
To me, the increased voltage on Gigabyte's motherboard is far more interesting...
Does a custom-compiled compiler create different binaries to a pre-packaged compiler? I was under the impression that it might compile the application faster, but the resulting linked-up, ready-to-run binary is no different. So "it does accumulate" doesn't add up to me...
Just nit-picking, sorry...
Donning my tin-foil cap here perhaps...
Our bodies have evolved to accomodate the natural magnetic field surrounding the Earth. Could someone please tell me, just how much more are we exposed to now with the ever-increasing adoption of wireless technologies. More importantly, how much of this increase is actually needed? I mean, how many people at the University in question would have actually used the services? Would it really be that great? How many people here on /. leave their routers (when their computers are turned off) on when they leave their homes? Does all this "wasted" capacity add up to a point where it may be actually be dangerous?
Somebody please enlighten me here, I could easily go a bit bonkers over this one...
Off to my Faraday cage now, if you'll excuse me...
I'd call it hardcore.
Most people I know buy one maybe two games a year, and they tend to be games with a lot a replayability (eg. GT4 and the like). They'd rather rent games for the weekend, instead of paying NZD $100 on a game they'll play a few times then shelve.
But then again, most people who are early adopters of machines are "hardcore" and probably do buy that many games. So you may have a point. Your average player waits for the console to hit a much lower price before they buy in.
Sorry to nitpick here, but wouldn't that count as someone from the company distributing the application? So yes, you would have to provide source if requested.
I stand by my argument, from my point of view the GPL says nothing about what happens behind closed doors in a company. The second an application is made publically available (by whatever means, as you point out) is when the GPL "kicks in".
I'm not entirely sure why I'm debating this to be honest, as I agree with what you said earlier (LPGL for client libraries makes life easier). I just wanted to point out the distribution != deployment thingy.
You can't copy windows 100 times because of a little item in the EULA:
You'll not see anything like the above in the GPL. In fact under "TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION":
The GPL is a "distribution" license (don't know if that is an official term, I've just seen it used here before), it doesn't care how you use the code, so long that any publicly available derivation includes access to the source codeDeployment isn't the same as distribution. The GPL (as far as I am aware, haven't read it completely) says nothing about the deployment of an application within an organisation, it only restricts what happens when that organisation provides that application for others to use.
Don't know what I did to deserve this, but I'll bite
Anyone with an elementary understanding of evolution would never make such an absurd statement. Care to back that statement up with examples where this was said?
I do agree with you that a monkey will never give birth to a cat, but what the hell does that have to do with evolution? Evolution is the changing of gene frequencies over time, not some mysterious process whereby new species appear literally overnight...
A lot of Klu Klux Klan members are devout christians, who refute evolution. Does that mean you equate all christianity with racism (you seem to be implying the same for proponents of natural selection)
My personal belief is that theories like natural selection go a long way towards making racist sentiments idiotic. How can one state that one "race" is superior to another when each is equally well adapted to its environment?
You're ignoring/missing part of what I said... The second part to that paragraph mentioned English Pepper Moths. During the industrial revolution in England, you could find two variations of moth, dark and light. The light coloured moths were predominant in country areas and the dark moths were more often found in the major cities, where carbon was deposited onto the trees the moths inhabited. The light moths in the cities died off quickly (easily spotted by predators) and hence did not breed.
In the case of these moths, no mutation of genes was necessary, the genes for both colours of moths was already present. Hence natural selection worked on existing genetic information.
Evolution is the change in gene frequencies over time, that's all. Natural selection is one component of evolution as we know it. There are other forces acting on populations of individuals, but natural selection tends to be the most talked about by the general public. Speciation is a by-product of evolution, not the driving force.
As to lack of beneficial mutations, tell that to people with sickle-cell anaemia. Sure, they might find it difficult to breathe, but they have an immunity to maleria. In places where maleria is prominent (eg. parts of Africa), that could be of benefit.
Also, according to the theory of random genetic drift, evolution works on all mutations, whether they are "beneficial" or selectively neutral.
Finally, you have encompassed too much into your definition of evolution. I don't know any evolutionary biologists that would equate evolution to "the mechanism that created all of life". Evolution explains observable diversity in life as we see it, but does not explain the trigger that created life itself.
In short, no. Natural selection merely alters the gene frequencies within a population. Indeed, if a new mutation is beneficial to an organism, natural selection will tend to favour that mutation and increase its presence within the population. Natural selection also works to alter the frequencies of existing genes, as seen during the industrial revolution in England with moths (explaination here)
Isn't that one of the major points of open source software that if developers leave for whatever reason, that other brilliant minds will take their place? If so, why should slashdot be concerned?
I would have thought the recent events in the USA (Katrina) and Asia (Tsunami) over the last 12 months would be more than enough proof that we humans aren't that flash at predicting/preventing disasters
The original poster is correct, stick a typical human in a gorilla's natural environment and they're screwed.
I think this statement might be a little overstated. The field of artificial immune systems was well established well before Hofmeyr arrived on the scene.. In addition to what wikipedia says, one can trace its roots back to the 1960s with the likes of John Holland and genetic algorithms. (If I remember correctly, Holland was a supervisor for Stephanie Forrest, who in turn was Hofmeyr's supervisor)
Where Hofmeyr differs from the other researchers in this field is that he is the first (at least the first I am aware of) to attempt to make a viable product using the negative selection paradigm.
I'm guessing he probably doesn't know either. More likely this is what he meant:
As to your question I found this:
For more info, http://mirrors.ccs.neu.edu/MOO/html/ProgrammersMan ual_9.html#SEC9
The graphs are taken from 37 days (ie. just over five weeks) after the advert, and the final "week" is fourteen. Take that five off and you get week nine, which is probably (or at least, possibly) the week of the advert
Then again, I may be talking out of my arse...
Yes, avida was coded by "intelligent design", but that doesn't mean that the organisms within avida are coded as such. Quite often in alife, they are randomly generated with basic building blocks that allow them to do "stuff" (eat, move, sleep). Initally, the individuals are pretty dumb, and don't do a heck of a lot of interesting stuff. However, during the evolutionary course, which is guided by fitness and stochastic events such as mutation and reproduction, these building blocks are extended and recombined to produce new behaviours. There is no direct intervention by the main program on these individuals.
The whole point of my ramblings here is to say that at not point in programs like avida is there code that says things like, "you need to walk, so grow some legs" or "you'd be fitter if you had a pair of wings". Instead, the most information an individual gets it "there's some resources at (x,y)"
From what I've seen most mac users are very happy to use them, so yep, you're right...
Hang on, that's not what you were implying...
GWB hasn't abolished the Republic, committed genocide, or taken control of the media.
You mean this isn't an attempt to control the media?
I know, not quite the same thing, but still kinda scary to me...
Even more ironic that I've used linguist incorrectly, what was I thinking...
Me no speaky-writey well today...
Touché. I'm a programmer, not a linguist! :)
Even more ironic considering I'm still a student...
Sadly, my university moved away from teaching Pascal (at 100-level) in 2000 and started teaching Java instead. Has caused headaches for the teaching staff and tutors ever since ever since:
And here I was thinking it was just the students getting dummer...
Have you read the terms and conditions of the google API?.
In particular: "If you are interested in doing anything different than the foregoing, you must first obtain Google's written consent. If you fail to do so, Google reserves the right to take legal action." Surely this would preclude the use of the API in most projects?
I've not used the API for a commercial project, so I've never had to ask for google's written permission, but I'd imagine their permission doesn't come cheaply. Hope I'm wrong though, as it is a pretty cool wee tool...