Plenty very doubtful statements here, but I'll just bring up a very glaring one.
Sql Server, which is at least on a par with Oracle
I don't think you can find anyone doing serious DB work that will agree with that. SQL Server does have it's uses, but it's way behind Oracle in both quality and features.
Here's a quote from the article. You seem to claim that Litman is entirely wrong here?
Even if Jammer could find a lawyer to represent him, he would probably be advised to pay the fine and move on.
Jessica Litman, a professor of copyright law at Wayne State University in Chicago, says that in these cases a
lawyer's best advice would be to pay the fine. "If you're a lawyer and someone comes to your client from Walt
Disney, you are not going to tell your client to go ahead with the trial," she says. "You could be right, but it would
take seven years and $100,000 to find out."
The real problem is a legal system that lets anyone with deep pockets force anyone they like to pay $100k, whether they're guilty of any crime or not.
Dave Powell is just using that system.
I also want to say that it's a bit premature to deem someone repulsive because of one article. He comes across as such an asshole because the writer wanted it that way.
No explanation of who controls your sons thoughts? Disappointing.
Really? So when you get a speeding ticket, you ignore it?
I've never gotten any, but I'm pretty sure I'd make sure to pay it ASAP.
Not because that is what the authorities tells me to do, but because really bad things can happen to me if I don't.
After all, you were "thinking freely" when you decided that you didn't need to drive only 45 mph.
It's unclear why you assume I am a reckless speeder.
Like at least 95% of US drivers, I regularly break the speed limit. Seems like very few drivers really respect authority. Yet most of them function quite well in society.
The fact that your excessive speed puts others in danger is not important, right?
You're making my point.
As you seem to imply, the important consideration is whether I put others at undue risk. That's an argument that has nothing to do with respecting authority.
If I tell my son that he needs to clean his room, and he decides not to, that does not mean that he is thinking freely.
It doesn't?
Who do you claim is thinking for him?
People who don't respect authority can't function in a society. Your comment implies that no one who lives in a society is a free thinker, which is absurd.
I don't respect authority, and I function quite well in society. So your premise is wrong, and thus your conclusion.
I think your problem is that you're confusing "respecting authority" with "blindly following authority figures".
"Respect" can, like most words, mean different things in different contexts etc.
I think what the original post meant by "respecting authority" was exactly that school teaches kids to "blindly following authority figures".
Let's say, for the sake of argument that you are right, schools intend to produce children meeting those characteristics. Let's further assume that they succeed. How does that rule out children thinking for themselves?
You only comment on the punctuality part of the post. The other two points are Do what they are told and Respect authority.
Both of those are in direct conflict with thinking for yourself. If you respect authority, you just think whatever the authority tells you to think.
The original posters point was that school is designed to produce mindless drones who follow orders and never think.
IronChef pretends that the message really was that we should raise a generation of criminals, and proceeds to argue against crime, instead of the actual point of the original post.
The most amusing part is when he tells us to "Think, dammit", while arguing vehemently agains teaching kids to think for themselves:-)
Since everyone raves about Lain I bought the first DVD.
And color me "Huh?" !!
What am I supposed to like here?? It just seems like obscurity for it's own sake. Some people think that if something is obscure and incomprehensible, it has to be really good and advanced.
The argument on the NASA site is that the rocks they brought back could not have been produced on earth. I find that an oddly weak choice. Plenty of meteorite material have hit earth, and would have the same property.
The best proof I know is the laser reflector that was left there. It's pretty easy to hit it with a laser beam and get a reflection back.
Like many have already pointed out, clones are (well, will be) just regular people, and once they're among us they'll be able to tell us that themselves. And twins are already a common case of people with identical genes.
Still, some thing will be different and unprecedented.
As a clone you will have the identical genes of somebody older than you. Possibly much older. You'll be able to see how that persons life has deveoped. What is that like? What if the "original" was a really accomplished athlete/scientist/haxxor? People will expect you to be as talented. That's some pressure for a kid!
And what if your "original" gets some creepy gene related disease at 45? What's it like to know that you'll probably get the same thing?
Parents are important for kids. Who will you regard as your parents? Will your "original" be both your mother and father? In some sense you are your own parent. What's that like?? Nobody knows. Yet.
Is there a good word for the relation I call "original". If I get cloned, the baby is my clone. But what am I to him? His clonefather?? We're gonna need a word if there isn't one already.
I like to read what my opponents have to say. It's a good way to keep an active mind and not doze off. But I had to stop after reading the quote below. To summarize, he says
"Stop bothering me with reality! I don't want to think about it. I want to dream about paradise!!"
I got an e-mail today that included the same question I have heard a thousand times, "If Nike weren't in Indonesia, what else would those people be doing?" I guess the rhetorical response I posted a few days ago to address this question didn't quite satisfy everyone. I wondered why not? I also wondered why people always tend to ask this question with a "worst case scenario" approach. "If they didn't have those jobs they would be starving." Is it possible to consider a scenario that sees the possibilities of a better world and not a worse one? Is it possible to dream? [Is it possible to give a real answer to a real question?]Isn't this what the human spirit is all about?
It dawned on me that perhaps it is necessary to invite people to do this. Perhaps it is as simple as that; asking people to imagine a world where all human beings live together harmoniously. And once they have imagined it, ask them to take it a step further and act on it. We can do it. We can change the world! It is only a matter of asking a different set of questions and then working to find the answers to them. The first thing that must happen is the discarding of the question that does nothing to improve the situation of our brothers and sisters here.
"If Nike weren't there, what else would those people be doing?"
Hear me now... this question will no longer be asked. It limits the possibilities. It limits our ability to dream. It limits our commitment to establishing a world where all persons live freely and are granted the dignity that is their human birthright. How do we begin to change this situation?
Well, formally it's a control-click, but if you have a 2 button mouse, the right button is customarily mapped to control-click. In practice it works just like a PC mouse.
The Microsoft optical 2 button + wheel mose is the only good M$ product I've ever encounterd. If they only made it in mac colors...
Just checked, and if I right click on an animated gif in my trusty iCab browser, there is a "Stop Animation" option there. Only on an actually animating gif, of course.
According to you photosynthesis cannot remove CO2 without using sugar, or something.
When a plant splits up the CO2, it gets rid of the O2, which it has no use for, and uses the C to build plant material, such as wood, leafs etc. The plant does not remove any more CO2 from the air than what is accounted for by the carbon atoms in the plant itself.
When the plant dies and gets eaten, the C recombines with O2 and is back in the atmosphere as CO2.
why don't we have an atmosphere full of CO2?
Because over the billions of years, large amounts of CO2 have been turned into plants, who instead of being eaten for different reasons ended up underground, and turned into oil.
Also, a huge part of it is bound in the existing set of living plants. If all plants were to die and get eaten or burned, a huge one time addition of CO2 to the atmosphere would occur.
Use it for pig-slop, or sell it as a special additive to smooties from Jamba Juice, or scatter it onto tundra, or use it as a fertilizer component, or whatever.
All of these uses amount to burning them (metabolism is the same reaction, but slower), which will release exactly the same amount of CO2 to the atmosphere that were taken out.
It all boils down to that those carbon atoms have to end up somewhere.
In this case, the other product pretty much has to be more green slime.
So the question then becomes what to do with all the green slime that's filling up your power station. If you just throw it out, it'll die, rot and convert back to CO2.
I don't think any laws apply in space, just like they don't on international waters. At least not for private vessels. Navy ships have to be bound by international law through their government.
Slashdot Mirror
Plenty very doubtful statements here, but I'll just bring up a very glaring one.
Sql Server, which is at least on a par with Oracle
I don't think you can find anyone doing serious DB work that will agree with that. SQL Server does have it's uses, but it's way behind Oracle in both quality and features.
You get what you pay for.
Yeah, but why would anyone buy something that had such bad reliability?
Here's a quote from the article. You seem to claim that Litman is entirely wrong here?
Even if Jammer could find a lawyer to represent him, he would probably be advised to pay the fine and move on.
Jessica Litman, a professor of copyright law at Wayne State University in Chicago, says that in these cases a
lawyer's best advice would be to pay the fine. "If you're a lawyer and someone comes to your client from Walt
Disney, you are not going to tell your client to go ahead with the trial," she says. "You could be right, but it would
take seven years and $100,000 to find out."
That is why I find him repulsive.
The real problem is a legal system that lets anyone with deep pockets force anyone they like to pay $100k, whether they're guilty of any crime or not.
Dave Powell is just using that system.
I also want to say that it's a bit premature to deem someone repulsive because of one article. He comes across as such an asshole because the writer wanted it that way.
No explanation of who controls your sons thoughts? Disappointing.
Really? So when you get a speeding ticket, you ignore it?
I've never gotten any, but I'm pretty sure I'd make sure to pay it ASAP.
Not because that is what the authorities tells me to do, but because really bad things can happen to me if I don't.
After all, you were "thinking freely" when you decided that you didn't need to drive only 45 mph.
It's unclear why you assume I am a reckless speeder.
Like at least 95% of US drivers, I regularly break the speed limit. Seems like very few drivers really respect authority. Yet most of them function quite well in society.
The fact that your excessive speed puts others in danger is not important, right?
You're making my point.
As you seem to imply, the important consideration is whether I put others at undue risk. That's an argument that has nothing to do with respecting authority.
If I tell my son that he needs to clean his room, and he decides not to, that does not mean that he is thinking freely.
It doesn't?
Who do you claim is thinking for him?
People who don't respect authority can't function in a society. Your comment implies that no one who lives in a society is a free thinker, which is absurd.
I don't respect authority, and I function quite well in society. So your premise is wrong, and thus your conclusion.
I think your problem is that you're confusing "respecting authority" with "blindly following authority figures".
"Respect" can, like most words, mean different things in different contexts etc.
I think what the original post meant by "respecting authority" was exactly that school teaches kids to "blindly following authority figures".
Let's say, for the sake of argument that you are right, schools intend to produce children meeting those characteristics. Let's further assume that they succeed. How does that rule out children thinking for themselves?
You only comment on the punctuality part of the post. The other two points are Do what they are told and Respect authority.
Both of those are in direct conflict with thinking for yourself. If you respect authority, you just think whatever the authority tells you to think.
The original posters point was that school is designed to produce mindless drones who follow orders and never think.
:-)
IronChef pretends that the message really was that we should raise a generation of criminals, and proceeds to argue against crime, instead of the actual point of the original post.
The most amusing part is when he tells us to "Think, dammit", while arguing vehemently agains teaching kids to think for themselves
so they get to post whatever the hell they find interesting.
Menawhile, you know that yo can turn off anime stories and any other category?
Since everyone raves about Lain I bought the first DVD.
And color me "Huh?" !!
What am I supposed to like here?? It just seems like obscurity for it's own sake. Some people think that if something is obscure and incomprehensible, it has to be really good and advanced.
Is this the mindset you need to appreciate Lain?
The argument on the NASA site is that the rocks they brought back could not have been produced on earth. I find that an oddly weak choice. Plenty of meteorite material have hit earth, and would have the same property.
The best proof I know is the laser reflector that was left there. It's pretty easy to hit it with a laser beam and get a reflection back.
Like many have already pointed out, clones are (well, will be) just regular people, and once they're among us they'll be able to tell us that themselves. And twins are already a common case of people with identical genes.
Still, some thing will be different and unprecedented.
As a clone you will have the identical genes of somebody older than you. Possibly much older. You'll be able to see how that persons life has deveoped. What is that like? What if the "original" was a really accomplished athlete/scientist/haxxor? People will expect you to be as talented. That's some pressure for a kid!
And what if your "original" gets some creepy gene related disease at 45? What's it like to know that you'll probably get the same thing?
Parents are important for kids. Who will you regard as your parents? Will your "original" be both your mother and father? In some sense you are your own parent. What's that like?? Nobody knows. Yet.
Is there a good word for the relation I call "original". If I get cloned, the baby is my clone. But what am I to him? His clonefather?? We're gonna need a word if there isn't one already.
I like to read what my opponents have to say. It's a good way to keep an active mind and not doze off. But I had to stop after reading the quote below. To summarize, he says
"Stop bothering me with reality! I don't want to think about it. I want to dream about paradise!!"
I got an e-mail today that included the same question I have heard a thousand times, "If Nike weren't in Indonesia, what else would those people be doing?" I guess the rhetorical response I posted a few days ago to address this question didn't quite satisfy everyone. I wondered why not? I also wondered why people always tend to ask this question with a "worst case scenario" approach. "If they didn't have those jobs they would be starving." Is it possible to consider a scenario that sees the possibilities of a better world and not a worse one? Is it possible to dream? [Is it possible to give a real answer to a real question?] Isn't this what the human spirit is all about?
It dawned on me that perhaps it is necessary to invite people to do this. Perhaps it is as simple as that; asking people to imagine a world where all human beings live together harmoniously. And once they have imagined it, ask them to take it a step further and act on it. We can do it. We can change the world! It is only a matter of asking a different set of questions and then working to find the answers to them. The first thing that must happen is the discarding of the question that does nothing to improve the situation of our brothers and sisters here.
"If Nike weren't there, what else would those people be doing?"
Hear me now... this question will no longer be asked. It limits the possibilities. It limits our ability to dream. It limits our commitment to establishing a world where all persons live freely and are granted the dignity that is their human birthright. How do we begin to change this situation?
Well, formally it's a control-click, but if you have a 2 button mouse, the right button is customarily mapped to control-click. In practice it works just like a PC mouse.
The Microsoft optical 2 button + wheel mose is the only good M$ product I've ever encounterd. If they only made it in mac colors...
It's always highly suspicious when people are fighting for some supposed victims, and you NEVER GET TO HEAR from the "victims" themselves.
The only people raising this issue are rich westerners. The workers themselves are never asked. Think about why that could be.
Just checked, and if I right click on an animated gif in my trusty iCab browser, there is a "Stop Animation" option there. Only on an actually animating gif, of course.
According to you photosynthesis cannot remove CO2 without using sugar, or something.
When a plant splits up the CO2, it gets rid of the O2, which it has no use for, and uses the C to build plant material, such as wood, leafs etc. The plant does not remove any more CO2 from the air than what is accounted for by the carbon atoms in the plant itself.
When the plant dies and gets eaten, the C recombines with O2 and is back in the atmosphere as CO2.
why don't we have an atmosphere full of CO2?
Because over the billions of years, large amounts of CO2 have been turned into plants, who instead of being eaten for different reasons ended up underground, and turned into oil.
Also, a huge part of it is bound in the existing set of living plants. If all plants were to die and get eaten or burned, a huge one time addition of CO2 to the atmosphere would occur.
It's gonna keep piling up, you know.
And if anyone eats it, it goes back to CO2 + stuff.
Use it for pig-slop, or sell it as a special additive to smooties from Jamba Juice, or scatter it onto tundra, or use it as a fertilizer component, or whatever.
All of these uses amount to burning them (metabolism is the same reaction, but slower), which will release exactly the same amount of CO2 to the atmosphere that were taken out.
It all boils down to that those carbon atoms have to end up somewhere.
The other useful byproduct is TREE.
In this case, the other product pretty much has to be more green slime.
So the question then becomes what to do with all the green slime that's filling up your power station. If you just throw it out, it'll die, rot and convert back to CO2.
Pretty clueless scheme...
What else is all over the planet, and in the same size everywhere?
I don't think any laws apply in space, just like they don't on international waters. At least not for private vessels. Navy ships have to be bound by international law through their government.
They're fighting for their lifes now, so of course they fight dirty. You would too. In the long run (10-20 years) they don't have a chance.
That's the speed of light in vacuum. In solid materials, it travels quite a bit slower.