That water you are referring to is tap water. If I recall correctly my TDS meter showed it to be roughly 99.9996% pure but most people won't drink it anymore. On the other hand, my bottled water measures in at 99.99998% pure.
The crazy thing. I've double blind taste tested a couple people and they could consistently tell the difference. It's fascinating that humans can detect such minute variations in water. Its obvious why we developed it, but still fascinating.
What difference does it make? Anti-aliased fonts have looked fantastic in Linux for a long time. Of course, the fonts themselves suck but you can bend the rules and load the Microsoft font pack and have font goodness all day long.
The decision directly affects business method patents but also overrides a standard used to test the validity of process patents and that standard has been used as the basis of a great deal of software patents. Apparently, including a large portion of Microsoft's portfolio.
I don't think Groklaw is being overly optimistic, I think the summary is.
PJ essentially said that this further erodes software patents and that it may well invalidate one particular type of software patent. A type that Microsoft apparently has a great deal of because they filed a brief saying that ruling the wrong way on this would hurt them.
PJ did not say that all Microsoft patent are belong to us or all software patent are belong to us. The article is implying that far more strongly than PJ.
Apparently you have a far too narrow idea of what a patent troll is. Anyone who uses bogus and/or overly broad patents to try to extort value from others is patent trolling. Who filed for the patents is irrelevant.
I'm a PC tech as well and its not merely a locality bias. I service a number of individuals and businesses.
In my experience the customers who get infected with tons of spyware regularly are the ones who browse and/or download more not those who fail to practice safe computing practices. Nobody practices safe computing practices intentionally.
Ultimately it simply comes down to exposure. The older users get infected less because they generally visit a fixed set of content. This is true of many office workers as well. They may not browse much, or only check email, or they have the browser open all day but only use 5 sites. Those users only get nailed by worms. Everyone else gets hammered by spyware.
A $50 tool paid for by the worker means a hell of a lot more to a worker who nets less than $20k/year than to someone who nets a high six figure salary. A $1 screwdriver not so much.
Two astronauts who need tools each have a bag of tools. That isn't foresight, good planning, or much luck its just a positive outlook.
The astronauts now have half the tools they need and are forced to work at reduced capacity.
Luck would be if a third tool wielder forgot his bag last week, planning would be if an extra set that wasn't needed was stowed away in a cabinet yesterday. This is just bad news that doesn't seem to be devastating being printed in rose colored print.
A religion is a code of behavior. It has nothing to do with magic powers.
If you believe that something doesn't exist simply because you have not yet seen evidence of it then you are taking that position as a statement of faith. That would indeed meet a more modern notion of religion that is to take a position upon faith rather than evidence. After all, since birth you have no doubt encountered evidence of all sorts of things that your code of faith would have led you to believe was not real prior to having seen said evidence.
If you are an atheist then you are indeed adopting the more likely possibility but ultimately are taking a stand based on faith. If you are a 'believer' who hasn't had a deity encounter the rest of us aren't privy to, then you are adopting an even less likely stand based again, on faith.
The rest of us make decisions and take actions based on the most likely possibilities but try to avoid forming needless opinions and taking faith based stands. We are perfectly content not to assume truths based on likelihoods and to simultaneously accept all possibilities. The fun is in waiting for a position to reveal itself, not in picking one ahead of time. Why do you atheists and believers feel this great need to guess the winning team, regardless of where the bookies place the odds? Can't you just watch the game and be excited about a result being revealed?
P.S. If you pay lip service to 'anything being possible' to claim scientific integrity but actually have opinions on what is true, then please stop saying it. Most atheists do this and try to claim a definition of atheism that would include true agnostics like myself. Either you choose to make a guess and believe it or you don't. If you don't but choose your actions based upon the odds in the meantime then stop calling yourself an atheist. Start properly titling yourself an agnostic. You can still bash morons I promise.
"In other words, your way of thinking leads to one result: you must necessarily allow for the possibility of each statement in the set of all possible undisprovable statements. Furthermore, you would ostensibly regard each statement in this set as not only possible, but with equally likely as not. "
Now this:
'In other words, your way of thinking leads to one result: you must necessarily allow for the possibility of each statement in the set of all possible undisprovable statements.'
Is true enough. That is indeed the result that logical reasoning leads one to.
'Furthermore, you would ostensibly regard each statement in this set as not only possible, but with equally likely as not.'
This is false. Simple logical reasoning can be forced to make any logical being lead to ultimate admission that all things are possible.
The best and only verification we have that anything we experience is real is corroboration by others, unfortunately, there is no more reason to believe in the existence of the 'others' than anything else we perceive. A madman can experience his existence in candyland and experience others being there with him all within the confines of a padded cell.
It is even possible that all possibilities are true at once.
That said, there is no logical support for your assertion that all possibilities must be considered to be equally likely.
There is a false school of thought in which individuals choose to adopt opinions based on faith in statistical probabilities. Those individuals will typically pay token lip service to the less likely possibilities existing but in truth they have formed an opinion and closed their minds to those less likely possibilities. They have artificially inflated the burden of proof required to believe those possibilities (why should any possibility be considered more 'extraordinary' than another or require a different burden of proof? What defines extraordinary in this sense if not an illogical and unfounded preconceived notion?).
Likelihood is not equal, it is based on experience and known evidence and it is relative to individuals and groups. If you have been gutted on a battlefield and a deity descends from the clouds and heals your wound the likelihood of a deity has gone up a tad. For the rest of us, the likelihood remains pretty much the same since our experiences cause the relative likelihood of your tale to be so low as to ignore it.
To be religious (in the modern day sense) is to adhere to practices based upon a belief that ultimately relies on faith. Atheism fits this. Atheists have chosen to adopt the belief that there is no creator of any kind whatsoever because they have seen no evidence they are willing to accept of one thus far. Thus they take it on faith that they never will.
If the question is a stack of 5 cards (or a trillion, it doesn't matter) and all of them are aces but one. The universe has drawn 4 cards that nobody has seen. An atheist believes that the 4 cards are aces without ever having seen them. A religious believer could range from believing that you drew the other card to believing you drew it and they know the denomination, suit, and the order in which you drew, and an agnostic says that while you probably drew all aces they lack the burning desire of the other two groups to form an opinion and are content to let the cards be turned or not.
It is worth saying that there are atheists who claim they believe in all possibilities but they rarely actually believe as an agnostic does. They generally only pay lip service to the less likely possibility when in reality they don't believe the possibility to be possible at all.
What is the source of your information? It is contradicted by the sources I've been looking at, including a recent discovery special on the Mexican vehicles.
That is and should be up to the users and the developers (really the developers) not up to some dictatorial for profit entity that has contributed some portion of the code in the original project.
This problem has been solved elsewhere. There is no conflict between releasing java as an open technology and trademarking the name "Java" at the same time. That is why there will never be a Microsoft embrace and extend Linux, or Firefox, etc.
There is no need to castrate the most powerful tool the community has. The fork.
Again, what you are proposing is what Microsoft called Shared Source and it was rejected by the community a long time ago. It wouldn't be any better coming from Apple, Google, IBM, or Sun.
Forking is a solution not a problem. It was Sun itself that made a big stink with the fork red herring argument you are referring to.
You can fork a project all day long and it doesn't hurt a thing. A fork may as well not even have happened if it isn't adopted and it won't be adopted if there was no valid cause to fork.
Your license lets the company retain control of the project when they are doing things the community does not want or is opposed to (See Sun's CEO wanting to put ads in OO.org output documents). That is a polar opposite of one of the pillars of open source philosophy.
Microsoft came up with a system essentially the same as what you desire. They called it the 'Shared Source' initiative.
The only thing that separates reality from delusion is the shared perception of others. If you ever took a philosophy class you would discover that this is the ultimate tenet to support the idea that there is a reality.
Of course this falls apart if you realize that if you could dream, imagine, or somehow perceive the rest of the world you could just as easily perceive the others who are sharing your delusion.
Your entire life, including the 'others' who corroborate it, could all be a dream or delusion.
I beg to differ. Although the success has little to do with deb, it certainly has a lot to do with the quality of the distro and the massive debian software repository it shares.
my friends al and ah are going to have to disagree with your friends. Coupling 8 bit registers to make them addressable with 16 bit asm does not a 16 bit chip make;) If you can address 8 bits, its an 8 bit processor.
Slashdot Mirror
Einstein's brain had certain portions underdeveloped and other areas (particularly thosed used for spacial perception) overdeveloped.
His unique abilities to visualize models of concepts in multi-dimensional problems is almost certainly caused by this physical difference.
You might be able to nurture a genius but Einstein was almost certainly a genius due to genetics.
Einstein's brain had certain portions underdeveloped and other areas (particularly thosed used for spacial perception) overdeveloped.
His unique abilities to visualize models of concepts in multi-dimensional problems is almost certainly caused by this physical difference.
The water I am referring to is treated with reverse osmosis and carbon filtering. I have been drinking it for years.
That water you are referring to is tap water. If I recall correctly my TDS meter showed it to be roughly 99.9996% pure but most people won't drink it anymore. On the other hand, my bottled water measures in at 99.99998% pure.
The crazy thing. I've double blind taste tested a couple people and they could consistently tell the difference. It's fascinating that humans can detect such minute variations in water. Its obvious why we developed it, but still fascinating.
What difference does it make? Anti-aliased fonts have looked fantastic in Linux for a long time. Of course, the fonts themselves suck but you can bend the rules and load the Microsoft font pack and have font goodness all day long.
2 or 3 clicks, the requirement of an internet connection, the functions behind those clicks working properly, etc
Actually a great deal.
The decision directly affects business method patents but also overrides a standard used to test the validity of process patents and that standard has been used as the basis of a great deal of software patents. Apparently, including a large portion of Microsoft's portfolio.
I don't think Groklaw is being overly optimistic, I think the summary is.
PJ essentially said that this further erodes software patents and that it may well invalidate one particular type of software patent. A type that Microsoft apparently has a great deal of because they filed a brief saying that ruling the wrong way on this would hurt them.
PJ did not say that all Microsoft patent are belong to us or all software patent are belong to us. The article is implying that far more strongly than PJ.
Apparently you have a far too narrow idea of what a patent troll is. Anyone who uses bogus and/or overly broad patents to try to extort value from others is patent trolling. Who filed for the patents is irrelevant.
Several million dollars a year really isn't all that much significant to a company like microsoft than 10k. Either way its chump change.
As for the filing fees for the rest of us, for the price of filing a patent yourself by hand you could buy a used car for your teen.
In my world the perfect phone call would probably involve news about some blow, four playmates, and a large case small unmarked bills. YMMV.
I'm a PC tech as well and its not merely a locality bias. I service a number of individuals and businesses.
In my experience the customers who get infected with tons of spyware regularly are the ones who browse and/or download more not those who fail to practice safe computing practices. Nobody practices safe computing practices intentionally.
Ultimately it simply comes down to exposure. The older users get infected less because they generally visit a fixed set of content. This is true of many office workers as well. They may not browse much, or only check email, or they have the browser open all day but only use 5 sites. Those users only get nailed by worms. Everyone else gets hammered by spyware.
In my world, a perfect phone call wouldn't involve my mother at all.
A $50 tool paid for by the worker means a hell of a lot more to a worker who nets less than $20k/year than to someone who nets a high six figure salary. A $1 screwdriver not so much.
Two astronauts who need tools each have a bag of tools. That isn't foresight, good planning, or much luck its just a positive outlook.
The astronauts now have half the tools they need and are forced to work at reduced capacity.
Luck would be if a third tool wielder forgot his bag last week, planning would be if an extra set that wasn't needed was stowed away in a cabinet yesterday. This is just bad news that doesn't seem to be devastating being printed in rose colored print.
A religion is a code of behavior. It has nothing to do with magic powers.
If you believe that something doesn't exist simply because you have not yet seen evidence of it then you are taking that position as a statement of faith. That would indeed meet a more modern notion of religion that is to take a position upon faith rather than evidence. After all, since birth you have no doubt encountered evidence of all sorts of things that your code of faith would have led you to believe was not real prior to having seen said evidence.
If you are an atheist then you are indeed adopting the more likely possibility but ultimately are taking a stand based on faith. If you are a 'believer' who hasn't had a deity encounter the rest of us aren't privy to, then you are adopting an even less likely stand based again, on faith.
The rest of us make decisions and take actions based on the most likely possibilities but try to avoid forming needless opinions and taking faith based stands. We are perfectly content not to assume truths based on likelihoods and to simultaneously accept all possibilities. The fun is in waiting for a position to reveal itself, not in picking one ahead of time. Why do you atheists and believers feel this great need to guess the winning team, regardless of where the bookies place the odds? Can't you just watch the game and be excited about a result being revealed?
P.S. If you pay lip service to 'anything being possible' to claim scientific integrity but actually have opinions on what is true, then please stop saying it. Most atheists do this and try to claim a definition of atheism that would include true agnostics like myself. Either you choose to make a guess and believe it or you don't. If you don't but choose your actions based upon the odds in the meantime then stop calling yourself an atheist. Start properly titling yourself an agnostic. You can still bash morons I promise.
Your entire long post is summed up with this.
"In other words, your way of thinking leads to one result: you must necessarily allow for the possibility of each statement in the set of all possible undisprovable statements. Furthermore, you would ostensibly regard each statement in this set as not only possible, but with equally likely as not. "
Now this:
'In other words, your way of thinking leads to one result: you must necessarily allow for the possibility of each statement in the set of all possible undisprovable statements.'
Is true enough. That is indeed the result that logical reasoning leads one to.
'Furthermore, you would ostensibly regard each statement in this set as not only possible, but with equally likely as not.'
This is false. Simple logical reasoning can be forced to make any logical being lead to ultimate admission that all things are possible.
The best and only verification we have that anything we experience is real is corroboration by others, unfortunately, there is no more reason to believe in the existence of the 'others' than anything else we perceive. A madman can experience his existence in candyland and experience others being there with him all within the confines of a padded cell.
It is even possible that all possibilities are true at once.
That said, there is no logical support for your assertion that all possibilities must be considered to be equally likely.
There is a false school of thought in which individuals choose to adopt opinions based on faith in statistical probabilities. Those individuals will typically pay token lip service to the less likely possibilities existing but in truth they have formed an opinion and closed their minds to those less likely possibilities. They have artificially inflated the burden of proof required to believe those possibilities (why should any possibility be considered more 'extraordinary' than another or require a different burden of proof? What defines extraordinary in this sense if not an illogical and unfounded preconceived notion?).
Likelihood is not equal, it is based on experience and known evidence and it is relative to individuals and groups. If you have been gutted on a battlefield and a deity descends from the clouds and heals your wound the likelihood of a deity has gone up a tad. For the rest of us, the likelihood remains pretty much the same since our experiences cause the relative likelihood of your tale to be so low as to ignore it.
To be religious (in the modern day sense) is to adhere to practices based upon a belief that ultimately relies on faith. Atheism fits this. Atheists have chosen to adopt the belief that there is no creator of any kind whatsoever because they have seen no evidence they are willing to accept of one thus far. Thus they take it on faith that they never will.
If the question is a stack of 5 cards (or a trillion, it doesn't matter) and all of them are aces but one. The universe has drawn 4 cards that nobody has seen. An atheist believes that the 4 cards are aces without ever having seen them. A religious believer could range from believing that you drew the other card to believing you drew it and they know the denomination, suit, and the order in which you drew, and an agnostic says that while you probably drew all aces they lack the burning desire of the other two groups to form an opinion and are content to let the cards be turned or not.
It is worth saying that there are atheists who claim they believe in all possibilities but they rarely actually believe as an agnostic does. They generally only pay lip service to the less likely possibility when in reality they don't believe the possibility to be possible at all.
What is the source of your information? It is contradicted by the sources I've been looking at, including a recent discovery special on the Mexican vehicles.
'which version would be adopted more'
That is and should be up to the users and the developers (really the developers) not up to some dictatorial for profit entity that has contributed some portion of the code in the original project.
This problem has been solved elsewhere. There is no conflict between releasing java as an open technology and trademarking the name "Java" at the same time. That is why there will never be a Microsoft embrace and extend Linux, or Firefox, etc.
There is no need to castrate the most powerful tool the community has. The fork.
Again, what you are proposing is what Microsoft called Shared Source and it was rejected by the community a long time ago. It wouldn't be any better coming from Apple, Google, IBM, or Sun.
Actually they didn't entirely choose not to. Microsoft's 'shared source' initiative is essentially what he is referring to.
Forking is a solution not a problem. It was Sun itself that made a big stink with the fork red herring argument you are referring to.
You can fork a project all day long and it doesn't hurt a thing. A fork may as well not even have happened if it isn't adopted and it won't be adopted if there was no valid cause to fork.
Your license lets the company retain control of the project when they are doing things the community does not want or is opposed to (See Sun's CEO wanting to put ads in OO.org output documents). That is a polar opposite of one of the pillars of open source philosophy.
Microsoft came up with a system essentially the same as what you desire. They called it the 'Shared Source' initiative.
'Reader Barence also pointed out that Sun will begin to auction "branding space" in OpenOffice.'
Can you say fork? Does he really think that tossing ads into people's documents/emails/etc is going to HELP OpenOffice's slowly growing marketshare?
3.0, it makes for a nice clean breaking point to fork the project. OO is far too heavily controlled by Sun at this point anyway.
The only thing that separates reality from delusion is the shared perception of others. If you ever took a philosophy class you would discover that this is the ultimate tenet to support the idea that there is a reality.
Of course this falls apart if you realize that if you could dream, imagine, or somehow perceive the rest of the world you could just as easily perceive the others who are sharing your delusion.
Your entire life, including the 'others' who corroborate it, could all be a dream or delusion.
I beg to differ. Although the success has little to do with deb, it certainly has a lot to do with the quality of the distro and the massive debian software repository it shares.
my friends al and ah are going to have to disagree with your friends. Coupling 8 bit registers to make them addressable with 16 bit asm does not a 16 bit chip make ;) If you can address 8 bits, its an 8 bit processor.