The only people who really have a lot to lose are the huge-scale real-estate gamblers (companies like ADM who control a lot of currently nice farmland) - and that wealth will move to people who are now miserably poor (siberia).
No, there's also the individual people who live in the areas that get less nice.
So here's the question: How exactly is evolution disprovible?
If someone can demonstrate that living things can't change more than some finite amount. All that's required is proving a negative. Simple, really.
The basic idea is that things can change without limit. While it could be proven that a specific mechanism for that change doesn't work, they can just plug a different mechanism into their theory. (source of change went from natural variation, to random mutations (genetics means that natural variation only goes so far), to "punctuated equilibrium (mutations all happening at the same time to match the fossil record better), to I think something else now.)
You teach kids that ID is science and you get crappy scientists.
Teach kids that "this is the way things are" is science, and you get crappy scientists. Independent of whether your "this is the way things are" happens to be ID, evolution, or something else.
Oh, I don't know. I've seen a couple of funny posts that were made many, many times funnier by an 'Informative' tag. This could just mean that the moderator wants to make a joke, too.
Wallace claims, correctly, that Gnu is selling their product for less than what it costs to produce it. That's called DUMPING, and it's against the law.
I'm not sure that giving something away counts as selling it...
This could be intentional, but couldn't it also be the result of sloppy coding?
Say, your bid is the max of your maximum bid and the other highest bid plus the bid increment. If it only remembers the maximum bids and calculates actual bids dynamically from these, I think it'd act like this.
b/c as Creationists belive the earth is only about 6,000 years old so about 394,000 of it is irrelavant.
Not all of them. Some Christian-variety creationists hold that the "was without form, and void" in the beginning of genesis is actually "became without form, and void", and that there's an unspecified long time between that and when the earth was originally made.
But the only thing they actually used was the header files. If they wrote their own headers that "just happened" to describe the interface that the GPL library had, then they didn't use any GPL code.
It should be, but the GPL calls those programs "derivative works" and claims that they have to be GPL also. Even though all those programs care about is the library *interface*, and can be written with no knowledge of how the library is written.
It'd be interesting to see what happened if someone wrote a library that was drop-in compatible with a GPL library, then compiled a program against their library and distributed it (binary only) listing a dependency on the GPL library...
For me, it's CompactFlash. Maybe that's just the one I imprinted with, but to me the SD cards look so skinny I'm afraid of them getting bent too easily.
CF cards have a nice, solid feel to them. I don't feel afraid to toss one onto my desk lest it get broken or lost, yet you can still fit plenty of them in your pocket at once.
Same here. I like CF, and feel like I'd probably drop anything smaller. Especially if I want to take pictures outside when it's cold.
The patent issue surely could use more clarity. I'm not sure I like the idea of a mutual-defense patent clause. That might be scary for a corporation simply because there is so much free software that they are using. If they had a patent issue with GIMP to pick a random example, would they have to stop using Linux? Probably shouldn't deploy Linux then...
GPL-2 says it's *not* an EULA:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.
Wouldn't a patent-defense clause like make is so that the GPL *was* an EULA?
"I would like to see the next issue of the GPL include a mutual-defense clause regarding patents, such that if you enforce a patent against any free software, your rights to use free software terminate," Perens said.
Slashdot Mirror
Tim
Tim
But stealing a random number generator keychain is kinda hard to do over the internet, so I'd think it'd work just fine for this.
Tim
The basic idea is that things can change without limit. While it could be proven that a specific mechanism for that change doesn't work, they can just plug a different mechanism into their theory. (source of change went from natural variation, to random mutations (genetics means that natural variation only goes so far), to "punctuated equilibrium (mutations all happening at the same time to match the fossil record better), to I think something else now.)
Tim
Tim
Tim
Tim
Tim
Tim
Tim
Tim
Tim
Tim
Tim
Tim
Tim
Say, your bid is the max of your maximum bid and the other highest bid plus the bid increment. If it only remembers the maximum bids and calculates actual bids dynamically from these, I think it'd act like this.
Tim
Tim
Tim
Tim
Tim
It'd be interesting to see what happened if someone wrote a library that was drop-in compatible with a GPL library, then compiled a program against their library and distributed it (binary only) listing a dependency on the GPL library...
Tim
Tim
Tim
Tim