Except that the court didn't say that the USAF owned the software, but that they were immune from the DMCA for cracking it.
Exactly! That's the worrying part about this. Had the court ruled that the USAF was (at least partially) owner of the software and therefore allowed to modify it, then there'd be no problem at all. It's the unlimited license to pirate, copy and steal that's wrong here.
If you want to nitpick governmental structure, I think the US is a federation. But it's a (somewhat) democratic federation without a monarch.
The word "republic" simply means there's no monarch. The word "democracy" means that the government be it monarchy or republic, is subject to (dis)approval of the people. And "federation" means it's a collection of smaller semi-autonomous states under a somewhat but not completely centralised government.
All these terms are orthigonal. Republics can be federations, but many aren't. Monarchies used to be autocracies, but nowadays most of them are democracies. Republics can be democratic, partially democratic (with a voting elite of the rich/white/patricians/party members) or completely undemocratic.
Although sometimes it looks like the US is trying to combine a democratic, federal republic with elements of divine-right monarchy, and that's definitely not something you see every day.
How about Kelts suing the various Germanic peoples (Anglo-Saxons, Franks, etc) for wrongful invasion and reparations? They need to sue the Romans too, ofcourse.
And what about Ghengiz Khan? There's no way Mongolia has the money to pay for the damage he did.
The funny thing is, the whole debate has been going on for centuries, and causing fractures in the church between those factions who believed that Jesus was poor, and so the church should be, and those who believed that having lots of money is really great.
You don't understand. Money is evil, therefore the catholic church tries to make sure they have all of it, so regular people won't have to suffer from it.
If the Bible (or at least, the Gospels) are the word of Jesus, and it's his word that good Christians are supposed to be following, then the fact that he says "pray in private" would seem to suggest that Jesus doesn't want you to get together in a big building once a week to say your prayers in front of everybody else. Seems pretty straightforward to me...
He said not to pray out loud on the street corners to show everybody how devout you are. He never seemed to have any serious problems with group prayer.
I have found that in Silicon Valley companies, there is almost a sense of pride taken in how unstructured the working environment is. The "cool, hip" companies are the ones that encourage their employees to engage in nerf gun fights, have parties every Friday, and generally play around on company time. Sometimes it is hard for me to believe that these companies can be globally competitive, but maybe companies all over the world are all doing the same things.
Most companies are doing the same thing, but to management instead of programmers. This attracts a certain kind of manager that's more interested in money and perks than in doing their work properly, and that enables smaller companies to compete with them.
Seriously, most large companies waste millions without even blinking. The only reason they can compete at all is that they have those millions.
"Java" works fine, though. As does "Ruby". I think they're so young and hip and trendy that they only give young, hip and trendy search results.
Or maybe they filter really aggressively on pages that they don't think are interesting enough. Google still turns up tons of junk in their results. Cuil is trying something different, and occasionally it works.
Lunch is ordered in every single day. Huge fridges burst with snacks and drinks. Bowls of strawberries and muffins lie around the rest area. The company pays for a personal trainer and gym membership for everyone. A doctor calls round each Friday, after the weekly barbecue, to see if everyone's in good health. Employees drift in an out at times that suit themselves.
Do you think that this is what caused the dot com bubble? Do you think the vast majority of people were living like this when it burst?
What's more, this isn't even all that outrageous even in this day and age. Strawberries and muffins don't cost all that much, and my employer has lunch delivered every day, and a masseuse comes over every wednesday. I've heard of companies that offer gym membership (I'm sure you can get a good deal if you give it to every employee). So all that remains is a weekly barbecue (instead of just a weekly drink, which a lot of companies have), a personal trainer and a doctor.
They do a bit more than other companies, but not outrageously so. If this makes employees happy and hard working, then it's well worth the investment.
Next time, try understanding the difference between a processor and a computer.
Although I also think 60 W for an idle mini-ITX system with low-power processor is a bit much. If every other part of the computer wastes that much energy, it's a bit silly to put this much effort in reducing the processor's power consumption.
I like the Western Digital Green Power drives, which cut power consumption for hard drives in half (from 10 to 5 W). Many graphics cards use enormous amounts of power, but you shouldn't put those in an energy-friendly mini-ITX system. But how much power does the motherboard use? And can memory be made more energy friendly?
Exactly. The alleged bully comes across as a very valuable forum member to me, even if he is slight (and only slightly, by internet standards) abrasive.
I'm wondering if it isn't the OP that's the troll here.
If you don't want forum discussions, don't create a forum. Create a guestbook instead, and delete the entries that give you anything other than praise.
When you realize you're in a pointless and prolonged exchange with a time waster, bully, etc., get off the ride.
I don't really see the problem with this alleged bully. As far as I can tell (note that I know absolutely nothing about model airplanes) he's pretty reasonable and articulate, and sounds like he has some valid points.
Whether they really are valid or relevant I don't know. If you don't feel like replying to him, let other forum members discuss the validity of the points he's raising.
As internet discussions go, this seems close to the best thing you can possibly hope for. Has the OP ever witnessed a real flamewar? (Ofcourse it is possible that the guy is just a really subtle troll, I'm too unfamiliar with this subject to tell.)
this is really all just pedantic BS. You have to qualify that it is "w3c compliant" or "valid html 4.0", you can't just say that valid html is defined by the w3c when so many apps will render invalid html.
I think distinguishing between valid html and valid html 4.0 is pedantic BS. Like it or not, w3c is the standards body for html and all derrived standards. The fact that browsers are able to render all sorts of unholy crap doesn't change the fact that there are actually standards for this sort of thing. W3c is unfortunately not a very good standards body, and was also suffering from near-monopolists (first netscape, then IE) who included a lot of new features in their own ad-hoc standard.
I'm glad they got a lot more stringent with XML and XHTML. There's no such thing as invalid XML or badly formed XML; if it doesn't meet the exact standards for XML, it's not XML, and lots of tools will simply refuse to handle it (although some might still accept it).
W3c managed the improbable. They managed to steal the term "valid" for code that doesn't work. I want my "valid" back.
This is actually a very good point. The fact that non-working code can be valid is definitely odd, and that is IMO caused by the fact that w3c doesn't provide a reference implementation. Standards are much easier to obey when there is a reference implementation.
Oh, wow, cause nobody ever argues over the implementation of a spec right?
There's a lot wrong with implementations of specs, particularly in the case of w3c specs, because they don't provide a reference implementation of their specs.
Bad implementations don't automatically define a new kind of validity. A web site is only HTML or XHTML valid when is passes w3c's validity test. Whether any browser can make head or tail of it is irrelevant. And HTML or XHTML that is rendered properly by all major browsers may or may not be valid (X)HTML. A browser that passes the acid test clearly renders some valid (X)HTML correctly, but that doesn't guarantee it will render everything correctly.
That's because most implementations of the spec suck. They're getting better (slowly), but they still suck. Although you could argue that the problem lies with the spec or the lack of a reference implementation.
Not only that, once you're in deep for a while you realize that "valid code" is a self-defined term. Do you mean w3c valid or microsoft valid or acid 4 valid? Even the developers of each browser have their own view of "valid," hence all the diversity.
Valid means "valid", which is not the same thing as "working", which is what you're talking about.
There's no such thing as microsoft valid or acid 4 valid html.
I'm not so sure GWT is even competing at all with all those other ajax/javascript frameworks. As far as I understand (but I have no real experience with it, mind you), GWT is for complex web applications that run almost entirely in the browser, whereas most javascript frameworks use it for faster communication with the server that still does all the real work.
Not every web application needs to shift the entire load to the browser, and many prefer to keep a bit more on the server. GWT has its advantages, but also its disadvantages. I think we'll see more GWT in the future, but it's not the solution for everything.
They could have stated that it's the most Pluto-like extra-solar planet discovered, and been just as right. Just because it is a slightly closer match doesn't mean much. It is still not Earth-like enough to matter.
Liquid water is the key here. That's what sets the Earth apart from other rocky planets in our solar system, and this is the smallest exoplanet yet that looks like it has the right temperature range for liquid water. Therefore, it's the most earth-like yet.
For you maybe, but anything that evolved in that environment would be really strong on this planet, be able to leap...wait, what was the name of that planet?
Or, more likely, everything will be smaller. Being small is a very good way to deal with high gravity.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct - celibacy does not mean a vow of no sex, it is a vow of not marrying. Chastity is a vow of no sex.
This is a very interesting distinction (especially for the church to make) that I wasn't aware of.
Except that the court didn't say that the USAF owned the software, but that they were immune from the DMCA for cracking it.
Exactly! That's the worrying part about this. Had the court ruled that the USAF was (at least partially) owner of the software and therefore allowed to modify it, then there'd be no problem at all. It's the unlimited license to pirate, copy and steal that's wrong here.
Lol,we established a republic,not a democracy.
If you want to nitpick governmental structure, I think the US is a federation. But it's a (somewhat) democratic federation without a monarch.
The word "republic" simply means there's no monarch. The word "democracy" means that the government be it monarchy or republic, is subject to (dis)approval of the people. And "federation" means it's a collection of smaller semi-autonomous states under a somewhat but not completely centralised government.
All these terms are orthigonal. Republics can be federations, but many aren't. Monarchies used to be autocracies, but nowadays most of them are democracies. Republics can be democratic, partially democratic (with a voting elite of the rich/white/patricians/party members) or completely undemocratic.
Although sometimes it looks like the US is trying to combine a democratic, federal republic with elements of divine-right monarchy, and that's definitely not something you see every day.
And if they can actually bring peace to that region, they deserve all the billions they can get.
How about Kelts suing the various Germanic peoples (Anglo-Saxons, Franks, etc) for wrongful invasion and reparations? They need to sue the Romans too, ofcourse.
And what about Ghengiz Khan? There's no way Mongolia has the money to pay for the damage he did.
The funny thing is, the whole debate has been going on for centuries, and causing fractures in the church between those factions who believed that Jesus was poor, and so the church should be, and those who believed that having lots of money is really great.
You don't understand. Money is evil, therefore the catholic church tries to make sure they have all of it, so regular people won't have to suffer from it.
If the Bible (or at least, the Gospels) are the word of Jesus, and it's his word that good Christians are supposed to be following, then the fact that he says "pray in private" would seem to suggest that Jesus doesn't want you to get together in a big building once a week to say your prayers in front of everybody else. Seems pretty straightforward to me...
He said not to pray out loud on the street corners to show everybody how devout you are. He never seemed to have any serious problems with group prayer.
If you cant prove you are 50% or greater american indian I think you have no case. Only american indians would be able to sue for the illegal dumping.
Any remote descendant of a native American still has a far better case than any Knights Templar descendant.
I have found that in Silicon Valley companies, there is almost a sense of pride taken in how unstructured the working environment is. The "cool, hip" companies are the ones that encourage their employees to engage in nerf gun fights, have parties every Friday, and generally play around on company time. Sometimes it is hard for me to believe that these companies can be globally competitive, but maybe companies all over the world are all doing the same things.
Most companies are doing the same thing, but to management instead of programmers. This attracts a certain kind of manager that's more interested in money and perks than in doing their work properly, and that enables smaller companies to compete with them.
Seriously, most large companies waste millions without even blinking. The only reason they can compete at all is that they have those millions.
I looked for "aes zip linux" and got 0 results.
Try something simple, like Cobol.
"Java" works fine, though. As does "Ruby". I think they're so young and hip and trendy that they only give young, hip and trendy search results.
Or maybe they filter really aggressively on pages that they don't think are interesting enough. Google still turns up tons of junk in their results. Cuil is trying something different, and occasionally it works.
Lunch is ordered in every single day. Huge fridges burst with snacks and drinks. Bowls of strawberries and muffins lie around the rest area. The company pays for a personal trainer and gym membership for everyone. A doctor calls round each Friday, after the weekly barbecue, to see if everyone's in good health. Employees drift in an out at times that suit themselves.
Do you think that this is what caused the dot com bubble? Do you think the vast majority of people were living like this when it burst?
What's more, this isn't even all that outrageous even in this day and age. Strawberries and muffins don't cost all that much, and my employer has lunch delivered every day, and a masseuse comes over every wednesday. I've heard of companies that offer gym membership (I'm sure you can get a good deal if you give it to every employee). So all that remains is a weekly barbecue (instead of just a weekly drink, which a lot of companies have), a personal trainer and a doctor.
They do a bit more than other companies, but not outrageously so. If this makes employees happy and hard working, then it's well worth the investment.
Next time, try understanding the difference between a processor and a computer.
Although I also think 60 W for an idle mini-ITX system with low-power processor is a bit much. If every other part of the computer wastes that much energy, it's a bit silly to put this much effort in reducing the processor's power consumption.
I like the Western Digital Green Power drives, which cut power consumption for hard drives in half (from 10 to 5 W). Many graphics cards use enormous amounts of power, but you shouldn't put those in an energy-friendly mini-ITX system. But how much power does the motherboard use? And can memory be made more energy friendly?
The atom doesn't use 4 watts under full load. It just used 4 extra watts. I knew that was too good to be true.
Even so, I'm kinda hoping the processor doesn't pull more than a Watt while idle. Otherwise it'd be extremely wasteful compared to other processors.
Exactly. The alleged bully comes across as a very valuable forum member to me, even if he is slight (and only slightly, by internet standards) abrasive.
I'm wondering if it isn't the OP that's the troll here.
If you don't want forum discussions, don't create a forum. Create a guestbook instead, and delete the entries that give you anything other than praise.
When you realize you're in a pointless and prolonged exchange with a time waster, bully, etc., get off the ride.
I don't really see the problem with this alleged bully. As far as I can tell (note that I know absolutely nothing about model airplanes) he's pretty reasonable and articulate, and sounds like he has some valid points.
Whether they really are valid or relevant I don't know. If you don't feel like replying to him, let other forum members discuss the validity of the points he's raising.
As internet discussions go, this seems close to the best thing you can possibly hope for. Has the OP ever witnessed a real flamewar? (Ofcourse it is possible that the guy is just a really subtle troll, I'm too unfamiliar with this subject to tell.)
this is really all just pedantic BS. You have to qualify that it is "w3c compliant" or "valid html 4.0", you can't just say that valid html is defined by the w3c when so many apps will render invalid html.
I think distinguishing between valid html and valid html 4.0 is pedantic BS. Like it or not, w3c is the standards body for html and all derrived standards. The fact that browsers are able to render all sorts of unholy crap doesn't change the fact that there are actually standards for this sort of thing. W3c is unfortunately not a very good standards body, and was also suffering from near-monopolists (first netscape, then IE) who included a lot of new features in their own ad-hoc standard.
I'm glad they got a lot more stringent with XML and XHTML. There's no such thing as invalid XML or badly formed XML; if it doesn't meet the exact standards for XML, it's not XML, and lots of tools will simply refuse to handle it (although some might still accept it).
W3c managed the improbable. They managed to steal the term "valid" for code that doesn't work. I want my "valid" back.
This is actually a very good point. The fact that non-working code can be valid is definitely odd, and that is IMO caused by the fact that w3c doesn't provide a reference implementation. Standards are much easier to obey when there is a reference implementation.
You got me. I didn't know "valid" was a w3c standard, and all other uses were deprecated.
When you're talking about w3c standards (like HTML, XHTML, CSS, etc), it is.
Oh, wow, cause nobody ever argues over the implementation of a spec right?
There's a lot wrong with implementations of specs, particularly in the case of w3c specs, because they don't provide a reference implementation of their specs.
Bad implementations don't automatically define a new kind of validity. A web site is only HTML or XHTML valid when is passes w3c's validity test. Whether any browser can make head or tail of it is irrelevant. And HTML or XHTML that is rendered properly by all major browsers may or may not be valid (X)HTML. A browser that passes the acid test clearly renders some valid (X)HTML correctly, but that doesn't guarantee it will render everything correctly.
That's because most implementations of the spec suck. They're getting better (slowly), but they still suck. Although you could argue that the problem lies with the spec or the lack of a reference implementation.
There's a lot of corporative GWT-apps because it's, probably, the best toolkit for rich-client web applications.
There's also Java Applets.
Admittedly never got the popularity Sun originally hoped for, but if you want filthy rich clients, Java applets can do that for you.
Not only that, once you're in deep for a while you realize that "valid code" is a self-defined term. Do you mean w3c valid or microsoft valid or acid 4 valid? Even the developers of each browser have their own view of "valid," hence all the diversity.
Valid means "valid", which is not the same thing as "working", which is what you're talking about.
There's no such thing as microsoft valid or acid 4 valid html.
I'm not so sure GWT is even competing at all with all those other ajax/javascript frameworks. As far as I understand (but I have no real experience with it, mind you), GWT is for complex web applications that run almost entirely in the browser, whereas most javascript frameworks use it for faster communication with the server that still does all the real work.
Not every web application needs to shift the entire load to the browser, and many prefer to keep a bit more on the server. GWT has its advantages, but also its disadvantages. I think we'll see more GWT in the future, but it's not the solution for everything.
They could have stated that it's the most Pluto-like extra-solar planet discovered, and been just as right. Just because it is a slightly closer match doesn't mean much. It is still not Earth-like enough to matter.
Liquid water is the key here. That's what sets the Earth apart from other rocky planets in our solar system, and this is the smallest exoplanet yet that looks like it has the right temperature range for liquid water. Therefore, it's the most earth-like yet.
For you maybe, but anything that evolved in that environment would be really strong on this planet, be able to leap...wait, what was the name of that planet?
Or, more likely, everything will be smaller. Being small is a very good way to deal with high gravity.
So we'd be giants to these miniature supermen.
But you voted for Bush twice,
Not sure who you're talking to here. Your message is listed as a response to my message, but I think you've got me confused with someone else.