We all descended from Adam and Eve. Then after Cain slew Abel and he was given the sign on his forehead so he wouldn't be hurt by the other peop... - oh, wait.
It didn't say the company wouldn't give details to the reviewed projects, and in fact Coverity has sent correspondence to the projects earlier this week offering to do just that. See http://kerneltrap.org/node/6299 re the Linux kernel; similar messages were sent to the other projects.
Just a note to say that if Opera users want to experience thumbnails, the latest tech preview has 'em. Just mouseover a tab - thumbnail for the page pops up near-instantly.
Carrying the burden of proof is for trial. At this early stage, what the plaintiff RIAA has to do to avoid summary judgment is bring forward evidence of facts that create genuine issues for the trial court (affidavits or out-of-court depositions are common ways). For instance, they might take the deposition of someone she served as a home health aide saying he gave her CDs of downloaded music he'd burned on his computer for delivery to others, and she was paid a cut of what he made from those CDs - so even though she never used a computer, she was a paid participant. (Mind you, I have no knowledge that any such thing happened, just coming up with ways that someone who didn't own or use a computer might lose a motion for summary judgment.)
Actually, it's not a motion to dismiss, but a motion for summary judgment. That's a key difference. A motion to dismiss would *admit* everything the RIAA says, then contend it still doesn't have a case - so no necessity for evidence, because there are no facts in dispute.
Where a motion to dismiss says, in effect, "Even if you're right, so what?", a motion for summary judgment says "We'll show you facts that are so clear we don't even need to go through the hassle of a full trial." Then you provide evidence (usually by means of an affidavit or some other way short of the full trial-witness-cross examination thing). If the other side can't seriously dispute those facts, and those facts indeed add up to "You win!", cool - you've just saved everyone the time and expense of a full trial.
Inflation could have been caused by a phase change in the Higgs field, but this is a necessary-not-sufficient part of the explanation for the observed features of the universe. Then one also has to find a reason for the phase change and why it happened to have the precise characteristics needed (there's some fine tuning of parameters required in order for what we see today to pop out the other end of this process).
Then there's of course the root question of whether the Higgs field itself exists, though a lot of the Standard Model would have to be junked in order for it not to exist.
If I remember some of the stuff I've read correctly, it's a bit more complicated than the article's summary made it seem, and no, it doesn't make FTL communication possible.
What the experiments have shown is that if A and B are "entangled," then whatever state A is observed to be in, B will be in that state also, regardless of whether A and B are too far apart at the time the observation is made to have any communication with each other. This can be thought of as Einstein characterized it, as "spooky action at a distance," i.e., the observation of A somehow affects B (which is what makes the action spooky, since there is no known way for any information to be communicated between the two). However, it can also be thought of in other ways - for instance, that A and B were in the same state when they were entangled (though there's no way to determine that for sure, since the states aren't observed at that time), and the observations of A and B are just showing the states they've "always" been in. In the latter way of thinking, the spooky part is that these randomly selected particles always turn out to have the same state when observed. It's like sticking your hand into your sock drawer 100 times at random and always coming up with matched pairs.
If you've read the last paragraphs of Darwin's _Origin of Species_ you will have seen that he was not then willing to fully exclude non-random causes in life's origins.
Not in life's origins, but in evolution from those origins.
Since the full title of Darwin's book is "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," the parent is correct: "Evolution," in the sense it is commonly understood as the scientific theory that Darwin originated, does indeed require natural selection. Or to put it another way, if selection is not random, then it is not "intelligently guided" natural selection, it is not "natural" selection at all.
Your formulation would be right if ID proponents did not use the "could not have been created through evolution" argument as proof that evolution cannot be correct and ID must be.
In order for ID to be proved correct, as opposed to a mere alternative among a number of possible choices, God cannot have had the choice of creating structures through evolutionary means.
Orthodox rabbis in Israel have objected to the display of dinosaurs on yogurt containers because they felt it contradicted the story of Creation as taught by Genesis.
Also, not surprising that not all Vatican representatives are hopping on the Intelligent Design bandwagon (though at least one friend of the current Pope did, from a New York Times report a few weeks ago). ID posits that there are structures that cannot have resulted from evolution (eyes are one frequently cited example). Now, if God created the universe, this is equivalent to saying that God can't have created it in such a way as to evolve these structures. Thus, according to ID, God is not omniscient and/or omnipotent. Sure sounds like heresy to me.
Why would Google care? You can make "Jamie Web Search" right now and Google has no right to stop you. Go ahead, index the Web. MS and Yahoo have, and Google isn't suing them. It isn't the *data* that's the secret sauce, it's the *search algorithm(s)*. The very same is true of Google Print.
Bzzzt! Too late, ship's already sailed. Companies are taxed all over the world every day on the value of their assets, including intellectual property. See, e.g., http://www.cap-press.com/books/1246.
Biggest problem in the original game was that it was somewhat awkward to use anything but a mouse. I had difficulty using my trusty wrist-saving Logitech Trackman FX Marble to cast spells, throw things, and compete in some of the contests (e.g., bowling). There was talk from the developers about how the new version would get rid of some of the mouse-ballet-dancing annoyances in the original.
Unfortunately, B&W II seems worse for trackballers overall. Spells are more point-and-click, but elementary movements (zoom in and zoom out) that worked fine with a trackball in the original don't work at all in B&W II. And throwing things is still a godawful (no pun intended) pain.
Any help for trackballers from anyone out there? Can I change the preferences to use a game controller or joystick? Or must I buy a mouse to play this one game?
This is an oversimplified view of the situation. Remember, the Internet Archive is being sued for retaining evidence of an act that (it is alleged) violated the rights of another. (I.e., the company suing the Archive allegedly used a name legally owned by another company.)
Thus, if you really want to make an accurate comparison, this is not like an author complaining that you've distributed his book without his permission. It is like photographing someone beating another person, using the photos as evidence in a civil assault trial, and then having the perpetrator sue you on the ground that you didn't obtain a model release authorizing you to take his picture.
It's the little copper-colored thingy at the business end of the ink cartridge, which produces the electromagnetic field that shapes the ink jet into whatever you're printing - alphanumeric characters, photos, etc. There's wear to this part over time, so that's why a refilled cartridge's print output will deteriorate. And the remanufactured ones never quite get to the tolerances of the new.
And then there are the numerous developers who simply do not subscribe to the notions of the Open Source Foundation and its rigid licensing requirements. They will quickly see profit opportunities for OS-X/86 development without having to worry about what has to be shared and what can be sold for profit.
Right, 'cause Apple's always been so liberal in its licensing policies. There is Darwin, but it doesn't include precisely the fancy UI stuff that Dvorak says is the main reason OS-X will be more successful than Linux.
Guard yourself against fraud and identity theft. Wachovia provides the highest levels of protection and stands ready to assist you should you become a victim.
...the author of the Register article says he bases his account on "first hand experience," including attendance at 4 SCO Forums.
Certainly the SCO representatives at these forums would not have hesitated to be completely open and honest with customers, investors and media - if SCO's announced strategy for the future (Project Monterey) was a mere stopgap until Linux became dominant, I'm sure they would have come right out and said so.
To be quite clear, I am not trying to imply anything about the strength or weakness of any part of SCO's case. If you look at previous comments I've made on SCO stories, I think you'll find they are anything but complimentary about SCO's case.
Of course, what you and I think about SCO's case "doesn't mean s**t to a tree," in the immortal words of Grace Slick.
Slashdot Mirror
We all descended from Adam and Eve. Then after Cain slew Abel and he was given the sign on his forehead so he wouldn't be hurt by the other peop... - oh, wait.
It didn't say the company wouldn't give details to the reviewed projects, and in fact Coverity has sent correspondence to the projects earlier this week offering to do just that. See http://kerneltrap.org/node/6299 re the Linux kernel; similar messages were sent to the other projects.
Just a note to say that if Opera users want to experience thumbnails, the latest tech preview has 'em. Just mouseover a tab - thumbnail for the page pops up near-instantly.
Carrying the burden of proof is for trial. At this early stage, what the plaintiff RIAA has to do to avoid summary judgment is bring forward evidence of facts that create genuine issues for the trial court (affidavits or out-of-court depositions are common ways). For instance, they might take the deposition of someone she served as a home health aide saying he gave her CDs of downloaded music he'd burned on his computer for delivery to others, and she was paid a cut of what he made from those CDs - so even though she never used a computer, she was a paid participant. (Mind you, I have no knowledge that any such thing happened, just coming up with ways that someone who didn't own or use a computer might lose a motion for summary judgment.)
Actually, it's not a motion to dismiss, but a motion for summary judgment. That's a key difference. A motion to dismiss would *admit* everything the RIAA says, then contend it still doesn't have a case - so no necessity for evidence, because there are no facts in dispute.
Where a motion to dismiss says, in effect, "Even if you're right, so what?", a motion for summary judgment says "We'll show you facts that are so clear we don't even need to go through the hassle of a full trial." Then you provide evidence (usually by means of an affidavit or some other way short of the full trial-witness-cross examination thing). If the other side can't seriously dispute those facts, and those facts indeed add up to "You win!", cool - you've just saved everyone the time and expense of a full trial.
Yes, IAAL.
AFAICT, SXRD isn't replacing Qualia - SXRD is one of the technologies used in Qualia. http://www.qualia.sony.us/qualia_main.cgi
Bit more complicated than that -
Inflation could have been caused by a phase change in the Higgs field, but this is a necessary-not-sufficient part of the explanation for the observed features of the universe. Then one also has to find a reason for the phase change and why it happened to have the precise characteristics needed (there's some fine tuning of parameters required in order for what we see today to pop out the other end of this process).
Then there's of course the root question of whether the Higgs field itself exists, though a lot of the Standard Model would have to be junked in order for it not to exist.
If I remember some of the stuff I've read correctly, it's a bit more complicated than the article's summary made it seem, and no, it doesn't make FTL communication possible.
What the experiments have shown is that if A and B are "entangled," then whatever state A is observed to be in, B will be in that state also, regardless of whether A and B are too far apart at the time the observation is made to have any communication with each other. This can be thought of as Einstein characterized it, as "spooky action at a distance," i.e., the observation of A somehow affects B (which is what makes the action spooky, since there is no known way for any information to be communicated between the two). However, it can also be thought of in other ways - for instance, that A and B were in the same state when they were entangled (though there's no way to determine that for sure, since the states aren't observed at that time), and the observations of A and B are just showing the states they've "always" been in. In the latter way of thinking, the spooky part is that these randomly selected particles always turn out to have the same state when observed. It's like sticking your hand into your sock drawer 100 times at random and always coming up with matched pairs.
If you've read the last paragraphs of Darwin's _Origin of Species_ you will have seen that he was not then willing to fully exclude non-random causes in life's origins.
Not in life's origins, but in evolution from those origins.
Since the full title of Darwin's book is "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," the parent is correct: "Evolution," in the sense it is commonly understood as the scientific theory that Darwin originated, does indeed require natural selection. Or to put it another way, if selection is not random, then it is not "intelligently guided" natural selection, it is not "natural" selection at all.
Your formulation would be right if ID proponents did not use the "could not have been created through evolution" argument as proof that evolution cannot be correct and ID must be.
In order for ID to be proved correct, as opposed to a mere alternative among a number of possible choices, God cannot have had the choice of creating structures through evolutionary means.
Orthodox rabbis in Israel have objected to the display of dinosaurs on yogurt containers because they felt it contradicted the story of Creation as taught by Genesis.
Also, not surprising that not all Vatican representatives are hopping on the Intelligent Design bandwagon (though at least one friend of the current Pope did, from a New York Times report a few weeks ago). ID posits that there are structures that cannot have resulted from evolution (eyes are one frequently cited example). Now, if God created the universe, this is equivalent to saying that God can't have created it in such a way as to evolve these structures. Thus, according to ID, God is not omniscient and/or omnipotent. Sure sounds like heresy to me.
Why would Google care? You can make "Jamie Web Search" right now and Google has no right to stop you. Go ahead, index the Web. MS and Yahoo have, and Google isn't suing them. It isn't the *data* that's the secret sauce, it's the *search algorithm(s)*. The very same is true of Google Print.
Bzzzt! Too late, ship's already sailed. Companies are taxed all over the world every day on the value of their assets, including intellectual property. See, e.g., http://www.cap-press.com/books/1246.
Biggest problem in the original game was that it was somewhat awkward to use anything but a mouse. I had difficulty using my trusty wrist-saving Logitech Trackman FX Marble to cast spells, throw things, and compete in some of the contests (e.g., bowling). There was talk from the developers about how the new version would get rid of some of the mouse-ballet-dancing annoyances in the original.
Unfortunately, B&W II seems worse for trackballers overall. Spells are more point-and-click, but elementary movements (zoom in and zoom out) that worked fine with a trackball in the original don't work at all in B&W II. And throwing things is still a godawful (no pun intended) pain.
Any help for trackballers from anyone out there? Can I change the preferences to use a game controller or joystick? Or must I buy a mouse to play this one game?
"...but since they're regulations and not law..."
Regulations are laws. (Yes, IAAL.) So no, it's not "easy for the government to turn a blind eye" to violations.
Makes me wonder how much more of your confidently penned reply is factually based.
This is an oversimplified view of the situation. Remember, the Internet Archive is being sued for retaining evidence of an act that (it is alleged) violated the rights of another. (I.e., the company suing the Archive allegedly used a name legally owned by another company.)
Thus, if you really want to make an accurate comparison, this is not like an author complaining that you've distributed his book without his permission. It is like photographing someone beating another person, using the photos as evidence in a civil assault trial, and then having the perpetrator sue you on the ground that you didn't obtain a model release authorizing you to take his picture.
...it forces the telcos (Baby Bells, etc.) to come out with competitive broadband offerings to more areas more quickly.
What is it exactly that makes the quality worse?
It's the little copper-colored thingy at the business end of the ink cartridge, which produces the electromagnetic field that shapes the ink jet into whatever you're printing - alphanumeric characters, photos, etc. There's wear to this part over time, so that's why a refilled cartridge's print output will deteriorate. And the remanufactured ones never quite get to the tolerances of the new.
...when Linus says he thinks "Which is better" questions are stupid, and Joe's first few questions are all of the "Which is better" variety.
From TFA:
And then there are the numerous developers who simply do not subscribe to the notions of the Open Source Foundation and its rigid licensing requirements. They will quickly see profit opportunities for OS-X/86 development without having to worry about what has to be shared and what can be sold for profit.
Right, 'cause Apple's always been so liberal in its licensing policies. There is Darwin, but it doesn't include precisely the fancy UI stuff that Dvorak says is the main reason OS-X will be more successful than Linux.
Customer Protection
Guard yourself against fraud and identity theft. Wachovia provides the highest levels of protection and stands ready to assist you should you become a victim.
Irony, anyone?
...the author of the Register article says he bases his account on "first hand experience," including attendance at 4 SCO Forums.
Certainly the SCO representatives at these forums would not have hesitated to be completely open and honest with customers, investors and media - if SCO's announced strategy for the future (Project Monterey) was a mere stopgap until Linux became dominant, I'm sure they would have come right out and said so.
Ahem.
Yeah, but the boy can write a little. How about this gem from a couple of columns ago?
"Microsoft is the pig in the hurricane...."
Lordy! A detail man, eh? :)
To be quite clear, I am not trying to imply anything about the strength or weakness of any part of SCO's case. If you look at previous comments I've made on SCO stories, I think you'll find they are anything but complimentary about SCO's case.
Of course, what you and I think about SCO's case "doesn't mean s**t to a tree," in the immortal words of Grace Slick.