Interesting thing. People make a big deal out of what he said, yet ever fail to acknowledge that the stats on which he based that part of his talk are emperical.
By the way. Men can move heavier objects than women, women are superior to men linguistically, etc. Get a grip and view differences as that, differences.
None of the above infers in any way the superiority of one sex to the other overall.
If by work, you mean the grunt crap, like taking endless measurements, you're probably right. If, however, you mean doing the primary conceptualizing, design and analysis, you're probably wrong.
"So, if I go and market a version of Monopoly - but this one is made out of metal, not wood products... thats perfectly alright."
"Yes. Similarly, if you go and market a version of, say, Unix (or GNU) base system, only rewritten from scratch in Pascal, that is perfectly alright."
You clearly do not know what you're saying. Just making a facsimile out of a different material constitues being sufficiently different so as to avoid copyright? Bullshit. Give it a try and report back.
It may be "alright" for you, but your opinion don't count in law.
Your parent poster is still correct. It's vanity publishing - published by author payment. Doesn't matter how you divvy up the payment, it matters where the payment comes from. Does not paying guarantee you won't get published? If so, it's vanity.
Your last paragraph makes more sense. Pay for the vetting, not the distribution. When I write, I have to have an editor go over the stuff. I pay for that editing. The end publisher does not. They are only concerned with distribution. (In my case they are also concerned about making some bucks, different field.)
"This is a non-trivial amount of work, and requires professionals."
Please, you're talking to/.. If it ain't software related, something they're familiar with, something they can do..... it can't be difficult, remember?
How about this then? Ants not only leave trails, but when the worker returns to the nest she actively solicits fellows to go back with her with antennae taps and pheromones. Failing to elicit, she may even pick one up and carry it back.
"God gets pretty much to the point He wants to make in scripture."
You mean like storing the winds in a warehouse? That kind of thing?
There's a big difference between delving into subatomic workings and getting the fact that the Earth rotates around the sun wrong. It wouldn't have been much of a stretch for the ancients to understand it. The Greeks did.
I would have thought that all the other cultures on Earth just might have noticed a stoppage of the sun's "path".
"As I interpret this, one of the clocks is slightly in the past relative to the other one."
Why? Both clocks are sitting side by side and can be viewed by the same individual at the same time. A simpler interpretation is that one clock experienced a slower time as demonstrated by it's time display in the here-and-now.
Poor agrument. With over 1,000,000 articles, your mention brings that down to what, 999,000 left? You've perused those to determine many aren't of "any great depth"? Try scanning the taxonomic and molecular biology entries.
That would be the poster's point. You can't callenge the historical fact with your political venue. "Hotly contested" was not what you said in your post. You made it seem that the issue was not 'hotly contested', but against invasion.
Perhaps you could actually be more clear in the point you were trying to make? Media bias, right?
"...blogs are amateur writing, they're pollution, they shouldn't be in search engines."
Wow, what a butt-wipe. And wrong on all three points, as well.
1) Some bloggers get paid, therefore are not amateurs. Perhaps you were instead projecting that they did not write well or were not "writers"? Andrew Sullivan, Rojer Simon and John Scalzi belie that point of view. Just what exactly did you mean?
2) They are not pollution. Unless, perhaps, you simply mean you don't like them. It's just your opinion expressed there girlie, not a fact.
3) They should indeed be in search engines. I wish to find them. You don't want me to find them? Please tell me exactly why your decision to suppress my interests should be honored.
"BTW I'm an actress and a model and a musician and a dancer and a belly dancer and a writer and a freelancer."
My, my, my. And did you get the prerequisite instruction and certification for all of those? And is your writing better than most? Or can I presume that it's no better than any other model's or musician's or dancer's or belly dancer's (for some reason seperated)? It was listed last.
Certainly not well-typed. I presume, of course, that you have the ability to spot that "real writer"? Whatever that is. Line up a row of a hundred random books on, say, American government and have a read. The bulk are crap. Poorly researched and poorly written.
Pretty pompous attitude you display, disparaging works of fiction and political opinion. Why? Just because you don't like them?
Perhaps you and that horrible typist of a parent poster should investigate the quality blogs that are available instead of poking through someone's daily jot.
Want good politics? Many exist. Some are more cutting edge than the paper press, by the way.
"But what if what we are going through is more of a spiritual evolution - one that we have only just begun, and one that will ultimately transcend our own existence as we know it?"
Then you're talking religion.
"...we could be surrounded by alien consciousness all the time..."
And these consciousnesses would be constructed of what and use what form of power?
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting thing. People make a big deal out of what he said, yet ever fail to acknowledge that the stats on which he based that part of his talk are emperical.
By the way. Men can move heavier objects than women, women are superior to men linguistically, etc. Get a grip and view differences as that, differences.
None of the above infers in any way the superiority of one sex to the other overall.
If by work, you mean the grunt crap, like taking endless measurements, you're probably right. If, however, you mean doing the primary conceptualizing, design and analysis, you're probably wrong.
"So, if I go and market a version of Monopoly - but this one is made out of metal, not wood products ... thats perfectly alright."
"Yes. Similarly, if you go and market a version of, say, Unix (or GNU) base system, only rewritten from scratch in Pascal, that is perfectly alright."
You clearly do not know what you're saying. Just making a facsimile out of a different material constitues being sufficiently different so as to avoid copyright? Bullshit. Give it a try and report back.
It may be "alright" for you, but your opinion don't count in law.
In all countries we have Religion = Economics = Politics. You state the obvious and homogenous. Why?
"...nor does payment guarantee you publication."
Your parent poster is still correct. It's vanity publishing - published by author payment. Doesn't matter how you divvy up the payment, it matters where the payment comes from. Does not paying guarantee you won't get published? If so, it's vanity.
Your last paragraph makes more sense. Pay for the vetting, not the distribution. When I write, I have to have an editor go over the stuff. I pay for that editing. The end publisher does not. They are only concerned with distribution. (In my case they are also concerned about making some bucks, different field.)
"This is a non-trivial amount of work, and requires professionals."
/.. If it ain't software related, something they're familiar with, something they can do..... it can't be difficult, remember?
Please, you're talking to
Rant, ought to be Troll. You do not speak the truth. Why?
How about this then? Ants not only leave trails, but when the worker returns to the nest she actively solicits fellows to go back with her with antennae taps and pheromones. Failing to elicit, she may even pick one up and carry it back.
"First of all, a missing-link is an intermittent species which can breed with both of the bridged species."
Sez who? You? Your post displays a plethora of misunderstanding.
Bzzzt! Wrongo. There are recorded instances of fertile mules. They are only 'mostly' infertile.
That's not even relevant, plants make hybrid species all the time. Look to your loaf of bread.
Don't believe either 'side'. Believe emperical evidence.
"God gets pretty much to the point He wants to make in scripture."
You mean like storing the winds in a warehouse? That kind of thing?
There's a big difference between delving into subatomic workings and getting the fact that the Earth rotates around the sun wrong. It wouldn't have been much of a stretch for the ancients to understand it. The Greeks did.
I would have thought that all the other cultures on Earth just might have noticed a stoppage of the sun's "path".
By 'valid', I presume you mean 'cannot be proven false'. It's been interesting to watch the retreat of Creationism into the abstract.
"As I interpret this, one of the clocks is slightly in the past relative to the other one."
Why? Both clocks are sitting side by side and can be viewed by the same individual at the same time. A simpler interpretation is that one clock experienced a slower time as demonstrated by it's time display in the here-and-now.
"But in Wikipedia the only thing that counts is quantity."
Horseshit. Look at the articles on molecular biology.
"I found an error and I didn't fix it."
"Why?"
"I'm no expert in the field."
"Then how the hell did you know it was an error? And, if you did know that much, then you were that much of an expert."
Poor agrument. With over 1,000,000 articles, your mention brings that down to what, 999,000 left? You've perused those to determine many aren't of "any great depth"? Try scanning the taxonomic and molecular biology entries.
Liberal (adj.): Obsolete term for free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
"Most complaints ... notion where to go next."
Hmmm. Sounds much like Wikipedia. What was your point, then?
That would be the poster's point. You can't callenge the historical fact with your political venue. "Hotly contested" was not what you said in your post. You made it seem that the issue was not 'hotly contested', but against invasion.
Perhaps you could actually be more clear in the point you were trying to make? Media bias, right?
"...blogs are amateur writing, they're pollution, they shouldn't be in search engines."
Wow, what a butt-wipe. And wrong on all three points, as well.
1) Some bloggers get paid, therefore are not amateurs. Perhaps you were instead projecting that they did not write well or were not "writers"? Andrew Sullivan, Rojer Simon and John Scalzi belie that point of view. Just what exactly did you mean?
2) They are not pollution. Unless, perhaps, you simply mean you don't like them. It's just your opinion expressed there girlie, not a fact.
3) They should indeed be in search engines. I wish to find them. You don't want me to find them? Please tell me exactly why your decision to suppress my interests should be honored.
"BTW I'm an actress and a model and a musician and a dancer and a belly dancer and a writer and a freelancer."
My, my, my. And did you get the prerequisite instruction and certification for all of those? And is your writing better than most? Or can I presume that it's no better than any other model's or musician's or dancer's or belly dancer's (for some reason seperated)? It was listed last.
Talk about "maximal egomania".
"Well said"????
Certainly not well-typed. I presume, of course, that you have the ability to spot that "real writer"? Whatever that is. Line up a row of a hundred random books on, say, American government and have a read. The bulk are crap. Poorly researched and poorly written.
Pretty pompous attitude you display, disparaging works of fiction and political opinion. Why? Just because you don't like them?
Perhaps you and that horrible typist of a parent poster should investigate the quality blogs that are available instead of poking through someone's daily jot.
Want good politics? Many exist. Some are more cutting edge than the paper press, by the way.
"But what if what we are going through is more of a spiritual evolution - one that we have only just begun, and one that will ultimately transcend our own existence as we know it?"
Then you're talking religion.
"...we could be surrounded by alien consciousness all the time..."
And these consciousnesses would be constructed of what and use what form of power?
Well, there's a fundamental difference between this example and Drake's.
None of the variables in Fermi's example were unmeasurable, just tedious.
Drake's has four (fl,fi,fc,fL) which cannot be measured.
There is no "pretty good idea" as to what percentage of planets with life evolve intelligent life (fi).
We have here a science fiction formula, no more.
"it's such an anti-Slashdot thing to do"
Not because of that, no. Because it's circular reasoning and not worth a shit. The bible is true because the bible says it is.
"...makes as much as judging..."
Makes as much what?
"...what someone might make in 50-100 years from now."
Then you should worry more about quantum bombs and time dilation devices and worm hole generators and......