It's a sneaky proposition, and hopefully the judge will toss it out.
He/she will, because the NBA tried this exact case (as far as I can tell) and lost. So unless MLB tries a different tactic, I don't like their chances.
Again, do the math on how much energy is required and what sort of remote devices exist for conveying that power back to earch. It's not particularly close, the infrastructure isn't there or even near.
And how, precisely, are you going to do that? And please don't give me that laser shit again, we don't have lasers powerful enough to beam back significant quantities of energy. Not to mention which there's no compelling reason to put solar collectors on the moon when we're not willing to invest in a deployment of them in the Arizona desert (for instance).
This just goes to further prove that copyright law is not only out of touch with what the public expects, it's out of touch with what music professionals expect.
If you're a "DJ" and your equipment consists of an iPod, I'm guessing you're not exactly a professional.
Most gyms I've been in have a "turn cellphones off" sign, both for the noise and camera/security aspects. I suspect the folks running the place wouldn't take kindly, etc. Especially if the damn things ring...
So do most theaters, and how many times do you hear them ring still? Besides, I'm sure that if Apple had a phone, you could turn the ringer off.
I don't think that's what he meant. I took his suggestion to mean that only the original patent filer could hold the patent. That person or organisation could then licence the patent however they wanted.
There's still nothing wrong with an "exclusive license" ie, sale. There are better ways of eliminating submaring patents.
They always advertise it as a field, and sure it's interesting, but as a job, to be a mathematician you're typically in a position where you are a tool for the non-mathematician's. Of course the non-math's want more math's to do the work for them and tell them what to do... but is it a good carreer?
You'll probably want to choose a sane minor or two, say CS and physics. Get a job in a company that does physics-y stuff, start learning more and more about their business, and pretty soon you'll have the best of both worlds - you'll know the field and have more of a mathematical background than your coworkers.
Simple solution.. Only the original inventor gets to benefit from having invented something. If the inventor (either private or company) decides to sell it's assets, then any patents become void and the knowledge public domain.That's a really crappy "solution," as you've just limited patents even more to the large corporations. There's nothing wrong with a little guy inventing something, patenting it, and licensing it for commercialization. Otherwise, you're saying that to invent anything you have to have the necessary capital to build a factory, and that sucks.
I agree with just about everything you say, but I note that Further, science is a process and need not be proved. is an interesting statement of faith. If I had said "God is ineffable and need not be proven", you would have ripped me to shreds.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying science is ineffable, as much evidence exists to the contrary. Science is simply the process of using available evidence to develop a hypothesis, devising tests to evaluate that hypothesis, and repeating the process. That, as a process, need not (and probably cannot) be proven. Science is an approach, not the results it produces.
Similarly, if you were to say that religion is a process (or idea, or state of mind, etc) and need not be proven, I'd wholeheartedly agree with you. In fact, I think that would highlight the differences between them and the fulility of comparing them - religion is supposed to be based on faith, and science is supposed to be based on evidence and reason. The two are thus incomparable and those who attempt to do so end up screwing up things like school boards.
Agree, for the most part. Personally, I don't use a new major kernel until the minor # reaches 10, just as kind of a minimal standard. Slackware shipped with 2.4 forever. In fact, I'm not sure it doesn't still do so. That should tell one something
The Academy Awards are a grandiose pat on the back, given by the industry to itself. Why we care, I'm not sure.
Most years, I'm intensely interested what wins so I know exactly what movies not to watch. Half the time, the winner is just a steaming 3-hour pile of over-dramatic, over-acted, under-edited crap. I use the award sort of like I do Zagat ratings for restaurants - unless I know differently from reviewers I find credible, avoid like the plague.
Similarly, I hereby move that the awards for best Actor/Actress be renamed "Most over-done imitation of someone with a mental, physical, or emotional disability."
Science has certain procedures and formalities, by which every detail must be checked until it can be declared as a fact.
You don't understand science, and yes I am a scientist. Creationists fundamentally do not understand the word "theory," and they have no room in the certainty spectrum between solid fact and fiction. By definition, nothing can be checked enough to be declared as fact, not even that the sun will rise tomorrow. By setting up that kind of scheme, creationists try to win by saying that "theories" aren't fact and crap like that. No, simply because evolution is a "theory" doesn't make creationism right.
Taking your argument (Science doesn't prove the Bible), I could take it from the other side and say that the Bible doesn't prove Science.
I could say that religion and science make terrible bedfellows. Further, science is a process and need not be proved.
However, the more archaeology is done, the more the Bible's historical accuracy is validated.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. However, treating the Bible as a cohesive unit is a fallacy because it's not, having been writting over the span of millennia. It's also a logical fallacy to point at a few successes and assume that the whole thing is rigorously "true." Finally, you fail the test that most creationists do, namely that you have no problem accepting science (here, archaeology) when it serves your purpose, dumping it when it compromises your thesis. Not to mention that the Bible doesn't contradict evolution unless one dimwittedly interprets the thing literally.
In other words, if the Bible is to be accepted as an accepted predictive model, it need make a prediction that is testable and possible to prove wrong. Until that point, the Bible cannot stand up to any rigor and shouldn't be compared to science. Science is the process of fixing a model to available facts, and creationism is the opposite.
In TFA it addresses the old creationist argument that science couldn't explain bee flight. The author simply spun it to ID, nail in coffin, etc.
I also don't like the summary because it almost grants the notion that science has to have an answer for absolutely everything or else creation must be true. Really, that's the line of argument that creationists use, that there can be no unexplained mechanism or gap in the fossil record, and if there is it's evidence that evolution (or whatever) can't account for reality.
Really, this notion is what needs to be argued from the top, rather than trying to come up with better fossil records and better mechanism to explain the compound eye or bee flight or whatever. Because no matter how many things science does explain, there will always be *something* it doesn't, and they'll fall back on that to make their argument.
In other words, science doesn't need to explain everything to be the right approach, it just has to fit the available evidence as well as possible. For creationism to be "right" it needs to, for once, generate a testable, disproveable hypothesis and stop falling back on the old "anything we can't explain is God's will" argument.
The solution to that is to mod down the idiots ranting and raving about Beatles-Beatles and his website. It's not to reject interesting stories just because some people are so stupid that they see the name of a submitter and become instantly filled with hate.
There's that, but it would also be good to have a general policy of linking to an original source for a story rather than a regurgitation blog. Requires fewer clicks, helps prevent bandwidth issues, prevents linkrot, and removes the distaste some people have for submitters who intentionally profit from the system.
To me, the brightline is this: does the blog just summarize the article or an opinion thereof? If so, there's no reason not to change the link to directly link to the article.
And if a policy of relinking or outright rejecting violators is established, stories won't be missed because sumbitters will stop putting the useless step of linking to their page between slashdot and the story. Everyone wins except the parasites.
But this thread is about your average user, because it was about "When windows is no longer the main concern in peoples minds as they switch to linux these tools will be hidden and streamline."
I don't think that's implicit, particularly since the truly clueless Windows newbies won't ever switch. I think it will always be the more savvy users.
it makes it certain you'll either run out of space on one partition, or waste space on another.
Less so. Leave a lot of unpartitioned space and partition intelligently, helps in a multi-drive system. Also makes it easier to add a new OS.
What does it buy you? You can completely erase your OS and re-install without erasing your home directory? You can already do this. Mac OS has done this for decades now, no partitioning required.
Other OSs don't, and I might prefer to do it myself. Also, I like to allow multiple OSs to share a home directory.
Why commit to a partitioning scheme ahead of time, especially when the system will work just fine on one big partition?
Not all systems do. It can increase speed, security, and flexibility for later.
There's no technological reason to place the burden on the user.
I don't think anyone's suggesting that users should be forced to, I'm simply saying that people who know what the hell they're doing aren't going to stop partitioning their linux systems.
But for most people, your way is the wrong way.
First, have you ever partitioned a system? It's really not hard at all. Second, if a distro chose to do this automatically, say for/home, it wouldn't be hard. I really fail to see this massive burden on the user, any linux user outside of Mandrivel and Linspire users should be able to do it in their sleep. It takes 10 minutes and you're done. Outside of this thread, I've spend exactly 0 minutes thinking about it after I set it up.
But under no condition should your average user partition his or her/var,/home,/usr/local,/etc, etc. They'll never benefit from it, and will only ever notice the partitioning scheme by the hassles it creates.
Maybe not your "average user," I'm talking about people doing a linux install who have a clue. In other words, probably not Mandriva users. I'm talking about people not afraid of a text install and actively manage their systems. For such people, splitting off one or more of the above directories into their own partitions makes sense.
In any event, what hassle? You partition the drive, and you update the fstab. Wow. That was hard. That's the whole point of Unix, that a user of the OS doesn't need see where things are on the hardware. If one takes the *10 minutes* to intelligently partition a drive (or more), no user need ever consider how the system is partitioned.
Why do you think Mac OS X doesn't partition the OS in the old, anachronistic UNIX way (although you still can, if you really want to)?
Because 1) less than 1% of their users have interest in the inner workings of their computer, 2) because they cry if they see a CLI. Still, it would make life easier if/home were on its own partition in the event the OS needs be reinstalled.
Slashdot Mirror
He/she will, because the NBA tried this exact case (as far as I can tell) and lost. So unless MLB tries a different tactic, I don't like their chances.
Again, do the math on how much energy is required and what sort of remote devices exist for conveying that power back to earch. It's not particularly close, the infrastructure isn't there or even near.
And how, precisely, are you going to do that? And please don't give me that laser shit again, we don't have lasers powerful enough to beam back significant quantities of energy. Not to mention which there's no compelling reason to put solar collectors on the moon when we're not willing to invest in a deployment of them in the Arizona desert (for instance).
But like comparing an organ with a keyboard, it usually sounds, well, amateurish.
And when did other OSs add pre-loaded support for 3rd party wireless cards?
If you're a "DJ" and your equipment consists of an iPod, I'm guessing you're not exactly a professional.
So if I plug in communications hardware from 2005 into an OS from 2000, and don't install drivers, it doesn't work? News at 11...
So do most theaters, and how many times do you hear them ring still? Besides, I'm sure that if Apple had a phone, you could turn the ringer off.
Nice troll, but make it less obvious. Win 2K had support for WiFi, for chrissakes. I believe 98 did too, eventually.
There's still nothing wrong with an "exclusive license" ie, sale. There are better ways of eliminating submaring patents.
You'll probably want to choose a sane minor or two, say CS and physics. Get a job in a company that does physics-y stuff, start learning more and more about their business, and pretty soon you'll have the best of both worlds - you'll know the field and have more of a mathematical background than your coworkers.
Simple solution.. Only the original inventor gets to benefit from having invented something. If the inventor (either private or company) decides to sell it's assets, then any patents become void and the knowledge public domain. That's a really crappy "solution," as you've just limited patents even more to the large corporations. There's nothing wrong with a little guy inventing something, patenting it, and licensing it for commercialization. Otherwise, you're saying that to invent anything you have to have the necessary capital to build a factory, and that sucks.
Once, you would have been correct, but I think that day is past.
What's not good about it?
That's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying science is ineffable, as much evidence exists to the contrary. Science is simply the process of using available evidence to develop a hypothesis, devising tests to evaluate that hypothesis, and repeating the process. That, as a process, need not (and probably cannot) be proven. Science is an approach, not the results it produces.
Similarly, if you were to say that religion is a process (or idea, or state of mind, etc) and need not be proven, I'd wholeheartedly agree with you. In fact, I think that would highlight the differences between them and the fulility of comparing them - religion is supposed to be based on faith, and science is supposed to be based on evidence and reason. The two are thus incomparable and those who attempt to do so end up screwing up things like school boards.
Agree, for the most part. Personally, I don't use a new major kernel until the minor # reaches 10, just as kind of a minimal standard. Slackware shipped with 2.4 forever. In fact, I'm not sure it doesn't still do so. That should tell one something
The Academy Awards are a grandiose pat on the back, given by the industry to itself. Why we care, I'm not sure.
Most years, I'm intensely interested what wins so I know exactly what movies not to watch. Half the time, the winner is just a steaming 3-hour pile of over-dramatic, over-acted, under-edited crap. I use the award sort of like I do Zagat ratings for restaurants - unless I know differently from reviewers I find credible, avoid like the plague.
Similarly, I hereby move that the awards for best Actor/Actress be renamed "Most over-done imitation of someone with a mental, physical, or emotional disability."
You don't understand science, and yes I am a scientist. Creationists fundamentally do not understand the word "theory," and they have no room in the certainty spectrum between solid fact and fiction. By definition, nothing can be checked enough to be declared as fact, not even that the sun will rise tomorrow. By setting up that kind of scheme, creationists try to win by saying that "theories" aren't fact and crap like that. No, simply because evolution is a "theory" doesn't make creationism right.
Taking your argument (Science doesn't prove the Bible), I could take it from the other side and say that the Bible doesn't prove Science.
I could say that religion and science make terrible bedfellows. Further, science is a process and need not be proved.
However, the more archaeology is done, the more the Bible's historical accuracy is validated.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. However, treating the Bible as a cohesive unit is a fallacy because it's not, having been writting over the span of millennia. It's also a logical fallacy to point at a few successes and assume that the whole thing is rigorously "true." Finally, you fail the test that most creationists do, namely that you have no problem accepting science (here, archaeology) when it serves your purpose, dumping it when it compromises your thesis. Not to mention that the Bible doesn't contradict evolution unless one dimwittedly interprets the thing literally.
In other words, if the Bible is to be accepted as an accepted predictive model, it need make a prediction that is testable and possible to prove wrong. Until that point, the Bible cannot stand up to any rigor and shouldn't be compared to science. Science is the process of fixing a model to available facts, and creationism is the opposite.
I've got no real problem with that, I'm talking more of the Piquepaille junk.
I also don't like the summary because it almost grants the notion that science has to have an answer for absolutely everything or else creation must be true. Really, that's the line of argument that creationists use, that there can be no unexplained mechanism or gap in the fossil record, and if there is it's evidence that evolution (or whatever) can't account for reality.
Really, this notion is what needs to be argued from the top, rather than trying to come up with better fossil records and better mechanism to explain the compound eye or bee flight or whatever. Because no matter how many things science does explain, there will always be *something* it doesn't, and they'll fall back on that to make their argument.
In other words, science doesn't need to explain everything to be the right approach, it just has to fit the available evidence as well as possible. For creationism to be "right" it needs to, for once, generate a testable, disproveable hypothesis and stop falling back on the old "anything we can't explain is God's will" argument.
It's faster ;)
There's that, but it would also be good to have a general policy of linking to an original source for a story rather than a regurgitation blog. Requires fewer clicks, helps prevent bandwidth issues, prevents linkrot, and removes the distaste some people have for submitters who intentionally profit from the system.
To me, the brightline is this: does the blog just summarize the article or an opinion thereof? If so, there's no reason not to change the link to directly link to the article.
And if a policy of relinking or outright rejecting violators is established, stories won't be missed because sumbitters will stop putting the useless step of linking to their page between slashdot and the story. Everyone wins except the parasites.
But this thread is about your average user, because it was about "When windows is no longer the main concern in peoples minds as they switch to linux these tools will be hidden and streamline."
I don't think that's implicit, particularly since the truly clueless Windows newbies won't ever switch. I think it will always be the more savvy users.
it makes it certain you'll either run out of space on one partition, or waste space on another.
Less so. Leave a lot of unpartitioned space and partition intelligently, helps in a multi-drive system. Also makes it easier to add a new OS.
What does it buy you? You can completely erase your OS and re-install without erasing your home directory? You can already do this. Mac OS has done this for decades now, no partitioning required.
Other OSs don't, and I might prefer to do it myself. Also, I like to allow multiple OSs to share a home directory.
Why commit to a partitioning scheme ahead of time, especially when the system will work just fine on one big partition?
Not all systems do. It can increase speed, security, and flexibility for later.
There's no technological reason to place the burden on the user.
I don't think anyone's suggesting that users should be forced to, I'm simply saying that people who know what the hell they're doing aren't going to stop partitioning their linux systems.
But for most people, your way is the wrong way.
First, have you ever partitioned a system? It's really not hard at all. Second, if a distro chose to do this automatically, say for /home, it wouldn't be hard. I really fail to see this massive burden on the user, any linux user outside of Mandrivel and Linspire users should be able to do it in their sleep. It takes 10 minutes and you're done. Outside of this thread, I've spend exactly 0 minutes thinking about it after I set it up.
Maybe not your "average user," I'm talking about people doing a linux install who have a clue. In other words, probably not Mandriva users. I'm talking about people not afraid of a text install and actively manage their systems. For such people, splitting off one or more of the above directories into their own partitions makes sense.
In any event, what hassle? You partition the drive, and you update the fstab. Wow. That was hard. That's the whole point of Unix, that a user of the OS doesn't need see where things are on the hardware. If one takes the *10 minutes* to intelligently partition a drive (or more), no user need ever consider how the system is partitioned.
Why do you think Mac OS X doesn't partition the OS in the old, anachronistic UNIX way (although you still can, if you really want to)?
Because 1) less than 1% of their users have interest in the inner workings of their computer, 2) because they cry if they see a CLI. Still, it would make life easier if /home were on its own partition in the event the OS needs be reinstalled.
Yeah, I try to draw illumination from this thing called the sun. Takes me away from my desk for a few horus a day, but I find the effects worth it.