Dude, do you really reinstall a new disto every few months just to get the new version of Firefox or OpenOffice.org? If so, I feel safe in saying that you are in a tiny, tiny minority. If regular people find that they have a crucial need for a newer app they usually figure out how to add an unofficial repository rather than switching to an entirely different distro, where the problem will just repeat a few months down the road.
The parent said weight, not mass, which (since it is a force) is measured in Newtons, same as thrust. And yes, weight is the appropriate unit for what we are talking about.
Anyone know of any decent alternatives to Charter in the Fort Worth area? The only other one I know of is at&t for DSL, and after the whole illegal wiretapping / spying thing I'm not eager to give them my money either. Is there (gasp!) a viable third option that I am unaware of?
How about some software that you train with scans of your handwriting and it generates a vector font based on your own handwriting. Now that would be cool.
You can already do that pretty easily, but unfortunately not automatically. Either scan in your handwriting and vectorize it in Inkscape, or just input your handwriting directly in Inkscape with a tablet. Save each glyph as a separate svg. Import the glyphs (one at a time, unfortunately) into FontForge. Add some basic kerning and you're done. Of course there is a lot more work that needs to be done to create a good font, but to create something simple and fun isn't that hard. Give it a try!
If they came up with a vector-based online font creation tool, that would be something I could get excited about.
Why don't you just download FontForge? Really, what is the advantage to doing it online? Creating a good font takes a lot of work, and you really wouldn't want to spend it all in a web browser. Creating a quick crappy font could be done in a web browser, but I'm still unsure why it would be better than a dedicated font creation program. Heck, you can even draw your fonts in a vector drawing program like Inkscape and then import them into FontForge.
I've always thought not being able to edit was a good feature of PDF's...
It's not so much an intentional feature as a side effect, the format is designed to accurately preserve formatting, but easy editability was not a design concern. As far as I know Adobe did not specifically set out to make the format difficult to edit. I understand that Adobe Acrobat (the full version, not the Reader) has been able to open and edit PDFs for a log tame, maybe since the first version. The point is that you should never rely on PDFs being immutable, the format itself is not a form of DRM (although PDFs can contain DRM), and relying solely on the format to protect your secrets is just security through obscurity.
for example, if you sent someone a CAD drawing to quote you a price on manufacturing it, they have the information needed to do the quote, but can't screw up or change any specifications.. and they can't (easily) steal your work.
Digital signing solves the problem of other people changing your work or screwing up the specifications and trying to pass it off as the original. The difficulty in editing PDFs really doesn't do anything to help prevent people from stealing your work, they can always just recreate it. Sure, it may not be as quick as if you sent them a dxf, but it's hardly a significant barrier to industrial espionage.
To edit your own PDF's I can understand.. to edit others I disagree with...
There can be valid reasons for this, the format doesn't dictate any ethical issues. For example, sometimes I am sent PDF reports containing embedded images. Sometimes I'd like to just forward on or reference a specific image without the entire report, so I will extract it (using pdfimages from xpdf). Very useful.
If you need an editable document then why not just send a.doc or.odt or dxf or jpg.. etc.. ??
Of course that is better, but having alternatives is nice. BTW, I disagree that jpg is an "editable" document, while you can edit it since it uses lossy compression it should really be considered a final output format. Too many edits and re-compressions will quickly degrade quality.
That's why OS X device drivers don't have strict requirements for kernel version while binary Linux device drivers require a specific kernel version with specific compile-time options, and source drivers need the kernel to be compiled with support for them.
No, the reason that binary Linux drivers need to be compiled is just because Linux doesn't have a stable binary API. This doesn't mean that they couldn't, just that they have chosen not to. This has nothing to do with OS X being more "modular".
To the body, a transplanted organ is a big giant mass of cells that don't match the DNA of its own. These cells that don't match the rest of your bodies DNA reproduce themselves. Explain to me how that ISN'T the same thing as a cancer.
Cancer cells DO match the DNA of the body. Who else's DNA would it be?
Why? Surely you are familiar with the economic principle of sunk cost. The games were all written and paid for years ago. The only costs now are essentially bandwidth (very minimal). Nintendo could go as low as they liked, even giving them away for free if they wanted (perhaps to sell more Wiis).
But at a higher level, if writers in general cannot get paid for their labor, they will out of necessety have to do something else.
That is already the case. Very, very few writers actually manage to support themselves with their writing. At best it provides some supplementary income, at worst it is a net money and time sink. This is true of many individual artists, i.e. musicians, painters, etc. The promise of riches is NOT a prime motivating factor for many people to create.
They're not quite identical - synthetic diamonds tend to be pinkish in color.
Untrue. Synthetic diamonds used to be mostly yellow (due to nitrogen impurities), however the processes have significantly advanced, and you can now get them in yellow, pink, blue, or crystal clear. Seriously, check out the current state of the art before commenting, you can start at http://www.apollodiamond.com/ and http://www.adiadiamonds.com/.
I completely agree. When copyright was first created in the US, it could take years, or even decades to effectively spread your work around and copyright was a scant 14 years. With today's modern communications, you can transfer an album or book from California to Japan in the blink of an eye, and market your works globally. This means that the time to realize a profit from your work is significantly shorter. Why then have copyright terms only increased with the advance of technology? It is well known that the vast majority of works make the vast majority of their profit in the first few years of their life. It is the rare work indeed that is still profitable after 20 years, let alone 70 or 95. Why should we be basing our laws on the exceptions, rather than the rule?
But then, when a successful artist dies in an airplane crash their wife and kids will be bankrupt very soon.
That's what life insurance is for. Guess what, my employer will stop my paychecks when I die as well. The purpose of copyright is not to provide a legacy so your wife and kids will never have to do any productive work.
I hardely think that is ad hominem, it is a statement of reality. As in I don't think you know what they first amendment says. It is obvious to me.
Saying that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't know what they're talking about and that your opinion is the only possible reality, displays poor logic and debate skills and makes for a pretty poor discussion, although you're right it isn't strictly an ad hominem.
What is obvious to me is that forcing everyone to financially support religion is in direct conflict with the establishment clause, and I think you agree with me here. What you and the Supreme Court seem to be saying is that the alternative would be worse, however since as you say it has never actually been tried in this country it seems that that conclusion is far from certain.
That is exactly the point. When taxing them, your essentially putting a means test to their successfulness. You are prohibiting the free exercise thereof unless they meet your particular governmental requirement's. Some churched require actual churches, and some to differing extents see this as needing certain requirements like size and decoration wich would artificially overvalue their wealth as a means test. Religions not able to live up to it, couldn't practice their religious beliefs because of "action of the government".
Welcome to real life, where real physical things cost money. Should the religion have to pay for the lumber and bricks to build the church, and the labor to put it together, or should all that be provided by the government (i.e. the taxpayers) to provide "free" access to religion? As my previous examples showed, NO church "requires" a large fancy tax-free building to hold their services, many make do without, although I'm sure many churches would like to think that they require such grandiose facilities, and that the government is oppressing them by not helping them pay for it.
The Court did not regard such 'aid' to schools teaching a particular religious faith as any more a violation of the Establishment Clause than providing 'state-paid policemen, detailed to protect children... (at the schools) from the very real hazards of traffic
Now we're reduced to "please think of the children"? Just because the Supreme Court said something doesn't mean it is right or correct.
DO you know what the fist amendment says? If your asking those question, I bet not.
Already resorting to ad hominem in the first sentence, eh?
charging taxes has always been held as prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
[citation needed]
I have no problem with donations to churches being non-profit and non-taxed, what I am really talking about here are property taxes. Please explain why it prohibits the free exercise of religion to have religious institutions pay taxes on real property just like everyone else. Maybe the government should be required to build and maintain all the churches in America, because otherwise many religions are being "prohibited from the free exercise thereof?" Is that any more ridiculous then what you are saying? Many (poorer) churches don't even own property, they meet at someones house or even at a local school, so obviously they are not being prevented from their free exercise just because they don't own property (and can't take advantage of the corresponding tax break).
And no, it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights, you have the freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof just like anyone else.
Freedom of Religion also includes Freedom from Religion. Forcing me to help carry the tax burden of religious institutions I disagree with does directly infringe on my first amendment rights.
Why shouldn't religions get their tax exempt status? the only reason they do is because of the first amendment. I don't think that should be changed any time soon.
Huh? Why should they get any tax exempt status, and how does it in any way infringe their first amendment rights to pay taxes like everyone else? Also, please explain how it doesn't infringe the first amendment rights of everyone else, particularly atheists and others without a formal religion, who is forced to shoulder their tax burden?
Well, dead tree versions sure don't meet your second condition much better than electronics.
Really? Perform this simple experiment: dunk a book in water (worst case scenario), dry it off as best you can with a towel, then lay it out open to dry. Optional: once it's dry compress it under something heavy (like more books) for a few days. Aside from some warping, is it still readable? Now try the same with a $400 electronic ebook reader or PDA.
With ebooks being so much cheaper than their treebook counterparts, many people can break even on the price of an ebook reader within a year, and it's just gravy from that point until the thing dies.
Most ebooks I've seen are priced similarly to paperbacks, or maybe just slightly (say 10%) cheaper. Where are these fantastic savings? You also seem to gloss over another issue, until the thing dies. What then? Just what is the expected life expectancy supposed to be on these things anyway? I have cheap paperbacks that are +30 years old easy, will the ebook reader last that long? How about replacement batteries?
Wow, how in the world did you derive all of that nonsense from the brief paragraph that I wrote? The facilities of logic and reason seem to be well outside your grasp, so I see absolutely no benefit in conversing with you further.
Of course, insisting oneself to be the unassailable voice of reason and demanding that what one believes should be forced upon others makes most atheists indistinguishable from any other religion/ideology.
and
dogmatic...atheists; fervent atheists
You obviously have no idea what an atheist is. Atheism literally means "no belief in a god or gods." It is not a belief system or ideology, it does not mean "denies the existence of god" or any other definition you may think. It is a lack of a belief in deities. It is nothing, similar to asking "what color is clear?" It is quite impossible for anyone to be "fervent" or "dogmatic" about absolutely nothing. I also take exception to your comment "most atheists" since atheists don't exist as a group. For example, everyone in the world is born an atheist, religion must be learned. This is not to say that there aren't those who are anti-religion, anti-Christian, anti-Muslim, or anti-superstition, but that is a separate matter from atheism.
On another note:
There are plenty of Christians who think they know what Jesus looked like too (or maybe Jews/Moses, etc) but its all based on artwork, and rarely has any connection to reality.
How could it have any connection to reality when the bible doesn't even contain a physical description of Jesus?
Just wanted to point out that if you look around, you will likely be hard pressed to actually find someone who is pro-abortion, that is, someone who actually believes and advocates that people go out and have abortions. (I'm sure they exist, but only on the fringe). Of course, that's not what the debate is about. The actual question is should abortion be legal, which is not at all the same question, and frequently gets muddled or completely forgotten in the rhetoric of pro-this anti-that. I would say that the majority of people think that abortions are a bad thing and should be avoided (adoption comes to mind as a solution that works in many cases). However, a large number of these people also think that the problems introduced by making abortion illegal are worse then the alternative and do little to help the underlying causes of why abortions happen. Witness the "war on drugs" for another good example of the cure being worse then the disease.
This post doesn't have anything further to do with stem cells other then to try to cut through some of the rhetoric surrounding this issue.
In many places you can already reverse engineer software and re-implement what you wish, (patents being the only issue, but many places that allow reverse engineering do not have software patents). The problem is that reverse engineering is hard, this would in effect lock out the little guy who just wants to modify something, or port something from one OS revision to another.
"Clean room" reverse engineering is allowed, but I don't know of anywhere that allows you to disassemble or decompile a program, edit it, and then reassemble or recompile it, as this would directly violate copyright. "Dirty" reverse engineering is considerably easier than the clean variety.
As for DRM, no its not likely to become perfect, but once again you end up with the hassle of having to break it.
We already have to deal with that hassle, and that's just to exercise our legal rights. For example, US copyright law expressly allows you to make backup copies of software, however most DRM systems remove this essential right.
I'm not sure about a requirement to file (unless filing is free, in which case it is a brilliant idea).
This is crucial, and was the situation for the majority of the US's history (prior to 1989). Automatic copyright is really stupid, since the vast, vast majority of works do not need to be (and should not be) copyrighted (like this post). For the few things which would actually benefit from copyright, the author should have to expend a minimal amount of effort to do so. I don't think the fee should be large ($10 might do), but it should exist.
If there was no copyright then the GPL could not exist and the aims behind the GPL (That a people should be free to use, improve and then re-distribute GPL software) would fail. They would fail because all the code that is currently GPL would be taken up by companies, modified, improved (or just re-branded) and redistributed, in closed source form.
Yes, but if there was no copyright, it would be entirely legal to reverse engineer, disassemble, & decompile any closed source software. I imagine we would see an explosion in the effectiveness of these types of tools if their use was 100% legal. You could still release your own source code if you wanted, and if someone tried to close it you could disassemble their version and find out how it differs from yours.
DRM would be even more prevalent and probably more effective, it would be seen as the only way to make money from any idea (software, artistic work etc..)
DRM is impossible to implement 100% effectively, by its very nature. DRM schemes are cracked all the time (for example, games are some of the most heavily DRMed programs around, and are usually cracked very quickly), do you really think that the companies who make them aren't already trying the best that they can? How much faster will DRM be cracked if it was 100% legal to crack it and spread the cracked software around? Remember, only one person has to crack it.
Arguing for the total abolition of copyright is not a good and positive thing
While I think your points are silly, I don't believe in completely abolishing copyright either. I am more in favor of reasonable restrictions, i.e. a term of about 5-10 years, no automatic copyrights (you must file), and software can only be copyrighted if the source code is submitted as well (i.e. submitted to the LoC in trust until the copyright expires).
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, do you really reinstall a new disto every few months just to get the new version of Firefox or OpenOffice.org? If so, I feel safe in saying that you are in a tiny, tiny minority. If regular people find that they have a crucial need for a newer app they usually figure out how to add an unofficial repository rather than switching to an entirely different distro, where the problem will just repeat a few months down the road.
The parent said weight, not mass, which (since it is a force) is measured in Newtons, same as thrust. And yes, weight is the appropriate unit for what we are talking about.
Anyone know of any decent alternatives to Charter in the Fort Worth area? The only other one I know of is at&t for DSL, and after the whole illegal wiretapping / spying thing I'm not eager to give them my money either. Is there (gasp!) a viable third option that I am unaware of?
I completely agree. When copyright was first created in the US, it could take years, or even decades to effectively spread your work around and copyright was a scant 14 years. With today's modern communications, you can transfer an album or book from California to Japan in the blink of an eye, and market your works globally. This means that the time to realize a profit from your work is significantly shorter. Why then have copyright terms only increased with the advance of technology? It is well known that the vast majority of works make the vast majority of their profit in the first few years of their life. It is the rare work indeed that is still profitable after 20 years, let alone 70 or 95. Why should we be basing our laws on the exceptions, rather than the rule?
What is obvious to me is that forcing everyone to financially support religion is in direct conflict with the establishment clause, and I think you agree with me here. What you and the Supreme Court seem to be saying is that the alternative would be worse, however since as you say it has never actually been tried in this country it seems that that conclusion is far from certain.
Welcome to real life, where real physical things cost money. Should the religion have to pay for the lumber and bricks to build the church, and the labor to put it together, or should all that be provided by the government (i.e. the taxpayers) to provide "free" access to religion? As my previous examples showed, NO church "requires" a large fancy tax-free building to hold their services, many make do without, although I'm sure many churches would like to think that they require such grandiose facilities, and that the government is oppressing them by not helping them pay for it. Now we're reduced to "please think of the children"? Just because the Supreme Court said something doesn't mean it is right or correct.I have no problem with donations to churches being non-profit and non-taxed, what I am really talking about here are property taxes. Please explain why it prohibits the free exercise of religion to have religious institutions pay taxes on real property just like everyone else. Maybe the government should be required to build and maintain all the churches in America, because otherwise many religions are being "prohibited from the free exercise thereof?" Is that any more ridiculous then what you are saying? Many (poorer) churches don't even own property, they meet at someones house or even at a local school, so obviously they are not being prevented from their free exercise just because they don't own property (and can't take advantage of the corresponding tax break).
Freedom of Religion also includes Freedom from Religion. Forcing me to help carry the tax burden of religious institutions I disagree with does directly infringe on my first amendment rights.IHBT, HAND
On another note:
How could it have any connection to reality when the bible doesn't even contain a physical description of Jesus?This post doesn't have anything further to do with stem cells other then to try to cut through some of the rhetoric surrounding this issue.