im not for creationism being taught in schools, but isnt that the individual school districts right to make it available?
Not in science class, it isn't!
The fundamental principle of "Intelligent Design" is that it concludes, by the mere fact that we don't know how certain complex biological structures came about, that we can't possibly ever find out how they came about and therefore must have been created by God. This is exactly the opposite of the Scientific Method -- you know, that thing upon which all science is based -- and is therefore fundamentally incompatible with science. "It's impossible to know this, so we shouldn't even try" is never a valid answer in science; the only correct answer is to say "we need to figure out an experiment to test this." Do you see the difference?
"Intelligent Design" is not science, so it should not be taught in science class. Period. Feel free to stick it in with language arts class, though, next to all the other mythology.
The fact that the earth revolves around the sun isn't as obvious as people like to claim, If it is, why did it take until Galileo, which was more than thousands of years after the Greek had access to math?
Not to try to refute your overall claim, but the answer to your question is, it didn't. Various ancient cultures (I forget which, exactly, but I'm pretty sure it included the Mayans and I think it even included the Greeks) knew perfectly well that the Earth revolved around the Sun. It's just the ignorant barbarians that sacked Rome, and their subsequent superstitious dumbass offspring, that didn't.
I'd rather see my tax dollars go where Article I says they are supposed to
Article 1, eh? Read section 8, clause 8. It says that Congress is allowed to "Promote the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts."
(Incidentally, it also goes on to provide an example of a way Congress might accomplish that -- creating copyright and patent monopolies -- but it doesn't say that that's the only way in which Congress might Promote Progress.)
Lincoln had more support during the CIVIL WAR than Bush has today !
Does that include people from the states that tried to secede? I'd be real convenient for your argument if they were no longer counted as U.S. citizens in those opinion polls...
Well see the problem is some of us are afflicted with ethics. We know civilians and otherwise innocent individuals are always harmed in wars.
Obviously, then, the only ethical course of action is not to engage in war at all in the first place! And then you've invalidated the whole rest of your argument.
The Bush docterine has in fact, been highly successful. We have not been attacked at home again since 911. There is no getting around that fact.
That's a fallacy: for all you know, the US wouldn't have been attacked again even if Bush had done absolutely nothing.
And even if you assume action was required to prevent us from being attacked, it certainly didn't require attacking a country entirely different from the one that was harboring the terrorists who attacked us! Remember Afghanistan? Most of the US apparently doesn't!
In WW2, those countries you mention had actually attacked us before we invaded the. Iraq didn't!
In other words, the problem is not that we should not be restricting ourselves from certain targets, it's that we shouldn't have started fighting at all in the first place.
You seem to think that only large, nuclear-armed states can hurt you.
...which is true! Name a single instance in the last 50 years where a small, non-nuclear-armed country has hurt people within any of the 50 United States. I dare you.
The part of the law you quoted is concerned with the library copying its own materials. This has nothing to do with what the thread was talking about, which was lending the originals.
The real big question, for people in the Real World who need to be able to support Nvidia and ATI GPUs, is when there's going to be a standard GPGPU and/or physics API that works on both.
Apple's iWork does do many of these things, but isn't a fantastic candidate due to its platform dependence.
I'd say that iWork isn't a fantastic candidate due more to the fact that it neither supports ODF nor (as far as I know) has any plans to. iWork's formats may bear a superficial resemblance to ODF in that they're based on XML, but they are nevertheless completely proprietary.
In truth my preference is that I want a system with the freedom the the Libertarians parade (ie, keep your hands off my guns, end the "war on drugs", leave the prostitutes/johns alone, don't outlaw scientific study like stem cell research, etc), but with more provided social services that the Democrats promise (ie, national healthcare, investment in national communications infrastructure, etc).
You may want to look into the Green Party (although it, of course, won't fit your ideology perfectly either).
The reason Nvidia and ATI never wanted to disclose drivers and APIs is that the drivers are the difference between a GeForce and a Quadro, or a Radeon and a FireGL.
Why can't Ford sell me a car with the condition that I can't drive to the grocery store on Tuesdays? Why can't Bic sell me a pen with the condition that I can't use it to write bad poetry? Why can't Smith and Wesson sell me a gun with the condition that I must invent a super-hero catch phrase, and yell it each time I fire? Why can't a publisher sell me a sci-fi, novel, on the condition that I can't mark out half the story and write Babylon 5 slash fiction in its place?
The answer to all these questions is that it would be patently absurd, and destroy the right to property.
If it were me, I'd not just sue the organization for wrongful termination, but also sue the employees involved personally for slander and gross negligence.
Right. But the original question was "what makes XP 'downhill' from 2000," and that's the answer: because Microsoft respected your property rights with 2000, and then went downhill by ceasing to respect them.
Right. And my point was the contrapositive: since it is really my property, then I shouldn't have to beg someone else's permission to use! That's why XP is intolerable compared to 2000.
Slashdot Mirror
Not in science class, it isn't!
The fundamental principle of "Intelligent Design" is that it concludes, by the mere fact that we don't know how certain complex biological structures came about, that we can't possibly ever find out how they came about and therefore must have been created by God. This is exactly the opposite of the Scientific Method -- you know, that thing upon which all science is based -- and is therefore fundamentally incompatible with science. "It's impossible to know this, so we shouldn't even try" is never a valid answer in science; the only correct answer is to say "we need to figure out an experiment to test this." Do you see the difference?
"Intelligent Design" is not science, so it should not be taught in science class. Period. Feel free to stick it in with language arts class, though, next to all the other mythology.
Not to try to refute your overall claim, but the answer to your question is, it didn't. Various ancient cultures (I forget which, exactly, but I'm pretty sure it included the Mayans and I think it even included the Greeks) knew perfectly well that the Earth revolved around the Sun. It's just the ignorant barbarians that sacked Rome, and their subsequent superstitious dumbass offspring, that didn't.
Article 1, eh? Read section 8, clause 8. It says that Congress is allowed to "Promote the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts."
(Incidentally, it also goes on to provide an example of a way Congress might accomplish that -- creating copyright and patent monopolies -- but it doesn't say that that's the only way in which Congress might Promote Progress.)
Does that include people from the states that tried to secede? I'd be real convenient for your argument if they were no longer counted as U.S. citizens in those opinion polls...
Obviously, then, the only ethical course of action is not to engage in war at all in the first place! And then you've invalidated the whole rest of your argument.
That's a fallacy: for all you know, the US wouldn't have been attacked again even if Bush had done absolutely nothing.
And even if you assume action was required to prevent us from being attacked, it certainly didn't require attacking a country entirely different from the one that was harboring the terrorists who attacked us! Remember Afghanistan? Most of the US apparently doesn't!
In WW2, those countries you mention had actually attacked us before we invaded the. Iraq didn't!
In other words, the problem is not that we should not be restricting ourselves from certain targets, it's that we shouldn't have started fighting at all in the first place.
...which is true! Name a single instance in the last 50 years where a small, non-nuclear-armed country has hurt people within any of the 50 United States. I dare you.
The part of the law you quoted is concerned with the library copying its own materials. This has nothing to do with what the thread was talking about, which was lending the originals.
No, they haven't! They've been granted that right by law, over the strenuous objection of copyright holders!
The real big question, for people in the Real World who need to be able to support Nvidia and ATI GPUs, is when there's going to be a standard GPGPU and/or physics API that works on both.
Until then, all this shit's entirely useless.
And now you know why the people at Intel have been pushing raytracing so hard recently: they know this, and are trying to avoid becoming irrelevant.
I'd say that iWork isn't a fantastic candidate due more to the fact that it neither supports ODF nor (as far as I know) has any plans to. iWork's formats may bear a superficial resemblance to ODF in that they're based on XML, but they are nevertheless completely proprietary.
Since when was the MPEG decoding algorithm a secret?
You may want to look into the Green Party (although it, of course, won't fit your ideology perfectly either).
The reason Nvidia and ATI never wanted to disclose drivers and APIs is that the drivers are the difference between a GeForce and a Quadro, or a Radeon and a FireGL.
Why can't Ford sell me a car with the condition that I can't drive to the grocery store on Tuesdays? Why can't Bic sell me a pen with the condition that I can't use it to write bad poetry? Why can't Smith and Wesson sell me a gun with the condition that I must invent a super-hero catch phrase, and yell it each time I fire? Why can't a publisher sell me a sci-fi, novel, on the condition that I can't mark out half the story and write Babylon 5 slash fiction in its place?
The answer to all these questions is that it would be patently absurd, and destroy the right to property.
If it were me, I'd not just sue the organization for wrongful termination, but also sue the employees involved personally for slander and gross negligence.
2. Have the infected computer serve copies of the child porn to the paying customers.
Right. But the original question was "what makes XP 'downhill' from 2000," and that's the answer: because Microsoft respected your property rights with 2000, and then went downhill by ceasing to respect them.
The difference is that in this case, it's essentially the opposite: same sprites, different gameplay.
Unfortunately (for Majestic), the sprites (and not the gameplay) are the copyrighted bits!
Right. And my point was the contrapositive: since it is really my property, then I shouldn't have to beg someone else's permission to use! That's why XP is intolerable compared to 2000.
I think you're confused; My copy is my property, and the claims that it isn't because it's Imaginary are just that: imaginary themselves!
Wha...?
<trekkie>Stupid Star Wars, making all the books canon...</trekkie>
"Activation." (I.e., having to beg somebody for permission to use your own property.)
How do you manage to get the quote verbatim, but misattribute it so badly?