I'd like to hear you explain this assertion a little more: The open source author's assertion of copyright is a form of greed as well.
It seems like the copyright holder claimed copyright to keep from being charged for his own work (i.e., to ensure that his own work was kept free as in beer and speach). How is this greed?
And hey presto, another perpetual motion device is born....
Wrong. It would be possible to harness the energy. And nowhere is there any implication of it being an unlimited source of free energy. It may not end up being worthwhile, but presumably any time there is a storm surge the resultant whirlpool would exist.
Interesting. I was thinking of getting an iTouch, but it doesn't have a microphone for skype. But if this (or another device) has wi-fi, runs VOIP, and also can support a headset, then who needs a cell phone anymore? I like the iPhone, but it's too expensive (with the monthly plan from AT&T).
sorry . . . ots = off the shelf. I was thinking that the dtv converter box makers were simply buying stock pieces and doing some assembly. Either way they probably are.
Interesting . . . I had considered the ots solution where atsc tuner is on a chip with a set of outputs for signal processing to be done on another chip. But did not do any research. Thanks for the reply.
You're right, but in effect the digital signal is more robust. So (and this is simply from my own experience, in my house, with my tv and rabbit ears) channels that are fuzzy in analog are crystal clear with the digital signal. Once the signal strength drops to something like 50% then the digital goes away, but at that point the analog is nearly unwatchable. I found that the digital set top box I got (from radio shack) with my indoor, rabbit ear only antenna gave me the clearest tv reception I've ever seen (ota).
I tried to submit a question a while back on this. The boxes have the ability to receive the HD signal, and then they downsample it to 480p (which is not bad for most screens, and provided decent signal strength is a vast improvement over the analog signals). But it must be possible to hack the box to get the HD signal out, or at least it seems like it would be. I am surprised at the lack of appliances that will receive the OTA HD signal, spit it out to a variety of output connections, and have built in hard drive with TIVO like software (there were a few of these a few years ago, but they only recorded in SD). It seems like a no brainer to me, but I'm waiting to see what happens by feb '10. I hate the idea of having yet another computer to handle this kind of thing, but MythBuntu seems like the best option for now.
That is not elitism. When you have slackers devaluing the degree you are getting, telling them to GTFO is my response too. Calling that elitism is the worst kind of socialism/ comunism that Vonnegut, Rand, and the like were up in arms about. If you aren't smart enough, or are too lazy to work hard enough then get the fsck out (of that field/ program). Make room for those who are willing to put in the time. Elitism is saying that there is a class of people that don't have to work hard for what they get, and a class that no matter how hard they work should not be allowed in the club (be it CS, PhD, MD, JD, etc).
I try to stay away from forming my arguments based on the extremists (both sides). Both will take (for instance) something like evolution and use it to push their agenda. This does not mean that the things they assert regarding evolution should be given credence. And I disagree with you here: evolution in today's context almost exclusively refers also to greater Darwinism/naturalism/materialism/secular humanism/atheism.
If you fall for that load of tripe then you must also think that you can't be catholic and support choice (but war of course is ok), that spirituality is extant from man and you need religion to explain it to you, and that the government is here to protect you, so please shut up and be protected. I am sure that you are correct that the attitude exists, but this does not make it representative of the science of evolution, but of the religion of evolution (which is a load of tripe).
The proponents of evolution that you speak of sound suspiciously like pundits rather than scientists. You would do yourself a great favor if you simply tuned them out.
That's one way to look at it. But I am astounded by the attitude of grad students in the US. They complain about too much reading, too much homework, the subject matter being too hard, etc. And as a result the entire curriculum slowly is eroded, devaluing the degrees they are seeking. It's infuriating, if you want it to be easier then go do something easier. I see very few immigrant students complaining, in fact most of them take more classes, get better grades, and work more hours outside of school. It's funny that someone who points this out should be called an elitist.
The only people that I've heard claim that evolution tries to explain the origins of life are the anti-evolutionists. I am both religious and a scientist and I've never seen a conflict between evolutionary theory and my religious beliefs. Those who do are usually claiming that creation of life happened as described in Genesis and when they talk about the origin of life, this is what they mean. You are correct that evolutionary theory contradicts this version of creationism, and I did not intend to imply otherwise, but just because evolution contradicts that account for the origin of life does not mean that it tries to explain how life originated. Evolution explains how life, once begun, adapted, spread, and specialized. On the whole this science vs. religion thing is a crock, and those who believe that one has to supersede the other, or that belief in one equals disbelief in the other are being willfully ignorant. With the exception of some fundamentalist Christian religions, religion in general is quite accepting of scientific principles. Science itself is simply a tool, and one that has proven to be very useful.
I don't believe that I said that it applied universally. But don't try to change the subject. I was responding to this:
I reject it as an explanation for the source of all matter, dna, and life.
Which suggests a stark misunderstanding of what evolutionary theory is. You again demonstrate the same:
I also know that in our lifetime we have never seen one species become another and so I'm more skeptical of that claim.
It's like you see the world as an either/ or proposition. If you'd like to discuss this then fine, but if you are going to continue with the trolling (Just because your friends are doesn't mean you can apply that universally.) then don't bother.
You seem to be a not so good troll . . . perhaps you ignore the context or think that the summary is in some way informative. I know from a post of yours a little lower that you are not a complete idiot, but with nothing but your parent post you would appear to be nothing less.
Or did you forget to add the new punctuation referred to in your sig?
Evolutionary theory does not discount the possibility that the origins of life are divine. But since this is (as of yet) something that cannot be tested and proved or disproved it lies outside of the realm of science. Something can exist outside the realm of science and be true and valid. Sorry to feed the trolls . . .
Evolution is not put forth as an explanation for the origins of matter or life. It is put forth as an explanation for how life, once begun, spread, adapted, and led to more complex organisms. What views are you interested in seeing "Evolutionists" reconsider?
I have trouble with some of the scientist friends of mine, as they tend to work off of a predefined "operational model" which is required for the scope of their study. But they often forget that outside of this scope they need to reconsider their operational model. Most of them will concede that point after a brief discussion. But my religious friends never do the same. Science calls for constant reconsideration of premises, assumptions, theories, explanations, etc. Science is the business of proving or trying to prove yourself wrong.
Some might, and I am envious of you. I got several spam texts a year ago, shortly after I signed on with T-Mobile. I called customer service and complained that I didn't think I should pay for them and that I would like to block them (all text messages). I was told that I could text "stop" as a reply to any unwanted messages, and that this "should" make them stop. So I pointed out that this would cost me even more money, and the CS agent agreed, and added that they could not block text messages. I was incredulous and hung up after telling her that as soon as my contract was up I would be switching carriers. Not a move to help me, refund or even apologize for the inconvenience.
Re:"particles known as protons?"
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
Huh? How do I talk about the British, other than my joke? I lived in the UK for a while and am very fond of them.
Re:"particles known as protons?"
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
What about the British? They spell truck "l o r r y", and arbitrarily add "u"s to words like color and honor.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to hear you explain this assertion a little more:
The open source author's assertion of copyright is a form of greed as well.
It seems like the copyright holder claimed copyright to keep from being charged for his own work (i.e., to ensure that his own work was kept free as in beer and speach). How is this greed?
And hey presto, another perpetual motion device is born....
Wrong. It would be possible to harness the energy. And nowhere is there any implication of it being an unlimited source of free energy. It may not end up being worthwhile, but presumably any time there is a storm surge the resultant whirlpool would exist.
Right, so before that structure was built. That must have been the event that led to its construction.
Interesting, so the hurdle to get over is finding VOIP software that will run on it?
Interesting. I was thinking of getting an iTouch, but it doesn't have a microphone for skype. But if this (or another device) has wi-fi, runs VOIP, and also can support a headset, then who needs a cell phone anymore? I like the iPhone, but it's too expensive (with the monthly plan from AT&T).
sorry . . . ots = off the shelf. I was thinking that the dtv converter box makers were simply buying stock pieces and doing some assembly. Either way they probably are.
Interesting . . . I had considered the ots solution where atsc tuner is on a chip with a set of outputs for signal processing to be done on another chip. But did not do any research. Thanks for the reply.
You're right, but in effect the digital signal is more robust. So (and this is simply from my own experience, in my house, with my tv and rabbit ears) channels that are fuzzy in analog are crystal clear with the digital signal. Once the signal strength drops to something like 50% then the digital goes away, but at that point the analog is nearly unwatchable. I found that the digital set top box I got (from radio shack) with my indoor, rabbit ear only antenna gave me the clearest tv reception I've ever seen (ota).
I tried to submit a question a while back on this. The boxes have the ability to receive the HD signal, and then they downsample it to 480p (which is not bad for most screens, and provided decent signal strength is a vast improvement over the analog signals). But it must be possible to hack the box to get the HD signal out, or at least it seems like it would be. I am surprised at the lack of appliances that will receive the OTA HD signal, spit it out to a variety of output connections, and have built in hard drive with TIVO like software (there were a few of these a few years ago, but they only recorded in SD). It seems like a no brainer to me, but I'm waiting to see what happens by feb '10. I hate the idea of having yet another computer to handle this kind of thing, but MythBuntu seems like the best option for now.
So then revolving doors are called that because they too revolve around the sun? :)
I'm pretty sure you're not replying to my post.
That is not elitism. When you have slackers devaluing the degree you are getting, telling them to GTFO is my response too. Calling that elitism is the worst kind of socialism/ comunism that Vonnegut, Rand, and the like were up in arms about. If you aren't smart enough, or are too lazy to work hard enough then get the fsck out (of that field/ program). Make room for those who are willing to put in the time. Elitism is saying that there is a class of people that don't have to work hard for what they get, and a class that no matter how hard they work should not be allowed in the club (be it CS, PhD, MD, JD, etc).
I try to stay away from forming my arguments based on the extremists (both sides). Both will take (for instance) something like evolution and use it to push their agenda. This does not mean that the things they assert regarding evolution should be given credence. And I disagree with you here:
evolution in today's context almost exclusively refers also to greater Darwinism/naturalism/materialism/secular humanism/atheism.
If you fall for that load of tripe then you must also think that you can't be catholic and support choice (but war of course is ok), that spirituality is extant from man and you need religion to explain it to you, and that the government is here to protect you, so please shut up and be protected. I am sure that you are correct that the attitude exists, but this does not make it representative of the science of evolution, but of the religion of evolution (which is a load of tripe).
The proponents of evolution that you speak of sound suspiciously like pundits rather than scientists. You would do yourself a great favor if you simply tuned them out.
That's one way to look at it. But I am astounded by the attitude of grad students in the US. They complain about too much reading, too much homework, the subject matter being too hard, etc. And as a result the entire curriculum slowly is eroded, devaluing the degrees they are seeking. It's infuriating, if you want it to be easier then go do something easier. I see very few immigrant students complaining, in fact most of them take more classes, get better grades, and work more hours outside of school. It's funny that someone who points this out should be called an elitist.
The only people that I've heard claim that evolution tries to explain the origins of life are the anti-evolutionists. I am both religious and a scientist and I've never seen a conflict between evolutionary theory and my religious beliefs. Those who do are usually claiming that creation of life happened as described in Genesis and when they talk about the origin of life, this is what they mean. You are correct that evolutionary theory contradicts this version of creationism, and I did not intend to imply otherwise, but just because evolution contradicts that account for the origin of life does not mean that it tries to explain how life originated. Evolution explains how life, once begun, adapted, spread, and specialized. On the whole this science vs. religion thing is a crock, and those who believe that one has to supersede the other, or that belief in one equals disbelief in the other are being willfully ignorant. With the exception of some fundamentalist Christian religions, religion in general is quite accepting of scientific principles. Science itself is simply a tool, and one that has proven to be very useful.
So, if I stop learning things, then my house will be less messy?
I don't believe that I said that it applied universally. But don't try to change the subject. I was responding to this:
I reject it as an explanation for the source of all matter, dna, and life.
Which suggests a stark misunderstanding of what evolutionary theory is. You again demonstrate the same:
I also know that in our lifetime we have never seen one species become another and so I'm more skeptical of that claim.
It's like you see the world as an either/ or proposition. If you'd like to discuss this then fine, but if you are going to continue with the trolling (Just because your friends are doesn't mean you can apply that universally.) then don't bother.
You seem to be a not so good troll . . . perhaps you ignore the context or think that the summary is in some way informative. I know from a post of yours a little lower that you are not a complete idiot, but with nothing but your parent post you would appear to be nothing less.
Or did you forget to add the new punctuation referred to in your sig?
Evolutionary theory does not discount the possibility that the origins of life are divine. But since this is (as of yet) something that cannot be tested and proved or disproved it lies outside of the realm of science. Something can exist outside the realm of science and be true and valid. Sorry to feed the trolls . . .
Evolution is not put forth as an explanation for the origins of matter or life. It is put forth as an explanation for how life, once begun, spread, adapted, and led to more complex organisms. What views are you interested in seeing "Evolutionists" reconsider? I have trouble with some of the scientist friends of mine, as they tend to work off of a predefined "operational model" which is required for the scope of their study. But they often forget that outside of this scope they need to reconsider their operational model. Most of them will concede that point after a brief discussion. But my religious friends never do the same. Science calls for constant reconsideration of premises, assumptions, theories, explanations, etc. Science is the business of proving or trying to prove yourself wrong.
Over the home key.
note to self, don't close safari while looking at porn.
Some might, and I am envious of you. I got several spam texts a year ago, shortly after I signed on with T-Mobile. I called customer service and complained that I didn't think I should pay for them and that I would like to block them (all text messages). I was told that I could text "stop" as a reply to any unwanted messages, and that this "should" make them stop. So I pointed out that this would cost me even more money, and the CS agent agreed, and added that they could not block text messages. I was incredulous and hung up after telling her that as soon as my contract was up I would be switching carriers. Not a move to help me, refund or even apologize for the inconvenience.
Huh? How do I talk about the British, other than my joke? I lived in the UK for a while and am very fond of them.
What about the British? They spell truck "l o r r y", and arbitrarily add "u"s to words like color and honor.