Not to mention all the classified and secret information they publish from unnamed sources. That's espionage and should be treated as such. Freedom of the press doesn't mean freedom to spy on your country. They are a bunch of sanctimonious, hypocritical assholes. -faramir
"If you want people to convert to Linux or BSD, don't give them cryptic software that will take them lots of time to retrain on, like VIM/LaTeX/TeX, and give them a familliar interface that they already know how to use, like that of OpenOffice, which usually takes most MS office users a few seconds to figure out." Except that OpenOffice is one of the few programs that have _ever_ hard locked linux. The program sucks, plain and simple.
You can bet if this was implimented the government wouldn't waste so much damn money. As long as someone else is paying it (or more accurately the sheep don't know they're paying it in higher prices) no one cares.
Having revenue doesn't invalidate not for profit status. You can have all the revenue you want, so long as the purpose of the organization is not to make a profit. On the other hand legally forming a not for profit is a major pain, which would probably drive you out as well.
Actually this is not quite true. The government is not constitutionally forbidden from regulating those specific types of speech. It does not automatically follow that said types of speech _are_ actually banned in any particular jurisdiction.
SOx is the least of the gaseous polutants that we have to worry about. Additionally, it would probably be easier and less costly to clean SOx out of a waste stream, then it would be to clean up thiols out of diesel.
The new efficient catalitic converters barf on SOx.
"If you want to use the copyrighted works, you have to abide by the license of the copyright holder. You have no inherent, natural, or legal right to use a copyrighted work, simply because you think you paid an appropriate price for it."
Leaving aside legal rights, that there is no inherent or natural right to use a copyrighted work is far from clear. In the state of nature (hence natural rights) real property rights exist - I clearly have a claim to my moccasins and if you take them I have a legitimate complaint. On the other hand if we are sitting around a fire, and you tell a story there is no presumption that I won't retell the story. Even if you ask me not to retell the story, there is no clear obligation on my part not to do so.
Intellectual property is a creature of law; its purpose is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts."
That being said we are not a state of nature, so natural and inherent rights are less important than legal rights.
Whether or not a copyright holder can bind the purchaser to arbitrary contract terms disclosed after the sale (especially when dealing with software which is generally not returnable) is a separate issue.
"1) Privacy. Maybe I don't want people (read companies) to know what city I'm currently in.
3) The last 64 bits of an IPv6 address are often used to store the MAC address of the sending host. This is going to make things like Mobile IP and automatic IP allocation (think DHCP) a breeze."
Its not ok for anyone to know where I am, but its fine if they can identify me with a unique MAC address?
"Unions can happen here because of free speach, freedom of association, and freedom of contract. Logically, if you're for the latter, you must acknowlege the former."
Simply untrue. If one employee doesn't show up to work I can fire him. But if all my employees don't show up to work this is a 'strike' and I am legally forbidden from firing them. This is a violation of freedom of contract and was recognized as such by the Supreme Court before King Roosevelt blackmailed them with his court-packing plan.
This case will in all likelihood go to the supreme court and be overturned by the same coalition that affirmed the judgment in Hill v. Colorado. Because in the final analysis there are at least five supreme court members who think that unencumbered abortion-on-demand is more important then literally anything else. When they do overturn it you can rejoice in your victory - but when the court finds a new pet issue, one which you vehemently oppose perhaps you will realize why freedom is important. I quote from Justice Scalia's dissent in that case.
"The Court today concludes that a regulation requiring speakers on the public thoroughfares bordering medical facilities to speak from a distance of eight feet is "not a 'regulation of speech,' " but "a regulation of the places where some speech may occur," ante, at 14; and that a regulation directed to only certain categories of speech (protest, education, and counseling) is not "content-based." For these reasons, it says, the regulation is immune from the exacting scrutiny we apply to content-based suppression of speech in the public forum. The Court then determines that the regulation survives the less rigorous scrutiny afforded content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions because it is narrowly tailored to serve a government interest-protection of citizens' "right to be let alone"-that has explicitly been disclaimed by the State, probably for the reason that, as a basis for suppressing peaceful private expression, it is patently incompatible with the guarantees of the First Amendment.
None of these remarkable conclusions should come as a surprise. What is before us, after all, is a speech regulation directed against the opponents of abortion, and it therefore enjoys the benefit of the "ad hoc nullification machine" that the Court has set in motion to push aside whatever doctrines of constitutional law stand in the way of that highly favored practice. Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 785 (1994) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). Having deprived abortion opponents of the political right to persuade the electorate that abortion should be restricted by law, the Court today continues and expands its assault upon their individual right to persuade women contemplating abortion that what they are doing is wrong. Because, like the rest of our abortion jurisprudence, today's decision is in stark contradiction of the constitutional principles we apply in all other contexts, I dissent."
"And while I would agree that speech calling for violence necessary to revolutionize the government is clearly protected--it's the reason for the 1st Amendment--I don't agree that speech calling for violence against individuals engaged in medical practice should be protected. The government is not a doctor, and political action should be sufficient to decide the fate of such doctors. If political action is not sufficient, then your quarrel is with the government, not the doctors, or you're just plain wrong. In fact, I'm leaning towards the attitude that calling for violence against any person by name rather than a governmental institution is just plain wrong, though that would take some careful defining in a world where we place or inherit people in governing positions as an institution of one."
So in other words if the list had been the names and address of those judges who wrote the majority opinions in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (standing law on abortion - no its not Roe v. Wade) namely Blackmun (now dececed), Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter that would be permissible? After all it is these five who removed (or confirmed the removal of) abortion from the legitimate political organs of government. Or is the Supreme Court as an institution responsible for this decision (and must therefore our good friend Justice Scalia be held as accountable even though he dissented.)
"One thing you have to keep in mind, though was that in the eras you're talking about, people were expected to be "gentlemen" and were more worried about their reputations than they are now. If you "plagairised", or otherwise misrepresented yourself, and got caught, your reputation would be shot and nobody would do business with you."
Are you freaking kidding!!! Off the top of my head, I can think of a dozen times both Chaucer and Shakespeare plagiarized - from Ovid alone. Shakespeare's constantly borrowed from previous and contemporary sources -- and, to completely destroy your point, this was at the time considered completely acceptable. A new slant on the same material was in fact admirable.
In that case the Supreme Court ruled that a Las Angeles ordinance prohibiting unlicensed distribution of anonymous handbills was unconstitutional. I believe that precedent will hold for the internet as well if its is ever tested.
Bradley
(who should be studying for his constitutional law test instead of posting on slashdot)
"4) Myth: "The more often ballots are recounted, especially by hand, the more likely it is that human errors, like lost ballots and other risks, will be introduced. This frustrates the very reason why we have moved from hand counting tomachine counting." -- Former Sec. of State James Baker, speaking on behalf of the Bush campaign at a press briefing televised by all networks on 11/10/00.
Fact: In 1997, George W. Bush signed into law a bill stating that hand recounts were the preferred method in a close election in Texas. The bill, "HB 330", mandated that representatives of all parties be present to prevent fraud. Laws establishing rights and procedures for handrecounts also exist in Florida (see Title IX, Chapter 102). In fact, the Orlando Sentinel, (orlandosentinel.com) reported that a partial hand count of Presidential ballots this year was ordered by Republicans in Seminole County, where Bush led Gore. This count took place on 11/9 and 11/10, widening Bush's lead by 98 votes. The Bush campaign did not complain about this hand count; nor did it complain about the hand count on 11/11/00 which put Bush slightly ahead of Gore in New Mexico. "
This response is clearly an 'appeal to authority' logical fallacy. George Bush signing a hand counting bill into law does not imply that errors cannot creep into the process, unless you are willing to view him as infallible.
bradley
Assuming every representative voted for the candidate in thier party the breakdown would be as follows:
Bush:
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Colorodo
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Hamshire
New Mexico
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvana
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Utah
Virginia
Wyoming
------------
25 States
Gore:
Arkansas
California
Hawaii
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missippi
New York
North Dakota
Oregon
Rhode Island
Texas
Vermont (Independant)
Washington
West Virgina
Wisconsin
------------
17 States
Tie:
Conneticut
Illinois
Maryland
Nevada
------------
4 States
Too bad the cache is completely useless for this website, none of the links are rewritten and none of the images are cached. Not to be hostile and belligerent but why don't you try your own links before posting them?
Eventully you run into the same "problem" that crusoe laptops have - namely that the processor is no longer the main consumer of electricity. Even if cpus didn't use any energy you'd still have monitors, printers, scanners, etc.
Re:I'm a Maths Graduate but ...
on
Does P = NP?
·
· Score: 1
So for strictly math types...
If a non-deterministic computer is one which can compute x results in time t as x goes to R
What is the cardinality of R?
Slashdot Mirror
All the net stuff should be Mb/s.
Not to mention all the classified and secret information they publish from unnamed sources. That's espionage and should be treated as such. Freedom of the press doesn't mean freedom to spy on your country. They are a bunch of sanctimonious, hypocritical assholes.
-faramir
John McTaggart proposed a similar theory in the "Nature of Existence" - written in 1921. Perhaps if physicists payed more attention to philosophy ...
"If you want people to convert to Linux or BSD, don't give them cryptic software that will take them lots of time to retrain on, like VIM/LaTeX/TeX, and give them a familliar interface that they already know how to use, like that of OpenOffice, which usually takes most MS office users a few seconds to figure out."
Except that OpenOffice is one of the few programs that have _ever_ hard locked linux. The program sucks, plain and simple.
You can bet if this was implimented the government wouldn't waste so much damn money. As long as someone else is paying it (or more accurately the sheep don't know they're paying it in higher prices) no one cares.
Having revenue doesn't invalidate not for profit status. You can have all the revenue you want, so long as the purpose of the organization is not to make a profit.
On the other hand legally forming a not for profit is a major pain, which would probably drive you out as well.
Unless of course abortion is involved. Then the 'ad-hoc nullification machine' comes into play and anything is fair game.
Actually this is not quite true. The government is not constitutionally forbidden from regulating those specific types of speech. It does not automatically follow that said types of speech _are_ actually banned in any particular jurisdiction.
SOx is the least of the gaseous polutants that we have to worry about. Additionally, it would probably be easier and less costly to clean SOx out of a waste stream, then it would be to clean up thiols out of diesel.
The new efficient catalitic converters barf on SOx.
Not to mention Lincoln not only ignoring a habeas petition from the Supreme Court but also signing an order to imprision the chief justice.
The rio receiver software can do none of the things you mentioned. The screen is tiny, the UI and remote are obtuse.
"If you want to use the copyrighted works, you have to abide by the license of the copyright holder. You have no inherent, natural, or legal right to use a copyrighted work, simply because you think you paid an appropriate price for it."
Leaving aside legal rights, that there is no inherent or natural right to use a copyrighted work is far from clear. In the state of nature (hence natural rights) real property rights exist - I clearly have a claim to my moccasins and if you take them I have a legitimate complaint. On the other hand if we are sitting around a fire, and you tell a story there is no presumption that I won't retell the story. Even if you ask me not to retell the story, there is no clear obligation on my part not to do so.
Intellectual property is a creature of law; its purpose is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts."
That being said we are not a state of nature, so natural and inherent rights are less important than legal rights.
Whether or not a copyright holder can bind the purchaser to arbitrary contract terms disclosed after the sale (especially when dealing with software which is generally not returnable) is a separate issue.
"1) Privacy. Maybe I don't want people (read companies) to know what city I'm currently in.
3) The last 64 bits of an IPv6 address are often used to store the MAC address of the sending host. This is going to make things like Mobile IP and automatic IP allocation (think DHCP) a breeze."
Its not ok for anyone to know where I am, but its fine if they can identify me with a unique MAC address?
"Unions can happen here because of free speach, freedom of association, and freedom of contract. Logically, if you're for the latter, you must acknowlege the former."
Simply untrue. If one employee doesn't show up to work I can fire him. But if all my employees don't show up to work this is a 'strike' and I am legally forbidden from firing them. This is a violation of freedom of contract and was recognized as such by the Supreme Court before King Roosevelt blackmailed them with his court-packing plan.
This case will in all likelihood go to the supreme court and be overturned by the same coalition that affirmed the judgment in Hill v. Colorado. Because in the final analysis there are at least five supreme court members who think that unencumbered abortion-on-demand is more important then literally anything else. When they do overturn it you can rejoice in your victory - but when the court finds a new pet issue, one which you vehemently oppose perhaps you will realize why freedom is important. I quote from Justice Scalia's dissent in that case.
"The Court today concludes that a regulation requiring speakers on the public thoroughfares bordering medical facilities to speak from a distance of eight feet is "not a 'regulation of speech,' " but "a regulation of the places where some speech may occur," ante, at 14; and that a regulation directed to only certain categories of speech (protest, education, and counseling) is not "content-based." For these reasons, it says, the regulation is immune from the exacting scrutiny we apply to content-based suppression of speech in the public forum. The Court then determines that the regulation survives the less rigorous scrutiny afforded content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions because it is narrowly tailored to serve a government interest-protection of citizens' "right to be let alone"-that has explicitly been disclaimed by the State, probably for the reason that, as a basis for suppressing peaceful private expression, it is patently incompatible with the guarantees of the First Amendment.
None of these remarkable conclusions should come as a surprise. What is before us, after all, is a speech regulation directed against the opponents of abortion, and it therefore enjoys the benefit of the "ad hoc nullification machine" that the Court has set in motion to push aside whatever doctrines of constitutional law stand in the way of that highly favored practice. Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 785 (1994) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). Having deprived abortion opponents of the political right to persuade the electorate that abortion should be restricted by law, the Court today continues and expands its assault upon their individual right to persuade women contemplating abortion that what they are doing is wrong. Because, like the rest of our abortion jurisprudence, today's decision is in stark contradiction of the constitutional principles we apply in all other contexts, I dissent."
"And while I would agree that speech calling for violence necessary to revolutionize the government is clearly protected--it's the reason for the 1st Amendment--I don't agree that speech calling for violence against individuals engaged in medical practice should be protected. The government is not a doctor, and political action should be sufficient to decide the fate of such doctors. If political action is not sufficient, then your quarrel is with the government, not the doctors, or you're just plain wrong. In fact, I'm leaning towards the attitude that calling for violence against any person by name rather than a governmental institution is just plain wrong, though that would take some careful defining in a world where we place or inherit people in governing positions as an institution of one."
So in other words if the list had been the names and address of those judges who wrote the majority opinions in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (standing law on abortion - no its not Roe v. Wade) namely Blackmun (now dececed), Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter that would be permissible? After all it is these five who removed (or confirmed the removal of) abortion from the legitimate political organs of government. Or is the Supreme Court as an institution responsible for this decision (and must therefore our good friend Justice Scalia be held as accountable even though he dissented.)
Take a look at http://www.phy.duke.edu/brahma/ is has lots of good information about beowolf in general and hybrid COW/Beowolf specifically.
"One thing you have to keep in mind, though was that in the eras you're talking about, people were expected to be "gentlemen" and were more worried about their reputations than they are now. If you "plagairised", or otherwise misrepresented yourself, and got caught, your reputation would be shot and nobody would do business with you."
Are you freaking kidding!!! Off the top of my head, I can think of a dozen times both Chaucer and Shakespeare plagiarized - from Ovid alone. Shakespeare's constantly borrowed from previous and contemporary sources -- and, to completely destroy your point, this was at the time considered completely acceptable. A new slant on the same material was in fact admirable.
When oxegen undergoes ionization it can recombine into ozone, which thoretically could replenish the ozone layer - I wouldn't bet on it though.
In that case the Supreme Court ruled that a Las Angeles ordinance prohibiting unlicensed distribution of anonymous handbills was unconstitutional. I believe that precedent will hold for the internet as well if its is ever tested.
Bradley
(who should be studying for his constitutional law test instead of posting on slashdot)
"4) Myth: "The more often ballots are recounted, especially by hand, the more likely it is that human errors, like lost ballots and other risks, will be introduced. This frustrates the very reason why we have moved from hand counting tomachine counting." -- Former Sec. of State James Baker, speaking on behalf of the Bush campaign at a press briefing televised by all networks on 11/10/00.
Fact: In 1997, George W. Bush signed into law a bill stating that hand recounts were the preferred method in a close election in Texas. The bill, "HB 330", mandated that representatives of all parties be present to prevent fraud. Laws establishing rights and procedures for handrecounts also exist in Florida (see Title IX, Chapter 102). In fact, the Orlando Sentinel, (orlandosentinel.com) reported that a partial hand count of Presidential ballots this year was ordered by Republicans in Seminole County, where Bush led Gore. This count took place on 11/9 and 11/10, widening Bush's lead by 98 votes. The Bush campaign did not complain about this hand count; nor did it complain about the hand count on 11/11/00 which put Bush slightly ahead of Gore in New Mexico. "
This response is clearly an 'appeal to authority' logical fallacy. George Bush signing a hand counting bill into law does not imply that errors cannot creep into the process, unless you are willing to view him as infallible.
bradley
Assuming every representative voted for the candidate in thier party the breakdown would be as follows:
;)
Bush:
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Colorodo
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Hamshire
New Mexico
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvana
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Utah
Virginia
Wyoming
------------
25 States
Gore:
Arkansas
California
Hawaii
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missippi
New York
North Dakota
Oregon
Rhode Island
Texas
Vermont (Independant)
Washington
West Virgina
Wisconsin
------------
17 States
Tie:
Conneticut
Illinois
Maryland
Nevada
------------
4 States
To close to call:
New Jersey
Source: cnn.com
Too bad the cache is completely useless for this website, none of the links are rewritten and none of the images are cached. Not to be hostile and belligerent but why don't you try your own links before posting them?
Eventully you run into the same "problem" that crusoe laptops have - namely that the processor is no longer the main consumer of electricity. Even if cpus didn't use any energy you'd still have monitors, printers, scanners, etc.
So for strictly math types ...
If a non-deterministic computer is one which can compute x results in time t as x goes to R
What is the cardinality of R?