To be fair, it makes about as much sense to group all Israeli together as just saying "Palestinians". PLO mostly "became" Fatah (the political branch) and "they" "ended" their fight when they accepted Israels right to exist (something Hamas does not do). The fact that Palestinians on the Gaza strip does not have much to loose, but their lives, makes any real neartime prospects for lasting peace bleak, at best. Unless they have something to gain or something real to loose then the fighting wont stop. One cannot deny the Israeli their right to self-defense. As you say Hamas should take a reality check and assess the prospects that we ever allow Israel to parish as they desire. The Palestinian children have only to gain from them making peace with the past.
Rabbin was murdered to stop the peace process and that has indeed been the result. Most other people would act to make sure that such deeds never pay off.
As an outsider with a whole bunch of relatives in the US it all seems to me like the big insurance companies are the one who's playing the pipe here.
Sure, we have higher taxes. However, every time I've had that discussion with a US citizen their jaw drop, once I let them know what those taxmoney buys "me". Free healthcare and university studies, to just name two of the more costly ones. And in the US, even if you have a good healthcare insurance, which pays for, for example vital heart suregery, the insurance (usually) does not cover the actual cost of stying at the hospital and that will quickly become massive (at least this is how it used to be "before").
Don't get me wrong, US is great place and I'll go there on many more visits, but this reform will help you become quite a bit more independent as citizens and that can only be a good thing, right? (if you are in debt you are not free)
No ULE in 7.1 is not a complete rewrite. It was written by Jeff Robertson and he did not vanish, he just took a break. He also fixed some issues that was present in ULE before 7 branched and prevented it from being the default scheduler. It, AFAIK, still use the same basic ideas, which sofar in my opinion is the best scheduler for any OSS-desktop with unmatched interactivity. It is, in the current incarnation, rock solid
Wow.. I'm glad your not an American. You sound French BTW.
Well, I'm glad I'm not as well and I'm also quite far from being French as well. However, thankfully, there are lots of americans that are feeling the same way as I do.
You don't ever give in to terrorist demands.
Who said anything about giving in? I sure did not but in the spirit of "if you are not with us..." I'm quite sure how you read my comment like that.
The corner that you've painted yourselves into right now cannot be fought out from without terrible costs in lives, mainly innocents.
The french found this out with the viking and quite a few other historical events. Other nations like Spain have also found this out.
The biggest threat to terrorists is not to play by their rules as that wil always give them support and the argument "see how they oppress us". You can "fight" terrorists by non-violently, quite successfully so by fighting the very
When you allow legitimacy to someone who thinks that they can influence public policy by killing innocent people, you are doing nothing but opening the door for everyone else to do the same. You meet force with force when you have force available.
Wrong, then you really give the terrorists recruitment opportunity. Look at how many civilians that have been killed in Iraq and tell me that "your" side could not be seen as occupants and terrorists by the Iraqi as well.
Otherwise, your doing nothing but inviting force to be used against you. It really is that simple.
No it is not. Did you even bother reading this thread's history? Non-violence does NOT invite force, quite the opposite in fact. For reference, check the war records of those nations that does not have armed forces.
As for Iraq, there are a number of reasons why that was needed. Most of which was to undo the paper tiger image the terrorists thought we were.
You just earned my disdain. All those lives, innocents most of them, killed by american arms, and you have the audacity to make such a claim. Please crawl back under your rock and let more sane US-citizens govern your country to a more prosperous and opener future.
The number two Al Qeada guy we captured who was behind 9/11 said that they had no idea we would respond so viciously.
Ok, I've searched the net for a reference but not found one. Do you know where is appeared so I can search further. I seriously doubt he would make such a claim since the minds behind this believes that the jihad will start by driving out the oppressors (us westerners) and then reform the muslim countries towards stricter sharia laws. As strong response by the US would go a long ways towards accomplishing this.
But to do so, you would have to skip over the image Iraq gave us. It was needed long before it happened and if we would have had some real leadership back then, everything would be different now.
No, you are in this situation because you CURRENTLY have the wrong leadership. Not that you would ever see it that way. However, your ideas are currently being "implemented", are you feeling they are going well? Do you feel safer today than before 911?
How about trying a different approach that involves non-violence and NOT giving in to the terrorists?
The extremists among the Iraqi insurgency and other terrorist groups are devoted to the idea of pushing the broader Islamic world into open war with the West.
Where did you get this idea from? Check where bin Laden has his ideological roots and you will find that they really could not care less about us westerners. Problem is, they DO care about western soldiers on "their lands". Bin Laden is a greater threat to other muslims than to the west. Check Wahhabism and bin Ladens history for references. Of course he is anti-jewish but that is also a part of the middle east.
They would probably prefer that the winner of the election prolong the occupation so that they can continue to claim to be fighting against Western aggression and collaborators, rather than just killing their own people.
Erm, no that is actually not quite true if you check what they are "preaching". A withdrawal of all western soldiers from Saudi Arabia and the rest of the muslim countries will in all likelihood end "this war". If they ever were to succeed in their ambitions then, not unlikely, they would start new future wars but that we cannot possibly know for sure. Enlightenment and development would likely stop such wars from happening.
An invasion and war, on the other hand, would push moderates in Iran into the arms of Islamic radicals that promise to defend them.
That would quite likely cause something quite terrible for every one of us, regardless of religion or affiliation. Problem is, we westerners, have no moral high-ground in this matter, because we, have the bomb and have also used it (I'm using the term westerners very broad here just as most would use the word "muslim" or "arab", very broad).
"Winning" implies that someone else either loose or you have a "we're both winners"-situation. WW2 had the other side surrendering and those were wars that was fought for very very different reasons. The world is far different today ans wars, IMO, only have loosers. If you "have" to use violence then you are loosing. Question is how much will you loose?
Ask yourself, in this so called "war", do you ever see the "other" side admitting defeat, surrender or simply lay down their arms?!
"This" is not a "war" you can "win" by violence. There's nothing left for "them" to loose but their lives and when you're pushed far enough that is the best reason to keep fighting. You, "Americans", OTOH, have lots left to loose. Problem is, at this rate, you are doing the best you can to make sure you actually loose both the lives your young men and women as well as your economy. Count the lives that were lost on 911 and count the american lives that have been lost in the "war" since that. Add to that the money, that would've been better spent fighting poverty, and ask yourself; am I safer and as free today as I was before 911? If the answer is no, then you know whom to vote for.
Terrorism can only be "defeated" by giving potential terrorists something to loose. Fighting poverty and injustice will do just that (and don't claim that Irak is about justice, as that is just laughable).
Righty, co-developers of the "final" CD-format Sony may be but the way the article reads is that Philips started, Philips continued the development and then teamed up with Sony to create the CD-format that we know and use. It does not read; "Sony and Philips jointly started developing the technology from scratch" (all this is of course assuming the Wiki is accurate). AFAIK Philips also holds the rights to the final specs, something they have use to make record companies bent on copy restriction not being able to get the official CD "stamp". Note again, that I did not provide the first Wiki-link nor am I in a position to judge the Wiki-article's correctness as to the actual events.
Not that I made the original post (with WiKi-link), however, the correct Wiki-link does not give you bragging rights for being "correct" (no comment upon the Wiki-correctness).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Disc
You didn't make that exception in your original statement.
Well to be honest I did tho perhaps not as clearly. I wrote:
That puts upon me the responsibility to think through what I do and how that may affect you.
Responsibility, I'm responisible for my actions. If I deprive others of their freedom then I have to take responsibility for that and cannot expect to enjoy my given freedom until I've been "rehabilitated" and can respect the freedom of others again.
Of course, we're talking about a hypothetical reality, because the government places restrictions on what we can do, even when the actions we take may not adversely affect anyone. Furthermore, the government allows us to do things which reduce the happiness of others, and without recompense to the person we have "injured".
Well what can you expect from people that barely knows how to take responsibility for the decisions they make. They want us to be accountable for what we do but, oy wey, if the pendule swings;)
Taken as written, we could never put people in prison for crimes. Worse, we could never really express our own opinions--they might make someone else sad.
Not at all. If you take away my freedom then I'm perfectly fine to let you take responsibility for that and put you in jail. I'm the one to judge if my freedom is taken away, not you. If I feel I have been wronged then I'm within my rights to complain and try to make sure you think twice before doing it to someone else. If everyone thought that way, prisons would not be an issue (utopia indeed but one has to believe in the better part of humanity). Same with feelings, if I feel that I have to make sure you know how I feel then I will do so unless I feel that the end result will only make everyone feel worse.
You have to think about that statment quite some time before you understand all the consequences and then it will make more sense and not seem as absurd.
Most people distinguish between "user" and "developer". The GPL has freedom for the user.
Quite true. I omitted that distinction based upon what we were discussing and what website it is on;) I will do better.
The only totally free way to give out your code is to put it in the public domain.
Quite right, however by using the BSD license I can take some accountability for the software (i.e. correct bugs that are pointed ut to me) because they know who wrote it. And ofc the "fame (shame?) makes e happier also =)
I know very well how "it works", but for me the idea of maximum freedom and maximum joy is important. That means that I'm free to pursue happiness and freedom in any way as long as I make sure that your freedom and happiness is not changed for the worse (and I'm not the one to judge if that is so, you are). That puts upon me the responsibility to think through what I do and how that may affect you.
In that same line GPL makes no sense to me. You say, "this code is free BUT not completely because if you use it your code will have to carry the SAME restrictions". "Freedom" for code but not for the user -> which probably makes me less happy but no less free as long as I decide NOT to use your code.
I prefer freedom for the user and that is why I use a BSD like license. You are free to use my code in any way you damn well please and if you decide to use that code in something that is not "free" (gratis) then that does not change the fact that my code still is free for me and others to use as we choose -> I'm free and no less happy, you're free and probably more happy because you get to use my code in any way you see fit. Maximum freedom and maximum happiness.
br>
There is just too much egoism in the world already
"I give if you give" - GPL
"I give, enjoy!" - BSD and others like it
The question was not of other and/or open source pdf readers but of pdf CREATORS/EDITORS. Foxit is "only" a reader (and there are quite a lot of readers already)
No procfs is a separate option when you edit the kernel config on FreeBSD. It is REQUIRED when using Linux compatibility tho but you can use procfs whitout the Linuxcompat
Japan was on the virge of surrendering. The bombs was dropped to make a point, not out of trying to save lifes. Conventional bombs would've made Japan surrender eventually.
The explanations was already thought out before the bomb was dropped. It was more a signal to Stalin than anything else.
"...most of the countrys dont even have a real army."
Most of the special forces in Europe will tear your US equivalent apart. What will your air craft carriers do against our stealth ships that are already operative? We have years of experience of air-independent submarine tech. Just talked with a sub officer that said your ships could not locate our subs during joint training and that the depthcharge marks was way off.
Just because each independent country might not have the sheer numbers does not mean we lack in equipment and where it really matters.
That said, I'm a pacifist and I find the idea apalling between a US/European conflict. That would be a humanity ender for sure. Military spending in the year of 2005 is a utter waste of money and I feel sickend of what all that money could do.
And agian you prove his comment correct. Imagine that the content is constantly updated with actual condition or road work etc. Just because it is pure static today does not mean it will stay that way.
And according to the link (I have to check the Nature paper to be sure) not even the full mitochondrial genome (mtDNA) was sequenced. Only 5000 nucleotides which is nice enough but not even half the genome. If they claim it is then they are waaay off.
"all we'll be left with is an argrarian society. That sounds MUCH better"
Agreed and also the transformation into an agrarian species is what started all this in the first place.
Given our resistance to learn from past mistakes it will only be one really big rinse-repeat cycle as all important records of CO2 and increasing the greenhouse effect will be gone.
Technology combined with changing the way we really live is the only way forward that allows us to improve the situation in a REAL way
What amazes me is how quickly and easily Slashdotters won't even think about reviewing the material before dismissing it.
Are we reading the same site?! I thought this was/. were RTFA was something nobody did.
You are quite right that there is not conclusive evidence that an _increased_ green-house effect is causing the current climate changes, however, given that global warming caused by the 'green-house' effect is a 'natural' process then it seems quite clear that an increased 'greenhouse' effect is causing at least part of the current changes. frightning as it may be but one of the predictions by a hightened global average temperature is stronger and increased frequency of weather extremes such as hurricanes. There is a clear increase in the number of hurricanes in the caribbean and now Katrina...
Meyer, et. al., 1990, Monophyletic origin of Lake Victoria cichlid fishes suggested by mitochondrial DNA sequences, Nature 347: 550-553
Forgot to point out that this paper is one of those that support the idea of common ancestor (in this case a common cichlid ancestor). Absolute proof? No, but does not leave much room for other scientific explanations.
Meyer, et. al., 1990, Monophyletic origin of Lake Victoria cichlid fishes suggested by mitochondrial DNA sequences, Nature 347: 550-553
Your claim that seeing 'how the heart came around' is stupid! because that is like thinking the marvel of an acorn turning into an oak can be solves by solving a wooden sliding puzzle.
Yes, your analogy is limping again at best but I'll leave it at that. All I'm saying is that looking at just the heart of a human may make evolution seem like a far fetched idea. But evolutionary history tells that simpler less advanced "designs" should be there in the species that are gradually further away from human (given a common ancestor). That we find, designs that simple and inefficient. Starting to sound like a broken record, I know...
You are unshaking, not even allowing doubt, and in the light of it you look stupid, because any scientist who does not doubt his work is stupid.
Yes there is doubts but those doubts are on the level of unprovable. They are on the level of "is this just a computer simulation" etc and as I've already said; there is a slight possibility that evolution is not what have created the diversity that we see today and that is if everything was created to appear as if there was a common ancestor. How can you disproove something like that and is that then really a plausible explamation compared to much less far fetched "idea" of evolution being what actually did "it"? This is the realm of philosophy and extreme meta physics. Since ideas like this can never be disproved by science and only by the actual creator/intelligence coming forward and spilling the beans in a clear and undoubting way. Intelligent design is not science, it is philosophy/theology. Using the same argumentation that you have I can also make the claim that the specific theory of relativity is not proven. You can never disproof that there is something else to account for the "slowing" of the atomic clocks travelling at high speed. That sort of doubt is always there but does not invalidate relativity/evolution because everything we have observed fits that theory (and the number of studies that "fits/supports" evolution compared to the theory of relativity are many more.
Way beyond resonable doubt, yes. Do I know the Truth about anything and everything, no. Thus we work from the assumption of evolution being a fact because it has been proven to the highest level "anything" can be proven science. Beyond that walks the metaphysics and that is not something I'll prolly wont bother with until the day I die.
Just one point, nature itself speaks my side. It coudl have evolved, BUT IT COULD HAVE NOT EVOLVED.
Just as this discussion may just be a figment of your imagination. Not science in any way.
Examples aside, point me to the 'evolution was proven today'/. article.
There is none and don't expect to ever see one. Evolution cannot be proven by one article alone. It is far to complex for that. However, evolution can be disproven by just one article.
I can always win this argument: Evolution is not proven. Dispute it. If you can say it is 100% proven, then you are obviously going against the lofty ideals of your scientific nature, and have shown that you prefer to look at the quote of a pope than admit that evolution is circumstantial, however compelling.
So, you can either reply it is 100% proven, or concede defeat in this pissing contest, on slashdot ffs.
Sure I admit, with the statement; "Evolution is proven to be a fact to the same level as the theory of relativity. In that, I mean, everything that we can uncover scientifically about nature will support these theories but that does not exclude the explanation that other metaphysical idea are true explanations and the universe was designed in a way to make these scientific theories look True".
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, it makes about as much sense to group all Israeli together as just saying "Palestinians". PLO mostly "became" Fatah (the political branch) and "they" "ended" their fight when they accepted Israels right to exist (something Hamas does not do). The fact that Palestinians on the Gaza strip does not have much to loose, but their lives, makes any real neartime prospects for lasting peace bleak, at best. Unless they have something to gain or something real to loose then the fighting wont stop. One cannot deny the Israeli their right to self-defense. As you say Hamas should take a reality check and assess the prospects that we ever allow Israel to parish as they desire. The Palestinian children have only to gain from them making peace with the past.
Rabbin was murdered to stop the peace process and that has indeed been the result. Most other people would act to make sure that such deeds never pay off.
As an outsider with a whole bunch of relatives in the US it all seems to me like the big insurance companies are the one who's playing the pipe here.
Sure, we have higher taxes. However, every time I've had that discussion with a US citizen their jaw drop, once I let them know what those taxmoney buys "me". Free healthcare and university studies, to just name two of the more costly ones. And in the US, even if you have a good healthcare insurance, which pays for, for example vital heart suregery, the insurance (usually) does not cover the actual cost of stying at the hospital and that will quickly become massive (at least this is how it used to be "before").
Don't get me wrong, US is great place and I'll go there on many more visits, but this reform will help you become quite a bit more independent as citizens and that can only be a good thing, right? (if you are in debt you are not free)
But what about polar bears? Are they real or imaginary?
No ULE in 7.1 is not a complete rewrite. It was written by Jeff Robertson and he did not vanish, he just took a break. He also fixed some issues that was present in ULE before 7 branched and prevented it from being the default scheduler. It, AFAIK, still use the same basic ideas, which sofar in my opinion is the best scheduler for any OSS-desktop with unmatched interactivity. It is, in the current incarnation, rock solid
Wow.. I'm glad your not an American. You sound French BTW.
Well, I'm glad I'm not as well and I'm also quite far from being French as well. However, thankfully, there are lots of americans that are feeling the same way as I do.
You don't ever give in to terrorist demands.
Who said anything about giving in? I sure did not but in the spirit of "if you are not with us..." I'm quite sure how you read my comment like that.
The corner that you've painted yourselves into right now cannot be fought out from without terrible costs in lives, mainly innocents.
The french found this out with the viking and quite a few other historical events. Other nations like Spain have also found this out.
The biggest threat to terrorists is not to play by their rules as that wil always give them support and the argument "see how they oppress us". You can "fight" terrorists by non-violently, quite successfully so by fighting the very
When you allow legitimacy to someone who thinks that they can influence public policy by killing innocent people, you are doing nothing but opening the door for everyone else to do the same. You meet force with force when you have force available.
Wrong, then you really give the terrorists recruitment opportunity. Look at how many civilians that have been killed in Iraq and tell me that "your" side could not be seen as occupants and terrorists by the Iraqi as well.
Otherwise, your doing nothing but inviting force to be used against you. It really is that simple.
No it is not. Did you even bother reading this thread's history? Non-violence does NOT invite force, quite the opposite in fact. For reference, check the war records of those nations that does not have armed forces.
As for Iraq, there are a number of reasons why that was needed. Most of which was to undo the paper tiger image the terrorists thought we were.
You just earned my disdain. All those lives, innocents most of them, killed by american arms, and you have the audacity to make such a claim. Please crawl back under your rock and let more sane US-citizens govern your country to a more prosperous and opener future.
The number two Al Qeada guy we captured who was behind 9/11 said that they had no idea we would respond so viciously.
Ok, I've searched the net for a reference but not found one. Do you know where is appeared so I can search further. I seriously doubt he would make such a claim since the minds behind this believes that the jihad will start by driving out the oppressors (us westerners) and then reform the muslim countries towards stricter sharia laws. As strong response by the US would go a long ways towards accomplishing this.
But to do so, you would have to skip over the image Iraq gave us. It was needed long before it happened and if we would have had some real leadership back then, everything would be different now.
No, you are in this situation because you CURRENTLY have the wrong leadership. Not that you would ever see it that way. However, your ideas are currently being "implemented", are you feeling they are going well? Do you feel safer today than before 911?
How about trying a different approach that involves non-violence and NOT giving in to the terrorists?
The extremists among the Iraqi insurgency and other terrorist groups are devoted to the idea of pushing the broader Islamic world into open war with the West.
Where did you get this idea from? Check where bin Laden has his ideological roots and you will find that they really could not care less about us westerners. Problem is, they DO care about western soldiers on "their lands". Bin Laden is a greater threat to other muslims than to the west. Check Wahhabism and bin Ladens history for references. Of course he is anti-jewish but that is also a part of the middle east.
They would probably prefer that the winner of the election prolong the occupation so that they can continue to claim to be fighting against Western aggression and collaborators, rather than just killing their own people.
Erm, no that is actually not quite true if you check what they are "preaching". A withdrawal of all western soldiers from Saudi Arabia and the rest of the muslim countries will in all likelihood end "this war". If they ever were to succeed in their ambitions then, not unlikely, they would start new future wars but that we cannot possibly know for sure. Enlightenment and development would likely stop such wars from happening.
An invasion and war, on the other hand, would push moderates in Iran into the arms of Islamic radicals that promise to defend them.
That would quite likely cause something quite terrible for every one of us, regardless of religion or affiliation. Problem is, we westerners, have no moral high-ground in this matter, because we, have the bomb and have also used it (I'm using the term westerners very broad here just as most would use the word "muslim" or "arab", very broad).
"Winning" implies that someone else either loose or you have a "we're both winners"-situation. WW2 had the other side surrendering and those were wars that was fought for very very different reasons. The world is far different today ans wars, IMO, only have loosers. If you "have" to use violence then you are loosing. Question is how much will you loose?
Ask yourself, in this so called "war", do you ever see the "other" side admitting defeat, surrender or simply lay down their arms?!
"This" is not a "war" you can "win" by violence. There's nothing left for "them" to loose but their lives and when you're pushed far enough that is the best reason to keep fighting. You, "Americans", OTOH, have lots left to loose. Problem is, at this rate, you are doing the best you can to make sure you actually loose both the lives your young men and women as well as your economy. Count the lives that were lost on 911 and count the american lives that have been lost in the "war" since that. Add to that the money, that would've been better spent fighting poverty, and ask yourself; am I safer and as free today as I was before 911? If the answer is no, then you know whom to vote for.
Terrorism can only be "defeated" by giving potential terrorists something to loose. Fighting poverty and injustice will do just that (and don't claim that Irak is about justice, as that is just laughable).
Righty, co-developers of the "final" CD-format Sony may be but the way the article reads is that Philips started, Philips continued the development and then teamed up with Sony to create the CD-format that we know and use. It does not read; "Sony and Philips jointly started developing the technology from scratch" (all this is of course assuming the Wiki is accurate). AFAIK Philips also holds the rights to the final specs, something they have use to make record companies bent on copy restriction not being able to get the official CD "stamp". Note again, that I did not provide the first Wiki-link nor am I in a position to judge the Wiki-article's correctness as to the actual events.
Not that I made the original post (with WiKi-link), however, the correct Wiki-link does not give you bragging rights for being "correct" (no comment upon the Wiki-correctness). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Disc
You didn't make that exception in your original statement.
;)
Well to be honest I did tho perhaps not as clearly. I wrote:
That puts upon me the responsibility to think through what I do and how that may affect you.
Responsibility, I'm responisible for my actions. If I deprive others of their freedom then I have to take responsibility for that and cannot expect to enjoy my given freedom until I've been "rehabilitated" and can respect the freedom of others again.
Of course, we're talking about a hypothetical reality, because the government places restrictions on what we can do, even when the actions we take may not adversely affect anyone. Furthermore, the government allows us to do things which reduce the happiness of others, and without recompense to the person we have "injured".
Well what can you expect from people that barely knows how to take responsibility for the decisions they make. They want us to be accountable for what we do but, oy wey, if the pendule swings
Taken as written, we could never put people in prison for crimes. Worse, we could never really express our own opinions--they might make someone else sad.
;) I will do better.
Not at all. If you take away my freedom then I'm perfectly fine to let you take responsibility for that and put you in jail. I'm the one to judge if my freedom is taken away, not you. If I feel I have been wronged then I'm within my rights to complain and try to make sure you think twice before doing it to someone else. If everyone thought that way, prisons would not be an issue (utopia indeed but one has to believe in the better part of humanity). Same with feelings, if I feel that I have to make sure you know how I feel then I will do so unless I feel that the end result will only make everyone feel worse.
You have to think about that statment quite some time before you understand all the consequences and then it will make more sense and not seem as absurd.
Most people distinguish between "user" and "developer". The GPL has freedom for the user.
Quite true. I omitted that distinction based upon what we were discussing and what website it is on
The only totally free way to give out your code is to put it in the public domain.
Quite right, however by using the BSD license I can take some accountability for the software (i.e. correct bugs that are pointed ut to me) because they know who wrote it. And ofc the "fame (shame?) makes e happier also =)
I know very well how "it works", but for me the idea of maximum freedom and maximum joy is important. That means that I'm free to pursue happiness and freedom in any way as long as I make sure that your freedom and happiness is not changed for the worse (and I'm not the one to judge if that is so, you are). That puts upon me the responsibility to think through what I do and how that may affect you.
In that same line GPL makes no sense to me. You say, "this code is free BUT not completely because if you use it your code will have to carry the SAME restrictions". "Freedom" for code but not for the user -> which probably makes me less happy but no less free as long as I decide NOT to use your code.
I prefer freedom for the user and that is why I use a BSD like license. You are free to use my code in any way you damn well please and if you decide to use that code in something that is not "free" (gratis) then that does not change the fact that my code still is free for me and others to use as we choose -> I'm free and no less happy, you're free and probably more happy because you get to use my code in any way you see fit. Maximum freedom and maximum happiness.
br> There is just too much egoism in the world already
"I give if you give" - GPL
"I give, enjoy!" - BSD and others like it
But "may be used for the benefit of all computer owners worldwide" is 100% accurate and defensible.
...
but only as long as they comply with YOUR rules i.e. give away THEIR code. Freedom my
The question was not of other and/or open source pdf readers but of pdf CREATORS/EDITORS. Foxit is "only" a reader (and there are quite a lot of readers already)
No procfs is a separate option when you edit the kernel config on FreeBSD. It is REQUIRED when using Linux compatibility tho but you can use procfs whitout the Linuxcompat
Japan was on the virge of surrendering. The bombs was dropped to make a point, not out of trying to save lifes. Conventional bombs would've made Japan surrender eventually. The explanations was already thought out before the bomb was dropped. It was more a signal to Stalin than anything else.
"...most of the countrys dont even have a real army."
Most of the special forces in Europe will tear your US equivalent apart. What will your air craft carriers do against our stealth ships that are already operative? We have years of experience of air-independent submarine tech. Just talked with a sub officer that said your ships could not locate our subs during joint training and that the depthcharge marks was way off.
Just because each independent country might not have the sheer numbers does not mean we lack in equipment and where it really matters.
That said, I'm a pacifist and I find the idea apalling between a US/European conflict. That would be a humanity ender for sure. Military spending in the year of 2005 is a utter waste of money and I feel sickend of what all that money could do.
And agian you prove his comment correct. Imagine that the content is constantly updated with actual condition or road work etc. Just because it is pure static today does not mean it will stay that way.
And according to the link (I have to check the Nature paper to be sure) not even the full mitochondrial genome (mtDNA) was sequenced. Only 5000 nucleotides which is nice enough but not even half the genome. If they claim it is then they are waaay off.
"all we'll be left with is an argrarian society. That sounds MUCH better"
Agreed and also the transformation into an agrarian species is what started all this in the first place.
Given our resistance to learn from past mistakes it will only be one really big rinse-repeat cycle as all important records of CO2 and increasing the greenhouse effect will be gone.
Technology combined with changing the way we really live is the only way forward that allows us to improve the situation in a REAL way
Exactly, like a duck or an African swallow. ;)
What gave you the right to "waste" so much of my time by playing those great games you designed?
What amazes me is how quickly and easily Slashdotters won't even think about reviewing the material before dismissing it.
/. were RTFA was something nobody did.
Are we reading the same site?! I thought this was
You are quite right that there is not conclusive evidence that an _increased_ green-house effect is causing the current climate changes, however, given that global warming caused by the 'green-house' effect is a 'natural' process then it seems quite clear that an increased 'greenhouse' effect is causing at least part of the current changes. frightning as it may be but one of the predictions by a hightened global average temperature is stronger and increased frequency of weather extremes such as hurricanes. There is a clear increase in the number of hurricanes in the caribbean and now Katrina...
Meyer, et. al., 1990, Monophyletic origin of Lake Victoria cichlid fishes suggested by mitochondrial DNA sequences, Nature 347: 550-553 Forgot to point out that this paper is one of those that support the idea of common ancestor (in this case a common cichlid ancestor). Absolute proof? No, but does not leave much room for other scientific explanations.
Yes, your analogy is limping again at best but I'll leave it at that. All I'm saying is that looking at just the heart of a human may make evolution seem like a far fetched idea. But evolutionary history tells that simpler less advanced "designs" should be there in the species that are gradually further away from human (given a common ancestor). That we find, designs that simple and inefficient. Starting to sound like a broken record, I know...
Yes there is doubts but those doubts are on the level of unprovable. They are on the level of "is this just a computer simulation" etc and as I've already said; there is a slight possibility that evolution is not what have created the diversity that we see today and that is if everything was created to appear as if there was a common ancestor. How can you disproove something like that and is that then really a plausible explamation compared to much less far fetched "idea" of evolution being what actually did "it"? This is the realm of philosophy and extreme meta physics. Since ideas like this can never be disproved by science and only by the actual creator/intelligence coming forward and spilling the beans in a clear and undoubting way. Intelligent design is not science, it is philosophy/theology. Using the same argumentation that you have I can also make the claim that the specific theory of relativity is not proven. You can never disproof that there is something else to account for the "slowing" of the atomic clocks travelling at high speed. That sort of doubt is always there but does not invalidate relativity/evolution because everything we have observed fits that theory (and the number of studies that "fits/supports" evolution compared to the theory of relativity are many more.
Way beyond resonable doubt, yes. Do I know the Truth about anything and everything, no. Thus we work from the assumption of evolution being a fact because it has been proven to the highest level "anything" can be proven science. Beyond that walks the metaphysics and that is not something I'll prolly wont bother with until the day I die.
Just as this discussion may just be a figment of your imagination. Not science in any way.
There is none and don't expect to ever see one. Evolution cannot be proven by one article alone. It is far to complex for that. However, evolution can be disproven by just one article.
Sure I admit, with the statement; "Evolution is proven to be a fact to the same level as the theory of relativity. In that, I mean, everything that we can uncover scientifically about nature will support these theories but that does not exclude the explanation that other metaphysical idea are true explanations and the universe was designed in a way to make these scientific theories look True".