I infringe your copyright for commercial gain and I'm morally corrupt. You infringe my copyright for non-commercial gain and you're morally clean. I disagree. It sounds like both cases are ones of moral corruption because in both someone is trying to get something for nothing from the work of another, whether that something is commercial or not.
How much does reading (as in poker reading, not actually measuring, of course ) the heart-rate of your opponent actually help? I know when I play poker I never try to read another player like that, but rather I concentrate wholly on how bets and cards are and have been in order to determine whether they are bluffing. And then I doubt anyone could read me by trying to figure how "nervous" I am: I'm pretty much the same level of nervousness the entire game: because I don't see any hand as being less important than another, unless I'm sitting out I guess. I'd imagine any other serious player sees it the same way. The one exception would be when I'm already all-in with an opponent: If I have an unbeatable hand then I won't be nervous whereas otherwise I may be, so if you're a third-party and considering whether to join this all-in, then perhaps you could read me and gain a benefit for yourself. But even then, I would be concentrating hard on just that factor, and so become nervous to maintain my regular game nervosity and thereby achieve it.
If you read Qutb, that so-called "grandfather" of Al-Qaeda or whatever, he has this book called Milestones, the thing he writes about America that he hates it simply because it's "un-Islamic" particularly the sexualisation and gender-mixing (that is, unrelated women and men meeting each other), and materialism of the culture. He does mention freedom though as something he hates about it, but I'm pretty sure he's talking licence regarding holy practises, not freedom in the founding fathers sense.
I never really understood the CD check. I mean, why can't the "signature" of a CD being present just be emulated? And that's indeed what all the pirated game downloads come with. I don't think I've seen a game where you actually have to have to actual game CD in order to play it: an image of the disc could be mounted using some program and the game played thinking that it is the actual CD.
The first link on the (two link) list there: "A cornerstone of mitochondrial genetics, strict maternal inheritance, has been challenged recently by the study of a patient with mitochondrial myopathy due to a sporadic 2bp deletion. The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) harboring the mutation was paternal in origin, whereas the patient's blood was identical to the maternal genotype. To determine whether this is a common phenomenon, we studied mtDNA sequence variation between muscle and blood from 35 patients with sporadic mitochondrial myopathies, but detected no evidence of paternal mtDNA transmission. Our findings suggest that paternal transmission of mtDNA is rare and should not alter our genetic advice to families."
The point I'm trying to make is that we've already been on the slippery slope of eugenics since people started select mates. The technology just lets you go down this slope with a pair of skis rather than with one of those crazy carpets.
"I suspect, though, that computer programmers (taken as a whole) would rather not be held to that sort of standard. Most EULAs have language such as "this product is sold without warranties as to performance of merchantability or suitability for any purpose", and Software companies seem to like it that way. The way things stand, writers of tax software are not liable for you getting fined by the IRS due to a bug in their software. Microsoft will never pay anyone a dime over the multiplication error in Excel 2007. And even if the companies did end up liable for those mistakes, there is currently no way to hold the individual "Software Engineer" accountable for his mistake(s) that caused the problems."
Do such disclaimers actually hold up? I mean, it seems they're doing a bit doublespeak -- on the one hand, in product descriptions and advertisements, they'll describe the software as a tool for doing whatever job ("professionally edit photos!"), but then in the fine print say that it won't necessarily be able to do those things. It would be like someone selling me a washing machine and telling me it'll give me the cleanest clothes I've ever seen, but then in the fine print it says it might not actually clean anything, and, sure enough, the "washing" machine can't even turn on, and then when I ask for my money back, they just point me to that fine print. Seems grossly unfair -- they were still lying in their advertisements and product descriptions, because they stood alone without reference to the fine print.
Something which makes the US a nicer partner for India is that English is a fairly widely understood language in India, whereas neither Russian nor Mandarin are. Beats me how much of a factor that would be, though.
A human can get over a 12.5' concrete wall, they don't have to jump over to get over, just reach the top with their hands.
I'm only around 6 feet and I could probably get over, as long as I was wearing some decent sneakers (I know we used to run up these big cottonwood trees at a park (they actually have a WP page for it, hmm...) when we were kids, reaching up to 20 feet easily; not as vertical, and more grip on those than concrete though): just run half way up it and grab the top and pull, still a lot of grip between the vertical concrete and rubber soles. A 7 foot or 8 foot man could easily get over a 12.5 foot wall, I'm sure.
Mormonism? Just as scary as Islam. Any ideology that demands you throw common-sense out the window is scary. I like how I got modded troll though. Don't criticise religions on Slashdot I guess....
You believe that an angel came down from heaven in the 7th century and delivered a book which has existed for eternity (but was also in Arabic, even though Arabic evolved from a Semitic proto-language). And this book is totally true.
You say "Boo!" sarcastically, but...you are actually scary.
I think the key word there is "presumably": as in totally unfounded. I bet that Mohammed Jihad is still pissing his pants before he goes to kill himself even if he is pretty sure he's getting 72 virgins.
"And religion wasn't founded to fight wars or to condemn some other point of view as immoral"
But that is the theory put forth originally by Crone and Cook in Hagarism as to the cause of Islam's creation. In there they theorise it was crafted from a variety of sources to justify the expansionism of an Arabic empire, including denouncing others as immoral. I think the general idea is still held by them and by others like Ibn Warraq, Wansbrough and more.
The other going theory is that an angel really did come down from heaven in the seventh century.
Your characterisation of philosophy as a flawed way of finding things out seems bizarre to me. Philosophy means literally "love of wisdom"; this works in a metaphorical description of philosophy where this love manifests itself as a search for this true knowledge. So something is philosophical when it works towards finding true knowledge. But if philosophy is a "flawed" way of "finding things out" as you desribe it, then philosophy wouldn't seem to be very philosophical!
Something to think about: If science is a path to knowledge that bests philosophy in the job as if they were competitors, then how come science doesn't describe what knowledge is? Classically, and enduringly, knowledge is described as "justified true belief." But there's problems with this definition, as there are problems with all definitions that I've heard. But the entire discussion as to what knowledge is no once characterises as part of science, but rather as part of philosophy.
I own a few vinyls. There were a few that I can think of that sounded better to me on vinyl then in the cd form. I don't know why they sounded better, I just thought they did. My turntable doesn't keep pitch anymore, and I generally listen to mp3s now.
I'll say one last thing. People put down vinyl because it's not as accurate as digital. But accuracy is impossible to achieve in the sense you're going for. When artists record and master music, they listen back to it in a variety of different ways, certain speakers and settings which you have no idea of. And even if you knew, that still doesn't mean you can accurately reproduce what the artist/producer/engineer intended because they are frequently working in "translation" where they are listening back with a certain sound system, but they are actually keeping in mind what it will sound like on other sound systems, with no one way being defined as the exact way it should sound; they weren't intending anyone actually to listen to the music with a pair of studio monitors, even though that's how they were listening to it. So what then could possibly be the "accurate" sound? It's best not to get bent all out of shape over these things I think. The nice thing about vinyl is that you can buy some good albums for cheap at used record stores, but I suppose it depends on what you like, but anyone with a general appreciation for music who isn't too particular can find some good music on vinyl for real cheap.
Okay, let's just dive right in and take the example of blacks since you just want to scare me off of my position by making feel like I could be being a bigot.
Say I'm the employer. I want to make a movie about Shakespeare. Like a dramatic account of his life something. So I put out job postings looking for an actor to play Shakespeare. So I get my first interviewee for the part and he comes in and he's got a great resume, great experience, and a conclude he's a most competent actor, and he looks quite a bit like Shakespeare, who know, as you see him in those famous paintings of him, except he's black. So I tell the applicant, you know, I think you're a really good actor and all except I was looking for a white actor, because Shakespeare himself was white and I was going for a realistic movie with some level of historical accuracy.
You would say I was wrong to do this because an employer shouldn't be allowed to choose his employees based on race?
I think it remains just as representative of the people. It just affects the reasons people have to vote a certain way.
And it's not like every business owner is going to go out and fire people who don't vote the same as him. I couldn't imagine that: how much is a single vote not going "the right way" worth to an employer? Surely not so much that it would be prudent to fire the employee, unless the employee was already in the bad books of the employer I guess. But if an employer really did care so much about it, that having employees who vote his way meant so much to him, let him fire his employees for this reason I say. It's his money, let him use it how he wants. If he only wants to hire blond women with big breasts who vote republican, he can run a GOP Hooters and have at it I say.
Uh, wouldn't that depend on the contract I signed with the employee? It's quite normal to fire employees for what they do outside of the workplace. For example, breaking the law is one.
By your reasoning, if an employee seduced my wife and made a website about how he made a cuckold of me and how I'm a big knob I must still employ him, as long as he didn't do these things during working hours?
That clearly applies to only federal employees. It says right above the lines you quote: "Generally stated, 2302(b) provides that a federal employee authorized to take, direct others to take, recommend or approve any personnel action may not:"
Slashdot Mirror
"...car owners could make their own hydrogen, either in their garage or even when driving."
What does "even when driving" mean? On the car while driving? What would be the advantage of that?
I infringe your copyright for commercial gain and I'm morally corrupt. You infringe my copyright for non-commercial gain and you're morally clean. I disagree. It sounds like both cases are ones of moral corruption because in both someone is trying to get something for nothing from the work of another, whether that something is commercial or not.
How much does reading (as in poker reading, not actually measuring, of course ) the heart-rate of your opponent actually help? I know when I play poker I never try to read another player like that, but rather I concentrate wholly on how bets and cards are and have been in order to determine whether they are bluffing. And then I doubt anyone could read me by trying to figure how "nervous" I am: I'm pretty much the same level of nervousness the entire game: because I don't see any hand as being less important than another, unless I'm sitting out I guess. I'd imagine any other serious player sees it the same way. The one exception would be when I'm already all-in with an opponent: If I have an unbeatable hand then I won't be nervous whereas otherwise I may be, so if you're a third-party and considering whether to join this all-in, then perhaps you could read me and gain a benefit for yourself. But even then, I would be concentrating hard on just that factor, and so become nervous to maintain my regular game nervosity and thereby achieve it.
Would this apply in the UK?
Aren't some of the Beatles' earliest recordings going to be entering the public domain very soon unless the copyright terms are extended?
If you read Qutb, that so-called "grandfather" of Al-Qaeda or whatever, he has this book called Milestones, the thing he writes about America that he hates it simply because it's "un-Islamic" particularly the sexualisation and gender-mixing (that is, unrelated women and men meeting each other), and materialism of the culture. He does mention freedom though as something he hates about it, but I'm pretty sure he's talking licence regarding holy practises, not freedom in the founding fathers sense.
Are you absolutely sure about that? Perhaps you could possibly notice that that was a question, and not indicative, or maybe not?
I never really understood the CD check. I mean, why can't the "signature" of a CD being present just be emulated? And that's indeed what all the pirated game downloads come with. I don't think I've seen a game where you actually have to have to actual game CD in order to play it: an image of the disc could be mounted using some program and the game played thinking that it is the actual CD.
I believe I've found what you are looking for here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14520651
The first link on the (two link) list there: "A cornerstone of mitochondrial genetics, strict maternal inheritance, has been challenged recently by the study of a patient with mitochondrial myopathy due to a sporadic 2bp deletion. The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) harboring the mutation was paternal in origin, whereas the patient's blood was identical to the maternal genotype. To determine whether this is a common phenomenon, we studied mtDNA sequence variation between muscle and blood from 35 patients with sporadic mitochondrial myopathies, but detected no evidence of paternal mtDNA transmission. Our findings suggest that paternal transmission of mtDNA is rare and should not alter our genetic advice to families."
The point I'm trying to make is that we've already been on the slippery slope of eugenics since people started select mates. The technology just lets you go down this slope with a pair of skis rather than with one of those crazy carpets.
I'd pick blue, or green. But I already do that when I pick my wife.
Yeah, well, some people actually grew up before the internet, believe it or not.
"I suspect, though, that computer programmers (taken as a whole) would rather not be held to that sort of standard. Most EULAs have language such as "this product is sold without warranties as to performance of merchantability or suitability for any purpose", and Software companies seem to like it that way. The way things stand, writers of tax software are not liable for you getting fined by the IRS due to a bug in their software. Microsoft will never pay anyone a dime over the multiplication error in Excel 2007. And even if the companies did end up liable for those mistakes, there is currently no way to hold the individual "Software Engineer" accountable for his mistake(s) that caused the problems."
Do such disclaimers actually hold up? I mean, it seems they're doing a bit doublespeak -- on the one hand, in product descriptions and advertisements, they'll describe the software as a tool for doing whatever job ("professionally edit photos!"), but then in the fine print say that it won't necessarily be able to do those things. It would be like someone selling me a washing machine and telling me it'll give me the cleanest clothes I've ever seen, but then in the fine print it says it might not actually clean anything, and, sure enough, the "washing" machine can't even turn on, and then when I ask for my money back, they just point me to that fine print. Seems grossly unfair -- they were still lying in their advertisements and product descriptions, because they stood alone without reference to the fine print.
Something which makes the US a nicer partner for India is that English is a fairly widely understood language in India, whereas neither Russian nor Mandarin are. Beats me how much of a factor that would be, though.
I was just trying to say that a human could get over a 12.5 foot wall. Not that the analysis was wrong or right way to determine if the tiger did.
A human can get over a 12.5' concrete wall, they don't have to jump over to get over, just reach the top with their hands.
I'm only around 6 feet and I could probably get over, as long as I was wearing some decent sneakers (I know we used to run up these big cottonwood trees at a park (they actually have a WP page for it, hmm...) when we were kids, reaching up to 20 feet easily; not as vertical, and more grip on those than concrete though): just run half way up it and grab the top and pull, still a lot of grip between the vertical concrete and rubber soles. A 7 foot or 8 foot man could easily get over a 12.5 foot wall, I'm sure.
Mormonism? Just as scary as Islam. Any ideology that demands you throw common-sense out the window is scary. I like how I got modded troll though. Don't criticise religions on Slashdot I guess....
You believe that an angel came down from heaven in the 7th century and delivered a book which has existed for eternity (but was also in Arabic, even though Arabic evolved from a Semitic proto-language). And this book is totally true.
You say "Boo!" sarcastically, but...you are actually scary.
I think the key word there is "presumably": as in totally unfounded. I bet that Mohammed Jihad is still pissing his pants before he goes to kill himself even if he is pretty sure he's getting 72 virgins.
"And religion wasn't founded to fight wars or to condemn some other point of view as immoral"
But that is the theory put forth originally by Crone and Cook in Hagarism as to the cause of Islam's creation. In there they theorise it was crafted from a variety of sources to justify the expansionism of an Arabic empire, including denouncing others as immoral. I think the general idea is still held by them and by others like Ibn Warraq, Wansbrough and more.
The other going theory is that an angel really did come down from heaven in the seventh century.
Your characterisation of philosophy as a flawed way of finding things out seems bizarre to me. Philosophy means literally "love of wisdom"; this works in a metaphorical description of philosophy where this love manifests itself as a search for this true knowledge. So something is philosophical when it works towards finding true knowledge. But if philosophy is a "flawed" way of "finding things out" as you desribe it, then philosophy wouldn't seem to be very philosophical!
Something to think about: If science is a path to knowledge that bests philosophy in the job as if they were competitors, then how come science doesn't describe what knowledge is? Classically, and enduringly, knowledge is described as "justified true belief." But there's problems with this definition, as there are problems with all definitions that I've heard. But the entire discussion as to what knowledge is no once characterises as part of science, but rather as part of philosophy.
I own a few vinyls. There were a few that I can think of that sounded better to me on vinyl then in the cd form. I don't know why they sounded better, I just thought they did. My turntable doesn't keep pitch anymore, and I generally listen to mp3s now.
I'll say one last thing. People put down vinyl because it's not as accurate as digital. But accuracy is impossible to achieve in the sense you're going for. When artists record and master music, they listen back to it in a variety of different ways, certain speakers and settings which you have no idea of. And even if you knew, that still doesn't mean you can accurately reproduce what the artist/producer/engineer intended because they are frequently working in "translation" where they are listening back with a certain sound system, but they are actually keeping in mind what it will sound like on other sound systems, with no one way being defined as the exact way it should sound; they weren't intending anyone actually to listen to the music with a pair of studio monitors, even though that's how they were listening to it. So what then could possibly be the "accurate" sound? It's best not to get bent all out of shape over these things I think. The nice thing about vinyl is that you can buy some good albums for cheap at used record stores, but I suppose it depends on what you like, but anyone with a general appreciation for music who isn't too particular can find some good music on vinyl for real cheap.
Okay, let's just dive right in and take the example of blacks since you just want to scare me off of my position by making feel like I could be being a bigot.
Say I'm the employer. I want to make a movie about Shakespeare. Like a dramatic account of his life something. So I put out job postings looking for an actor to play Shakespeare. So I get my first interviewee for the part and he comes in and he's got a great resume, great experience, and a conclude he's a most competent actor, and he looks quite a bit like Shakespeare, who know, as you see him in those famous paintings of him, except he's black. So I tell the applicant, you know, I think you're a really good actor and all except I was looking for a white actor, because Shakespeare himself was white and I was going for a realistic movie with some level of historical accuracy.
You would say I was wrong to do this because an employer shouldn't be allowed to choose his employees based on race?
I think it remains just as representative of the people. It just affects the reasons people have to vote a certain way.
And it's not like every business owner is going to go out and fire people who don't vote the same as him. I couldn't imagine that: how much is a single vote not going "the right way" worth to an employer? Surely not so much that it would be prudent to fire the employee, unless the employee was already in the bad books of the employer I guess. But if an employer really did care so much about it, that having employees who vote his way meant so much to him, let him fire his employees for this reason I say. It's his money, let him use it how he wants. If he only wants to hire blond women with big breasts who vote republican, he can run a GOP Hooters and have at it I say.
Uh, wouldn't that depend on the contract I signed with the employee? It's quite normal to fire employees for what they do outside of the workplace. For example, breaking the law is one.
By your reasoning, if an employee seduced my wife and made a website about how he made a cuckold of me and how I'm a big knob I must still employ him, as long as he didn't do these things during working hours?
That clearly applies to only federal employees. It says right above the lines you quote: "Generally stated, 2302(b) provides that a federal employee authorized to take, direct others to take, recommend or approve any personnel action may not:"