I thought the purpose of the GPL was to ensure that open source works weren't sold in a commercial product without providing the source-code at no added cost. I don't understand how that runs contrary to Digital Rights Management, which is, after all, just another kind of software product. Oh well, I guess you don't have to use the GPL in order to release an open source product if you don't want to.
Are you claiming that 8 year olds and grandmothers can't download music because they don't know how? That's ridiculous. I guess in your world everyone who knows how to use a file sharing service is a ~20 year old male.
Yeah, but that's something you'd only be concerned about if you're making space probes (which is why the icy moons orbiter is planned to use a GCR). For conventional power production, it's meaningless.
Apple should license its DRM. They could make a lot of money off of licensing fees, and I don't see how it would negatively impact their sales. I doubt many people buy iPods for ITMS right now, especially since there are alternatives to ITMS which are (almost) as good. Apple should be trying to cement its standard for digital media so that customers won't need to worry about their purchased files becoming obsolete.
Pebble Bed Reactors are a Scam
on
Return to the Moon
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Pebble bed reactors offer few, if any advantages over conventional light water reactors. They are safer than old-fasioned reactors, but Generation IV light water reactors would probably be just as safe. Likely they would be more safe because we know more about them from past experience.
Also, it has now been shown that it may be possible to make LWR breeders, which would pretty much solve or energy problems for the foreseeable future.
There is no good reason to waste money on pebble bed reactors when existing solutions are probably superior. If you want to advocate research into obscure reactor designs, you should look into molten salt reactors. The lack of fuel elements makes fuel reprocessing more economically feasible, which may mean reduced waste disposal costs, as well as cheeper breeder reactor alternatives.
You may also wish to look into liquid metal fast reactors, which have a breeding ratio so high that they guarantee a long term supply of future energy. These haven't taken off because of the costs of reprocessing fuel (and the relatively low cost of uranium) but they're much more interesting and potentially beneficial than gas cooled reactors like pebble bed reactors.
What about user interface, and workflow? Those aren't algorithms, but they are the most important parts of any software.
How is the user interface of a word processor any different from the user interface of a type-writer in terms of abstraction? There is no practical difference. There is no good reason that elements of user interface and workflow should be any less patentable in software products than in hardware products.
The problem is that the same technology makes it easier for us to avoid detection, so it's not really an easier job, it's just done with different tools. Just ask the DOHC what they'd rather have, Echelon, or no internet at all? In the past, coordinated attacks couldn't happen, and weren't as dangerous, so it all balances out.
This kind of nonsense comes up every time a new piece of technology is developed. These (new pieces of technology) will destroy our way of life and we'll all be the slaves of (our new evil overlords). This kind of bullshit will never happen. That's because regardless of whatever the new technology does, the politicians or the military or the evil profit-mongers will still need people to work for them and get things done, and that means that those people have power. Power is all that is necessary to facilitate a revolution.
Now, if the technology makes everyone but our evil overlords obsolete, then we might be in trouble. But, they also wouldn't have a good reason to enslave us, so they would have to so only for their own amusement.
The refineries that produce the biodiesel require energy to operate, more-so than a typical refinery. Of course, it's more economical to produce this power using coal or oil, than to use the biodiesel produced by the refinery, so that's how its done.
Don't get me wrong, there's still less net production of CO2 than with conventional oil, but it is far from carbon neutral.
"Maximizing profit for the sake of large owners of IP was NOT the idea"
What do you mean? The idea is maximizing profit for any IP owner (thus the incentive for innovation). Why should it matter how much IP someone owns, or how much money they have.
Of course, intellectual property is completely worthless if people can use it without your permission. So, you have deprived them of potential future earnings.
But doesn't the RIAA use IP logs to file their John Doe suits and track down file sharers? Just because you know how to use a proxy doesn't mean that everyone else uses one. Consider this a kind of public service announcement. They're just saying that you are probably not as anonymous as you think you are, and that you may be vulnerable to lawsuits by the RIAA or MPAA.
"The current minimum [wage] places a family below the federal poverty level"
I guess it's a good thing that not everyone working at Wal-Mart is their family's primary income provider then. Don't teenagers and single adults with no children deserve to make money as well?
True communism is a magical world where everyone works together for the common good without any personal motivation, or coordinating mechanism. It is based on the denial basic truths about human beings, and the world we live in. Any rational, thinking person should realize that such a mode of social organization and economic distribution is unrealistic and impossible.
In reality, parents are civilly liable for the actions of their children. In extreme cases a parent may be held criminally liable for their children's actions. Otherwise, a parent may have their child perpetrate a crime without fear of criminal, or civil charges.
What is the difference between a religious argument and a scientific one?
"It fails to pass a number of basic threshold scientific tests, such as the principle of parsimony."
The term simple is hard to define, and largely subjective. The principle of parsimony is just a scientific sounding way of saying that what seems like the simpler answer, probably is. Obviously, some people will feel that ID is the simpler answer, while others will not.
"The theory of evolution doesn't need a clear definition of "species" for all organisms."
That's bullshit. The existence of species is an underlying tenant of evolution, since evolution describes how species adapt and change over time. If the word species is not well defined and meaningful, the theory of evolution can not be either.
"as they reproduce sexually (wich is dominant over asexual reproduction)"
Sexual interaction is not a prerequisite for reproduction in single celled organisms, so I don't understand your claim that it is the dominant form of reproduction (since is isn't really a form of reproduction in single celled organisms at all). Even if it were, many single celled organisms can exchange genetic information with organisms which are clearly morphologically, and genetically distinct from themselves. Multicellular organisms can interact sexually only with members of their own species.
"I know what I'm talking about, I'm a (French) PhD student in evolutionnary biology."
I don't buy authority arguments. I won't accept things unless they make sense to me, regardless of the source.
"Firstly, eveloution has been directly observed in species which have very short reproductive cycles - species such as bacteria."
No, there is no such thing as a species of bacteria that is analogous to a species of multicellular organisms, for reasons I have stated.
"Secondly - experiments have been done confirming eveolution - by introducing deliberate environmental stresses or artifical selections on a population with a short reproductive cycle changes to that species have been observed as predicted by the theory."
Again, only in bacteria.
"(1) the theory of eveolution predicted a mechanism of inheritance of characteristics from one generation to the next and therefore predicted the existence of DNA"
Wrong, inheritance is a prerequisite for evolution to exist. The work done to prove the existence of inheritance had nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
"(2) the theory of eveloution predicts the twin nested hierarchies that we see in biology where the physical hierarchy of species is very well mirrored in their DNA hierarchy."
Except in single celled organisms, as they can uptake DNA from other bacteria and since they do not reproduce sexually.
"You can't accept evolution for one organism and reject it for another, on a whim."
I'm not, single celled organisms do not easily fit into well defined species, so the theory of evolution as it applies to species of multicellular organisms does not really apply to them. It's not a whim.
"Nothing in ID can be subject to testing by the scientific method"
That's ridiculous, anything is subject to testing by the scientific method, ID is no different. It's just that, like evolution, the matters addressed by ID are not testable by any means available to us. This is also true for QM, or Astrophysics. I never said they weren't scientific, I only said that ID was no less scientific.
"especially one that has been repeatedly tested . . . and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena"
But these things specifically don't apply to the (scientific) theory of evolution. The time-scale over which the theory of evolution would need to be tested on multicellular organisms to prove that major differences between organisms will evolve would be prohibitive to any experimentation. And the time-scale over which the theory apples would also make it essentially useless for predictive purposes.
If you remove those from your definition of a scientific theory:
"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that . . . is widely accepted"
You see that the definition could describe ID as well.
Note that I'm not referring evolution in single-celled organisms because it is so different (single celled organisms can uptake new genetic material from their environment, and do not mate to procreate, so it's hard to define species of single celled organisms) form evolution in multicellular organisms.
"Their are plenty of places where there is political stability and food and water and hygiene are no longer the primary concerns."
Yeah, and they all have growing economies, and an increasing quality of life. If the problem's going away on it's own, that's not a compelling argument for action on our part (we'd probably just fuck it up).
That's true, but it hardly means that NAZI Germany was not a threat to our (the rest of the world) way of life.
The real lie about the holocaust that is perpetuated nowadays is that anti-semitimism and eugenics were common only in NAZI Germany, when they were actually a world wide social trend. Countries in Europe and America turned down boatloads of Jewish refugees, and many nations were considering their own laws on how to remove them from society. The nations invaded by Germany during WWII like to claim that it was the Germans doing, but something that big doesn't happen without popular support. Eugenics was the next big thing, and many believed it would be a cure to all disease, and all of societies societies social ills. They believed we would breed our way to a better society, by making people better.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the purpose of the GPL was to ensure that open source works weren't sold in a commercial product without providing the source-code at no added cost. I don't understand how that runs contrary to Digital Rights Management, which is, after all, just another kind of software product. Oh well, I guess you don't have to use the GPL in order to release an open source product if you don't want to.
Are you claiming that 8 year olds and grandmothers can't download music because they don't know how? That's ridiculous. I guess in your world everyone who knows how to use a file sharing service is a ~20 year old male.
Yeah, but that's something you'd only be concerned about if you're making space probes (which is why the icy moons orbiter is planned to use a GCR). For conventional power production, it's meaningless.
"they're publicly taking down 8-year-old girls and 72-year-old grandmas" Yes, because 8-year olds and grandmothers should be above the law./sarcasm
Apple should license its DRM. They could make a lot of money off of licensing fees, and I don't see how it would negatively impact their sales. I doubt many people buy iPods for ITMS right now, especially since there are alternatives to ITMS which are (almost) as good. Apple should be trying to cement its standard for digital media so that customers won't need to worry about their purchased files becoming obsolete.
Pebble bed reactors offer few, if any advantages over conventional light water reactors. They are safer than old-fasioned reactors, but Generation IV light water reactors would probably be just as safe. Likely they would be more safe because we know more about them from past experience.
Also, it has now been shown that it may be possible to make LWR breeders, which would pretty much solve or energy problems for the foreseeable future.
There is no good reason to waste money on pebble bed reactors when existing solutions are probably superior. If you want to advocate research into obscure reactor designs, you should look into molten salt reactors. The lack of fuel elements makes fuel reprocessing more economically feasible, which may mean reduced waste disposal costs, as well as cheeper breeder reactor alternatives.
You may also wish to look into liquid metal fast reactors, which have a breeding ratio so high that they guarantee a long term supply of future energy. These haven't taken off because of the costs of reprocessing fuel (and the relatively low cost of uranium) but they're much more interesting and potentially beneficial than gas cooled reactors like pebble bed reactors.
What about user interface, and workflow? Those aren't algorithms, but they are the most important parts of any software.
How is the user interface of a word processor any different from the user interface of a type-writer in terms of abstraction? There is no practical difference. There is no good reason that elements of user interface and workflow should be any less patentable in software products than in hardware products.
The problem is that the same technology makes it easier for us to avoid detection, so it's not really an easier job, it's just done with different tools. Just ask the DOHC what they'd rather have, Echelon, or no internet at all? In the past, coordinated attacks couldn't happen, and weren't as dangerous, so it all balances out.
This kind of nonsense comes up every time a new piece of technology is developed. These (new pieces of technology) will destroy our way of life and we'll all be the slaves of (our new evil overlords). This kind of bullshit will never happen. That's because regardless of whatever the new technology does, the politicians or the military or the evil profit-mongers will still need people to work for them and get things done, and that means that those people have power. Power is all that is necessary to facilitate a revolution.
Now, if the technology makes everyone but our evil overlords obsolete, then we might be in trouble. But, they also wouldn't have a good reason to enslave us, so they would have to so only for their own amusement.
The refineries that produce the biodiesel require energy to operate, more-so than a typical refinery. Of course, it's more economical to produce this power using coal or oil, than to use the biodiesel produced by the refinery, so that's how its done.
Don't get me wrong, there's still less net production of CO2 than with conventional oil, but it is far from carbon neutral.
"Maximizing profit for the sake of large owners of IP was NOT the idea"
What do you mean? The idea is maximizing profit for any IP owner (thus the incentive for innovation). Why should it matter how much IP someone owns, or how much money they have.
That's why they'll be struggling to get even 4% of the vote. So by your argument, there is absolutely no way they should do away with IP.
Of course, intellectual property is completely worthless if people can use it without your permission. So, you have deprived them of potential future earnings.
But doesn't the RIAA use IP logs to file their John Doe suits and track down file sharers? Just because you know how to use a proxy doesn't mean that everyone else uses one. Consider this a kind of public service announcement. They're just saying that you are probably not as anonymous as you think you are, and that you may be vulnerable to lawsuits by the RIAA or MPAA.
"The current minimum [wage] places a family below the federal poverty level"
I guess it's a good thing that not everyone working at Wal-Mart is their family's primary income provider then. Don't teenagers and single adults with no children deserve to make money as well?
True communism is a magical world where everyone works together for the common good without any personal motivation, or coordinating mechanism. It is based on the denial basic truths about human beings, and the world we live in. Any rational, thinking person should realize that such a mode of social organization and economic distribution is unrealistic and impossible.
Shouldn't the summary say that tall, skinny glasses may lead to under-indulgence? I think that's the real danger here.
In reality, parents are civilly liable for the actions of their children. In extreme cases a parent may be held criminally liable for their children's actions. Otherwise, a parent may have their child perpetrate a crime without fear of criminal, or civil charges.
"ID is religious argument, not a scientific one."
What is the difference between a religious argument and a scientific one?
"It fails to pass a number of basic threshold scientific tests, such as the principle of parsimony."
The term simple is hard to define, and largely subjective. The principle of parsimony is just a scientific sounding way of saying that what seems like the simpler answer, probably is. Obviously, some people will feel that ID is the simpler answer, while others will not.
"The theory of evolution doesn't need a clear definition of "species" for all organisms."
That's bullshit. The existence of species is an underlying tenant of evolution, since evolution describes how species adapt and change over time. If the word species is not well defined and meaningful, the theory of evolution can not be either.
"as they reproduce sexually (wich is dominant over asexual reproduction)"
Sexual interaction is not a prerequisite for reproduction in single celled organisms, so I don't understand your claim that it is the dominant form of reproduction (since is isn't really a form of reproduction in single celled organisms at all). Even if it were, many single celled organisms can exchange genetic information with organisms which are clearly morphologically, and genetically distinct from themselves. Multicellular organisms can interact sexually only with members of their own species.
"I know what I'm talking about, I'm a (French) PhD student in evolutionnary biology."
I don't buy authority arguments. I won't accept things unless they make sense to me, regardless of the source.
"Firstly, eveloution has been directly observed in species which have very short reproductive cycles - species such as bacteria."
No, there is no such thing as a species of bacteria that is analogous to a species of multicellular organisms, for reasons I have stated.
"Secondly - experiments have been done confirming eveolution - by introducing deliberate environmental stresses or artifical selections on a population with a short reproductive cycle changes to that species have been observed as predicted by the theory."
Again, only in bacteria.
"(1) the theory of eveolution predicted a mechanism of inheritance of characteristics from one generation to the next and therefore predicted the existence of DNA"
Wrong, inheritance is a prerequisite for evolution to exist. The work done to prove the existence of inheritance had nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
"(2) the theory of eveloution predicts the twin nested hierarchies that we see in biology where the physical hierarchy of species is very well mirrored in their DNA hierarchy."
Except in single celled organisms, as they can uptake DNA from other bacteria and since they do not reproduce sexually.
"You can't accept evolution for one organism and reject it for another, on a whim."
I'm not, single celled organisms do not easily fit into well defined species, so the theory of evolution as it applies to species of multicellular organisms does not really apply to them. It's not a whim.
"Nothing in ID can be subject to testing by the scientific method"
That's ridiculous, anything is subject to testing by the scientific method, ID is no different. It's just that, like evolution, the matters addressed by ID are not testable by any means available to us. This is also true for QM, or Astrophysics. I never said they weren't scientific, I only said that ID was no less scientific.
"especially one that has been repeatedly tested . . . and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena"
But these things specifically don't apply to the (scientific) theory of evolution. The time-scale over which the theory of evolution would need to be tested on multicellular organisms to prove that major differences between organisms will evolve would be prohibitive to any experimentation. And the time-scale over which the theory apples would also make it essentially useless for predictive purposes.
If you remove those from your definition of a scientific theory:
"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that . . . is widely accepted"
You see that the definition could describe ID as well.
Note that I'm not referring evolution in single-celled organisms because it is so different (single celled organisms can uptake new genetic material from their environment, and do not mate to procreate, so it's hard to define species of single celled organisms) form evolution in multicellular organisms.
"Their are plenty of places where there is political stability and food and water and hygiene are no longer the primary concerns."
Yeah, and they all have growing economies, and an increasing quality of life. If the problem's going away on it's own, that's not a compelling argument for action on our part (we'd probably just fuck it up).
That's true, but it hardly means that NAZI Germany was not a threat to our (the rest of the world) way of life.
The real lie about the holocaust that is perpetuated nowadays is that anti-semitimism and eugenics were common only in NAZI Germany, when they were actually a world wide social trend. Countries in Europe and America turned down boatloads of Jewish refugees, and many nations were considering their own laws on how to remove them from society. The nations invaded by Germany during WWII like to claim that it was the Germans doing, but something that big doesn't happen without popular support. Eugenics was the next big thing, and many believed it would be a cure to all disease, and all of societies societies social ills. They believed we would breed our way to a better society, by making people better.