Since when is only the first issuance of a GPL license "automatic" or "guaranteed"? The GPL does not say that it grants rights only if such rights haven't been revoked in the past. It grants them only with the restrictions it states. Obtaining a new license certainly could reverse the revocation of a previous one, so it appears to me that the GPL could be, in fact, an infinite stack of licenses. The GPL could have just as easily been written differently, so I'd have to assume that they wrote it the way they intended. The outcome would be interesting should this be tested in court.
In what way would denying rights that the GPL otherwise grants, given full compliance with GPL terms, further the cause of FSF ideals or represent the spirit of the community? Attitudes such as this would suggest that it's not enough that you comply with the license, you must believe in it as well.
An interesting thing about science, and more specifically the scientific method, is that best available theories are not facts. Sadly, far too many believe that they are, and the scientific community likes to teach theories as though they are. What we don't know we simply don't know, and I've been told at least one too many times that the scientific method tells us that the best available theory IS accepted as fact until proven otherwise. Not so.
Nonsense. You can claim something is "designed" and still study it scientifically. Of course, we don't need the concept of "ID" except to satisfy the religious who live in denial.
...and, of course, the savings in these costs will enable law enforcement to put 10x as many of them in the air. Once they justify their existence through additional revenues, another 10x increase can be expected. We should all be excited over the prospect of having our driving speeds monitors continuously every moment we are in a car. Eventually, such monitoring doesn't need to stop at simple speed checks either. It's great news that technology makes these government responsibilities easier and cheaper, right?
The US government was founded on the idea that a government difficult to function is one that will be of limited power. Not all things that make government functions easier and cheaper are good.
He could observe courtesy (and what the law requires in many areas) by driving in the slowest lanes thereby minimizing or eliminating any safety hazard caused by his slow driving.
It's well known that excessive speed differentials create dangerous conditions. That's why freeways have minimum speed limits and why failure to yield right of way is seriously enforced in some areas. A strong argument could be made that safety hazards created by excessively slow drivers are just as much the government's responsibility as anyone else. They're the ones setting deliberately slow speed limits that encourage drivers to ignore posted speeds and they're the one's supporting low standards of driver competence in their licensing policies. Where uniform speeds are driven, whether or not they correlate to posted speeds, driving is relatively safer. Raising speed limits, therefore, can have a beneficial effect on safety in some cases.
"The claim that the innocent have nothing to hide may be up for debate, but "non-speeders don't need to fear the radar gun" is not."
Wrong. In Texas, where this device was tested, speeding is not automatically defined by what a speed limit says, so you most definitely may "fear the radar gun" even if you are a "non-speeder". If there are no drivers exceeding posted speeds, then the government lowers the posted speeds, and if you don't believe this, then you don't live in the US. Speed limits are not set based on safety, they are set to ensure an adequate supply of violators.
Another interesting thing about Texas is that you have a right to face your accuser in court. Using automated systems such as unmanned aircraft and photo radar is problematic because your accuser must be a human being who witnessed your "crime". Hasn't stopped some jurisdictions from implementing photo radar, but it isn't clear that it's constitutional.
""High-glycemic". What you cut out were foods high in sugars. Most likely, heavily-refined sugars."
He explained specifically what this meant and what he said is not what you said.
"...(eg, high fructose corn syrup instead of pure and natural sugar)..."
HFCS and sugar are identical in their composition and damage to the body. There is no difference.
"...doughnuts with powdered white (heavily refined) sugar..."
Powered sugar is no more heavily refined than that pure and natural sugar you referred to earlier.
"...substituting honey or molasses or even natural cane sugar (depending on allergies)..."
All are terrible for you. None are better than the others.
" So much crap is added to foods (animal and vegetable) to increase yield (antibiotics, hormones, genetic modifications -- insect-based tomatoes anyone?) and increase shelf life (MSG, nitrates, artificial preservatives) that there is no wonder people have health problems including cancer, obesity, diabetes, etc. And what about proper crop rotation, to preserve the nutrients in the farmlands?"
Handwave much?
"It's really hard to find food that isn't just "empty food", which takes up space but adds nothing useful."
Really? Anyone who has diet would say precisely the opposite.
Why just overweight people? What caused them to be overweight in the first place?
One glaring problem that few seem to realize is that the body is not supposed to become obese in the first place. It has feedback mechanisms specifically to control body fat. Everyone seems to attribute obesity to laziness and gluttony when, in fact, a person's hunger center is failing to function properly. Understanding what causes this and avoiding it is the key to never suffering in the first place. Making half-assed changes after the damage is done isn't the way to deal with obesity.
No, no one has a problem with it. It's just thoroughly useless. It totally ignores the biological contributions to {Calories In} and {Calories Burned}, how they are functions of one another, and how {Weight Gained/Lost} alters the feedback loop that effects how the left side of the equation works in the future. Other than that, your equation works totally fine. Hopefully, when you become an adult you will realize how stupid this is.
Not all carbs are converted to blood sugar. Only half of table sugar is, for example. Fruit consumption produces very little, if any, rise in blood sugar levels.
60g of carbs per meal would not be considered "low carb" for weight loss by some standards. Atkins, for example, advises 20g per day total. On the other hand, they don't concern themselves with fat content. Atkins doesn't require any specific limits on fat intake though it does require overall calorie consumption to be restricted in order for weight loss goals to be achieved.
"High Fructose corn syrup is a substance which the body does not recognize as a sugar so no insulin is released to handle it. Wonder where that goes in the body? How about the lumps of fat everywhere."
Complete bullshit. HFCS is roughly 50% fructose just like table sugar. The body's reaction to the two are essentially identical.
It's true that fructose does not cause an insulin release. Fructose must be metabolized in the liver and does not result in "lumps of fat everywhere" unless by everywhere you mean the liver. If you want an understanding of the true problem, start with fructose metabolism and how if fucks over the liver with time. Don't blame HFCS since it's no different that sugar. Both are poison.
"So we took advantage of a State aide plan to help single mothers afford proper child birthing care."
That's a very interesting sentence...particularly the word "we". Not knowing the specifics, it would seem on the surface that the program exists to help single mothers i.e. single parent households. This would not be your case regardless of the state of your marriage license. You say that you were dirt poor but that doesn't entitle you to government handouts nor is it proof that you were dirt poor in the eyes of the state.
Knowing as little as I do about the specifics of your case, I wouldn't assume that it was at all unreasonable for your state to recover the money it gave to you under what could likely be fraudulent circumstances. Your child had the benefit of both parents to raise it at the time. Programs to help single mothers should not apply.
You don't have to shake the car, just shake the sensor that the car reads. Such a thing may be stupid but it would be trivially easy to implement. Glad to see you really thought about this before commmenting...
Haha sure. Sounds like someone playing loose with the facts. I've owned Treos, SEs, Nokias, and WM5 stylus and non-stylus phones in addition to my current iPhone and, while the iPhone is "good enough", it isn't better than any of the other phones with real keyboards. The iPhone's predictive text is better than WM5 but it can only do so much, and "texters" vocabulary has nothing to do with it. Your just making excuses.
"Windows Mobile still requires going into a menu to hit "delete" on a text message. The one thing I will give Steve Jobs credit for is looking at things like this and saying "why does it have to be done this way?""
Yeah, Steve's solution was to not allow the deleting of text messages at all.
I'm not sure if this is serious (or why it is modded funny) but I had no pain after Lasik at all and absolutely no need for painkillers of any sort. I don't see the point in any such thing.
Compression and "high dynamics" are polar opposites.
Vinyl doesn't discourage compression, it encourages it. What you are talking about is high gain. Vinyl can be highly compressed yet not mastered with excessively high signal strength. It wouldn't make sense to do so either, as the grooves would require greater spacing. Digital might as well be mastered to peak levels.
"vinyl stays imperfect in its representation of dynamics, but unlike CD it at least keeps any dynamics to represent."
Wrong. CD preserves dynamics, it's the mastering that crushes them out. The same mastering will crush the dynamics out of the vinyl recording as well. This argument is a total fallacy.
Try putting 50 LPs into your multidisc turntable. Oh yeah, you don't have one.
Just because you claim that some CDs are mastered different than others doesn't mean that the format itself is fundamentally flawed. After all, vinyl is exactly the same way.
It sounds like you have some complaint with CDs having too much dynamic range. I thought the argument was that they were too compressed?
Vinyl can, OF COURSE, be compressed to "such extremes". There's no limit to the amount of compression used with vinyl or digital. That claim is not only irrelevant, it's total bullshit.
As for frequency response, it doesn't matter what a groove can theoretically contain, it matters what it can deliver. It also doesn't matter what it can deliver once, but what it can deliver time after time. Claiming that vinyl offers better high frequency response than CD is wishful thinking.
Then there's the matter of the myriad of vinyl distortions that CD doesn't have. Only complete fools will argue that vinyl is superior to CD. They exist but that doesn't make them smart.
Vinyl won't kill CD because the mainstream won't buy it. Only idiots even care.
You are assuming terms for Apple releasing this SDK. All they've said is that they'll be doing one. They haven't said who they'll make it available to and what will be required for developers to actually deliver apps using it. It may remain the case that 3rd parties will have to go through Apple for approval and distribution. In that case, it won't be 3rd party at all and it certainly won't be "game over".
Frankly, there's large portions of the smartphone market that won't be satisfied with the iPhone regardless of the existence of an SDK. I'd be amused to see the reactions of some large employers to the need to install iTunes.
Slashdot Mirror
Since when is only the first issuance of a GPL license "automatic" or "guaranteed"? The GPL does not say that it grants rights only if such rights haven't been revoked in the past. It grants them only with the restrictions it states. Obtaining a new license certainly could reverse the revocation of a previous one, so it appears to me that the GPL could be, in fact, an infinite stack of licenses. The GPL could have just as easily been written differently, so I'd have to assume that they wrote it the way they intended. The outcome would be interesting should this be tested in court.
In what way would denying rights that the GPL otherwise grants, given full compliance with GPL terms, further the cause of FSF ideals or represent the spirit of the community? Attitudes such as this would suggest that it's not enough that you comply with the license, you must believe in it as well.
An interesting thing about science, and more specifically the scientific method, is that best available theories are not facts. Sadly, far too many believe that they are, and the scientific community likes to teach theories as though they are. What we don't know we simply don't know, and I've been told at least one too many times that the scientific method tells us that the best available theory IS accepted as fact until proven otherwise. Not so.
Nonsense. You can claim something is "designed" and still study it scientifically. Of course, we don't need the concept of "ID" except to satisfy the religious who live in denial.
...and, of course, the savings in these costs will enable law enforcement to put 10x as many of them in the air. Once they justify their existence through additional revenues, another 10x increase can be expected. We should all be excited over the prospect of having our driving speeds monitors continuously every moment we are in a car. Eventually, such monitoring doesn't need to stop at simple speed checks either. It's great news that technology makes these government responsibilities easier and cheaper, right?
The US government was founded on the idea that a government difficult to function is one that will be of limited power. Not all things that make government functions easier and cheaper are good.
He could observe courtesy (and what the law requires in many areas) by driving in the slowest lanes thereby minimizing or eliminating any safety hazard caused by his slow driving.
It's well known that excessive speed differentials create dangerous conditions. That's why freeways have minimum speed limits and why failure to yield right of way is seriously enforced in some areas. A strong argument could be made that safety hazards created by excessively slow drivers are just as much the government's responsibility as anyone else. They're the ones setting deliberately slow speed limits that encourage drivers to ignore posted speeds and they're the one's supporting low standards of driver competence in their licensing policies. Where uniform speeds are driven, whether or not they correlate to posted speeds, driving is relatively safer. Raising speed limits, therefore, can have a beneficial effect on safety in some cases.
"Speeding is defined as driving faster than the posted speed limit."
Maybe where you live but not where I live. The government loves for you to think that, however.
"The claim that the innocent have nothing to hide may be up for debate, but "non-speeders don't need to fear the radar gun" is not."
Wrong. In Texas, where this device was tested, speeding is not automatically defined by what a speed limit says, so you most definitely may "fear the radar gun" even if you are a "non-speeder". If there are no drivers exceeding posted speeds, then the government lowers the posted speeds, and if you don't believe this, then you don't live in the US. Speed limits are not set based on safety, they are set to ensure an adequate supply of violators.
Another interesting thing about Texas is that you have a right to face your accuser in court. Using automated systems such as unmanned aircraft and photo radar is problematic because your accuser must be a human being who witnessed your "crime". Hasn't stopped some jurisdictions from implementing photo radar, but it isn't clear that it's constitutional.
""High-glycemic". What you cut out were foods high in sugars. Most likely, heavily-refined sugars."
He explained specifically what this meant and what he said is not what you said.
"...(eg, high fructose corn syrup instead of pure and natural sugar)..."
HFCS and sugar are identical in their composition and damage to the body. There is no difference.
"...doughnuts with powdered white (heavily refined) sugar..."
Powered sugar is no more heavily refined than that pure and natural sugar you referred to earlier.
"...substituting honey or molasses or even natural cane sugar (depending on allergies)..."
All are terrible for you. None are better than the others.
"
So much crap is added to foods (animal and vegetable) to increase yield (antibiotics, hormones, genetic modifications -- insect-based tomatoes anyone?) and increase shelf life (MSG, nitrates, artificial preservatives) that there is no wonder people have health problems including cancer, obesity, diabetes, etc. And what about proper crop rotation, to preserve the nutrients in the farmlands?"
Handwave much?
"It's really hard to find food that isn't just "empty food", which takes up space but adds nothing useful."
Really? Anyone who has diet would say precisely the opposite.
Why just overweight people? What caused them to be overweight in the first place?
One glaring problem that few seem to realize is that the body is not supposed to become obese in the first place. It has feedback mechanisms specifically to control body fat. Everyone seems to attribute obesity to laziness and gluttony when, in fact, a person's hunger center is failing to function properly. Understanding what causes this and avoiding it is the key to never suffering in the first place. Making half-assed changes after the damage is done isn't the way to deal with obesity.
No, no one has a problem with it. It's just thoroughly useless. It totally ignores the biological contributions to {Calories In} and {Calories Burned}, how they are functions of one another, and how {Weight Gained/Lost} alters the feedback loop that effects how the left side of the equation works in the future. Other than that, your equation works totally fine. Hopefully, when you become an adult you will realize how stupid this is.
"...metabolism factors in..."
and there you just contradicted yourself.
Not all carbs are converted to blood sugar. Only half of table sugar is, for example. Fruit consumption produces very little, if any, rise in blood sugar levels.
60g of carbs per meal would not be considered "low carb" for weight loss by some standards. Atkins, for example, advises 20g per day total. On the other hand, they don't concern themselves with fat content. Atkins doesn't require any specific limits on fat intake though it does require overall calorie consumption to be restricted in order for weight loss goals to be achieved.
"High Fructose corn syrup is a substance which the body does not recognize as a sugar so no insulin is released to handle it. Wonder where that goes in the body? How about the lumps of fat everywhere."
Complete bullshit. HFCS is roughly 50% fructose just like table sugar. The body's reaction to the two are essentially identical.
It's true that fructose does not cause an insulin release. Fructose must be metabolized in the liver and does not result in "lumps of fat everywhere" unless by everywhere you mean the liver. If you want an understanding of the true problem, start with fructose metabolism and how if fucks over the liver with time. Don't blame HFCS since it's no different that sugar. Both are poison.
Ignorance AND arrogance. You're a true double threat.
"So we took advantage of a State aide plan to help single mothers afford proper child birthing care."
That's a very interesting sentence...particularly the word "we". Not knowing the specifics, it would seem on the surface that the program exists to help single mothers i.e. single parent households. This would not be your case regardless of the state of your marriage license. You say that you were dirt poor but that doesn't entitle you to government handouts nor is it proof that you were dirt poor in the eyes of the state.
Knowing as little as I do about the specifics of your case, I wouldn't assume that it was at all unreasonable for your state to recover the money it gave to you under what could likely be fraudulent circumstances. Your child had the benefit of both parents to raise it at the time. Programs to help single mothers should not apply.
You don't have to shake the car, just shake the sensor that the car reads. Such a thing may be stupid but it would be trivially easy to implement. Glad to see you really thought about this before commmenting...
Haha sure. Sounds like someone playing loose with the facts. I've owned Treos, SEs, Nokias, and WM5 stylus and non-stylus phones in addition to my current iPhone and, while the iPhone is "good enough", it isn't better than any of the other phones with real keyboards. The iPhone's predictive text is better than WM5 but it can only do so much, and "texters" vocabulary has nothing to do with it. Your just making excuses.
"Windows Mobile still requires going into a menu to hit "delete" on a text message. The one thing I will give Steve Jobs credit for is looking at things like this and saying "why does it have to be done this way?""
Yeah, Steve's solution was to not allow the deleting of text messages at all.
You have no reason to claim this and plenty of reason not to. Local weather is a fundamental consideration in architecture.
They don't. Theirs is just somewhat better than anything else right now.
Foveon doesn't implement multiple sensors for automatic HDR. Is your point simply to be argumentative?
I'm not sure if this is serious (or why it is modded funny) but I had no pain after Lasik at all and absolutely no need for painkillers of any sort. I don't see the point in any such thing.
Compression and "high dynamics" are polar opposites.
Vinyl doesn't discourage compression, it encourages it. What you are talking about is high gain. Vinyl can be highly compressed yet not mastered with excessively high signal strength. It wouldn't make sense to do so either, as the grooves would require greater spacing. Digital might as well be mastered to peak levels.
"vinyl stays imperfect in its representation of dynamics, but unlike CD it at least keeps any dynamics to represent."
Wrong. CD preserves dynamics, it's the mastering that crushes them out. The same mastering will crush the dynamics out of the vinyl recording as well. This argument is a total fallacy.
Try putting 50 LPs into your multidisc turntable. Oh yeah, you don't have one.
Just because you claim that some CDs are mastered different than others doesn't mean that the format itself is fundamentally flawed. After all, vinyl is exactly the same way.
It sounds like you have some complaint with CDs having too much dynamic range. I thought the argument was that they were too compressed?
Vinyl can, OF COURSE, be compressed to "such extremes". There's no limit to the amount of compression used with vinyl or digital. That claim is not only irrelevant, it's total bullshit.
As for frequency response, it doesn't matter what a groove can theoretically contain, it matters what it can deliver. It also doesn't matter what it can deliver once, but what it can deliver time after time. Claiming that vinyl offers better high frequency response than CD is wishful thinking.
Then there's the matter of the myriad of vinyl distortions that CD doesn't have. Only complete fools will argue that vinyl is superior to CD. They exist but that doesn't make them smart.
Vinyl won't kill CD because the mainstream won't buy it. Only idiots even care.
You are assuming terms for Apple releasing this SDK. All they've said is that they'll be doing one. They haven't said who they'll make it available to and what will be required for developers to actually deliver apps using it. It may remain the case that 3rd parties will have to go through Apple for approval and distribution. In that case, it won't be 3rd party at all and it certainly won't be "game over".
Frankly, there's large portions of the smartphone market that won't be satisfied with the iPhone regardless of the existence of an SDK. I'd be amused to see the reactions of some large employers to the need to install iTunes.