There are many very good empirical reasons for accepting the Big Bang theory. Sure there are problems with it, but the more we figure out about the cosmic background radiation and quantum gravity, the better it fits the rest of our conceptual models.
Which can hardly be said of the Old Testament.
My favorite was this little gem: "The characterizations are so haphazard that the most touching figure is not the heroic hobbit Frodo or even Aragorn, technically human but more a fairy-tale king than a man. It is Frodo's sidekick, Sam, who will literally follow Frodo into fire. Sam is played so well by Sean Astin that this affectingly loyal hobbit seems the most human figure on screen."
I just find it hilarious that she calls an obviously deliberate attempt to highlight Sam (because, after all, one of the themes of the books and the movies is that the true heroes are the ones unsung--hobbits, not kings of men) "haphazard" direction on the part of Jackson.
You're absolutely right, "ad absurdum" is correct latin. Which is unfortunate, because your first post referenced something I've never heard of called a "reductio ad absurdam."
Do you? Because "singularity" =/= "nothing." If anything, it's more like "everything."
Oh, and while you're reading up on cosmology and evolutionary theory, you may as well grab a book on Latin as well. It'll point out the wonderful uses of the accusative case, such as accusative of place to which, as in "reductio as absurdum."
I think it's more AT&T than the phone. I have a T720 with Verizon and it almost always gets a good signal; the only time it doesn't always is when I'm inside a large building and far from a window.
Is this really worth caring about? I mean anyone who takes the N-Gage seriously as a console has severe issues. Not to mention that only a handful of phones are going to be capable of running the games anyway.
Also, it's not like Nokia can do anything about it; it'd cost more (considering the N-Gage is *already* failing financially) to fix than what they might actually lose to piracy.
Well sure. On the other hand, the Enterprise did just fine in all the wind tunnel tests, and would probably be destroyed in real life (you know what I mean) if something impacted it at Warp 10.
Depressing, but it's unlikely they'll succeed. The RIAA is like a dying beast, more vicious and powerful than ever before; God only knows what kind of economic pressure they'll exert on Australia.
It's hardly fair, but the DMCA already has a positive track record in this area; 2600 was forced to remove a link on their webpage to a separate page which hosted the crack that disabled DVD copy protection.
SCO is trying to say that the GPL is invalid because it grants rights beyond what is allowable by copyright law. One section says that "copies...may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program." The GPL lets you sell copies without giving up the original, violating the rule in this section. SCO says that the GPL can't claim copyright protection if they're going to change the rules, even if it is a change that may be a benefit to the consumer.
That, uh, doesn't make sense. As I understand that clause, if I sell you a license to use a copy of my program, then I have to sell you (or give to you or whatever) all of the rights to the program also. Which is clearly untrue.
Also, it's not the GPL that's letting you sell copies without giving up the original; it's the copyright holder who is saying you can do whatever you want with the code as long as it remains under the GPL.
I'm not defending SCO, but just because they signed on to the concept doesn't mean that they can't challenge the concept. Of course it would be shooting themselves in the foot to make people pay for retroactive copyright violations that were supposedly valid under the GPL--which is, after all, what they're trying to do to IBM--but they can still press the point.
It's another type of licence, and it's certainly as valid as something any other software vendor would choose to put on their products.
I agree, but that's sort of exactly what's under fire here, this radical notion that "Hey! Software can be free!"
I would imagine that SCO's claim as to the unconstitutionality of the GPL is that it doesn't have anyone holding the reins, while the Constitution's language implies some kind of actual, physical copyright holder.
What on earth? IANAL, but isn't the whole basis of copyright law that the copyright holder can do whatever the hell he wants to with his material? It may be the case that the GPL is selectively enforced--possible if highly doubtful--but to call it unconstitutional is like saying that laws protecting churches from arson (like all buildings are protected from arson) are unconstitutional because they represent an establishment of religion.
Also, any thoughts on whether some of this stuff is even legal, as it is almost certainly not ethical."
I think that if people make a conscious decision to install a piece of software which admits that it is spyware, even if only in the small print, there can't really be anything illegal about it.
If it doesn't, the question necessarily becomes a bit trickier. IANAL, so obviously this is just my opinion.
According to the Supreme Court (in Roe v. Wade, the abortion case), there exists an implicit "right to privacy" in the Bill of Rights. The Court used it to defend a woman's right to procure an abortion, essentially saying that the government couldn't create legislation that would violate a citizen's "right to privacy." The government being denied the ability to infringe on people's privacy (Patriot Act notwithstanding) is obviously different from corporations being denied the same--and, again, IANAL--but the fundamental legal principle seems applicable to me. That is, we as citizens should have the right not to have people snooping in on our lives and habits without our express consent.
How does the etymology of the word "moot" relate? So it meant "hypothetical or open to debate" to Elizabethan law students; your point is...? The modern understanding of the word, among both lawyers and the general populace, is quite the opposite.
Slashdot Mirror
There are many very good empirical reasons for accepting the Big Bang theory. Sure there are problems with it, but the more we figure out about the cosmic background radiation and quantum gravity, the better it fits the rest of our conceptual models. Which can hardly be said of the Old Testament.
Exactly, which is why it's going to be a dirty shame when they find absolutely nothing there.
I just find it hilarious that she calls an obviously deliberate attempt to highlight Sam (because, after all, one of the themes of the books and the movies is that the true heroes are the ones unsung--hobbits, not kings of men) "haphazard" direction on the part of Jackson.
This, of course, is beside the point that we know that singularities exist.
You're absolutely right, "ad absurdum" is correct latin. Which is unfortunate, because your first post referenced something I've never heard of called a "reductio ad absurdam."
Do you? Because "singularity" =/= "nothing." If anything, it's more like "everything." Oh, and while you're reading up on cosmology and evolutionary theory, you may as well grab a book on Latin as well. It'll point out the wonderful uses of the accusative case, such as accusative of place to which, as in "reductio as absurdum."
"nothing" exploded and "soup" came alive? Read a freaking book before you bash a theory you don't understand.
Wouldn't it be more like playing Master of Orion without any other races?
I think it's more AT&T than the phone. I have a T720 with Verizon and it almost always gets a good signal; the only time it doesn't always is when I'm inside a large building and far from a window.
Is this really worth caring about? I mean anyone who takes the N-Gage seriously as a console has severe issues. Not to mention that only a handful of phones are going to be capable of running the games anyway. Also, it's not like Nokia can do anything about it; it'd cost more (considering the N-Gage is *already* failing financially) to fix than what they might actually lose to piracy.
Well sure. On the other hand, the Enterprise did just fine in all the wind tunnel tests, and would probably be destroyed in real life (you know what I mean) if something impacted it at Warp 10.
Depressing, but it's unlikely they'll succeed. The RIAA is like a dying beast, more vicious and powerful than ever before; God only knows what kind of economic pressure they'll exert on Australia.
It's hardly fair, but the DMCA already has a positive track record in this area; 2600 was forced to remove a link on their webpage to a separate page which hosted the crack that disabled DVD copy protection.
That, uh, doesn't make sense. As I understand that clause, if I sell you a license to use a copy of my program, then I have to sell you (or give to you or whatever) all of the rights to the program also. Which is clearly untrue.
Also, it's not the GPL that's letting you sell copies without giving up the original; it's the copyright holder who is saying you can do whatever you want with the code as long as it remains under the GPL.
I'm not defending SCO, but just because they signed on to the concept doesn't mean that they can't challenge the concept. Of course it would be shooting themselves in the foot to make people pay for retroactive copyright violations that were supposedly valid under the GPL--which is, after all, what they're trying to do to IBM--but they can still press the point.
It's another type of licence, and it's certainly as valid as something any other software vendor would choose to put on their products. I agree, but that's sort of exactly what's under fire here, this radical notion that "Hey! Software can be free!" I would imagine that SCO's claim as to the unconstitutionality of the GPL is that it doesn't have anyone holding the reins, while the Constitution's language implies some kind of actual, physical copyright holder.
What on earth? IANAL, but isn't the whole basis of copyright law that the copyright holder can do whatever the hell he wants to with his material? It may be the case that the GPL is selectively enforced--possible if highly doubtful--but to call it unconstitutional is like saying that laws protecting churches from arson (like all buildings are protected from arson) are unconstitutional because they represent an establishment of religion.
I think that if people make a conscious decision to install a piece of software which admits that it is spyware, even if only in the small print, there can't really be anything illegal about it.
If it doesn't, the question necessarily becomes a bit trickier. IANAL, so obviously this is just my opinion.
According to the Supreme Court (in Roe v. Wade, the abortion case), there exists an implicit "right to privacy" in the Bill of Rights. The Court used it to defend a woman's right to procure an abortion, essentially saying that the government couldn't create legislation that would violate a citizen's "right to privacy." The government being denied the ability to infringe on people's privacy (Patriot Act notwithstanding) is obviously different from corporations being denied the same--and, again, IANAL--but the fundamental legal principle seems applicable to me. That is, we as citizens should have the right not to have people snooping in on our lives and habits without our express consent.
Irrespective of whether or not moot means "arguable," "supposition" has two P's.
How does the etymology of the word "moot" relate? So it meant "hypothetical or open to debate" to Elizabethan law students; your point is...? The modern understanding of the word, among both lawyers and the general populace, is quite the opposite.
Um. "moot" meant the opposite of "arguable." That is to say, a moot point is by definition inarguable.