Publishers don't even publish "public comments" from usenet in their for-profit publications
But they publish public comments from/. as though they were the/. consensus. To qualify for copyright protection (under UK law, at least), a work needs to have involved some effort. This post probably doesn't qualify, although IANAL.
Hope they did a better job than the team which dubbed The Lion King into Russian. When Simba's dad dies, he cries "Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!" The dub is a snappy "Nyet".
Read your quote again. I've emphasised a different part:
You may copy and distribute verbatim
copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
The complaint seems to be about the binary and packaging.
You don't have a dual G5, do you? Apple still haven't released a working fix for the fan control system, and I've had to reinstall once after the fans went crazy, forcing a hard reboot, and then the hard drive was corrupt.
And when it can be fitted into a standard glasses frame, there are going to be implications for examinations, especially if it has an input mechanism which works on eye movements. "Everyone with glasses, please get them checked on the way in".
Imagine delivering an app via website that used native widgets and looked and felt like part of your OS, all while safely sandboxed.
You mean like the current state of applets in OS X? There is a certain tension, though, in that most people want their apps to have access to the filesystem - not obviously compatible with sandboxing, unless your sandbox allows new files only (no deletion or modification of existing files) in a specified part of the filesystem only (no putting things in startup folders) and of limited size (no filling the disk).
Volunteers, as in people who think the ID cards are an OK thing in the first place? Who will more likely than not give positive feedback?
I'm still wondering what they're going to be giving feedback on. Are police going to be stopping people and asking "Are you participating in the ID card trials? You are. Can I see your card, please?"? Or are these cards going to sit in the pockets of the volunteers unused for three months, at which point the government will conclude that they're effective at establishing identity?
No-one's yet managed to make a smart-card that was tamper-proof. Have they made great strides forward there as well, or is the voice-auth just a way to persuade people the card's secure when it isn't?
The implication of the way you quoted the figure was that it was rather specifically B.Sc. courses in Materials Science. No-one at Cambridge does a B.Sc. in MatSci, for example, but there are plenty of people who come out with a B.A. having studied MatSci as part of a Natural Sciences degree.
The first rule of/.: don't expect Americans to to know that there's a world outside of the USA. This was posted mid-evening Eastern Time, so the fact that it was already dawn GMT and well past dawn in Asia doesn't matter.
I used to record a side of a tape from the radio, listen to it for songs I liked, then carefully copy them to another tape, starting after the lead in, and recording over the lead out with low volume white noise.
And replying to self to clarify: if the answer is that self-awareness is different to other perceptions, and if you somehow argue that it's more reliable, then "I think therefore I am" is still worthless, because to establish "I think" you rely on "I am self-aware", and then "I am self-aware therefore I am" is sufficient without the intermediate step: "I am self-aware, and I am aware that I think, so therefore I think; and because I think I am".
Is this a question of semantics or do you have a deeper meaning I am missing?
My original point was that while I am aware that I am thinking, I'm also aware that the sun is shining outside. I don't think Decartes addresses the question of how those two perceptions differ - that is, why I can more reliably claim that I am thinking than that the sun is shining.
Slashdot Mirror
Hope they did a better job than the team which dubbed The Lion King into Russian. When Simba's dad dies, he cries "Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!" The dub is a snappy "Nyet".
Since when does geek imply goth?
Developer tools (for cvs) Fink X11 Unison SubEthaEdit (using cvs to get my syntax files) GNU fileutils GL4Java Fire Acrobat Reader My .profile
You don't have a dual G5, do you? Apple still haven't released a working fix for the fan control system, and I've had to reinstall once after the fans went crazy, forcing a hard reboot, and then the hard drive was corrupt.
And when it can be fitted into a standard glasses frame, there are going to be implications for examinations, especially if it has an input mechanism which works on eye movements. "Everyone with glasses, please get them checked on the way in".
Raiders of the Lost Ark isn't a documentary, and as already pointed out is about the Ark of the Covenant rather than Noah's Ark.
My Linux box is friar and my Windows box is binky. (Anyone spot the connection?) I haven't named the Amiga or the Archimedes.
No-one's yet managed to make a smart-card that was tamper-proof. Have they made great strides forward there as well, or is the voice-auth just a way to persuade people the card's secure when it isn't?
I'm never changing the tyres on my Ford again.
The implication of the way you quoted the figure was that it was rather specifically B.Sc. courses in Materials Science. No-one at Cambridge does a B.Sc. in MatSci, for example, but there are plenty of people who come out with a B.A. having studied MatSci as part of a Natural Sciences degree.
I learnt Perl and bash with an OS X box.
(Don't mind me: I've got karma to burn)
I used to record a side of a tape from the radio, listen to it for songs I liked, then carefully copy them to another tape, starting after the lead in, and recording over the lead out with low volume white noise.
And replying to self to clarify: if the answer is that self-awareness is different to other perceptions, and if you somehow argue that it's more reliable, then "I think therefore I am" is still worthless, because to establish "I think" you rely on "I am self-aware", and then "I am self-aware therefore I am" is sufficient without the intermediate step: "I am self-aware, and I am aware that I think, so therefore I think; and because I think I am".
The scariest thing about that list of patents is that I'd only heard of the one-click one.