One person is irrelvant. The claim is not that no woman is 'genetically built for programming' but that women in general aren't. Now it seems much more likely to me that this is cultural and not genetic, but a small number of very successful famous people are not much use as evidence.
they are basicly giving away the votes of their own state citizens
The states making this decision would be the usually ignored big and non-contentious states. Not only are these states usually ignored by campains, but they only have 1/3 the per-person voting power of small states like Wyoming. They're making the votes of their citizens count more, not less.
Nationwide popular election of the President can be implemented if the states join together to pass identical state laws awarding all of their electoral votes to the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The proposed state legislation would only come into effect only when it has been enacted, in identical form, by enough states to elect a President--that is, by states possessing a majority (270) of the 538 electoral votes.
So a specific 13 states could do this, but not every combination of 13. Because there are states like California, Texas, and New York that are very large but are almost never contentious, finding 270 electoral votes might not be that hard.
I don't know much about this, but Wikipedia seems to:
In the 1970s there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. The general public had little awareness about carbon dioxide's effects: at the time garbage, chemical disposal, smog, particulate pollution, and acid rain were the focus of the public concern, although Paul Ehrlich mentions the climate change from the greenhouse gases in 1968 [1]. However, not long after the awareness reached the public press in the mid-1970s the temperature trend stopped going down. Even by the early 1970s there was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide's effects [2]
Crap. I'm sorry: www.openoffice.org - reads and writes all microsoft office formats.
Sorry; I wasn't all that clear. I was writing about how things stood when Microsoft lost the anti-trust suit and became a "convicted monopoly". Now things are changing some, and I've not had too many compatibility problems with OO.o
If developers wanted to create platform independant applications it sure isn't Microsoft that's stopping them: http://www.trolltech.com/, http://www.cygwin.com/. Platform independance is just very pricy, a problem that's no being caused by Microsoft.
The problem isn't that Microsoft has/had a monopoly. That's fine and not nessecarily a bad thing. The problem was abuse of the monopoly, using their monoply in one market to push themselves into another and strongarm OEMs to keep them from providing the products of potential competitors.
They said: "If you start carring other operating systems, we won't sell you ours anymore". Sure, not the best thing to happen from the consumer point of view, but illegal or immoral? Hardly. My girlfriend tells me "sleep with an other woman and you'll never see me nacked again". Is she abusing her monopoly? See, there are no close substitutes, as she is just really very fine and all. One could say her body is my de-facto standard when it comes to sex. Also, market entry for other girls is prohibitivly expensive, I just don't know how to deal with them. Should I sue her because she reserves the right to sleep with me on her own terms?
This is a bit silly, but interpersonal communication and sex are governed by open standards. There are likely many potential partners which speak the same language as you and are physically compatible. As of 1999, there were no other programs that could reliably read and write the MS Office formats. So while one could say that "her body is my de-facto standard when it comes to sex", one would be using a different sense of "standard". Your girlfriend doesn't really have a monopoly.
While there are technical reasons why this may be so (it's hard to index flash data), it's still a case of Google arbitrarily choosing one method over another.
That a decision is based on technical reasons does not make it arbitrary. Qantas will not take you to the ISS. While there are technical reasons why this may be so (it's hard to get good lift outside the atmosphere), it's still a case of Qantas arbitrarily choosing one sort of destination over another.
If you think that indexing flash content will pull in a lot of users, figure out how to do it well and peddle your technology to Google, Microsoft, and competitors.
Re:Although this seems "reasonable" in light of th
on
Google Delists BMW-Germany
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
They are the sole provider of programs that can read the de-facto industry standard.doc files. And of operating systems that run Windows-compatible binaries. If you look further down that list of definitions:
A market type in which there is a sole supplier of a good, service, or resource that has no close substitutes and in which there is a barrier preventing the entry of new firms into the industry.
Sure there are other word processors and other operating systems, but there are no close substitutes for the Microsoft products. As for barriers to entry, Microsoft's illegal "monopoly abusing" deals for OEMs give one, as does the difficulty of reverse engineering the formats.
I'm not talking about spamming. I'm talking about sites having to conform to google's whims in order to appear anywhere near the top of a google search.
This is nothing about "google's whims". Bmw.de showed a different page to the google crawler than to users. This is useful for nothing but trying to get an (unearned) better rank from google. These people could have made a site, without any concern for how google would treat it, and recieved a reasonable rank. No conforming nessecary.
In fact, the tenets behind the scientific theory of evolution are based on facts. The observations, experiments, etc. all have dealt with facts.
There is a difference between being based on facts and being fact. The theory itself is not fact, and we are not in a position, through any amount of research or experimentation, to make it one.
As for evolution's being a law vs a theory, Wikipedia describes the difference as being:
Physical laws are distinguished from scientific theories by their simplicity. Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to be changed as the body of available experimental data and analysis develops. This is because a physical law is strictly empirical. It is a summary observation of things as they are. A theory is a model that accounts for the observation, explains it, relates it to other observations, and makes testable predictions based upon it. Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory attempts to deal with why or how it happens. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law
So the law/theory distinction isn't really what we want here.
This is not in any way a failure of the theory, but most likely a function of the subject matter, which would dictate absolute knowledge of all species, and detailed information on the reproduction, DNS stability, mutations, etc. of all living organisms to exclude the possibility of exceptions.
If we're going to define the field broadly enough to include DNS stability, we're looking at one hell of a big theory.
A statement that evolution is "just a theory" or "a theory, not a fact" generally gets interpreted with the "hunch" sense of theory, not the scientific sense. Statements like this play off the usage difference of theory between scientists and the general public. They are true under one sense of theory, but false with the sense they will most likely be interpreted under.
"Evolution is a scientific theory, not nessicarily a fact." : ok; it's clear that the right use of theory is being used.
"Evolution is a hunch, not a fact." : not ok; evolution is the most likely explanation, and is more than a hunch.
It might be that the online version has specific promotions which they've decided not to apply to the over-the-phone purchase. Or perhaps the sales person didn't want to go through explaining how it would cost more to buy it without Windows.
Yes, Dell will sell you a box without Windows. But it's not cheaper. Comparing the basic E510 and E510n with identical specs, I see $599 for the Windows box vs $644 for the no OS box. And the Windows box comes with a 17 inch LCD monitor.
See:
Windows (E-value code 6V620-DE51F1)
No OS (E-value code 6V440-DE510N)
The utility screen will let you split your terminal space between an arbitrary number of applications (and each one recognizes that it has its own tty).
Can you really do this with screen? That is, be able to see more than one terminal at the same time? I've only used it for keeping things running after I log out and having multiple shells (not all simultaneously visible) in the same terminal. This would be something useful, especially if my eyes get bad enough that I have to switch back to terminal full-time.
I do find X to be useful for things that I must use it for, but for the most productivity, nothing beats a console.
It's quite nice to be able to have multiple terminals visible at the same time and have quick cut-and-paste. I like X a lot, mostly as a way to hold many xterms.
I do find, though, that as everyone writing for the web expects you to have a GUI browser, firefox is quicker than elinks for most things.
Sorry to be replying to my own post, but I can be pretty nonsensical at times:
Part of the problem is that the GPL is not just a set of restrictions on distribution that you can add to. It looks like what we should be doing is adding to the GPL, not putting a separate restriction on the user.
The first sentence is a result of not enough sleep. Ignore it. It once made sense in my head, but on the page means something other than I intended.
Part of the problem is that the GPL is not just a set of restrictions on distribution that you can add to. It looks like what we should be doing is adding to the GPL, not putting a separate restriction on the user. So we want a licencse like: "this software is liscenced under the terms of the GPL with the addition of 'FOO' as condition X to section Y". Otherwise I think you have the problem that the GPL says "distribution under the terms of the GPL is allowed" and so making an additional statement of "comply with all redistribution terms of the GPL and in addition term FOO in order to distribute this software" is not enough.
But IANAL; all I wanted to indicate that this is tricky stuff and what might seem to be trivial modifications to a liscence can do something dramatically other than you intended.
You can also trademark the name of your program and add a note that says something like "you can use the GPL as long as you don't name your program FooBarProg2000(tm). Otherwise you can't redistribute at all." Adding simple exceptions to an existing license is a good way to customize them without having to write new ones from scratch.
While you can add a note along with your code saying that FooBarProg2000 is your trademark, your exception is a bad idea. Imagine you distribute your software with the following note: "you can distribute this software under the GPL provided you meet criteria FOO, otherwise you have no distribution rights". Person A meets criteria FOO, and distributes your software under the GPL to person B. Person B is now free not to meet criteia FOO, as they recieved the software under the GPL. Adding exceptions like this needs to be done carefully.
Also note that if you do manage to phrase your exception well, people can't mix it with other GPL code, so it's not all that useful.
Our legal system rewards niether honesty nor descency. If you go in and reguest an honest and decent amount for damages, you'll get less than you requested. If instead each side gives their argument and presents their case as well as they can, then the determination of what would be honest and descent falls to the judge or jury. I'm happier trusting them to show these traits than I am trusting the plaintiff or defendant to.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it's the position you're arguing, maybe it's the way you're arguing it, but it's not making sense.
One person is irrelvant. The claim is not that no woman is 'genetically built for programming' but that women in general aren't. Now it seems much more likely to me that this is cultural and not genetic, but a small number of very successful famous people are not much use as evidence.
Someone says "our schools should make sure all their graduates are computer literate". People agree. What does this sort of literacy entail?
The MPAA is not cool enough to have ninja lawyers. And they're all employed by the EFF anyways.
Usually, though this is questions for an interview.
Sorry; I wasn't all that clear. I was writing about how things stood when Microsoft lost the anti-trust suit and became a "convicted monopoly". Now things are changing some, and I've not had too many compatibility problems with OO.o
If developers wanted to create platform independant applications it sure isn't Microsoft that's stopping them: http://www.trolltech.com/, http://www.cygwin.com/. Platform independance is just very pricy, a problem that's no being caused by Microsoft.
The problem isn't that Microsoft has/had a monopoly. That's fine and not nessecarily a bad thing. The problem was abuse of the monopoly, using their monoply in one market to push themselves into another and strongarm OEMs to keep them from providing the products of potential competitors.
They said: "If you start carring other operating systems, we won't sell you ours anymore". Sure, not the best thing to happen from the consumer point of view, but illegal or immoral? Hardly. My girlfriend tells me "sleep with an other woman and you'll never see me nacked again". Is she abusing her monopoly? See, there are no close substitutes, as she is just really very fine and all. One could say her body is my de-facto standard when it comes to sex. Also, market entry for other girls is prohibitivly expensive, I just don't know how to deal with them. Should I sue her because she reserves the right to sleep with me on her own terms?
This is a bit silly, but interpersonal communication and sex are governed by open standards. There are likely many potential partners which speak the same language as you and are physically compatible. As of 1999, there were no other programs that could reliably read and write the MS Office formats. So while one could say that "her body is my de-facto standard when it comes to sex", one would be using a different sense of "standard". Your girlfriend doesn't really have a monopoly.
That a decision is based on technical reasons does not make it arbitrary. Qantas will not take you to the ISS. While there are technical reasons why this may be so (it's hard to get good lift outside the atmosphere), it's still a case of Qantas arbitrarily choosing one sort of destination over another.
If you think that indexing flash content will pull in a lot of users, figure out how to do it well and peddle your technology to Google, Microsoft, and competitors.
This is nothing about "google's whims". Bmw.de showed a different page to the google crawler than to users. This is useful for nothing but trying to get an (unearned) better rank from google. These people could have made a site, without any concern for how google would treat it, and recieved a reasonable rank. No conforming nessecary.
There is a difference between being based on facts and being fact. The theory itself is not fact, and we are not in a position, through any amount of research or experimentation, to make it one.
As for evolution's being a law vs a theory, Wikipedia describes the difference as being:
So the law/theory distinction isn't really what we want here.This is not in any way a failure of the theory, but most likely a function of the subject matter, which would dictate absolute knowledge of all species, and detailed information on the reproduction, DNS stability, mutations, etc. of all living organisms to exclude the possibility of exceptions.
If we're going to define the field broadly enough to include DNS stability, we're looking at one hell of a big theory.
"Evolution is a scientific theory, not nessicarily a fact." : ok; it's clear that the right use of theory is being used.
"Evolution is a hunch, not a fact." : not ok; evolution is the most likely explanation, and is more than a hunch.
Really? What plugin do you need?
It might be that the online version has specific promotions which they've decided not to apply to the over-the-phone purchase. Or perhaps the sales person didn't want to go through explaining how it would cost more to buy it without Windows.
Can you really do this with screen? That is, be able to see more than one terminal at the same time? I've only used it for keeping things running after I log out and having multiple shells (not all simultaneously visible) in the same terminal. This would be something useful, especially if my eyes get bad enough that I have to switch back to terminal full-time.
It's quite nice to be able to have multiple terminals visible at the same time and have quick cut-and-paste. I like X a lot, mostly as a way to hold many xterms.
I do find, though, that as everyone writing for the web expects you to have a GUI browser, firefox is quicker than elinks for most things.
But it was the list that produced the chuckle, not the individual jokes, so we're fine.
Part of the problem is that the GPL is not just a set of restrictions on distribution that you can add to. It looks like what we should be doing is adding to the GPL, not putting a separate restriction on the user.
The first sentence is a result of not enough sleep. Ignore it. It once made sense in my head, but on the page means something other than I intended.
Good night, all
But IANAL; all I wanted to indicate that this is tricky stuff and what might seem to be trivial modifications to a liscence can do something dramatically other than you intended.
While you can add a note along with your code saying that FooBarProg2000 is your trademark, your exception is a bad idea. Imagine you distribute your software with the following note: "you can distribute this software under the GPL provided you meet criteria FOO, otherwise you have no distribution rights". Person A meets criteria FOO, and distributes your software under the GPL to person B. Person B is now free not to meet criteia FOO, as they recieved the software under the GPL. Adding exceptions like this needs to be done carefully.
Also note that if you do manage to phrase your exception well, people can't mix it with other GPL code, so it's not all that useful.
Our legal system rewards niether honesty nor descency. If you go in and reguest an honest and decent amount for damages, you'll get less than you requested. If instead each side gives their argument and presents their case as well as they can, then the determination of what would be honest and descent falls to the judge or jury. I'm happier trusting them to show these traits than I am trusting the plaintiff or defendant to.