clay is neat stuff and they made that skull so they wouldn't mess up the original. then they clayed over the model skull.
the x-ray -> computer reconstruction is way cooler because it removes the need to fashion a replica skull.
I'm in need of a job, so if anyone wants to pay me to be the sample skull subject (as long as it doesn't involve defleshing my skull), I'll happily volunteer for the X-rays...
Those are definitely good shows...there was one where they talked about someone slipping poison into coke bottles and leaving the coke on the steps of the intended victim's house...and then they said they wouldn't tell how to make the poision disappear into the coke so nobody would notice it was there.
It seems to me that the closest you're going to get to a perfect crime is if you wear a paper body suit, steal a car, kidnap the victim, drag him into the car, take him to the everglades, dismember him over the swamp, dump the pieces overboard far out at sea from a stolen boat, abandon the boat and car, and make sure the paper suit goes up in smoke in an incinerator.
Of course, now that I think about it, I probably shouldn't be trying to reason with a "31337 h4x0r" like yourself that thinks it's "k3w1" to "mIx cAsEs". It's like trying to explain advanced algorithm analysis to a 4th grader...
Ah, yes. Insults. Always the way to make your weak argument appear to have some validity. Don't worry, lots of people do it. I'm happy to know that I bothered trying to reason with your idea of logic.
I recognize a difference between telling someone how to use their property and telling someone that they can't give away pristine copies of their property for free.
Consider:
If I have (a legally purchased copy of) the LOTR:FOTR DVD set and want to watch it under Windows or Linux, nobody should have the authority to tell me that I can't watch it under Linux. This is the "how to use" distinction that I make. I'm sitting in my chair, minding my own business, violating no laws by watching it in the privacy of my home, whether on a computer or in a DVD home entertainment system.
If I decide to make copies of the same DVD set as backups and store them in my house in case the original goes bad, I still haven't caused anyone harm (and I'm legally allowed to do so since it is simply space-shifting the copy for archival purposes).
If, having made those copies, I then offer them to anybody who wants a copy, I'm engaging in piracy (read: theft). What is the distinction? It's whether the person who created the work can profit by selling it. If he can't sell copies because a pirate is giving them away for free, he is definitely suffering a loss from income that he would have received if piracy wasn't an option.
Consider another example. Suppose that you buy a BMW. Now, for example's sake, let's suppose you have a replicating machine that will make copies of anything you want. You set up shop and start cloning your BMW. Then you start giving your BMWs away for free (or charging nominal fees for them). Don't you think that BMW would consider the act theft because you are taking away their market with pristine copies of their product?
You can deny if you like (in my experience, denial and justification are always used as a conscience salve for people who know what they are doing is wrong), but the fact of the matter is that depriving someone of their livelihood is theft. It's no different than if I make a clone of you, send it to your job, and collect its earnings.
However, much as I hope you get the point, you've probably decided that your lack of morals are superior to what you perceive as my being "brainwashed".
Or, perhaps, if societal morals went up a notch and we actually respected people's right to their property, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in. It's people who trumpet their kleptomaniacal desires for every CD or movie out there that cause media execs to regard filesharing as a threat to their revenue, or to implement DRM laws to protect that revenue.
Theft is theft, and trying to make theft legal by saying "everyone is doing it" or "it's just for evaluation purposes" or "I wouldn't buy it anyway" is evidence of moral bankruptcy.
Innocent until proven guilty is for legal codes, not for TOS's. Usually all it takes is the threat of a lawsuit for an ISP to turn someone's connection off, unless, it seems, they are a spammer:(
My first experience with punch cards was 20 odd years ago, at the University of Illinois. Dad would work in the lab and I'd use the left over punch cards as bookmarks (or chew toys...5 year olds do that sort of thing). My memory is hazy but I also remember the giant dot matrix printers and the audio modems that you put the phone handset into.
A few years ago, I was in the office of one of my comp sci professors and he had this huge box of punch cards. I asked him for some and he gave me 1/4 of the box. I use them as bookmarks still, except that now you can find them in Apache The Definitive Guide and Programming Perl rather than Winnie the Pooh:)
This isn't about someone trying to screw people by not giving back. This is about someone trying to screw people where they have absolutely no business sticking their ugly noses. Go back and read yesterday's analyses of some sample SCO code and the common genesis for it and the "infringing" Linux code. Pay particular attention to Bruce Perens' analysis on LWN (you do know who he is, right?).
In any case, you're raising a straw man. The open source community is not about getting a free ride off of everyone and everything. It is about sharing with the intent that everyone benefits from not having to reinvent the wheel.
Save your anti-theft tirades for the music, movie, and software sharing threads (which, incidentally, I will agree with you on).
Negatory. Same variable names are one thing, but this code is identical down to parens and curly braces. What happened (RTFA) is that both code sets have a common ancestor (for this example...would need to see analyses of the other "infringing" code segments) which happens to have been released to the public under a BSD license.
Someone on LWN in the comments section of the article referenced said that the entire module has been removed from the source tree for a couple months now. They further added that rewriting malloc() for the tree (rather than using the "infringing" version) increased speed by something like 20%.
That font was Greek, and predates Elvish by a couple thousand years (at least). In any case, Greek and Elvish don't look that much alike. Check your Elvish again:)
But I wasn't looking at the converse, was I? That would have been "he's not doing anything worthwhile, therefore he's not on anyone's black list." But he is clearly on at least one person's blacklist, therefore, according to the test, he has to be doing something "worthwhile". (I don't buy that, hence my question).
Well, with the new anti-telemarketing legislation in the US, maybe some of the telemarketers will set up shop in your fair country. Not that I would wish that on anyone...I signed up for the do not call registry because I hate telemarketers almost as much as spammers (the difference being you can actually talk to the telemarketer, meaning you can have some fun at their expense).
Slashdot Mirror
clay is neat stuff and they made that skull so they wouldn't mess up the original. then they clayed over the model skull. the x-ray -> computer reconstruction is way cooler because it removes the need to fashion a replica skull.
Yeah. I guess it's hard to describe someone as "upright" who lies so much...
Of course, it is possible that homo sapiens SCO executivus is the missing link between Lucy and invertebrate animals...
I'm in need of a job, so if anyone wants to pay me to be the sample skull subject (as long as it doesn't involve defleshing my skull), I'll happily volunteer for the X-rays...
Those are definitely good shows...there was one where they talked about someone slipping poison into coke bottles and leaving the coke on the steps of the intended victim's house...and then they said they wouldn't tell how to make the poision disappear into the coke so nobody would notice it was there.
It seems to me that the closest you're going to get to a perfect crime is if you wear a paper body suit, steal a car, kidnap the victim, drag him into the car, take him to the everglades, dismember him over the swamp, dump the pieces overboard far out at sea from a stolen boat, abandon the boat and car, and make sure the paper suit goes up in smoke in an incinerator.
Depends on if the software has the ability to model alien life forms...
Of course, now that I think about it, I probably shouldn't be trying to reason with a "31337 h4x0r" like yourself that thinks it's "k3w1" to "mIx cAsEs". It's like trying to explain advanced algorithm analysis to a 4th grader...
Ah, yes. Insults. Always the way to make your weak argument appear to have some validity. Don't worry, lots of people do it. I'm happy to know that I bothered trying to reason with your idea of logic.
I recognize a difference between telling someone how to use their property and telling someone that they can't give away pristine copies of their property for free.
Consider:
If I have (a legally purchased copy of) the LOTR:FOTR DVD set and want to watch it under Windows or Linux, nobody should have the authority to tell me that I can't watch it under Linux. This is the "how to use" distinction that I make. I'm sitting in my chair, minding my own business, violating no laws by watching it in the privacy of my home, whether on a computer or in a DVD home entertainment system.
If I decide to make copies of the same DVD set as backups and store them in my house in case the original goes bad, I still haven't caused anyone harm (and I'm legally allowed to do so since it is simply space-shifting the copy for archival purposes).
If, having made those copies, I then offer them to anybody who wants a copy, I'm engaging in piracy (read: theft). What is the distinction? It's whether the person who created the work can profit by selling it. If he can't sell copies because a pirate is giving them away for free, he is definitely suffering a loss from income that he would have received if piracy wasn't an option.
Consider another example. Suppose that you buy a BMW. Now, for example's sake, let's suppose you have a replicating machine that will make copies of anything you want. You set up shop and start cloning your BMW. Then you start giving your BMWs away for free (or charging nominal fees for them). Don't you think that BMW would consider the act theft because you are taking away their market with pristine copies of their product?
You can deny if you like (in my experience, denial and justification are always used as a conscience salve for people who know what they are doing is wrong), but the fact of the matter is that depriving someone of their livelihood is theft. It's no different than if I make a clone of you, send it to your job, and collect its earnings.
However, much as I hope you get the point, you've probably decided that your lack of morals are superior to what you perceive as my being "brainwashed".
Or, perhaps, if societal morals went up a notch and we actually respected people's right to their property, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in. It's people who trumpet their kleptomaniacal desires for every CD or movie out there that cause media execs to regard filesharing as a threat to their revenue, or to implement DRM laws to protect that revenue.
Theft is theft, and trying to make theft legal by saying "everyone is doing it" or "it's just for evaluation purposes" or "I wouldn't buy it anyway" is evidence of moral bankruptcy.
My variants of Kaa's law are:
Theorem: People are idiots
Corrolary: I hate people
Probably. Especially since lots of our jobs are going to India and Pakistan :)
Innocent until proven guilty is for legal codes, not for TOS's. Usually all it takes is the threat of a lawsuit for an ISP to turn someone's connection off, unless, it seems, they are a spammer :(
Wow...they still make those things!?
:)
My first experience with punch cards was 20 odd years ago, at the University of Illinois. Dad would work in the lab and I'd use the left over punch cards as bookmarks (or chew toys...5 year olds do that sort of thing). My memory is hazy but I also remember the giant dot matrix printers and the audio modems that you put the phone handset into.
A few years ago, I was in the office of one of my comp sci professors and he had this huge box of punch cards. I asked him for some and he gave me 1/4 of the box. I use them as bookmarks still, except that now you can find them in Apache The Definitive Guide and Programming Perl rather than Winnie the Pooh
Actually, you could probably have a script go through your box and edit all those UNICODE chars for you :) (I know you were trying to be funny...)
I have a stack of green unused punch cards :)
This isn't about someone trying to screw people by not giving back. This is about someone trying to screw people where they have absolutely no business sticking their ugly noses. Go back and read yesterday's analyses of some sample SCO code and the common genesis for it and the "infringing" Linux code. Pay particular attention to Bruce Perens' analysis on LWN (you do know who he is, right?).
In any case, you're raising a straw man. The open source community is not about getting a free ride off of everyone and everything. It is about sharing with the intent that everyone benefits from not having to reinvent the wheel.
Save your anti-theft tirades for the music, movie, and software sharing threads (which, incidentally, I will agree with you on).
Negatory. Same variable names are one thing, but this code is identical down to parens and curly braces. What happened (RTFA) is that both code sets have a common ancestor (for this example...would need to see analyses of the other "infringing" code segments) which happens to have been released to the public under a BSD license.
Someone on LWN in the comments section of the article referenced said that the entire module has been removed from the source tree for a couple months now. They further added that rewriting malloc() for the tree (rather than using the "infringing" version) increased speed by something like 20%.
That font was Greek, and predates Elvish by a couple thousand years (at least). In any case, Greek and Elvish don't look that much alike. Check your Elvish again :)
But I wasn't looking at the converse, was I? That would have been "he's not doing anything worthwhile, therefore he's not on anyone's black list." But he is clearly on at least one person's blacklist, therefore, according to the test, he has to be doing something "worthwhile". (I don't buy that, hence my question).
Well, with the new anti-telemarketing legislation in the US, maybe some of the telemarketers will set up shop in your fair country. Not that I would wish that on anyone...I signed up for the do not call registry because I hate telemarketers almost as much as spammers (the difference being you can actually talk to the telemarketer, meaning you can have some fun at their expense).
"If you're not on somebody's shit list, you're not doing anything worthwhile."
So...since this guy is on several people's black list, would you say he's doing something worthwhile?
"Honest officer I didn't kill that man"
You mean, like "If it does not fit you must acquit"?
Just export him to .au and let the aborigines take care of him :)
I think the critters you're looking for are rebumblican and dummocrat.
You seriously rock!