vast majority of the world believe in some form of Creation, so to understand where they are coming from shouldn't you learn in it?
That is not what those pushing for teaching Creationism are asking for. They aren't asking for it to be taught as a cultural mythology, like the tales of the Greek gods often are, simply for the sake of understanding a culture. They are asking for it to be taught as truth.
find places where programmers writing IBM code were 'tainted' with SysV knowledge.
This isn't Patent law. It's copyright law. Making a product that mimics the behavior of an existing product is only illegal if the original product was patented. Being merely copyrighted, it doesn't matter if IBM's programmers knew the design of SysV and made use of it or not. Only an acutal direct copy of some code verbatim would be illegal. Re-implementing code to do the same thing would not.
On earth, the horizon is about 5 miles away if you are in a totally flat plain or ocean, and you're eyes are 6 feet up off the ground. Stand on top of a 100 foot tower and the horizon becomes 36 miles away. So, what planet is this 40-mile line of sight transmission designed for?
Springfield has an ocean, a desert, mountains, but it also has grass that stays green without watering, and temperate forests. Therefore it is nothing like LA.
A bigger problem is that the option to remove the software and not use it at all isn't given. So it is extortion. What would have worked better would have been a free download utility from his site that will unencrypt the files. Then at that point the user has two options - one is to pay for the license, and the other is to never run the software again. If he tries to run the software without the license again, then he'll just have to unencrypt again. This effectively makes the software useless without the license, since, you can't really save anything with it.
The problem isn't that the victim is going on the offensive against his attacker - that I actually would support. The problem is that the victim is putting in place a system the indiscimantly attacks people who fit a certain criteria - a system that is incapable of thinking things through and taking into account extenuating circumstances. For example, a trap that electrocutes someone trying to jimmy the lock of your car won't be able to detect that the person doing it is just some guy who mistook your car for his and has been trying to get his key to open the door and it doesn't quite fit. This deleting of home directories for typing in the wrong activation key is the same thing. It doesn't take into account accidents.
It's like my dislike of the Guantanamo Bay prison situation. It's not that terrorists should be treated nicely - no they should be treated very harshly - Guantanamo's too nice for them. My complaint is that by removing the right to a trial we've lost the guarantee that all the inmates are actually really terrorists, meaning that some are being treated that way while being innocent of terrorism.
No. Party one didn't necessarily steal the software. Perhaps Party One merely made a typo in the registration screen - a typo for which he'd like the program to tell him it's wrong and let him type it again.
The problem with automated anti-piracy smack-downs like this is that they are going to register false positives. Like when the MPAA assumed that seeing a file by the name of "one.mpg" meant that the file must be the song "One" by Metallica, and that it must be a song for which you don't own the legal copy on CD or tape, and then acted accordingly.
nobody watches or reads science fiction to learn about the future.
That's only because there's no such thing as THE future. There's many possible futures, and science fiction isn't any better at guessing what which one will come to be than anything else is.
From Ringworld Engineers, the fall of the civilization, and thus the warfare, was due to the Puppeteers' meddling (planting the virus that ate all the superconductor material that all the technology depended on.) It was not due to the actions of those living inside the ring, and therefore was outside the scope of what the Pak predicted for.
I stopped halfway through Ringworld Throne because I just couldn't figure out what was going on in the story. One thing that Niven does a lot is try to make the people in the book talk to each other realisticly. Realisticly, two people who are both well versed in a subject won't explain to each other every detail of it. They'll leave stuff out. Niven likes to use this in his dialogues, leaving the reader hanging as to what's actually going on until several pages later. For example, in Ringworld Engineers, Louis and Chmee figured out about how the puppeters started the man/kzinti wars, but never said it out loud, and so the reader never figured out what they were talking about at first. It was all spoken about obliquely, and until they confronted the puppeter with it and finally spoke their greivences aloud, you the reader had no freaking clue what was going on.
Niven would string you along until just the point where it was starting to get a little frustrating that everyone in the story knew what he was talking about, but you the reader did not, and then finally he'd let you off the hook and see the explanation.
Well, that practice is neat in small quantities. But in Ringworld Throne, it was overused, to the point where I just couldn't keep track of who was where and who had done what in some of the scenes. There were literally fight scenes where someone had hit someone, and I didn't know which was the hitter and which was the hitee. I eventually got frustrated with this and stopped.
Does Ringworld Children have the same kind of problem?
I'd rather see Integral Trees and Smoke Ring made into a movie. With today's special effects, it could be done, and they work better as standalone stories. Especially Integral Trees, because when the book starts the main characters don't know much about the world, and they (and the reader) learn it as they travel - they learn more of the history of how the people got there, and they learn about more of the complex societies and complex critters in the ring. That's a perfect way to introduce the setting to the movie viewer, as it avoids the SF "narrator info-dump" problem.
The statement was not that men think differently than women. It was that ENGINEERS think differently than women. That only makes sense if female engineers don't exist.
It wasn't comparing men versus women. It was comparing engineers versus women, as if being a woman and being an engineer are mutually exclusive conditions. Now see the problem?
Oxymoron. The very notion of trolling, of wanting to be percieved as an idiot on purpose, is hardly brilliant. If you want to troll (pretend to be a moron by saying things you know are false just to get a rise out of people), then save your effort, you already are a moron for even wanting that.
What makes it sexist is that it contains the implication that thinking like a woman is something distinctly different from thinking like an engineer, and that would mean no women engineers.
Banannas have varying diameter. If what you need is a certain volume of bananna, then a length measurement by itself doesn't work. Mushing up the bananna into a measuring cup does.
(Now, if the recipie wanted slices of bananna, and asked for them in cups, then yeah, that would be stupid.)
While your observations about cooking being an art are true, its irrelevant to the question at hand because writing out the recipie the traditional way (as a list of instructions) is just as likely to result in a bland un-artistic result as writing it out in the chart form. In either case the cook who follows the program unerringly like a robot is not doing art.
Using the chart does nothing to remove the artisitc nature, any more so than writing it as a list of instructions in terse prose does.
I have no qualms about a fucking liar claiming I'm trolling.
Re:Not to self-aggrandize...
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 1
The point you're missing is that you keep using examples where the majority actually do not want the third party to come to power. You even say so explicitly here. Well, duh, if that was what everybody wants, then the voting method that *fails* to give them that would be the one that is broken, not the one that *does* give them that.
you may well end up with a situation where the majority of the populace prefers the Rep to the Dem, but the Dem wins.
When there are more than two parties with a signifigant following, it is entirely possible to win with less than the majority, and there is nothing broken about that in the slightest. If the majority had a huge problem with the Dems being in power, they should have ranked their choices that way. In your example, they are explicitly stating they *do* prefer the Dems over the Libs, so there is nothing bad about that.
If people really don't want more choices, then the failure doesn't lay with the voting system, it lays with the people.
Re:Not to self-aggrandize...
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 1
Republicans are more comfortable with mainstream Democrats than with Libertarians, who are too... radical for their tastes.
If this is true, it would mean that the alleged problem you speak of is not a problem. It's the hypothetical system giving the hypothetical voters precisely what they want. The problem is that the voters don't want what the Libertarians want them to want.
The proof is in the pudding, however, and the pudding in Australia, which isn't a republic, so its example is not related to how it would work in the US.
Your post contained good examples of what I was talking about - cases wehre the OS is monolithic, even though the kernel inside it is not. If you were trying to counter my point, you failed.
Slashdot Mirror
vast majority of the world believe in some form of Creation, so to understand where they are coming from shouldn't you learn in it?
That is not what those pushing for teaching Creationism are asking for. They aren't asking for it to be taught as a cultural mythology, like the tales of the Greek gods often are, simply for the sake of understanding a culture. They are asking for it to be taught as truth.
find places where programmers writing IBM code were 'tainted' with SysV knowledge.
This isn't Patent law. It's copyright law. Making a product that mimics the behavior of an existing product is only illegal if the original product was patented. Being merely copyrighted, it doesn't matter if IBM's programmers knew the design of SysV and made use of it or not. Only an acutal direct copy of some code verbatim would be illegal. Re-implementing code to do the same thing would not.
On earth, the horizon is about 5 miles away if you are in a totally flat plain or ocean, and you're eyes are 6 feet up off the ground. Stand on top of a 100 foot tower and the horizon becomes 36 miles away. So, what planet is this 40-mile line of sight transmission designed for?
Springfield has an ocean, a desert, mountains, but it also has grass that stays green without watering, and temperate forests. Therefore it is nothing like LA.
A bigger problem is that the option to remove the software and not use it at all isn't given. So it is extortion. What would have worked better would have been a free download utility from his site that will unencrypt the files. Then at that point the user has two options - one is to pay for the license, and the other is to never run the software again. If he tries to run the software without the license again, then he'll just have to unencrypt again. This effectively makes the software useless without the license, since, you can't really save anything with it.
The problem isn't that the victim is going on the offensive against his attacker - that I actually would support. The problem is that the victim is putting in place a system the indiscimantly attacks people who fit a certain criteria - a system that is incapable of thinking things through and taking into account extenuating circumstances. For example, a trap that electrocutes someone trying to jimmy the lock of your car won't be able to detect that the person doing it is just some guy who mistook your car for his and has been trying to get his key to open the door and it doesn't quite fit. This deleting of home directories for typing in the wrong activation key is the same thing. It doesn't take into account accidents.
It's like my dislike of the Guantanamo Bay prison situation. It's not that terrorists should be treated nicely - no they should be treated very harshly - Guantanamo's too nice for them. My complaint is that by removing the right to a trial we've lost the guarantee that all the inmates are actually really terrorists, meaning that some are being treated that way while being innocent of terrorism.
No. Party one didn't necessarily steal the software. Perhaps Party One merely made a typo in the registration screen - a typo for which he'd like the program to tell him it's wrong and let him type it again.
The problem with automated anti-piracy smack-downs like this is that they are going to register false positives. Like when the MPAA assumed that seeing a file by the name of "one.mpg" meant that the file must be the song "One" by Metallica, and that it must be a song for which you don't own the legal copy on CD or tape, and then acted accordingly.
nobody watches or reads science fiction to learn about the future.
That's only because there's no such thing as THE future. There's many possible futures, and science fiction isn't any better at guessing what which one will come to be than anything else is.
Actually it doesn't matter whether it is conductive or not. The real idea is to keep it powered down while it is still wet.
There are sometimes capacitors on circuit boards.
There are sometimes batteries on circuit boards - for example to keep track of the wall clock time when the machine is off.
How do you ensure there is no risk of shorts when those two items are present?
From Ringworld Engineers, the fall of the civilization, and thus the warfare, was due to the Puppeteers' meddling (planting the virus that ate all the superconductor material that all the technology depended on.) It was not due to the actions of those living inside the ring, and therefore was outside the scope of what the Pak predicted for.
I stopped halfway through Ringworld Throne because I just couldn't figure out what was going on in the story. One thing that Niven does a lot is try to make the people in the book talk to each other realisticly. Realisticly, two people who are both well versed in a subject won't explain to each other every detail of it. They'll leave stuff out. Niven likes to use this in his dialogues, leaving the reader hanging as to what's actually going on until several pages later. For example, in Ringworld Engineers, Louis and Chmee figured out about how the puppeters started the man/kzinti wars, but never said it out loud, and so the reader never figured out what they were talking about at first. It was all spoken about obliquely, and until they confronted the puppeter with it and finally spoke their greivences aloud, you the reader had no freaking clue what was going on.
Niven would string you along until just the point where it was starting to get a little frustrating that everyone in the story knew what he was talking about, but you the reader did not, and then finally he'd let you off the hook and see the explanation.
Well, that practice is neat in small quantities. But in Ringworld Throne, it was overused, to the point where I just couldn't keep track of who was where and who had done what in some of the scenes. There were literally fight scenes where someone had hit someone, and I didn't know which was the hitter and which was the hitee. I eventually got frustrated with this and stopped.
Does Ringworld Children have the same kind of problem?
I'd rather see Integral Trees and Smoke Ring made into a movie. With today's special effects, it could be done, and they work better as standalone stories. Especially Integral Trees, because when the book starts the main characters don't know much about the world, and they (and the reader) learn it as they travel - they learn more of the history of how the people got there, and they learn about more of the complex societies and complex critters in the ring. That's a perfect way to introduce the setting to the movie viewer, as it avoids the SF "narrator info-dump" problem.
The statement was not that men think differently than women. It was that ENGINEERS think differently than women. That only makes sense if female engineers don't exist.
It wasn't comparing men versus women. It was comparing engineers versus women, as if being a woman and being an engineer are mutually exclusive conditions. Now see the problem?
Oxymoron. The very notion of trolling, of wanting to be percieved as an idiot on purpose, is hardly brilliant. If you want to troll (pretend to be a moron by saying things you know are false just to get a rise out of people), then save your effort, you already are a moron for even wanting that.
Trying to parse your sentence is like trying to read Lisp without a paren-matching editor.
Your sentence is as confusing as Bilbo Baggins' parting speech at his birthday party.
What makes it sexist is that it contains the implication that thinking like a woman is something distinctly different from thinking like an engineer, and that would mean no women engineers.
Considering that cooking is very chemistry based
Given the order in which the human race discovered them, I'd say that it's the other way around. Chemistry is very cooking-based.
Banannas have varying diameter. If what you need is a certain volume of bananna, then a length measurement by itself doesn't work. Mushing up the bananna into a measuring cup does.
(Now, if the recipie wanted slices of bananna, and asked for them in cups, then yeah, that would be stupid.)
While your observations about cooking being an art are true, its irrelevant to the question at hand because writing out the recipie the traditional way (as a list of instructions) is just as likely to result in a bland un-artistic result as writing it out in the chart form. In either case the cook who follows the program unerringly like a robot is not doing art.
Using the chart does nothing to remove the artisitc nature, any more so than writing it as a list of instructions in terse prose does.
I have no qualms about a fucking liar claiming I'm trolling.
The point you're missing is that you keep using examples where the majority actually do not want the third party to come to power. You even say so explicitly here. Well, duh, if that was what everybody wants, then the voting method that *fails* to give them that would be the one that is broken, not the one that *does* give them that.
you may well end up with a situation where the majority of the populace prefers the Rep to the Dem, but the Dem wins.
When there are more than two parties with a signifigant following, it is entirely possible to win with less than the majority, and there is nothing broken about that in the slightest. If the majority had a huge problem with the Dems being in power, they should have ranked their choices that way. In your example, they are explicitly stating they *do* prefer the Dems over the Libs, so there is nothing bad about that.
If people really don't want more choices, then the failure doesn't lay with the voting system, it lays with the people.
Republicans are more comfortable with mainstream Democrats than with Libertarians, who are too... radical for their tastes.
If this is true, it would mean that the alleged problem you speak of is not a problem. It's the hypothetical system giving the hypothetical voters precisely what they want. The problem is that the voters don't want what the Libertarians want them to want.
The proof is in the pudding, however, and the pudding in Australia, which isn't a republic, so its example is not related to how it would work in the US.
Your post contained good examples of what I was talking about - cases wehre the OS is monolithic, even though the kernel inside it is not. If you were trying to counter my point, you failed.
What were the lightcycles, then? Hand-drawn cartoons? What was the big sailship? What were the walking blocks?
To render your statement into a true one, insert the word "exclusively": Tron did not EXCLUSIVELY use CG.