Actually, no, I did not confuse them. Freedom of speech was historically considered to only appy to -- get this -- speech, not expression in other media than the spoken word. And freedom of the press did not mean "freedom of the people in the profession of reporting the news", but the freedom to use a printing press to express ideas.
Since other people in this very discussion were confusing the two different concepts that have gone under the name of "freedom of the press", I was merely pointing out that Reporters without Frontiers was using the more recent definition, not the older, traditional definition.
We should be saying "We are great, but we can obviously improve!" -- not "We suck, I want to move!", and certainly not "This report is biased against us!"
Er, did you actually, you know, read my post?
My point wasn't that it was biased, but that it wasn't measuring freedom of publication, which is what is usually meant by "freedom of the press". The U.S. was ranked lower not because it imprisoned reporters for what they wrote, but for actions that are illegal for everyone.
If you think that reporters should have greater legal privileges than the general public, this is a relevant guide to action. If you think that a "reporter" shouldn't have any more rights than Joe Blow, then this still isn't biased, it's merely irrelevant.
And, what's with this "we" and "us" crap? What are you doing assuming that I'm USian because I'm pointing out what the article means by "freedom of the press"?
Canada (#5), recently detained a shipment of pamphlets entiled "In Moral Defense of Israel", to examine them if their content was such that they could be legally imported. The French just tried (and acquitted, true) a man for being uncomplimentary to Islam. And Costa Rica (#15) only "ceased to . . . give prison sentences to those found guilty of 'insulting' public officials" eight months ago.
If we then read why the U.S. is ranked low (not allowing those with knowledge of a crime hide that knowledge even if they are "legitimate reporters", and not allowing people to go behind security lines even if they are "legitimate reporters"), it becomes obvious that what this site means by "freedom of the press" is not freedom of publication (which is the meaning of freedom of the press as used in international human rights treaties), but rather how far the society caters to members of the Fourth Estate.
It was, of course, the makeup budget changing that made the change happen in the real world. But as far as the Trek Universe goes, the following items have to be explained:
1) In Enterprise, a century before TOS, Klingons were fully brow-ridged.
2) In TOS, Klingons looked like humans
3) TNG Klingons had full brow ridges
4) In DS9, we met some Klingons who had encountered Kirk. While looking like humans during TOS, they now had full ridges.
5) Trials & Tribble-ations [DS9] established that the TOS Klingons do not resemble TNG klingons.
In short, the phenotype of the Klingon race changed between 2160 and 2260; it changed back shortly after 2269 -- and this second change (at least) affected specific, individual Klingons whose appearances changed from the TOS appearance to the TNG one.
Most STU theories do not explain all five points . The hybrid and faction theories are completely refuted by #4. The argument that we're supposed to pretend that Klingons always looked like TNG Klingons is crushed by #5 making a point of it instead of ignoring it.
Alternative explanations are, of course, possible, (A Q or other superbeing making a joke/inflicting a punishment? A body-altering biological agent of some sort?) but none has been officially established.
The sharholders are the owners of the corpoiration. Accordingly, the law states that memebers of the Board and corporate officers have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the shareholders. They may be sued by the shareholders for failure to do so, and moderately frequently are.
And it is utterly ridiculous. Congress can outlaw any ICANN policy at any time (modulo Constitutional restrictions), and put enough pressure on the California-incorporated ICANN and on U.S.-based registries, registrars, ISPs, and other groups to make it stick.
Yes. RMS never details the logical consequences of the concepts that he uses to attack non-Free software, and never defends those concepts; as a consequence, his propaganda (and I don't mean that derisively, but merely descriptively) is reasonable-sounding. Just don't mistake that propaganda for an actual examination of the issue.
For example, in addressing the concept of natural rights to intellectual property, he implicity presents Rawls's theory of property, never even addressing Lockean natural property rights theory -- in a section on natural rights! Dealing with Locke isn't necessary for his overall point; Locke personally rejected copyright as a government monopoly instead of a right. And it is well within the bounds of reasonablility to reject Locke and accept Rawls.
But dismissing "natural rights" not by pointing out any fallacy in the theory, but merely by assuming that any theory other than Rawls's is ridiculous, isn't the mark of a serious or deep thinker addressing an issue. It's the mark of a propagandist trying to win you over.
Nothing wrong with that; most people couldn't follow a serious discussion of property theory to save their lives, and you need to convince those people, too. Just remember to read him with your eyes open.
1) The Canadian farmer had investigated Roundup-Ready crops, and decided that they cost too much.
2) The Canadian farmer planted a field, and used Roundup as his sole means of weed control, which would have killed any non-Roundup-Ready plants. He still managed to bring in a full crop, which means that his entire field was Roundup-Ready and, because only a total moron would spray something that would kill his crop, the farmer knew it was Roundup-Ready.
3) The farmer used seeds from the crop to plant the next year's crop, and used Roundup alone again.
4) Monsanto sued him
5) The Canadian farmer claimed in court that he didn't acquire the seed illegally, but that it must have been seed that fell off the truck.
6) The Canadian courts ruled that even in the incredibly unlikely event that the farmer's entire field was accidentally planted with Roundup-Ready seed, #2 proved he knew he was growing a Roundup-Ready crop and #1 established that he knew that he was violating Monsanto's patent when he planted the seed the next year.
In short, the farmer was lying through his teeth, the court knew it, and the court smacked him down.
In summary, back six years ago, there was a long-distance provider operating in Texas, KT&T Communications, registered under the names "I Don't Know", "I Don't Care", and "It Doesn't Matter".
Frankly, it's unlikely that anybody was tricked, because the operator would, like in the quoted story, ask if you were sure. But you don't need to trick them, you just need the caller-who-doesn't-care to respond to the operator with "just put me through" or "why not" or "sure".
Nothing that's going to translate to a lot of money even at 60% higher than AT&T rates, but it's a bit of buisness that doesn't require advertising to get.
1) Shut down the shuttle program, except one mission a year to keep a corps of experienced astronauts and maintain Hubble.
2) Cut off the ISS. Tell the Europeans and Japan that they can have full ownership if they want it, but we're not doing it anymore. Offer them something as a diplomatic thank-you for going along with the boondoggle.
3) Develop the "Shuttle-C" -- a heavy launch system using the main fuel tank, solid rocket boosters, and shuttle main engines, but not the orbiter itself.
4) Increase the unmanned missions budget fivefold.
5) Maintain whatever parts of NASA are needed for unmanned commercial and military satellite launches.
5) Spend everything else on the following three items: a real, single-piece space station able to do science from the date of launch on the Shuttle-C; a DC-X-based shuttle replacement; and developing a Mars mission to launch within ten years.
If NASA had been willing to accept the "Shuttle-C launcher and single-piece space station" plan, we'd have a more capable space station, a heavy-lift launcher design, and have spent less money.
On the other hand, we wouldn't have had dozens of ISS building launches to justify launching seven astronauts at a time 160 miles up, protecting NASA bureaucratic turf.
Congress may not give NASA as much money as would be ideal, but NASA manages to waste what it's given anyway.
Don't blame the budget-pinchers alone for the lack of unmanned derivatives. It was NASA itself that fought against developing the orbiterless "Shuttle-C" heavy launch platform in the early '90s. After all, with such a platform, we could have put an Earth-built space station up in one throw, instead of in dozens of manned-mission construction launches, which would have reduced the budgets and influence of the NASA bureaucrats.
The launch proceedures, launchpads, rocket designs, etc. are all decades old technology. None of that qualifies as "anything ground-breaking lately".
The satellites themselves are designed under military and intelligence agency contracts that have nothing to do with NASA. Those don't qualify as NASA doing anything. NASA was merely a delivery service.
If NASA wasn't there, the Air Force would have to build a launchpad and buy some Titans from Lockheed, sure. But the Air Force would like to take full control of military and intelligence space launches anyway. It's not like it would have materially affected the satellites getting there if NASA had been closed down back in 1975.
Crediting the Hyperwar technology to NASA is like giving UPS or FedEx credit for an Athlon they delivered.
Re:No, this is not about W3C staff wanting RAND sp
on
W3C Ponders RAND Again
·
· Score: 2
If it's valuable enough to the community as a whole standardize, it's too valuable to be sealed off behind the RAND wall. If it is inessential enough to be behind a RAND wall, it is inessential enough not to be an W3C-endorsed extension to a standard.
Or another way: if it's important enough that companies should have RAND access to it, it's important enough that the open-source developers have RAND access to it. And for open source software, "reasonable and non-discriminatory" means GPL-able, which means free and unlimited distribution and development.
Sure. Adopting either replacement system (metric or "new metric" Planck) is changing the measurement system to match our base-10 number system. At least Planck-based "new metric" units do the job more consistently than SI units.
And even if we went with powers-of-two on the grounds that it's less arbitrary since the universe has lot of polarity/duality to it, scaling the units to something useful for humans is arbitrary, too.
The reason that carbon-12 has an integral number of atomic mass units is that the AMU is defined in terms of the isotope Carbon-12, instead of being the mass of any actual subatomic particle. Protons are 1.0072766 AMU, neutrons are 1.0086654 AMU.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, no, I did not confuse them. Freedom of speech was historically considered to only appy to -- get this -- speech, not expression in other media than the spoken word. And freedom of the press did not mean "freedom of the people in the profession of reporting the news", but the freedom to use a printing press to express ideas.
Since other people in this very discussion were confusing the two different concepts that have gone under the name of "freedom of the press", I was merely pointing out that Reporters without Frontiers was using the more recent definition, not the older, traditional definition.
We should be saying "We are great, but we can obviously improve!" -- not "We suck, I want to move!", and certainly not "This report is biased against us!"
Er, did you actually, you know, read my post?
My point wasn't that it was biased, but that it wasn't measuring freedom of publication, which is what is usually meant by "freedom of the press". The U.S. was ranked lower not because it imprisoned reporters for what they wrote, but for actions that are illegal for everyone.
If you think that reporters should have greater legal privileges than the general public, this is a relevant guide to action. If you think that a "reporter" shouldn't have any more rights than Joe Blow, then this still isn't biased, it's merely irrelevant.
And, what's with this "we" and "us" crap? What are you doing assuming that I'm USian because I'm pointing out what the article means by "freedom of the press"?
Canada (#5), recently detained a shipment of pamphlets entiled "In Moral Defense of Israel", to examine them if their content was such that they could be legally imported. The French just tried (and acquitted, true) a man for being uncomplimentary to Islam. And Costa Rica (#15) only "ceased to . . . give prison sentences to those found guilty of 'insulting' public officials" eight months ago.
If we then read why the U.S. is ranked low (not allowing those with knowledge of a crime hide that knowledge even if they are "legitimate reporters", and not allowing people to go behind security lines even if they are "legitimate reporters"), it becomes obvious that what this site means by "freedom of the press" is not freedom of publication (which is the meaning of freedom of the press as used in international human rights treaties), but rather how far the society caters to members of the Fourth Estate.
Opus Dei were alleged to have been involved in the murder of John Paul I
And Hillary Clinton was alleged to have been involved in Vincent Foster's murder with the same degree of reliable evidence.
Really, you should switch your handle from kubrick to stone.
Same here.
The monitor is a pretty big exception. Tell me, do *you* have room on your desk for both an i/eMac and another monitor?
Er, that is, the Oklo natural reactor.
Actually, there's a place in Gabon where plutonium was created naturally and on Earth two billion years ago -- the .
So, you want K Meleon. Okay, it's coming.
It was, of course, the makeup budget changing that made the change happen in the real world. But as far as the Trek Universe goes, the following items have to be explained:
1) In Enterprise, a century before TOS, Klingons were fully brow-ridged.
2) In TOS, Klingons looked like humans
3) TNG Klingons had full brow ridges
4) In DS9, we met some Klingons who had encountered Kirk. While looking like humans during TOS, they now had full ridges.
5) Trials & Tribble-ations [DS9] established that the TOS Klingons do not resemble TNG klingons.
In short, the phenotype of the Klingon race changed between 2160 and 2260; it changed back shortly after 2269 -- and this second change (at least) affected specific, individual Klingons whose appearances changed from the TOS appearance to the TNG one.
Most STU theories do not explain all five points . The hybrid and faction theories are completely refuted by #4. The argument that we're supposed to pretend that Klingons always looked like TNG Klingons is crushed by #5 making a point of it instead of ignoring it.
Alternative explanations are, of course, possible, (A Q or other superbeing making a joke/inflicting a punishment? A body-altering biological agent of some sort?) but none has been officially established.
The sharholders are the owners of the corpoiration. Accordingly, the law states that memebers of the Board and corporate officers have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the shareholders. They may be sued by the shareholders for failure to do so, and moderately frequently are.
IANAL
And it is utterly ridiculous. Congress can outlaw any ICANN policy at any time (modulo Constitutional restrictions), and put enough pressure on the California-incorporated ICANN and on U.S.-based registries, registrars, ISPs, and other groups to make it stick.
Grandfather clause. If you already had a 1-letter name when the no-1-letter rule was passed, you got to keep it.
Yes. RMS never details the logical consequences of the concepts that he uses to attack non-Free software, and never defends those concepts; as a consequence, his propaganda (and I don't mean that derisively, but merely descriptively) is reasonable-sounding. Just don't mistake that propaganda for an actual examination of the issue.
For example, in addressing the concept of natural rights to intellectual property, he implicity presents Rawls's theory of property, never even addressing Lockean natural property rights theory -- in a section on natural rights! Dealing with Locke isn't necessary for his overall point; Locke personally rejected copyright as a government monopoly instead of a right. And it is well within the bounds of reasonablility to reject Locke and accept Rawls.
But dismissing "natural rights" not by pointing out any fallacy in the theory, but merely by assuming that any theory other than Rawls's is ridiculous, isn't the mark of a serious or deep thinker addressing an issue. It's the mark of a propagandist trying to win you over.
Nothing wrong with that; most people couldn't follow a serious discussion of property theory to save their lives, and you need to convince those people, too. Just remember to read him with your eyes open.
Yes, because emailing it to yourself works so well when you are trying to reinstall the network card or modem drivers on the destination machine.
Ahem.
1) The Canadian farmer had investigated Roundup-Ready crops, and decided that they cost too much.
2) The Canadian farmer planted a field, and used Roundup as his sole means of weed control, which would have killed any non-Roundup-Ready plants. He still managed to bring in a full crop, which means that his entire field was Roundup-Ready and, because only a total moron would spray something that would kill his crop, the farmer knew it was Roundup-Ready.
3) The farmer used seeds from the crop to plant the next year's crop, and used Roundup alone again.
4) Monsanto sued him
5) The Canadian farmer claimed in court that he didn't acquire the seed illegally, but that it must have been seed that fell off the truck.
6) The Canadian courts ruled that even in the incredibly unlikely event that the farmer's entire field was accidentally planted with Roundup-Ready seed, #2 proved he knew he was growing a Roundup-Ready crop and #1 established that he knew that he was violating Monsanto's patent when he planted the seed the next year.
In short, the farmer was lying through his teeth, the court knew it, and the court smacked him down.
See
this repost of a news story.
In summary, back six years ago, there was a long-distance provider operating in Texas, KT&T Communications, registered under the names "I Don't Know", "I Don't Care", and "It Doesn't Matter".
Frankly, it's unlikely that anybody was tricked, because the operator would, like in the quoted story, ask if you were sure. But you don't need to trick them, you just need the caller-who-doesn't-care to respond to the operator with "just put me through" or "why not" or "sure".
Nothing that's going to translate to a lot of money even at 60% higher than AT&T rates, but it's a bit of buisness that doesn't require advertising to get.
NASA needs to be ripped from limb to limb, first.
1) Shut down the shuttle program, except one mission a year to keep a corps of experienced astronauts and maintain Hubble.
2) Cut off the ISS. Tell the Europeans and Japan that they can have full ownership if they want it, but we're not doing it anymore. Offer them something as a diplomatic thank-you for going along with the boondoggle.
3) Develop the "Shuttle-C" -- a heavy launch system using the main fuel tank, solid rocket boosters, and shuttle main engines, but not the orbiter itself.
4) Increase the unmanned missions budget fivefold.
5) Maintain whatever parts of NASA are needed for unmanned commercial and military satellite launches.
5) Spend everything else on the following three items: a real, single-piece space station able to do science from the date of launch on the Shuttle-C; a DC-X-based shuttle replacement; and developing a Mars mission to launch within ten years.
Okay, now triple the NASA budget.
If NASA had been willing to accept the "Shuttle-C launcher and single-piece space station" plan, we'd have a more capable space station, a heavy-lift launcher design, and have spent less money.
On the other hand, we wouldn't have had dozens of ISS building launches to justify launching seven astronauts at a time 160 miles up, protecting NASA bureaucratic turf.
Congress may not give NASA as much money as would be ideal, but NASA manages to waste what it's given anyway.
Don't blame the budget-pinchers alone for the lack of unmanned derivatives. It was NASA itself that fought against developing the orbiterless "Shuttle-C" heavy launch platform in the early '90s. After all, with such a platform, we could have put an Earth-built space station up in one throw, instead of in dozens of manned-mission construction launches, which would have reduced the budgets and influence of the NASA bureaucrats.
The launch proceedures, launchpads, rocket designs, etc. are all decades old technology. None of that qualifies as "anything ground-breaking lately".
The satellites themselves are designed under military and intelligence agency contracts that have nothing to do with NASA. Those don't qualify as NASA doing anything. NASA was merely a delivery service.
If NASA wasn't there, the Air Force would have to build a launchpad and buy some Titans from Lockheed, sure. But the Air Force would like to take full control of military and intelligence space launches anyway. It's not like it would have materially affected the satellites getting there if NASA had been closed down back in 1975.
Crediting the Hyperwar technology to NASA is like giving UPS or FedEx credit for an Athlon they delivered.
This country should be ruled by the people
Why?
If it's valuable enough to the community as a whole standardize, it's too valuable to be sealed off behind the RAND wall. If it is inessential enough to be behind a RAND wall, it is inessential enough not to be an W3C-endorsed extension to a standard.
Or another way: if it's important enough that companies should have RAND access to it, it's important enough that the open-source developers have RAND access to it. And for open source software, "reasonable and non-discriminatory" means GPL-able, which means free and unlimited distribution and development.
Sure. Adopting either replacement system (metric or "new metric" Planck) is changing the measurement system to match our base-10 number system. At least Planck-based "new metric" units do the job more consistently than SI units.
And even if we went with powers-of-two on the grounds that it's less arbitrary since the universe has lot of polarity/duality to it, scaling the units to something useful for humans is arbitrary, too.
The reason that carbon-12 has an integral number of atomic mass units is that the AMU is defined in terms of the isotope Carbon-12, instead of being the mass of any actual subatomic particle. Protons are 1.0072766 AMU, neutrons are 1.0086654 AMU.