"(a) A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent."
SCO has been trying to get around this since 2003. The APA contains no such language that the Unix copyrights were ever transfered to SCO from Novell, much to SCO's dismay.
An EULA is not a contract. It is not a conveyance of copyright signed by the ticket holder/owner of the photographs. The BMO cannot own your photographs simply because you bought a ticket. The BMO (not me) is making nice, because I think someone told them they don't have a leg to stand on.
If you have a 25 percent probability that your edit will be reverted, why bother? Coupled with abuse of the "notability" concept for new articles, Wikipedia has gone from "the encyclopedia of everything that everyone can edit" to the "encyclopedia of things we like and some people may edit."
That is *taken out of context* and the wording is *may* not *will*.
There is a subtle, but important difference. The student needs to meet *all* of the requirements. And to take it as a "selling point," means ignoring the overall tone of the whole PDF, which isn't a sales brochure, but rather a FAQ.
This summary is going down the Fox News path of "news." It is needlessly inflammatory. If it was an actual "sales brochure" denigrating the hiring of Legal Residents and Citizens over foreign students, then the summary would be accurate. But it's not. Instead, it's something out of the Daily Mail or Fox.
Rupert Murdoch's reach seems to extend even to Slashdot.
Since Brown is literally up the road from me, I decided to click on Brown's PDF first, and then the others. I thought maybe there was a breaking story I could submit to the Providence Journal so they could get the whole state of Rhode Island up in arms.
The summary doesn't match the language of the PDFs in the least.
I don't have enough middle fingers for this summary. It's massive troll.
Unless exempted by a tax treaty, F-1 and J-1 students earning income under practical training are subject to applicable federal, state, and local income taxes. Information on tax treaties may be found in Internal Revenue Services Publication 519, U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens, and 901, U.S. Tax Treaties. Generally, F-1 and J-1 students are exempted from Social Security and Medicare tax requirements. However, if F-1 and J-1 students are considered resident aliens for income tax purposes, Social Security and Medicare taxes should be withheld. Chapter 1 of Internal Revenue Services Publication 519, U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens explains how to determine the residency status of international students. More information on Social Security and Medicare taxes can be found in Chapter 8 of Internal Revenue Services Publication 519, U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens and in Section 940 of Social Security Administration Publication No. 65-008, Social Security Handbook.
Does that sound like employers can avoid taxes by hiring foreign students? I don't think so, Bob.
This is a big whiny piece about how poor poor kleptocrats can't use GPLed code without giving back. Well, don't use it. Duh. There's no shortage of proprietary code.
And then it ends the article with the old fragmentation canard.
I expected to see Dan "Lyin'" Lyons in the byline.
>they're still being taught that the earth is billions or trillions of years old, and there's no reason for that in the science classroom.
Then there is nothing more to say here, because you have betrayed yourself as a Young-Earther. Young Earthers are going on the assumption that tracing the "begats" led to an age of the Earth. It is not scientific argument that you are trying to refute the established age of the Earth with, but rather an the questionable logic of an archbishop with a quill pen 350 years ago.
Young Earthers are ignoring the much larger picture that God created more than the Bible. That is nearly the literal definition of "blinkered" that I mentioned in my first post on this topic. Oh well.
>As far as usefulness goes, its main service is that it would allow Christian parents to send their kids to public school without them coming home and telling mom & dad how they learned in science class that the Bible is wrong."
Then those are pretty poor parents, aren't they? Threatened so by science. If scientific theory can so shake one's faith, then that faith wasn't very strong to begin with, was it? I keep saying it, and it keeps flying over your head: The Bible Isn't About Science. It's About Something Else Entirely.
From your other message:
>You can teach science, genetics even, without using evolution at all
Evolution and genetics go hand-in-hand. You cannot have one without the other.
>and we're going to also try to teach them (elementary students) about natural selection?!
I didn't hit natural selection until 9'th grade biology. I suspect it's still that way. And since ID and Creationism is not science, it does not belong in a science classroom at all. If we are going to teach religious concepts in public school, then they are not to be taught as science. A comparative religion class is fine. Include all of the various genesis stories of the major religions and their basic philosophies and treat each one with the same respect.
The only reason you should accept ID is if you believe in the Young Earth...er... tale.
If the Earth is only 6,000 years old, or even 100 times that much, I would have problems with natural selection being the driving force.
However, there is no evidence for a young Earth, and a lot of evidence for a very old one.
>it's basically Creationism without teeth
It's not science. It's not faith. I have looked at it and found it wanting.
It's a lot of half-truths. And to quote Wiley's Non Sequitur: "Daddy, what's a half-truth?" "It's a whole lie."
>Even if this did qualify as a theory,
See, you're starting to understand what makes a theory instead of some fuzzy claim. The phrase "just a theory" is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a theory is.
>before I can understand adaptations such as antibiotic resistance.
That's reasonable. Maybe you should look. But I'll give a thumnail sketch here anyway. Antibiotics kill bacteria. Sometimes not all. The ones not killed are able to reproduce. Over time, as you kill off the "weaker" bacteria, you are selecting for the bacteria that simply laugh at the antibiotics. This is why MRSA is an abbreviation for Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus - it is resistant (nay, impervious now) to Methicillin. This is the result of doctors giving out antibiotics willy-nilly over the past 50 years to shut up a patients that have a cold or flu, and why giving antibiotics to cattle as a part of their feed frightens the hell out of health experts.
This is selection done by humans. Us. We have selected for strong bacteria through our own chump moves in a remarkably short period of time.
Nature does the same thing, but over spans of time not comprehensible to a lot of people.
>ID isn't a very useful theory
Then you should explore why that is, and question those who push it and why they push it. God made thinking creatures for a reason.
>I happen to believe it's the truth, which would mean that God must have told Abraham at some point
This is circular logic and therefore not a scientific (in the logical sense) way of explaining anything.
>it didn't say he definitely never would/will.
Then why take it that way? Because someone told you? Based on what? Why invent a concept out of whole cloth based on the end of that sentence? God was very busy in the Old Testament, bringing plagues, burning bushes, wrestling, nuking cities, parting seas, and whatnot. He certainly stopped resting after a time, didn't He?
>Um, maybe we're on different pages here, but a theory is basically an explanation.
No. It's more than that. Much more. What you've described is not even a hypothesis, which is an educated guess.
For example, I could say that there's a dragon in my garage. I can explain that you don't see him because he's invisible. No, don't try sprinkling powder on the floor to see if he makes footprints - he levitates. Oh yeah, and did I mention he's interdimensional? Trying to spray him with the hose will only get the back wall of the garage wet. But he exists. I assure you. Take my word.
That is an explanation. It's not a theory. It's not even a good hypothesis. It's untestable. It's unscientific. It doesn't use anything but its own faulty internal logic to explain itself.
Theories are testable. Fantasies are not. ID does not make any predictions. Evolution does. And some of us become the victims of it, like me and my MRSA infection two years ago. And before you bring in "well, evolution isn't settled even in scientific circles," the debate is not whether natural selection exists or not, but whether punctuated equilibrium (Gould) or gradualism (Darwin, Dawkins) holds.
>make ID proponents look stupid:
The leaders of ID have done all that by themselves. They didn't need my help.
First you tell me that I am correct in that the Bible is not a science text, and then you say this:
>God told him how he'd created the universe.
He did no such thing. If God did, and Abraham wrote it down, then that would make Genesis *the definitive* science text. But we see no evidence of that. Instead, we see a few sentences that are not descriptive at all.
>God doesn't create anymore.
CITATION NEEDED
How do you know? This is exactly what I'm talking about. How the HECK do YOU know what God does or doesn't do?
Eh? What makes you so SPECIAL?
>(not "proves" it; no theory is ever proved or else it'll become a law)
And lastly, this is where you make the biggest mistake - not using the accepted definition of what a theory is, just your own special definition that holds no weight in the real world, thus making any debate with you an exercise in futility.
It also contradicts the omnipotence of God, should he exist.
I have begun asking these questions of certain Fundies: "Who are *you* to tell God what tools he can and cannot use? God created the Universe and everything in it; the quasars, black holes, galaxies, moons, planets, Earth and even the fossils in the ground. If one of God's tools is evolution, then aren't you committing the sin of hubris by saying it's impossible? You know better than God? Who are you to tell me to deny the plainly evident existence of God's tools like physics, emergent behavior, and evolution?"
It also contradicts Genesis itself. In Genesis, God wanted Adam to look around and appreciate His work. These guys say you shouldn't and that Science is BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD and you will go to HELL and burn for ETERNITY for doing the same.
Groups like this do not offer enlightenment. They only offer a worldview that is blinkered and niggardly.
What you're missing is that the Unabridged dictionary in the local library isn't NC17 and has all the "bad words" that led Apple to refuse the app. Anyone can use it as long as they can turn a page or read. No, wait, I take that back. If you cannot do either, any librarian will help you if you are visually or physically disabled regardless of age.
Also, you can browse the Urban Dictionary from any iPhone, as it is on the web.
I find it disheartening that anyone would classify a whole dictionary as "adult only" because it contains the word "screw"
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html
"(a) A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent."
SCO has been trying to get around this since 2003. The APA contains no such language that the Unix copyrights were ever transfered to SCO from Novell, much to SCO's dismay.
An EULA is not a contract. It is not a conveyance of copyright signed by the ticket holder/owner of the photographs. The BMO cannot own your photographs simply because you bought a ticket. The BMO (not me) is making nice, because I think someone told them they don't have a leg to stand on.
--
BMO
If you have a 25 percent probability that your edit will be reverted, why bother? Coupled with abuse of the "notability" concept for new articles, Wikipedia has gone from "the encyclopedia of everything that everyone can edit" to the "encyclopedia of things we like and some people may edit."
--
BMO
That is *taken out of context* and the wording is *may* not *will*.
There is a subtle, but important difference. The student needs to meet *all* of the requirements. And to take it as a "selling point," means ignoring the overall tone of the whole PDF, which isn't a sales brochure, but rather a FAQ.
This summary is going down the Fox News path of "news." It is needlessly inflammatory. If it was an actual "sales brochure" denigrating the hiring of Legal Residents and Citizens over foreign students, then the summary would be accurate. But it's not. Instead, it's something out of the Daily Mail or Fox.
Rupert Murdoch's reach seems to extend even to Slashdot.
--
BMO
Since Brown is literally up the road from me, I decided to click on Brown's PDF first, and then the others. I thought maybe there was a breaking story I could submit to the Providence Journal so they could get the whole state of Rhode Island up in arms.
The summary doesn't match the language of the PDFs in the least.
I don't have enough middle fingers for this summary. It's massive troll.
Does that sound like employers can avoid taxes by hiring foreign students? I don't think so, Bob.
--
BMO
I've been using this since 1986. Do I get to sue BMO?
--
BMO
Fer crissakes.
This is a big whiny piece about how poor poor kleptocrats can't use GPLed code without giving back. Well, don't use it. Duh. There's no shortage of proprietary code.
And then it ends the article with the old fragmentation canard.
I expected to see Dan "Lyin'" Lyons in the byline.
Yellow journalism, anyone?
"Fair and Balanced"
--
BMO
>they're still being taught that the earth is billions or trillions of years old, and there's no reason for that in the science classroom.
Then there is nothing more to say here, because you have betrayed yourself as a Young-Earther. Young Earthers are going on the assumption that tracing the "begats" led to an age of the Earth. It is not scientific argument that you are trying to refute the established age of the Earth with, but rather an the questionable logic of an archbishop with a quill pen 350 years ago.
Young Earthers are ignoring the much larger picture that God created more than the Bible. That is nearly the literal definition of "blinkered" that I mentioned in my first post on this topic. Oh well.
Have a good life.
--
BMO
> descending from the mountain to enlighten us?
Moses and the Ten Vocabulary Words.
Yes, I'm going to hell.
--
BMO
>As far as usefulness goes, its main service is that it would allow Christian parents to send their kids to public school without them coming home and telling mom & dad how they learned in science class that the Bible is wrong."
Then those are pretty poor parents, aren't they? Threatened so by science. If scientific theory can so shake one's faith, then that faith wasn't very strong to begin with, was it? I keep saying it, and it keeps flying over your head: The Bible Isn't About Science. It's About Something Else Entirely.
From your other message:
>You can teach science, genetics even, without using evolution at all
Evolution and genetics go hand-in-hand. You cannot have one without the other.
>and we're going to also try to teach them (elementary students) about natural selection?!
I didn't hit natural selection until 9'th grade biology. I suspect it's still that way. And since ID and Creationism is not science, it does not belong in a science classroom at all. If we are going to teach religious concepts in public school, then they are not to be taught as science. A comparative religion class is fine. Include all of the various genesis stories of the major religions and their basic philosophies and treat each one with the same respect.
That would be fair.
--
BMO
The only reason you should accept ID is if you believe in the Young Earth ...er... tale.
If the Earth is only 6,000 years old, or even 100 times that much, I would have problems with natural selection being the driving force.
However, there is no evidence for a young Earth, and a lot of evidence for a very old one.
>it's basically Creationism without teeth
It's not science. It's not faith. I have looked at it and found it wanting.
It's a lot of half-truths. And to quote Wiley's Non Sequitur: "Daddy, what's a half-truth?" "It's a whole lie."
>Even if this did qualify as a theory,
See, you're starting to understand what makes a theory instead of some fuzzy claim. The phrase "just a theory" is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a theory is.
>before I can understand adaptations such as antibiotic resistance.
That's reasonable. Maybe you should look. But I'll give a thumnail sketch here anyway. Antibiotics kill bacteria. Sometimes not all. The ones not killed are able to reproduce. Over time, as you kill off the "weaker" bacteria, you are selecting for the bacteria that simply laugh at the antibiotics. This is why MRSA is an abbreviation for Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus - it is resistant (nay, impervious now) to Methicillin. This is the result of doctors giving out antibiotics willy-nilly over the past 50 years to shut up a patients that have a cold or flu, and why giving antibiotics to cattle as a part of their feed frightens the hell out of health experts.
This is selection done by humans. Us. We have selected for strong bacteria through our own chump moves in a remarkably short period of time.
Nature does the same thing, but over spans of time not comprehensible to a lot of people.
>ID isn't a very useful theory
Then you should explore why that is, and question those who push it and why they push it. God made thinking creatures for a reason.
"Prove all things"
--
BMO
I could have gone there, but I decided not to. Such arguments roll off of fundies like water off a duck's back.
The hubris argument, however, makes some of them think.
--
BMO
>I happen to believe it's the truth, which would mean that God must have told Abraham at some point
This is circular logic and therefore not a scientific (in the logical sense) way of explaining anything.
>it didn't say he definitely never would/will.
Then why take it that way? Because someone told you? Based on what? Why invent a concept out of whole cloth based on the end of that sentence? God was very busy in the Old Testament, bringing plagues, burning bushes, wrestling, nuking cities, parting seas, and whatnot. He certainly stopped resting after a time, didn't He?
>Um, maybe we're on different pages here, but a theory is basically an explanation.
No. It's more than that. Much more. What you've described is not even a hypothesis, which is an educated guess.
For example, I could say that there's a dragon in my garage. I can explain that you don't see him because he's invisible. No, don't try sprinkling powder on the floor to see if he makes footprints - he levitates. Oh yeah, and did I mention he's interdimensional? Trying to spray him with the hose will only get the back wall of the garage wet. But he exists. I assure you. Take my word.
That is an explanation. It's not a theory. It's not even a good hypothesis. It's untestable. It's unscientific. It doesn't use anything but its own faulty internal logic to explain itself.
Theories are testable. Fantasies are not. ID does not make any predictions. Evolution does. And some of us become the victims of it, like me and my MRSA infection two years ago. And before you bring in "well, evolution isn't settled even in scientific circles," the debate is not whether natural selection exists or not, but whether punctuated equilibrium (Gould) or gradualism (Darwin, Dawkins) holds.
>make ID proponents look stupid:
The leaders of ID have done all that by themselves. They didn't need my help.
--
BMO
First you tell me that I am correct in that the Bible is not a science text, and then you say this:
>God told him how he'd created the universe.
He did no such thing. If God did, and Abraham wrote it down, then that would make Genesis *the definitive* science text. But we see no evidence of that. Instead, we see a few sentences that are not descriptive at all.
>God doesn't create anymore.
CITATION NEEDED
How do you know? This is exactly what I'm talking about. How the HECK do YOU know what God does or doesn't do?
Eh? What makes you so SPECIAL?
>(not "proves" it; no theory is ever proved or else it'll become a law)
And lastly, this is where you make the biggest mistake - not using the accepted definition of what a theory is, just your own special definition that holds no weight in the real world, thus making any debate with you an exercise in futility.
--
BMO
>but he claims he didn't
The Bible doesn't say anything about what we know to be facts about the Universe. It doesn't mean those facts don't exist.
The Bible, and especially the Hebrew Bible is not a science text, in case you haven't noticed.
>creation safaris.
So what you're saying is that looking is fine just as long as you don't look too closely.
Nice. So who made up that rule? It's not in *my* Bible.
1 Thess 1:25, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good"
ID is worse than pure creationism. It is taking an allegory and dressing it up in intellectual dishonesty.
--
BMO
>it contradicts reality.
It also contradicts the omnipotence of God, should he exist.
I have begun asking these questions of certain Fundies: "Who are *you* to tell God what tools he can and cannot use? God created the Universe and everything in it; the quasars, black holes, galaxies, moons, planets, Earth and even the fossils in the ground. If one of God's tools is evolution, then aren't you committing the sin of hubris by saying it's impossible? You know better than God? Who are you to tell me to deny the plainly evident existence of God's tools like physics, emergent behavior, and evolution?"
It also contradicts Genesis itself. In Genesis, God wanted Adam to look around and appreciate His work. These guys say you shouldn't and that Science is BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD and you will go to HELL and burn for ETERNITY for doing the same.
Groups like this do not offer enlightenment. They only offer a worldview that is blinkered and niggardly.
--
BMO
Nice false dichotomy there.
There is a difference between putting parental controls on dictionaries and on places like 4chan.
--
BMO
To follow up on myself:
In my elementary school, there was a big unabridged dictionary ready for use by anyone,
In my local 3 room public library, the unabridged dictionary was in the Children's/Young Adult room.
In the local library down the road from me, the unabridged dictionary is in the Reference section and does not have a giant "NC17" sign on it.
In Apple's world, there would be armed guards around all three.
Pure bloody-mindedness.
--
BMO
What you're missing is that the Unabridged dictionary in the local library isn't NC17 and has all the "bad words" that led Apple to refuse the app. Anyone can use it as long as they can turn a page or read. No, wait, I take that back. If you cannot do either, any librarian will help you if you are visually or physically disabled regardless of age.
Also, you can browse the Urban Dictionary from any iPhone, as it is on the web.
I find it disheartening that anyone would classify a whole dictionary as "adult only" because it contains the word "screw"
--
BMO
Parental controls for dictionaries is stupid on its face.
Yes, just what we need, parents denying the use of dictionaries to their children.
Good troll. 10/10 Would Rage Again.
--
BMO
There is already grit mixed in with Arctic Silver. Large enough to feel.
What I'm wondering about is whether this stuff is any different than using readily available diamond compound from MSC for 15 bucks a 5gm syringe.
http://www1.mscdirect.com/CGI/GSDRVSM?PACACHE=000000104110495
--
BMO
The Open Source For Windows project
http://osswin.sourceforge.net/
And while the Open Source CD project is dead, it looks like there's an alternative.
http://www.ttcsweb.org/osswin-cd/
Now if only Windows had Debian style repositories.
--
BMO
Well, I tried.
Thanks for the compliment.
Sure is /k/ in here.
--
BMO
Linux is anything from a little single shot Derringer to a 30 mm GAU-8/A Avenger Gatling gun at 4200 rounds per minute.
OSX is clearly stamped down the side "Desert Eagle point five oh"
And Windows has "'Replica' written down the side"
--
BMO
XYY defense:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/XYY+Chromosomal+Abnormality+Defense
I suspect that this will have all the same weight in a courtroom: little to none.
--
BMO
Emacs is merely a TECO macro.
Given enough random characters and memory space, TECO can simulate the human brain.
--
BMO