There is no 'email' tax. A tax is something one is required to pay. Taxes are uniformly imposed charges agreed to by a recognized & responsible government entity. Qualifying senders may elect to use CertifiedEmail at their option, the same way a sender of traditional mail might elect to use Express mail or regular USPS mail. Consumers will not pay anything to send or receive email!
* FACT: Small business and non-profits will not have to pay for something that used to be free.
First of all, no one has to pay. The service is optional. First class email has not suffered with the introduction of priority and Express Mail. With CertifiedEmail there is literally no change in the ability of Internet users to participate however they desire, nor will any user incur any new charges. Optional offerings, such as CertifiedEmail, allow ISPs to provide better and better services to those who choose them, and in turn provide a higher degree of safety to their members.
* FACT: The purpose of CertifiedEmail is to identify "good" mail, not to prevent spam.
Goodmail's goal is to raise the bar on sender behavior so that messages are not second-guessed by filters and instead follow a direct path to the inbox with a visual identification that the message is good. Goodmail has never suggested CertifiedEmail is the silver bullet for all of email's ills, or that it will prevent spam from getting into the inbox.
* FACT: Spammers can not pay to reach AOL and Yahoo! email inboxes.
The Goodmail service will NOT increase the amount of spam consumers receive. CertifiedEmail messages will be delivered only from senders that have obtained prior permission from recipients. CertifiedEmail is only for permissioned email from accredited senders who must meet strict qualifying criteria and agree to Goodmail's Acceptable Use and Security Policy. Qualified, accountable organizations will use the service only to communicate with existing, "opt in" customers.
* FACT: AOL and Yahoo! will not profit from spam and phishing protection.
ISPs currently bear the full burden of addressing the spam problem. The average ISP now spends $8-12 per subscriber per year on email hygiene, an expense that can only hurt the availability of low cost internet access and free email services. While Goodmail does share an appropriate portion of the revenue from CertifiedEmail with the ISPs to help defray the high cost of fighting spam, it is only a fraction of the amount they are already spending to protect their members' inboxes.
* FACT: Goodmail will offer a generous program for non-profits.
Some non-profits, like the American Red Cross, who's brands are targets of online fraud and phishing, will choose CertifiedEmail. Those who have had no issues with fraud and are satisfied with their current practices, will not need the service. Some opponents base their rhetoric on this fear. Be assured, the service is not required to get "good" mail through. Non-profits who see the benefits of the service will be able to try the service for free throughout 2006. Beyond 2006, Goodmail will provide generous discounts to non-profits and price CertifiedEmail as low as possible yet maintain the system's integrity and security.
* FACT: Goodmail and its ISP partners will only allow legitimate, qualified senders t
Yes, but this is still less rigorous than the hiring process.
No, it's not. People lie on their resumes, their applications, lie about their skill sets, their experience. A good interviewee can cram himself full of polished answers to interviewers, and look quite good. A good lie can foil even the best of managers and HR.
Think about the motivation. People would lie, to get a job, to keep a job. Would obfsucate code, might even deliberately break it. It's in the money. 'Hiring' someone has no advantages over someone working on a non-commerical open-source project, except you can fire them. Oh wait, managers of open source projects can choose not to accept code and discontinue a person's work on a project. Just like firing someone.
I've not heard of people lying to get commit rights to open source software projects; contribution is encouraged. Both the other contributors and the read-only public can immediately tell if Joe Q Programmer's code is crappy or not. If he doesn't contribute to the desired standards, BOOT.
If we combine these two worlds, we can get commerical open-source projects. Employeers get what they want, employees get what they want, and the public can serve as the ultimate bug-finder and peer-review. And judging from the number of bugzillas, sourceforge projects and code-related security advisories with patches, I'd say it working fine.
I've setup Bitpass for a client of mine, and we're working with it on a trial basis. We're lucky to have total control over our leased server -- I had to install PHP for the BitPass gateway. We also had a mod_perl option, but the bitpass guys suggested it was a harder route.
I have some beef with how you have to set it up as an admin. In short, you have to generate a gateway file from their site and install it; then you have to register every bit of "content" (pdf, jpg, page, whatever) seperately via their site. If you change payment or content options, you need to go through the registration process all over again. I also had a number of relative path vs absolute path issues installing the gateway. The instructions didn't make clear where once was supposed to be used -- and the gateway uses BOTH relative paths and absolute paths in different places.
On the other hand, BitPass worked with my client to make sure he got the most out of the service, suggesting price changes, examing weblogs for service patterns, drafting help pages for end-users.
I'm not sold on the idea, but it may yet work. Can't fault these fellows for using PHP, either.
There's a lot that goes into the retail price -VAT, retailer's cut, distribution costs, advertising and other marketing costs, producers' fees and studio time, not to mention the artists nd songwriters who need to be paid.
The artists and songwriters are mentioned last. Why am I not surprised?
... as the 'Automatic Updates' control in Windows 2000 SP3 and beyond. It is enabled by default in SP3/SP4, and will place an icon in your taskbar when new updates are available. It won't download them until you ask it to do so.
You can set it completely off, or set it to automagically download and install updates.
I work for a large university, part of a team which is trying to produce improved methods of coating fiber-optic cables. We have a very large, very demanding program which simulates the complex pressure, thermal and radative reactions which take place inside our test chamber.
The program is written entirely in FORTRAN 77. Fortran gives us the best "bang for the buck" in terms of raw number crunching, and F77 is highly portable. We need this code to run on everything from Crays to our x86 cluster.
Until somebody writes another language that does mathematical expressions rapidly and efficently, I think we'll be using FORTRAN.
Interested in writing parallel applications in FORTRAN? http://www.epm.ornl.gov/pvm/pvm_home.html
It's sure nice to see Bubblegum Crisis get some recognition. Usually everybody talks about Tenchi or Sailor Moon or Slayers.
I think "geeks" like BGC because it has
o a grity, cyperphunk future (ala Gibson)
o cool-ass hardware
o decent plot-lines (ok, so "Scoop Chase" was awful. sue me;)
o 80's music
o cute girls
Ok, so perhaps those last two are what makes it appeal to ME. It still has a flavor quite it's own, even years after it was over. A pity it was never finished.
There's also a new BGC, called Bubblegum Crisis 2040, which uses the "alternate universe" idea. Same girls, different hair, sorta-simliar plot, much much more stories, way better animation.
Check out advfilms.com.
... is that that Palm has other uses than what it was designed for. We usually see people doing techie stuff with them, but this guy went and made some serious art with it.
If you don't think it's serious art, *YOU* try drawing a 4' x 17' piece in little segments. At least give the guy props for putting lots of work into it. Also, if you read the entire page, you'll see that he was modeling his piece after an ancient Greek style of writing. The piece itself is pretty neat, with an almost Escher-like style of one part blending into the next part to eventually transform into something else completely different.
Regardless of Napster's motivations for creating Napster, the service itself is not illegal.
The service is "legal" until the court decides that it is not legal. That's how our justice system works.
There are legitimate purposes for Napster, therefore Napster should win.
There are legitimate purposes for assault weapons, therefore everybody should have access to one. Please think these things over please; the issue is not so clear-cut.
This summer I'll be working as a research assistant for my University, setting up\securing\using a 6-node, Dual PII Beowulf cluster w/ Gigabit ethernet to do real-time chemical simulation. (Ok, I just HAD to tell people about that!)
Now I'm thinking, using 6 of these sounds like it would take much less space and be faster. What do these boards connect into? Someone mentioned a PCI backpane, what are they? Also, IIRC, PCI64 is susposed to be faster than any existing ethernet, right?
These board accept 144MB DiskOnChips, and up to 1GB of ram. Can we plug 5 of these with 500MHz Celerons into a backpane, put trimed-down linuxes onto the 144MB DOC, and have a killer Beowulf cluster?
One Spiritual(?), Religous(?) person's thoughts
on
The Mind of God
·
· Score: 1
Warning: What follows is going to offend many people. Also, I have not read this book, only the review, so you may be justified in marking this as Offtopic.
Now to the meat of this post.
Despite all the science I have heard or learned from my elementary to college education, I have never found any plausible -scientific- arguement for the "creation of the universe". One of the best tests, IMHO, is to ask, "What caused x?", where x is any cause of the creation of the universe.
But perhaps the more important question is, why are you so against a God that you discard the possibility of one? Does not a good scientist write down all hypotheses before evaluating them?
And for all the words in a book, or the discoveries that we make, how does this change your life? What have you really gained? If you continue to live your life as before, what was the use?
A confession which I am proud to make: I am a born-again Christian. I did not become one from high flung arguments or even from reading a Bible.I follow Christ because he has made a personal appearence in my life. I have tested his claims, and found them valid. I have called on his name, and heard a response.
I have discovered that God is for me, not against me.
Do you eagerly wait for the newest scientific discovery? So do I, but of even more joy and value to me is every new discovery I make about Jesus.
1GHz chips -- or 950MHz, or 850MHz for that matter -- are mainly of use to high-end gamers and some corporate users. The main benefit of the speed war to the user who wants basic Net surfing, email and gaming capabilities is that faster processors at the top-end mean more reasonably priced machines with faster chips lower down the chain.
... these companies are completely within their rights. Yes, you heard me right. I applaud the TV companies for standing up and declaring that they are not going to let us (used in a general sense) rip them off.
By rebroadcasting programming, advertising compaines were loosing money that they had paid to put up adervtisement that would be watched on regular TV. When the advertisiment comapines figure this out, they're less willing to pay for advertisement. Result, TV companies lose $$.
This exists the same way with MP3s. Who cares if it isn't "technically illgeal"? (FYI, I am not a lawyer). When you can get all the mp3's to make a CD, why would you buy CD? For CD players? Don't you or one of your friends have a CD burner? We ultimately hurt ourselves when we download & distribute illegal mp3s.
Regarding the earlier story about the music industry making more money and selling more CD's this year: Haven't you noticed, in the US, that we're in the longest sustained poistive enconmic growth in the nation's history? EVERYBODY is doing better. Hell, on my campus, the dining halls are suffer from lack of staff; everyone is taking more professional and/or higher paying jobs.
.mp3 and digital movies are not harmful; illegal (read obtained without permission from the author and/or distrubitor) mp3's are.
1) Installed from Windows? Isn't this susposed to not be a demo?
Which windows? 95\98? 2k? NT? Does it reside on the same FS? If so, we lose the kick-ass journaling filesystem BeOS uses.
Also, how the hell am I susposed to use it on my Linux (no windows) box?
(flame-suit on)
2) It's not Open Source. How do I patch a bug? Add functionality which I need? Wait for the developers to fix them? See this article for the speed at which OSS and non-OSS bugs are fixed.
(flame-suit off)
3) Licensing. (oh.. flame-suit on) I couldn't find a mention of the license for it, but I'm pretty sure it's not GPL\SCSL.
First, confessions: My knoweldge of evolution is only at a high-school level, since that is all the evolution that I have taken.
Secondly, I was hopping to provoke thought on how Hawking fits into our theories of evolution (read: THEORIES, ONLY THEORIES).
I have the essential problem of applying evolution to humans; medical technology seems to throw this all for a loop. Would Hawking lived if he had only average intelligence? Perhaps. Has medical science supported his life? Yes. [*] Is it possible, even likely, that he would have lived & had children with only average intelligence? Yes.
* The article (which I did read!) mentions that his life span was predicted as "a few years", yet he lives years longer.... some might call this a miracle... (re-read last word, ponder where miracles come from).
First of all, I agree with gwalla's comments (see first reply to AC's post). I'm also unfamilar with memes, so I can't comment on that part.
Now, to reply to the AC's comments:
In evolutionary terms, Hawking is "fit" because he has "what it takes" to survive.
Our medical technology gives us the power to sustain the lives of those who, with it, would quickly die. As was stated by someone else, Hawking did his best work AFTER his disease had set in. If we had not had this medical technology, he would have not contributed to our society, technology, etc.
My conclusion here, then, is that medical technology has lowered the evolutionary bar. Not only those who [have] traits that allow it to survive do survive; many survive. In addition to surviving, they also pass on traits: Hawking had children. These children, we hope, will be blessed with his intelligence.
Now think: That is at one person who has made great contributions, and potentially more, because of medical science. How much more would be have been enriched today if those "weak-but-smart" people of the past had survived? Or if Bethoven (sp) had full hearing?
Moving on: will explain to you that evil people like me
And me. And everybody who believes; and everybody who does not. Keep reading.
I am clearly wrong, and a sinner to boot. I'm a sinner also; so is the entire world. I'm deliberatly avoiding the fact that you are assuming a hostile tone with me, but I don't find you 'clearly wrong', but merely misinformed. I say this NOT about evolution. That is my opinion. However, you (and most of this world) are misinformed about Christians and our beliefs.
There are plenty of bad example of Christians in our world. We don't all have beliefs that completely agree (with one important exception explaining why "Christ" appears in our name), and WE are NOT perfect, nor claim to be! We have heard "the good news". Read it exactly like you see it: News (information of events that should be spread), and good (positive, beneficial, bringing of happiness).
Most the world only sees the "negative" side of Christians: The "don't do this" that God tells us (Ten Commandments and other commands). Two thoughts here: 1) Like parents setting boundries for their children, these are for our own protection. 2) You're missing the good stuff! God loved us so much that he sacraficed his own son to pay for our sins (read: turning away from God) so that we could we have a relationship with him
Seeing that I've entirely left the topic, I'm going to keep going. I hope this reaches receptive ears (oops-- eyes!).
Most people hit their "logic" wall right away, asking the questions that seem to prove there is no God. (Example: Can God make a rock so large that even He can no lift it?) Many people (recently myself included) would be surprised to find that there is strong, logical, consistent supporting evidence for God. I don't use "proof" because proof is based upon your beliefs; if you disbelive the first axiom of any proof, it falls apart.
I suggest anyone interesed, logical minded or not, pick up a copy of "The Handbook of Christian Apologetics" (Apologetics = Defending the Faith by reason) from Intervarsity Press.
Oh, the answer: If we say God is infititely powerful, then He can lifting anything; his power has no bounds. He also should be able to create anything. However, to create something that he could not lift would violate his infinite power; the rock would need to be greater than infitely large. But infinite means no "with out bound or limit". So the question becomes pointless. This is paraphrased from Apologetics; apolgies if it is not so clear.
Lastly. God isn't about empty words, bowed heads, and fluff. God is really there. I have seen him do things for me, do things with me, and do things to me. Those people that mean the most to me, that have made my life worth living, have been Christians. This alone is enough to but my faith in, and people that I know. People believe in results.
apparently you have never even bothered to read a single paper or book by hawking. since almost the entirelty of his work was done after he was stricken with ALS.
I've read "A Brief History of Time", among others which I don't remeber right now.
who ever said that fittest had to refer to physical fortitude? he is 'fit' to live in his environment because he is extremely intelligent, and thats valued by other humans.
Others would argue (not myself) that Hawking passing on his genes is evolutionarly (sp?) "wrong" because it degrades the overall physical fitness of the species.
My point here is that "survival of the fittest" MUST NOT be applied by humans; else we begin to degrade and destroy those who can still make valuable contributions.
... is that the Darwinian evolution (survival of the fitest and all) that most people now subscribe to seems to fall apart when applied to Prof. Hawking. His brilliant mind is, for evolutionary sake, useless if in his crippled body. If we truly believe in "survival of the fittest", why do we have Prof. Hawking?
What can we learn from this?
(I'm going to get labeled "Troll" or "Flamebait" for this!)
Slashdot Mirror
This has been way overhyped and misrepresented.
From http://www.goodmailsystems.com/certifiedmail/
The Facts About CertifiedEmail
* FACT: AOL and Yahoo! are not taxing email.
There is no 'email' tax. A tax is something one is required to pay. Taxes are uniformly imposed charges agreed to by a recognized & responsible government entity. Qualifying senders may elect to use CertifiedEmail at their option, the same way a sender of traditional mail might elect to use Express mail or regular USPS mail. Consumers will not pay anything to send or receive email!
* FACT: Small business and non-profits will not have to pay for something that used to be free.
First of all, no one has to pay. The service is optional. First class email has not suffered with the introduction of priority and Express Mail. With CertifiedEmail there is literally no change in the ability of Internet users to participate however they desire, nor will any user incur any new charges. Optional offerings, such as CertifiedEmail, allow ISPs to provide better and better services to those who choose them, and in turn provide a higher degree of safety to their members.
* FACT: The purpose of CertifiedEmail is to identify "good" mail, not to prevent spam.
Goodmail's goal is to raise the bar on sender behavior so that messages are not second-guessed by filters and instead follow a direct path to the inbox with a visual identification that the message is good. Goodmail has never suggested CertifiedEmail is the silver bullet for all of email's ills, or that it will prevent spam from getting into the inbox.
* FACT: Spammers can not pay to reach AOL and Yahoo! email inboxes.
The Goodmail service will NOT increase the amount of spam consumers receive. CertifiedEmail messages will be delivered only from senders that have obtained prior permission from recipients. CertifiedEmail is only for permissioned email from accredited senders who must meet strict qualifying criteria and agree to Goodmail's Acceptable Use and Security Policy. Qualified, accountable organizations will use the service only to communicate with existing, "opt in" customers.
* FACT: AOL and Yahoo! will not profit from spam and phishing protection.
ISPs currently bear the full burden of addressing the spam problem. The average ISP now spends $8-12 per subscriber per year on email hygiene, an expense that can only hurt the availability of low cost internet access and free email services. While Goodmail does share an appropriate portion of the revenue from CertifiedEmail with the ISPs to help defray the high cost of fighting spam, it is only a fraction of the amount they are already spending to protect their members' inboxes.
* FACT: Goodmail will offer a generous program for non-profits.
Some non-profits, like the American Red Cross, who's brands are targets of online fraud and phishing, will choose CertifiedEmail. Those who have had no issues with fraud and are satisfied with their current practices, will not need the service. Some opponents base their rhetoric on this fear. Be assured, the service is not required to get "good" mail through. Non-profits who see the benefits of the service will be able to try the service for free throughout 2006. Beyond 2006, Goodmail will provide generous discounts to non-profits and price CertifiedEmail as low as possible yet maintain the system's integrity and security.
* FACT: Goodmail and its ISP partners will only allow legitimate, qualified senders t
No, it's not. People lie on their resumes, their applications, lie about their skill sets, their experience. A good interviewee can cram himself full of polished answers to interviewers, and look quite good. A good lie can foil even the best of managers and HR.
Think about the motivation. People would lie, to get a job, to keep a job. Would obfsucate code, might even deliberately break it. It's in the money. 'Hiring' someone has no advantages over someone working on a non-commerical open-source project, except you can fire them. Oh wait, managers of open source projects can choose not to accept code and discontinue a person's work on a project. Just like firing someone.
I've not heard of people lying to get commit rights to open source software projects; contribution is encouraged. Both the other contributors and the read-only public can immediately tell if Joe Q Programmer's code is crappy or not. If he doesn't contribute to the desired standards, BOOT.
If we combine these two worlds, we can get commerical open-source projects. Employeers get what they want, employees get what they want, and the public can serve as the ultimate bug-finder and peer-review. And judging from the number of bugzillas, sourceforge projects and code-related security advisories with patches, I'd say it working fine.
I've setup Bitpass for a client of mine, and we're working with it on a trial basis. We're lucky to have total control over our leased server -- I had to install PHP for the BitPass gateway. We also had a mod_perl option, but the bitpass guys suggested it was a harder route.
I have some beef with how you have to set it up as an admin. In short, you have to generate a gateway file from their site and install it; then you have to register every bit of "content" (pdf, jpg, page, whatever) seperately via their site. If you change payment or content options, you need to go through the registration process all over again. I also had a number of relative path vs absolute path issues installing the gateway. The instructions didn't make clear where once was supposed to be used -- and the gateway uses BOTH relative paths and absolute paths in different places.
On the other hand, BitPass worked with my client to make sure he got the most out of the service, suggesting price changes, examing weblogs for service patterns, drafting help pages for end-users.
I'm not sold on the idea, but it may yet work. Can't fault these fellows for using PHP, either.
The G.I.T.S quote you want is "Overspecialize, and you breed in weakness."
There's a lot that goes into the retail price -VAT, retailer's cut, distribution costs, advertising and other marketing costs, producers' fees and studio time, not to mention the artists nd songwriters who need to be paid.
The artists and songwriters are mentioned last. Why am I not surprised?
... as the 'Automatic Updates' control in Windows 2000 SP3 and beyond. It is enabled by default in SP3/SP4, and will place an icon in your taskbar when new updates are available. It won't download them until you ask it to do so.
You can set it completely off, or set it to automagically download and install updates.
I work for a large university, part of a team which is trying to produce improved methods of coating fiber-optic cables. We have a very large, very demanding program which simulates the complex pressure, thermal and radative reactions which take place inside our test chamber.
The program is written entirely in FORTRAN 77. Fortran gives us the best "bang for the buck" in terms of raw number crunching, and F77 is highly portable. We need this code to run on everything from Crays to our x86 cluster.
Until somebody writes another language that does mathematical expressions rapidly and efficently, I think we'll be using FORTRAN.
Interested in writing parallel applications in FORTRAN? http://www.epm.ornl.gov/pvm/pvm_home.html
It's sure nice to see Bubblegum Crisis get some recognition. Usually everybody talks about Tenchi or Sailor Moon or Slayers.
;)
I think "geeks" like BGC because it has
o a grity, cyperphunk future (ala Gibson)
o cool-ass hardware
o decent plot-lines (ok, so "Scoop Chase" was awful. sue me
o 80's music
o cute girls
Ok, so perhaps those last two are what makes it appeal to ME. It still has a flavor quite it's own, even years after it was over. A pity it was never finished.
There's also a new BGC, called Bubblegum Crisis 2040, which uses the "alternate universe" idea. Same girls, different hair, sorta-simliar plot, much much more stories, way better animation.
Check out advfilms.com.
Awesome. Thanks!
... is that that Palm has other uses than what it was designed for. We usually see people doing techie stuff with them, but this guy went and made some serious art with it.
If you don't think it's serious art, *YOU* try drawing a 4' x 17' piece in little segments. At least give the guy props for putting lots of work into it. Also, if you read the entire page, you'll see that he was modeling his piece after an ancient Greek style of writing. The piece itself is pretty neat, with an almost Escher-like style of one part blending into the next part to eventually transform into something else completely different.
Regardless of Napster's motivations for creating Napster, the service itself is not illegal.
The service is "legal" until the court decides that it is not legal. That's how our justice system works.
There are legitimate purposes for Napster, therefore Napster should win.
There are legitimate purposes for assault weapons, therefore everybody should have access to one. Please think these things over please; the issue is not so clear-cut.
This summer I'll be working as a research assistant for my University, setting up\securing\using a 6-node, Dual PII Beowulf cluster w/ Gigabit ethernet to do real-time chemical simulation. (Ok, I just HAD to tell people about that!)
Now I'm thinking, using 6 of these sounds like it would take much less space and be faster. What do these boards connect into? Someone mentioned a PCI backpane, what are they? Also, IIRC, PCI64 is susposed to be faster than any existing ethernet, right?
These board accept 144MB DiskOnChips, and up to 1GB of ram. Can we plug 5 of these with 500MHz Celerons into a backpane, put trimed-down linuxes onto the 144MB DOC, and have a killer Beowulf cluster?
Warning: What follows is going to offend many people. Also, I have not read this book, only the
review, so you may be justified in marking this as Offtopic.
Now to the meat of this post.
Despite all the science I have heard or learned from my elementary to college education, I have never found any plausible -scientific- arguement for the "creation of the universe". One of the best tests, IMHO, is to ask, "What caused x?", where x is any cause of the creation of the universe.
But perhaps the more important question is, why are you so against a God that you discard the possibility of one? Does not a good scientist write down all hypotheses before evaluating them?
And for all the words in a book, or the discoveries that we make, how does this change your life? What have you really gained? If you continue to live your life as before, what was the use?
A confession which I am proud to make: I am a born-again Christian. I did not become one from high flung arguments or even from reading a Bible.I follow Christ because he has made a personal appearence in my life. I have tested his claims, and found them valid. I have called on his name, and heard a response.
I have discovered that God is for me, not against me.
Do you eagerly wait for the newest scientific discovery? So do I, but of even more joy and value to me is every new discovery I make about Jesus.
Think about it.
Just GNU it. GPL's the way to go.
Hopping this beats the first-post-trolls!
Just GNU it. GPL's the way to go.
Hopping the beats the first-post-trolls!
1GHz chips -- or 950MHz, or 850MHz for that matter -- are mainly of use to high-end gamers and some corporate users. The main benefit of the speed war to the user who wants basic Net surfing, email and gaming capabilities is that faster processors at the top-end mean more reasonably priced machines with faster chips lower down the chain.
It's nice to see the media picking up on this.
If I understand the iCrave thing correctly, they re-broadcast the TV signal, commericals and all.
I never saw this; if they are sending the entire, unfilitered TV signal, then you are correct about the eyeballs.
There are other issues involved here (broadcasting rights, the moral questions), but in the end, this is still a problem.
... these companies are completely within their rights. Yes, you heard me right. I applaud the TV companies for standing up and declaring that they are not going to let us (used in a general sense) rip them off.
By rebroadcasting programming, advertising compaines were loosing money that they had paid to put up adervtisement that would be watched on regular TV. When the advertisiment comapines figure this out, they're less willing to pay for advertisement. Result, TV companies lose $$.
This exists the same way with MP3s. Who cares if it isn't "technically illgeal"? (FYI, I am not a lawyer). When you can get all the mp3's to make a CD, why would you buy CD? For CD players? Don't you or one of your friends have a CD burner? We ultimately hurt ourselves when we download & distribute illegal mp3s.
Regarding the earlier story about the music industry making more money and selling more CD's this year: Haven't you noticed, in the US, that we're in the longest sustained poistive enconmic growth in the nation's history? EVERYBODY is doing better. Hell, on my campus, the dining halls are suffer from lack of staff; everyone is taking more professional and/or higher paying jobs.
.mp3 and digital movies are not harmful; illegal (read obtained without permission from the author and/or distrubitor) mp3's are.
Just watch this get moderated down. =)
1) Installed from Windows? Isn't this susposed to not be a demo?
Which windows? 95\98? 2k? NT? Does it reside on the same FS? If so, we lose the kick-ass journaling filesystem BeOS uses.
Also, how the hell am I susposed to use it on my Linux (no windows) box?
(flame-suit on)
2) It's not Open Source. How do I patch a bug? Add functionality which I need? Wait for the developers to fix them? See this article for the speed at which OSS and non-OSS bugs are fixed.
(flame-suit off)
3) Licensing. (oh.. flame-suit on) I couldn't find a mention of the license for it, but I'm pretty sure it's not GPL\SCSL.
Sounds like a demo to me!
My 2^-2 cents....
First, confessions: My knoweldge of evolution is only at a high-school level, since that is all the evolution that I have taken.
Secondly, I was hopping to provoke thought on how Hawking fits into our theories of evolution (read: THEORIES, ONLY THEORIES).
I have the essential problem of applying evolution to humans; medical technology seems to throw this all for a loop. Would Hawking lived if he had only average intelligence? Perhaps. Has medical science supported his life? Yes. [*] Is it possible, even likely, that he would have lived & had children with only average intelligence? Yes.
* The article (which I did read!) mentions that his life span was predicted as "a few years", yet he lives years longer.... some might call this a miracle... (re-read last word, ponder where miracles come from).
Please feel free to e-mail me.
First of all, I agree with gwalla's comments (see first reply to AC's post). I'm also unfamilar with memes, so I can't comment on that part.
Now, to reply to the AC's comments:
In evolutionary terms, Hawking is "fit" because he has "what it takes" to survive.
Our medical technology gives us the power to sustain the lives of those who, with it, would quickly die. As was stated by someone else, Hawking did his best work AFTER his disease had set in. If we had not had this medical technology, he would have not contributed to our society, technology, etc.
My conclusion here, then, is that medical technology has lowered the evolutionary bar. Not only those who [have] traits that allow it to survive do survive; many survive. In addition to surviving, they also pass on traits: Hawking had children. These children, we hope, will be blessed with his intelligence.
Now think: That is at one person who has made great contributions, and potentially more, because of medical science. How much more would be have been enriched today if those "weak-but-smart" people of the past had survived? Or if Bethoven (sp) had full hearing?
Moving on:
will explain to you that evil people like me
And me. And everybody who believes; and everybody who does not. Keep reading.
I am clearly wrong, and a sinner to boot. I'm a sinner also; so is the entire world. I'm deliberatly avoiding the fact that you are assuming a hostile tone with me, but I don't find you 'clearly wrong', but merely misinformed. I say this NOT about evolution. That is my opinion. However, you (and most of this world) are misinformed about Christians and our beliefs.
There are plenty of bad example of Christians in our world. We don't all have beliefs that completely agree (with one important exception explaining why "Christ" appears in our name), and WE are NOT perfect, nor claim to be! We have heard "the good news". Read it exactly like you see it: News (information of events that should be spread), and good (positive, beneficial, bringing of happiness).
Most the world only sees the "negative" side of Christians: The "don't do this" that God tells us (Ten Commandments and other commands). Two thoughts here: 1) Like parents setting boundries for their children, these are for our own protection. 2) You're missing the good stuff! God loved us so much that he sacraficed his own son to pay for our sins (read: turning away from God) so that we could we have a relationship with him
Seeing that I've entirely left the topic, I'm going to keep going. I hope this reaches receptive ears (oops-- eyes!).
Most people hit their "logic" wall right away, asking the questions that seem to prove there is no God. (Example: Can God make a rock so large that even He can no lift it?) Many people (recently myself included) would be surprised to find that there is strong, logical, consistent supporting evidence for God. I don't use "proof" because proof is based upon your beliefs; if you disbelive the first axiom of any proof, it falls apart.
I suggest anyone interesed, logical minded or not, pick up a copy of "The Handbook of Christian Apologetics" (Apologetics = Defending the Faith by reason) from Intervarsity Press.
Oh, the answer: If we say God is infititely powerful, then He can lifting anything; his power has no bounds. He also should be able to create anything. However, to create something that he could not lift would violate his infinite power; the rock would need to be greater than infitely large. But infinite means no "with out bound or limit". So the question becomes pointless.
This is paraphrased from Apologetics; apolgies if it is not so clear.
Lastly. God isn't about empty words, bowed heads, and fluff. God is really there. I have seen him do things for me, do things with me, and do things to me. Those people that mean the most to me, that have made my life worth living, have been Christians. This alone is enough to but my faith in, and people that I know. People believe in results.
Please feel free to e-mail me.
apparently you have never even bothered to read a single paper or book by hawking. since almost the entirelty of his work was done after he was stricken with ALS.
I've read "A Brief History of Time", among others which I don't remeber right now.
who ever said that fittest had to refer to physical fortitude? he is 'fit' to live in his environment because he is extremely intelligent, and thats valued by other humans.
Others would argue (not myself) that Hawking passing on his genes is evolutionarly (sp?) "wrong" because it degrades the overall physical fitness of the species.
My point here is that "survival of the fittest" MUST NOT be applied by humans; else we begin to degrade and destroy those who can still make valuable contributions.
"Survival of the fittest" is more about the survival of a species than it is about the survival of individuals.
... But without a "weeding out" of less "fit" individuals, the species is less fit as a whole, by averages, yes?
... is that the Darwinian evolution (survival of the fitest and all) that most people now subscribe to seems to fall apart when applied to Prof. Hawking. His brilliant mind is, for evolutionary sake, useless if in his crippled body. If we truly believe in "survival of the fittest", why do we have Prof. Hawking?
What can we learn from this?
(I'm going to get labeled "Troll" or "Flamebait" for this!)
The source code is available here:
http://www.kernel.o rg/pub/linux/kernel/v2.2/linux-2.2.14.tar.gz