If you have to communicate with people, don't be a lazy ass and write out the name of the month, to remove ambiguity.
Ambiguity? What ambiguity? As pointed out, month names are language-specific. One of the main advantages of the YYYY-MM-DD notation is that it is unambiguous. If you have 04/11/2003 that is that April 11 or November 4? The ISO convention doesn't have that problem. 2003-04-11 only has one interpretation in use. That it why it it is preferred to other (ambiguous) conventions.
Okay, then, let's go to the GPL itself. There are three ways specified to distribute the source.
1. Just include it along with the binary. 2. Include a written offer to obtain the code, for which the price is not greater than the cost of physically transferring the code. 3. Delegate the offer you received to those who obtain binaries from you.
Number 2 is not possible for Internet distribution, because you cannot have a "written offer".
Number 1 may also be satisfied by offering "equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place". Thus if your price for the source is different from the price of the binary, you are no longer granting equivalent access.
So, if you distribute binary code for free on a Web site, then you must provide the source for free, and it must be obtainable from the Web site, and only allowing mail distribution is prohibited.
No, you do NOT have to accept the GPL to merely use the software. By providing the software to you, the copyright holder is already allowing you to use it. The GPL even explicitly says that you needn't accept the license.
When you buy a book, do you have to sign a license before you can read it? No. If you have a book, first sale allows you to read it without any specific license.
And far be it from me to deny someone the right to their definitions, though I would necessarily deny them the right to dictate mine. (Barring points of obvious exception, such as gun-to-the-head, etc.)
Hey, hey, you can't tell me what to do like that! (That's you're point, right?)
Oh, come now - we're not discussing HTML color codes, or even portions of the visible spectrum. We're talking about moral absolutes versus moral relativism. If you want to discuss how relativism in its purest form advocates anarchy, and how to best mediate this in societal function to prevent collapse of the human community, that's one thing.
Why is it a good thing to prevent the collapse of the human community?
But to indicate that there are actual moral absolutes when we can't even quantify the "best" text editor is kind of silly, in my thoughts.
But yet you seem to be indicating moral abosulutes.
Often, those who advocate a specific morality base such upon their religious beliefs. I'm not saying that makes them inherently wrong, but at their core, religious beliefs are items of faith, not fact. They are not quantifiable or scientifically provable or dis-provable. They are neither correct nor incorrect, and they are as varied and variable as the day is long.
An absurdity. The law of non-contradiction and law of excluded middle.
Do they make a good starting point for a discussion on agreed-upon moral standards? Sure. History shows it's far from an easy discussion, and someone claiming their side is in the "right" simply because their faith says it to be true doesn't lend credibility to their argument. Show me, for example, that it's not in the community's best interest to presume guilt first, and illustrate the benefits of erring on the side of caution, thinking things through, etc., and we're having a viable discussion about agreed-upon standards of moral conduct.
I might be able to do what you say, but it wouldn't have any meaning or relevance to morality unless we already accept a moral precept. Without that, it's just a statement of cause and effect, like "If you drop something it falls to the ground." It's amoral.
Tell me, however, that your religious beliefs dictate that you know what's best for me and that your decision about it supercedes mine, that your choice in my life is more important than mine - and it's no longer a discussion.
So, if my choice is not more important than yours, then either it is equally important or less important. I presume you do not argue that is it is less important, therefore you argue that the choices all equally important. I ask, then, why is choice held to such a high level?
How is someone's right to choice so important that is supersedes all other morality? Why insist on the universal moral judgement that, "You shouldn't tell anyone what their morality should be."
Again, by whose standards?
Sorry, perhaps I didn't write that well. I meant that there must exist something that is black and white (e.g. your HTML color codes).
The logic follows only if the assumed premise (morality is physical fact, immutable truth) is correct. I'll agree that standards are necessary, but someone claiming a moral high-ground based on their beliefs and opinions is not contributing to the facts. It sounds as silly as Manifest Destiny.
How do you know universal moral truths are not derivable from facts, which necessarily exist?
And anyway you're conclusion only follows if you assume a different premise (that morality is not physical fact and not immutable truth).
Morality is necessary,
What do you think it is necessary for?
but realize it is not immutable fact or truth. It is an agreement that is generally (to greater or lesser degree, varying from topic-to-topic) accepted by a populace. "Thou shalt not kill," for example - I think we can (mostly) agree on that.
So who gets to define that black and white you mention so easily? You? Your religious leaders or inspiration? Your political party of choice? What gives any of them a greater right to define those absolutes than anyone else?
1. Everybody has an equal right to define things. They may be wrong of course.
2. Actually, nobody defines them. It's just what they are.
3. Logically, some things must necessarily be black and white.
You can argue that moral relativism sucks, and in practical application I might sometimes agree, but the absolutes it would seem often get proposed are based on belief, and belief is subjective and quite individual.
You're using relativism to support relativism. You're begging the question. What one believes does not affect the actual truth (unless possibly if the truth is a statement about a belief).
I think the whole question of whether negative numbers are real is misguided. Negative numbers exist, by definition. They're defined because they're useful. Just like positive numbers are defined because they're also useful.
People ask questions like "Are negative numbers real?", "Are complex numbers real?", "Is four-dimensional geometry real?" etc., because they're harder to intuitively grasp. But in the end they're no more abstract than positive numbers, it's just harder to map them to concepts in the real world.
Essentially, if we can define a mathematical concept to exist without contradicting ourselves, exists. Thus, given, "For all x, there exists a number -x such that x + (-x) = 0", we have now defined a kind of number (additive inverse, or negative).
A few observations: there are widgets, there are gadgets, and the relationship "some X are Y" can be evaluated.
Now you seem to be equating the terms "observation" and "axiom". I did not observe that there are widgets, I arbitrarily stated it. I could just as easily have stated that there are no widgets.
These observations need not be physically experienced. They can be observations about the system itself, and its subjects.
The word "observation" does not mean "statement recognized to be true". Or, well, it can be, but not in this context (being physics).
Number theory, for example, subjects mathematics itself to mathematical analysis.
Er, it does? I thought it was the study of numbers.
The answer is irrelevant to math. Whether someone formulated them based on observation or not, the math is not affected. Let's suppose that widgets and gadgets are primitive terms in an axiomatic system. We then have an axiom:
Some widgets are gadgets.
Please tell me from what observation this axiom came from.
The point is that observation is not part of mathematics.
Even if axioms were originally formulated by observations, that isn't math. The 180 degree triangle is not a consequence of measurement of of certain axioms. NEVER are mathematical statements justified by observations, in current math. Axioms may or may not correspond to actual systems in the real world, but, as far as math is concerned, the real world may as well not exist. Axioms are at the bottom, and are not founded on anything.
The passage you reference is aimed at those who make their goal in life to be wealthy. The Bible never says, "Money is evil", and merely using money isn't "serving" it, so mentioning God on money isn't contradictory, or sacreligious, or whatever. If anything, it could be a reminder NOT to serve money.
If it isn't possible to watch a DVD or a TV show on reasonable terms -- something is wrong. Saying, "It's your choice. Just don't get DVDs." ignores that there really is a problem.
Also, I thought "if you buy their product" you then own it, so why should you have to "play by their rules"? The product isn't theirs anymore.
Your analogy does not hold. Reproducing something isn't stealing. It's reproducing it. Most of the people you refer to do not "think that it is okay to steal software, music, videos, etc". That would entail entering a store and walking off with a copy without paying for it. They do, however, think that it is okay (in line with morality) to reproduce things.
Re:You have to be two times as cereful with O2
on
Coffee is Addictive
·
· Score: 1
Oh, yeah? Well, dihydrogen monoxide is also extremely addictive just like O2. Every year thousands of people die from breathing in too much of this chemical. It's also a major component of acid rain. It causes many metals to corrode. I'd like to see your "dangerous" chemical O2 live up to that!
No. The GPL does not place any restrictions. All it does is remove some already existing ones. The restrictions on using GPLed software do not come from the GPL, but copyright law. And of course you don't have to agree to the GPL to use GPLed software.
A EULA tries to place restrictions on you. You (supposedly) must agree with the EULA to even use the software.
I have no idea how this could be legally valid. How on earth can anyone state that performing some arbitrary action (open the shrinkwrap, click the "I agree" button, etc.) causes you to agree to an arbitrary set of conditions? It's total nonsense, or by reading this sentence you just agreed to give me $20000 in exchange for a broken pencil.
Slashdot Mirror
If you have to communicate with people, don't be a lazy ass and write out the name of the month, to remove ambiguity.
Ambiguity? What ambiguity? As pointed out, month names are language-specific. One of the main advantages of the YYYY-MM-DD notation is that it is unambiguous. If you have 04/11/2003 that is that April 11 or November 4? The ISO convention doesn't have that problem. 2003-04-11 only has one interpretation in use. That it why it it is preferred to other (ambiguous) conventions.
Okay, then, let's go to the GPL itself. There are three ways specified to distribute the source.
1. Just include it along with the binary.
2. Include a written offer to obtain the code, for which the price is not greater than the cost of physically transferring the code.
3. Delegate the offer you received to those who obtain binaries from you.
Number 2 is not possible for Internet distribution, because you cannot have a "written offer".
Number 1 may also be satisfied by offering "equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place". Thus if your price for the source is different from the price of the binary, you are no longer granting equivalent access.
So, if you distribute binary code for free on a Web site, then you must provide the source for free, and it must be obtainable from the Web site, and only allowing mail distribution is prohibited.
Try entering a known Googlebomb into the MS search engine. "litigious bastards" shows up www.sco.com as the number one hit.
No, you do NOT have to accept the GPL to merely use the software. By providing the software to you, the copyright holder is already allowing you to use it. The GPL even explicitly says that you needn't accept the license.
When you buy a book, do you have to sign a license before you can read it? No. If you have a book, first sale allows you to read it without any specific license.
And far be it from me to deny someone the right to their definitions, though I would necessarily deny them the right to dictate mine. (Barring points of obvious exception, such as gun-to-the-head, etc.)
Hey, hey, you can't tell me what to do like that! (That's you're point, right?)
Oh, come now - we're not discussing HTML color codes, or even portions of the visible spectrum. We're talking about moral absolutes versus moral relativism. If you want to discuss how relativism in its purest form advocates anarchy, and how to best mediate this in societal function to prevent collapse of the human community, that's one thing.
Why is it a good thing to prevent the collapse of the human community?
But to indicate that there are actual moral absolutes when we can't even quantify the "best" text editor is kind of silly, in my thoughts.
But yet you seem to be indicating moral abosulutes.
Often, those who advocate a specific morality base such upon their religious beliefs. I'm not saying that makes them inherently wrong, but at their core, religious beliefs are items of faith, not fact. They are not quantifiable or scientifically provable or dis-provable. They are neither correct nor incorrect, and they are as varied and variable as the day is long.
An absurdity. The law of non-contradiction and law of excluded middle.
Do they make a good starting point for a discussion on agreed-upon moral standards? Sure. History shows it's far from an easy discussion, and someone claiming their side is in the "right" simply because their faith says it to be true doesn't lend credibility to their argument. Show me, for example, that it's not in the community's best interest to presume guilt first, and illustrate the benefits of erring on the side of caution, thinking things through, etc., and we're having a viable discussion about agreed-upon standards of moral conduct.
I might be able to do what you say, but it wouldn't have any meaning or relevance to morality unless we already accept a moral precept. Without that, it's just a statement of cause and effect, like "If you drop something it falls to the ground." It's amoral.
Tell me, however, that your religious beliefs dictate that you know what's best for me and that your decision about it supercedes mine, that your choice in my life is more important than mine - and it's no longer a discussion.
So, if my choice is not more important than yours, then either it is equally important or less important. I presume you do not argue that is it is less important, therefore you argue that the choices all equally important. I ask, then, why is choice held to such a high level?
How is someone's right to choice so important that is supersedes all other morality? Why insist on the universal moral judgement that, "You shouldn't tell anyone what their morality should be."
Again, by whose standards?
Sorry, perhaps I didn't write that well. I meant that there must exist something that is black and white (e.g. your HTML color codes).
The logic follows only if the assumed premise (morality is physical fact, immutable truth) is correct. I'll agree that standards are necessary, but someone claiming a moral high-ground based on their beliefs and opinions is not contributing to the facts. It sounds as silly as Manifest Destiny.
How do you know universal moral truths are not derivable from facts, which necessarily exist?
And anyway you're conclusion only follows if you assume a different premise (that morality is not physical fact and not immutable truth).
Morality is necessary,
What do you think it is necessary for?
but realize it is not immutable fact or truth. It is an agreement that is generally (to greater or lesser degree, varying from topic-to-topic) accepted by a populace. "Thou shalt not kill," for example - I think we can (mostly) agree on that.
So who gets to define that black and white you mention so easily? You? Your religious leaders or inspiration? Your political party of choice? What gives any of them a greater right to define those absolutes than anyone else?
1. Everybody has an equal right to define things. They may be wrong of course.
2. Actually, nobody defines them. It's just what they are.
3. Logically, some things must necessarily be black and white.
You can argue that moral relativism sucks, and in practical application I might sometimes agree, but the absolutes it would seem often get proposed are based on belief, and belief is subjective and quite individual.
You're using relativism to support relativism. You're begging the question. What one believes does not affect the actual truth (unless possibly if the truth is a statement about a belief).
Arithmetic identity: 37 * 3 * 7 = 777
Algebraic identity: a^2 - b^2 = (a + b)(a - b)
Trigonometric identity: sin 2x = 2 sin x cos x
Also, 2dL + N = kb + d, which doesn't mean anything to any of you because I haven't told you what the letters stand for.
I think the whole question of whether negative numbers are real is misguided. Negative numbers exist, by definition. They're defined because they're useful. Just like positive numbers are defined because they're also useful.
People ask questions like "Are negative numbers real?", "Are complex numbers real?", "Is four-dimensional geometry real?" etc., because they're harder to intuitively grasp. But in the end they're no more abstract than positive numbers, it's just harder to map them to concepts in the real world.
Essentially, if we can define a mathematical concept to exist without contradicting ourselves, exists. Thus, given, "For all x, there exists a number -x such that x + (-x) = 0", we have now defined a kind of number (additive inverse, or negative).
And where on earth did you get these definitions? At any rate, they certainly aren't universal.
A few observations: there are widgets, there are gadgets, and the relationship "some X are Y" can be evaluated.
Now you seem to be equating the terms "observation" and "axiom". I did not observe that there are widgets, I arbitrarily stated it. I could just as easily have stated that there are no widgets.
These observations need not be physically experienced. They can be observations about the system itself, and its subjects.
The word "observation" does not mean "statement recognized to be true". Or, well, it can be, but not in this context (being physics).
Number theory, for example, subjects mathematics itself to mathematical analysis.
Er, it does? I thought it was the study of numbers.
Axioms, like all else, come from somewhere.
Which mathematics does not concern itself with.
The answer is irrelevant to math. Whether someone formulated them based on observation or not, the math is not affected. Let's suppose that widgets and gadgets are primitive terms in an axiomatic system. We then have an axiom:
Some widgets are gadgets.
Please tell me from what observation this axiom came from.
The point is that observation is not part of mathematics.
Formula for the probability that a silly joke will be written up on Slashdot in a given month:
P = 1
where P is the probability and m is the given month.
Even if axioms were originally formulated by observations, that isn't math. The 180 degree triangle is not a consequence of measurement of of certain axioms. NEVER are mathematical statements justified by observations, in current math. Axioms may or may not correspond to actual systems in the real world, but, as far as math is concerned, the real world may as well not exist. Axioms are at the bottom, and are not founded on anything.
Radians, of course. Real numbers are always equivalent to radians in math.
The passage you reference is aimed at those who make their goal in life to be wealthy. The Bible never says, "Money is evil", and merely using money isn't "serving" it, so mentioning God on money isn't contradictory, or sacreligious, or whatever. If anything, it could be a reminder NOT to serve money.
In God We Trust on currency is something that even Christians should fight. Putting God on money is very sacraligious.
I'm afraid I don't understand your reasoning. Can you elaborate?
If it isn't possible to watch a DVD or a TV show on reasonable terms -- something is wrong. Saying, "It's your choice. Just don't get DVDs." ignores that there really is a problem.
Also, I thought "if you buy their product" you then own it, so why should you have to "play by their rules"? The product isn't theirs anymore.
HA! I knew this was their plan! "Let's pretend our new copyright bill is really about the oak tree."
Your analogy does not hold. Reproducing something isn't stealing. It's reproducing it. Most of the people you refer to do not "think that it is okay to steal software, music, videos, etc". That would entail entering a store and walking off with a copy without paying for it. They do, however, think that it is okay (in line with morality) to reproduce things.
Oh, yeah? Well, dihydrogen monoxide is also extremely addictive just like O2. Every year thousands of people die from breathing in too much of this chemical. It's also a major component of acid rain. It causes many metals to corrode. I'd like to see your "dangerous" chemical O2 live up to that!
There's no such language as C/C++.
No. The GPL does not place any restrictions. All it does is remove some already existing ones. The restrictions on using GPLed software do not come from the GPL, but copyright law. And of course you don't have to agree to the GPL to use GPLed software.
A EULA tries to place restrictions on you. You (supposedly) must agree with the EULA to even use the software.
I have no idea how this could be legally valid. How on earth can anyone state that performing some arbitrary action (open the shrinkwrap, click the "I agree" button, etc.) causes you to agree to an arbitrary set of conditions? It's total nonsense, or by reading this sentence you just agreed to give me $20000 in exchange for a broken pencil.
1000 gigabytes? I think you meaneth 1024 gigabytes.
Water isn't wet. It makes things wet.