Apparently, Wikipedia will soon have a pretty neat article review system. If you go to the test wiki, you'll find an article review mechanism. There should be a "validate" link, where you can rate the article for things like factual accuracy and completeness, and some other categories. However, you can't validate anonymously; you need a username. (This, I presume, is to prevent abuse.)
This is the MPAA. This is to inform you that we have a good faith belief that this Slashdot writeup, entitled "MPAA Sends Linux Australia Dubious Takedown Notice", violates the copyright of several Movies. The infringing phrases and the Movies infringed upon are listed below. Accordingly, persuant to Title 17 Clause 8 Section 4 Subsection 3.7b(iv) Paragraph 11 of the United States Law, we ask that you CEASE AND DESIST(tm) hosting said infringing Material and to initiate action against user L1TH10N who posted said infringing Material.
Listing of infringing phrases and names of infringed Movies:
It's because in closed source people can't (easily or legally) modify it, so any new ideas have to be incorporated into a new program written from scratch.
It's not a classical polynomial function because it's not a function at all. The next number in the list is only related to the previous numbers in the list by a certain property that all the numbers share. There is no way to generate the entire series by just knowing previous elements in the series.
Actually, it most certainly is a function (a mapping from one set onto another). It's just not possible to know what it is, because they are infinitely many functions that have those four specific values. I could just say f(5) = 42, and there'd still be infinitely many functions. Sequence problems cannot be solved within mathematics. E.g., if you know f(1) = 1, f(2) = 3, f(3) = 5, f(4) = 7, and f(5) = 9, what is f(6)? Maybe it's 11, but nothing guarantees it.
This is not a mistake on Luke's part. For one thing, the passage in Luke may be interpreted as "before" Quirinius's rule rather than during it. Also, archaeology shows that someone named Quirinius ruled Syria in 11 B.C. Thus either Quirinius ruled two different times or there were two people named Quirinius. (The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel, p. 136. ISBN 0-310-22655-4.)
If you hold to deism, this might make sense. However, if you allow that God can affect the physical universe (and even enter it), then it can be possible to make observations and then extrapolate the existance of God. And what is your justification that "the very concept of proof is bound to our physical plane of existence"?
If you know a god exists, you can't believe the god exists. I'm afraid I don't understand the reasoning behind this.
I have reasonable proof that there is a computer monitor in front of me. Therefore, I believe that there is a computer monitor in front of me. Not believing because you have proof seems absurd.
Teacher: I'm sorry to announce our calculus class can't continue. The Newton Estate has threatened to sue over patent 7109376, and we can't afford the legal battle. By the way, we've discovered a millenia-old patent on the Pathagorean Theorem, so you can't ever use that if you don't want to be sued.
So, if I understand you correctly, you wrote an essay the school authorities didn't like and distributed it around school, so they called the police and said they'd received a tip you'd brought a gun. They searched all your stuff and gave you suspension for possessing nail clippers.
It's stories like these that scare me. It's sad things have come to this.
The person who wrote that Britannica entry was confused. Whether a number is rational does not depend on how it is expressed. Also, the text implicitly states that a rational number does not necessarily remain a rational number when expressed in a non-integral base. That is false. If I express the rational number 5/2 in base pi (say), then it is still a rational number, because the numeral system you use is irrelevant. So, even though there might not be an explictly false claim in that passage from Britannica, it does demonstrate a lack of understanding and will mislead readers.
Yes, you're right. From the IF-archive's README file:
The archive makes no blanket claim about the copyright status of the
archive files. Unless a file, its included license, or its description
explicitly states that it is in the public domain, then the file's
copyright rests with its author and the file is only available on the
archive for personal use. You may freely download games and play them,
and the games and files can be made available for download from the
Archive and its official mirrors. The files and games on the archive
may not be compiled for commercial distribution without permission
from each and every author of the files you would like to
distribute. Note that commercial distribution includes selling games
or game compilations on online auction sites.
Yes, anybody is allowed to redistribute such software for free or for whatever price he wishes.
However, it is not necessarily true that somebody will do that. Ultimately, it WILL cost somebody money. And in any case to do so may be impractical. If you have a software package that spans 5 CDs, only transmission via the Internet could allow near-free distribution. But it'd take a lot of server space and for a lot of people it'd take too long to download.
Furthermore, assuming such a copy is available, people have to know about it. You'll probably want to advertise, which will cost money, which you won't be getting if you're distributing it for free. So most people would just end up purchasing the original version. Indeed, many people violate copyright law by installing a software package on more than one computer, yet the software companies don't seem to be going out of business. That a copy is actually legal may cause more downloads but the majority of people won't even know its existance.
And, finally, none of this has any effect on the rules of the GPL, which, quite intentionally, permit commercial distribution. Such distribution is feasible and has been sucessfully done.
I think such research would lead to little perception about morality itself. At best it would show that humans have instincts to act in certain ways or that certains conditions cause certain actions. It might show why people think there is morality, but it certainly would not justify morality's existance.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently, Wikipedia will soon have a pretty neat article review system. If you go to the test wiki, you'll find an article review mechanism. There should be a "validate" link, where you can rate the article for things like factual accuracy and completeness, and some other categories. However, you can't validate anonymously; you need a username. (This, I presume, is to prevent abuse.)
Dear Slashdot Editor:
This is the MPAA. This is to inform you that we have a good faith belief that this Slashdot writeup, entitled "MPAA Sends Linux Australia Dubious Takedown Notice", violates the copyright of several Movies. The infringing phrases and the Movies infringed upon are listed below. Accordingly, persuant to Title 17 Clause 8 Section 4 Subsection 3.7b(iv) Paragraph 11 of the United States Law, we ask that you CEASE AND DESIST(tm) hosting said infringing Material and to initiate action against user L1TH10N who posted said infringing Material.
Listing of infringing phrases and names of infringed Movies:
Story Toy Story
Takedown Takedown
Australia Australia
Twisted Twisted
Grind Grind
Python Python
Tool The Tool
Finding Finding Nemo
Memory Memory
Management Anger Management
Problems Pokémon: Vol. 8: Primeape Problems
Programs The Program
Interesting An Interesting Story
Automatic Automatic
Blind Blind
Searches Mike Searches for His Long-Lost Brother
Thank you for helping us in our quest to improve the world.
Sincerely,
the good ol' folks at MPAA
This is totally wrong. The definition of "English" you provided is an adjective, while in "British English" is it used as a noun.
Okay, I will concede that proprietary software doesn't really stifle innovation. However, it makes certain kinds of innovation more difficult.
It's because in closed source people can't (easily or legally) modify it, so any new ideas have to be incorporated into a new program written from scratch.
It's not a classical polynomial function because it's not a function at all. The next number in the list is only related to the previous numbers in the list by a certain property that all the numbers share. There is no way to generate the entire series by just knowing previous elements in the series.
Actually, it most certainly is a function (a mapping from one set onto another). It's just not possible to know what it is, because they are infinitely many functions that have those four specific values. I could just say f(5) = 42, and there'd still be infinitely many functions. Sequence problems cannot be solved within mathematics. E.g., if you know f(1) = 1, f(2) = 3, f(3) = 5, f(4) = 7, and f(5) = 9, what is f(6)? Maybe it's 11, but nothing guarantees it.
Er, your formula's munged. How about:
e = lim n -> infinity (1 + 1/n)^n
This is not a mistake on Luke's part. For one thing, the passage in Luke may be interpreted as "before" Quirinius's rule rather than during it. Also, archaeology shows that someone named Quirinius ruled Syria in 11 B.C. Thus either Quirinius ruled two different times or there were two people named Quirinius. (The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel, p. 136. ISBN 0-310-22655-4 .)
If you hold to deism, this might make sense. However, if you allow that God can affect the physical universe (and even enter it), then it can be possible to make observations and then extrapolate the existance of God. And what is your justification that "the very concept of proof is bound to our physical plane of existence"?
If you know a god exists, you can't believe the god exists. I'm afraid I don't understand the reasoning behind this.
I have reasonable proof that there is a computer monitor in front of me. Therefore, I believe that there is a computer monitor in front of me. Not believing because you have proof seems absurd.
Teacher: I'm sorry to announce our calculus class can't continue. The Newton Estate has threatened to sue over patent 7109376, and we can't afford the legal battle. By the way, we've discovered a millenia-old patent on the Pathagorean Theorem, so you can't ever use that if you don't want to be sued.
<Students give half-hearted cheer>
So, if I understand you correctly, you wrote an essay the school authorities didn't like and distributed it around school, so they called the police and said they'd received a tip you'd brought a gun. They searched all your stuff and gave you suspension for possessing nail clippers.
It's stories like these that scare me. It's sad things have come to this.
In Soviet Russia...
they prove conjectures.
Proof denies faith.
Proof strengthens faith. It is much easier to trust in God if you have proof of his existence than if you don't.
The person who wrote that Britannica entry was confused. Whether a number is rational does not depend on how it is expressed. Also, the text implicitly states that a rational number does not necessarily remain a rational number when expressed in a non-integral base. That is false. If I express the rational number 5/2 in base pi (say), then it is still a rational number, because the numeral system you use is irrelevant. So, even though there might not be an explictly false claim in that passage from Britannica, it does demonstrate a lack of understanding and will mislead readers.
I should point out that, as we say, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". If you want a Wiki dictionary, look at Wiktionary.
Yes, you're right. From the IF-archive's README file:
The archive makes no blanket claim about the copyright status of the archive files. Unless a file, its included license, or its description explicitly states that it is in the public domain, then the file's copyright rests with its author and the file is only available on the archive for personal use. You may freely download games and play them, and the games and files can be made available for download from the Archive and its official mirrors. The files and games on the archive may not be compiled for commercial distribution without permission from each and every author of the files you would like to distribute. Note that commercial distribution includes selling games or game compilations on online auction sites.
1. Upload a bunch of files whose names are that of popular movies.
2. Wait until MPAA sends you C&D notices. Then sue them for harassment.
3. Profit!
No, no, no, you're both wrong! It's after the second-to-last human dies. People have diaries and such they want to keep private.
Some formatting was lost when you copied from Wikipedia. It's O((log N)^3) time, not O((log N)3) time.
Uh, "the RMS approach" is just the legal definition of public domain. Public domain means no copyright applies to a work. See the definition.
Yes, anybody is allowed to redistribute such software for free or for whatever price he wishes.
However, it is not necessarily true that somebody will do that. Ultimately, it WILL cost somebody money. And in any case to do so may be impractical. If you have a software package that spans 5 CDs, only transmission via the Internet could allow near-free distribution. But it'd take a lot of server space and for a lot of people it'd take too long to download.
Furthermore, assuming such a copy is available, people have to know about it. You'll probably want to advertise, which will cost money, which you won't be getting if you're distributing it for free. So most people would just end up purchasing the original version. Indeed, many people violate copyright law by installing a software package on more than one computer, yet the software companies don't seem to be going out of business. That a copy is actually legal may cause more downloads but the majority of people won't even know its existance.
And, finally, none of this has any effect on the rules of the GPL, which, quite intentionally, permit commercial distribution. Such distribution is feasible and has been sucessfully done.
I think such research would lead to little perception about morality itself. At best it would show that humans have instincts to act in certain ways or that certains conditions cause certain actions. It might show why people think there is morality, but it certainly would not justify morality's existance.
No self-contradiction - semantics.
:-)
Hmmm. I've thought about it and retract what I said about those statements being contradictory.
But I still think infinity exists.
Morality is a personal thing, what is immoral to me may not be to you.
In other words, morality doesn't really exist, since you can legitimize any action by deciding that it is not immoral (to you).