From TFA: "claims that the GPL as a whole violates anti-trust regulation". Yeah, it's lacking in details so I don't know if there's a more substantive claim.
So, how does the GPL as a whole do what you suggest it might? In your scenario, a company is using the GPL to create a potential antitrust violation, but the illegality is in the company's actions, not in the tools it uses. It's like suing paper because a company has paper documents that it uses in some anticompetitive action.
GP is at least half correct and you are completely wrong. Even the link you provided proves perjury only involves "any material matter". So your statement, "any lie under oath is perjury", is false. GP is correct to recognize that it isn't perjury if it isn't material to the case. The half of GP that is (possibly) incorrect is his contention that it is not a material matter. Of course, a judge could decide differently, but I think it is material.
No right, but maybe the power. You can *try* to bill her but you probably won't be able to collect.
It's not unprecedented. If you get lost on Mt. Hood or Denali, and you are rescued, you'll get a bill. If the rescue efforts fail, your next of kin will get a bill for the search, AFAIK.
"Nevada governor to Bill Fosset: widow for search."
Basically, it's a story about the governor of Nevada recommending a new search engine, called "widow", to a Mr. Bill Fosset.
I think you're onto something. The brain doesn't like to stay in a perpetual state of alertness. It needs a break sometimes, and by golly, it's going to take it eventually. Postponing the break when the brain is already signaling it needs one isn't going to improve the quality of decisions the way taking the break and coming back to the problem with a fresh mind will.
Well, I disagree. The light tone of the Hobbit is deceptive, just like the early chapters of LotR. There's a heavier story line deserving of a serious film treatment. Otherwise, you might end up with this.
Doesn't academic freedom imply freedom from interlopers? I think the interlopers should, by all rights, be able to set up their own academic field. But forcing those in an existing field to accept doctrine that fails the standards established for that field, just to get a free ride on its coattails, isn't freedom. It's anarchy.
However, although 1 diopter is the difference between focusing at 1 meter and at infinity, it is only the difference between focusing at 20 cm or 17 cm.
One diopter gained due to refraction is still one diopter less that the eye's lens muscles have to accommodate. And at close range where eyestrain is more likely to be a problem, I would think it's even more significant than at distance. A lot of reading glasses have a strength around 1 diopter.
And you keep the problem of lack of blue receptors.
True, and I don't really like blue on black that much anyway, but green on black might offer at least some of that focusing relief. Cyan on black is pleasing (to me anyway) but since it involves both green and blue phosphors or LCD cells, it does call on the eye to try to focus two different wavelengths, so maybe it wouldn't be as effective as a primary color would be for long-term viewing comfort.
My optometrist once explained to me that nearsighted people have an easier time reading red text/numbers, at least at a distance, for that reason. Nearsightedness means that the eyeball is longer than the focal length of the lens, and if the light is refracted less because of longer wavelength, then the focal length more closely matches that of the eye. So I'm slightly nearsighted (used to be very nearsighted before LASIK), but have a hard time reading the clock across the room because of the bluish-green display.
On the other hand, for close up (where you need stronger refraction), or for farsighted people, wouldn't blue be better, according to this theory?
MIT professors Ed Thorpe (later of UCI) and Claude Shannon were developing blackjack strategies. Talk about shoulders of giants... Shannon of course is the famed father of information theory. Besides blackjack, these guys figured out how to gain an edge in roulette using some tricky electronics. Thorpe later made a fortune by founding one of the original hedge funds (this book is a fascinating account).
while the Veyron is going 253 mph, it can burn through a tank of gas in 12 minutes.
Which is a good thing, because I understand that it can burn through a set of tires in 20 minutes at that speed.
The other caveat is that, IIRC, the stopping distance is about half of a mile. So if you're doing 253, and see the traffic light changing 1/3 mile away...
It's open in the sense that some set theorists are still investigating it.
Case in point: One set theorist (Woodin) published a paper just a few years ago putting forth an argument based on "omega logic" (which I don't claim to understand) that C = Aleph-2 (and therefore CH is false), while a colleague of his (Foreman) countered with an argument based on "generalized large cardinals" (which I don't claim to understand) that CH is true. So no, it isn't resolved at all.
The idea is to find a new axiom that is sufficiently compelling (i.e., more so than either CH or !CH), that could be added to the usual axioms, and that would settle the CH question one way or the other (unless the resulting set of axioms later proved to be inconsistent). Of course, "compelling" may seem to be a subjective standard, but the existing axioms are widely accepted because they are compelling.
And he didn't solve the continuum hypothesis. He showed that you cannot prove CH from the ZF axioms. Gödel had previously show that you cannot *disprove* CH from ZF (unless ZF is inconsistent). Together these results show that CH is independent of ZF.
So CH is still an unresolved problem today. As far as anyone knows, either CH or its negation can be taken as a separate axiom of itself, which leaves it an open question.
I agree too. But my hope is that they will have learned a few lessons about working in larger forms. For one, you can't make a good story better by adding a lot of pointless filler (and there was a good story underlying Bender's Big Score; maybe a shorter cut of the movie, around 45 minutes, focusing on that story, would have worked).
Shouldn't the patent protect a specific method of solving to a problem, rather than just the idea that the problem needs a solution? That's the whole problem with the doctrine of equivalence: Far too often, it is used to bar the implementation of alternate (in many cases, better) solutions because someone else came up with a solution first. That seems at odds with the whole advancing-the-useful-arts purpose of the patent system.
I don't know whether Guitar Hero solves the given problem in the same way that Gibson did it. If they came up with a novel way to do it, then they should be allowed to make a product using that method. If it's the same solution (with different code or with minor variations in hardware) then the patent should apply (assuming the patent itself is valid).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but only in certain frames of reference.
I don't eat chips. I design them. But I'm still not much closer to retirement than when I came up with that name.
From TFA: "claims that the GPL as a whole violates anti-trust regulation". Yeah, it's lacking in details so I don't know if there's a more substantive claim. So, how does the GPL as a whole do what you suggest it might? In your scenario, a company is using the GPL to create a potential antitrust violation, but the illegality is in the company's actions, not in the tools it uses. It's like suing paper because a company has paper documents that it uses in some anticompetitive action.
You've never heard of Peter Gabriel, and for you "Vanilla Sky" was "a long time ago". So I'm guessing the "15" in your login name is your age.
And what was their timetable? And did they sell the server by the pound? And so on ad nauseum...
GP is at least half correct and you are completely wrong. Even the link you provided proves perjury only involves "any material matter". So your statement, "any lie under oath is perjury", is false. GP is correct to recognize that it isn't perjury if it isn't material to the case. The half of GP that is (possibly) incorrect is his contention that it is not a material matter. Of course, a judge could decide differently, but I think it is material.
No right, but maybe the power. You can *try* to bill her but you probably won't be able to collect.
It's not unprecedented. If you get lost on Mt. Hood or Denali, and you are rescued, you'll get a bill. If the rescue efforts fail, your next of kin will get a bill for the search, AFAIK.
"Nevada governor to Bill Fosset: widow for search." Basically, it's a story about the governor of Nevada recommending a new search engine, called "widow", to a Mr. Bill Fosset.
And if one equals two is true, then anything is true, so you can then prove anything! I can think of a few politicians who might like that.
Come from the math party on today's other math thread, did you?
I think you're onto something. The brain doesn't like to stay in a perpetual state of alertness. It needs a break sometimes, and by golly, it's going to take it eventually. Postponing the break when the brain is already signaling it needs one isn't going to improve the quality of decisions the way taking the break and coming back to the problem with a fresh mind will.
Well, I disagree. The light tone of the Hobbit is deceptive, just like the early chapters of LotR. There's a heavier story line deserving of a serious film treatment. Otherwise, you might end up with this.
But that website begs the question, "What if I don't care?"
I for one have huge problems with Big Bang Theory
Yeah, that show's pretty weak.
Doesn't academic freedom imply freedom from interlopers? I think the interlopers should, by all rights, be able to set up their own academic field. But forcing those in an existing field to accept doctrine that fails the standards established for that field, just to get a free ride on its coattails, isn't freedom. It's anarchy.
However, although 1 diopter is the difference between focusing at 1 meter and at infinity, it is only the difference between focusing at 20 cm or 17 cm.
One diopter gained due to refraction is still one diopter less that the eye's lens muscles have to accommodate. And at close range where eyestrain is more likely to be a problem, I would think it's even more significant than at distance. A lot of reading glasses have a strength around 1 diopter.
And you keep the problem of lack of blue receptors.
True, and I don't really like blue on black that much anyway, but green on black might offer at least some of that focusing relief. Cyan on black is pleasing (to me anyway) but since it involves both green and blue phosphors or LCD cells, it does call on the eye to try to focus two different wavelengths, so maybe it wouldn't be as effective as a primary color would be for long-term viewing comfort.
My optometrist once explained to me that nearsighted people have an easier time reading red text/numbers, at least at a distance, for that reason. Nearsightedness means that the eyeball is longer than the focal length of the lens, and if the light is refracted less because of longer wavelength, then the focal length more closely matches that of the eye. So I'm slightly nearsighted (used to be very nearsighted before LASIK), but have a hard time reading the clock across the room because of the bluish-green display.
On the other hand, for close up (where you need stronger refraction), or for farsighted people, wouldn't blue be better, according to this theory?
MIT professors Ed Thorpe (later of UCI) and Claude Shannon were developing blackjack strategies. Talk about shoulders of giants... Shannon of course is the famed father of information theory. Besides blackjack, these guys figured out how to gain an edge in roulette using some tricky electronics. Thorpe later made a fortune by founding one of the original hedge funds (this book is a fascinating account).
Obviously not the one covered by a dome.
while the Veyron is going 253 mph, it can burn through a tank of gas in 12 minutes.
Which is a good thing, because I understand that it can burn through a set of tires in 20 minutes at that speed.
The other caveat is that, IIRC, the stopping distance is about half of a mile. So if you're doing 253, and see the traffic light changing 1/3 mile away...
McCain will be very expensive. Guard your wallet, if he gets elected.
It's open in the sense that some set theorists are still investigating it.
Case in point: One set theorist (Woodin) published a paper just a few years ago putting forth an argument based on "omega logic" (which I don't claim to understand) that C = Aleph-2 (and therefore CH is false), while a colleague of his (Foreman) countered with an argument based on "generalized large cardinals" (which I don't claim to understand) that CH is true. So no, it isn't resolved at all.
The idea is to find a new axiom that is sufficiently compelling (i.e., more so than either CH or !CH), that could be added to the usual axioms, and that would settle the CH question one way or the other (unless the resulting set of axioms later proved to be inconsistent). Of course, "compelling" may seem to be a subjective standard, but the existing axioms are widely accepted because they are compelling.
Paul Cohen. It was Paul Cohen.
And he didn't solve the continuum hypothesis. He showed that you cannot prove CH from the ZF axioms. Gödel had previously show that you cannot *disprove* CH from ZF (unless ZF is inconsistent). Together these results show that CH is independent of ZF.
So CH is still an unresolved problem today. As far as anyone knows, either CH or its negation can be taken as a separate axiom of itself, which leaves it an open question.
I agree too. But my hope is that they will have learned a few lessons about working in larger forms. For one, you can't make a good story better by adding a lot of pointless filler (and there was a good story underlying Bender's Big Score; maybe a shorter cut of the movie, around 45 minutes, focusing on that story, would have worked).
Shouldn't the patent protect a specific method of solving to a problem, rather than just the idea that the problem needs a solution? That's the whole problem with the doctrine of equivalence: Far too often, it is used to bar the implementation of alternate (in many cases, better) solutions because someone else came up with a solution first. That seems at odds with the whole advancing-the-useful-arts purpose of the patent system.
I don't know whether Guitar Hero solves the given problem in the same way that Gibson did it. If they came up with a novel way to do it, then they should be allowed to make a product using that method. If it's the same solution (with different code or with minor variations in hardware) then the patent should apply (assuming the patent itself is valid).