Keep in mind that a "catastrophe" is just a discontinuity in a surface describing a system's behavior. Climate is unpredictable because it is unstable -- small changes push it into catastrophic behavior. Big changes will do the same, only moreso.
Who decides what "the community" wants/is/thinks?? The government.
No, dipshit. If the DA accuses you of obscenity, jurors are selected to determine if the material for which you are accused of distributing is obscene. This is called a "Grand Jury." They are members of your community. If the Grand Jury decides that the material is obscene, you get to exercise your rights to trial.
The reason protestors are angry about free speech zones is the implication that they can get arrested for protesting outside of them. It's plainly a tautology that their freedom of speech is being restricted to a free speech zone.
It does? I've used Debian in that capacity for a little over a year now. I've occassionally tried Ubuntu but couldn't figure out how to pare the default installation down. Even knowing that, I'm not sure if I'd switch to Ubuntu. The Debian and Ubuntu apt repositories each have different strengths and weaknesses, but Debian "seems" to have more developer tools. And Fluxbox pwns Gnome. (I occassionally use my server box to watch video since it sees such a small load)
Good work disagreeing with the conclusion. Try to find fault with any of the reasoning that lead to it. Academic journalism existed long before the GPL. The ability to read and cite papers is fair use of the material. Jesus christ you're dense.
Consider this scenario: Scientist A writes a paper under the GPL. Scientist B finds a copy on arXiv.org, puts his name in it, and illegitimately submits it to Nature. Scientist B is being completely unethical but well within his rights with respect to the GPL.
Find a flaw with my reasoning. Denying the conclusion doesn't cut it when you're talking to grown ups.
Red herring, and an obvious troll as well. I'm the only person who has been modded down in this subthread. What does your "argument" have to do with academic papers?
Let me spell out the "economics" of academia. A PhD's only currency is his reputation, which is built up with years of publishing original research. This isn't going to change unless tenured professorships and research grants become easy to acquire (Hint: It'll never happen). If everyone in academia started using the GPL, someone could modify my newest paper (say, by changing my name to theirs) and submit it to a big name journal. Then I would be fucked.
This is straightforward plagiarism, which is not tolerated in academia. Therefore, the GPL is a poor choice for scientific papers. Derivative works issues also make the GPL a poor choice. If a derivative work of a GPL licensed scientific paper must be licensed under the GPL, no one is going to read GPL licensed papers. The notion of a derivative work is broader in academia than in the context of computer software, but the GPL's language doesn't make the distinction.
Yes, it's surprising (and I mean this seriously) how good rotten.com's journalism is. Granted, they have the benefit of hindsight. But reading the rotten library feels like I'm reading a History journal with profanity.
That doesn't necessarily follow for fluids. The relevant fact is that the more strongly bound bodies are, the more viscous the liquid composed of those bodies is. But water is most dense at 4 degrees fahrenheit and actually becomes less dense as it solidifies. I think you're right as far as galaxies go, though.
You know, I'm not really sure. TeX (and LaTeX) are general purpose programming languages, so a.tex file could be viewed as a program -- much like Perl and the like. But then again, TeX is usually used to capture a document's format specifications. It would be counter-intuitive (and wrong) to apply the GPL to HTML, so by analogy, it should be wrong to apply it to TeX files.
All of this is academic since the author only gives limited distribution rights to arXiv.org and reserves the rest. I'd be really pissed if someone "modified" my source and submitted it to Nature (or Proc. AMS. in my case)
A galaxy is modeled as a stationary axially symmetric pressure-free fluid in general relativity. For the weak gravitational fields under consideration, the field equations and the equations of motion ultimately lead to one linear and one nonlinear equation relating the angular velocity to the fluid density.
That's really interesting. It makes sense to model a galaxy as a fluid on a very large scale. After all, gravity is a relatively weak force. I haven't gone through the paper, but if their math is right, since the assumption is relatively benign, this seems like it would be experimentally verified.
Since the model assumes that a galaxy is a fluid (on a large scale), the model would predict fluid-like phenomena. What I wonder is if there is a galactic analogue to solitary waves. How would these manifest? (A friend wrote his thesis on solitons)
Slashdot Mirror
Keep in mind that a "catastrophe" is just a discontinuity in a surface describing a system's behavior. Climate is unpredictable because it is unstable -- small changes push it into catastrophic behavior. Big changes will do the same, only moreso.
Says you. That is bare opinion. However, I know several people who have been arrested for peacefully protesting outside of a free speech zone.
No, dipshit. If the DA accuses you of obscenity, jurors are selected to determine if the material for which you are accused of distributing is obscene. This is called a "Grand Jury." They are members of your community. If the Grand Jury decides that the material is obscene, you get to exercise your rights to trial.
Honestly, your post was exceptionally ignorant.
The reason protestors are angry about free speech zones is the implication that they can get arrested for protesting outside of them. It's plainly a tautology that their freedom of speech is being restricted to a free speech zone.
I didn't realize Porsche sold VW off. Isn't that new Porsche SUV built on the same frame as the Toureg in the same factories?
That would be so cool.
It does? I've used Debian in that capacity for a little over a year now. I've occassionally tried Ubuntu but couldn't figure out how to pare the default installation down. Even knowing that, I'm not sure if I'd switch to Ubuntu. The Debian and Ubuntu apt repositories each have different strengths and weaknesses, but Debian "seems" to have more developer tools. And Fluxbox pwns Gnome. (I occassionally use my server box to watch video since it sees such a small load)
This extends to Linux users too. Evidence: Gentoo.
There goes my karma. Or maybe someone will laugh.
Maybe they should have blurred out the MSIE product ID... you know, if they don't want to get caught.
They're not "spoof" articles. They're examples of absurdist humor. You need to have charisma to see their humor.
You're very confused. I'm done with you. If you're feigning stupidity, you're one of the better trolls I've met.
Consider this scenario: Scientist A writes a paper under the GPL. Scientist B finds a copy on arXiv.org, puts his name in it, and illegitimately submits it to Nature. Scientist B is being completely unethical but well within his rights with respect to the GPL.
Find a flaw with my reasoning. Denying the conclusion doesn't cut it when you're talking to grown ups.
Interesting. Thanks.
Let me spell out the "economics" of academia. A PhD's only currency is his reputation, which is built up with years of publishing original research. This isn't going to change unless tenured professorships and research grants become easy to acquire (Hint: It'll never happen). If everyone in academia started using the GPL, someone could modify my newest paper (say, by changing my name to theirs) and submit it to a big name journal. Then I would be fucked.
This is straightforward plagiarism, which is not tolerated in academia. Therefore, the GPL is a poor choice for scientific papers. Derivative works issues also make the GPL a poor choice. If a derivative work of a GPL licensed scientific paper must be licensed under the GPL, no one is going to read GPL licensed papers. The notion of a derivative work is broader in academia than in the context of computer software, but the GPL's language doesn't make the distinction.
Yeah, de_rotterdam is a fun one.
Yes, it's surprising (and I mean this seriously) how good rotten.com's journalism is. Granted, they have the benefit of hindsight. But reading the rotten library feels like I'm reading a History journal with profanity.
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
Yes, my mistake. (And an embarassing one at that! :-)
It is still dumb to license academic works under the GPL, however. Copyright law works perfectly well in the domain for which it was created.
That doesn't necessarily follow for fluids. The relevant fact is that the more strongly bound bodies are, the more viscous the liquid composed of those bodies is. But water is most dense at 4 degrees fahrenheit and actually becomes less dense as it solidifies. I think you're right as far as galaxies go, though.
All of this is academic since the author only gives limited distribution rights to arXiv.org and reserves the rest. I'd be really pissed if someone "modified" my source and submitted it to Nature (or Proc. AMS. in my case)
Thank you.
That's LaTeX source, and distributing it is one of the conditions for publishing on arXiv.org.
That's really interesting. It makes sense to model a galaxy as a fluid on a very large scale. After all, gravity is a relatively weak force. I haven't gone through the paper, but if their math is right, since the assumption is relatively benign, this seems like it would be experimentally verified.
Since the model assumes that a galaxy is a fluid (on a large scale), the model would predict fluid-like phenomena. What I wonder is if there is a galactic analogue to solitary waves. How would these manifest? (A friend wrote his thesis on solitons)
Just toss it into the microwave with your post-coital frozen pizza.