It's a kind of scientific integrity,
a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of
utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if
you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you
think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about
it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and
things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other
experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can
tell they have been eliminated.
You say no one is lying. Maybe so, but it seems very common, especially in "science by press release," to be quite selective with the truth.
The other major difference is Apple doesn't have this horrid codebase that Microsoft does.
Apple also has complete control over the hardware specs their software is supposed to run on, which must considerably narrow the complexity of their hardware interfaces. That's why Apple makes whole computers (or devices) and doesn't separate their hardware from their software.
The result is only partial evidence of superconductivity and the work has yet to be peer-reviewed. But its mere publication will set scientists scrambling to confirm.
Why the hell did they publish before peer review? That ain't how science is supposed to work.
If anything, Wikipedia is at least halfway impartial, if for no other reason than anyone, no matter what bias, can correct a statement that leans too far to one side or the other.
I fail to see how multiple biased authors will collectively produce an unbiased final product. There's certainly no reason to presume they will.
As to your first point, naming an unbiased source, I don't claim there is one. Whether there exists an unbiased source or not, is irrelevant to the question of whether Wikipedia is biased.
I would point out that Wikipedia cannot really be considered a disinterested party, when it comes to the subject of copyright and fair use. The possibility of bias exists.
Smart people, who understand how things work, would be potentially good at causing lots of damage? More so than people who aren't smart and/or don't understand how things work? Who'd have thought!? (And we know which category the author of TFA falls into...)
I disagree. The point of advertising is to get me to want something I don't need (because if I needed it, I could not wait around for an advertiser to "educate me about his valuable product/service"). That is, by definition, a waste of my time.
When I do want to buy something, I go looking for it. To find what I want, I use a wonderful invention called the Yellow Pages, and if I want to get high-tech then there's Google. These are more than adequate for me to find what I want without much effort. When I don't want to buy something, I think it's reasonable to ask the sellers to stay out of my face.
What I didn't realize was that other art people were looking over my shoulder and nodding at every single thing I was saying.
How do you know they were art people, not engineers disguised as art people?
Seriously -- your experiment doesn't discredit "modern" art; it only shows that the Met is full of poseurs. If you think there is nothing more to painting than that, get yourself some paint and canvas and open up a studio. When you try to sell those paintings, you'll find that getting a good price for them -- let along getting them displayed in the Met -- really does take talent.
But they still let any idiot walk in through the museum door.
If you have nothing to hide, please post your Social Security number, date of birth, home address, mother's maiden name, ISP username and password, and telephone number here.
a nerve center acting as an antenna could be exposed from nearly any location on the body. (Possibly metallic in nature?)
A species capable of radio communication would probably develop tools to enhance their natural transmission and reception capabilities. Something like hand (or tentacle)-held antennae, parabolic dishes, and so forth.
I would also point out that ownership of animals is not legally the same as ownership of inanimate objects. If I want to smash my TV with a hammer, I'm perfectly entitled to do so; cruelty to animals is a crime. In fact, I have a legal obligation to provide food, water, sanitation, and shelter to my pets. So the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (where I live) has already discarded the notion that animals are "nothing more than property". That is, they're legally considered property, but not on the same level as inanimate objects.
The Federal government will just assert authority under the "commerce clause,"* and all the state's efforts will be for naught.
*Assuming they even try to justify their power-grab according to constitutional principles. Though in this case they would actually have a leg to stand on.
A very big chunk of the payload for a manned Mars flight would be fuel and life-support equipment for the astronaut(s). It may indeed be impractical to send enough of both for a round trip. But we don't have to. We could send *umanned* supply missions ahead of the manned flight to stockpile fuel in Mars orbit. Then when the manned flight arrives, it could refuel for the return trip.
Actually, no. Not that I feel the need to justify myself to you -- especially since you've made no substantive criticism of my position (intentionally misconstruing my words counts as "ad hominem," not "substantive"). I just don't feel like giving you the last word until you actually say something.
After I got home, I did play the video, and Perkins didn't even seem to understand the question that was posed, let alone address the topic of how WotC has changed is changing its licensing terms. He sounded like an idiot.
They never did. The current 3e/3.5e SRD is quite far from "Free" in many regards, and the d20 System License is full-blown branding
It seems you understand the difference between the SRD, the OGL, and the D20 License, but a lot of readers might not. So others can follow as we get technical: the OGL is the Open Gaming License, which I and some others would argue is not really very open. The SRD is the System Reference Document, which are the D&D 3.x rules as trimmed down and released under the OGL. The D20 System License is a separate license one could use to put a "D20 System" logo on one's product, which was supposed to indicate some level of compatibility with D&D. To get that logo one had to consent to rather odious and very non-free license terms.
What about the SRD is not free? I don't see how the "Product Identity" clause of the OGL affects the SRD because the SRD doesn't include any WotC "Product Identity." Are you referring to something else?
You then went on (in tenor) to suggest that WotC has some sort of obligation (or at least that it would be objectively good) to make OGL "free as in speech."
I don't see why you read into my comments a delusion that WotC has any obligation to do anything. To be clear, I agree with you -- they don't have to offer any license of any kind to anyone.
The latter is your opinion, on a matter that (I will hazard a guess) is really irrelevant to the vast majority of consumers in the market.
I disagree with you there. The licensing terms WotC offers to publishers have a considerable impact on what products those publishers decide to print: whether they adopt 4E rules, continue making 3.5-SRD based products, or "fork" away from D&D entirely and go back to making independent game systems.
To be clear, my position is that the new licensing terms are less favorable to third-party publishers than the OGL 1.0 was, and that is bad news for anyone who wants to see 4E-compatible products from third parties (because fewer publishers will accept the license terms). How many people want to see 4E-compatible products depends mostly on whether 4E is any good, and that's another subject.
And to clarify, I was not insulting you. I was highlighting the logical fallacies of your argument (argued to a pre-conceived conclusion, ignored readily available evidence, etc).
I said up-front I ignored the video but I linked to, and quoted, text sources. The video was really answering a different question, anyway (about how the OGL relates specifically to computer games). So I think one can have an informed opinion on the matter without watching the video. If the video directly contradicts what I've said, I fully expect to see comments to that effect in this thread.
As to arguing to a pre-conceived conclusion, I don't follow what you're criticizing there. How can one argue anything effectively without having made up one's own mind?
shorter: "I've decided that WotC should give their stuff out on my terms, and also I've decided that he won't tell me exactly what I want to hear, so I've constructed a convenient straw man to attack, unsullied by actual knowledge of their position."
I notice that you've attacked my so-called "ignorance" without actually pointing out any error or oversight on my part. So what exactly is your basis for that accusation? Or do you just enjoy insulting people without bothering to back it up?
There are those who complain the OGL was not really open, but I believe that it was, indeed, open with regard to game mechanics. The less-than-free clauses related to "product identity" did not prevent people from making derivative games with the SRD rules as a starting point. Malhovoc Press, for example, did exactly that.
The new plan WotC has announced is that the SRD will not contain the full rules of the game. So I reiterate, the 3.5 SRD was free-as-in-speech and WotC's announced plan is that the 4.0 rules will be free-as-in-beer.
First of all, no, I did not watch the damn videos of Perkins spewing marketer-speak. If I wanted to see video I would go to YouTube, not Slashdot.
Second, the elephant in the room is the Open Gaming License, or "Game System License" as it will be called for 4E. Basically, Wizards of the Coast is dropping open gaming in all but name. Some details are here; highlights are:
The 4th edition SRD will be much more of a reference document than the 3e SRD. The current edition contains almost all of the rules and allows "copy and paste" publishing. WotC would prefer to see 3rd party publishers to use their creativity and talent instead of reformatting or slightly changing pre-existing rules. As such, the 4e SRD will contain more guidelines and pointers, and less straightforward rules repetition.
Translation: we are not going to release the actual rules under a free license.
The 4e OGL will contain some aspects of the old d20 license, and is more restrictive in some areas than the prior Open Gaming License. We are tying the OGL more closely to D&D. There is a free registration process, a community standards clause, enforceability clauses, and no expiration date.
Translation: we are moving from free-as-in-speech to free-as-in beer because we think it's in the best interest of our brand.
Anybody know if artillery rounds from a gun like this would be more difficult to destroy than ballistic missle warheads?
Artillery rounds have no easily-detectable exhaust plume. They are an order of magnitude smaller than a missile cylinder, therefore harder to detect and harder to hit.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it would be, "System Error: you are going to get shot now. Click OK to continue."
I subscribe to Richard Feynman's idea of scientific integrity, which I suppose is why I don't fit into the "peer community."
Quoth Feynman:
You say no one is lying. Maybe so, but it seems very common, especially in "science by press release," to be quite selective with the truth.
I fail to see how multiple biased authors will collectively produce an unbiased final product. There's certainly no reason to presume they will.
As to your first point, naming an unbiased source, I don't claim there is one. Whether there exists an unbiased source or not, is irrelevant to the question of whether Wikipedia is biased.
Or, it encourages digital publishers to re-locate out of state.
Smart people, who understand how things work, would be potentially good at causing lots of damage? More so than people who aren't smart and/or don't understand how things work? Who'd have thought!? (And we know which category the author of TFA falls into...)
I, for one, can't count that high.
My cynical side says, "It's coming soon, and it's called the Semantic Web"
I disagree. The point of advertising is to get me to want something I don't need (because if I needed it, I could not wait around for an advertiser to "educate me about his valuable product/service"). That is, by definition, a waste of my time.
When I do want to buy something, I go looking for it. To find what I want, I use a wonderful invention called the Yellow Pages, and if I want to get high-tech then there's Google. These are more than adequate for me to find what I want without much effort. When I don't want to buy something, I think it's reasonable to ask the sellers to stay out of my face.
Microsoft has more practice patching their OS!
In Microsoft's case I'm inclined to think they're being equivocal on purpose, implying "free as in beer" when the real topic "free as speech."
To fight back, I think we should be calling it "freedomware" rather than "free software."
How do you know they were art people, not engineers disguised as art people?
Seriously -- your experiment doesn't discredit "modern" art; it only shows that the Met is full of poseurs. If you think there is nothing more to painting than that, get yourself some paint and canvas and open up a studio. When you try to sell those paintings, you'll find that getting a good price for them -- let along getting them displayed in the Met -- really does take talent.
But they still let any idiot walk in through the museum door.
If you have nothing to hide, please post your Social Security number, date of birth, home address, mother's maiden name, ISP username and password, and telephone number here.
I, for one, have quite a bit to hide, thanks.
A species capable of radio communication would probably develop tools to enhance their natural transmission and reception capabilities. Something like hand (or tentacle)-held antennae, parabolic dishes, and so forth.
I would also point out that ownership of animals is not legally the same as ownership of inanimate objects. If I want to smash my TV with a hammer, I'm perfectly entitled to do so; cruelty to animals is a crime. In fact, I have a legal obligation to provide food, water, sanitation, and shelter to my pets. So the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (where I live) has already discarded the notion that animals are "nothing more than property". That is, they're legally considered property, but not on the same level as inanimate objects.
The Federal government will just assert authority under the "commerce clause,"* and all the state's efforts will be for naught.
*Assuming they even try to justify their power-grab according to constitutional principles. Though in this case they would actually have a leg to stand on.
A very big chunk of the payload for a manned Mars flight would be fuel and life-support equipment for the astronaut(s). It may indeed be impractical to send enough of both for a round trip. But we don't have to. We could send *umanned* supply missions ahead of the manned flight to stockpile fuel in Mars orbit. Then when the manned flight arrives, it could refuel for the return trip.
Actually, no. Not that I feel the need to justify myself to you -- especially since you've made no substantive criticism of my position (intentionally misconstruing my words counts as "ad hominem," not "substantive"). I just don't feel like giving you the last word until you actually say something.
After I got home, I did play the video, and Perkins didn't even seem to understand the question that was posed, let alone address the topic of how WotC has changed is changing its licensing terms. He sounded like an idiot.
It seems you understand the difference between the SRD, the OGL, and the D20 License, but a lot of readers might not. So others can follow as we get technical: the OGL is the Open Gaming License, which I and some others would argue is not really very open. The SRD is the System Reference Document, which are the D&D 3.x rules as trimmed down and released under the OGL. The D20 System License is a separate license one could use to put a "D20 System" logo on one's product, which was supposed to indicate some level of compatibility with D&D. To get that logo one had to consent to rather odious and very non-free license terms.
What about the SRD is not free? I don't see how the "Product Identity" clause of the OGL affects the SRD because the SRD doesn't include any WotC "Product Identity." Are you referring to something else?
I don't see why you read into my comments a delusion that WotC has any obligation to do anything. To be clear, I agree with you -- they don't have to offer any license of any kind to anyone.
I disagree with you there. The licensing terms WotC offers to publishers have a considerable impact on what products those publishers decide to print: whether they adopt 4E rules, continue making 3.5-SRD based products, or "fork" away from D&D entirely and go back to making independent game systems.
To be clear, my position is that the new licensing terms are less favorable to third-party publishers than the OGL 1.0 was, and that is bad news for anyone who wants to see 4E-compatible products from third parties (because fewer publishers will accept the license terms). How many people want to see 4E-compatible products depends mostly on whether 4E is any good, and that's another subject.
I said up-front I ignored the video but I linked to, and quoted, text sources. The video was really answering a different question, anyway (about how the OGL relates specifically to computer games). So I think one can have an informed opinion on the matter without watching the video. If the video directly contradicts what I've said, I fully expect to see comments to that effect in this thread.
As to arguing to a pre-conceived conclusion, I don't follow what you're criticizing there. How can one argue anything effectively without having made up one's own mind?
I notice that you've attacked my so-called "ignorance" without actually pointing out any error or oversight on my part. So what exactly is your basis for that accusation? Or do you just enjoy insulting people without bothering to back it up?
There are those who complain the OGL was not really open, but I believe that it was, indeed, open with regard to game mechanics. The less-than-free clauses related to "product identity" did not prevent people from making derivative games with the SRD rules as a starting point. Malhovoc Press, for example, did exactly that.
The new plan WotC has announced is that the SRD will not contain the full rules of the game. So I reiterate, the 3.5 SRD was free-as-in-speech and WotC's announced plan is that the 4.0 rules will be free-as-in-beer.
First of all, no, I did not watch the damn videos of Perkins spewing marketer-speak. If I wanted to see video I would go to YouTube, not Slashdot.
Second, the elephant in the room is the Open Gaming License, or "Game System License" as it will be called for 4E. Basically, Wizards of the Coast is dropping open gaming in all but name. Some details are here; highlights are:
Translation: we are not going to release the actual rules under a free license.
Translation: we are moving from free-as-in-speech to free-as-in beer because we think it's in the best interest of our brand.
Artillery rounds have no easily-detectable exhaust plume. They are an order of magnitude smaller than a missile cylinder, therefore harder to detect and harder to hit.