"Microsoft will now do so, with licensing terms that allow every recipient of the resulting software to copy, modify and redistribute it in accordance with the open source business model," Kroes said in a statement.
All US projects will have to do will be to have someone in Europe touch the code, and license it back to them. They will have received it from the EU, and therefore will be under the same protections.
No, windows update is not a P2P app. They don't trust the swarm, and I don't want YOU downloading your windows updates from me (slowing down my connection), unless I specifically authorize it. I paid for a Windows license (Okay, well, no, now technically I didn't, but I nevertheless acquired it legitimately, and it's a consumer product worth money); they can host us all directly.
I've decided, though, that since Comcast is doing stuff like this, I'm going to start using bandwidth by seeding Ubuntu ISOs.
I did it. Why should I pay for music that might suck? I had never heard of Radiohead before, so I figured that any financial gain would be as a result of me actually liking their music.
I had never heard anything by Radiohead before, so I figured that any financial gain they would get would be a result of the exposure I was granting them by downloading their album.
Good thing for me, too, because it sucked.
At least I gave it a listen, though. That's more than what any other band I've never heard of gets.
Their site was butt-ugly (WAY too colorful), and had a really awkward interface. It's like they went out of their way to confuse people, hoping that they would give them more money than non-confused people. It just made me wary to give them any financial info, given that the site looked like it was from geocities in 1997.
A while ago, Harvey Danger (also a band I had never heard of) put an album up on their site. They provided ZIP over http/ftp or a higher bitrate OGG/ZIP over bittorrent. I still listen to it occasionally.
Apple will not be able to do so, since it has launched with a 5-year exclusivity agreement with AT&T. That deal will probably require exclusivity worldwide to avoid grey-market imports.
Not the case: the contract is limited to the domestic (US) market: in the UK, the iPhone is exclusive to O2. In France and other countries with similar laws, Apple will simply be denied the option of offering an exclusive contract to any particular company.
There are countries where there is no AT&T. I know, blew my mind too.
Somehow, the fact that God (the same creator God of Genisis 1 & 2; the original source of life Himself) was explicitly and directly involved in Jesus' conception in a way that He is not involved in other conceptions seems to be enough to explain the Y-chromosome thing quite nicely.
Luke 1:34-37 King James Version (KJV)
34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
36And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
Tradition has it that Joseph was an old widower with children before he and Mary got engaged. There's also the fact that Jews called their cousins "brothers". Nope, I can't prove that any of these things accurately explain what really happened (as that would be impossible), but it ought to wipe that "I've just stumped `em Bible-thumpin' Xtians with a scriptural contradiction"-smile off your face.
There is nothing in the Bible, or Christian doctrine, that rests on Mary remaining a virgin after Jesus was born. Matthew 1:25 says "until", and it would be ridiculous to assume otherwise. There was no reason for them to deny one another proper marital rights. There is no reason that you, as a Christian, ought to feel the need to defend such a ridiculous stance.
I'm getting pretty sick of this particular line of reasoning. By this logic, we ought to spend 100% of our research efforts on the one problem that is arbitrarily decided to be the worst problem for humanity. Never mind how achievable it is: all other causes are a waste of resources.
Please read (and, if possible, think about) the posts to which you respond in the future.
Which "explanation" are you talking about? As far as I can discern, hypotheses involving God's intervention were pretty-well established as being specifically excluded from this discussion, because they are not scientific.
While establishing the above point, the AC poster was, however, making the mistake of assuming that since questions about God are not part of a coherent perspective of scientific inquiry, that God must necessarily not exist.
That is not science: it is engineering. An engineer is not required to question the presently-understood version of reality; in fact, he is taught to count on it. A scientist is required, by the very nature of his work, to question the way things have been understood.
The "scientific" achievements that you list are not science in the way that the GP is meaning; they do not overturn long-established ways of thinking and provide a better understanding of the universal laws: they are more feats of engineering, taking advantage of scientific knowledge, than science. Engineering is dependent on science. The Romans were excellent engineers, and took advantage of the understanding of the universe unearthed by the Greek scientists and philosophers, but there weren't that many Roman scientists.
The "there is no God" notion isn't really a conclusion of science. It isn't even a hypothesis. It is a "metaphysical presupposition."
This presupposition must be made in order for scientific investigation to be possible. If one assumes that some phenomena (whatever it may be) is simply "the work of God," then there is no incentive to do controlled tests of it. If, however, one assumes that the phenomena has a physical (non-miraculous, non-conscious) mechanism behind it, then it makes sense to to tests aimed at uncovering and modeling the mechanism.
I agree that it's a "metaphysical presupposition", and that metaphysical presuppositions are necessary to engage in scientific study, but I don't think that it is necessary to assume that God "doesn't exist" in order to engage in scientific study. I think a better, more general way to put it would be "All other things being equal", or "in a closed system": basically, you need to assume that God is not actively (abnormally) "interfering" with your experiments as you conduct them: whether he exists or not.
One could also argue that the "optimal" application of military prowess causes all of your genetic competitors to die and results in your reproductive success. Hence, spare the women, and enslave the children.
Slashdot Mirror
All US projects will have to do will be to have someone in Europe touch the code, and license it back to them. They will have received it from the EU, and therefore will be under the same protections.
No, windows update is not a P2P app. They don't trust the swarm, and I don't want YOU downloading your windows updates from me (slowing down my connection), unless I specifically authorize it. I paid for a Windows license (Okay, well, no, now technically I didn't, but I nevertheless acquired it legitimately, and it's a consumer product worth money); they can host us all directly.
I've decided, though, that since Comcast is doing stuff like this, I'm going to start using bandwidth by seeding Ubuntu ISOs.
Not as a common carrier, artificially granted monopoly status, they don't.
I totally want to try the salt thing!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD_Device#Molecular_Disruption_Device
I did it. Why should I pay for music that might suck? I had never heard of Radiohead before, so I figured that any financial gain would be as a result of me actually liking their music.
I didn't, though. It sucked.
For $0.00
I had never heard anything by Radiohead before, so I figured that any financial gain they would get would be a result of the exposure I was granting them by downloading their album.
Good thing for me, too, because it sucked.
At least I gave it a listen, though. That's more than what any other band I've never heard of gets.
Their site was butt-ugly (WAY too colorful), and had a really awkward interface. It's like they went out of their way to confuse people, hoping that they would give them more money than non-confused people. It just made me wary to give them any financial info, given that the site looked like it was from geocities in 1997.
A while ago, Harvey Danger (also a band I had never heard of) put an album up on their site. They provided ZIP over http/ftp or a higher bitrate OGG/ZIP over bittorrent. I still listen to it occasionally.
Not the case: the contract is limited to the domestic (US) market: in the UK, the iPhone is exclusive to O2. In France and other countries with similar laws, Apple will simply be denied the option of offering an exclusive contract to any particular company.
There are countries where there is no AT&T. I know, blew my mind too.
Meanwhile, every Wii essentially IS a GameCube whenever you load a GameCube disc. From day 1.
Somehow, the fact that God (the same creator God of Genisis 1 & 2; the original source of life Himself) was explicitly and directly involved in Jesus' conception in a way that He is not involved in other conceptions seems to be enough to explain the Y-chromosome thing quite nicely.
Luke 1:34-37
King James Version (KJV)
34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
36And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
37For with God nothing shall be impossible.
There is nothing in the Bible, or Christian doctrine, that rests on Mary remaining a virgin after Jesus was born. Matthew 1:25 says "until", and it would be ridiculous to assume otherwise. There was no reason for them to deny one another proper marital rights. There is no reason that you, as a Christian, ought to feel the need to defend such a ridiculous stance.
I'm getting pretty sick of this particular line of reasoning. By this logic, we ought to spend 100% of our research efforts on the one problem that is arbitrarily decided to be the worst problem for humanity. Never mind how achievable it is: all other causes are a waste of resources.
Actually, I was more going for, "childishly foolish; immature or trivial".
Wait... so, you're saying you actually have a library of PlaysForSure music?
Because if not, then your complaint is peurile.
If you have a subscription service, there's no reason you can't get that same library of music through the Zune's subscription service.
If, like me, you don't "do" DRM'd music, then why care?
Yes. That is what this discussion is about.
Please read (and, if possible, think about) the posts to which you respond in the future.
Which "explanation" are you talking about? As far as I can discern, hypotheses involving God's intervention were pretty-well established as being specifically excluded from this discussion, because they are not scientific.
While establishing the above point, the AC poster was, however, making the mistake of assuming that since questions about God are not part of a coherent perspective of scientific inquiry, that God must necessarily not exist.
That is not science: it is engineering. An engineer is not required to question the presently-understood version of reality; in fact, he is taught to count on it. A scientist is required, by the very nature of his work, to question the way things have been understood.
The "scientific" achievements that you list are not science in the way that the GP is meaning; they do not overturn long-established ways of thinking and provide a better understanding of the universal laws: they are more feats of engineering, taking advantage of scientific knowledge, than science. Engineering is dependent on science. The Romans were excellent engineers, and took advantage of the understanding of the universe unearthed by the Greek scientists and philosophers, but there weren't that many Roman scientists.
I agree that it's a "metaphysical presupposition", and that metaphysical presuppositions are necessary to engage in scientific study, but I don't think that it is necessary to assume that God "doesn't exist" in order to engage in scientific study. I think a better, more general way to put it would be "All other things being equal", or "in a closed system": basically, you need to assume that God is not actively (abnormally) "interfering" with your experiments as you conduct them: whether he exists or not.
That's when Enterprise jumped the shark.
Here's the list: http://news.filefront.com/its-official-sony-confirms-sixaxis-rumble/
emerge -av netscape-flash nspluginwrapper
Works perfectly on my amd64 Gentoo box.
they can.
Um... that's because the full name of this here country is "The United States of America".
If Canada was called "The Canadian Provinces of America", you might have a point.
But you don't.
One could also argue that the "optimal" application of military prowess causes all of your genetic competitors to die and results in your reproductive success. Hence, spare the women, and enslave the children.