My wife works with medico-legal cases, and she thinks its because of how shocking the records are. Illegible and scribbled, content free, clearly done in a rush, or ages afterwards when the doctor doesn't remember the exact details.
I think the "good" point is that while they believe the Bible is true, they accept some of it may be allegorical or metaphorical. Stories with a moral dimension rather than a literal description of reality. Where the Universe contradicts the Bible, then clearly the Bible is not describing reality, but rather is providing a parable.
Don't feed the troll. I've tangled with this guy in other threads. He is dense as a neutron star and utterly unwilling to learn anything no matter how much evidence is shown to him. He hasn't a clue about science or it's methods, witness his fake signature quote as an example.
I love it. You have a strap line about science by Feynman, yet you clearly don't fit to the ideals he would identify with. You make an unsubstantiated assertion, refuse to back it up when challenged and then run away when asked to provide evidence. In other words, completely antithetical to anything Feynman would stand for.
Right, here are the FACTS:
The word "binary" and "binaries" appear precisely 0 times in the license text. "Object code" appears 21 times.
It defines "Program" as "...any copyrightable work licensed under this License"
Binaries cannot be copyrighted, code can.
It defines "Corresponding Source" as not needing to "...include anything that users can regenerate automatically from other parts of the Corresponding Source..." In other words, since object code can be generated from the source, it does not form part of the Corresponding Source.
So, if you're distributing "object code", you must also distribute the "Corresponding Source", but if you're distributing source code, then "The Corresponding Source for a work in source code form is that same work"
Section 6 covers distributing object code, and the rules for including source with it.
There is NOTHING, NOTHING about having to distributed "object code" with source code.
In other words, you're wrong. You've been wrong from the beginning, but have flailed around like an idiot trying to avoid the difficulty of reading the license itself. I've read it several times before, along with the BSD, MIT, earlier GPLs and the MS licenses, and Creative Commons licenses. I am often asked to advise on software licensing issues for my main client, a stock exchange, as well as having drafted licenses for my company's software products.
However, even I was not so arrogant as to assume I was right, and I went and reviewed the license terms after your first (rude) reply to me.
Argument from authority is a logical fallacy, which is why I provide evidence to back up my assertion that your initial, and still unsubstantiated, assertion is wrong. This should not be necessary, since it is usually the person making the assertion who is required to provide the evidence to back their statements up. Of course, you refused to do this, petulantly claiming I had been rude, when in fact the rudeness came from you in your very first reply to me.
Either grow up, or shut up. Provide evidence to back up your assertion or go away.
"Dumb, but clever"; what a stupid comment
Oh, and change your signature, someone as intellectually bankrupt as you should not be associated with Feynman. Anyway, it's not even a Feynman quote, the real one goes "The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific “truth”."
Now, for the last time, go away. Go play with your friends.
Do you have lots of peat bogs? Because here in South Africa we've got very few wetlands. We've got a few deserts which will get bigger. No tundra, not much rain forest. So, the basic point seems to be "the already hot parts of the Earth will just have to starve, and those of us in the temperate latitudes will be alright Jack". Short sighted,immoral, as well as flat out wrong.
You're confusing "good temperature range" with arable. And, yes I did poke fun, because people who (like yourself) clearly don't understand the first thing about the effects of AGW love spouting nonsense like you have above.
it says that when you distribute a "Program" you must include source. It says NOTHING about being required to distribute binaries. Such a requirement would be stupid in the extreme, because what kind of binaries? What if the "Program" runs in an interpreter or browser as JavaScript? What if I provided Windows binaries for an Android app?
1) There is this thing called "Linux" out there. Have you tried it? KDE is better than W7 in so many ways... And IceWM is better in other ways.
You're SO RIGHT! This is it, 2013, the Year of the Linux Desktop!
People just don't UNDERSTAND how much Linux is better than Win/OsX, but I'm sure that this newfangled KDE and IceWM will make them come to their senses. I mean, they must be new right, it can't possibly be that people have seen them and been underwhelmed?
The clue is that it isn't subject to cryptanalysis, it's indistinguishable from random letters. Virtually all non one time pad methods used in that period would be crackable using today's cryptanalysis tools.
And FB itself also got a great deal. If I want to sell something, and market demand has driven the price to well above what it should be, is that my fault as the seller? Because by that logic, Apple should be giving a LOT of money back to the purchasers of its products.
Umm, no. Facebook as part of its IPO sold huge amounts of shares for the company, and gained massive amounts of cash in return, at a bloody good price it seems. That's what stock markets are FOR. They also make the shares more liquid which is good for the investors. Oh, and force better reporting, which is also good for the investors.
I also love your complete misunderstanding of what the investors provide. You claim that they produce nothing. Not true, they produced the company, by investing in it when it was small. Nowadays they're helping to finance its expansion plans. In return for that they ask that it be well run, and try and give them a return for the money they provided to it. They COULD just give the company tons of money and ask nothing in return I guess, but then they wouldn't be investors, they'd be scammed marks. Sometimes they decide to sell their stake to someone else. That someone else has the same expectations as the original investor, oerwise they wouldn't have paid the original investor as much as they did.
The whole system is set up to reward and protect people who provide money and resources to risky new ideas. But, you carry on believing your version, because that makes so much sense.
Wow. Did you read the same article I did? It was a devastating destruction of the mythologies built up around Armstrong to explain his performance, coupled with details of the scientific evidence showing how later tests found EPO in Armstrongs B samples. Didn't see any hand waving, unless you're misinterpreting his explanation of how the blood tests work.
Actually it has very little to do with fees. HFT results in a very high number of orders, but very few actual trades. Recent research by Nanex actually shows that there are less trades today than there were a few years ago. Fees are based on trades, not orders. So your entire thesis is wrong. But hey, don't let a complete misunderstanding of the problem get in the way of pontificating at length about it.
The fundamental issue with HFT is that we've taken strategies that were designed for human traders, and allowed them to be used by computers with nanosecond response times. The strategies used to be good ones, designed to advantage the broker who had a presence on the trading floor. Do they make sense now? Probably not. These strategies have the emergent feature of encouraging faster and faster trades. Even before computers took over we saw this in the mobs that used to form on trading floors, and the increased load on the floor brokers. Back then, it didn't matter too much, because the fundamental limit was the reaction time of a human being.
Now, it's not. These systems are designed to be too fast for a human to monitor, so, more and more, humans are being taken out of the loop. This leads to the insanity at Knight. All their many, many previous deployments had gone off without a hitch, why would this one be any different?
First off, shielded hardware is NOT a few grams. A second system adds a significant amount of weight. Each gram added to the rover is several hundred kilos more propellant required. In any case, they DID add a second system, which will take over in the event of an emergency. However, even then, an update is quite perilous, because you could theoretically brick the one system, and if something else goes wrong, you now have no backup.
The cesspool of filth and depravity just staged a very successful and highly visible Soccer World Cup despite the naysaying of whingers like him
South Africa's murder rate is about 10th in the world, 32 per 100,000 people; about as bad as Washington D.C. was in 2005. Most of that is in the townships, and is mostly between people who know each other. Not quite the rampaging hordes image he tries to portray.
South Africa's HIV infection rate is about 4th in the world, although we're the largest country with a high rate, so we have the most infected people overall. This is largely due to stupid government policy that has since been overturned. Anti-retroviral rollouts are the biggest in the world.
The rape rate is 138 per 100,000 people; about 70,000 reported in 2010. Far shy of the 500,000 figure sometimes bandied about. Which is not to say the higher figure is wrong; it's an estimate making some assumptions about reporting rates.
The economy of South Africa has been growing at about 2.2%, and expected to advance to 3.5%. Debt levels are tiny by comparison to the USA, or Europe, at about 36% of GDP, and vastly lower than it was under the apartheid government.
A great many racists fled South Africa when power was handed over to the ANC. They gleefully predicted buckets of blood; but were sorely disappointed. Since then they have had to justify the fact that they left because of stupid and unfounded fears. Accordingly they eagerly seek out all negative news and discard all positive news about their abandoned home. What always amazes me is the vitriol and hatred they summon for what used to be their country.
Oh, and by the way; I am white - educated under apartheid, and whilst I am happy to express my disagreements with the ANC government, at least I can now do so without jackbooted thugs coming to take me away.
Which is why I continued to say "some have members". A sole proprietorship has one member, a partnership has several, some other forms allow limited liability with members.
ALL companies have shareholders; even privately held ones. Oh, wait, some have members; which are pretty much, umm shareholders. Publicly held just means the shareholders can trade their shares openly on a stock exchange. Privately held means that either the shares just aren't listed, OR that a shareholders agreement limits the sale of shares too.
They DID attack military targets; even the Magoo's Bar which was bombed was largely frequented by military and police.
As for an apology; the ANC convened the TRC which found their attacks against civilian targets to have been a gross human rights violation. But, no, there was no direct apology. The ANC argued that they were fighting against the most powerful military and police state in Africa and had to fight with whatever means were necessary.
And it worked.
What would have had them do? March to an army base and attack?
Maybe you should study and understand the history behind why your "family and friends" were blown up by car bombs. Interesting use of the plural BTW, I was only aware of one car bomb detonated; the one at Ellis Park (2 of the bombers apologized BTW). That would mean that you're either a Clucas or Marais yes? They were the two deaths in that bombing. As a matter of interest the bomb was supposed to be heard and seen, but the intention was not to hurt anyone, since it was not MK policy to attack soft targets.
The value the UN offers can sometimes be debatable. But, in recent history the US got UN support for:
Throwing Iraq out of Kuwait
Helping the rebels against Gadhaffi
East Timor
They IGNORED the UN in order to invade Iraq. Here's the thing; most Americans seem to see the UN as a coalition of nations trying bring down the Americans. Ironically the opposite tends to be true. The United Nations generally sides with the US unless the US is being clearly wrongheaded; in which case you'd EXPECT your friends to disagree with you.
Now, it is true that some dodgy nations get elected to some strange positions. However that's usually due to regional politics rather than anyone believing that nation is an ideal champion. As an example; Africa (via the African Union) has an agreement that positions allocated to Africa be shared out among it's members. So, sometimes you get Zimbabwe elected to some human rights position. To think of this as a failing of the UN is wrong; it's a failing of the regional politics that led to it.
Another common reason for these "funny" election results is drumroll please, the Palestinian issue! To a great many countries; Israel is a violent state that brutally oppresses an occupied country. You have Palestinian children being born today to a third-class citizenship in their own country because of (admittedly stupid) mistakes their great grandparents made. Many see this as unfair, and the Israeli approach to be reminiscent of apartheid. So they elect countries on to bodies that they know will place pressure on what many of them consider the greatest human rights travesty of our current age. You get Iran elected to a human rights body; not because anyone thinks they're great shakes at human rights, but because they'll apply pressure about Israel. If anyone thought the US would be an honest broker, the US would be elected; but the US is clearly partial; and thus is not elected.
But, much as I have my doubts about the efficacy of the UN's peacekeeping operations; there's one stat that is indisputable:
Number of World Wars since the UN founded: 0
Number of World Wars before the UN founded: 2
You can argue about correlation and causation; and I personally am doubtful about it myself; but any entity that even MIGHT have a chance of averting a World War should be supported with everything we have. Logically; if a World War would kill a billion people, and the UN has a 5% chance of stopping a World War then it has saved 50,000,000.
I shouldn't have to say this; but I suspect I do - please note that the above is describing the opinions of others not myself. Personally I have a great deal of sympathy for both sides of the Israel/Palestine issue and do not believe it is as simple as oppressor/oppressed or terrorized/terrorists.
Slashdot Mirror
What makes you think the network card would report the packets to the OS and then on to tcpdump?
My wife works with medico-legal cases, and she thinks its because of how shocking the records are. Illegible and scribbled, content free, clearly done in a rush, or ages afterwards when the doctor doesn't remember the exact details.
I think the "good" point is that while they believe the Bible is true, they accept some of it may be allegorical or metaphorical. Stories with a moral dimension rather than a literal description of reality. Where the Universe contradicts the Bible, then clearly the Bible is not describing reality, but rather is providing a parable.
Don't feed the troll. I've tangled with this guy in other threads. He is dense as a neutron star and utterly unwilling to learn anything no matter how much evidence is shown to him. He hasn't a clue about science or it's methods, witness his fake signature quote as an example.
Oh look, another unsubstantiated assertion. Moron. Go away.
I love it. You have a strap line about science by Feynman, yet you clearly don't fit to the ideals he would identify with. You make an unsubstantiated assertion, refuse to back it up when challenged and then run away when asked to provide evidence. In other words, completely antithetical to anything Feynman would stand for.
Right, here are the FACTS:
The license I looked at is here.
In other words, you're wrong. You've been wrong from the beginning, but have flailed around like an idiot trying to avoid the difficulty of reading the license itself. I've read it several times before, along with the BSD, MIT, earlier GPLs and the MS licenses, and Creative Commons licenses. I am often asked to advise on software licensing issues for my main client, a stock exchange, as well as having drafted licenses for my company's software products.
However, even I was not so arrogant as to assume I was right, and I went and reviewed the license terms after your first (rude) reply to me.
Argument from authority is a logical fallacy, which is why I provide evidence to back up my assertion that your initial, and still unsubstantiated, assertion is wrong. This should not be necessary, since it is usually the person making the assertion who is required to provide the evidence to back their statements up. Of course, you refused to do this, petulantly claiming I had been rude, when in fact the rudeness came from you in your very first reply to me.
Either grow up, or shut up. Provide evidence to back up your assertion or go away.
"Dumb, but clever"; what a stupid comment
Oh, and change your signature, someone as intellectually bankrupt as you should not be associated with Feynman. Anyway, it's not even a Feynman quote, the real one goes "The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific “truth”."
Now, for the last time, go away. Go play with your friends.
Do you have lots of peat bogs? Because here in South Africa we've got very few wetlands. We've got a few deserts which will get bigger. No tundra, not much rain forest. So, the basic point seems to be "the already hot parts of the Earth will just have to starve, and those of us in the temperate latitudes will be alright Jack". Short sighted,immoral, as well as flat out wrong.
You're confusing "good temperature range" with arable. And, yes I did poke fun, because people who (like yourself) clearly don't understand the first thing about the effects of AGW love spouting nonsense like you have above.
I said go away, child
No it doesn't. You can claim it does till you're blue in the face, but you're wrong.
Don't know how to make that any clearer. Provide clauses to back up your assertion or STFU.
new arable land will be created to replace what might be lost
That's a new one on me, and how exactly will this occur?
The God of the climate deniers will wave his hand and say "Let there be arable land"?
Or are you going to just redefine the expanding deserts as "arable land"?
No, no it doesn't.
it says that when you distribute a "Program" you must include source. It says NOTHING about being required to distribute binaries. Such a requirement would be stupid in the extreme, because what kind of binaries? What if the "Program" runs in an interpreter or browser as JavaScript? What if I provided Windows binaries for an Android app?
1) There is this thing called "Linux" out there. Have you tried it? KDE is better than W7 in so many ways... And IceWM is better in other ways.
You're SO RIGHT! This is it, 2013, the Year of the Linux Desktop!
People just don't UNDERSTAND how much Linux is better than Win/OsX, but I'm sure that this newfangled KDE and IceWM will make them come to their senses. I mean, they must be new right, it can't possibly be that people have seen them and been underwhelmed?
The clue is that it isn't subject to cryptanalysis, it's indistinguishable from random letters. Virtually all non one time pad methods used in that period would be crackable using today's cryptanalysis tools.
And FB itself also got a great deal. If I want to sell something, and market demand has driven the price to well above what it should be, is that my fault as the seller? Because by that logic, Apple should be giving a LOT of money back to the purchasers of its products.
Umm, no. Facebook as part of its IPO sold huge amounts of shares for the company, and gained massive amounts of cash in return, at a bloody good price it seems. That's what stock markets are FOR. They also make the shares more liquid which is good for the investors. Oh, and force better reporting, which is also good for the investors.
I also love your complete misunderstanding of what the investors provide. You claim that they produce nothing. Not true, they produced the company, by investing in it when it was small. Nowadays they're helping to finance its expansion plans. In return for that they ask that it be well run, and try and give them a return for the money they provided to it. They COULD just give the company tons of money and ask nothing in return I guess, but then they wouldn't be investors, they'd be scammed marks. Sometimes they decide to sell their stake to someone else. That someone else has the same expectations as the original investor, oerwise they wouldn't have paid the original investor as much as they did.
The whole system is set up to reward and protect people who provide money and resources to risky new ideas. But, you carry on believing your version, because that makes so much sense.
Wow. Did you read the same article I did? It was a devastating destruction of the mythologies built up around Armstrong to explain his performance, coupled with details of the scientific evidence showing how later tests found EPO in Armstrongs B samples. Didn't see any hand waving, unless you're misinterpreting his explanation of how the blood tests work.
Actually it has very little to do with fees. HFT results in a very high number of orders, but very few actual trades. Recent research by Nanex actually shows that there are less trades today than there were a few years ago. Fees are based on trades, not orders. So your entire thesis is wrong. But hey, don't let a complete misunderstanding of the problem get in the way of pontificating at length about it.
The fundamental issue with HFT is that we've taken strategies that were designed for human traders, and allowed them to be used by computers with nanosecond response times. The strategies used to be good ones, designed to advantage the broker who had a presence on the trading floor. Do they make sense now? Probably not. These strategies have the emergent feature of encouraging faster and faster trades. Even before computers took over we saw this in the mobs that used to form on trading floors, and the increased load on the floor brokers. Back then, it didn't matter too much, because the fundamental limit was the reaction time of a human being.
Now, it's not. These systems are designed to be too fast for a human to monitor, so, more and more, humans are being taken out of the loop. This leads to the insanity at Knight. All their many, many previous deployments had gone off without a hitch, why would this one be any different?
Disclaimer: I work at a stock exchange
First off, shielded hardware is NOT a few grams. A second system adds a significant amount of weight. Each gram added to the rover is several hundred kilos more propellant required. In any case, they DID add a second system, which will take over in the event of an emergency. However, even then, an update is quite perilous, because you could theoretically brick the one system, and if something else goes wrong, you now have no backup.
A great many racists fled South Africa when power was handed over to the ANC. They gleefully predicted buckets of blood; but were sorely disappointed. Since then they have had to justify the fact that they left because of stupid and unfounded fears. Accordingly they eagerly seek out all negative news and discard all positive news about their abandoned home. What always amazes me is the vitriol and hatred they summon for what used to be their country.
Oh, and by the way; I am white - educated under apartheid, and whilst I am happy to express my disagreements with the ANC government, at least I can now do so without jackbooted thugs coming to take me away.
Sole props have a single member, partnerships have multiple members. In some jurisdictions there are also limited liability companies with membership.
Which is why I continued to say "some have members". A sole proprietorship has one member, a partnership has several, some other forms allow limited liability with members.
ALL companies have shareholders; even privately held ones. Oh, wait, some have members; which are pretty much, umm shareholders. Publicly held just means the shareholders can trade their shares openly on a stock exchange. Privately held means that either the shares just aren't listed, OR that a shareholders agreement limits the sale of shares too.
They DID attack military targets; even the Magoo's Bar which was bombed was largely frequented by military and police.
As for an apology; the ANC convened the TRC which found their attacks against civilian targets to have been a gross human rights violation. But, no, there was no direct apology. The ANC argued that they were fighting against the most powerful military and police state in Africa and had to fight with whatever means were necessary.
And it worked.
What would have had them do? March to an army base and attack?
Maybe you should study and understand the history behind why your "family and friends" were blown up by car bombs. Interesting use of the plural BTW, I was only aware of one car bomb detonated; the one at Ellis Park (2 of the bombers apologized BTW). That would mean that you're either a Clucas or Marais yes? They were the two deaths in that bombing. As a matter of interest the bomb was supposed to be heard and seen, but the intention was not to hurt anyone, since it was not MK policy to attack soft targets.
They IGNORED the UN in order to invade Iraq. Here's the thing; most Americans seem to see the UN as a coalition of nations trying bring down the Americans. Ironically the opposite tends to be true. The United Nations generally sides with the US unless the US is being clearly wrongheaded; in which case you'd EXPECT your friends to disagree with you.
Now, it is true that some dodgy nations get elected to some strange positions. However that's usually due to regional politics rather than anyone believing that nation is an ideal champion. As an example; Africa (via the African Union) has an agreement that positions allocated to Africa be shared out among it's members. So, sometimes you get Zimbabwe elected to some human rights position. To think of this as a failing of the UN is wrong; it's a failing of the regional politics that led to it.
Another common reason for these "funny" election results is drumroll please, the Palestinian issue! To a great many countries; Israel is a violent state that brutally oppresses an occupied country. You have Palestinian children being born today to a third-class citizenship in their own country because of (admittedly stupid) mistakes their great grandparents made. Many see this as unfair, and the Israeli approach to be reminiscent of apartheid. So they elect countries on to bodies that they know will place pressure on what many of them consider the greatest human rights travesty of our current age. You get Iran elected to a human rights body; not because anyone thinks they're great shakes at human rights, but because they'll apply pressure about Israel. If anyone thought the US would be an honest broker, the US would be elected; but the US is clearly partial; and thus is not elected.
But, much as I have my doubts about the efficacy of the UN's peacekeeping operations; there's one stat that is indisputable:
Number of World Wars since the UN founded: 0
Number of World Wars before the UN founded: 2
You can argue about correlation and causation; and I personally am doubtful about it myself; but any entity that even MIGHT have a chance of averting a World War should be supported with everything we have. Logically; if a World War would kill a billion people, and the UN has a 5% chance of stopping a World War then it has saved 50,000,000.
I shouldn't have to say this; but I suspect I do - please note that the above is describing the opinions of others not myself. Personally I have a great deal of sympathy for both sides of the Israel/Palestine issue and do not believe it is as simple as oppressor/oppressed or terrorized/terrorists.