The Chinese are still killing the Falun Gong and oppressing the Tibetian monks even if they've stopped killing Christians (it's bad PR to kill Christians, but other groups don't get as much press). I believe the Russians massacred lots of those pesky religious types as well back when they were Communist. History is full of people massacring those who believe in different things than they do, and atheism clearly isn't a cure for that.
As an interesting side note, our culture does teach that food is evil- look at all the anorexics and bulimics we have in our society today. I suppose too much of any need (food, sex, even water) is harmful, but different cultures define what 'too much' is differently.
So he made fun of you for being a coward instead of answering your question. And now you're stalking him for petty revenge. If anything, this backs up his opinion that AC's aren't worth responding to. Fortunately for him, he can just set his preferences so he'll never see your posts again.
As long as you own the copyrights to the code, you can license it however you want, and there's nothing forcing you to continue licensing it in some previous way. Many companies offer free software (perhaps in the form of demos or shareware) and non-free versions of the same software and nothing says they have to continue releasing shareware if it's no longer profitable to them. (If I have a copy of that shareware, though, I can still distribute it legally, even if the company has stopped distributing it).
I always liked Ashcroft- he was (and probably still is) a just and honest man, who actually believed in minor details like upholding the constitution and following laws. (Now, he also believed in passing laws most slashdotters disliked, but he waited until he had the legal authority before doing something questionable, and was open about what he was doing). I always felt that he resigned because he disagreed with the administration about how the 'War on Terror' should be handled. Certainly he seemed to think we had gone far enough, when he resigned, he wrote "The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved."
Because no government in history has ever significantly and permanently reduced its power or revenue through the process of democracy, and certainly not through the process of bureaucracy.
What about the Chinese government? It reduced its horrific abuse of human rights to a mere wanton abuse, all through the power of bureaucracy. I'm also assuming you don't count local governments, in which you can find hundreds of examples in U.S. history of the crime lords being voted out of office through democracy. Not to mention all the times when everyone in a government has been voted out, to be replaced with less obnoxious politicians. There's also things like the amendment to end prohibition, which is about as close as you can get to a permanent reduction of power in a democracy. Things like the draft are unlikely to be used again without another World War. CONINTELPRO was illegalized, as were the Alien and Sedition acts. 1954 had income taxes as high as 91% in some tax brackets... does lowering that count as permanently decreasing power and revenue?
The statement sounds pretty, but when you're dealing with something like democratic governments (which have a tendency to change radically over the years) it's also pointless. You might as well say 'No Roller Coaster has ever significantly and permanently changed its distance from the ground'. There's no way to EVER say a change is 'permanent' in a democracy, because the next people in office might further reduce (or increase) the power of government. There's even debates about what constitutes 'power'- does a law forbidding slavery increase the power of the state or decrease it? Do laws limiting tariffs increase the power of the government or decrease its ability to earn revenue? How about laws that enforce equal treatment between races?
In short, your generalities are baseless, pointless, and probably incorrect besides. Power does tend to naturally flow to the hands of the who already have it, but democracies are the best way to ensure it doesn't stay there. Of course there will be ups and downs, but if you look at U.S. history, you'll see that everyone other than a white landowning male has more power relative to the government than they did when this country was founded. Furthermore, even the white, landowning males have more power relative to the government than they did during World War II, and probably during most of the time since. Things are looking worse for this country than they did 10 years ago, but I'd rather live in this age of government than the government 50 years ago. (Not to mention the government 50 years before that).
If they sell their album in CD form, they would get from ~$2.00 to 40 cents (depending on how shafted they are by their record company). Even after costs spent on bandwidth, if the average person downloading their music pays them $2.05 they would make more money than they would working with a label. Furthermore, if they get a bunch of cheapskates downloading their album for nothing, these people probably wouldn't have bought their music in the store anyway. And if they get a bunch of people paying $1.00 that wouldn't buy the album in the stores, that's a sale they wouldn't have gotten otherwise.
Yes, their revenue will be much lower, but since they don't have to split any of it with a label, their profit will probably be much higher. This is the real fear of the labels: not that people stop buying music, but that their 'services' as a middleman will no longer be worth the 300-1000% markup they put on everything.
1. Why do mirrors 'redirect' the dark sucking?
2. Why do prisms 'split' the dark sucking into various colors?
3. How do LEDs 'dark suck' while avoiding friction?
Apparently the owner heard a 'prowler' and went out armed with a kitchen knife. The kid's lucky no one was killed- he'd be looking at murder charges in addition to whatever fraud charges he's got now.
Many geeks have lots of money- science and engineering positions tend to pay pretty well. With money, it's possible to buy fast cars and attract women. Next you'll be telling us Bill Gates isn't a geek because he's rich, married, and wears a suit.
I think it depends on what you want to do- if you're writing software for business or doing web design, math beyond division probably isn't necessary. If you're in games or manufacturing, you'll need at least trig. If you're making something that flies or designing simulations, you'll need calculus.
Of course, any programming relies a lot on algorithms and discrete mathematics, but trig and calculus aren't needed for most of that.
I don't think he's advocating extreme penalties for the losers- just extreme penalties for the liars (which may or may not be the losers, for instance giving the winner a $1 judgment because they clearly lied about too many details). In general, Juries tend to be less sympathetic towards defendants who are obviously lying about what they did. If this woman had gone to court and said "Yes, I downloaded 20 songs, but the penalties the RIAA wants are ridiculous" she would not have received the fine she did.
Honestly, most people would be honored if someone thought that their thesis or their father's painting was worth copying. (Obviously plagiarism is another issue, almost everyone would object to someone else claiming the painting or the paper was their own). If you cherish your father's painting, why would you be offended that someone else liked his painting too? The only possible harm from such things is economic, since you probably could have sold a copy of your painting/paper.
Rephrasing the question
on
Ask Rob Malda
·
· Score: 1
What roles do the editors take in the moderation process? What parts of the moderation process have generated the most controversy?
Reasonable intelligent supporters of marijuana legalization don't think it's harmless, they just think it's less harmful than alcohol, which is legal. I don't know enough say for sure that marijuana is less harmful, but I've never seen any good studies suggesting that it's more harmful. (Certainly the study you link to could have been about alcohol instead, and no one would bat an eye).
Think of all the Audiophiles who will go and purchase these $7000 cables to try to claim Randi's $1,000,000 prize. Randi may have actually increased the number of people who will hear about and purchase these overpriced monstrosities.
You had a crazy Emperor who decided that it was time to burn all the boats and stop learning new things, even suppressing the information their ships brought back. It's not like the west was much better- The Romans stopped/lost a lot of the Greek advancements in science, and much more knowledge was lost after Rome's fall. Europe was pretty much in the dark ages until we imported technology and knowledge from the Muslim world- sure, they may have learned a lot of it from Greek/Roman and Chinese sources, but it's not like the Italians or the Chinese were improving it. If not for the Muslims, both Europe and China would still be cultural and technological backwaters- we wouldn't have discovered America yet, and the Chinese would still be out of contact with Japan.
Oh, and I disagree with whoever modded you flamebait- You're absolutely correct that the Arabs gave us the technology they took from you. Of course, without the Arabs none of us would be posting on Slashdot right now, or even heard of electricity.
If you feel insulted whenever someone challenges your beliefs, does it really matter what the reason is? Sure, you claim that they spent years studying something, but that doesn't mean they know everything- I've had plenty of teachers who I corrected, not because I knew more than them about everything, but because I knew at least one thing they didn't. Likewise, you're implying that it's not okay to question the beliefs of a theologian, philosopher, or astrologer, because they've spent years studying their field, and questioning them is an insult. If a scientist or priest can't accept people questioning their beliefs, they should stop mentioning them to others.
You see the article and think "the virtual slide rule I created is better than this one!" Too bad my University stopped hosting it (they stop hosting student web pages 6 months after you graduate).
The (official interpretation of the) laws have changed- only voice messages have common carrier status now, not text messaging or internet traffic. I am not a telecommunications lawyer, so my statement might be wrong.
Saying that 'GPLv2 or later' code is already under the GPLv3 license is like saying BSD code is already under a GPL license. Sure, GPL coders can use BSD code and re-release under the GPL, but it's not being distributed under the terms of the GPL under someone does that. Likewise, 'GPLv2 or later' code isn't distributed under GPLv3 until someone changes the license to GPLv3.
This confusion doubtless pops up from the countless First Amendment discussions on/.. The 1st Amendment protects us from government censorship, but not us censoring each other- so 1st Amendment rights don't help us against Verizon. Of course, just because it may be legal for me to censor you doesn't make it right.
Slashdot Mirror
The Chinese are still killing the Falun Gong and oppressing the Tibetian monks even if they've stopped killing Christians (it's bad PR to kill Christians, but other groups don't get as much press). I believe the Russians massacred lots of those pesky religious types as well back when they were Communist. History is full of people massacring those who believe in different things than they do, and atheism clearly isn't a cure for that.
As an interesting side note, our culture does teach that food is evil- look at all the anorexics and bulimics we have in our society today. I suppose too much of any need (food, sex, even water) is harmful, but different cultures define what 'too much' is differently.
So he made fun of you for being a coward instead of answering your question. And now you're stalking him for petty revenge. If anything, this backs up his opinion that AC's aren't worth responding to. Fortunately for him, he can just set his preferences so he'll never see your posts again.
As long as you own the copyrights to the code, you can license it however you want, and there's nothing forcing you to continue licensing it in some previous way. Many companies offer free software (perhaps in the form of demos or shareware) and non-free versions of the same software and nothing says they have to continue releasing shareware if it's no longer profitable to them. (If I have a copy of that shareware, though, I can still distribute it legally, even if the company has stopped distributing it).
I always liked Ashcroft- he was (and probably still is) a just and honest man, who actually believed in minor details like upholding the constitution and following laws. (Now, he also believed in passing laws most slashdotters disliked, but he waited until he had the legal authority before doing something questionable, and was open about what he was doing). I always felt that he resigned because he disagreed with the administration about how the 'War on Terror' should be handled. Certainly he seemed to think we had gone far enough, when he resigned, he wrote "The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved."
What about the Chinese government? It reduced its horrific abuse of human rights to a mere wanton abuse, all through the power of bureaucracy. I'm also assuming you don't count local governments, in which you can find hundreds of examples in U.S. history of the crime lords being voted out of office through democracy. Not to mention all the times when everyone in a government has been voted out, to be replaced with less obnoxious politicians. There's also things like the amendment to end prohibition, which is about as close as you can get to a permanent reduction of power in a democracy. Things like the draft are unlikely to be used again without another World War. CONINTELPRO was illegalized, as were the Alien and Sedition acts. 1954 had income taxes as high as 91% in some tax brackets... does lowering that count as permanently decreasing power and revenue?
The statement sounds pretty, but when you're dealing with something like democratic governments (which have a tendency to change radically over the years) it's also pointless. You might as well say 'No Roller Coaster has ever significantly and permanently changed its distance from the ground'. There's no way to EVER say a change is 'permanent' in a democracy, because the next people in office might further reduce (or increase) the power of government. There's even debates about what constitutes 'power'- does a law forbidding slavery increase the power of the state or decrease it? Do laws limiting tariffs increase the power of the government or decrease its ability to earn revenue? How about laws that enforce equal treatment between races?
In short, your generalities are baseless, pointless, and probably incorrect besides. Power does tend to naturally flow to the hands of the who already have it, but democracies are the best way to ensure it doesn't stay there. Of course there will be ups and downs, but if you look at U.S. history, you'll see that everyone other than a white landowning male has more power relative to the government than they did when this country was founded. Furthermore, even the white, landowning males have more power relative to the government than they did during World War II, and probably during most of the time since. Things are looking worse for this country than they did 10 years ago, but I'd rather live in this age of government than the government 50 years ago. (Not to mention the government 50 years before that).
If they sell their album in CD form, they would get from ~$2.00 to 40 cents (depending on how shafted they are by their record company). Even after costs spent on bandwidth, if the average person downloading their music pays them $2.05 they would make more money than they would working with a label. Furthermore, if they get a bunch of cheapskates downloading their album for nothing, these people probably wouldn't have bought their music in the store anyway. And if they get a bunch of people paying $1.00 that wouldn't buy the album in the stores, that's a sale they wouldn't have gotten otherwise.
Yes, their revenue will be much lower, but since they don't have to split any of it with a label, their profit will probably be much higher. This is the real fear of the labels: not that people stop buying music, but that their 'services' as a middleman will no longer be worth the 300-1000% markup they put on everything.
1. Why do mirrors 'redirect' the dark sucking?
2. Why do prisms 'split' the dark sucking into various colors?
3. How do LEDs 'dark suck' while avoiding friction?
Apparently the owner heard a 'prowler' and went out armed with a kitchen knife. The kid's lucky no one was killed- he'd be looking at murder charges in addition to whatever fraud charges he's got now.
Many geeks have lots of money- science and engineering positions tend to pay pretty well. With money, it's possible to buy fast cars and attract women. Next you'll be telling us Bill Gates isn't a geek because he's rich, married, and wears a suit.
This gives me a great idea for the origin of life: moderately intelligent design! Each extinction event could be a restart of the code base!
I think it depends on what you want to do- if you're writing software for business or doing web design, math beyond division probably isn't necessary. If you're in games or manufacturing, you'll need at least trig. If you're making something that flies or designing simulations, you'll need calculus.
Of course, any programming relies a lot on algorithms and discrete mathematics, but trig and calculus aren't needed for most of that.
I don't think he's advocating extreme penalties for the losers- just extreme penalties for the liars (which may or may not be the losers, for instance giving the winner a $1 judgment because they clearly lied about too many details). In general, Juries tend to be less sympathetic towards defendants who are obviously lying about what they did. If this woman had gone to court and said "Yes, I downloaded 20 songs, but the penalties the RIAA wants are ridiculous" she would not have received the fine she did.
Honestly, most people would be honored if someone thought that their thesis or their father's painting was worth copying. (Obviously plagiarism is another issue, almost everyone would object to someone else claiming the painting or the paper was their own). If you cherish your father's painting, why would you be offended that someone else liked his painting too? The only possible harm from such things is economic, since you probably could have sold a copy of your painting/paper.
What roles do the editors take in the moderation process? What parts of the moderation process have generated the most controversy?
Reasonable intelligent supporters of marijuana legalization don't think it's harmless, they just think it's less harmful than alcohol, which is legal. I don't know enough say for sure that marijuana is less harmful, but I've never seen any good studies suggesting that it's more harmful. (Certainly the study you link to could have been about alcohol instead, and no one would bat an eye).
Think of all the Audiophiles who will go and purchase these $7000 cables to try to claim Randi's $1,000,000 prize. Randi may have actually increased the number of people who will hear about and purchase these overpriced monstrosities.
Perhaps- but jerks often get good results. When dealing with wackos, it's sometimes nice to have an 'equal and opposite' wacko.
You had a crazy Emperor who decided that it was time to burn all the boats and stop learning new things, even suppressing the information their ships brought back. It's not like the west was much better- The Romans stopped/lost a lot of the Greek advancements in science, and much more knowledge was lost after Rome's fall. Europe was pretty much in the dark ages until we imported technology and knowledge from the Muslim world- sure, they may have learned a lot of it from Greek/Roman and Chinese sources, but it's not like the Italians or the Chinese were improving it. If not for the Muslims, both Europe and China would still be cultural and technological backwaters- we wouldn't have discovered America yet, and the Chinese would still be out of contact with Japan.
Oh, and I disagree with whoever modded you flamebait- You're absolutely correct that the Arabs gave us the technology they took from you. Of course, without the Arabs none of us would be posting on Slashdot right now, or even heard of electricity.
If you feel insulted whenever someone challenges your beliefs, does it really matter what the reason is? Sure, you claim that they spent years studying something, but that doesn't mean they know everything- I've had plenty of teachers who I corrected, not because I knew more than them about everything, but because I knew at least one thing they didn't. Likewise, you're implying that it's not okay to question the beliefs of a theologian, philosopher, or astrologer, because they've spent years studying their field, and questioning them is an insult. If a scientist or priest can't accept people questioning their beliefs, they should stop mentioning them to others.
That's why I'm a math nerd more than a computer nerd. Slashdot contains all sorts of geeks.
You see the article and think "the virtual slide rule I created is better than this one!" Too bad my University stopped hosting it (they stop hosting student web pages 6 months after you graduate).
The (official interpretation of the) laws have changed- only voice messages have common carrier status now, not text messaging or internet traffic. I am not a telecommunications lawyer, so my statement might be wrong.
Saying that 'GPLv2 or later' code is already under the GPLv3 license is like saying BSD code is already under a GPL license. Sure, GPL coders can use BSD code and re-release under the GPL, but it's not being distributed under the terms of the GPL under someone does that. Likewise, 'GPLv2 or later' code isn't distributed under GPLv3 until someone changes the license to GPLv3.
This confusion doubtless pops up from the countless First Amendment discussions on /.. The 1st Amendment protects us from government censorship, but not us censoring each other- so 1st Amendment rights don't help us against Verizon. Of course, just because it may be legal for me to censor you doesn't make it right.