A computer program which is embodied in a machine or product and which cannot be copied during the ordinary operation or use of the machine or product; or
Great job taking stuff out of context. That was from a section specifically describing "acts of rental, lease, or lending," not acts of purchasing and selling. It means that I can't rent out the copy of Windows that I got with my Dell or lend it to a buddy. If you read the section just BEFORE that, the one actually relevant to the topic at hand, you'll see that "Many state courts have also ruled that a sale of software is indeed a sale of goods under the UCC at the point where funds are exchanged for the physical copy of the software," therefore making it perfectly legal to resell it under your own terms.
Here's the most recent precedent set by the Supreme Court. The "do not resell" clause on the book in this case is practically identical to the EULA in software, and the court ruled that "The purchaser of a book, once sold by authority of the owner of the copyright, may sell it again, although he could not publish a new edition of it." (quote from the official Supreme Court ruling.)
By the way, this case was one of company vs. company, not company vs. individual. The publisher sued a retailer that bought many copies of the book at wholesale and resold them at a lower price, so this ruling is definitely (even especially) applicable to "the large, corporate, lawyer controlled, and sometimes silly business market." It still applies to the individual, of course, which leads me to my hero; David Zamos showed that even if a huge company like M$ wants you to give in, as long as you fight for justice when you know the law is on your side you'll be able to beat the big-wigs. W00t for rights!
I bought my first electric guitar brand new for $70. Full size, three single coil pickups, floating bridge w/ trem, strat style, solidbody. Sure it sounded like crap, but my point is that for $70 you can do a LOT better than a kid's toy.
Funny story though - I sold the thing a year and a half later in the classified ads for $130.
If you're a simpleton, yea. The fact is that there are a lot of big biological boundaries that must be crossed with macroevolution but not with micro. For example, number of chromosomes. Humans have 23 pairs of them, while lobsters have 50 pairs and flies have only 6 sets. Adaptation/microevolution would not require a mechanism through which chromosomes can be added and subtracted without causing symptoms like those of down syndrome, but for macroevolution to be the case such a mechanism would need to be discovered. There's other problems similar to this caused by changes outside of a certain limit to the changes natural selection can affect. Again, I don't totally disbelieve in macroevolution, I just see way too many unanswered questions in the theory to be able to place any confidence in it.
The obvious scientific mindset would be to admit that you don't know until given overwhelming evidence either way. A good scientist doesn't believe on assumptions.
Someone with a good scientific mindset wouldn't expect things to ever really be 'prooven,' as you seem to do. Such a person also would question the previous study because it was not double-blind.
I don't expect everything to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, no, but obviously you have to find a balance. You need to remain open to the possibility that you're wrong, but the fact that you cannot know anything for certain should not stop us from trying to find truth. Maybe "well-evidenced" would have been a better word choice than "proven," but the idea remains the same.
And BTW, you're wrong, the original study WAS double blind. RTFA next time.
As to what Creationists accept, that has changed over time. Ten years ago there were plenty of Creationists who went around saying "adaption only within kinds". When sufficient numbers of examples of speciation were thrown in their face, they suddenly started doing odd things like redefining "kinds" and producing their own private definitions of what micro- and macro-evolution are. In fact, some are now quite happy to accept any form of evolution providing it does not have humans in the tree.
You're right, the majority opinion of creationists has certainly changed a lot over the years. When I say creationism though, all I mean is the very literal definition: that the universe was made by an intelligent creator. I guess my main point about evolution was that it is separate from creationism, since creationism deals (at its most basic and literal level) only with the initial creation of the universe, and evolution doesn't concern itself with that at all but only with the development of biological life. Those are two quite distinct subjects, and it's 100% logically consistent to believe both in creationism (or Intelligent Design, whichever nomenclature you prefer) and evolution at the same time.
Funny strip, but don't confuse humor and science/logic. No self respecting creationist denies that species adapt to different environmental conditions, such as new drugs. That's microevolution, changes within a species, genus, or some upper limitation of the extent those changes can go. It's been proven, and it's easily observed. Macroevolution, which is essentially the progression from paramecia to humans, isn't nearly as clean cut or easily proven, and that's where the point of contention is. Even still, a lot of creationists do believe in macroevolution, or at least some form of it.
About the OT, there's obviously a lot more research to be done. Thus far, there have been two studies on this topic, and the results contradicted each other, so unless you're just an antagonist who exists solely to rant against religion every time you get the chance, you'll suspend judgement for now. That's just the obvious conclusion of anyone with a good, scientific mindset.
Remember, this is based on the raw number of repair claims. The data could be easily skewed by a number of factors. The first that comes to mind is that luxury car owners will take their cars in for repair on some very minor problems, including lots of cosmetic ones. If a button on the radio gets stuck in your Ferrari, you're going to go pay someone to fix it for you. If the same thing happens in your Honda, you're more likely to try to fix it yourself or just live with it. Maybe the study would have more significance if it categorized the repair claims by type (cosmetic, electronic, drivetrain, engine, etc.) and severity. The study also mentioned that the cost of repair is higher for nicer cars - no duh. Luxury cars take luxury parts, and the manufacturers sell them at a huge markup because the owners of those cars are willing to pay for them.
In all, I don't see this study as conclusive about anything at all. It's possible that its conclusion is correct, but the study doesn't support it very strongly.
There's a big difference: in the US, they had a chance of winning. In China, it was either censor or nothing, and as the other poster here mentioned, it gives Google a foothold in China from which they can attempt to affect some change.
That's a very different market, because the merits of an instant messaging client are judged almost solely on its userbase. Technically, Google Talk is the best out there IMO, but I only know five people who are on it very often as opposed to about 100 or so on AIM. The move to integrate Talk into Gmail was a good one, as it adds naturally to the userbase, much like AIM's network includes all AOL subscribers (that that anyone would want to talk to them).
Essentially all that article did was admit that Vista had caught up (or at least come close) to Linux in the security and stability departments. Of course, the emphasis there was that Linux did it first, but he neglects to mention that Windows, despite its shortcomings, has always had the clear advantage in the fields of usability and consumer appeal, so essentially all that article did was show that 1) Windows was weaker than Linux in some areas and 2) it isn't anymore. Congratulations Mr. Vaughan-Nichols, you've shown that Vista will be as good as or better than Linux in all respects!
You may be right that the average public may not be able to tell you that *generic mp3 player* has *generic non-iPod feature (voice recorder, radio, etc.)* but they WILL be able to tell you that it isn't either as good looking or as trendy as the iPod. That's why Apple sells so many of those things, because they know what the average consumer really cares about, and it isn't techie features.
Thank you, I was waiting for someone to point that out! DC power may be more efficient for distribution throughout a building or server complex, but when it comes to long distance transmission you need the flexibility of AC. Why? Because AC power can go through a transformer (or series of them), be transmitted a couple hundred miles at a couple thousand volts, and then be stepped back down to a more manageable 120V for your house (240V I think if you live in Europe). Try doing that with DC power. Edison was still wrong, unless I'm mistaken and he was advocating DC power only for large server clusters. I think he had a few of those hanging around his labs, right?
Perhaps, and I could definitely see that happening on free servers, but if people were paying to use someone's server then the admins would have to be fair in order to keep people from just leaving. Capitalism at its finest! Speaking of which, I bet it would also end up bringing the price down a significant amount, since there would be competition between the different server providers.
What would be the feasibility of turning an MMORPG like WoW into a system like, say, Counter-Strike, where the servers are privately owned and run by individuals, clans, or something like that? What I could see happening with that is people buying WoW and then instead of paying Blizzard a monthly fee, they would pay whoever owned the server they wanted to play on. Of course, Blizzard would never let people do that because it means somebody else would be getting their $15/month, but it's an idea.
Slashdot Mirror
I can legally sell a book to someone at a garage sale. Are they not allowed to read it?
The acts specifically excluded:
A computer program which is embodied in a machine or product and which cannot be copied during the ordinary operation or use of the machine or product; or
Great job taking stuff out of context. That was from a section specifically describing "acts of rental, lease, or lending," not acts of purchasing and selling. It means that I can't rent out the copy of Windows that I got with my Dell or lend it to a buddy. If you read the section just BEFORE that, the one actually relevant to the topic at hand, you'll see that "Many state courts have also ruled that a sale of software is indeed a sale of goods under the UCC at the point where funds are exchanged for the physical copy of the software," therefore making it perfectly legal to resell it under your own terms.
Here's the most recent precedent set by the Supreme Court. The "do not resell" clause on the book in this case is practically identical to the EULA in software, and the court ruled that "The purchaser of a book, once sold by authority of the owner of the copyright, may sell it again, although he could not publish a new edition of it." (quote from the official Supreme Court ruling.)
By the way, this case was one of company vs. company, not company vs. individual. The publisher sued a retailer that bought many copies of the book at wholesale and resold them at a lower price, so this ruling is definitely (even especially) applicable to "the large, corporate, lawyer controlled, and sometimes silly business market." It still applies to the individual, of course, which leads me to my hero; David Zamos showed that even if a huge company like M$ wants you to give in, as long as you fight for justice when you know the law is on your side you'll be able to beat the big-wigs. W00t for rights!
There's actually a very close relationship between good ol' Freud and Dvorak - they both smoke(d) enough crack on a daily basis to kill a small horse.
I bought my first electric guitar brand new for $70. Full size, three single coil pickups, floating bridge w/ trem, strat style, solidbody. Sure it sounded like crap, but my point is that for $70 you can do a LOT better than a kid's toy.
Funny story though - I sold the thing a year and a half later in the classified ads for $130.
Yea, I would think that would be a nice function, but it doesn't look like it supports verizon phones! What's up with that?
Yes. It is.
i on.billofrights.html
No. It isn't.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitut
If you're a simpleton, yea. The fact is that there are a lot of big biological boundaries that must be crossed with macroevolution but not with micro. For example, number of chromosomes. Humans have 23 pairs of them, while lobsters have 50 pairs and flies have only 6 sets. Adaptation/microevolution would not require a mechanism through which chromosomes can be added and subtracted without causing symptoms like those of down syndrome, but for macroevolution to be the case such a mechanism would need to be discovered. There's other problems similar to this caused by changes outside of a certain limit to the changes natural selection can affect. Again, I don't totally disbelieve in macroevolution, I just see way too many unanswered questions in the theory to be able to place any confidence in it.
No, it's actually called hyperbole, but you were close.
The obvious scientific mindset would be to admit that you don't know until given overwhelming evidence either way. A good scientist doesn't believe on assumptions.
Someone with a good scientific mindset wouldn't expect things to ever really be 'prooven,' as you seem to do. Such a person also would question the previous study because it was not double-blind.
I don't expect everything to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, no, but obviously you have to find a balance. You need to remain open to the possibility that you're wrong, but the fact that you cannot know anything for certain should not stop us from trying to find truth. Maybe "well-evidenced" would have been a better word choice than "proven," but the idea remains the same.
And BTW, you're wrong, the original study WAS double blind. RTFA next time.
As to what Creationists accept, that has changed over time. Ten years ago there were plenty of Creationists who went around saying "adaption only within kinds". When sufficient numbers of examples of speciation were thrown in their face, they suddenly started doing odd things like redefining "kinds" and producing their own private definitions of what micro- and macro-evolution are. In fact, some are now quite happy to accept any form of evolution providing it does not have humans in the tree.
You're right, the majority opinion of creationists has certainly changed a lot over the years. When I say creationism though, all I mean is the very literal definition: that the universe was made by an intelligent creator. I guess my main point about evolution was that it is separate from creationism, since creationism deals (at its most basic and literal level) only with the initial creation of the universe, and evolution doesn't concern itself with that at all but only with the development of biological life. Those are two quite distinct subjects, and it's 100% logically consistent to believe both in creationism (or Intelligent Design, whichever nomenclature you prefer) and evolution at the same time.
Funny strip, but don't confuse humor and science/logic. No self respecting creationist denies that species adapt to different environmental conditions, such as new drugs. That's microevolution, changes within a species, genus, or some upper limitation of the extent those changes can go. It's been proven, and it's easily observed. Macroevolution, which is essentially the progression from paramecia to humans, isn't nearly as clean cut or easily proven, and that's where the point of contention is. Even still, a lot of creationists do believe in macroevolution, or at least some form of it.
About the OT, there's obviously a lot more research to be done. Thus far, there have been two studies on this topic, and the results contradicted each other, so unless you're just an antagonist who exists solely to rant against religion every time you get the chance, you'll suspend judgement for now. That's just the obvious conclusion of anyone with a good, scientific mindset.
No, but people who take jokes way too seriously are. LOL@U.COM!
Remember, this is based on the raw number of repair claims. The data could be easily skewed by a number of factors. The first that comes to mind is that luxury car owners will take their cars in for repair on some very minor problems, including lots of cosmetic ones. If a button on the radio gets stuck in your Ferrari, you're going to go pay someone to fix it for you. If the same thing happens in your Honda, you're more likely to try to fix it yourself or just live with it. Maybe the study would have more significance if it categorized the repair claims by type (cosmetic, electronic, drivetrain, engine, etc.) and severity. The study also mentioned that the cost of repair is higher for nicer cars - no duh. Luxury cars take luxury parts, and the manufacturers sell them at a huge markup because the owners of those cars are willing to pay for them.
In all, I don't see this study as conclusive about anything at all. It's possible that its conclusion is correct, but the study doesn't support it very strongly.
Technically, Libertarian IS really right wing. The Republican party hasn't actually been acting all that right-wing lately, to be honest.
There's a big difference: in the US, they had a chance of winning. In China, it was either censor or nothing, and as the other poster here mentioned, it gives Google a foothold in China from which they can attempt to affect some change.
d00d, u need to let go of ur h8 and let jeezus into ur 3
Close, but Jacob was actually the son of Isaac, not the other way around. Abraham -> Isaac -> Jacob. Ishmael was Isaac's half brother.
Nope, you're totally correct. I'm on FF in SuSE 10 and it's doing the same thing.
dubya
tee
eff
That's a very different market, because the merits of an instant messaging client are judged almost solely on its userbase. Technically, Google Talk is the best out there IMO, but I only know five people who are on it very often as opposed to about 100 or so on AIM. The move to integrate Talk into Gmail was a good one, as it adds naturally to the userbase, much like AIM's network includes all AOL subscribers (that that anyone would want to talk to them).
Don't give them any ideas.
Essentially all that article did was admit that Vista had caught up (or at least come close) to Linux in the security and stability departments. Of course, the emphasis there was that Linux did it first, but he neglects to mention that Windows, despite its shortcomings, has always had the clear advantage in the fields of usability and consumer appeal, so essentially all that article did was show that 1) Windows was weaker than Linux in some areas and 2) it isn't anymore. Congratulations Mr. Vaughan-Nichols, you've shown that Vista will be as good as or better than Linux in all respects!
NOTE: IMHO, it won't be.
You may be right that the average public may not be able to tell you that *generic mp3 player* has *generic non-iPod feature (voice recorder, radio, etc.)* but they WILL be able to tell you that it isn't either as good looking or as trendy as the iPod. That's why Apple sells so many of those things, because they know what the average consumer really cares about, and it isn't techie features.
Thank you, I was waiting for someone to point that out! DC power may be more efficient for distribution throughout a building or server complex, but when it comes to long distance transmission you need the flexibility of AC. Why? Because AC power can go through a transformer (or series of them), be transmitted a couple hundred miles at a couple thousand volts, and then be stepped back down to a more manageable 120V for your house (240V I think if you live in Europe). Try doing that with DC power. Edison was still wrong, unless I'm mistaken and he was advocating DC power only for large server clusters. I think he had a few of those hanging around his labs, right?
Perhaps, and I could definitely see that happening on free servers, but if people were paying to use someone's server then the admins would have to be fair in order to keep people from just leaving. Capitalism at its finest! Speaking of which, I bet it would also end up bringing the price down a significant amount, since there would be competition between the different server providers.
What would be the feasibility of turning an MMORPG like WoW into a system like, say, Counter-Strike, where the servers are privately owned and run by individuals, clans, or something like that? What I could see happening with that is people buying WoW and then instead of paying Blizzard a monthly fee, they would pay whoever owned the server they wanted to play on. Of course, Blizzard would never let people do that because it means somebody else would be getting their $15/month, but it's an idea.