I find the concept of "soul" as commonly held to be antiquated and quaint.
Aristotelean categories took Christian theology down a path of academic masturbation, and now we're left with the fallout: people who actually believe it's significant to ask questions like "Do clones have souls?", and the whole transubstantiation mess.
The world would be much better off if Christendom hadn't embraced Helenism so wholeheartedly as a reaction to their institutionalized anti-Semitism. The Jews have a much more balanced view of what it means to be human. And it doesn't include the concept of "soul" as most people understand it.
That's exactly right. You started with the moronic position that "dribble" was the correct word.
Actually, you inferred that. The most you can actually get from what I said is that dribble was the intended word - not the correct* word. In a looser sense, it was the correct word. You're trying to use the "correct" term as a straw man here. Of course it's not the correct denotative meaning of the word in the usual construction, but that's the whole point of the malapropism.
You truly believed that it was right. When your idiocy was pointed out, you tried to save face by claiming that the error was intentional, a joke. Backpedal.
Once again, that's your inference. And the disclaimer about "correct" applies to "right" here too. Backpedaling means recanting (fully or partially) or, more loosely, fundamentally changing the substance of a position. All I've done is elaborate on the details of my position. Call it what you will, but backpedaling isn't a very good choice.
"You should of quit while you were ahead."
"Should have, you moron."
Who are you quoting there? Certainly not me... It's tough trolling multiple threads at once, isn't it? Cross-quoting can be so embarassing. If that's not what you're doing, it's even more moronic... "Huh? Derrrr, yeah!"
Do you even know what backpedal means? Here's a hint:
To retreat or withdraw from a position or attitude.
What I did was explain in painfully simple terms for you the (admittedly small) joke implicit in the intentional use of a common malaporopism. But now that you've necessitated my explaining it ad nauseam, the humor is completely lost.
I probably shouldn't have bothered replying again - DNFTT and all (especially ACs) - but oh well.
I mean, how do you counter an argument like that without coming off as some kind of communist?
How about by using a libertarian privacy line of reasoning. That's about as non-communist as you can get.
On the other hand, what's so wrong with sounding like "some kind of communist"? It's only a dirty word in the USA - and only in certain circles of ignorance at that.
The OP was asking about slingshotting, not impact. It's a very different matter then. And considering that escape velocity is roughly sqrt 2 * orbital velocity, it wouldn't take much at all. Especially considering that Sol is pretty tiny as stars go.
Depends what's in them, and how stupid the data owner is.
I'd bet there's at least 100 000 companies in the USA that have an.xls file somewhere that has a list containing (at least some subset) of their customers' critical financial data. It may not be officially sanctioned, but somebody somewhere just needed to do a rough estimate for some middle management meeting.
The early American understanding of the fourth amendment was definitely a first clause dominant one. The post colonial mentality was one of suspicion toward unchallenged authority. The notion that a judge could issue a writ which strips a person of the right to sue (i.e. a warrant) was unconscionable. For a long time, the typical course of action for a police investigation was to follow the first clause (the "reasonable" standard). If a search was conducted without a warrant, the relevant party could sue for trespass. If police had probable cause, the option of pursuing a warrant was provided for, but the test is very strict.
The constitution does not waste words, or punctuation. The comma in the fourth amendment is a significant one. The modern (publicly held) understanding of the fourth amendment is very far from the original one.
That said, the Bush administration's interpretation of a first clause dominant reading (FCDR) is a radical departure form the early FCDR I described above. What is being done under Bush is warrantless wiretapping under the "reasonable" test - without the right to sue for trespass. That's the real kicker. Everything is done in secret, so there is no check/balance. The problem is not that there are no warrants. The problem is that there is no open proccess for verifying reasonableness.
Anyone watching C-SPAN who saw Sen. Feinstein's questions to Gen. Hayden a few days ago saw a real eye opener. Gen. Hayden deferred basically all of her questions about domestic wiretapping to closed session. Even simple yes/no questions. The only answer he gave her about any of the wiretapping questions was the one scenario that is the big talking point: "if there is a suspected/known terrorist outside the US who is talking to somebody inside the US..." She asked him directly about domestic surveillance, and he deferred all those questions to closed session. As the comittee is breaking for lunch, you can just hear Sen. Feinstein saying "He didn't answer any of them". Be afraid. Be very afraid.
...An Australian government medical committee concluded this year that metal oxide nanoparticles in sunscreens mostly remain on the outer layer of skin, where DNA damage is not a big concern.
The FDA regulates sunscreens as nonprescription drugs and does not require extra safety tests specific for nanoparticles. The agency has little authority over cosmetics.
The excerpt alludes to a painfully obvious fact that the article authors are trying to gloss over: The ingredients being complained about have been in use far longer than the concept of nanotechnology has even existed.
They are using "nanotech" as a fud smokescreen to get stricter controls over a whole bunch of ingredients. Like zinc oxide (the sunscreen ingredient refered to in the quote). The definition of nanoingredients presented in the article is deceptively vague:
nanoingredients, defined as smaller than 100-millionths of a millimeter.
That includes basically every molecule in existence other than very large things like soot, DNA strands, long nanotubes (ironically) etc.
A better definition for regulatory purposes should define "nanoparticles" (admittedly a terrible term, but we're stuck with it now) as being particles between two appropriate threshold sizes - a minimum and a maximum, and whose interactions are not completely determined by chemical properties. (i.e. there is some "engineered" attribute which is not obvious given the composition.)
First, fair use does not apply to recreating entire works, except in a few, specifically described circumstances that don't apply here. Second, Narus is just selling gear, what someone else does with it is not their problem. Third, their customers are ISPs, given exemption from many copyright laws under common carrier statutes, which could, very well apply here (certainly more so than fair use).
I should have been more clear. I don't believe that it's necessarily a legitimate argument. Just that it's one that could effectively hamstring any judgments on the matter. Especially with the big friends that Narus has.
Actually, the thing that would legitimize the Narus approach completely is a "liberal" (meaning loose) reading of wiretap laws. An argument could be made that the Narus approach is necessary in order to comply.
By sending IP packets, you are distributing your work. Narus could make a fair use argument that would be a chilling parody of the arguments posted by folks who troll around slashdot arguing that fair use covers anonymous torrents.
I'm confused by the second half of your post; the GPL _is_ the copyleft - the GPL is precisely declaration that some permissions are granted unilaterally for a work. Obviously, if you invalidate the GPL specifically and the work was dual-licensed, the other license would still hold.
I wasn't 100% sure about that either. My understanding is that the GPL grants copyleft rights via the enclosed license. It doesn't read like a unilateral declaration of rights release to me. It is possible that an author could make a copyleft declaration outside of the GPL. In that case the copyleft would still be in force, even if the code had been unGPLed by passing throught country X.
To answer the question in the subject: pretty damn valid. There are probably some remote corners of the earth where contract laws are loose enough to invalidate it, but not many.
If an autocratic dictator driven government (not Korea) takes GPL'd code and refuses to release changes AND claims in his country the GPL is illegal, then IS there technically a GPL violation?
It doesn't have to be a dictator. The only important thing is if a judge in the other country (call it country X) rules that the GPL is not valid. The answer is pretty obvious then. If there is a country where the GPL is invalid, then there are no GPL violations in that country.
However, if a GPLed project is stripped in this manner and imported back to a place where the GPL is valid, then there probably will be a violation - of copyright, not of the GPL. I'll explain:
If the GPL isn't binding in country X, then its "infectious" clauses are also not in effect, and the code user in country X is not bound by them either. Reexporting the code doesn't really "free" the code from the GPL. Here's why: the GPL is often the only means by which copyright holders grant the right to use, copy, modify, and distribute their GPL'ed code. Thus, if the GPL is stripped by passing the code through country X, when it's rereleased, anyone receiving it has no guaranteed rights. Typically, this would mean that any of the activities that the GPL explicitly permits (copying, modifying, redistribution, etc.) are being done with no permission from the copyright holders.
On the other hand if code is simultaneously GPLed and copylefted, then the copyleft is still in effect. Depending on the flavor of copyleft that the author chooses, the code could end up being "unGPLed". This is because copyleft is not a contract, so it isn't "handed down". Copyleft is a declaration by the author that certain permissions are granted unilaterally for a certain work.
That was a fun thought experiment. Thanks. That's just a quick stab at the problem. If anyone has anything to add (or subtract, refute, etc.), I'd be interested to hear it.
It's absolutely horrific the way Americans rape the word ironic. (Well, the American media, at least.) They're always saying things are ironic when they are actually just humorously coincidental. Funny thing: whenever I give this same rant in conversation I use the same wording as you - humorous coincidence.
The problem seems to be that in order to comprehend true irony, you have to have two different ideas in your head at the same time. That's not going to happen to your typical MTV drone. Not that the OP is an MTV drone...
Slashdot Mirror
Designers of 17" laptops might look at that beast and finally realise that there has been room for a numeric keypad all along...
Aristotelean categories took Christian theology down a path of academic masturbation, and now we're left with the fallout: people who actually believe it's significant to ask questions like "Do clones have souls?", and the whole transubstantiation mess.
The world would be much better off if Christendom hadn't embraced Helenism so wholeheartedly as a reaction to their institutionalized anti-Semitism. The Jews have a much more balanced view of what it means to be human. And it doesn't include the concept of "soul" as most people understand it.
Disclaimer: I am a Christian.
Who are you quoting there? Certainly not me... It's tough trolling multiple threads at once, isn't it? Cross-quoting can be so embarassing. If that's not what you're doing, it's even more moronic... "Huh? Derrrr, yeah!"
*in your AC-troll sense
What I did was explain in painfully simple terms for you the (admittedly small) joke implicit in the intentional use of a common malaporopism. But now that you've necessitated my explaining it ad nauseam, the humor is completely lost.
I probably shouldn't have bothered replying again - DNFTT and all (especially ACs) - but oh well.
I really meant dribble. As in Dvorak probably needs a bib.
How about by using a libertarian privacy line of reasoning. That's about as non-communist as you can get.
On the other hand, what's so wrong with sounding like "some kind of communist"? It's only a dirty word in the USA - and only in certain circles of ignorance at that.
And the obvious answer: yes.
I yearn for the day when Dvorak's dribble is no longer posted to /.
The OP was asking about slingshotting, not impact. It's a very different matter then. And considering that escape velocity is roughly sqrt 2 * orbital velocity, it wouldn't take much at all. Especially considering that Sol is pretty tiny as stars go.
That's why there aren't any trinary stars (where all three are of similar mass) - AFAIK.
I'd bet there's at least 100 000 companies in the USA that have an .xls file somewhere that has a list containing (at least some subset) of their customers' critical financial data. It may not be officially sanctioned, but somebody somewhere just needed to do a rough estimate for some middle management meeting.
If one stores critical data on a linux file server...
Apparently not.
by Moby of course. Come to think of it, it'd make one hell of a ringtone...
The early American understanding of the fourth amendment was definitely a first clause dominant one. The post colonial mentality was one of suspicion toward unchallenged authority. The notion that a judge could issue a writ which strips a person of the right to sue (i.e. a warrant) was unconscionable. For a long time, the typical course of action for a police investigation was to follow the first clause (the "reasonable" standard). If a search was conducted without a warrant, the relevant party could sue for trespass. If police had probable cause, the option of pursuing a warrant was provided for, but the test is very strict.
The constitution does not waste words, or punctuation. The comma in the fourth amendment is a significant one. The modern (publicly held) understanding of the fourth amendment is very far from the original one.
That said, the Bush administration's interpretation of a first clause dominant reading (FCDR) is a radical departure form the early FCDR I described above. What is being done under Bush is warrantless wiretapping under the "reasonable" test - without the right to sue for trespass. That's the real kicker. Everything is done in secret, so there is no check/balance. The problem is not that there are no warrants. The problem is that there is no open proccess for verifying reasonableness.
Anyone watching C-SPAN who saw Sen. Feinstein's questions to Gen. Hayden a few days ago saw a real eye opener. Gen. Hayden deferred basically all of her questions about domestic wiretapping to closed session. Even simple yes/no questions. The only answer he gave her about any of the wiretapping questions was the one scenario that is the big talking point: "if there is a suspected/known terrorist outside the US who is talking to somebody inside the US..." She asked him directly about domestic surveillance, and he deferred all those questions to closed session. As the comittee is breaking for lunch, you can just hear Sen. Feinstein saying "He didn't answer any of them". Be afraid. Be very afraid.
The excerpt alludes to a painfully obvious fact that the article authors are trying to gloss over: The ingredients being complained about have been in use far longer than the concept of nanotechnology has even existed.
They are using "nanotech" as a fud smokescreen to get stricter controls over a whole bunch of ingredients. Like zinc oxide (the sunscreen ingredient refered to in the quote). The definition of nanoingredients presented in the article is deceptively vague:
That includes basically every molecule in existence other than very large things like soot, DNA strands, long nanotubes (ironically) etc.
A better definition for regulatory purposes should define "nanoparticles" (admittedly a terrible term, but we're stuck with it now) as being particles between two appropriate threshold sizes - a minimum and a maximum, and whose interactions are not completely determined by chemical properties. (i.e. there is some "engineered" attribute which is not obvious given the composition.)
I should have been more clear. I don't believe that it's necessarily a legitimate argument. Just that it's one that could effectively hamstring any judgments on the matter. Especially with the big friends that Narus has.
Actually, the thing that would legitimize the Narus approach completely is a "liberal" (meaning loose) reading of wiretap laws. An argument could be made that the Narus approach is necessary in order to comply.
If you don't like it, encrypt it.
And yes I know it's a simple backport oversight, but it's damn annoying anyways!
That would be a nice start.
You mean this virus is going to heaven?
I wasn't 100% sure about that either. My understanding is that the GPL grants copyleft rights via the enclosed license. It doesn't read like a unilateral declaration of rights release to me. It is possible that an author could make a copyleft declaration outside of the GPL. In that case the copyleft would still be in force, even if the code had been unGPLed by passing throught country X.
I could be wrong, though. I'd like to know more.
If an autocratic dictator driven government (not Korea) takes GPL'd code and refuses to release changes AND claims in his country the GPL is illegal, then IS there technically a GPL violation?
It doesn't have to be a dictator. The only important thing is if a judge in the other country (call it country X) rules that the GPL is not valid. The answer is pretty obvious then. If there is a country where the GPL is invalid, then there are no GPL violations in that country.
However, if a GPLed project is stripped in this manner and imported back to a place where the GPL is valid, then there probably will be a violation - of copyright, not of the GPL. I'll explain:
If the GPL isn't binding in country X, then its "infectious" clauses are also not in effect, and the code user in country X is not bound by them either. Reexporting the code doesn't really "free" the code from the GPL. Here's why: the GPL is often the only means by which copyright holders grant the right to use, copy, modify, and distribute their GPL'ed code. Thus, if the GPL is stripped by passing the code through country X, when it's rereleased, anyone receiving it has no guaranteed rights. Typically, this would mean that any of the activities that the GPL explicitly permits (copying, modifying, redistribution, etc.) are being done with no permission from the copyright holders.
On the other hand if code is simultaneously GPLed and copylefted, then the copyleft is still in effect. Depending on the flavor of copyleft that the author chooses, the code could end up being "unGPLed". This is because copyleft is not a contract, so it isn't "handed down". Copyleft is a declaration by the author that certain permissions are granted unilaterally for a certain work.
That was a fun thought experiment. Thanks. That's just a quick stab at the problem. If anyone has anything to add (or subtract, refute, etc.), I'd be interested to hear it.
The problem seems to be that in order to comprehend true irony, you have to have two different ideas in your head at the same time. That's not going to happen to your typical MTV drone. Not that the OP is an MTV drone...
Just an inverse relationship. So many ways to explain it... so little time.