I believe that part refers to handling cloth that's of mixed thread quality. Note that Egypt is known for their cotton. Mixing thread quality to them would be the practical version of passing 14k gold as 24k gold.
I really dislike that wikipedia won't accept NC stuff, though.
They want to leave themselves the ability to capitalize on it.
And yes, you are absolutely correct. Most artists are OK with free as in beer, but not so OK with free as in speech. Especially when the entity that's most likely to capitalize on the work is probably going to be a large corporation.
Zealotry. Call them by what they are. Zealots. Fanatacism to the point where there is no longer reason. Absolutism.
It's not a matter of vision and acceptance. It's a matter of imposing of The Way It Must Be upon people who don't see things quite the same way (everybody else). There are visions that do not involve the absolute. The Constitution embodies one such vision, the Republic that is the United States being its implementation. Not coincidentally, said vision is slowly being ripped apart by absolutism.
Most influencial person of the modern era? Sure. Most intelligent person of the modern era? Possibly, depending on the definition of "Modern". A polymath/renaissance man? Arguable. Perhaps the most recent one, which makes his ideas most applicable to today. Most authoritative figure? Some people think so, but logical thinkers simultaneously understand that authority doesn't necessarily imply correctness.
To say he's the most intelligent person ever? Hardly. The list of great thinkers, scientists, artists, mathematicians, recorded in history goes on and on. You can associate him with the greats (and there have been many before him). But to say that he's more intelligent than any person in recorded history is pure hyperbole. That, or your knowledge and understanding of recorded history makes you woefully unqualified to make sure a statement.
Studies have also shown behavioral changes in humans, including lower reaction times and a sixfold increased risk of traffic accidents among infected, RhD-negative males, as well as links to schizophrenia including hallucinations and reckless behavior. Recent epidemiologic studies by Stanley Medical Research Institute and Johns Hopkins University Medical Center indicate that infectious agents may contribute to some cases of schizophrenia. A study of 191 young women in 1999 reported higher intelligence and higher guilt proneness in Toxoplasma-positive subjects.
So yes, there is good reason to believe that this can affect human brains as well. What precisely the effect is hasn't been determined yet though.
Microsoft knows most medium to small businesses aren't going to be totally off XP for yet another several years. A lot of places have only begun to initiate their migration strategy to 7 this past year, and only because they can't buy an XP computer anymore. There's no way 8 is meant to replace 7 when 7 is still replacing XP.
Windows 8 is not for the enterprise. It's for the home. It's their way of testing the waters of a new interface paradigm. If enough home users like the new features of 8, they'll put it into the next version that is intended to replace 7 in the workplace. If users don't like it, they'll go a different route, with the desktop being the default interface in the next version.
Actually, they might intend to release several new versions of Windows before the enterprise replacement for 7. By then, they'll have figured out how to work the new strategy into the enterprise environment. At least, that's the idea anyway.
Rather than dredging up the distant past for skeletons that are scary, why not look for positive things more recent?... How about discussing all the technology that the Obama camp has killed, at least to balance it out?
Recent it is, positive it is not.
Not that slashdot has ever claimed to be neutral in its journalism (hah), but this is a bit leaning in a biased article.
You're clearly biased too, and we know well where it lies. You want neutrality, but you don't even try to present yourself as open to it. You're only interested in your biases.
To be quite frank, if you want recent and positive with respect to Paul Ryan's scientific record, the onus is up to you to present them as a rebuttal to the article. If you're not intersted in doing so, or have no such examples to present, then please take your thinly-veiled insinuations elsewhere. You're not contributing anything worthwhile to the discussion by wondering aloud.
Why create a new document format? There already are enough free, open, standard ones out there to fill every niche. There's ODF for WYSIWYG. There's LaTex for typesetting (PDF replacement). AJAX and HTML5 for interactive pages.
It's just a matter of enabling them in Chrome, and offering it in their search. For example, they could build LaTex and ODF viewers right into Chrome. They can then convert every PDF and Word Doc into LaTex and ODF to be displayed in this embedded viewer. Present a "Convert to LaTex" button for every PDF file their search result indexes and do the same for Word docs and ODF. Instead of "view as html", use "view as LaTex" and "view as ODF".
Anybody who wants to view PDF and Word Docs natively would then have to download and open the file up in the viewer manually.
No. The Australian government was previously claiming that they didn't think the U.S. would persecute Assange at all. Now it comes out that not only are they pretty certain the U.S. would charge Assange (and the charges would be made to avoid the first amendment), but that they wouldn't object to it either.
There's a big difference between telling everyone, "We know it can't possibly happen" and then preparing for it's eventuality.
Not sure if you've ever seen originals, but they're messy as hell, and a good amount of it is barely legible. Urtext just means no changes to the content, but somebody still had to go clean up the original score and interpret the (often numerous) ambiguities.
You want an original, go try interpreting off a facimile.
Your house? It's more like the house of some robber baron or sweat shop owner. Who just so happens to run the local gladiator stadium that gives you the occasional complementary beer. And they technically just set fire to the stadium only, not even the house.
Besides which, nobody told you to give Sony your information, especially with their track record. And then you've got the galls to come here and tell us you still give them money, even with all the crap they keep pulling.
If the hacked into your computer, then it's your house. But I'm afraid you're not important enough to warrant such attention, from anybody, really.
Unfortunately, it's a government "of the people, by the people, for the people." A misbehaving government does reflect poorly on the citizens, perhaps not individually but certainly collectively.
Yeah, but Bradley Manning is a U.S. citizen. Only U.S. citizens get constitutional protection. Everybody else is not human and does not have such rights.
That's because everything's done by the browser nowadays. Whereas in the past, you'd have static pages that the server dishes up with each interaction, today, you have the browser rendering all the interactions, with the server supplying only the variable data.
For example, if this was old Slashdot, if you clicked on a comment, it opened up in a new page. For new Slashdot, if you clicked on a comment, the comment now opens up in the current page, while the rest of the page is reformatted (lenghtened, shortened, etc.) to include the new text. That's all done client-side.
AJAX makes for snazzy pages by increasing the complexity all around. On a home machine, you can afford the slight (or sometimes not-so-slight) resource hit. On an embedded system, which the Raspberry Pi most resembles, you cannot.
Again, this is rather forceful language - "no matter what"? are you sure about that? are you sure that he wont manage to get to Ecuador and 30 years down the line when global geopolitics have changed and anything Assange has done wrong is forgotten the charges are dropped? It's not like this sort of thing hasn't happened across the globe many hundreds of times before in geopolitics.
The way we're going after Nazi war criminals, I find that highly unlikely. Nobody knows what the future brings, but if the status quo remains intact, this won't be forgotten, ever.
Just because the UN defines it one way, doesn't mean that it's not used in the media and popular culture another way. And you (not you specifically, the generic "you") can't go around flaunting the UN definition for one case when nobody else uses it for all the other cases. That's called double standard.
Not that this is necessarily the case right now, but there are other people working in the same field who regularly post comments, and less often, moderate. And quite often, TFA is a crock of bull slashvertisement or self promotion.
The very existence of alienable private property, especially in land, is also "a choice by society."
No. Private property deals with the material. It is the individual ownership of a material, tangible, object. Said object can be anything from a small rock to a large piece of land. Ownership is control. It is natural to control material objects. Property is a small part of a greater concept called individual sovereignty that's a direct result of free will. The laws merely formalize that which already exists.
Intellectual property, on the other hand, basically treats ideas, thoughts, as tangible objects. That's now how things actually work. When you present an idea to the greater world at large, the one in your head is stilll yours. But the one that are in other people's heads are theirs now. It's not yours. People can own other people (as slaves), but that's only flesh and blood. That's still material. Nobody can own thoughts that are not their own. Nobody can own an idea that's not in their head. To own an idea or a thought is the complete antithesis of individual sovereignty, i.e. the absolute opposite of free will. Intellectual property is an attempt to control the thoughts and ideas in other people's heads.
Here's the catch: it is not possible. Very many people a very long time ago already figured this out: Laws can only affect the material. Laws cannot control the mind; they can only control the body. So IP laws seek to control the mind through the body. It's still an impossible task, no matter how strong the controls are. And the impossibility of the task will only result in stronger and stronger controls of the body. Stronger, until the control is absolute.
On the contrary. Those worms were designed to sabotage the centrifuges, not repurpose them.
Why another state would want to outright sabotage some piece of scientific equipment on another planet is beyond me. It'd seem like quite a hassle, both to carry out and to deal with the fallout, for very little, if any gain.
Now, if there was some kind of military use for the rover, which necessitates that the equipment be used within Earth's orbital clearance and not on Mars, then there'd be a reason.
China's hacking attempts were probably more along the lines of acquiring knowledge. The parameters of success are quite different from those for sabotage.
Slashdot Mirror
wearing two types of cloth
I believe that part refers to handling cloth that's of mixed thread quality. Note that Egypt is known for their cotton. Mixing thread quality to them would be the practical version of passing 14k gold as 24k gold.
Just to make a software analogy: Remember QT? That used to be GPL, or separately licensed for closed-source uses.
You can do the same thing with all other works covered by copyrights, provided you have the copyright (as opposed to a license).
I really dislike that wikipedia won't accept NC stuff, though.
They want to leave themselves the ability to capitalize on it.
And yes, you are absolutely correct. Most artists are OK with free as in beer, but not so OK with free as in speech. Especially when the entity that's most likely to capitalize on the work is probably going to be a large corporation.
Zealotry. Call them by what they are. Zealots. Fanatacism to the point where there is no longer reason. Absolutism.
It's not a matter of vision and acceptance. It's a matter of imposing of The Way It Must Be upon people who don't see things quite the same way (everybody else). There are visions that do not involve the absolute. The Constitution embodies one such vision, the Republic that is the United States being its implementation. Not coincidentally, said vision is slowly being ripped apart by absolutism.
Most influencial person of the modern era? Sure. Most intelligent person of the modern era? Possibly, depending on the definition of "Modern". A polymath/renaissance man? Arguable. Perhaps the most recent one, which makes his ideas most applicable to today. Most authoritative figure? Some people think so, but logical thinkers simultaneously understand that authority doesn't necessarily imply correctness.
To say he's the most intelligent person ever? Hardly. The list of great thinkers, scientists, artists, mathematicians, recorded in history goes on and on. You can associate him with the greats (and there have been many before him). But to say that he's more intelligent than any person in recorded history is pure hyperbole. That, or your knowledge and understanding of recorded history makes you woefully unqualified to make sure a statement.
Crocodiles and turtles are just as "stagnant" evolution-wise.
From wikipedia:
Studies have also shown behavioral changes in humans, including lower reaction times and a sixfold increased risk of traffic accidents among infected, RhD-negative males, as well as links to schizophrenia including hallucinations and reckless behavior. Recent epidemiologic studies by Stanley Medical Research Institute and Johns Hopkins University Medical Center indicate that infectious agents may contribute to some cases of schizophrenia. A study of 191 young women in 1999 reported higher intelligence and higher guilt proneness in Toxoplasma-positive subjects.
So yes, there is good reason to believe that this can affect human brains as well. What precisely the effect is hasn't been determined yet though.
Warm apple pie.
Microsoft knows most medium to small businesses aren't going to be totally off XP for yet another several years. A lot of places have only begun to initiate their migration strategy to 7 this past year, and only because they can't buy an XP computer anymore. There's no way 8 is meant to replace 7 when 7 is still replacing XP.
Windows 8 is not for the enterprise. It's for the home. It's their way of testing the waters of a new interface paradigm. If enough home users like the new features of 8, they'll put it into the next version that is intended to replace 7 in the workplace. If users don't like it, they'll go a different route, with the desktop being the default interface in the next version.
Actually, they might intend to release several new versions of Windows before the enterprise replacement for 7. By then, they'll have figured out how to work the new strategy into the enterprise environment. At least, that's the idea anyway.
Rather than dredging up the distant past for skeletons that are scary, why not look for positive things more recent? ... How about discussing all the technology that the Obama camp has killed, at least to balance it out?
Recent it is, positive it is not.
Not that slashdot has ever claimed to be neutral in its journalism (hah), but this is a bit leaning in a biased article.
You're clearly biased too, and we know well where it lies. You want neutrality, but you don't even try to present yourself as open to it. You're only interested in your biases.
To be quite frank, if you want recent and positive with respect to Paul Ryan's scientific record, the onus is up to you to present them as a rebuttal to the article. If you're not intersted in doing so, or have no such examples to present, then please take your thinly-veiled insinuations elsewhere. You're not contributing anything worthwhile to the discussion by wondering aloud.
Why create a new document format? There already are enough free, open, standard ones out there to fill every niche. There's ODF for WYSIWYG. There's LaTex for typesetting (PDF replacement). AJAX and HTML5 for interactive pages.
It's just a matter of enabling them in Chrome, and offering it in their search. For example, they could build LaTex and ODF viewers right into Chrome. They can then convert every PDF and Word Doc into LaTex and ODF to be displayed in this embedded viewer. Present a "Convert to LaTex" button for every PDF file their search result indexes and do the same for Word docs and ODF. Instead of "view as html", use "view as LaTex" and "view as ODF".
Anybody who wants to view PDF and Word Docs natively would then have to download and open the file up in the viewer manually.
No. The Australian government was previously claiming that they didn't think the U.S. would persecute Assange at all. Now it comes out that not only are they pretty certain the U.S. would charge Assange (and the charges would be made to avoid the first amendment), but that they wouldn't object to it either.
There's a big difference between telling everyone, "We know it can't possibly happen" and then preparing for it's eventuality.
Not sure if you've ever seen originals, but they're messy as hell, and a good amount of it is barely legible. Urtext just means no changes to the content, but somebody still had to go clean up the original score and interpret the (often numerous) ambiguities.
You want an original, go try interpreting off a facimile.
Your house? It's more like the house of some robber baron or sweat shop owner. Who just so happens to run the local gladiator stadium that gives you the occasional complementary beer. And they technically just set fire to the stadium only, not even the house.
Besides which, nobody told you to give Sony your information, especially with their track record. And then you've got the galls to come here and tell us you still give them money, even with all the crap they keep pulling.
If the hacked into your computer, then it's your house. But I'm afraid you're not important enough to warrant such attention, from anybody, really.
Unfortunately, it's a government "of the people, by the people, for the people." A misbehaving government does reflect poorly on the citizens, perhaps not individually but certainly collectively.
According to Wikipedia, a storm of this magnitude happens only once every 500 years or so.
Since one just happened about a hundred years back, the question is largely irrelevant.
Yeah, but Bradley Manning is a U.S. citizen. Only U.S. citizens get constitutional protection. Everybody else is not human and does not have such rights.
The drone Iran brought down is being stored in the Ecuadorian embassy.
That's because everything's done by the browser nowadays. Whereas in the past, you'd have static pages that the server dishes up with each interaction, today, you have the browser rendering all the interactions, with the server supplying only the variable data.
For example, if this was old Slashdot, if you clicked on a comment, it opened up in a new page. For new Slashdot, if you clicked on a comment, the comment now opens up in the current page, while the rest of the page is reformatted (lenghtened, shortened, etc.) to include the new text. That's all done client-side.
AJAX makes for snazzy pages by increasing the complexity all around. On a home machine, you can afford the slight (or sometimes not-so-slight) resource hit. On an embedded system, which the Raspberry Pi most resembles, you cannot.
Again, this is rather forceful language - "no matter what"? are you sure about that? are you sure that he wont manage to get to Ecuador and 30 years down the line when global geopolitics have changed and anything Assange has done wrong is forgotten the charges are dropped? It's not like this sort of thing hasn't happened across the globe many hundreds of times before in geopolitics.
The way we're going after Nazi war criminals, I find that highly unlikely. Nobody knows what the future brings, but if the status quo remains intact, this won't be forgotten, ever.
Just because the UN defines it one way, doesn't mean that it's not used in the media and popular culture another way. And you (not you specifically, the generic "you") can't go around flaunting the UN definition for one case when nobody else uses it for all the other cases. That's called double standard.
Just call it what it is.
Not that this is necessarily the case right now, but there are other people working in the same field who regularly post comments, and less often, moderate. And quite often, TFA is a crock of bull slashvertisement or self promotion.
It happens. The system's not perfect.
The very existence of alienable private property, especially in land, is also "a choice by society."
No. Private property deals with the material. It is the individual ownership of a material, tangible, object. Said object can be anything from a small rock to a large piece of land. Ownership is control. It is natural to control material objects. Property is a small part of a greater concept called individual sovereignty that's a direct result of free will. The laws merely formalize that which already exists.
Intellectual property, on the other hand, basically treats ideas, thoughts, as tangible objects. That's now how things actually work. When you present an idea to the greater world at large, the one in your head is stilll yours. But the one that are in other people's heads are theirs now. It's not yours. People can own other people (as slaves), but that's only flesh and blood. That's still material. Nobody can own thoughts that are not their own. Nobody can own an idea that's not in their head. To own an idea or a thought is the complete antithesis of individual sovereignty, i.e. the absolute opposite of free will. Intellectual property is an attempt to control the thoughts and ideas in other people's heads.
Here's the catch: it is not possible. Very many people a very long time ago already figured this out: Laws can only affect the material. Laws cannot control the mind; they can only control the body. So IP laws seek to control the mind through the body. It's still an impossible task, no matter how strong the controls are. And the impossibility of the task will only result in stronger and stronger controls of the body. Stronger, until the control is absolute.
Freedom and liberty indeed.
Problem Solved with nothing more than the Power of your Mind!
Or in Sarah Palin's case, a hunting rifle.
On the contrary. Those worms were designed to sabotage the centrifuges, not repurpose them.
Why another state would want to outright sabotage some piece of scientific equipment on another planet is beyond me. It'd seem like quite a hassle, both to carry out and to deal with the fallout, for very little, if any gain.
Now, if there was some kind of military use for the rover, which necessitates that the equipment be used within Earth's orbital clearance and not on Mars, then there'd be a reason.
China's hacking attempts were probably more along the lines of acquiring knowledge. The parameters of success are quite different from those for sabotage.