"If the founding fathers made it a right to own firearms, would they have done the same for the right to own and drive a car?"
No, they wouldn't. They wouldn't have seen a reason why a future government would want to restrict the use of cars in order to support tyrannical rule.
However, they could see a strong likelihood of a government wanting to restrict firearms. So they wrote it in.
and you forgot to add "RON PAUL" to the end of your post.
When Lucas re edits the entire trilogy, has Orson Welles voicing Jar-Jar
and turns the series into a metaphor for whatever's happening in a few years.
That's the great thing about Lucas Films. Don't like a movie? Wait a decade, It will change.
Looking to the top right of my window, I see:
_ meaning minimize or standby,
X meaning kill or shutdown
a squared off O meaning open.
So by no means is a horizontal line a universal symbol for "Turn On"
I realize you're being sarcastic. But, I'd be happy to pay, say $5, to upgrade all my VHS and DVDs to HD-DVD. I've already paid a licence for the material when I bought the original. I don't see why I should re-licence just to change formats. $5 should cover production, distribution and VHS disposal, and even leave a small profit. And no, I'm not paying for DVD "Extras" I want my Godfather, not a Making Of documentary.
I've bought "Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms" 4 times now.
1: LP - 1985
2: Cassette - 1987 - Road trip!
3: CD - ~1991
4: CD 2 ~2002 when the first was scratched beyond recognition.
CD 2 was then stepped on. I found a FLAC on a torrent site and burned my own.
Not paying again.
Couple of edits:
That is, the cardinality of the set of natural numbers is exactly equal to the cardinality of the set of rational numbers.,br/>
Also, that infinite field is also tiled with those same 12x12 tiles. I can get to any TILE on the field, as they are discrete. Points would be measured in real coordinates, and would not be countable.
A = {set of integers} B = {set of even integers} For all Bi there exists Aj such that Bi = Aj * 2 For all Ai there exists Bj such that Ai = Bj / 2
That's a perfectly demonstration of countability. Countability, in the simplest term means "There is a path I can follow, that if I keep taking one more step, I'll eventually get there".
Picture an infinitly long hallway, tiled with 12x12 inch tiles. Are the tiles countable? That is, if you pick any tile arbitrarily far away, will I eventually get there? There are two possible paths to take.
1)Follow the left wall, and when I get to the end, I'll turn around and do the next row. -- Not countable, as I'll never get to the second row. 2)Start by going across the hall, when you get to the opposite wall, advance to the next column, and continue. You'll eventually get there.
Now consider an infinite field (infinite in both +-x and +-y directions) Start anywhere, and spiral outward. Again, you can eventually get to any point on the field.
Both are countable.
The set of rational numbers (fractions) is countable:
2 1 ...-2 -1 0 1 2... -1 -2
Fill in the grid as x/y. Start at 0, and spiral outward (you can eliminate 4/2 as the same as 2/1 if you like). You will eventually get to any fraction you desire.
All these examples are directly mappable to the set of natural numbers. All you have to do is count each time you take a step.
That is, the cardinality of the set of natural numbers is exactly equal to the set of rational numbers.
Real numbers are not countable, as there is no "next" number to go to. That is, if I choose any number (x1) greater than my current position (x), there is another number y| x<y<x1 that falls in between. -- I can never get to two from one.
You are perfectly correct given the layman's imprecise use of mathematical language. That is, you understand the concept quite well, but are using the language imprecisely.
x + y = infinity is not a valid statement. Nor is x = infinity.
infinity is not a number. Infinite is an adjective that can be used to describe a number that you might think of a infinity.
In other words, infinity has no value, and can't be "equaled"
You would be more correct to say (X + Y) is infinite, or produces a non-finite result.
Anybody doing number theory will use set theory and cardinality (look up a few posts) to be completely precise.
Even in calculus, where infinity is used more frequently, we really mean "The value of X approaches the infinite"
At the wolfram site, he shows the rules for this 2,3 machine (two state, three color). The two states being up and down, and the colors being white, yellow and orange.
Is there an equivalent 3,2 machine - {up, down, charm} and {white, black}? His machine: {S,C) -> {S,C,O} { {D, O} -> {D, Y, L}, {D, Y} -> {D, O, L}, {D, W} -> {U, Y, R}, {U, O} -> {D, W, R}, {U, Y} -> {U, O, R}, {U, W} -> {D, O, L} }
Paris Hilton is what kids strive to be: not Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein or Jack Kennedy
Why? because we don't respect smart women. First comment on this topic treated Danica as a sex object. She's worth something to us because she's hot, not because of her brain.
As long as we men keep joking about Dr. Condoleeza Rice's appearances, rather than respecting her for her achievements, As long as we laugh at Hillary Clinton for being cuckholded, we are telling our daughters and sisters that it is more important to be a cum-bucket than a brain.
Bill Gates looks like Prof. Frink. But no one is laughing at him for his appearance. We respect (or disrespect) him for his accomplishments.
The women who manage to evade this negative judgement based on there appearance are totally sexless. Look at Margaret Thatcher. In order to acheive power, you must not exhibit any feminine qualities.
Take a look at Terry Pratchett's dwarf societies for a really interesting satire of this situation.
The only man I have ever seen criticised for his appearance the way a woman is is Michael Moore.
Maybe, in another dimension, Microsoft is patenting this technique in order to squelch it.
It could actually be used to sue adware producers that violate the patent.
"if you are offering help and/or suggestions, be thorough in your answers, don't be insulting("RTFM newb!"), and give realistic options. i've seen responses that are overly terse in tone that makes the response seem like it's an annoyance or statements that have an air of arrogance that have turned users away from FOSS projects."
This attitude sickens me. The reason why I'm on your group/list/forum/whatever is because I've already spent an hour on the googles looking for documentation/howto's. Normally I'll find a howto that applies to releases that are several years old.
My advice to anyone who really wants to help - WPT&MTFM (Write, Publish, Translate & Maintain)
Actually, it does say for Commercial purposes.
So lending it to my mama wouldn't be commercial.
Lending it to your mama, in exchange for her professional services, might be considered commercial.
Actually, this isn't too bad, although I'm not familiar with the WIPO part.
It clearly says "distributing pirate or counterfeit works"
If I buy Iron Maiden's "A Matter of Life and Death", it's not piracy.
If I copy it to the hard drive, it's not piracy.
If I share it, it's not a pirate work until the downloader receives it. - There's nothing in there about this situation.
It's certainly not counterfeit as I'm not asserting anything about it.
So it seems that I can only get in trouble if I were to download "A Matter of Life and Death" and then re-distribute it.
Most of what they're talking about seems to be aimed at commercial distributors.
It even allows free (as in beer) software circumvention measures. DeCSS is still safe as long as it's not sold for profit.
What I have a problem with (Look at the PDF for full recommendations).
1)Enact legislation to make cam-cording in a theatre a criminal offence.
This should be a tresspass offence. Kick them out, ban them and take away the camera.
2)Enact criminal legislation clearly defining offences for criminal circumvention activities...
Document doesnt' specify what would be defined as such. Maybe DeCSS isn't safe.
What I do like:
Remove the Copyright Act from the list of indictable offences excluded from Proceeds of Crime legislation.
This means we can now seize assets from commercial rings.
There really isn't that much of a difference in the two systems as they both come from the same British parent. The major difference is that in Canada, legal fees are almost always awarded to the winner, which really puts a damper on the more frivolous cases.
Occasionally, a judge will decide for the plaintiff without awarding costs which is a subtle way of saying "You're right, but you're an asshole."
Re:The GPL: Intellectual Theft
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
Your lawyers are wrong.
Sorry for feeding the troll, but some misconceptions need to be cleared up.
You are the developer, working for a client.
You use GPL code, and distribute it to (only) the client.
You are required to distribute the source code ONLY to the client.
Now, if the client distributes the application further down the chain to people outside the clients organization, for example, a desktop client, then the are required to distribute the source code along with the app.
The GPL makes no statement that source code be made public. It only requires you to distribute (or make available for distribution) the source along with the binaries. If you have no intention of distributing the app to me, then I can make no claims on the source.
Furthermore gcc is a tool. You are not required to distribute the source code that that tool compiles, just as an image created with the GIMP or a story written in Open Office qualify as a free product. Be aware that libraries used MAY be GPL instead of LGPL, and then any code that links to those libraries could be subject to source code distribution rules. AFAIK, most of the common libraries are LGPL, so there is no source distribution requirement.
In summation. I 'A' can create a fully customized linux system for my client 'B', modifying every line of code in the system. I can sell that to 'B', and give them the source code. B is free to do what they want with it. As long as they chose not to distribute it further, the source code is secure.
And why shouldn't they have access to the source? They paid for it.
The minimum wage salary surf (sic) will now be able to call the cops and have the seal abuser arrested.
The seal abuser will then go through six months of court time, pay a fine and be set free.
Kind of makes it not worthwhile, doesn't it?
My only worry is that if I have a camcorder in my backpack (Tourists?) can I be arrested for attempted piracy or possession of piracy tools?
Slashdot Mirror
Who cares what the drugs are doing to are water? I'm more concerned with what the queers are doing to the soil.
"If the founding fathers made it a right to own firearms, would they have done the same for the right to own and drive a car?" No, they wouldn't. They wouldn't have seen a reason why a future government would want to restrict the use of cars in order to support tyrannical rule. However, they could see a strong likelihood of a government wanting to restrict firearms. So they wrote it in. and you forgot to add "RON PAUL" to the end of your post.
When Lucas re edits the entire trilogy, has Orson Welles voicing Jar-Jar and turns the series into a metaphor for whatever's happening in a few years. That's the great thing about Lucas Films. Don't like a movie? Wait a decade, It will change.
Looking to the top right of my window, I see:
_ meaning minimize or standby,
X meaning kill or shutdown a squared off O meaning open. So by no means is a horizontal line a universal symbol for "Turn On"
I'm playing their game. If I purchases a licence, then I shouldn't need to purchase another.
I realize you're being sarcastic. But, I'd be happy to pay, say $5, to upgrade all my VHS and DVDs to HD-DVD. I've already paid a licence for the material when I bought the original. I don't see why I should re-licence just to change formats. $5 should cover production, distribution and VHS disposal, and even leave a small profit. And no, I'm not paying for DVD "Extras" I want my Godfather, not a Making Of documentary. I've bought "Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms" 4 times now. 1: LP - 1985 2: Cassette - 1987 - Road trip! 3: CD - ~1991 4: CD 2 ~2002 when the first was scratched beyond recognition. CD 2 was then stepped on. I found a FLAC on a torrent site and burned my own. Not paying again.
Couple of edits:
That is, the cardinality of the set of natural numbers is exactly equal to the cardinality of the set of rational numbers.,br/> Also, that infinite field is also tiled with those same 12x12 tiles. I can get to any TILE on the field, as they are discrete. Points would be measured in real coordinates, and would not be countable.
A = {set of integers} B = {set of even integers} For all Bi there exists Aj such that Bi = Aj * 2 For all Ai there exists Bj such that Ai = Bj / 2
That's a perfectly demonstration of countability.
Countability, in the simplest term means "There is a path I can follow, that if I keep taking one more step, I'll eventually get there".
Picture an infinitly long hallway, tiled with 12x12 inch tiles. Are the tiles countable? That is, if you pick any tile arbitrarily far away, will I eventually get there?
There are two possible paths to take.
1)Follow the left wall, and when I get to the end, I'll turn around and do the next row. -- Not countable, as I'll never get to the second row.
2)Start by going across the hall, when you get to the opposite wall, advance to the next column, and continue. You'll eventually get there.
Now consider an infinite field (infinite in both +-x and +-y directions)
Start anywhere, and spiral outward. Again, you can eventually get to any point on the field.
Both are countable.
The set of rational numbers (fractions) is countable:
2
1
...-2 -1 0 1 2...
-1
-2
Fill in the grid as x/y.
Start at 0, and spiral outward (you can eliminate 4/2 as the same as 2/1 if you like).
You will eventually get to any fraction you desire.
All these examples are directly mappable to the set of natural numbers. All you have to do is count each time you take a step.
That is, the cardinality of the set of natural numbers is exactly equal to the set of rational numbers.
Real numbers are not countable, as there is no "next" number to go to. That is, if I choose any number (x1) greater than my current position (x), there is another number y| x<y<x1 that falls in between. -- I can never get to two from one.
You are perfectly correct given the layman's imprecise use of mathematical language. That is, you understand the concept quite well, but are using the language imprecisely. x + y = infinity is not a valid statement. Nor is x = infinity. infinity is not a number. Infinite is an adjective that can be used to describe a number that you might think of a infinity. In other words, infinity has no value, and can't be "equaled" You would be more correct to say (X + Y) is infinite, or produces a non-finite result. Anybody doing number theory will use set theory and cardinality (look up a few posts) to be completely precise. Even in calculus, where infinity is used more frequently, we really mean "The value of X approaches the infinite"
At the wolfram site, he shows the rules for this 2,3 machine (two state, three color).
The two states being up and down, and the colors being white, yellow and orange.
Is there an equivalent 3,2 machine - {up, down, charm} and {white, black}?
His machine:
{S,C) -> {S,C,O}
{
{D, O} -> {D, Y, L},
{D, Y} -> {D, O, L},
{D, W} -> {U, Y, R},
{U, O} -> {D, W, R},
{U, Y} -> {U, O, R},
{U, W} -> {D, O, L}
}
3,2 machine
{
{c, w} -> {u, w, L},
{u, w} -> {c, w, L},
{d, w} -> {u, b, R},
{c, b} -> {d, w, R},
{u, b} -> {c, b, R},
{d, b} -> {c, b, L}
}
Are these equivalent?
Well, the sad truth is that if she wasn't an actor, she wouldn't be the subject of an article.
basketball?
Why? because we don't respect smart women. First comment on this topic treated Danica as a sex object. She's worth something to us because she's hot, not because of her brain.
As long as we men keep joking about Dr. Condoleeza Rice's appearances, rather than respecting her for her achievements, As long as we laugh at Hillary Clinton for being cuckholded, we are telling our daughters and sisters that it is more important to be a cum-bucket than a brain.
Bill Gates looks like Prof. Frink. But no one is laughing at him for his appearance. We respect (or disrespect) him for his accomplishments.
The women who manage to evade this negative judgement based on there appearance are totally sexless. Look at Margaret Thatcher. In order to acheive power, you must not exhibit any feminine qualities.
Take a look at Terry Pratchett's dwarf societies for a really interesting satire of this situation. The only man I have ever seen criticised for his appearance the way a woman is is Michael Moore.Maybe, in another dimension, Microsoft is patenting this technique in order to squelch it. It could actually be used to sue adware producers that violate the patent.
"if you are offering help and/or suggestions, be thorough in your answers, don't be insulting("RTFM newb!"), and give realistic options. i've seen responses that are overly terse in tone that makes the response seem like it's an annoyance or statements that have an air of arrogance that have turned users away from FOSS projects." This attitude sickens me. The reason why I'm on your group/list/forum/whatever is because I've already spent an hour on the googles looking for documentation/howto's. Normally I'll find a howto that applies to releases that are several years old. My advice to anyone who really wants to help - WPT&MTFM (Write, Publish, Translate & Maintain)
Actually, it does say for Commercial purposes. So lending it to my mama wouldn't be commercial. Lending it to your mama, in exchange for her professional services, might be considered commercial.
Actually, this isn't too bad, although I'm not familiar with the WIPO part. It clearly says "distributing pirate or counterfeit works" If I buy Iron Maiden's "A Matter of Life and Death", it's not piracy. If I copy it to the hard drive, it's not piracy. If I share it, it's not a pirate work until the downloader receives it. - There's nothing in there about this situation. It's certainly not counterfeit as I'm not asserting anything about it. So it seems that I can only get in trouble if I were to download "A Matter of Life and Death" and then re-distribute it. Most of what they're talking about seems to be aimed at commercial distributors. It even allows free (as in beer) software circumvention measures. DeCSS is still safe as long as it's not sold for profit. What I have a problem with (Look at the PDF for full recommendations). 1)Enact legislation to make cam-cording in a theatre a criminal offence. This should be a tresspass offence. Kick them out, ban them and take away the camera. 2)Enact criminal legislation clearly defining offences for criminal circumvention activities... Document doesnt' specify what would be defined as such. Maybe DeCSS isn't safe. What I do like: Remove the Copyright Act from the list of indictable offences excluded from Proceeds of Crime legislation. This means we can now seize assets from commercial rings.
Acceleration is d2s/dt2. (Second derivative of distance with respect to time) Where does mass come into play?
There really isn't that much of a difference in the two systems as they both come from the same British parent. The major difference is that in Canada, legal fees are almost always awarded to the winner, which really puts a damper on the more frivolous cases.
Occasionally, a judge will decide for the plaintiff without awarding costs which is a subtle way of saying "You're right, but you're an asshole."
Your lawyers are wrong. Sorry for feeding the troll, but some misconceptions need to be cleared up. You are the developer, working for a client. You use GPL code, and distribute it to (only) the client. You are required to distribute the source code ONLY to the client. Now, if the client distributes the application further down the chain to people outside the clients organization, for example, a desktop client, then the are required to distribute the source code along with the app. The GPL makes no statement that source code be made public. It only requires you to distribute (or make available for distribution) the source along with the binaries. If you have no intention of distributing the app to me, then I can make no claims on the source. Furthermore gcc is a tool. You are not required to distribute the source code that that tool compiles, just as an image created with the GIMP or a story written in Open Office qualify as a free product. Be aware that libraries used MAY be GPL instead of LGPL, and then any code that links to those libraries could be subject to source code distribution rules. AFAIK, most of the common libraries are LGPL, so there is no source distribution requirement. In summation. I 'A' can create a fully customized linux system for my client 'B', modifying every line of code in the system. I can sell that to 'B', and give them the source code. B is free to do what they want with it. As long as they chose not to distribute it further, the source code is secure. And why shouldn't they have access to the source? They paid for it.
The minimum wage salary surf (sic) will now be able to call the cops and have the seal abuser arrested. The seal abuser will then go through six months of court time, pay a fine and be set free. Kind of makes it not worthwhile, doesn't it? My only worry is that if I have a camcorder in my backpack (Tourists?) can I be arrested for attempted piracy or possession of piracy tools?
Apparently it doesn't like ascii line breaks either.
lxvii
xii
------
lxvii
lxvii
dclxx
-----
DCLLLXXXXVVIIII (add them up)
DCCCIV simplify
lxvii xii ----- lxvii lxvii dclxx ----- DCLLLXXXXVVIIII DCCCIV -- Final Answer Lameness filter doesn't like Roman Math in caps.
If they were good enough for Moses and Jesus, then they're good enough for me.