And yet Stallman gladly takes money from strangers that admire him and would gladly take a million, if only to put it in FSF pockets *because he is of simple needs but he values his work*. What Perelman does is not really on the same scale.
Well, to be honest Russia wasn't democratic at all before the people revolted a overthrew the government. It is similar to what happened in the US, but a century later, thus the leading ideology was not Illuminism but Communism which turned out to be quite worse.
And philosophy evolved a lot from the greeks, on. I suggest you to study it. As an extreme aspect of the opposite point of view study the concept of "social contract". This is more modern and at least comes from a time were philosophers had the notion of historical thinking.
As an additional exercise take one of your rights and find the historical age where it was considered good and just to violate it. Women's freedom/vote/safety from abuse? check. Habeas corpus? check. Private property? check. Freedom of religion? check. Racial equality? check. Please study history.
If 11k is a problem you should not compile with gcc using linux system calls. In fact, if you are programming microcontrollers you will/should have a build chain that does not include "bloat".
Both the article and the summary mixes up the concepts. Randomness and bias are related but different things. Think of a biased coin loaded in favor of heads - the heads may appear twice as often as the tails, but the distribution is still random. Here too, contrary to the summary's claim of "far from random", the results are random, just biased, and biased against IE, if I may add, which is an important fact the summary omitted.
I think you are mixing things up. Your biased coin is less random because I can guess more easily what will come out, until it is so biased that it gives always head and is not random at all. You are probably thinking of a bias in the average, let's say equally distributed 0 and 1 is as random as equally distributed 1 and 2. The article concerns entropy, which is orthogonal with the values of the outcomes.
Not really. Only high level crimes are covered by that. The conviction issued is not enough. Actually they would not be arrested at all, up to two years are automatically discounted if it is you first offence. The verdict is something like "the law says you are guilty, but it is not so bad, you know".
I read it like a heads up for the parliament to change the law. Of course this parliament is corrupt and will likely just ignore the warning.
Thank you for adding a lol to that sentence, it shows how childish you are.
It's not that I do not agree with the content. Italy is the most corrupt state, the less free for speech and criticism, probably the less technologically advanced and by far one of the worst economies in Europe. I will expatriate the day I finish my phd.
But you can easily step down from your pedestal and shove your derision up your ignorant ass.
For example, here in Italy the government has absolutely no control over the courts. There is not political statement in justice. They follow the law by principle and this is likely a case where the judges asked the parliament for modernizing the law. For example they have issued a very short conviction (under two years convictions are not served if you are uncensored).
The fact that you (and many others) think Berlusconi has anything to do with this shows how ignorant you are. Berlusconi fucking hates judges. They are constantly prosecuting him for corruption. For this he is trying to put them under the control of the government. It is hilarious that for definitely killing justice and protecting corruption he is trying to implement the kind of system you have in mind (and probably in your country)... Maybe he should just rename corruption to lobbying and be done, like in the US.
It seems to me they are just summing up all the discussions happened on Slashdot after the acquisition, and what almost everyone hoped for/believed.
Do they really have a chance at influencing Google's decision? Plus Google is already known to open source the technologies it wants to push, if only because adopters would be scared of Google's control. So even if they do open V8, was this useful at all?
Or maybe they just want to put their signature in case Google follows their expectation: "See, we made them do it"...
And if you consider that many of these so-called 'independent' studies are in fact paid for by fringe anti-science groups, then perhaps their results are aren't as unbiased as they would have you believe.
Do you just know that? Can you tell me how many of them were funded by ant-science groups exactly? Can you even point me at a single example of what you say?
Sure, they were funded by tinfoil hat producers...
But seriously, do you have to invent a lobby that does not actually exist only to feel better for using your cell phone? People still smokes after it was proven harmful, can't you be mature as well and accept that you are taking a risk?
That the retailer is abusing its enormous cash reserves to kill the small physical bookshops and then will be Rupert's only customer thus getting to choose the price. At the same time it will be our only retailer and can charge whatever price it wants from us, effectively becoming a monopoly. It is a handbook example on how to kill a free market.
Selling at a loss is against all principles of capitalism, because it goes against optimization of production. It stifles innovation because it becomes more efficient to build reserves and kill competitors with occasional sales instead of investing in research to produce at a lower cost.
Not ironic at all. Forbidding sale of tobacco is likely to save lives, while taking random people's pictures naked is not. So in one case there may be good will involved, in the other only a pathetic excuse for violating our privacy. Guess which one is being pushed by the governements?
It's not about *leaving them alone*, it's about *not using their work*. To go for a Good Analogy: how would you like if the telemarketing agencies directly signed you up for the product without telling you? After all you just have to opt out...
Mutations in multicell organisms are relevant only when they affect the reproductive system. A single DNA change in a human's skin cell is only likely to give cancer. Horizontal transfer in humans can be ruled out until further discoveries, I suppose. Like, if some virus is non nocive and specifically targets embryos...
Copyright is granted by the government. If there is someone that can get away with this approach then it must be the government itself, not the first corporation that sees a revenue.
Moreover, the scarcity of a book is not a reason to make free copies. If the copyright has not expired you cannot copy a book, even if there are ten copies remeining.
Also, if big corporations get a free pass from the lawbecause they are big, while the same law is enforced against private individuals, what chance is there to have it changed for the better? Corps have already too much weight in current political decisions, if they can disregard the law they will push to keep it as strict as possible for the layman. What kind of justice is that?
Slashdot Mirror
Of course it must be the same person: Cruella de Vil! Oh clever you to have seen through her disguise!
I can see the editor thinking "we already know this is fake news, but let's publish: we are missing a good Mono flamewar since forever!"
And yet Stallman gladly takes money from strangers that admire him and would gladly take a million, if only to put it in FSF pockets *because he is of simple needs but he values his work*. What Perelman does is not really on the same scale.
And if you can get people off of slashdot too, we'll get humanity on Mars in a couple of weeks as a bonus.
Well, to be honest Russia wasn't democratic at all before the people revolted a overthrew the government. It is similar to what happened in the US, but a century later, thus the leading ideology was not Illuminism but Communism which turned out to be quite worse.
And philosophy evolved a lot from the greeks, on. I suggest you to study it. As an extreme aspect of the opposite point of view study the concept of "social contract". This is more modern and at least comes from a time were philosophers had the notion of historical thinking.
As an additional exercise take one of your rights and find the historical age where it was considered good and just to violate it. Women's freedom/vote/safety from abuse? check. Habeas corpus? check. Private property? check. Freedom of religion? check. Racial equality? check. Please study history.
If 11k is a problem you should not compile with gcc using linux system calls. In fact, if you are programming microcontrollers you will/should have a build chain that does not include "bloat".
Shit or get off the pot, guys. Either way a lot of people won't be happy.
You got some weird fetish, man... May I suggest a .crp domain for that?
Also worth noting that the mokups and plans for the plasma dashboard predate the OSX one.
Of course: Chuck Norris is no ninja.
Both the article and the summary mixes up the concepts. Randomness and bias are related but different things. Think of a biased coin loaded in favor of heads - the heads may appear twice as often as the tails, but the distribution is still random. Here too, contrary to the summary's claim of "far from random", the results are random, just biased, and biased against IE, if I may add, which is an important fact the summary omitted.
I think you are mixing things up. Your biased coin is less random because I can guess more easily what will come out, until it is so biased that it gives always head and is not random at all. You are probably thinking of a bias in the average, let's say equally distributed 0 and 1 is as random as equally distributed 1 and 2. The article concerns entropy, which is orthogonal with the values of the outcomes.
Not really. Only high level crimes are covered by that. The conviction issued is not enough. Actually they would not be arrested at all, up to two years are automatically discounted if it is you first offence. The verdict is something like "the law says you are guilty, but it is not so bad, you know".
I read it like a heads up for the parliament to change the law. Of course this parliament is corrupt and will likely just ignore the warning.
Thank you for adding a lol to that sentence, it shows how childish you are.
It's not that I do not agree with the content. Italy is the most corrupt state, the less free for speech and criticism, probably the less technologically advanced and by far one of the worst economies in Europe. I will expatriate the day I finish my phd.
But you can easily step down from your pedestal and shove your derision up your ignorant ass.
For example, here in Italy the government has absolutely no control over the courts. There is not political statement in justice. They follow the law by principle and this is likely a case where the judges asked the parliament for modernizing the law. For example they have issued a very short conviction (under two years convictions are not served if you are uncensored).
The fact that you (and many others) think Berlusconi has anything to do with this shows how ignorant you are. Berlusconi fucking hates judges. They are constantly prosecuting him for corruption. For this he is trying to put them under the control of the government. It is hilarious that for definitely killing justice and protecting corruption he is trying to implement the kind of system you have in mind (and probably in your country)... Maybe he should just rename corruption to lobbying and be done, like in the US.
It seems to me they are just summing up all the discussions happened on Slashdot after the acquisition, and what almost everyone hoped for/believed.
Do they really have a chance at influencing Google's decision? Plus Google is already known to open source the technologies it wants to push, if only because adopters would be scared of Google's control. So even if they do open V8, was this useful at all?
Or maybe they just want to put their signature in case Google follows their expectation: "See, we made them do it"...
On the other hand it seems that some one at Google follows suggestions from XKCD, so the FSF could be in luck too.
So it should be "the man who discovered the linux kernel"? And how does Apple fit into the story?
And if you consider that many of these so-called 'independent' studies are in fact paid for by fringe anti-science groups, then perhaps their results are aren't as unbiased as they would have you believe.
Do you just know that? Can you tell me how many of them were funded by ant-science groups exactly? Can you even point me at a single example of what you say?
Sure, they were funded by tinfoil hat producers...
But seriously, do you have to invent a lobby that does not actually exist only to feel better for using your cell phone? People still smokes after it was proven harmful, can't you be mature as well and accept that you are taking a risk?
That the retailer is abusing its enormous cash reserves to kill the small physical bookshops and then will be Rupert's only customer thus getting to choose the price. At the same time it will be our only retailer and can charge whatever price it wants from us, effectively becoming a monopoly. It is a handbook example on how to kill a free market.
Selling at a loss is against all principles of capitalism, because it goes against optimization of production. It stifles innovation because it becomes more efficient to build reserves and kill competitors with occasional sales instead of investing in research to produce at a lower cost.
Not ironic at all. Forbidding sale of tobacco is likely to save lives, while taking random people's pictures naked is not. So in one case there may be good will involved, in the other only a pathetic excuse for violating our privacy. Guess which one is being pushed by the governements?
It's not about *leaving them alone*, it's about *not using their work*. To go for a Good Analogy: how would you like if the telemarketing agencies directly signed you up for the product without telling you? After all you just have to opt out...
Do not worry, the settlement will only apply to Google. You are still subject to death penalty if you whistle a copyrighted song.
I personally would prefer to share information for the good of humanity and yet I know that their are those that are in it for the money alone.
Like Google, you mean?
No, that takes into account the number of uploads which is completely arbitrary. The number of songs taken into court is something like 24 IIRC.
Mutations in multicell organisms are relevant only when they affect the reproductive system. A single DNA change in a human's skin cell is only likely to give cancer. Horizontal transfer in humans can be ruled out until further discoveries, I suppose. Like, if some virus is non nocive and specifically targets embryos...
Copyright is granted by the government. If there is someone that can get away with this approach then it must be the government itself, not the first corporation that sees a revenue.
Moreover, the scarcity of a book is not a reason to make free copies. If the copyright has not expired you cannot copy a book, even if there are ten copies remeining.
Also, if big corporations get a free pass from the lawbecause they are big, while the same law is enforced against private individuals, what chance is there to have it changed for the better? Corps have already too much weight in current political decisions, if they can disregard the law they will push to keep it as strict as possible for the layman. What kind of justice is that?