Two, I notice a complete lack of representation by the "soft" sciences. Is it because the people writing the grants share the same disdain for disciplines that lack explanatory power as everyone else, or is it because it's easier to set up a biology program than a sociology program? I suspect a little of both--you probably need far more social context than an 18-year-old will have to pursue studies of voter demographics (not to mention the data acq is probably beyond their capabilities).
Perhaps because "soft sciences" are real sciences. Sure they may use scientific method, but they sure as hell don't have the same accuracy. They haven't yet accumulated the same amount of data as the "hard" (or I prefer real) sciences.
I mean, take Marxism for example. Historical materialism is claimed to be scientific, it may well use scientific method, but it sure as hell ain't science.
While I appreciate the sentiment, I doubt that it will happen. Judges are there to enforce the law. The believe in the law (otherwise they would not be appointed). They might side with Google on this one, but it wouldn't be the end of copyright as we know it.
And because it has been too short a time between hitting reply and submit, I will elaborate.
The law is flawed. The law was not created with your best interest at heart (unless you happen to be a corporation, wealthy person or otherwise have a lot of power in society). In fact, in cases where the law is obviously flawed (even by the standards of this society), it is your duty to break them. If you truly believe in the law, you would then accept punishment for that act (civil disobedience).
As I said above, in the current system, copyright should not be more then five (5) years.
Lifetime or greater then lifetime copyright does not encourage creativity. (How the fuck does having a life +50 (+75) encourage an author to write more once they are dead? How does it encourage their inheritors? Fucking corporations.)
Pretty much for me also. Except I just use the search (and sometimes News, but that is basically an extension of search).
I use Yahoo (and others) for email (two accounts from 1998 and 1999), OpenOffice.org and Abiword for document processing and so on.
I "need" Yahoo to exist (for the two mentioned email accounts), but I don't need Google. They provide a nice search engine that is fairly accurate, but I'm thinking about moving to Yahoo. Why? I've been moving around a bit recently, Sweden, Switzerland. But I only speak (and read) English. And the Firefox search bar defaults to google.com which directs you to a country based Google. Which is fucking annoying. (For those who don't know, you can actually modify the search from the address bar to go where you want. So I could use it to goto google.co.uk, but I actually use it for a metasearch. I want to know how the fuck I modify the Search bar search!)
I couldn't care less about youtube. But I think that copyright is simply wrong.
In the current system I can't see why it is more then five years (life +75? (life +50 in Australia, I can legally copy George Orwell's books) WTF?), and in a perfect system, it wouldn't not exit.
OK, so copyright is intended to motivate creativity. The government provides an artificial monopoly on an intangible product. Fine so far (well... see the perfect system reference above). It is a limited monopoly (fair use and limited time). But why should a corporation (or anyone) own the rights to something after a person is dead (long after...)? How is that promoting the creation of creative works?
OK, that doesn't really have much to do with the case at hand, but I don't believe in copyright anyway. And I hardly need to justify it to you (it would take to long to explain anyway).
Read 1984? It is about power. They don't care about the people (well in some of the countries mentioned they might, but not, for example, Burma).
As such, half the population could die, and they would still come out on top.
In the US (and other similar countries), it is not quite as bad. But it is still about control and power. Why are there so many billionaires? Most of them cannot spend all the money they make, they don't give it away, if they pass it onto their children, they will be unable to spend it all and so on (can someone find that article which was around recently?). It is all about the power.
Basically, they are incredibly easy to compare. Simply get out a ruler, scales and other scientific instruments and measure each, then compare. Fucking easy.
And if you say that they are so obviously different, well not if you grind them down to a paste, heat them for fifty minutes at 48 degrees and then compare.
Come on, it is a stupid saying, get over it already.
But otherwise I think I agree with what you are saying.
I'm sure others have said this, but Greenpeace actually do a lot of studies (or fund studies) such as this.
Sure the whole "witness the slaughter" thing gets them publicity (I prefer the Sea Shepard method my self, but hey), but they actually put a lot of money into studies on not just GM stuff. A quick look at their home page (do a search http://www.greenpeace.org/international/footer/sea rch?q=research ) revels fisheries and whaling research among others.
Which is pretty much what happened (and continues to happen) to the Sahara Desert.
What used to be a nice pretty forest (well, at least that is my understanding), is now the worlds largest (ignoring that place down south, what's it called again?) desert and growing. (Even if it wasn't a forest, it is still a fine example of over grazing and so on.)
There are plenty of examples of humans cutting down all the trees and screwing up an ecosystem. Rapa Nui (Easter Island) is the obvious example, but Greece is also worth a mention (they had to build a lot of boats to go to war at one stage).
The cocoa bean comes from South America (though most of it is now grown in West Africa). So while Switzerland may make a lot of chocolate it can't really claim to be the "Land of Chocolate".
While I enjoy reading some of his work, it is hardly that good. Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke, are both better writers in my opinion. Their work is more consistently good and they do not go all over the place (see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cat_Who_Walks_Thr ough_Walls for a story that ends up plain weird).
Some of his non-fiction is worth a read, but Clarke's is better (see the famous prediction of the satellite or the first essay in 1984, Spring: a Choice of Futures where he talks of something like the OLPC).
Talking about the genre of SF, it is one of the great things about it. Being able to have any other genre of fiction, but place it in a different universe is one of the great attractions. It also shows how good many SF authors are. Anyone can write a story where they don't have to explain the background or history of the location where the story is set. SF writers have to explain this, in text! Without disrupting the flow of the story. Basically, I would say, unless you like weird writing that goes all over the place (drifting into fantasy for a lot of the later work), you wouldn't go with Heinlein.
Interestingly, I went from using Windows 100% to using Ubuntu 100%. I finally found a distro that installed on my laptop and had wireless drivers so that I could use the Internet (living in student accommodation, with only wireless).
The fact that I much prefer the GNOME environment to Windows (it is much more customizable and the way the calender integrates with the clock... (for those not in the know, click on the clock to bring up a calendar and then double click on a date. It brings up Evolution. Add an appointment or task or something, and it adds it to the clock calendar!)), is one reason.
And the software installation! It is so easy! No fucking around with Google to find the site or anything. Having to use a stupid wizard.
>No true leftist/progressive/socialist believes in -individual- civil liberties. They pay lip service to group >rights but don't believe in that either. In the end all left theory boils down to the individual is a >meaningless cog in the system who has no inalienable rights, existing only to serve the state.
Shows how much you know about leftism...
I'm an anarchist, all anarchists are socialists* (using the broad definition of socialism, not "state" or Marxist socialism) and progressive.
As an anarchist, I oppose the state. The state forces people to do things, takes away their "rights".
The only thing about anarchism, is that it doesn't allow people to force others to do things, or to create a social hierarchy. In practice, this only affects one area of "rights" as commonly understood. That is the area of "property". The unlimited accumulation of property would not be permitted in an anarchist society. The control of resources allows a person to dictate to others. Fuck that.
* "Anarcho-capitalists" are not true an anarchists, anarchists are against hierarchy, capitalism creates hierarchy.
So, to sum up. You are wrong and a troll. A fuckwit indeed. If you want to learn what at least some leftism is about, see my "homepage". Here you will find political ideologies ranging from the "Stalinist" and "leftists" that you seem to be talking about, to true anarchists and autonomous communists. If you want to discuss this with people, feel free. But you will have to do it in the cage, as you are likely to disrupt conversation otherwise.
I had had trouble with Debian and Knoppix before, but Ubuntu installed like a breeze. I admit I'm not your average computer user, having used GNOME/X/GNU/Linux for a few years now.
Once I had Internet (which as I mentioned required knowing the name of the network in the default install, at least as far as I could tell), I quickly installed a very nice tool called "Wifi-radar" which picks up networks and connects. A pity this isn't installed by default.
I recommend Ubuntu, and for people who aren't happy playing around or who don't have much experience, having a friend or other person who knows a bit to hold your hand might be the way to go.
Something can be free software, something can be open source software, something can be both. That doesn't mean you get the source code though.
It simply means, that if you get the binary, you also have the option to get the source and to change it and redistribute it.
The original developer can make as much stuff as they want, and not have any of it freely available to download. That is legitimate. But, if it is free or open, then once the original developer sells you a binary, they also offer you the source.
Now, you have the source and can change it, and redistribute it if you want. But you can also not share that source with anyone else, and make changes and keep them "in house". That is also allowed.
Just because it is free (as in speech) or open, doesn't mean you can download it for free (as in beer).
I had a lot of shit trying to get Debian working on my Laptop. I installed Ubuntu, and no worries.
I wanted to run a little Windows fortune teller I have (there is also one built into GNOME (sorta, fortune and the fish)). I install WINE, and seriously, it Just Worked (TM).
I only have 512 MB of RAM, and was running Windows XP (but only 'cause I couldn't get Debian working...). Now I have GNOME on Ubuntu, and it is just as fast. Installing stuff is really easy (no more finding the website, downloading the installer, and clicking next a lot of times), everything integrates.
I have had experience with X/GNU/Linux before, I run Mandrake 10.1 on my Desktop (which is currently a few thousand KMs away with only dial up, so no I won't be upgrading it any time soon). GNOME on Mandrake was good (but I hate the 2.6.8 kernel), but GNOME 2.16 is much better. They have got rid of some of the nasty things they added (like removing the location bar, which fucktard thought of that?).
Ubuntu installs like a breeze, and everything is integrated. GNOME is also much more configurable then Windows, want the clock to show the date or to be on the right side of the bar? Can't do it at all in stock Windows, but you can in GNOME.
(Talking about demons, I haven't run *BSD at all, but from what I have read, if I'm ever setting up a server, I'll try OpenBSD.)
Does WoW have a Linux version? (I don't know 'cause I don't play it.) If it does, it should be really easy to install (that is if Blizzard (however you spell it) are nice). If it only has a Windows installer, it is still simple (well not as simple as installing stuff from the repositories, where you just select and click install).
Get WINE, so goto Add/Remove in the applications menu, then search for "WINE" (without the " of course) put a mark in the box next to Wine Windows Emulator and then click OK. APT will download everything you need (this may take some time depending on your connection to the Internet). Then put your WoW CD in the drive, navigate to the setup.exe (or whatever it is), then double click like you would in Windoze. Then simply follow the wizard on the screen. Only one extra step from Windows, which is installing WINE.
With WINE installed, you can run quite a number of other Windows software with virtually no problems. (What is great, is that it sets it up for you, you don't have to mess about with "Run application" or whatever.)
And this is different to US democracy where "elected" politicians choose to have SW patents after some holidays sponsored by big US software companies.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks, I'll look into it.
Stupid timer.
Been there, done that. That is how I know to change the address bar search thing.
...
I think the answer below yours might be onto something though
Two, I notice a complete lack of representation by the "soft" sciences. Is it because the people writing the grants share the same disdain for disciplines that lack explanatory power as everyone else, or is it because it's easier to set up a biology program than a sociology program? I suspect a little of both--you probably need far more social context than an 18-year-old will have to pursue studies of voter demographics (not to mention the data acq is probably beyond their capabilities).
Perhaps because "soft sciences" are real sciences. Sure they may use scientific method, but they sure as hell don't have the same accuracy. They haven't yet accumulated the same amount of data as the "hard" (or I prefer real) sciences.
I mean, take Marxism for example. Historical materialism is claimed to be scientific, it may well use scientific method, but it sure as hell ain't science.
While I appreciate the sentiment, I doubt that it will happen. Judges are there to enforce the law. The believe in the law (otherwise they would not be appointed). They might side with Google on this one, but it wouldn't be the end of copyright as we know it.
Who ever wins, a corporation wins.
Fuck the law.
And because it has been too short a time between hitting reply and submit, I will elaborate.
The law is flawed. The law was not created with your best interest at heart (unless you happen to be a corporation, wealthy person or otherwise have a lot of power in society). In fact, in cases where the law is obviously flawed (even by the standards of this society), it is your duty to break them. If you truly believe in the law, you would then accept punishment for that act (civil disobedience).
Me, I'm not a martyr, I don't like jails.
Nicely played.
As I said above, in the current system, copyright should not be more then five (5) years.
Lifetime or greater then lifetime copyright does not encourage creativity. (How the fuck does having a life +50 (+75) encourage an author to write more once they are dead? How does it encourage their inheritors? Fucking corporations.)
Pretty much for me also. Except I just use the search (and sometimes News, but that is basically an extension of search).
I use Yahoo (and others) for email (two accounts from 1998 and 1999), OpenOffice.org and Abiword for document processing and so on.
I "need" Yahoo to exist (for the two mentioned email accounts), but I don't need Google. They provide a nice search engine that is fairly accurate, but I'm thinking about moving to Yahoo. Why? I've been moving around a bit recently, Sweden, Switzerland. But I only speak (and read) English. And the Firefox search bar defaults to google.com which directs you to a country based Google. Which is fucking annoying.
(For those who don't know, you can actually modify the search from the address bar to go where you want. So I could use it to goto google.co.uk, but I actually use it for a metasearch. I want to know how the fuck I modify the Search bar search!)
I couldn't care less about youtube. But I think that copyright is simply wrong.
...)? How is that promoting the creation of creative works?
In the current system I can't see why it is more then five years (life +75? (life +50 in Australia, I can legally copy George Orwell's books) WTF?), and in a perfect system, it wouldn't not exit.
OK, so copyright is intended to motivate creativity. The government provides an artificial monopoly on an intangible product. Fine so far (well... see the perfect system reference above). It is a limited monopoly (fair use and limited time). But why should a corporation (or anyone) own the rights to something after a person is dead (long after
OK, that doesn't really have much to do with the case at hand, but I don't believe in copyright anyway. And I hardly need to justify it to you (it would take to long to explain anyway).
Are you sure the UK doesn't have a bill of rights?
Read 1984? It is about power. They don't care about the people (well in some of the countries mentioned they might, but not, for example, Burma).
As such, half the population could die, and they would still come out on top.
In the US (and other similar countries), it is not quite as bad. But it is still about control and power. Why are there so many billionaires? Most of them cannot spend all the money they make, they don't give it away, if they pass it onto their children, they will be unable to spend it all and so on (can someone find that article which was around recently?). It is all about the power.
(That's why I'm an anarchist.)
Except that in some cases, they provide a fuller experience of what was said.
Like grammar, such words can make it easy to tell what the person was thinking (or not thinking as the case maybe).
Which is another reason to always try and use good grammer and speling;
Bah. Karma Whore?
g i?artid=27565%22m e1/v1i3/air-1-3-apples.html
Here are two links that compare apples and oranges.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fc
http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volu
Basically, they are incredibly easy to compare. Simply get out a ruler, scales and other scientific instruments and measure each, then compare. Fucking easy.
And if you say that they are so obviously different, well not if you grind them down to a paste, heat them for fifty minutes at 48 degrees and then compare.
Come on, it is a stupid saying, get over it already.
But otherwise I think I agree with what you are saying.
I'm sure others have said this, but Greenpeace actually do a lot of studies (or fund studies) such as this.
a rch?q=research ) revels fisheries and whaling research among others.
Sure the whole "witness the slaughter" thing gets them publicity (I prefer the Sea Shepard method my self, but hey), but they actually put a lot of money into studies on not just GM stuff. A quick look at their home page (do a search http://www.greenpeace.org/international/footer/se
Which is pretty much what happened (and continues to happen) to the Sahara Desert.
What used to be a nice pretty forest (well, at least that is my understanding), is now the worlds largest (ignoring that place down south, what's it called again?) desert and growing. (Even if it wasn't a forest, it is still a fine example of over grazing and so on.)
There are plenty of examples of humans cutting down all the trees and screwing up an ecosystem. Rapa Nui (Easter Island) is the obvious example, but Greece is also worth a mention (they had to build a lot of boats to go to war at one stage).
Actually ...
The cocoa bean comes from South America (though most of it is now grown in West Africa). So while Switzerland may make a lot of chocolate it can't really claim to be the "Land of Chocolate".
Incest, strange political systems, and so on? (OK, the moralistic issues raised are good, but see below)
r ough_Walls for a story that ends up plain weird).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinlein
While I enjoy reading some of his work, it is hardly that good. Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke, are both better writers in my opinion. Their work is more consistently good and they do not go all over the place (see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cat_Who_Walks_Th
Some of his non-fiction is worth a read, but Clarke's is better (see the famous prediction of the satellite or the first essay in 1984, Spring: a Choice of Futures where he talks of something like the OLPC).
Talking about the genre of SF, it is one of the great things about it. Being able to have any other genre of fiction, but place it in a different universe is one of the great attractions. It also shows how good many SF authors are. Anyone can write a story where they don't have to explain the background or history of the location where the story is set. SF writers have to explain this, in text! Without disrupting the flow of the story.
Basically, I would say, unless you like weird writing that goes all over the place (drifting into fantasy for a lot of the later work), you wouldn't go with Heinlein.
Interestingly, I went from using Windows 100% to using Ubuntu 100%. I finally found a distro that installed on my laptop and had wireless drivers so that I could use the Internet (living in student accommodation, with only wireless).
... (for those not in the know, click on the clock to bring up a calendar and then double click on a date. It brings up Evolution. Add an appointment or task or something, and it adds it to the clock calendar!)), is one reason.
The fact that I much prefer the GNOME environment to Windows (it is much more customizable and the way the calender integrates with the clock
And the software installation! It is so easy! No fucking around with Google to find the site or anything. Having to use a stupid wizard.
>No true leftist/progressive/socialist believes in -individual- civil liberties. They pay lip service to group >rights but don't believe in that either. In the end all left theory boils down to the individual is a >meaningless cog in the system who has no inalienable rights, existing only to serve the state.
...
Shows how much you know about leftism
I'm an anarchist, all anarchists are socialists* (using the broad definition of socialism, not "state" or Marxist socialism) and progressive.
As an anarchist, I oppose the state. The state forces people to do things, takes away their "rights".
The only thing about anarchism, is that it doesn't allow people to force others to do things, or to create a social hierarchy. In practice, this only affects one area of "rights" as commonly understood. That is the area of "property". The unlimited accumulation of property would not be permitted in an anarchist society. The control of resources allows a person to dictate to others. Fuck that.
* "Anarcho-capitalists" are not true an anarchists, anarchists are against hierarchy, capitalism creates hierarchy.
So, to sum up. You are wrong and a troll. A fuckwit indeed. If you want to learn what at least some leftism is about, see my "homepage". Here you will find political ideologies ranging from the "Stalinist" and "leftists" that you seem to be talking about, to true anarchists and autonomous communists. If you want to discuss this with people, feel free. But you will have to do it in the cage, as you are likely to disrupt conversation otherwise.
Here is *my* experience. http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60672&v iew=findpost&p=1292270782
I had had trouble with Debian and Knoppix before, but Ubuntu installed like a breeze. I admit I'm not your average computer user, having used GNOME/X/GNU/Linux for a few years now.
Once I had Internet (which as I mentioned required knowing the name of the network in the default install, at least as far as I could tell), I quickly installed a very nice tool called "Wifi-radar" which picks up networks and connects. A pity this isn't installed by default.
I recommend Ubuntu, and for people who aren't happy playing around or who don't have much experience, having a friend or other person who knows a bit to hold your hand might be the way to go.
Something can be free software, something can be open source software, something can be both. That doesn't mean you get the source code though.
It simply means, that if you get the binary, you also have the option to get the source and to change it and redistribute it.
The original developer can make as much stuff as they want, and not have any of it freely available to download. That is legitimate. But, if it is free or open, then once the original developer sells you a binary, they also offer you the source.
Now, you have the source and can change it, and redistribute it if you want. But you can also not share that source with anyone else, and make changes and keep them "in house". That is also allowed.
Just because it is free (as in speech) or open, doesn't mean you can download it for free (as in beer).
I had a lot of shit trying to get Debian working on my Laptop. I installed Ubuntu, and no worries.
...). Now I have GNOME on Ubuntu, and it is just as fast. Installing stuff is really easy (no more finding the website, downloading the installer, and clicking next a lot of times), everything integrates.
I wanted to run a little Windows fortune teller I have (there is also one built into GNOME (sorta, fortune and the fish)). I install WINE, and seriously, it Just Worked (TM).
I only have 512 MB of RAM, and was running Windows XP (but only 'cause I couldn't get Debian working
I have had experience with X/GNU/Linux before, I run Mandrake 10.1 on my Desktop (which is currently a few thousand KMs away with only dial up, so no I won't be upgrading it any time soon). GNOME on Mandrake was good (but I hate the 2.6.8 kernel), but GNOME 2.16 is much better. They have got rid of some of the nasty things they added (like removing the location bar, which fucktard thought of that?).
Ubuntu installs like a breeze, and everything is integrated. GNOME is also much more configurable then Windows, want the clock to show the date or to be on the right side of the bar? Can't do it at all in stock Windows, but you can in GNOME.
(Talking about demons, I haven't run *BSD at all, but from what I have read, if I'm ever setting up a server, I'll try OpenBSD.)
Does WoW have a Linux version? (I don't know 'cause I don't play it.) If it does, it should be really easy to install (that is if Blizzard (however you spell it) are nice). If it only has a Windows installer, it is still simple (well not as simple as installing stuff from the repositories, where you just select and click install).
Get WINE, so goto Add/Remove in the applications menu, then search for "WINE" (without the " of course) put a mark in the box next to Wine Windows Emulator and then click OK. APT will download everything you need (this may take some time depending on your connection to the Internet). Then put your WoW CD in the drive, navigate to the setup.exe (or whatever it is), then double click like you would in Windoze. Then simply follow the wizard on the screen. Only one extra step from Windows, which is installing WINE.
With WINE installed, you can run quite a number of other Windows software with virtually no problems. (What is great, is that it sets it up for you, you don't have to mess about with "Run application" or whatever.)
>(Note: "domain name" means something in the form foo.TLD, not just a word. Words get interpreted >as search terms, which do get sent to Google.)
Or in my case to my personal search page. I love FireFox's ability to be customised.
How the fuck is that flamebait?
And this is different to US democracy where "elected" politicians choose to have SW patents after some holidays sponsored by big US software companies.
Neither is good, neither is better.