Anyone really desiring to release open source already had a plethora of valid and tested licenses to choose from.
And the OSI does a very nice job of categorizing them for the convenience of others. What exactly is your issue with them? That they recognize licenses as open source licenses of some kind that you personally dislike?
If that was going to happen, it would have happened by now. There are a lot of very very rich people that would have loved to see that done at various points in history but so far it's remained quite sane (20 since 1995, 17 before that).
while Vincent Van Gogh may appear to have been a brilliant artist, did you know that in reality he was basically a raving lunatic
The man cut off part of his fucking ear and gave it to a prostitute. I think it's pretty well understood, particularly in glamorized and exaggerated popular culture, the man wasn't really all there in the head...
All those emotions you felt looking at Starry Night were actually invalid.
Well I can't say his work ever particularly appealed to me like some art does, but I will say that is a very bleak and depressing outlook on art you have. Why should anyone's feelings be considered "invalid"? If you felt something, then it was real to you and that's all that really matters. Who gives a shit about the artist's intent if it means you can't enjoy a piece.
Comparing 'being a mediocre father' with 'rape of a young girl' is pretty uncalled for. All things are of course relative and I would never argue otherwise. No amount of artistic talent could ever vindicate Hitler either, for his crimes far out-weighted anything other accomplishments could ever make up for.
And yeah, I'd venture to guess he wasn't all that different from societal norm, either today or back in the 19th century. He certainly was not a monster.
How many lives has he touched with his brilliant writing? His writings have had an unmeasurable positive impact on the world and to ignore that seems almost criminal to me. "Just a great writer" does not really do justice to how good he was. His works aren't just nice stories, they are full of powerful and relevant social commentary as well, which was not lost on his readers at the time.
I'm not attempting to downplay the harm caused by being a negligent father but everyone has flaws. If we ignore the achievements of men because of their supposed shortfallings in other areas, then nobody is a great man, and what exactly does that say about society? And for what it is worth, he publicly stated on at least one occation that he supported extended copyright terms because it would allow his work to financially support his family after his death. Perhaps he wasn't a great father/husband, but it certainly doesn't sound like he created enough harm to outway his literary and intellectual accomplishments.
Of course, what part of "news for nerds, stuff that matters" don't you understand? While Twain is certainly worthy of an article in his own right, slashdot in general is a community that is very interested in copyright law. This makes sense since OSS/FOSS and copyright law are very much related. If you want articles that focus purely on literature, then I suggest you look elsewhere.
Nothing wrong with episodic content. I know at the very least a good deal of great Sci-Fi novels were first published one chapter at a time in SF magazines. If you don't make the first "episode" worth it, then nobody will bother with the rest.
Of course I get what you are driving at, having people fawn over Dan Brown every other year would get pretty tiring.;)
There are plenty of good husbands and good fathers in this world. There are very few writers of his calibre however. Saying that he was only a great man on the surface because he wasn't a great family man is like saying Alan Turing wasn't all that great because he was rubbish at water polo*.
For all I know Alan Turing was great at water polo, my point is that it is irrelevant.
*looks up at the top of the webpage and notes the "News for nerds" logo.*
Yes, on slashdot we generally engage in technical discussion. Sufficiently technical anyways that redefining "satellite" to exclude things with wings just because we feel like it is very silly. If you can't handle this, then you should go back to digg.
How about you learn to flap your arms fast enough to fly, and train yourself to piss concrete. Then you can fly over the Gulf and plug the leak with nothing but your pecker. Simple!
So, can this robot be programmed to perform an X amount of moves that result in a musical performance (an animatronic) or can it be fed a piece of music and then play it on its own? Can it be told to go to room X and perform for patient Y the music that patient requests?
This is exactly what I want to know. How exactly would this compare to a player piano? Exactly how abstract can the input to this robot be?
I'm not a musician of any kind so please excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is "soul" in this context? I've heard it mentioned numerous times, but never really defined. Does the music have no soul because it is technically accurate, or is that just a side note? Is a certain amount of carefully planned imperfection needed? Couldn't you program such imperfection into this robot?
Technically dynamite in Kuwait was just used to put out oil well fires, not stop the flow of oil from wells. The explosion burns out all of the oxygen thus extinguishing the fire, it's a neat trick that has been used for decades actually. After the fires are extinguished the wells were then capped through conventional means (I'm not familiar with that process). Nuking a well and dynamiting a well are meant to solve to separate problems.
If you ask the vast majority of people to give a general idea of how orbit works, they wouldn't even be able to do that.
Opinions of the general uninformed public does not override well defined technical definitions (satellite = object in orbit) in technical discussions (slashdot).
Besides, this thing, unlike the space shuttle, stays in orbits for very long periods of time, is unmanned, and apparently regularly goes in orbits generally not used for manned space flight. Saying that it is "not a satellite" simply because it has wings and can re-enter the atmosphere is very silly. If you really wanted to, for whatever reason, differentiate between "space ships" and "satellites", this would still be far more a "satellite" than a "spaceship".
If anything, it should still be called a satellite in common media so that the otherwise uninformed public is given a clearer idea of what it is and how it operates.
Whatever man, I make a seriously wicked bean salad:). Canned corn, vinegar, canned beans, those red things you find in olives which I always forget the name of...., little bit of olive oil, etc. Let it sit in the fridge overnight marinating in the vinegar, then serve chilled either straight or on corn chips. *salivates*
Unless you are living in a situation where affordable food is hard to come by and you don't know how you're going to feed your family the next day, I really really doubt that you don't value flavour as much as you may think. Everyone likes food that tastes good, vegans and beer guzzling carnivores alike. This "food is for nutrition, not taste!" nonsense is just pseudo-nerd macho-ism.
Also, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a good cheeseburger once in a while. Thankfully there is a good 5-Guys near enough to me that I never have to be caught in a mcdonalds.;)
Slashdot Mirror
And the OSI does a very nice job of categorizing them for the convenience of others. What exactly is your issue with them? That they recognize licenses as open source licenses of some kind that you personally dislike?
It is a quote from the TV show the other poster was referencing.
If that was going to happen, it would have happened by now. There are a lot of very very rich people that would have loved to see that done at various points in history but so far it's remained quite sane (20 since 1995, 17 before that).
That use to be how grammar worked, but now nobody gives a shit.
Ah yeah, I should have gotten that if I paid more attention to the first paragraph. Guess I'm getting a little defensive.
The man cut off part of his fucking ear and gave it to a prostitute. I think it's pretty well understood, particularly in glamorized and exaggerated popular culture, the man wasn't really all there in the head...
Well I can't say his work ever particularly appealed to me like some art does, but I will say that is a very bleak and depressing outlook on art you have. Why should anyone's feelings be considered "invalid"? If you felt something, then it was real to you and that's all that really matters. Who gives a shit about the artist's intent if it means you can't enjoy a piece.
Comparing 'being a mediocre father' with 'rape of a young girl' is pretty uncalled for. All things are of course relative and I would never argue otherwise. No amount of artistic talent could ever vindicate Hitler either, for his crimes far out-weighted anything other accomplishments could ever make up for.
And yeah, I'd venture to guess he wasn't all that different from societal norm, either today or back in the 19th century. He certainly was not a monster.
How many lives has he touched with his brilliant writing? His writings have had an unmeasurable positive impact on the world and to ignore that seems almost criminal to me. "Just a great writer" does not really do justice to how good he was. His works aren't just nice stories, they are full of powerful and relevant social commentary as well, which was not lost on his readers at the time.
I'm not attempting to downplay the harm caused by being a negligent father but everyone has flaws. If we ignore the achievements of men because of their supposed shortfallings in other areas, then nobody is a great man, and what exactly does that say about society? And for what it is worth, he publicly stated on at least one occation that he supported extended copyright terms because it would allow his work to financially support his family after his death. Perhaps he wasn't a great father/husband, but it certainly doesn't sound like he created enough harm to outway his literary and intellectual accomplishments.
Of course, what part of "news for nerds, stuff that matters" don't you understand? While Twain is certainly worthy of an article in his own right, slashdot in general is a community that is very interested in copyright law. This makes sense since OSS/FOSS and copyright law are very much related. If you want articles that focus purely on literature, then I suggest you look elsewhere.
Nothing wrong with episodic content. I know at the very least a good deal of great Sci-Fi novels were first published one chapter at a time in SF magazines. If you don't make the first "episode" worth it, then nobody will bother with the rest.
Of course I get what you are driving at, having people fawn over Dan Brown every other year would get pretty tiring. ;)
There are plenty of good husbands and good fathers in this world. There are very few writers of his calibre however. Saying that he was only a great man on the surface because he wasn't a great family man is like saying Alan Turing wasn't all that great because he was rubbish at water polo*.
For all I know Alan Turing was great at water polo, my point is that it is irrelevant.
*looks up at the top of the webpage and notes the "News for nerds" logo.*
Yes, on slashdot we generally engage in technical discussion. Sufficiently technical anyways that redefining "satellite" to exclude things with wings just because we feel like it is very silly. If you can't handle this, then you should go back to digg.
Thanks, this did help a lot.
How about you learn to flap your arms fast enough to fly, and train yourself to piss concrete. Then you can fly over the Gulf and plug the leak with nothing but your pecker. Simple!
This is exactly what I want to know. How exactly would this compare to a player piano? Exactly how abstract can the input to this robot be?
I'm not a musician of any kind so please excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is "soul" in this context? I've heard it mentioned numerous times, but never really defined. Does the music have no soul because it is technically accurate, or is that just a side note? Is a certain amount of carefully planned imperfection needed? Couldn't you program such imperfection into this robot?
Yeah really. Historically, active and creative R&D departments have always done nothing but harm to companies. Right.
Technically dynamite in Kuwait was just used to put out oil well fires, not stop the flow of oil from wells. The explosion burns out all of the oxygen thus extinguishing the fire, it's a neat trick that has been used for decades actually. After the fires are extinguished the wells were then capped through conventional means (I'm not familiar with that process). Nuking a well and dynamiting a well are meant to solve to separate problems.
If you ask the vast majority of people to give a general idea of how orbit works, they wouldn't even be able to do that.
Opinions of the general uninformed public does not override well defined technical definitions (satellite = object in orbit) in technical discussions (slashdot).
Besides, this thing, unlike the space shuttle, stays in orbits for very long periods of time, is unmanned, and apparently regularly goes in orbits generally not used for manned space flight. Saying that it is "not a satellite" simply because it has wings and can re-enter the atmosphere is very silly. If you really wanted to, for whatever reason, differentiate between "space ships" and "satellites", this would still be far more a "satellite" than a "spaceship".
If anything, it should still be called a satellite in common media so that the otherwise uninformed public is given a clearer idea of what it is and how it operates.
Yes, of course I would. Why on earth (or in low earth orbit for that matter) wouldn't you?
Whatever man, I make a seriously wicked bean salad :). Canned corn, vinegar, canned beans, those red things you find in olives which I always forget the name of...., little bit of olive oil, etc. Let it sit in the fridge overnight marinating in the vinegar, then serve chilled either straight or on corn chips. *salivates*
Unless you are living in a situation where affordable food is hard to come by and you don't know how you're going to feed your family the next day, I really really doubt that you don't value flavour as much as you may think. Everyone likes food that tastes good, vegans and beer guzzling carnivores alike. This "food is for nutrition, not taste!" nonsense is just pseudo-nerd macho-ism.
Also, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a good cheeseburger once in a while. Thankfully there is a good 5-Guys near enough to me that I never have to be caught in a mcdonalds. ;)
What the hell do modulation modes have to do with sound quality?
Fixed.
No, even quantum entanglement does not transmit information faster than the speed of light.
Sure.
Also, I love fish sticks.