Now, coming to your view, you have considered only scientists and artists. The point, I guess, being that the world is the way it is now only due to scientific achievements. I disagree on that. Politics and military has played a far far bigger role in shaping the world as we see it now.
And what is that makes military and political advancements possible, if not science and technology?
The location of the header of the hidden partition is a hash based on the second password. Thus if you unlock with the first password only, TC doesn't know if there is a hidden one, thus you risk destruction of the hidden filesystem (or some records thereof).
The police use them extensively in the downtown area where I live. I actually saw one pull over a car once. But, apart from being terribly expensive, one of my friends bought one. He'd ride it to work when the weather wasn't horrid, as well as around town on the weekends. He had a blast with it for about four months, until he hit that patch of mislaid pavers....
Double compound fracture. Ow. Thousands of dollars in medical bills, even after insurance. My curiosity completely evaporated. Much like my desire to buy a motorcycle dies every few months when I see one that's wiped out on the interstate.
Good luck with the insurance policy. As AIG shows, what makes anybody think the insurance company will have the money - or even be around - in 60 years to cover the cost of dismantling a reactor?
The only way you can get nuclear power to pan out financially is if you have the government own and run all the reactors on what amounts to a non-profit basis (as in France, with EDF, which is something like 80% government-owned). You can't even get private insurance for the things (and I wouldn't trust private insurers to pay out in the event of a major incident, anyhow).
Even in France, EDF isn't in great financial shape. They don't have enough money to support their pension obligations and all decommissioning expenses, although presumably the French government has made enough money off EDF over the years they could pick up some of that tab and still ultimately leave taxpayers in the black.
The reality is, fission power never has and never will make much financial sense. When France went nuclear in the post WWII era there weren't any viable alternatives for them, but clearly that's no longer the case today for many nations, the United States included.
Wow, you actually think AIG's customers got screwed over?
Well, he might live in Japan, but I live in Bulgaria (pop. density 68.9/km2, vs 31/km2 for USA) and I have 10 MBit connection for about 20 USD, while even in the most desolate inhabited area you can get at least DSL connection.
We have 1/7 of the nominal GDP per capita, so don't tell me it's just Japan. It's just everyone besides USA, and the faster you accept that, the faster you'll be able to fight for your rights.
Socialism and totalitarism with socialistic elements (a.k.a. comunism) are totally different, yet somehow many people confuse them.
Taking current state to extremes, Sweden is socialism (having large taxes & personal freedom), while USA is fascist (small taxes & lack of personal freedom).
it may take juries a bit to warm up to the idea of placing blame where it really belongs
You mean the dumbass who walked into moving traffic???
Situations certainly exist where the driver bears responsibility for hitting a pedestrian (running a red light, taking a blind corner as fast as the car can handle), but let's not turn this into one of those joke arguments about poor defenseless pedestrians vs the nasty aggressive drivers.
I'll skip the stories of idiot bimbos on cellphones randomly walking out from between two parked SUVs to cross four-lane roads, and skip right to a real gem that blew me away. Two winters ago, coming home from work, the roads had a nasty layer of ice on them. I crested a hill doing easily 10mph under, and saw a guy talking to his neighbor across the road, from the MIDDLE of my lane. Now, I had a good 600-800ft to him, and he had perhaps a full 30 seconds to get out of the way. I applied the breaks, no effect. So I honked (three brief taps, not blaring the horn at him) to warn him, and the stupid bastard flipped me off and kept standing there chatting!
I kept honking and eventually nudged my car into the other lane (thank god for no oncoming traffic) to avoid hitting him, and succeeded. But seriously - I swear if I could have stopped, I would have gotten out to beat the shit out of him.
And yet, had my car hit him, any court in the country would have called it "my" fault for failure to control my car.
So yeah, not a lot of sympathy when you tell me we where the blame "belongs" for these Darwin-award candidates.
Dude, it is failure to control your car, after all. Also, I cannot seem to recall the exact passage in the traffic regulations that says you can run over pedestrians.
Nope. Helmet is much safer. Between debris, bugs, noise and everything else the helmet offers a safe environment in which to ride.
Not to mention the fact that the helmet may not protect you from a 30 mph head-on collision, but will save you quite a bit of pain if you happen to be lucky and slide on the pavement.
BTW the author does not mention that a 30 mph head-on collision in a car against a brick wall has 50% fatality rate.
Now do you suppose I'll be modded down to troll if I say:
I, for one, welcome our new Muslim overlords.
Am I a racist, bigot, asshole? A promulgator of hatred... or am I just a dude trying to be funny while exercising his right to free speech?
There seems to be a large disconnect with speech and free in a goodly chunk of the world, particularly in nations where Islam is the dominant religion. But I guess the UN thinks I shouldn't be making remarks like that because that would be criticism.
Nope, you are not. OTOH, if you said "let's kill the damned muslims" in the hate speech manner sometimes happens, you are ARE liable under current laws in western countries you may consider democracies and the USA.
If you read the actual resolutions you will see that the resolution is actually to protect people and sacred symbols from being beaten, molested, raped or otherwise destroyed (not sure what raped is for a monument, but was worth the thought). Of course that includes speaking "let's kill the damned muslims", and the democratic countries already have such laws.
Bullshit. "as well as the targeting of religious symbols and venerated persons", for instance, would seem to suggest that it would be forbidden(if this ever became binding anywhere) to say anything that people didn't like about a religious symbol or figure(even one long dead or mythological, in fact, saying that such a figure is mythological would probably be illegal). That is a Real Serious Problem.
For one thing, all but the blandest religions make enough historical and metaphysical claims that they are mutually contradictory with those of other religions. To simply espouse the doctrines of one would be to, at least implicitly, target the symbols or figures of another. Not to mention the cool crackdowns against atheists and whatnot.
Much of the resolution is bland, inoffensive sounding boilerplate; but parts aren't. It's like butter mixed with broken glass.
I am not really convinced that your example is correct. I think "targeting" in the original sentence is synonymous to killing, bullying, destroying, etc rather than "speaking against".
Moreover, I am convinced that the European and other western countries (the ones with good human rights records) and USA need no further laws to fully accommodate that resolution. On the contrary, it seems this resolution actually requires the Muslim states to enact laws that will protect the people on their territory from being killed/beaten/etc because of another round of Danish comics coming out.
I'm a daily rider of a motorcycle and felt I should note that while a motorcycle with a single rider uses less gas than a single person riding in a car, they create more pollution.
Well, this article is extremely biased.
First, it cites Athens as an example, where motorcycles reduced traffic, and still "let's ban them, there's better". Well, DOH, public transportation is better. Not to mention a proper way to fix the "motorcycle on a crossing" problem is by introducing additional space for motorcycles in front of cars, like in London. Or increase driver culture (which I hear in Greece is even worse than in USA).
Secondly, it doesn't take into account secondary effects, those of congestion on pollution. Whilst the motorcycle pollutes more per mile, I presume that is when they are driving at the same speed. It doesn't point out that motorcycle average speed in a city (due to white lining or going round stopped cars), it doesn't point out that a decelerating car uses far much energy than a motorcycle, etc.
The conclusions are equally biased, and whilst eliminating motorcycles is good IMHO, the fair way is by promoting public transport. The general impression I get is that the author basically says "let's tax the hell out of it" or just strait prohibit it.
Isn't that exactly what they do when you fail to pay the bills? Maybe the situation is different in the US, but in most countries service providers can cut you off without a court order when you break the contract.
Yes, they could. And then you CAN sue them for quite a lot of things if in fact they were wrong and you did pay the bills.
The GP assets those laws don't allow you to sue the ISPs for wrongful disconnect.
That isn't exactly true. General Relativity predicts exactly how they should behave
GR predicts exactly how they should beahve, if GR is true and correct in every particular. Until we detect enough gravity waves to see whether this is so, we're not entirely sure how gravity waves behave, or that GR is entirely correct.
Which was probably a big part of the reason everyone said "nah, didn't happen" back in '87. If he saw what he thought he saw, then something would've had to've been wrong with GR*, and we can' have that.
* actually not, of course, but that's sure the way it looked in '87 - if this guy is right, Einstein is wrong. And who are you going to believe, him, or Big Al?
You portray it as a battle between people, when in fact it was battle between theories. While protecting established theories on the grounds that they are infaliable is stupid and NOT science, protecting them because you have issues with the methodology of the experiment itself is sound.
I think perhaps we are constantly entangled, but that our "consciousness"
Just because it's unusual to us doesn't mean it's mystical or magical. For your idea to actually be science and not philosophy you'd need a much better grasp of what you're actually saying. Saying something like "we're all constantly entangled" doesn't really mean a lot, since entanglement doesn't occur on a macro-scale.
People have tried to tie together mysticism, quantum mechanics, and consciousness before. At best it's an interesting exercise in thinking. At worst it's nonsense gibberish. To my knowledge it's never really produced anything approaching science.
but even without those restrictions I'm not going to hand out my password to my boss, my boss's boss, or even the CEO of the company.
I like my job, but preserving it comes pretty damned far behind "my freedom" in order of my priorities. Jail vs giving out the keys to the kingdom? "Would you like the portcullis up or down when you arrive, Mr. Barbarian?"
Anyone who chooses prison over a job doesn't count as "principled", they count as an idiot.
P and GP may be talking about the same thing. If I have assigned the keys to take care of the network, and more importantly am liable both morally and legally (morally is needed because of future employments, who knows), then it is plainly a good idea to keep them secret.
However, if my boss or my boss' boss or the CEO asks to have them and most importantly signs a paper that request them, by god, just give it to the man. By having the command in writing you are covered in case something wrong happens with those keys.
If no written order comes, how are they supposed to prove you denied them the request?
There is no evidence that music being played to babies in the womb does anything. In fact the guy that did the original research did it on college students and no one really understands how this correlation to babies ever materialized.
This might be it, then:). NEW evidence, not seen on the previous experiments.
TPB doesnt help promote free in that sense. What it does is give you content that supposedly stallman has some ethical objection to, for free.
Its a very thinly veiled justification for getting free stuff. TPB is NOT a political website. It's a large advertising cash generator based on redistributing everyone else's hard work. Nothing more or less.
Yes, I agree completely with that... as bad as it may sound:(.
If you hate 'the mafiaa' boycott their movies. that is your right. It is *not* your right to take them for free anyway whilst waving some crap about freedom.
This is not entirely correct - they are giving their work to the public after some time - after the duration of copyright they are not entitled to anything. It can be argued that the initial copyright initiative was created centuries ago by disturbing the natural balance, which is "all intellectual work is free" - as it was with Bach, Mozart, Bethoven, so that the artists will have an incentive to produce MORE/BETTER content.
In other areas of life the producers (mathematicians, physicists, biologists to a somewhat lesser degree) working at universities are still creating "free stuff" as in "not protected by copyright & patents" and are not getting copyright on their ideas - that doesn't seem to stop or even slow down progress...
I just wanted to point out that your statement is somewhat relying on feelings (nobody wants stuff stolen from them) rather than logic and common sense. And feelings are not the best way to deal with all issues.
Science and Religion are different bodies of knowledge, but not mutually exclusive
That's a politically correct lie used to avoid alienating religious folk (maybe even to avoid the cognitive dissonance of alientating yourself if you're a religious pseudo-scientist!).
The fact is that science and religion really are, in at least one very core area, mutually exclusive.
If something happens then it's either happening according to the laws of nature or it's not (maybe it's happening due to the intervention of god, or the flying spaghetti monster). It can't be both. Given that scientists believe that the laws of nature (as revealed by the scientific method) govern EVERYTHING that happens (with major reason - there's never, by definition, been any exception to any scientifically accepted theory), it means that science is incompatible with any notion of god other than a totally impotent one that can have no influence on your life, or anything else.
So, science may be compatible with going to church, living the ten commandments, or whatever else you like to do, but it's not compatible with belief in a god that has any power in any domain covered by a scientific theory.
Well, it depends - you can show that the paradox in believing both will not lead to contradiction if they don't believe that they believe in something. Like the barber paradox - the barber shaves everyone who doesn't shave themselves. Then who shaves the barber? In that case if we don't believe to be infaliable, we don't go into a contradiction.
He will still expect the angry "where is my reply-all functionality", and this is still the wrong way to deal with the situation. Not all people know the shortcuts (I didn't).
Instead of using a scalable solution to deliver mail by wasting what, 1-2 admin workdays altogether, he's going to waste at least 1 hour per month per person to work out that his Majesty Dick has been screwing again with their mail system.
It seems so much like the SUV dilemma... well, in a crash, an SUV vs small car the SUV is actually much safer. SUV vs SUV is actually LESS safe than small car vs small car, not considering the SUV harder to steer from a collision course.
That is not counting the moral problem of shifting the danger for other people... a small car vs small car benefits society as a whole.
But as you may say, "Loves me gun, (caresses the gun), loves me gun...".
Well, anyone with public relations skills (I know, I know, this IS Slashdot) will recognize that they are actually saying "Switch to an alternative browser to save yourselves!!! But I can't really say that in clear language, since it will not sound good to the PHB".
GPL uses the copyright law to enforce user freedom. If the user was free in the first place (no license problems) it would not have been needed.
GPL is just the means to the greater good. Yes, it brings source code, but that's just a side effect, since in a copyrightable world the only way to grand user freedom is to have the source code.
My biggest complainst are that I cannot get a static IP on my home wireless while getting DHCP everywhere else and it's a real pain in the ass to set up bridged networking for use with a VM.
Try the version that comes with Ubuntu 8.10, it has that option.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, coming to your view, you have considered only scientists and artists. The point, I guess, being that the world is the way it is now only due to scientific achievements. I disagree on that. Politics and military has played a far far bigger role in shaping the world as we see it now.
And what is that makes military and political advancements possible, if not science and technology?
But of course it's God, dammit!
In TC - by using the second password!
The location of the header of the hidden partition is a hash based on the second password. Thus if you unlock with the first password only, TC doesn't know if there is a hidden one, thus you risk destruction of the hidden filesystem (or some records thereof).
The police use them extensively in the downtown area where I live. I actually saw one pull over a car once. But, apart from being terribly expensive, one of my friends bought one. He'd ride it to work when the weather wasn't horrid, as well as around town on the weekends. He had a blast with it for about four months, until he hit that patch of mislaid pavers....
Double compound fracture. Ow. Thousands of dollars in medical bills, even after insurance. My curiosity completely evaporated. Much like my desire to buy a motorcycle dies every few months when I see one that's wiped out on the interstate.
Grow some balls man ...
Good luck with the insurance policy. As AIG shows, what makes anybody think the insurance company will have the money - or even be around - in 60 years to cover the cost of dismantling a reactor?
The only way you can get nuclear power to pan out financially is if you have the government own and run all the reactors on what amounts to a non-profit basis (as in France, with EDF, which is something like 80% government-owned). You can't even get private insurance for the things (and I wouldn't trust private insurers to pay out in the event of a major incident, anyhow).
Even in France, EDF isn't in great financial shape. They don't have enough money to support their pension obligations and all decommissioning expenses, although presumably the French government has made enough money off EDF over the years they could pick up some of that tab and still ultimately leave taxpayers in the black.
The reality is, fission power never has and never will make much financial sense. When France went nuclear in the post WWII era there weren't any viable alternatives for them, but clearly that's no longer the case today for many nations, the United States included.
Wow, you actually think AIG's customers got screwed over?
Man, you're soooo clueless ...
Well, he might live in Japan, but I live in Bulgaria (pop. density 68.9/km2, vs 31/km2 for USA) and I have 10 MBit connection for about 20 USD, while even in the most desolate inhabited area you can get at least DSL connection.
We have 1/7 of the nominal GDP per capita, so don't tell me it's just Japan. It's just everyone besides USA, and the faster you accept that, the faster you'll be able to fight for your rights.
Yeah, as the AC said, only for Americans.
Socialism and totalitarism with socialistic elements (a.k.a. comunism) are totally different, yet somehow many people confuse them.
Taking current state to extremes, Sweden is socialism (having large taxes & personal freedom), while USA is fascist (small taxes & lack of personal freedom).
it may take juries a bit to warm up to the idea of placing blame where it really belongs
You mean the dumbass who walked into moving traffic???
Situations certainly exist where the driver bears responsibility for hitting a pedestrian (running a red light,
taking a blind corner as fast as the car can handle), but let's not turn this into one of those joke arguments
about poor defenseless pedestrians vs the nasty aggressive drivers.
I'll skip the stories of idiot bimbos on cellphones randomly walking out from between two parked SUVs to cross
four-lane roads, and skip right to a real gem that blew me away. Two winters ago, coming home from work, the
roads had a nasty layer of ice on them. I crested a hill doing easily 10mph under, and saw a guy talking to
his neighbor across the road, from the MIDDLE of my lane. Now, I had a good 600-800ft to him, and he had
perhaps a full 30 seconds to get out of the way. I applied the breaks, no effect. So I honked (three
brief taps, not blaring the horn at him) to warn him, and the stupid bastard flipped me off and kept
standing there chatting!
I kept honking and eventually nudged my car into the other lane (thank god for no oncoming traffic) to avoid
hitting him, and succeeded. But seriously - I swear if I could have stopped, I would have gotten out to beat
the shit out of him.
And yet, had my car hit him, any court in the country would have called it "my" fault for failure to control my
car.
So yeah, not a lot of sympathy when you tell me we where the blame "belongs" for these Darwin-award candidates.
Dude, it is failure to control your car, after all. Also, I cannot seem to recall the exact passage in the traffic regulations that says you can run over pedestrians.
Nope. Helmet is much safer. Between debris, bugs, noise and everything else the helmet offers a safe environment in which to ride.
Not to mention the fact that the helmet may not protect you from a 30 mph head-on collision, but will save you quite a bit of pain if you happen to be lucky and slide on the pavement.
BTW the author does not mention that a 30 mph head-on collision in a car against a brick wall has 50% fatality rate.
Now do you suppose I'll be modded down to troll if I say:
I, for one, welcome our new Muslim overlords.
Am I a racist, bigot, asshole? A promulgator of hatred... or am I just a dude trying to be funny while exercising his right to free speech?
There seems to be a large disconnect with speech and free in a goodly chunk of the world, particularly in nations where Islam is the dominant religion. But I guess the UN thinks I shouldn't be making remarks like that because that would be criticism.
Nope, you are not. OTOH, if you said "let's kill the damned muslims" in the hate speech manner sometimes happens, you are ARE liable under current laws in western countries you may consider democracies and the USA.
If you read the actual resolutions you will see that the resolution is actually to protect people and sacred symbols from being beaten, molested, raped or otherwise destroyed (not sure what raped is for a monument, but was worth the thought). Of course that includes speaking "let's kill the damned muslims", and the democratic countries already have such laws.
Oh well, this is /. and nobody actually Rs TFA ...
Bullshit. "as well as the targeting of religious symbols and venerated persons", for instance, would seem to suggest that it would be forbidden(if this ever became binding anywhere) to say anything that people didn't like about a religious symbol or figure(even one long dead or mythological, in fact, saying that such a figure is mythological would probably be illegal). That is a Real Serious Problem.
For one thing, all but the blandest religions make enough historical and metaphysical claims that they are mutually contradictory with those of other religions. To simply espouse the doctrines of one would be to, at least implicitly, target the symbols or figures of another. Not to mention the cool crackdowns against atheists and whatnot.
Much of the resolution is bland, inoffensive sounding boilerplate; but parts aren't. It's like butter mixed with broken glass.
I am not really convinced that your example is correct. I think "targeting" in the original sentence is synonymous to killing, bullying, destroying, etc rather than "speaking against".
Moreover, I am convinced that the European and other western countries (the ones with good human rights records) and USA need no further laws to fully accommodate that resolution. On the contrary, it seems this resolution actually requires the Muslim states to enact laws that will protect the people on their territory from being killed/beaten/etc because of another round of Danish comics coming out.
I'm a daily rider of a motorcycle and felt I should note that while a motorcycle with a single rider uses less gas than a single person riding in a car, they create more pollution.
Well, this article is extremely biased.
First, it cites Athens as an example, where motorcycles reduced traffic, and still "let's ban them, there's better". Well, DOH, public transportation is better. Not to mention a proper way to fix the "motorcycle on a crossing" problem is by introducing additional space for motorcycles in front of cars, like in London. Or increase driver culture (which I hear in Greece is even worse than in USA).
Secondly, it doesn't take into account secondary effects, those of congestion on pollution. Whilst the motorcycle pollutes more per mile, I presume that is when they are driving at the same speed. It doesn't point out that motorcycle average speed in a city (due to white lining or going round stopped cars), it doesn't point out that a decelerating car uses far much energy than a motorcycle, etc.
The conclusions are equally biased, and whilst eliminating motorcycles is good IMHO, the fair way is by promoting public transport. The general impression I get is that the author basically says "let's tax the hell out of it" or just strait prohibit it.
Isn't that exactly what they do when you fail to pay the bills? Maybe the situation is different in the US, but in most countries service providers can cut you off without a court order when you break the contract.
Yes, they could. And then you CAN sue them for quite a lot of things if in fact they were wrong and you did pay the bills.
The GP assets those laws don't allow you to sue the ISPs for wrongful disconnect.
GR predicts exactly how they should beahve, if GR is true and correct in every particular. Until we detect enough gravity waves to see whether this is so, we're not entirely sure how gravity waves behave, or that GR is entirely correct.
Which was probably a big part of the reason everyone said "nah, didn't happen" back in '87. If he saw what he thought he saw, then something would've had to've been wrong with GR*, and we can' have that.
* actually not, of course, but that's sure the way it looked in '87 - if this guy is right, Einstein is wrong. And who are you going to believe, him, or Big Al?
You portray it as a battle between people, when in fact it was battle between theories. While protecting established theories on the grounds that they are infaliable is stupid and NOT science, protecting them because you have issues with the methodology of the experiment itself is sound.
Courage, Duty, Honor
... and TOR
I think perhaps we are constantly entangled, but that our "consciousness"
Just because it's unusual to us doesn't mean it's mystical or magical. For your idea to actually be science and not philosophy you'd need a much better grasp of what you're actually saying. Saying something like "we're all constantly entangled" doesn't really mean a lot, since entanglement doesn't occur on a macro-scale.
People have tried to tie together mysticism, quantum mechanics, and consciousness before. At best it's an interesting exercise in thinking. At worst it's nonsense gibberish. To my knowledge it's never really produced anything approaching science.
You should check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence
but even without those restrictions I'm not going to hand out my password to my
boss, my boss's boss, or even the CEO of the company.
I like my job, but preserving it comes pretty damned far behind "my freedom" in order of
my priorities. Jail vs giving out the keys to the kingdom? "Would you like the portcullis
up or down when you arrive, Mr. Barbarian?"
Anyone who chooses prison over a job doesn't count as "principled", they count as an idiot.
P and GP may be talking about the same thing. If I have assigned the keys to take care of the network, and more importantly am liable both morally and legally (morally is needed because of future employments, who knows), then it is plainly a good idea to keep them secret.
However, if my boss or my boss' boss or the CEO asks to have them and most importantly signs a paper that request them, by god, just give it to the man. By having the command in writing you are covered in case something wrong happens with those keys.
If no written order comes, how are they supposed to prove you denied them the request?
There is no evidence that music being played to babies in the womb does anything. In fact the guy that did the original research did it on college students and no one really understands how this correlation to babies ever materialized.
This might be it, then :). NEW evidence, not seen on the previous experiments.
TPB doesnt help promote free in that sense. What it does is give you content that supposedly stallman has some ethical objection to, for free.
Its a very thinly veiled justification for getting free stuff.
TPB is NOT a political website. It's a large advertising cash generator based on redistributing everyone else's hard work. Nothing more or less.
Yes, I agree completely with that ... as bad as it may sound :(.
If you hate 'the mafiaa' boycott their movies. that is your right. It is *not* your right to take them for free anyway whilst waving some crap about freedom.
This is not entirely correct - they are giving their work to the public after some time - after the duration of copyright they are not entitled to anything. It can be argued that the initial copyright initiative was created centuries ago by disturbing the natural balance, which is "all intellectual work is free" - as it was with Bach, Mozart, Bethoven, so that the artists will have an incentive to produce MORE/BETTER content.
In other areas of life the producers (mathematicians, physicists, biologists to a somewhat lesser degree) working at universities are still creating "free stuff" as in "not protected by copyright & patents" and are not getting copyright on their ideas - that doesn't seem to stop or even slow down progress ...
I just wanted to point out that your statement is somewhat relying on feelings (nobody wants stuff stolen from them) rather than logic and common sense. And feelings are not the best way to deal with all issues.
Science and Religion are different bodies of knowledge, but not mutually exclusive
That's a politically correct lie used to avoid alienating religious folk (maybe even to avoid the cognitive dissonance of alientating yourself if you're a religious pseudo-scientist!).
The fact is that science and religion really are, in at least one very core area, mutually exclusive.
If something happens then it's either happening according to the laws of nature or it's not (maybe it's happening due to the intervention of god, or the flying spaghetti monster). It can't be both. Given that scientists believe that the laws of nature (as revealed by the scientific method) govern EVERYTHING that happens (with major reason - there's never, by definition, been any exception to any scientifically accepted theory), it means that science is incompatible with any notion of god other than a totally impotent one that can have no influence on your life, or anything else.
So, science may be compatible with going to church, living the ten commandments, or whatever else you like to do, but it's not compatible with belief in a god that has any power in any domain covered by a scientific theory.
Well, it depends - you can show that the paradox in believing both will not lead to contradiction if they don't believe that they believe in something. Like the barber paradox - the barber shaves everyone who doesn't shave themselves. Then who shaves the barber? In that case if we don't believe to be infaliable, we don't go into a contradiction.
Not good enough.
He will still expect the angry "where is my reply-all functionality", and this is still the wrong way to deal with the situation. Not all people know the shortcuts (I didn't).
Instead of using a scalable solution to deliver mail by wasting what, 1-2 admin workdays altogether, he's going to waste at least 1 hour per month per person to work out that his Majesty Dick has been screwing again with their mail system.
And in this direction the madness lies ...
It seems so much like the SUV dilemma ... well, in a crash, an SUV vs small car the SUV is actually much safer. SUV vs SUV is actually LESS safe than small car vs small car, not considering the SUV harder to steer from a collision course.
That is not counting the moral problem of shifting the danger for other people ... a small car vs small car benefits society as a whole.
But as you may say, "Loves me gun, (caresses the gun), loves me gun...".
Well, anyone with public relations skills (I know, I know, this IS Slashdot) will recognize that they are actually saying "Switch to an alternative browser to save yourselves!!! But I can't really say that in clear language, since it will not sound good to the PHB".
BSD projects have not been nearly as successful.
Yup, that's because the copyright exists.
GPL uses the copyright law to enforce user freedom. If the user was free in the first place (no license problems) it would not have been needed.
GPL is just the means to the greater good. Yes, it brings source code, but that's just a side effect, since in a copyrightable world the only way to grand user freedom is to have the source code.
My biggest complainst are that I cannot get a static IP on my home wireless while getting DHCP everywhere else and it's a real pain in the ass to set up bridged networking for use with a VM.
Try the version that comes with Ubuntu 8.10, it has that option.