YRO aside, it is currently illegal is gamble in most of the United States anyway, except certain states and indian reservations.
Well, no, gambling is restricted in most jurisdictions, but you'll be hard pressed to find any jurisdiction where no form of gambling is legal in the US. Heck, in much of the country, state governments are directly involved in gambling operations.
Of course, they did. Their brilliant idea was to take others' brilliant ideas, copy them, and kill off the original guy. Brilliant idea if you ask me!
Hardly an original idea; for instance, the Catholic Church was using that strategy in its campaign market dominance in the Western European religion field well over 1,000 years before Microsoft was founded.
There've beens many academic studies in the last decades on the "esoteric" branches of major religions, and these studies all agree in the fact that what the mystics/saints/whatever from different religions, continents and ages described as being the results they obtained from their practices are extremely similar, if not equal.
Which is all very nice, but has nothing to do with what I said that you claimed was wrong. But don't let irrelevance get in the way of your rant.
Freedom is choice: Debian has the choice to use the Firefox name and submit their patches, or to not do that. The freedom is there no matter how they choose to use it. And there users are completely free to fork Firefox without submitting patches, or to be brand compliant, no matter which choice Debian makes. So freedom is a false issue: neither choice by Debian has any effect on Debian users' freedom in any way.
We will surely see more clashes between copyright claims and 'really free' distros such as Debian.
While that may be a true sentence, it has nothing to do with this event, which has nothing to do with copyright claims at all, but is about trademarks, which are not the same thing at all.
actually Intelligent design would be a lot easier to test than any of the proposals for string theory: Just create a bunch of earth-like words in similar to earth positions in their gallaxy, chemical composition, etc. Leave them for 6-8 billion years, and see if anything developed.)
That wouldn't test intelligent design:
IF ID was correct, then something could develop, but only if a mystical intelligent designer wanted it to, and was interfering as He did on Earth. OTOH, nothing might develop, because the iDesigner didn't want it to, and didn't interfere to make it.
If ID was incorrect, then nothing might develop, because the right chance events didn't happen, and the process of developing life is a chaotic one sensitive to small changes in conditions and chance events. OTOH, something might develop, because the right chance events occurred.
No outcome would differentiate between the truth and falsity of ID.
Tell me that's a joke, and no one actually wrote that in a serious program.
Or at least, if they did, its in a language that just happens to look like Java, but where "this" isn't a reference to the object the object the private method is in. Because that makes my brain hurt.
A misbehaving kid with a complacent parent is what you see - you don't see the other parent who takes his kid outside to spank her and some ass hat calls social services on him.
IMO there isn't enough spanking going on right now:)
Yeah. If this kid's father and stepmother had just beat him more than they did, then he totally wouldn't have snapped and killed them. And if people here had reported the beatings before the kid snapped, and CPS had gotten involved, that would have just made it all worse.
I mean, really, a kid snaps after repeated physical and sexual abuse and kills people, and you want to say the problem is people aren't hitting their kids enough, and those that are hitting their kids are getting reported for doing so. WTF?
I assume you are referring to the inability to trademark 386, 486, etc. But I don't see how that problem has to do with them coming up with the brilliant brandname "Core 2". And don't dismiss branding as an issue--the Core 2 line could be the biggest thing to happend to Intel since the original Pentium.
I'm not dismissing branding. OTOH, its not much different for the Core than what they've did with the Pentium series, except that there are modifiers up and down the line, rather than just at certain places: Instead of "Pentium III" or "Pentium IV" as both the "base model" and the generic name for the class, with things like "Xeon" modifying it for certain versions, their is a clear distinction of the processor class ("Core", "Core 2") and the more specific processor designation within the class ("Solo", "Duo", "Quad", "Extreme")—now, admittedly, there are important distinctions within those groups, too, that you don't get to without the model numbers.
Core 2 Solo and Core 2 Duo is just a mess from a branding perspective--never mind when you start to really lay on the numbers (like they did in the article). And it is this "two numbers that refer to two different things" branding issue I was referring to from the very beginning.
Solo/Duo/Quad/Extreme are words, not numbers, even if they (except Extreme) may evoke numbers.
I suspect that Intel will discover the same thing with "Core 2 [CORE_NUMBER]".
Intel isn't using "Core 2 [CORE_NUMBER]". "Solo", "Duo", and "Quad" suggest numbers, and "Extreme" is not related to a number at all.
The question is: which scientist is willing to give up 20 years of their life to check whether practicing the ascetic disciplines actually provides the results the religion says they'll provide?
Many versions of (e.g.) Christianity are ambiguous about any concrete benefits in the material universe, the ultimate result is in the afterlife. While they are in a sense testable in this regard (if there is an afterlife, those who die will experience it either as predicted or not), they are not scientifically testable, in that the results of the tests are not reportable and repeatable in a systematic way.
Anyways, as a Java programmer who always wondered what Sun was thinking with their whole Java2 campaign, I'm just flabbergasted that Intel would fall in the same trap.
Intel has different historical problems that they are responding to, particularly, the inability to trademark a number, and the fact that their competitors (including AMD, Cyrix, and others) copied Intel's non-trademarkable numbers to sell competing processors, which is why, starting from the Pentium, Intel hasn't used numbers as the main identifier for their major processor products, but instead has gone with word soup, which is eminently defensible as trademark. Its also why AMD, likewise, hasn't used numbers as its main label since then (initially, because they couldn't copy intel any more, and later because they were the leader and didn't want to be copied.)
Its not really the same thing as Java versioning thing at all, I'd say.
Contrary to what a lot of people around here seem to think, there are testable predictions from String Theory, the obvious one being supersymmetry. If supersymmetric particles do not exist, String Theory is false.
I don't think you understand what testable means. It doesn't mean that "there is conceptually an observation that could be made that might suggest the hypothesis might be true", it means there is an unambiguous and repeatable test that could be conducted which could clearly and unambiguously show the hypothesis to fail in its prediction that would be expected to succeed if and only if the hypothesis was correct, or at least a better explanation for the underlying process that what went before. And not merely that its "possible to develop" such experiments, but that one is developed. Until and unless such an experiment is developed, the conjecture is just an untestable conjecture. Once you have test, its a testable hypothesis. Once its been tested, it might be a theory, if all goes well.
Is an oxymoron, when you are using the scientific understanding of "theory". If it can't be disproven, or even if it could be disproven but has not yet withstood testing, its not a theory at all.
Its clearly a model of sorts, though, unlike Bohr's model, its not a model that used to be a theory but was replaced with a more complete theory but that remains a useful simple explanation in some domains, but instead a more complex theory that, from the charges levelled against it, predicts nothing, at least yet, that is testable that isn't predicted by more simple theories.
Actually, it's good to point out that "string theory" is a non-scientific theory just like intelligent design.
String "theory" is not "non-scientific theory just like intelligent design."
String "theory" is an effort to develop a scientific theory based on a particular conjecture, it is scientific though it has not yet produced a tested theory, or (as argued here) even a testable hypothesis. It is pre-theoretic science: the work necessary to get to a scientific theory.
Intelligent Design is a outright fraud, for which documentation exists showing that its framers invented and embraced it to advance Biblical Creationism when direct embrace of that idea was failing, and to undermine the entire idea of empirical science and provide a wedge for casting non-empirical, non-testable, religious conjecture as science. It is purely anti-scientific, a propaganda effort to get non-scientific religious ideas taught as science.
Therefore they are God, not theory. An untestable hypothesis. What makes a theory a theory is testability.
No, what makes a scientific theory a scientific theory is being tested; what makes a scientific hypothesis a scientific hypothesis is testability. A rationalization of existing results from which no new testable predictions have yet been derived is a conjecture or rationalization, neither a hypothesis nor a theory.
That doesn't make it non-scientific; coming up with such a consistent rationalization is a prerequisite for developing a hypothesis. And there is a considerable difference between work to develop a testable hypothesis that has only reached the stage of producing rationalizations that tend to need to be updated before testable consequences are derived from them, and theological concepts like the existence of God that simply don't support empirical testing even conceptually.
There are reasons why string theory has failed to come up with any NEW predictions. For one thing, it's being constantly tweaked so that it is consistent with EXISTING experimentation.
That's not a theory, then, or even a hypothesis, but merely a rationalization. A scientific hypothesis is consistent with existing results and falsifiably predicts new results; a theory is a hypothesis that has survived testing. But if all you have is a model that is consistent with old results and predicts nothing new that makes it testable, you just have a rationalization of those existing results.
That's not to say that string "theory", if this description is accurate, isn't scientific; to get to a hypothesis, you start with a rationalization of existing results and then determine falsifiable consequences of that rationalization. That work on actually working out the consequences and getting to a testable hypothesis is slower than current results demonstrating that previous work toward that goal needs to be adjusted doesn't make the work not science, it just demonstrates that its not simple.
The whole area of exploration may be a dead end, but lots of areas that appear promising turn out that way; you can't do science if you don't follow lines of inquiry that might turn out to be dead ends, and a line of inquiry directed at producing testable scientific hypotheses doesn't stop being good science because you have to go back occasionally and adjust something and then continue again.
What the hell is with this Core2 Quad crap? It should be Core2 and Core4. You would have thought Intel would have learned from the nightmare Sun/Java went through with the whole "Java2 1.4" branding nightmare. Sun finally wized up and started calling everything Java 4, Java 5, and Java 6.
Actually, up through Java 2 Standard Edition 1.4, they used "Java 2 Standard Edition 1.x". I'm pretty sure there was and is no "Java 4" product.
The next product version is "Java 5", for which the runtime and development kits are JDK 1.5.x and JRE 1.5.x. I'm not sure if its clear yet what the Mustang (for which the JDK is 1.6, judging from the current beta release) or Dolphin (presumably JDK 1.7) product versions will be, though "Java 6" and "Java 7" are natural guesses.
Currently the only game in the near future that will take advantage of multithreading is Crysis
I thought I remembered seeing that, among current games (not near future) Civ 4 was multi-threaded, though it may use some lightweight thread library rather than system threads, in which case it wouldn't necessarily get any advantage from multicore/multiprocessor systems.
I've always wondered about that. It's the state who asks the courts to try criminal cases, not private citizens, but does the state have a monopoly on criminal cases or can a private citizen take a criminal proceeding to court?
In the US, in every jurisdiction, only the government may bring criminal charges (although in some jurisdictions, a private party can, IIRC,seek a criminal indictment from a grand jury, though only the government can follow through with prosecution.)
Personally, I'd rather see that parents do time for their lack of parenting. Money is not justice for a lost life IMO.
The parents are dead for their lack of parenting. Jail time would be superfluous.
No, the criminal is the one who committed the crime (the kid).
Letting a child get your gun is, in many jurisdictions, a crime.
Of course, relevant to the specific case at issue here, using physical violence in an attempt to coerce your 14 year old to have sex with his stepmother is a crime in even more jurisdictions.
Am I crazy, or maybe should daddy have told junior to get off that god damn video game system?
And, maybe, more importantly, daddy shouldn't have, for instance, "burned his arm when the boy, then 14, refused to have sex with his stepmother" and "hit him 50 to 70 times and flung him across the room when he was just two".
Maybe then, when daddy "slapped him for not cleaning horse stalls fast enough", he wouldn't have snapped.
Don't see GTA as having much to do with this, either way.
What kind of implementation will this have, and is it going to negatively affect the customer by increasing the number of devices that are incompatible?
I suspect that compatibility is not going to be that big of an issue, as long as they support similar interfaces, just like flash vs. disk-based USB drives now.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, no, gambling is restricted in most jurisdictions, but you'll be hard pressed to find any jurisdiction where no form of gambling is legal in the US. Heck, in much of the country, state governments are directly involved in gambling operations.
Hardly an original idea; for instance, the Catholic Church was using that strategy in its campaign market dominance in the Western European religion field well over 1,000 years before Microsoft was founded.
Freedom is choice: Debian has the choice to use the Firefox name and submit their patches, or to not do that. The freedom is there no matter how they choose to use it. And there users are completely free to fork Firefox without submitting patches, or to be brand compliant, no matter which choice Debian makes. So freedom is a false issue: neither choice by Debian has any effect on Debian users' freedom in any way.
That wouldn't test intelligent design:
IF ID was correct, then something could develop, but only if a mystical intelligent designer wanted it to, and was interfering as He did on Earth. OTOH, nothing might develop, because the iDesigner didn't want it to, and didn't interfere to make it.
If ID was incorrect, then nothing might develop, because the right chance events didn't happen, and the process of developing life is a chaotic one sensitive to small changes in conditions and chance events. OTOH, something might develop, because the right chance events occurred.
No outcome would differentiate between the truth and falsity of ID.
Tell me that's a joke, and no one actually wrote that in a serious program.
Or at least, if they did, its in a language that just happens to look like Java, but where "this" isn't a reference to the object the object the private method is in. Because that makes my brain hurt.
Yeah. If this kid's father and stepmother had just beat him more than they did, then he totally wouldn't have snapped and killed them. And if people here had reported the beatings before the kid snapped, and CPS had gotten involved, that would have just made it all worse.
I mean, really, a kid snaps after repeated physical and sexual abuse and kills people, and you want to say the problem is people aren't hitting their kids enough, and those that are hitting their kids are getting reported for doing so. WTF?
I'm not dismissing branding. OTOH, its not much different for the Core than what they've did with the Pentium series, except that there are modifiers up and down the line, rather than just at certain places: Instead of "Pentium III" or "Pentium IV" as both the "base model" and the generic name for the class, with things like "Xeon" modifying it for certain versions, their is a clear distinction of the processor class ("Core", "Core 2") and the more specific processor designation within the class ("Solo", "Duo", "Quad", "Extreme")—now, admittedly, there are important distinctions within those groups, too, that you don't get to without the model numbers.
Solo/Duo/Quad/Extreme are words, not numbers, even if they (except Extreme) may evoke numbers.
Intel isn't using "Core 2 [CORE_NUMBER]". "Solo", "Duo", and "Quad" suggest numbers, and "Extreme" is not related to a number at all.
Intel has different historical problems that they are responding to, particularly, the inability to trademark a number, and the fact that their competitors (including AMD, Cyrix, and others) copied Intel's non-trademarkable numbers to sell competing processors, which is why, starting from the Pentium, Intel hasn't used numbers as the main identifier for their major processor products, but instead has gone with word soup, which is eminently defensible as trademark. Its also why AMD, likewise, hasn't used numbers as its main label since then (initially, because they couldn't copy intel any more, and later because they were the leader and didn't want to be copied.)
Its not really the same thing as Java versioning thing at all, I'd say.
I don't think you understand what testable means. It doesn't mean that "there is conceptually an observation that could be made that might suggest the hypothesis might be true", it means there is an unambiguous and repeatable test that could be conducted which could clearly and unambiguously show the hypothesis to fail in its prediction that would be expected to succeed if and only if the hypothesis was correct, or at least a better explanation for the underlying process that what went before. And not merely that its "possible to develop" such experiments, but that one is developed. Until and unless such an experiment is developed, the conjecture is just an untestable conjecture. Once you have test, its a testable hypothesis. Once its been tested, it might be a theory, if all goes well.
Its clearly a model of sorts, though, unlike Bohr's model, its not a model that used to be a theory but was replaced with a more complete theory but that remains a useful simple explanation in some domains, but instead a more complex theory that, from the charges levelled against it, predicts nothing, at least yet, that is testable that isn't predicted by more simple theories.
String "theory" is not "non-scientific theory just like intelligent design."
String "theory" is an effort to develop a scientific theory based on a particular conjecture, it is scientific though it has not yet produced a tested theory, or (as argued here) even a testable hypothesis. It is pre-theoretic science: the work necessary to get to a scientific theory.
Intelligent Design is a outright fraud, for which documentation exists showing that its framers invented and embraced it to advance Biblical Creationism when direct embrace of that idea was failing, and to undermine the entire idea of empirical science and provide a wedge for casting non-empirical, non-testable, religious conjecture as science. It is purely anti-scientific, a propaganda effort to get non-scientific religious ideas taught as science.
No, what makes a scientific theory a scientific theory is being tested; what makes a scientific hypothesis a scientific hypothesis is testability. A rationalization of existing results from which no new testable predictions have yet been derived is a conjecture or rationalization, neither a hypothesis nor a theory.
That doesn't make it non-scientific; coming up with such a consistent rationalization is a prerequisite for developing a hypothesis. And there is a considerable difference between work to develop a testable hypothesis that has only reached the stage of producing rationalizations that tend to need to be updated before testable consequences are derived from them, and theological concepts like the existence of God that simply don't support empirical testing even conceptually.
Actually, up through Java 2 Standard Edition 1.4, they used "Java 2 Standard Edition 1.x". I'm pretty sure there was and is no "Java 4" product.
The next product version is "Java 5", for which the runtime and development kits are JDK 1.5.x and JRE 1.5.x. I'm not sure if its clear yet what the Mustang (for which the JDK is 1.6, judging from the current beta release) or Dolphin (presumably JDK 1.7) product versions will be, though "Java 6" and "Java 7" are natural guesses.
In the US, in every jurisdiction, only the government may bring criminal charges (although in some jurisdictions, a private party can, IIRC,seek a criminal indictment from a grand jury, though only the government can follow through with prosecution.)
The parents are dead for their lack of parenting. Jail time would be superfluous.
Letting a child get your gun is, in many jurisdictions, a crime.
Of course, relevant to the specific case at issue here, using physical violence in an attempt to coerce your 14 year old to have sex with his stepmother is a crime in even more jurisdictions.
And, maybe, more importantly, daddy shouldn't have, for instance, "burned his arm when the boy, then 14, refused to have sex with his stepmother" and "hit him 50 to 70 times and flung him across the room when he was just two".
Maybe then, when daddy "slapped him for not cleaning horse stalls fast enough", he wouldn't have snapped.
Don't see GTA as having much to do with this, either way.