>The greens are closer to my views, but they stand as much chance of winning an election in the U.S. of any kind as satan does of becoming an Easter icon. So I don't plan on wasting my vote ever again. (I did in 2000 because I didn't like Gore and voted for Nader)
If you give up, they win. DO throw your vote away. Like you said, they will do anything to win. They'll even resort to real debate on issues, helping out the poor, ANYTHING that gets them votes. If the green party got 5% of the vote, the other parties will panic and change policy to get these votes to their side. The blindly loyal don't matter - they'll vote your way anyway. Non voters don't matter. Swing votes are the only actually important ones.
How does having many retired civil engineers looking over sewer plans lower standards? A journalist would have to consult experts anyway. By having many look at it, its less likely to get fooled by some small group. A corrupt city engineer could probably fool most journalists in an interview. Maybe they consult another couple of engineers, and it sounds like a difference of opinions. Now if 90% of the volunteer civil engineers said it should cost half as much?
It's not that hard to pick out most of the idiots and crackpots from the informed from a large pool of responses. See slashdot.
In cases where it is hard to tell, real reporting comes involved.
> are we still using editors before we go public with this stuff?
Yes. RTFA
>And, does that mean that we're still talking about having to check sources, understand the legal ramifications of publishing stuff, and all of that old stodgy professional behavior?
Yes. RTFA
> So, really, this is just about making things sensational enough to get a lot of people to volunteer to do the basic research that staffers used to do?
That's right, because it is faster and cheaper to sift through the community knowledge first so you know what to research in detail. A journalist is rarely an expert on what they report on.
You can still charge for music and people will pay plenty. What they won't pay is absurd high prices.
The cost of producing and distributing music has gotten much cheaper. Distribution companies have the insane idea that none of the savings can be passed on to the consumer without consequences. This isn't new, when CD's came out, they were cheaper to produce than tapes but were priced higher. That price never went down and yet artists didn't get any more money.
Get a clue, books were more expensive when monks had to copy them out by hand. If book publishers try sell paperbacks for over a hundred bucks each, many people would photocopy them. At current prices, its not worth it for most people.
itunes pricing right now only makes sense for someone wanting to buy a single. It makes no sense to buy entire albums at the same price for a lower quality version. But if costs were on par with allofmp3 almost all pirating would stop. It doesn't take that long to earn ten cents. Why bother wasting time looking for pirated copies and getting unknown quality if the real thing is cheap. At these prices, its worth the effort for those with low salaries.
I have friends who have been successful both ways. Most people will tell you a degree is very important, but I can't honestly that's true. Mind you they became experienced before the tech bubble burst and back then in the programming field experience counted much more than education. I've heard rumours that this is changing and a degree is becoming much more of a requirement. In some other fields it is definately true that a degree (or even a PhD) is required to get a good job. Maybe programming is moving that way. Also, even though the real hiring boss may be smart enough to look past the lack of a degree, they are probably too important to waste time on the initial screening of resumes. That'll be someone told to look through the stack and discard any not meeting requirements.
You are young enough that you could work for several years and still decide to go to college. Glowing recommendations from former employers are much more valueble than any grades or degrees. It might really help you get much more out of school later because you see which parts you need in the real world. If you decide you like a specialized area, maybe a physics or economics or biochemistry, etc degree will be much more useful. Often any degree is fine. Pay attention to what people hiring in your field look for.
If you don't want to be in college, you probably should leave regardless of what most people say. But do check out things that are interesting. There are good classes that will help you a lot if you find them, but usually this has more to do with the professor than the subject (people who don't think this way haven't encountered a good teacher.)
Remember to consider economics. If there is a shortage of coders in your area right now and you can get a good job, that might be a better way to go for now. Recessions are a good time to go to school and improve job skills. The cost of school doesn't change based on the job market and it usually takes several years for job markets to change.
For the record, I've gone past the BSc level and I don't regret it at all, but I'm in biochemistry.
Good point. Looking at evidence brings the opposite conclusion.
>with less species there is less competition. with less competition other species flourish. without evidence, my theory is just as likely.
To get a paper published in one of the most highly respected journals of science requires a great deal of high quality evidence. Things like data from the rates of fish caught by fishermen. Data like fish stocks skyrocketing during the second world war when fishermen were afraid to venture far from port. etc.
Of course simple common sense shows many examples of fisheries collapsing and not recovering for years. Things like the cod fisheries in Newfoundland. There are many other examples.
The news isn't that fish stocks are collapsing - the fisheries already very well aware of that. The new is that the drop is much more universal and to a greater extent than expected. Almost every kind of marine life is at surprisingly low population levels.
And don't compare this to climate change, it shows total ignorance. They are completely different fields. This area has far more reliable predictive ability.
Of course, but that is changing very rapidly. How much information was on the internet vs books 20 years ago? See how that's changing. Look to the future a little.
Main parties are vote whores. If third party candidates start getting votes, they'll change policies. If you keep voting for them, why would they act any different? Throwing away votes is important. It shows a vote they could have really gotten unlike the apathetic masses.
Here in Canada, the Reform party appeared and started stealing votes from conservatives. They never won, but merged with the conservatives and pulled the party far to the right. Those 'wasted' votes have had far more influence on our policies than the 'football' team voters who aren't influenced by policy.
You've just made it easier for murders to claim it wasn't their fault.
"If it wasn't for the horrible, evil porn on the internet, I could never have done so heinous an act. Thankfully, its influence has been removed and with therapy I'll be out in just a few years. Murder charges had to dropped because of the temporary insanity caused by this evil porn."
You have made all the otherwise law abiding SM fans into criminals, but they were obiously degenerates, so who cares?
Banning the porn will obviously solve all the problems, because once upon a time there was no porn so people never had sex. Beware the evil influence of the all powerful media. This power could be used for good! What if the media presented images of thin people being beautiful? If only they did this, maybe 2/3 of the US population wouldn't be overweight! Obviously they would diet and execise till they looked like people on TV.
Maybe we could cure these criminals by forcing them to watch romantic movies? Or we could have them repeat doctrines of loving and caring and renouncing sexuality like priests. Just think of how many priests would have become pedophiles otherwise.
Foolish people say things like 'studies show the majority of men and women are aroused by stories of rape' and follow this to the flawed conclusion that people understand the difference between reality and fiction. But obiously this fact merely points to the fact that the MAJORITY of men would become rapists with repeated exposure to these tales. And women would become willing victims... sluts! That's it!
Please help. Someday it will be impossible to even commit a crime. Like if we put the entire population under surveilence. Or in jail. We can only dream.
By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the `main' function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlu gins
The stance appears to be that if your program requires a GPL program to be useful, all the programs must be released under a GPL compatible licence. There are some exceptions for standard operating system dlls, etc.
Other views that seem to be implied are:
Charging money for developing software is evil.
LGPL and BSD are inferior because they aid evil, for profit companies.
This isn't meant as a troll. I didn't want to have to dislike GPL, but it does not seem like it could be used with a closed source buisness without the possibility of getting sued, especially given the attitude displayed. In contrast, an LGPL program can be used by a company without worry, so hiring programmers to develop and debug the LGPL program is a worthwhile investment.
At what point is my software considered a derivative work?
If a program relies on a GPL program to function, can it still be considered a separate work? If my program calls a GPL program and uses results from it's output files for further manipulation, is this allowed because the programs are not interacting directly? Could the GPL program be distributed with such a proprietary program? Even if the GPL program were modified to facilitate this, such as outputting its internal data structures to a formatted file, only the modified GPL program would need to be released, right?
What other forms of communication between programs are allowed and disallowed without converting all the licences to GPL?
No chemist will ever trust a computer result without doing the full lab work. This can still be incredibly useful.
Consider if each thorough test takes 6 months for 3000-4000 possibilities. If the computer can tell you the 5-10 compounds that are likely to work, in a few years you can have a product (or a PhD). Otherwise you were looking at nearly a thousand years before finding something.
That sounds completely absurd with water, but that is pretty much the idea of how prion diseases like mad cow are supposed to work. The misfolded protein gets normal proteins to refold like itself.
What a fool he is to be _surprised_ a christian would preach one thing but behave immorally. After all this is a long christian tradion from the crusades, witch burnings, pedophilic priests, etc, ect.
Satanists have tried to take the credit, claiming the faithful flock is so easily led astray by the wolf in shepard's clothing, but I think they are just jealous;)
These findings don't lessen the value of embryo stem cell research at all. It means that therapies developed using embryo cell research could be switched to using this technology once it came of age. This is a great result that shows it is possible to create stem cells from adults that behave like embryonic stem cells, but this isn't near being ready yet for practical purposes. It will likely take several years to find proper methods of controlling the genes involved. That still means years of falling behind and research on therapies and, therefore, many people dying.
Bush's stance is stupid and hypocritical. If you actually cared about the embryos wouldn't you prevent them from being created in the first place? Embryos were not going to be created for stem cell research. Unwanted embryos were going to be used find ways to cure diseases instead of being incinerated.
Morally superior christian view:
Embryos incinerated alive. The sick suffer and die. Just like God intended. Ahmen.
Unscrupulous pragmatic view (likely promoted by ungodly evolutionists!):
Embryos die advancing research and are incinerated, or live on in others, curing disease. The sick may be cured.
Sorry, started ranting. Religous fundementalism (of all kinds) terrifies and irritates me.
But this was a _successful_ experiment. These are _novel_ structures and, therefore, novel nano-materials which means they beat all those other chemical engineering departments to the discovery. Lots of experiments are routine but give novel data that is useful.
Just because we knew how to decode the genome doesn't mean it was scientifically useless to do.
I guess I'm just being dubious about these, and perhaps a bit "teechy" about any old arrangement of molecules being labeled "nanotechnology." We used to just call this "chemistry."
Very true, but calling it nanotechnology makes it much easier to get research grants. I would call this nanomaterials, but really we're just arguing about the semantics of what kind of chemistry this is.
Now it seems as if every bloody enzyme is being called a "nano machine."...
Back in the day nanotechnology meant the reduction to the nano scale of macro technology.
But enzymes _are_ nanomachines by the definition you use. Enzymes are natures bio-nanotech. Designed enzymes and enzyme mimics have not been very successful so far. Not that the ideas are bad, but a much greater understanding of the chemistry involved is needed to actually design something. That will take some time.
Slashdot Mirror
>The greens are closer to my views, but they stand as much chance of winning an election in the U.S. of any kind as satan does of becoming an Easter icon. So I don't plan on wasting my vote ever again. (I did in 2000 because I didn't like Gore and voted for Nader) If you give up, they win. DO throw your vote away. Like you said, they will do anything to win. They'll even resort to real debate on issues, helping out the poor, ANYTHING that gets them votes. If the green party got 5% of the vote, the other parties will panic and change policy to get these votes to their side. The blindly loyal don't matter - they'll vote your way anyway. Non voters don't matter. Swing votes are the only actually important ones.
How does having many retired civil engineers looking over sewer plans lower standards? A journalist would have to consult experts anyway. By having many look at it, its less likely to get fooled by some small group. A corrupt city engineer could probably fool most journalists in an interview. Maybe they consult another couple of engineers, and it sounds like a difference of opinions. Now if 90% of the volunteer civil engineers said it should cost half as much? It's not that hard to pick out most of the idiots and crackpots from the informed from a large pool of responses. See slashdot. In cases where it is hard to tell, real reporting comes involved.
> are we still using editors before we go public with this stuff? Yes. RTFA >And, does that mean that we're still talking about having to check sources, understand the legal ramifications of publishing stuff, and all of that old stodgy professional behavior? Yes. RTFA > So, really, this is just about making things sensational enough to get a lot of people to volunteer to do the basic research that staffers used to do? That's right, because it is faster and cheaper to sift through the community knowledge first so you know what to research in detail. A journalist is rarely an expert on what they report on.
You can still charge for music and people will pay plenty. What they won't pay is absurd high prices. The cost of producing and distributing music has gotten much cheaper. Distribution companies have the insane idea that none of the savings can be passed on to the consumer without consequences. This isn't new, when CD's came out, they were cheaper to produce than tapes but were priced higher. That price never went down and yet artists didn't get any more money. Get a clue, books were more expensive when monks had to copy them out by hand. If book publishers try sell paperbacks for over a hundred bucks each, many people would photocopy them. At current prices, its not worth it for most people. itunes pricing right now only makes sense for someone wanting to buy a single. It makes no sense to buy entire albums at the same price for a lower quality version. But if costs were on par with allofmp3 almost all pirating would stop. It doesn't take that long to earn ten cents. Why bother wasting time looking for pirated copies and getting unknown quality if the real thing is cheap. At these prices, its worth the effort for those with low salaries.
I have friends who have been successful both ways. Most people will tell you a degree is very important, but I can't honestly that's true. Mind you they became experienced before the tech bubble burst and back then in the programming field experience counted much more than education. I've heard rumours that this is changing and a degree is becoming much more of a requirement. In some other fields it is definately true that a degree (or even a PhD) is required to get a good job. Maybe programming is moving that way. Also, even though the real hiring boss may be smart enough to look past the lack of a degree, they are probably too important to waste time on the initial screening of resumes. That'll be someone told to look through the stack and discard any not meeting requirements. You are young enough that you could work for several years and still decide to go to college. Glowing recommendations from former employers are much more valueble than any grades or degrees. It might really help you get much more out of school later because you see which parts you need in the real world. If you decide you like a specialized area, maybe a physics or economics or biochemistry, etc degree will be much more useful. Often any degree is fine. Pay attention to what people hiring in your field look for. If you don't want to be in college, you probably should leave regardless of what most people say. But do check out things that are interesting. There are good classes that will help you a lot if you find them, but usually this has more to do with the professor than the subject (people who don't think this way haven't encountered a good teacher.) Remember to consider economics. If there is a shortage of coders in your area right now and you can get a good job, that might be a better way to go for now. Recessions are a good time to go to school and improve job skills. The cost of school doesn't change based on the job market and it usually takes several years for job markets to change. For the record, I've gone past the BSc level and I don't regret it at all, but I'm in biochemistry.
Good point. Looking at evidence brings the opposite conclusion. >with less species there is less competition. with less competition other species flourish. without evidence, my theory is just as likely. To get a paper published in one of the most highly respected journals of science requires a great deal of high quality evidence. Things like data from the rates of fish caught by fishermen. Data like fish stocks skyrocketing during the second world war when fishermen were afraid to venture far from port. etc. Of course simple common sense shows many examples of fisheries collapsing and not recovering for years. Things like the cod fisheries in Newfoundland. There are many other examples. The news isn't that fish stocks are collapsing - the fisheries already very well aware of that. The new is that the drop is much more universal and to a greater extent than expected. Almost every kind of marine life is at surprisingly low population levels. And don't compare this to climate change, it shows total ignorance. They are completely different fields. This area has far more reliable predictive ability.
Of course, but that is changing very rapidly. How much information was on the internet vs books 20 years ago? See how that's changing. Look to the future a little.
Main parties are vote whores. If third party candidates start getting votes, they'll change policies. If you keep voting for them, why would they act any different? Throwing away votes is important. It shows a vote they could have really gotten unlike the apathetic masses.
Here in Canada, the Reform party appeared and started stealing votes from conservatives. They never won, but merged with the conservatives and pulled the party far to the right. Those 'wasted' votes have had far more influence on our policies than the 'football' team voters who aren't influenced by policy.
Check out Patrick Moore's http://www.greenspirit.com/21st_century.cfm?msid=2 9&page=8 writings on the subject. His page is very interesting for other enviromental issues too.
Note that Patrick Moore was founding member of Greenpeace and is on the side of saving the environment.
You've just made it easier for murders to claim it wasn't their fault.
"If it wasn't for the horrible, evil porn on the internet, I could never have done so heinous an act. Thankfully, its influence has been removed and with therapy I'll be out in just a few years. Murder charges had to dropped because of the temporary insanity caused by this evil porn."
You have made all the otherwise law abiding SM fans into criminals, but they were obiously degenerates, so who cares?
Banning the porn will obviously solve all the problems, because once upon a time there was no porn so people never had sex. Beware the evil influence of the all powerful media.
This power could be used for good! What if the media presented images of thin people being beautiful? If only they did this, maybe 2/3 of the US population wouldn't be overweight! Obviously they would diet and execise till they looked like people on TV.
Maybe we could cure these criminals by forcing them to watch romantic movies? Or we could have them repeat doctrines of loving and caring and renouncing sexuality like priests. Just think of how many priests would have become pedophiles otherwise.
Foolish people say things like 'studies show the majority of men and women are aroused by stories of rape' and follow this to the flawed conclusion that people understand the difference between reality and fiction. But obiously this fact merely points to the fact that the MAJORITY of men would become rapists with repeated exposure to these tales. And women would become willing victims... sluts! That's it!
Please help. Someday it will be impossible to even commit a crime. Like if we put the entire population under surveilence. Or in jail. We can only dream.
This appears to be a quote from the GPL FAQ. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggre gation
Another very curious part is:
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the `main' function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlu gins
The stance appears to be that if your program requires a GPL program to be useful, all the programs must be released under a GPL compatible licence. There are some exceptions for standard operating system dlls, etc.
Other views that seem to be implied are:
Charging money for developing software is evil.
LGPL and BSD are inferior because they aid evil, for profit companies.
This isn't meant as a troll. I didn't want to have to dislike GPL, but it does not seem like it could be used with a closed source buisness without the possibility of getting sued, especially given the attitude displayed. In contrast, an LGPL program can be used by a company without worry, so hiring programmers to develop and debug the LGPL program is a worthwhile investment.
At what point is my software considered a derivative work?
If a program relies on a GPL program to function, can it still be considered a separate work? If my program calls a GPL program and uses results from it's output files for further manipulation, is this allowed because the programs are not interacting directly? Could the GPL program be distributed with such a proprietary program? Even if the GPL program were modified to facilitate this, such as outputting its internal data structures to a formatted file, only the modified GPL program would need to be released, right?
What other forms of communication between programs are allowed and disallowed without converting all the licences to GPL?
No chemist will ever trust a computer result without doing the full lab work. This can still be incredibly useful.
Consider if each thorough test takes 6 months for 3000-4000 possibilities. If the computer can tell you the 5-10 compounds that are likely to work, in a few years you can have a product (or a PhD). Otherwise you were looking at nearly a thousand years before finding something.
That sounds completely absurd with water, but that is pretty much the idea of how prion diseases like mad cow are supposed to work. The misfolded protein gets normal proteins to refold like itself.
What a fool he is to be _surprised_ a christian would preach one thing but behave immorally. After all this is a long christian tradion from the crusades, witch burnings, pedophilic priests, etc, ect.
;)
Satanists have tried to take the credit, claiming the faithful flock is so easily led astray by the wolf in shepard's clothing, but I think they are just jealous
These findings don't lessen the value of embryo stem cell research at all. It means that therapies developed using embryo cell research could be switched to using this technology once it came of age. This is a great result that shows it is possible to create stem cells from adults that behave like embryonic stem cells, but this isn't near being ready yet for practical purposes. It will likely take several years to find proper methods of controlling the genes involved. That still means years of falling behind and research on therapies and, therefore, many people dying.
Bush's stance is stupid and hypocritical. If you actually cared about the embryos wouldn't you prevent them from being created in the first place? Embryos were not going to be created for stem cell research. Unwanted embryos were going to be used find ways to cure diseases instead of being incinerated.
Morally superior christian view:
Embryos incinerated alive.
The sick suffer and die. Just like God intended. Ahmen.
Unscrupulous pragmatic view (likely promoted by ungodly evolutionists!):
Embryos die advancing research and are incinerated, or live on in others, curing disease.
The sick may be cured.
Sorry, started ranting. Religous fundementalism (of all kinds) terrifies and irritates me.
But this was a _successful_ experiment. These are _novel_ structures and, therefore, novel nano-materials which means they beat all those other chemical engineering departments to the discovery. Lots of experiments are routine but give novel data that is useful.
Just because we knew how to decode the genome doesn't mean it was scientifically useless to do.
I guess I'm just being dubious about these, and perhaps a bit "teechy" about any old arrangement of molecules being labeled "nanotechnology." We used to just call this "chemistry." Very true, but calling it nanotechnology makes it much easier to get research grants. I would call this nanomaterials, but really we're just arguing about the semantics of what kind of chemistry this is. Now it seems as if every bloody enzyme is being called a "nano machine." ...
Back in the day nanotechnology meant the reduction to the nano scale of macro technology.
But enzymes _are_ nanomachines by the definition you use. Enzymes are natures bio-nanotech. Designed enzymes and enzyme mimics have not been very successful so far. Not that the ideas are bad, but a much greater understanding of the chemistry involved is needed to actually design something. That will take some time.