Spread across a whole profession that's somewhat more significant that it seems. it's equal to every sixth person getting an hour less sleep. Still not groundbreaking, but at least indicative.

I once made a 13 minute loop of rain sounds for a friend who was in a mental hospital. It was 18 mins originally, but 13 after removing every time a car stopped, or plain flew by, or anything else that would have created a cognizable pattern. Very soothing stuff.

His claim to have written "software you use everyday" is giflib; he stopped maintaining it in 1994, but it's in lots of browsers and browsing devices.

Virtually everyone at my church brings their Bibles on cellphones for when they need to refer to a text; no reason to carry a chunky paper book around as well. Your old eyes can set whatever point size you like. I suspect that visitors think they're all texting or on Facebook (even when they're not).

The problem is cracking new languages, often having no written script. That's what Bible Translators mainly do.

Here in Australia, we get American and English magazines equally. I hardly ever burn ISO's for Linux, but rather buy a magazine every few months and so have good-quality boot/install/recover disks around all the time. The articles aren't bad -- I've learned about some cool apps there -- but I buy the mags for the disks mainly. And they're all UK magazines, now that I think about it. This presumably goes back to when Amigas and C64s were hip; there were always gaming magazines with playable demo disks.

Mod parent up. I don't know whether profiling works or not, but that final comment was certainly tacked on without justification.

1. Reasonable statement. Reasonable statement. Reasonable statement. Reasonable statement. Reasonable statement. Reasonable statement. Reasonable statement. Reasonable statement. Reasonable statement. Reasonable statement. Reasonable statement. Reasonable statement. Reasonable statement. Reasonable statement. Reasonable statement. Reasonable statement. Reasonable statement. ... P.
2. Therefore P.

Their work-week is now in sync with Aust and NZ, rather than only having four days that coincide.

Belief is not a specifically religious word, and it means neither 'assuming' nor 'proving'. If another person knows X, and tells you X, and you deem them informed and trustworthy, then you may 'believe' what they tell you, and with good reason. You now know X, not because you have proved it, but because you have grounds for trusting someone who (you also believe) does know. Most of what most of us know about science is known by 'faith' in the trustworthiness of the scientific community and what we know of it's values and processes; we 'believe' that it is mostly objective and usually self-correcting over time, even when funding sources, vested interests and career advancement are considered. It helps that this has been borne out in my own limited experience, and it helps that I am unaware of any obviously superior or even competitive alternative to this process for arriving at knowledge of the natural world. I also believe that science is generally the application of common sense to specialised domains of knowledge, and that if I had the time and data I would come to the same conclusions. These are subjective judgements; hence 'beliefs'. I also belief that culture is the process of cultivating good subjective judgements of this kind, to complement the mechanical and impersonal corpus of objective knowledge. "Love AND logic keep us clear..."

I played NetHack for 15 years or so, with two near-ascensions, but have found DungeonCrawl to be more absorbing over the past few years. Vastly more variety and chaos, a better UI (and I mean in console mode) with nav tools like auto-explore, and it's been much more actively maintained. It's true what they say: NetHack doesn't care if you live or die, but Crawl has a preference. I haven't seen Gran Turismo Faroe Islands, though (that, er, _was_ what you mean by GTFO, ya?)

Q. What are the odds that 50 yrs of technological progress would slash the stellar travel time, so that a 100-yr trip would likely be pointless?

1) Does copyright apply to random generation? The Shakespeare issue captures the essential point... Would the monkeys hold copyright on their text, having produced it by chance?

2) Is intentionality is required for moral rights of art creation? If I'm camping and a rock falls on my camera and somehow causes a photo to be taken, does the rock have the copyright? What if a monkey falls on the camera, with the same effect? What if the monkey tries to eat the camera, with the same effect? What consciousness of the act of creation is required? In this case, the monkeys framed their reflections in the lens, which was a creative act if using a mirror is a creative act. There can't have been any consciousness of others publishing these images; are the 'portraits' thus portraits to us but not to them?

3) Copyright is a human social construct that prevents the exploitation of creativity to the detriment of authors. Does this have any meaning in whatever system of exchange impresses monkeys?

There must be some kind of case for legal harassment here. If a small company can point to a larger companies doing the same thing written down in the case against them, yet not being sued, then the plaintiff should be asked to show why they have not protected their shareholder's interests and IP -- their ostensible motivation -- by litigating the largest offenders first? Surely the plaintiff would be delighted to catch the biggest, richest fish with their ostensibly valid case? To my mind the only reason to act otherwise would be legal gamesmanship at the literal expense of the smaller defendants.

If this is correct, then it's almost ideal. Not legally watertight, but, certainly sufficient to proceed with.

I realise that I was assuming that copyright resided with the Wikipedia Foundation because the only alternative seemed untenable -- that the required attributions for every stage of revision could become exceedingly complex. But there actually is no single copyright statement on a Wikipedia page now that I look for one.

It seems, following this up, that the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use fills the gap I was worried about: any contributor agrees to be attributed simply by a link to the end product... (which will itself link to the version history and contributors).

Therefore, for any text you hold the copyright to, by submitting it, you agree to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. ...

As an author, you agree to be attributed in any of the following fashions: a) through a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article or articles you contributed to, b) through a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) through a list of all authors. (Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions.)

+1 Anonymous. If this was StackOverflow, I'd select your answer. :)

Textkit is brilliant, although it's auto-processing uses Latin-character OCR on the Greek texts. Human transcription and correction is necessary to get something searchable.