...people interpret what they see; rather than just say what they saw.
The mistake some people make is in assuming the latter is even possible without doing the former. Optical illusions are possible because even the most immediate mental image of what's before you eyes at the very moment is an interpretation in your mind of what you think your eyes are telling you. Perception necessarily involves interpretation.
But how do you deal with people who don't know what "yaw" means?
First, you ask them which axis it rotated around while avoiding the terms they're unfamiliar with, like "roll" (in the technical sense), "pitch" and "yaw". When they respond with obvious confusion, you go on to explain what an "axis" is and what "axis of rotation" means. If they haven't wandered away by that point but are still standing in front of you making apparent eye-contact, wave your hands to verify that they are in fact too dazed to wander off on their own and call over a paramedic.
Or since it's an aircraft how about "rotated around it's yaw axis".
That works for this site. Your average CNN viewer isn't enough of a geek to know what "yaw" means. Heck, the majority of them will get "axis" wrong if you ask them to define it in their own words...
So, news for nerds is strictly about computers, mathematics and shit ?
Aerospace engineers and aviation geeks are apparently resented by computer geeks because they were never as uncool...
Oh yeah, the economy sucks and people are desperate for money.
Kinda makes one wonder just how accidental the current depression really is. Desperate people not only do anything for money, but historically accept and even want strong leaders with unlimited power. So, for a politician or three-letter organization, the worse it gets the better it gets.
And who created the bitcoin software? We don't know but I'm sure they are having fun selling off coins they got for free to suckers who just finished eating their tulip bulbs.
So... the inventor of Bitcoin might get rich from it, therefore it is bad?
Basically, AGPL is only useful for a very, very narrow range of software designed specifically for use in "software-as-a-service" situations, and even then, it is only acceptable if you don't need to tie it into existing infrastructure. In short, it is basically never acceptable, and its only sensible use is for businesses to be able to say, "Hey, look, we've open sourced our stack," while simultaneously ensuring that no legitimate business would ever even contemplate replicating that stack and competing with them.
I'll give an example of a use of AGPL. I develop game software with a handful of other devs. I'm the only coder. Prior to game release I license all my contributions under the AGPL so that if I quit, I can take my code with me. However, if they want to sell my code as closed source, they'll need to make it to completion and have me dual license under BSD. At that point we can sell a closed source version of the game software. At any time after sales begin, any member of the dev team can then release the source code as AGPL or BSD. So, there's no "we can't release source without rights holder permissions". We worked that out ahead of time.
In this way I don't have to trust anyone and they don't have to trust me. We do trust each other, but the system is future proof against falling outs (which is frequent in the indie game dev community). No one can just take their ball and go home -- Were I to leave the project I could still use the engine on other projects, and they could still make a game, and get another coder, but the end result would have to be open source. Compliance with AGPL is actually built into the game engine. In addition to containing an archive of the source as an asset during builds, any scripts or mods are necessarily transferred from the server to the client at run-time so that the game can function. A BSD licensed version can simply transfer pre-compiled bytecode instead of textual scripts, and remove the compressed source code from the asset library.
So, here we have a use case that's not exactly aligned with the intended goal of AGPL, unless a goal is to prevent anyone from benefiting from your code without you also benefiting from the additions too. It's actually directly opposite to your claim that I wish to prevent competition, I actually want to ensure competition can exist and ensure no complete loss of effort is possible. Sure, I run the risk of a team member bolting and releasing code under AGPL, but that doesn't prevent us from re-licensing as BSD down the road.
I'd love to release everything open source all the time (and do this for all software that's not game related) but it exponentially increases the number of cheaters in online games (don't give a damn about offline cheats). I've experienced this several times in online game communities, in both directions, closed to open, and open to closed. Until more effective community management systems are in place, games remain unique pieces of software where it's OK to not give users every tool they need to cock-up the game for everyone else (so long as the game respects the end-user, i.e., doesn't have non-features like DRM / spyware). One bad apple spoils the bunch, so griefers affect far more people than themselves. I agree that AGPL isn't the right choice for all projects, but to say it's never applicable except in some narrowly defined scope is just silly; I'm not arrogant enough to make such claims, I'm sure other use cases exist.
P.S. The saying "Security through Obscurity is No Security at all" is utterly false. All security is security through obscurity, and every bit of obscurity counts. 512 bits is 1/2 as secure as 513 bits of obscurity -- Obscurity increases security exponentially, DERP! If the obscurity was no hindrance then "open source" wouldn't even need to exist, eh? It's true that where there's a will, there's a way, so why not require sterner wills to brave harmful ways?
Snowden didn't flee to get "better treatment," he wasn't being mistreated in the US. He fled law enforcement because he broke the law. He is a fugitive from justice.
Not sure how you got that wrong.
"Broke the law"? There hasn't been a trial. Not sure how you got that wrong.
Perhaps he looked at the way in which the US treated Bradley Manning and decided he'd get better treatment elsewhere?
Well, look at all the stereotypes of gamers, especially of MMOs. It is really quite easy to unfairly disparage these people, and those are pure works of fiction.
At a minimum (whatever you believe) religion represents the collective moral knowledge of society (golden rule, work ethics, family structures known to function, etc) learned over the course of millenniums. Without it, it becomes difficult to avoid becoming an amoral society. Philosophy and psychology (and other social sciences) are not (yet) capable of filling the void (despite their numerous claims to the contrary).
You are so full of bullshit it's painful to think anyone believes what you wrote. I'm a scientist. Have you any data points to back your claims? I have several examples that disprove your claims, they're not hard to find.
The Pirahãs, he said, “believed that the world was as it had always been, and that there was no supreme deity”. Furthermore they had no creation myths in their culture. In short, here was a people who were more than happy to live their lives “without God, religion or any political authority”.
No surveillance state to help the rich stay rich required either.
I'm not sure why I should hate targeted ads. I actually see ads for things I'm interested in... instead of random stuff.
Because the more you consume, the less you can save up, and the more dependent you are of maintaining your current job and/or the goodwill of your debtors, thus making you ever more helplessly bound and enslaved. Thus an ad should be considered an attempt to put another chain on you, an attack on your freedom, and a targeted ad a more effective attack.
The tracking, ad infinitum, has always been going on, will always be going on.
So has bubonic plague, but that's no reason to avoid taking antibiotics when you get it.
I was looking through my HS yearbook from ~1998, the girls seem different from today. Girls now talk as if they were mentally retarded- "OMG," "like totally," etc. It wasn't as bad back in the 90s.
So in your youth the youth spoke proper slang, which is different than the slang of today, therefore the modern youth must be retarded?
Seems like the average female IQ is dropping.
Bonus points for not knowing what IQ means.
Just look at the average girls Facebook feed- nothing but brain dead attention whores.
So... are you a creepy middle-aged cyberstalker of teenagers, or are you pulling stuff out of your ass?
I don't care what you do or don't do with your wabbly bits so long as if anyone else is involved it is consensual, but as far as life and evolution are concerned, you're an irrelevant dead end.
Maybe. Then again, the main thrust of human evolution is arguably cultural nowadays; even if no one carries your genes down the line, they might still carry your thoughts. And this is likely to only become more so in the future, as medicine and genetic engineering advance.
If you are good, you will be assigned all the work. If you are real good, you will get out of it.
