Yes, but we all have the right to get upset as well as upset others. Laws should never be created just to keep people from being upset. Those that can not control their behavior just because they are upset or offended belong in prisons and mental wards.
Experts once believed in racial theories, the benign nature of x-ray exposure, cranial measurements as proof of criminal tendencies.
If an expert can be wrong, then the problem comes down to discernment. If experts disagree, how do you choose which expert to follow?
If experts choose a course of action that is destructive to you, are you obligated to follow it? Are others obligated to impose it upon you? Are you obligated to impose it on others?
Does the fact that you renounce your freedom mean that I should also be enslaved?
It's still offered as license. Since it's offered as an option with a BSD license it doesn't really matter, but if the software was actually valuable and other license more restrictive making such a joke could end up costing you when someone tries to get a court to strip bits out and just leave "you can have it all"...
The quoted portion above demonstrates how the typical liberally-minded, anti-creation individual really ought to be against social programs. They make us weak, if you 'believe' in evolution.
How does manipulating someone's bank balance change their genetic code?
It stands to reason that people who aren't wealthy, like myself, are in that situation due to the choices they made, which were influenced by their genetics. The evolutionary approach to this notion would be to allow the poorer people to die off and thus propagate those with whatever genetic goodness they had that made them successful in the first place.
I'm not saying that this is my own view, but it is the one that most-closely follows the theory.
It doesn't have to be super-expensive (see e.g. iPod nano or shuffle). It just has to have a ~25-30% profit margin built in.
This changes nothing. The numbers remain the same; the timescale for photosynthesis is not comparable to that for neural activity.
Hameroff/Penrose quantum consciousness remains impossible (as well as unscientific, unnecessary and useless).
You have a right to your opinion on it being unnecessary, useless or impossible. You are simply wrong in saying it's unscientific. It's scientific in that they are following scientific method, their equations are there to be read and the calculations work, the only thing left to do is observe it in nature.
You can claim the timescale isn't accurate, or that the size isn't accurate or that the quantum entanglement in plants does not apply to animal brains, but you cannot say that it's unscientific. Thats just an ignorant statement.
If you think it's unscientific why don't you prove that by discussing the unscientific parts of the hypothesis.
You have a false "Obj-C vs Flash" dichotomy. This has nothing at all to do about Flash. I've never wrote a single line of code in it, and hopefully never will. But Jobs also prevent me from using the good stuff such as, say, O'Caml or Scala, and that is a travesty.
Hence why I wrote "Flash (or similar)". Because it's not just about preventing Flash, but about preventing any non ObjC/Cocoa Touch platform. It's perfectly understandable that you'd want to be free to use those languages. It's perfectly understandable that Apple wouldn't want the results of that programming to be sold through their App Store. Apple rightly wins the conflict, because it's their store.
And faster cars make it easier for criminals to get away from crime scenes.
And cash make it easier for criminals to hide their tracks.
And RFID embedded into the underside of the skull at birth would make it easier to track down criminals later in life.
A lot of the technology we have available or will develop in the foreseeable future has the potential to be used in bad ways. That doesn't mean we should stop developing them.
The problem is philosophy, and only philosophy.
Apple doesn’t care much what people say. They just do what they think is great. (And that is a good thing!) They just assume they are leading the way. Which naturally makes them try to fulfill that prophecy. They don’t run behind others, trying to catch up.
MS and the Linux desktop teams mostly just try to play catch-up. But by definition they can’t win that one. Ever. Because when they caught up, the innovators have long moved on to their own ideas. So they will run behind them forever, like a donkey behind a carrot.
For MS, this is the definition of their business.
For KDE/Gnome, this cancer grew out of the wish to get more Windows users. They thought if they imitated Windows, more people would switch over. But what they forgot, is that even a 100% perfect imitation, still offers no reason to switch. You have to offer that, and then some. Something that is enough to outweigh the inertia that people have to overcome.
The only way out for KDE/Gnome, is to stop caring about Windows similarity. Stop trying to imitate! Instead freely think up completely new ways, and have the balls to stand behind them. Radical concepts. Impressive efficiency, that is so far outside the box that others can’t catch up! That is the way to go!
Of all teams on this planet, open source teams should be THE ones who can do that best. Since they don’t have to do anything. There are no paying clients. They can do whatever they want. The only problem is, that they don’t believe in themselves and fear rejection.
(Sadly, this is the same thing that makes it so hard for geeks to get girls.
yes, it's roughly the same in real or PPP and wage hour terms. The nominal exchange rate only matters if you're exporting/importing, or you're earning in one currency and buying in another.
You can't MITM HTTPS connection, even if you own the router, as long as the user doesn't accept a false certificate (those who make Firefox scream "DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!" and tell you to get out of there).
In seeking the unattainable, simplicity only gets in the way. -- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982