there /is/ a midlde-out variant rather than the top-down/bottom-up approaches, basically it says that the universe comes from the various consciousnesses wishing to communicate and share a time together.

I still run an irc server you insensitive clod :-P

...the more you know! Thanks!

...how did you miss Muphry? :-P

They're just implementing E.A.'s industry-leading worker compliance measures ;)

Actually a pure oxygen environment is survivable, it just tends to make normally innovuous materials quite explosive.

I think the answer is obvious from the parent post. Without a dedicated receiver to route signals, hdmi all goes to one place, and many people prefer other speakers than their display has. I should also point out that the digital pcm streams in hdmi are easy to rip if hdcp is not active on the link, so your assumption is off. On the other hand I believe drm schemes only hurt the customer and the artist, only serving to enrich the content distribution cartels.

Its called mmio, mmap() specifically. Linux already has xip support on some platforms as well. This is all under the hood too, the libc could be redesigned, or insert your favorite language here. I agree that writing code optimized for it might be a bit different but its not that different than writing for an all-sram platform like say the old palm.

Some of us are into both and find people like the parent poster to be a real part of the problem.

I...are you serious? I honestly thought this view really had finally passed into the stone age. Guess there's still work to do for girls like me. Unless you're being facetious, you in the parent post here practically are the textbook definition of thosenwe stand against in my not-so-secret secret society.

The comment re: antidepressant drugs is amusingly largely a result of both our current form of healthcare (which emphasizes profits not care) and specifically the so-called "war on drugs" which while it has not yet actually criminalized pharmacological knowledge has certainly gone a long way to make sure the average person doesn't get a chance to learn. Pharmacology is complex, yes, but its not impossible, and one of the very first things you learn is all drugs are different (by virtue of being different chemicals with different physical shapes) and that essentially no drug has only one action in the human body, the way receptor bindig and other methods of action for drugs work simply makes this highly implausible. These basic facts would go a very long way to clearing this up, but its safer for the DEA if people think that drugs are easily classifiable into 'good' and 'bad' and safer for the healthcare industry hf people think 'good' drugs are easily classifiable into marketable brands like 'antidepressant'. It gets so bad that many doctors who by all rights should know better prescribe based on these categories. Ok, maybe 15 years ago this was excusable to some extent, but with cloned human receptors and all the research being done / that has bee. Done over those past 15 or so years, there's no excuse anymore to think in such simple terms. I'll also add the notion of 'therapeutic lag' with antidepressants is not terribly realistic, it almost always simply correlates with the patient either giving up on it working or finding their own way through things, only noe they're chemically dependant on a substance that isn't helping much. This isn't to say there aren't cases where a drug helps, but its almost universal that it helps noticably within the first week or so, this 4 weeks to get any benefit is bogus science that hurt me personally quite severely when i was younger. It still affects me because while I likely would benefit from some drug therapy, for many years I haven't been on anything because until recently I had just become that afraid of another screw-up. The drugs, after that initial period, if anything simply made me so apathetic that I didn't care to complain to the doctor. They likely would help people with very different problems than me, and its absolutely a case of a bad doctor not a bad overall concept, but the real problem is it significantly delays people like me from getting proper treatment, so as in my case, I ended up spending some time homeless and unemployed even though I was also the person who managed to run the Beryl project once upon a time. I'm not sure what the fix is, but ending the drug war and reducing the impact of next quarter profit would likely stimulate research in this area. On that note, a personal note to find a good psychiatrist/neuropsychopharmacologist when I have money or insurance again.

I have to wonder what kind of deviation exists in the sample for human safety. It would seem to me from my limited toprope gym climbing experience that some humans are significantly safer than others, and in addition to that, a constant communication stream tends to also increase overall safety as well as response time, by binding attention to you. I would also add that unlike the mechanical auto-belay system (which I have used on a trip to Toronto), a human is (for what little it might be worth) capable of reacting intelligently to unexpected situations, whereas the device would simply fail.

...ever heard of a photon? :-P

Same issue as painting elephants. This has been discussed in copyright literature (PDF warning). Internally, the copyright office excluded works produced by animals, as well as works produced entirely by "mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author."

The U.S. Supreme Court's general rule that a copyrightable work's âoeauthor is the party who actually creates the work, that is, the person who translates an idea into a fixed, tangible expression entitled to copyright protection." ... Broad and traditional notions of copyright authorship assumed the answer to that question was limited to human creators. But no definition of "author" appears in the copyright statute. Neither does the Constitution's reference to authors mandate that they be human.

From a theoretical perspective, the question often comes down to creativity - can animals be creative? Animal research tends to suggest that animals CAN be creative, to the same extent as humans. The issues are similar with computer generated "expression" - can a computer be creative? Should randomness be considered creativity?

However you come out on those questions, courts have decided, based on a policy choice favoring humans, to exclude animal authorship. Which makes some sense, since an elephant doesn't have capacity to enforce its rights (you could have a guardian do it, but we don't allow animal guardians to sue vets for malpractice, so it is hard to see why this would be different).

With elephant paintings, the copyright is typically in the name of the zoo, or whoever enabled the elephant to make the painting (e.g. selected colors, brush type, canvas type for the animal). In the case of a monkey who took a picture, probably the zoo or the camera owner.