Slashdot Mirror

All snarky (provided for my new years resolution to stop grammar nazis. Yes I realize that just begs for more flaming) comments aside I thought this was a cool idea then, and still think so. That thing's been up there for so long, and still working. NASA gets a lot of press (and I makea ton of jokes) about bad comversions and other matters that make their studies fail, but if this is pulled off, with a good landing, it'll be an amazing feat! I hope lots of good studies are done of the material we bring back, and that no Andromana Strains emerge.

Nobody is suggesting anyone spend millions of dollars but rather that project organizers would take a couple of days to hold discussion on IRC or IM to come up with a name that either conveys to type of program or has some marketability while not offending people at the outset.

The Open Source community needs to grow up and stop thinking like a bunch of counter-culture hippies or goth teens trying to purposefully offend as many people as possible.

Firefox and Mozilla are prime example which falsify your assertion that marketing is alien to the Open Source movement.

PS. Please stop yelling by interspersing your words with capitalized words and insinuating that other people are empty headed for having an opinion that differs from your own. It is quite juvenile.

Pandamic isn't a real word.

Oh, yeah?



errrr, try this one instead.

Unfortunately your choice of examples shows that you are not arguing what you claim, innocently or not, to be arguing. Instead of arguing about proof, you're arguing about a corner of epistemology (the philosophical study of how we know things) known as empiricism.

Yes; this has become apparent in retrospect; thanks for your help. The other posters were talking about the syntactical rules of a representational grammar (that is, today's version of math) whereas I'm talking about physical reality.

Have you read Spinoza's Ethics? I'm working on it at the moment, because I'm trying to understand why so many pantheists (which he was and I am) have come to the conclusion that God has no personality. Spinoza states both the ideas he believes and those he disbelieves in the form of a "geometrickal proof" - not because he thought that mathematical proof was canonical proof, but because he wanted to restrict the incidence of misinterpretation of what he was saying by forcing the arguments into a very rigid, well known format. This apparently worked for a century or so but makes the work more difficult to comprehend for most modern readers. It also freaks out mathematicians because he essentially provides "geometrickal proof" of concepts he then states are false. Lots of interesting discussion of this here.

One can indeed offer proof of the non-existence of a thing. What one cannot do is offer evidence of its non-existence. Evidence and proof are not the same. "Proof" is a logical idea and "evidence" is an empirical idea.

If you want to prove something to me, you must provide independently verifiable evidence or describe a means of finding same. This, to me, is the meaning of the english word proof. It's also the number one definition on dictionary.com, incidentally, and you are only the second poster to state that you are using the special mathematical meaning for the words "proof" and "prove" and not the common english meaning. Again, my thanks to both of you.

Standard logic is one system, amongst many, for extending knowledge. We seem to have a large measure of faith in logic because one of its consequences is that no group of true statements will ever lead to a contradiction. In other words it is a system born of our cultural uneasiness with contradictions.

I'm not sure it's true that "no group of true statements will ever lead to a contradiction". I know that's the target, but I need to think on that a little more. Are you saying that all paradoxes are the result of erroneous axioms, or that our logic is imperfect because the syntactica of human communication permit paradoxical statements, or some combination of both?

In fact, one way to logically extend our knowledge is to posit (assert) the truth or falsehood of a statement and then show (prove) that the rules of the logical system lead to a contradiction. Since your assumptions lead to a contradiction, logic says that at least one of your assumptions must be false. This is called "proof by contradiction" or, in classical terminology, "reductio ad absurdum."

I understand. But without empiricism, the only thing that method is useful for is creating very abstract methods, and

See dictionary.com, or the Compact Oxford English

IMHO GIMP is a great name, or at least as good as Ps would be for Phostoshop

Satisfied?

No. A word meaning "A person who limps" makes it sound like the program is crippled somehow, and has even less to do with graphic manipulation than "Photoshop" does.

If you really want "normal" people to start using open-source stuff like this, or professionals to switch to it, a good first step would be to make sure names are found that don't imply (consciously or unconsciously) that the software is subpar somehow.

Chutzpah.

If one man can cause pain to another man with no risk to himself, then it's basically torture.

If a group of men can do it to a different group of men, what is it?

I don't think they meant "feeing", which means "to tip" or (if you're in Scotland) "to hire".

"You're the one that's reality challenged. Alternative viewpoints do not constitute a lack of understanding of reality."

I'm not stupid you are. No wait, I'm a mirror you're glue. Or is it sticks and stones?

Alternative viewpoints on slashdot are aka FICTION.

Delusional: A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence

Hey man, I agree with you, but look at the rest of the snippet -- if you believe what you read at Slashdot, Dell is ten minutes away from dumping Microsoft products entirely in favour of linux. So is IBM. And HP. And probably Apple.

Nonsense. That has never been said.

You appear to have been exposed to so much M$ marketing drivel that you're having a hard time coping with alternative points of view.

Reality has no precedent around this place, or in much of the OSS community.

You're the one that's reality challenged. Alternative viewpoints do not constitute a lack of understanding of reality.

I'd suggest you get out more and expose yousrself to new viewpoints - you'll be the better for it.

---

zealotry n : excessive intolerance of opposing views.

• a : to cut or sever with repeated irregular or unskillful blows
  b : to cut or shape by or as if by crude or ruthless strokes
  c : ANNOY, VEX -- often used with off
• to clear or make by or as if by cutting away vegetation
• a : to manage successfully
  b : TOLERATE intransitive senses
• a : to make chopping strokes or blows ; also : to make cuts as if by chopping
  b : to play inexpert golf
• to cough in a short dry manner

So, you can see, when seeking for a term to describe the act of breaking into a computer, it doesn't come naturally to use the verb "hack".

But there are two other meanings listed:

• a : to write computer programs for enjoyment
  b : to gain access to a computer illegally

Surprise surprise, M-W even knows about the original meaning of hacking in the area of computers, and lists it as first meaning. Oh, or let's have a look at http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hack:

• Informal. To alter (a computer program): hacked her text editor to read HTML.
• To gain access to (a computer file or network) illegally or without authorization: hacked the firm's personnel database.

So you see, "to hack into a system" is an artificial term, and does not directly follow from the original meanings of the verb "to hack".

On the other hand, at least dictionaries are listing the benevolent and the malevolent definitions by now.

"This resolution is significant because it expresses the will of the U.S. Congress that Russia must take effective action against those who would steal America's knowledge-intensive intellectual property-based goods and services."

Piracy
piracy

1. • Robbery committed at sea.
   • A similar act of robbery, as the hijacking of an airplane.
2. The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy.

I'm not condoning piracy. But I am very tired of everyone assuming that piracy and theft are the same thing. Theft actually deprives someone of something, costing them a loss. Piracy might be depriving the creator of sales, but only if the pirate would have actually bought the product. At worst, piracy deprives a company of sales but does not cost them a loss in any other form. As often as not, however, piracy probably deprives the owner/creator of the product nothing (because the pirate does not feel the product is worth the price, or because the pirate cannot afford the cost of the product (as is the case in Russia and many other impoverished countries)).

Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service

Microsoft was declared a monopoly by a court in 1999, but I'm not sure if they ever fit the dictionary definition of monopoly as the submitter seems to now be holding them to:

Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service

Did Microsoft ever have exclusive control of the desktop? Sure, they had a vast majority, but exclusive control? To my knowledge, nothing ever stopped anyone from buying a Mac or running IBM's OS/2 or Linux or any other number of alternatives. I think we can all agree that Microsoft engaged in cut-throat tactics and was legally declared a monopolist but I don't think they exactly fit the dictionary definition.

I said:

"the value of something is the price you could arguably get if you resell it"

You questioned my definition, so I'll provide links:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Value

which says in part:
    "An amount, as of goods, services, or money, considered to be a fair and suitable equivalent for something else; a fair price or return."

Microsoft Encarta defines it as:
  "1. monetary worth: an amount expressed in money or another medium of exchange that is thought to be a fair exchange for something"

Now, typically, the value of property is done through a process called "assessment". I refer you to here http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Assessmen t for an explanation of an assessment. Basically the government before taxing property will assess the market value. If you or your parents own a home, this will be done by someone whose job it is to determine the fair market value. In the case of homes, this is done by studying he sale of comparable homes in the area. A valuation is set by the assessor, and you as the owner are given notice of assessment. You can then challenge that assessment. In otherwords, there will have to be a legal rationale as to why the property was valued at a particular dollar amount.

The assessor will have to have an inventory of software (which will be difficult unless the owner keeps it on the books), and he/she will have to determine the value of that software through some mechanism that ties it to the current value or some other pricing mechanism. As I pointed out, some software cannot be resold, so making a valuation of this will be difficult and subject to much litigation. And the fact that software is licensed and not sold only makes it more difficult and will lead to even more lawyers getting rich over a long period of time.

Hope that makes it clearer.

I said:

"the value of something is the price you could arguably get if you resell it"

You questioned my definition, so I'll provide links:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Value

which says in part:
    "An amount, as of goods, services, or money, considered to be a fair and suitable equivalent for something else; a fair price or return."

Microsoft Encarta defines it as:
  "1. monetary worth: an amount expressed in money or another medium of exchange that is thought to be a fair exchange for something"

Now, typically, the value of property is done through a process called "assessment". I refer you to here http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Assessmen t for an explanation of an assessment. Basically the government before taxing property will assess the market value. If you or your parents own a home, this will be done by someone whose job it is to determine the fair market value. In the case of homes, this is done by studying he sale of comparable homes in the area. A valuation is set by the assessor, and you as the owner are given notice of assessment. You can then challenge that assessment. In otherwords, there will have to be a legal rationale as to why the property was valued at a particular dollar amount.

The assessor will have to have an inventory of software (which will be difficult unless the owner keeps it on the books), and he/she will have to determine the value of that software through some mechanism that ties it to the current value or some other pricing mechanism. As I pointed out, some software cannot be resold, so making a valuation of this will be difficult and subject to much litigation. And the fact that software is licensed and not sold only makes it more difficult and will lead to even more lawyers getting rich over a long period of time.

Hope that makes it clearer.

*nudge nudge*

Psst!

The real story is, why is Japan more willing to spend billions of dollars for absurd pie-in-the-sky visions of robots becoming your friend, and unwilling to grant citizenship to other ethnicities, to increase the labor force and make up for a shrinking population?

Ethnocentrism?

This is a problem that it literally takes several generations to overcome. You can see progress; This isn't an area where it's easy to "catch-up" to the ideals of another group. The younger generation, while they welcome foreigners, still seem very aware of, and interested in, everyone's ethnicity. If you are naturalized in Japan, you have to take a Japanese name. And even if you do, you often will be ostracized if you try to write it with ideographs.

I had a friend at University whose mother is Japanese and her father is from the US. Her name is Japanese and she was born in Japan, but she was literally disciplined in school if she wrote her name in anything but Katakana (the angular phonetic alphabet used for foreign words).

It still happens in the US, too, but it's on the decline. I know a guy whose grandfather used to beat him if he used anything except for racial epithets when referring to African-Americans. And this was only 10 years ago.

So maybe next time you post something, you can check the spelling so that you don't have a 50% error rate in your post?

Did you mean cromulent?

I'm not sure if you're joking, trolling, or genuinely have no idea what he's talking about.

I think he meant bonfire.

The grand parent poster said, and you quoted him on it:

Prove something that is by definition unprovable? That's a derisible statement.

By dirisble he clearly means worthy of derision. As in he laughs (unkindly) at the suggestion that the existence/non-existence of God is knowable. That's clearly the position of a Strong Agnostic. And yet you lambast him for being an atheist when it is clear he isn't. Why is it that the religiously indoctrinated have a knee-jerk reaction of claiming that any one who doesn't follow their faith must follow another faith, one which they judge to be inferior?

> I think you mean predictive, not predictable.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is the difference? Is it that with the first it's the science that makes a prediction, whereas the second means people can predict what it will "say?" People drive the scienctific process, so I don't see a practical difference between them.

Dictionary.com: predictable & predictive. It has the exact same definition for both (same page, presumably because of the same root word).

> I think you mean predictive, not predictable.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is the difference? Is it that with the first it's the science that makes a prediction, whereas the second means people can predict what it will "say?" People drive the scienctific process, so I don't see a practical difference between them.

Dictionary.com: predictable & predictive. It has the exact same definition for both (same page, presumably because of the same root word).

So when I have an issue with what is being taught in the schools, I'd expect that:

1. What the kids are being taught, should be understandable by the parents (ie, me).

2. If I don't understand it, I should be able to have an administrator/teacher (ie, you) explain it to me.

3. If the teacher cannot explain it without a lot of time and tons of reading, then I don't see that it is possible to teach children this in a public classroom.

4. I am a teacher. I teach college students. If I have to have a large book to explain something to adults, then they won't get it.

5. Even with adults you have to teach the most basic priniciples and foundations of an idea before getting to the complex aspects.

6. If I can't explain the simple basic foundations of an idea, there is absolutely no chance of ever teaching the more complex aspects that _require_ understanding of the basics.

Here's how this plays out in grade school.

Teacher: Evolution says when there was single celled organisms, they had to adapt to survive, so they became more complex.

Teacher: Today we have examples of evolution with bacteria adapting to survive in a toxic environment by all the weak one's dying off and the strong reproducing.

Student: Isn't "weak ones dying off" and "become more complex" two totally different concepts?

Teacher: You just don't understand because you aren't a scientist and haven't read tons of books, are in denile, don't want to see the evidence in front of you. Just trust me, I am telling the truth.

This is _exactly_ what I deal with as a teacher. I am presenting arguments to this board that I myself have had as a kid, and yet I am simply told I just don't get it or I am intentionally denying the evidence.

What is the basic foundation of evolution? It seems this is it here. If this is not it, then please post a link to what is. No point in arguing any further without a mutal agreement about what the foundation of the theory of evolution is.

Evolution

Which if these definitions is wrong? You seem to know quit about evolution, if this reference is off base and can't be used to define what evolution is, then it should probably be changed. Are the other definitions wrong too?

Go back through your posts, you will see that you have utterly refused to even define what evolution is. You have examples, but since you haven't defined "evolution" how can I see that your examples fit the definition?

No point in even getting to a book if I can't even be offered a definition of what it is I am supposed to be reading about. It seems like there is something to hide if there can't be a solid agreement on what evolution is. Can we make any definition we want to fit our own arguments?

Evolution

Which if these definitions is wrong? You seem to know quit about evolution, if this reference is off base and can't be used to define what evolution is, then it should probably be changed. Are the other definitions wrong too?

Go back through your posts, you will see that you have utterly refused to even define what evolution is. You have examples, but since you haven't defined "evolution" how can I see that your examples fit the definition?

No point in even getting to a book if I can't even be offered a definition of what it is I am supposed to be reading about. It seems like there is something to hide if there can't be a solid agreement on what evolution is. Can we make any definition we want to fit our own arguments?

Evolution

Which if these definitions is wrong? You seem to know quit about evolution, if this reference is off base and can't be used to define what evolution is, then it should probably be changed. Are the other definitions wrong too?

Go back through your posts, you will see that you have utterly refused to even define what evolution is. You have examples, but since you haven't defined "evolution" how can I see that your examples fit the definition?

No point in even getting to a book if I can't even be offered a definition of what it is I am supposed to be reading about. It seems like there is something to hide if there can't be a solid agreement on what evolution is. Can we make any definition we want to fit our own arguments?

Evolution

Which if these definitions is wrong? You seem to know quit about evolution, if this reference is off base and can't be used to define what evolution is, then it should probably be changed. Are the other definitions wrong too?

Go back through your posts, you will see that you have utterly refused to even define what evolution is. You have examples, but since you haven't defined "evolution" how can I see that your examples fit the definition?

No point in even getting to a book if I can't even be offered a definition of what it is I am supposed to be reading about. It seems like there is something to hide if there can't be a solid agreement on what evolution is. Can we make any definition we want to fit our own arguments?

Evolution

Which if these definitions is wrong? You seem to know quit about evolution, if this reference is off base and can't be used to define what evolution is, then it should probably be changed. Are the other definitions wrong too?

Go back through your posts, you will see that you have utterly refused to even define what evolution is. You have examples, but since you haven't defined "evolution" how can I see that your examples fit the definition?

No point in even getting to a book if I can't even be offered a definition of what it is I am supposed to be reading about. It seems like there is something to hide if there can't be a solid agreement on what evolution is. Can we make any definition we want to fit our own arguments?

Evolution

Which if these definitions is wrong? You seem to know quit about evolution, if this reference is off base and can't be used to define what evolution is, then it should probably be changed. Are the other definitions wrong too?

Go back through your posts, you will see that you have utterly refused to even define what evolution is. You have examples, but since you haven't defined "evolution" how can I see that your examples fit the definition?

No point in even getting to a book if I can't even be offered a definition of what it is I am supposed to be reading about. It seems like there is something to hide if there can't be a solid agreement on what evolution is. Can we make any definition we want to fit our own arguments?

Evolution

Which if these definitions is wrong? You seem to know quit about evolution, if this reference is off base and can't be used to define what evolution is, then it should probably be changed. Are the other definitions wrong too?

Go back through your posts, you will see that you have utterly refused to even define what evolution is. You have examples, but since you haven't defined "evolution" how can I see that your examples fit the definition?

No point in even getting to a book if I can't even be offered a definition of what it is I am supposed to be reading about. It seems like there is something to hide if there can't be a solid agreement on what evolution is. Can we make any definition we want to fit our own arguments?

Evolution

Which if these definitions is wrong? You seem to know quit about evolution, if this reference is off base and can't be used to define what evolution is, then it should probably be changed. Are the other definitions wrong too?

Go back through your posts, you will see that you have utterly refused to even define what evolution is. You have examples, but since you haven't defined "evolution" how can I see that your examples fit the definition?

No point in even getting to a book if I can't even be offered a definition of what it is I am supposed to be reading about. It seems like there is something to hide if there can't be a solid agreement on what evolution is. Can we make any definition we want to fit our own arguments?

A client stores a first set of workspace data, and is coupled via a computer network to a global server. The client may be configured to synchronize portions of the first set of workspace data with the global server, which stores independently modifiable copies of the portions. The global server may also store workspace data which is not downloaded from the client, and thus stores a second set of workspace data. The global server may be configured to identify and authenticate a user seeking global server access from a remote terminal, and is configured to provide access to the first set or to the second set. Further, services may be stored anywhere in the computer network. The global server may be configured to provide the user with access to the services. The system may further include a synchronization-start module at the client site (which may be protected by a firewall) that initiates interconnection and synchronization with the global server when predetermined criteria have been satisfied.

Which definition of may is being used here?

1. To be allowed or permitted to: May I take a swim? Yes, you may.
2. Used to indicate a certain measure of likelihood or possibility: It may rain this afternoon.
3. Used to express a desire or fervent wish: Long may he live!
4. Used to express contingency, purpose, or result in clauses introduced by that or so that: expressing ideas so that the average person may understand.
5. To be obliged; must. Used in statutes, deeds, and other legal documents. See Usage Note at can1.

Some parts of the abstract appear to use (5), to be obliged, must. But other parts are ambiguous and sound as though they are possible but not necessary (2). 'Which may be protected by a firewall' certainly sounds optional.

If this patent is not thrown out as too broad or because it doesn't appear to have any innovation in it, then will patent attourneys argue in later cases that it is more general than what the patent examiner actually intended? They may. They may indeed.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=jingo

One reason American politics is so fucked up: Americans are damned ignorant. Like not knowing the difference between a totalitarian state and a police state.

One reason American politics is so fucked up: Americans are damned ignorant. Like not knowing the difference between a totalitarian state and a police state.

I can type at about 50-60 words per minute

I can type at about 50-60 words per minute

i just designed a guitar with 6 frets and 24 strings...of course, now the tuning pattern is completely different, so i'll call it..uhh..."new standard tuning"! i wonder if it'll catch on.

You're a little late to the party... New Standard Tuning (CGDAEG, rather than the old standard EADGBE) has been around for about 20 years now.

And no, it hasn't caught on, except among a small, Dvorak-like community.

Burning down an empty house is not a "terrorist" activity.

Actually, it is clearly a terrorist activity:

terrorism
"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism

... sport their copies of "The Anarchist Cookbook" ...

Anybody sporting a copy of the Anarchist Cookbook is primarily a threat to themselves. Even the orginal author admits it is a piece of crap.

Sorry, I meant to include a link to dictionary.reference.com where they provide a full definition of 'gaol', mention it is a chiefly British way of spelling 'jail' and then refer users to see 'Variant of jail' which completes the definition using a more familiar term / with more familiar spelling, to ensure that my comment made sense.

If I had included this link to begin with, the joke (regardless of how funny it might actually be deemed to be) would have worked without requiring an explanation...

Oh. Wait a minute. I did.

Sorry, I meant to include a link to dictionary.reference.com where they provide a full definition of 'gaol', mention it is a chiefly British way of spelling 'jail' and then refer users to see 'Variant of jail' which completes the definition using a more familiar term / with more familiar spelling, to ensure that my comment made sense.

If I had included this link to begin with, the joke (regardless of how funny it might actually be deemed to be) would have worked without requiring an explanation...

Oh. Wait a minute. I did.

Google + AOL = GAOL?

Evolution says that a simple system developes into a more complex system. (let's have a standard definition of evolution to discuss from) What you have described is filtering a quality until it's more pure, not creating something new, and certainly not more complex.

Does this definition qualify Eco-Terrorists as "Terrorists"? "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism I think that the term Eco-Terrorists fits rather nicely...

As an atheist, I find that this statement is actually extremely offensive, not to mention misguided.

Atheism is a religious belief in that it is a belief regarding spirituality and man's place in the universe. I do not wish to start a pedantic semantic argument, but one definition of religion is "[a] cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." I would say that as an atheist I am conscientiously devoted to the notion that there is no god and that a moral or ethical system must therefore be derived by humans for themselves. I further strongly believe that organised religion represents nothing more than an attempt to organise such a system but is frequently, perhaps universally, rendered ineffective by superstition, dogma and human ambition.

Let me put it another way: belief in nothing is not no belief. It merely means that I don't believe there is a being 'out there' or 'up there' to which I am answerable or by which I am controlled, created or otherwise influenced. Does this mean I have no morals? Am I an inherently bad, or amoral, or otherwise non-spiritual person? Not in the least. I believe (note the use of the word) very strongly in the capacity of human intelligence to allow us to produce something greater than the sum of our parts. Love is an excellent example of this capacity in action.

The parent, and many of the responses to it, are perhaps mistaking the issue of fundamentalism vs tolerance for the issue of atheism vs theism. A fundamentalist atheist is no different to any other fundamentalist. This does not justify lumping all atheists together, being dismissive, or otherwise belittling another person's belief system.

What makes someone atheist is not believing in God(s). As it happens this is the default position of someone who is not religious, as without observed evidence of logical proof, it is irrational to believe in God(s).

I think you're confusing atheist and agnostic, the latter being the logical default position, since there's no proof God doesn't exist either.

What makes someone atheist is not believing in God(s). As it happens this is the default position of someone who is not religious, as without observed evidence of logical proof, it is irrational to believe in God(s).

I think you're confusing atheist and agnostic, the latter being the logical default position, since there's no proof God doesn't exist either.