Slashdot Mirror
Fathers of Linux Revealed: Tooth Fairy & Santa Claus
An anonymous reader writes "The Alexis de Tocqueville Institute, which published the results of their very thorough investigation today, turned out to be right. Linus really isn't the father of the Linux operating system. After having been found out, Linus had no choice but to admit -- this is what he has to say: 'Ok, I admit it. I was just a front-man for the real fathers of Linux, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.'"
Only when you are sufficiently confident in your premises do you venture to be droll to your enemies, and make no mistake, the AdTi is Linus' enemy. The use of humour is simultaneously the ultimate statement of confidence and the ultimate put-down - it's a pre-generated sound-bite. It's a kick in the vitals. To all on the (winning) side of Linux, it's a rallying cry. Go Linus.
There's nothing more satisfying than placing your critics up on a pedestal and ripping them to shreds - the pen is indeed mightier than the sword, and it doesn;t depend on pointiness
What will be interesting is just how long the AdTI will remain a serious news source - the ultimate goal is obviously to get them to discredit themselves to such an extent that they can be held up as an example of how *not* to do it. Given their paymaster, the hopeless nature of their case, and the imperatives they must put forward each time, I think we have a significant chance of a sacrificial lamb in Linux' cause... Rope to hang themselves is what we want... Remember that
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
It's true that Linux is an imitation of prior Unixes.
But remember folks,
Linux copying the behavior of various UNIXes is stealing, but Microsoft copying the behavior of the Mac or Xerox Star is not. And Compaq's reverse engineering of IBM PC BIOS is what caused the death of the PC industry!
Oh wait.
--LP
P.S. I'd be nervous if the press release said AdTI president and pundit Kenneth Brown was tracing the code... but it says he "traces the free software movement over three decades". Hrm, good luck there, Ken!
The Toqueville people say they are going to quote people like Dennis Ritchie and Richard Stallman. What those Ritchie and Stallman almost certainly told them is that Linux is a faithful re-implementation of Unix and thus not highly original or ground-breaking; also that Linus is often given credit for functionality that is not in the kernel (you know, the whole GNU/Linux flamewar). And all that's true. The problem is that the Toqueville people don't get that this is perfectly legitimate; the Posix standard that specifies the behavior of Unix-like systems is a public standard, the code is all original and there were no patents in the way.
This is the right way to respond to the foaming-mouthed radicals of the right.
There is no point in trying to point out their idiocies. Anyone with enough braincells to count in binary can see that they are spouting irrational codswallop. But there is no point in losing your temper and trying to point out the idiocy of their ways - these guys are beyond redemption. Laughter is the safest refuge - laugh lest ye cry. Well done (again), Linus.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
This is getting ridiculous. We should enjoy these stories people! I mean serously any day now people have to start seeing this. How many people can honestly beleive that microsoft just happened to give money to all these companies giving linux shit? Why the hell don't they spend that money on more proficent coders?? FUD only works to a point ..I wish the media would see this and go after ms. Its almost like they're being anticompetitive or something...oh wait jackasses yes thats it jackasses.
If I had mod points, I would. Mostly for putting mod point comments in your comment.. But also for being one of those obnoxious people who comments about the stories fitness to be posted as opposed to the story itself..
Education has the highest correlation coefficient to lack of belief in a personal god. By most surveys, more than 90% of professional scientists don't believe in a personal god.
I can buy the second statement, but not necessarily the first. There are plenty of people with higher education who are not scientists.
In fact in most churches a prerequisite to joining the clergy is an advanced degree. Furthermore, the "professional degree" that you need to be a priest or pastor is a Master of Divinity, which normally requires an undergraduate degree, much like a law degree. There are no shortage of top universities that have excellent theology or divinity departments. Some of the world's most influential and interesting thinkers have been theologians.
As for the "90% of scientists" claim, I think that's a nasty prejudice on the part of scientists, rather than something to be proud of. Think about it: science and religion explore orthogonal aspects of life, neither of which is any less real than the other. Science tells us about what we can observe and test; religion illuminates things that are by nature untestable, like morality, ethics, compassion, and love for our fellow man.
In spite of what some might say, science can't really illuminate our understanding of God very much, because by nature you can't perform an experiment on God. Furthermore God can easily escape whatever assumptions a scientist may make (or, as one Vatican astronomer put it, "God is not a boundary condition"). By the same token our understanding of God can't do much to illuminate science, because when (for example) the bible contradicts a scientific observation, the observation must win. Fortunately most mainline religions acknowledge this, it's just the loudmouth conservative wackos who perpetuate the stereotype that a Christian believes the world is four thousand years old.
In fact my opinion is that the existence of God is an axiom. This fits because axioms are initial assumptions that cannot be tested, and as yet nobody has even developed a convincing test for the existence of God. One either believes that God exists or doesn't exist, and that belief affects the remaining propositions in one's life as any other axiom might. In no way is this incompatible with a career in science. In fact, if one believes (as I do) that God exists, what we know about the universe contributes to a sense of awe concerning the greatness of God. And, as one theologian suggests, this is one important aspect of religion: the "fear" of God puts you and your petty problems into perspective.
Religion really isn't about heaven, or hell, or converting as many atheists as possible, or strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing up a cafe. Religion is about suppressing your own ego and having compassion for those around you, which is something that a lot of scientists could sorely use.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Except for the best ones. Like Stanford's Donald Knuth , for example.
Or take the case of Reverend Thomas Bayes, the parish priest who discovered Bayes' theorem, on which modern machine learning/data mining relies so heavily, including spam filters named after him.
having compassion for those around you, which is something that a lot of scientists could sorely use.
OK, this is just an ignorant thing to say.
The fact that you're posting that ignorant comment means that neither you nor your parents died from a childhood disease. Thank a scientist.
In fact, it's not likely that you had any siblings that died in infancy. Thank a scientist.
And you probably more had more fat kids than undernourished in your school when you were a kid. Thank an agricultural scientist.
You probably had the opportunity to know your grandparents, since they probably lived to be about 75 years old or so. Thank a scientist.
You never had to worry about getting yellow fever from a mosquito bite. Thank a scientist.
When it gets dark out, you don't need to go to bed. You can stay up and read to get an education. Thank a scientist.
Hell, you can fricking educate yourself all day long. You don't have to scratch in the dirt just to eat. You've got the luxury of spending the first couple decades of your life just feeding your brain. Thank a whole shitload of scientists
I could go on and on and on, but it's the unvarnished truth that BILLIONS of people are alive today because of what scientists have done. On the other hand, religion's track record is so poor that when Mother Theresa provides a place for poor people to DIE, she's considered a saint.
I think you owe a lot of scientists quite a lot more than an apology, but I doubt they'll get it from you. Just like a bully in grade school, it's just too much damn fun to beat up the smart kid.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Then agian Science can't explain how life forms(today), Science can't explain out of the billions of permutations that evolution requires why is there only one Intelligent species, Why hasn't another one exsisted? The probalities would say it should of happened.
What?! What about chimpanzees and dolphins?
Why Science does every corner of the planet have a belief about dragons of all various sizes, yet man was 62 million years to late for Dinosaures?
Many corners of the planet have a flood myth too. That does NOT mean that Noah's myth is a historical fact.
Somethings don't make sense, some need help from other points of view, and some never will. Expand your mind.
Just because science can't hasn't yet explained something doesn't mean religion can. It's called the divine fallacy.
Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's not true. It's called argument from incredulity, and it's just as wrong.
axiom (aksZ m) n.1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof. how is "god exists" self evident? how can you call someone intelectually lazy when you take possibly the most massive shortcut it's possible to take in philosophy/religion? and how did you get modded funny?
sorry
ould be infected with HIV and I've made a HIV test and it was negative. Say whatever you want but I'll thank the God for negative test's answer
"Thank you, God, for killing those other 10 million people with AIDS, but not me!"
There are many speculations that they are human creations. HIV, SARS etc.. Thank a scientist.
Trying to get yourself passed over as paranoid/credulous, huh? Well it won't work... even if HIV and SARS were artificial diseases (laughable thought), they'd still be God's responsibility.
If you believe in God, then every time you "Thank a scientist", you should "Thank the God" too. But there are many things beyond the power of science- for those things, good or bad, you can still "Thank the God"
How do you know that you're existing?
That's simple, actually. I think I exist, so I do. The circularity of that argument is no weakness. Regardless of what the definition of "existence" might turn out to be, we can show that some things meet it.
In oposite, it teaches us to love every man, every creation in this world.
It does not... the Christian Bible is full of examples of the rightness of killing and vengeance. However, even if I accepted that relgion attempts to teach love for others, a look around will tell you that it has failed. The USA is one of those most heavily Christian places on earth; especially according to its own president; and yet it also maintains the most powerful killing force this planet has ever seen.