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.'"

Comments

Familiar pair for atheists.

[Thinkit4]

Linus is on the Celebrity atheist list. I had a hunch when I heard the tooth fairy and Santa Claus being mentioned together. They are often examples given of non-existent beings (that grant wishes).

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[benploni]

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. It doesn't surprise me one bit that Linus is an atheist -- I already knew he was smart and educated.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[s20451]

OK, I'm sorry I don't have a lot of time to debate this. But I will say the following. What Dawkins writes is typical of the intellectually lazy attacks that science has for religion, because he is dismissing the discipline out of hand. He may as well say that we should ask the gardener or the chef about questions of sociology rather than a faculty member of the sociology department.

For example, let's start with the following axioms: God exists, God created the universe, God loves all humans. I should point out that none of these contradict anything that science knows. From these three simple axioms you can use logic to basically "derive" much of western philosophical thought. In much the same way, only three axioms lead us to the entirety of Euclidean geometry.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[10am-bedtime]

to call what must be proved an axiom is a super efficient shortcut, i.e., a demonstration of being intellectually lazy. (but whatever, the shiny word has its place in another conversation...)

i think it is not outside the scope of science to find compassion and equilibrium in human relationships. the scientific method is a means to reach beyond one's personal biases and prejudices (compassion is not too far out of reach if you can do this). and the results of scientific inquiry often must harmonize w/ past results to be accepted (equilibrium in human relationships is not too far out of reach if you can do this, as well).

you characterize scientists as sorely lacking the desire to address these goals, but maybe if you got to know more scientists you would understand their mindset and behaviors as not so lacking, after all.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Decaff]

The majority of people with a higher education believe in some God. Those with an education in science may follow the tendancy to not believe that there is a higher being, but they are definitely not the majority.

The majority of people, even those who are educated, have virtually no understanding of physics or biology. These sciences encompass the areas of human understanding that were, until very recently, assumed to require divine intervention.

All your statement indicates is that people trained to understand the world tend to have a lot less belief in a supreme being who intervenes in that world.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Oligonicella]

"Logic is the invention of man"

Hogwash. Logic is no more the invention of man than math is. Logic was "discovered" by man. It pre-existed, as did math.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Viking Coder]

Science and logic are just another religion that someone can subscribe to...

Except that science and logic have predictive power, and religion does not.

If religion had predictive power, it would be a part of science and logic.

If God had writ all of science and logic for mankind to read in his writings (which was pretty much the case, in people's beliefs, back hundreds of years ago), then science and logic would be a part of religion.

It does matter "how" or "why," the ends do not justify the means. If your God tells you to kill infidels, what logic can you use to get out of that trap?

/. should STOP giving creedence to

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

AdTI.
They have been proven to be on the take, they put out error ridden papers and they can't even manage to put together a respectable website.

Giving them press everytime they write some bone headed paper that M$ paid for is wasting time and giving them undue publicity.

Ok you can now start modding me down.

Linus key quote and hackers.

[strredwolf]

So, if I quote Linus:

Btw, I do believe that somebody took over adti.net.

I don't think the Alexis de Tocqueville institute ever had humor (they certainly used to take themselves very seriously), but their site today is filled with jokes.

Maybe they forgot to pay their DNS registration fee, and some enterprising person decided to play a joke on them? Or maybe their clocks are running a month-and-a-half late?

Or is it really unintentional?

Linus

WHOIS of ADTI.NET says...

Database last updated 17-May-2004 19:14:38 EDT.

Hmmm... Linus may be right. The story broke the same day it updated. I wonder who's serving the old DNS.

Re:Linus key quote and hackers.

[sICE]

FYI the database is updated quite often...

sice@kadath ~ $ whois microsoft.com | grep -i update
Database last updated on 17-May-2004 19:31:00 EDT.
sice@kadath ~ $ whois fark.com | grep -i update
Database last updated on 17-May-2004 19:31:46 EDT.
sice@kadath ~ $ whois somethingawful.com | grep -i update
Database last updated on 17-May-2004 19:32:24 EDT.

;-)

Re:The flaw in this argument...

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair: Both Microsoft and Apple copied Xerox.

You can read the story of how Xerox invited a number of companies (including Apple) to port Smalltalk to various hardware platforms. This exercise led directly to the Apple Lisa (the "Mother of All Macs"). No, they were not based on Smalltalk, but this introduced the WIMP metaphor to Apple.

Re:Horrible!

[FrostedWheat]

but what I can't deal with is the tooth fairy being a guy

I hope you never see the Listerine Tooth Fairy advert. I can't seem to find a picture, but imagine a 'dodgy geezer' tooth fairy from London.

Bad Name - as usual

[soloport]

Many Atheists really should be called something else (e.g. right-wing-anti-god-folk or just plain Anti-theists) -- thus not giving a bad name to the rest of us Atheists.

A truer definition of the word, "atheist", could then be, "Could care less if there is or is not a God -- so, quit arguing incessantly about it and pass the gravy!".

And if more people subscribed to true atheism, we could talk more about the soccer game and quit killing each other over mosks, synagogues, churches and the almighty Sacred Cow!

Oh, I'm sorry. Was I off-topic? Ok, then I want to know, where is it written Linus is an Atheist? Maybe (especially from his general down-to-earth attitude) he's really an "atheist" -- as registered Atheists are really fanatical "anti-theists".

I've worked as a consulatant

[Space cowboy]

... and we didn't try and tailor the report (3 months work for 5 people including world-wide travel) to our paymasters. Our view was that we were being paid to produce a report on what is (for a fairly major computer manufacturer) rather than what they would like things to be. They already know what they would like things to be...

On the other hand, "hired guns" are mercenaries - they will do as you wish, when you wish, how you wish. The AdTI are hired guns. Some of us (the others :-) still have some self-respect and integrity - please consider each case on its merits...

Simon.

What is Tocqueville??

[Stephen Samuel]

PJ' post about this on groklaw notes that the best translation for tocqueville would be city of the crazy falsness -- or, as I would put it: fudville.

What do such people believe in, though?

[lysium]

It has been my experience, from my limited discourse with Jesuits, Christian brothers, and Jewish scholars, that it is indeed possible for highly intelligent people to be highly religious. Or perhaps the proper word for such people is spiritual?

When questioned about their beliefs, the scholars I mentioned describe ideas and concepts that are distinctly unorothodox. I suspect these people may have reached a personal understanding of the divine that would not be accepted by their respective communities. The ignorance of the lay community is a good thing, in this case, because the exact nature of their belief is not relevant to anything. The fact is they believe, and it provides a framework in which they can act in and upon the world.

I also suspect that the higher levels of theological scholars, pantheistically speaking, are far more tolerant of objective truth than most believe they are...

===---===

Re:Dishonest list?

[fucksl4shd0t]

You know, I'm all for classification and so forth, but I tend to think that attaching labels to an absence of religion only prolongs the problem of religion, assuming, of course, that religion is a problem.

The way I figure it, once upon a time people started putting God on the shelf with all the other myths and were persecuted for it. In an effort to answer the question "Well, what are you, then?" with something more than "Nothing!" and simultaneously attempt to gain credulity for an absence of religion, some folks decided that the word "Atheist" would do nicely. It's a word that can be torn apart and understood quite easily, in fact. And it just manages to put a classification on the absence of religion that fits it into the larger scheme of religions, thus gaining some modicum of credulity.

The reason I have a problem with this is that by classifying yourself in the larger order of religions you also implicitly lend credence to all religions. Maybe not a lot, but at least a little. By providing an answer to the question "Well, what are you, then?" you also provide meaning to the question. I think the correct answer to that question should be something like "Homo sapiens", "Mechanic", "Male", or something like that, and by sucking away the meaning of the question when asked about religion you also suck away some of the credulity that religion currently enjoys. (And no, if the answer is "African American", "Caucasian", or "Anything-American", you would be contributing to other problems not related to religion. It's an all-encompassing question, unfortunately)

No surprise, but it's the same reason I ultimately turned away from LaVey's particular style of Satanism, regardless of my philosophical alignment with the group. You see, by allowing myself to be classified not just in the order of religions, but also directly in relation to Christianity, I was only putting more fuel on the fire of religion, a fire I would really like to extinguish.

Coincidentally, in the authorized biography of Anton LaVey, he says something very similar, and also indicates that he ultimately grew out of his own creation of Satanism. It's an interesting exercise, I think.

Re:Non-religious morality

[hesiod]

> It seems sad, however, to imagine looking out at our beautiful world and see it as nothing more than the result of quamtum fluctuations, all sound and fury signifying nothing

So, if there is no God, you cannot feel awe for the amazing complexity and (perceived) efficiency? I'm atheist, but am still amazed by things, even though they are perfectly natural. Even when I understand the theory behind why a lightbulb works, I am still amazed that it does (when I choose to be mindful of such things). Perhaps I misunderstand your meaning.