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

Hah!

[Anonymous Coward]

I gnu it!

Re:Hah!

[Anonymous Coward]

On the AdTI website, their 'mission statement' includes 'helping the spread of democracy.' Does this most closely resemble MS or Linux?

Furthermore, their link to 'Accomplishments' is broken - presumably because there aren't any.

Even worse than that is that the Accomplishments page is hosted on Geocities page, seperate from the rest of the site!

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]

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.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[UserGoogol]

Larry Wall invented Perl. If that doesn't show the mind-twisting effect that religion can have on some people, I don't know what does.

Of course, Knuth is an absolutely wonderful computer scientist, so clearly religion goes either way.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[benploni]

I can buy the second statement, but not necessarily the first. There are plenty of people with higher education who are not scientists.

That's why it's a correlation coefficient. In fact, it's not even very high; most Americans believe in God.

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.

Wrong. Religion claims to answer the whys, but there's no reason to think they get it right. Here's how Richard Dawkins put it:
Or there is the notion that science can answer 'how' questions and religion
can answer 'why' questions, as in this item from a television discussion of
science and religion.

Science can tell us how chemicals bond but only religion can answer the
why questions, why do we have a universe like this at all?

But of course religion can't do any such thing. It only says it can, which is
a different matter. Anyone can say that. Anyone can say anything at all. But
since the answers religions give are not true, it is not clear why their
answers to the 'why' questions are any better than their answers to the 'how'
questions, or any other questions. Richard Dawkins, again, puts the matter
well:

I once asked a distinguished astronomer, a fellow of my college, to
explain the big bang theory to me. He did so to the best of his (and my)
ability, and I then asked what it was about the fundamental laws of
physics that made the spontaneous origin of space and time possible.
"Ah," he smiled, "now we move beyond the realm of science. This is where
I have to hand you over to our good friend, the chaplain." But why the
chaplain? Why not the gardener or the chef? Of course chaplains, unlike
chefs and gardeners, claim to have some insight into ultimate questions.
But what reason have we ever been given for taking their claims
seriously?

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.

It's not a stereotype, it's a statistical reality. A large portion of Americans believe it.

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.


That doesn't make it an axiom, it makes it an unneccessary hypothesis!

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.

Religion is a human invention, and as such means different things to different people. To many people, it means the things you disavow.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[benploni]

Poetry is pleasing, but is has no bearing on the veracity of his claims -- and he's wrong. Never confusing what is comforting or fulfilling with what is true. They're not mutually exclusive, but there's no connection. Otherwise, you've commited wishful thinking.

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.

[Pseudonym]

Wrong. Religion claims to answer the whys, but there's no reason to think they get it right.

Read what the parent poster said again. The post never claimed that religion answers the "whys". Let me quote again:

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.

If it helps, substitute "philosophy" for "religion", because religion is really a part of philosophy.

For example, in the case of morality and ethics, science tries to find out what we can do, but philosophy tries to find out what we should and should not do. Science, for example, has resulted in technology that can keep people alive on machines long after they would otherwise have died. Philosophy asks: Is this a good idea in all cases?

Simiarly, science gives us tools to help determine who committed a certain crime. But it cannot (and should not attempt to) answer the question of what is "justice".

Dawkins falls into the same trap that many scientists (whether theist or atheist) fall into, namely, assuming that every field of human endeavour is science. They are not. Most touch on science in various ways (just as most touch on philosophy, for that matter) but they are not science.

Another example: The biology of perception and cognition touch on the fine arts, such as music. But the study of the fine arts isn't the same study as the study of science.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[a_karbon_devel_005]

religion illuminates things that are by nature untestable, like morality, ethics, compassion, and love for our fellow man.

Ethics has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.
...and of course you can have compassion and not be religious OR believe in a god.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[benploni]

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.

Wrong, he is asking why we should give credence to what a priest says about the "whys." What reason do we have to believe that the answers they give are worth anything? There's no reason to think that priests will do any better with these question than all the hows they've gotten wrong in history. The same can not be said of your sociology example.

For example, let's start with the following axioms: God exists, God created the universe, God loves all humans.

You're begging the question. You're starting out by assuming the thing you mean to prove or support.

I should point out that none of these contradict anything that science knows.

No, but neither do millions of unsupportable beliefs you don't have faith in. The reason it doesn't work is that you are mistaking burden of proof. Those that claim there are deities have the burden of proof, just as if they had claimed there are tiny teapots orbiting our sun. There's no reason to believe it, even though it does not "contradict anything that science knows."

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Profane MuthaFucka]

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.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[benploni]

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.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[boots@work]

For example, let's start with the following axioms: God exists, God created the universe, God loves all humans.

Those are acceptable (unverifiable) axioms. One might equally well assume that God hates all humans.

The problem comes in the conclusions that people try to derive from them ("eat fish on fridays", "no gay marriage"), and that they forget that they are only arbitrary assumptions.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[el-spectre]

Here's why scientists are more likely to be atheist (altho I call shenanegains on that 90% number):

Scientific theories are built up from base principles. If we forgot everything we know back to the stone age, man would eventually figure out the speed of light, gravitation, etc. Evidence + time + observation = truth.

Religion only works if you get the whole book at once, or at least in big chunks. You can't build it up from base principles... you can't build it up at all, you either believe or burn.

Since this pretty much contradicts how science works, it makes sense that many scientists reject it.

Many scientists are very religious... A stance I find confounding, but it's their life, not mine.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[benploni]

Saying something is true because statistics show that something to be true most of the time is, in fact, a stereotype. What you are saying is that because a vast majority of the african-american people at my school are loud-mouthed and annoying, I have the right to say that (please noone take offense, I don't believe this at all) blacks being big-mouthed fucktards is a statistical reality.

I wasn't making a claim about christians from personal anecdotal data. I successfully refuted my parent post's claim that "it's just the loudmouth conservative wackos who perpetuate the stereotype that a Christian believes the world is four thousand years old." It's actually pretty mainstream.

One more thing, you seem to be trying to say that noone's answers are any more real than others, so why should I listen to you?

I most definitely did not say that! Cultural relativism is bunk, and science is not just another faith.

Also, does this mean every person ever should recreate ever experiment required to *prove* something to be true, because we shouldn't believe that anyone has the credentials to tell us what's true and what's not? Thats an awful waste of time if you ask me.

No, but they should be able to!

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[s20451]

You're starting out by assuming the thing you mean to prove or support.

The reason it doesn't work is that you are mistaking burden of proof.

Tell you what. How about you go look up "axiom".

Did someone say "intellectually lazy"?

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Pseudonym]

Whoa! Pulling a fast one. All nickels are coins; not all coins are nickels. You can't conflate religion will philospohy, and then go on to use philosophy to support your argument.

All I can say is: Go back and read the original post, and respond to what it said, not what you thought it said. The original poster deliberately did not suggest that it's religion's job to ask questions like "why".

I love the Weinberg quote, BTW.

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.

[SEE]

It must be remembered that we bother with Euclidian geometry at all because it corresponds simply and closely to the real world.

On the other hand, your set of three axioms require massive contortion to apply to real life, since the existence of a loving creator is, at a glance, inconsistent dozens of natural phenomena, from disasters to disease, and that's only in the "DIS" section of the dictionary. If Euclid's system had required such contortions, it would have been forgotten long ago.

A rational being would dismiss #3 out of hand. It's much simpler to believe that God is either indifferent or sadistic; many difficult problems of the Loving Creator model resolve themselves immediately.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[aussersterne]

There are no [yale.edu] shortage [duke.edu] of [nd.edu] top [ox.ac.uk] universities [uchicago.edu] that have excellent theology or divinity departments. Some of the world's most influential and interesting thinkers have been theologians.

As someone studying at one of these top universities who has some familiarity with the Divinity school, I am going to humbly suggest that you might be surprised at the percentage of divinity students who are (gasp!) atheists.

To study religion is not the same thing as to want to be employed by it. The bulk of religion scholars want to be academics, not clergy, and they tend to study things like violence and religion, exploitation and religion, nationalism and religion, war and religion, mental illness and religion, history of religious conflict...

So yes, it's the study of religion at a top university, but by no means does this mean that all of these people hope someday to be pope.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Slime-dogg]

It is a tenet in Judeo-Christian belief that God exists, created the universe, and loves all humans. It cannot be tested, and is therefore an axiom for those religions. The single biggest issue, however, is not if there is a God, but who is God.

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 highest form of thought, philosophy, and the majority of philosophers out there have established that there is or was a God. There are the few that pointedly disbelieve, but if you really examine those philosophers, they in themselves are supporting themselves as Gods.

In the end, it comes down to whether or not you believe that someone can affect your destiny and situation in life, what you experience exists or is a delusion, and whether or not it is because you experience it, or because you believe it. On the one hand, you have empiricism, which basically states that man is the measure (and measurer) of all things. On the other, you have Platonism, Kantian belief, Spinozan belief, Christian belief, and a sleiu of others.

Religion is not a matter of logic. You cannot prove that faith is logical or not. You might as well prove to me that the color that you call green is the same exact color that I experience and call green. You can't. If you state it as so, you'd be "begging the question." The point is that with religion, it is an a priori belief, something that has to be accepted as true, even though it cannot be proven true.

Logic is the invention of man, which helps man to become the center of his own universe. If man can look at it and prove it, then man has mastered and understood it. Science and logic are just another religion that someone can subscribe to, with man being God. There really is nothing more to it.

It doesn't matter "how" or "why." What matters is what is . Do you have faith in God? If so, what God do you have faith in?

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Artifakt]

So, you are agueing that God cannot be treated as an axiom? I've noticed a lot of Athiests who assert God's non-existence as a theorem, rather than an axiom in their philosophical system, and then invoke the arguement against the requirement to prove a universal negative. (As you are doing in a reduced form with the phrase "burden of proof").
The problem is, to make your theorem the negation of my statement "God exists", my statement also has to be a theorem. Look up the rules of formal logic if you don't believe me - the opposite of an Axiom is another Axiom, and the method of disproving an Axiom is fundamentally different from disproving a Theorem. You prove your view is right, but only by redefining my view so that you can claim a universal negation of my axiom can somehow be a theorem. You also either offer a theorem without being willing or able to show a derivation, by claiming the burden of proof falls on me instead, and require me to prove an Axiom by means which only work for theorems, or alternately, you yourself believe in the non-existence of God as one of your fundamental Axioms, which means you too are begging the question by your own definition.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Ninja Programmer]

Of course, Knuth is an absolutely wonderful computer scientist, so clearly religion goes either way.

Yeah, but he decided to spend years of his time designing and implemented TeX, and CWEB. Sure these are great pieces of technology, but Knuth's real contributions are his analysis of mathematics and algorithms.

Now he's going to waste some enormous amount of time rewriting TAOC from scratch since 30+ years of computing have found better solutions here and there for some of the things he discusses.

Ok, Knuth's contributions are great, but they would probably be greater if he just outsourced the rewritting of his first three volumes to some grad students armed with google and he went ahead and wrote the other volumes.

Knuth just reminds me of Galois. A genius of high order who let irrational things get in the way him realizing his full potential which just delays the rest of humanity from benefitting from what could have been discovered.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Profane MuthaFucka]

This must be the rant of a troll

Oh I see, It's easier for you to call your enemies trolls than to reason with them. I may have a fucking offensive name, but I'm also an engineer for a company that loves Linux.

Where in the parent's post did he say we shouldn't be grateful for science?

Anyway, you start off with a strawman. As far as I can see, he didn't say that, but that wasn't what I was criticising either. He questioned scientist's compassion, and I was pointing out that compassion means NOTHING without actions. The actions of scientists have saved billions of people from death.

to jump to the conclusion that the parent discredits science is shockingly prejudicial

What are you talking about? I didn't have to jump to a conclusion, I just had to read it. The slur against the character of scientists is right there in black and white.

As far as Mother Theresa goes, I'm not trolling. Read the Wikipedia article on her, there's plenty of criticism there.

a lot of people wouldn't even be aware of the plight of the poor within Calcutta's slums.

Scientists have figured out how to solve their problems, but the politicians won't implement them. And even Mother Theresa, whom you defend, was opposed to the birth control that would have eased the burden of raising millions of unwanted children.

Why is it that science has come up with all kinds of wonderful and useful technology that could be used to combat poverty (medicine, genetically engineered crops, advanced agricultural methods), but the Third World is worse off today than ever?

Because people like you would rather unfairly criticise those who have solved the problems, but you cannot see the mote in your own eye. The evil that snatches the food from the babies' grasp is part government, and part superstition. The good that has succeeded in making the technologies that CAN solve serious problems is science.

Sure, give science the credit its due,

That would be ALL of the credit then.

don't assume that it can deal with moral problems.

And what makes you think that religion can deal with moral problems? So far, it's not doing too well. Mother Theresa would have done more good if she had gotten a PhD. and turned her hovels where people went to die into real hospitals.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[pNutz]

You're absolutely right. I seriously doubt there are enough divinity students around to fill up the clergy. I don't belive I've ever met a priest that majored in Divinity.
If you ask a priest what they major was in seminary, they'll most likely tell you Biology or some other science.
Ask one. They're nice people and generally open to discussions about religion in general.
A priest, though, not a pastor. They'll just throw a Bible at you.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Pseudonym]

Religion on the other hand is based largely on the acceptance of predetermined and absolute "truths", answers that are absolute and definitive.

If you'd ever had a conversaion with a theologian of a mainstream religion on this topic, you'd know better.

By "mainstream", of course, I conveniently ignore any lunatic fringe/extremist elements, thus defining any religion which doesn't fit my argument as not "mainstream". I'm fully aware of this. Nevertheless, if you speak to a theologian of any mainstream religion, chances are you'll find they have more questions than answers.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[LittleBigLui]

Who plays the part of the coders in the real-life version of evolution?

Random mutation plus the constant stirring of the gene pool by fucking each others' brains out.

how does it happen in nature without such a guided, conscious effort?

As every righteous XP advocate will tell you, all you need are test cases. Code passes the test case or fails it. Phenotype doesn't aid in surviving, creature carrying genes for phenotype dies.

If there is a requirement for sentient guidance for one case, there is a requirement for the case other also

Linux has a purpose (see for example Tanenbaum for definition of an OS). Now what purpose does life have? Obviously if it doesn't have a predefined goal there's no need to for anyone to guide it towards that goal, isn't it?

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[astflgl]

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?

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[fucksl4shd0t]

Man, you came so close. IN the following quote, s/archaeology/science

"Archaeology is the pursuit of fact. If it's Truth you want, check out ..." the philosophy class down the hall. (Sorry, memory gave out and I forgot the rest of the quote)

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.

[meringuoid]

This is one reason why I believe in God. If there is no God, what's the point of doing good to others? Fear of the law?

If there is a God, what's the point of doing good to others? Fear of hell?

Seriously, if your only concept of right and wrong is based on the threat of punishment, whether by the State or by some deity, then you have real problems.

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.

[Minna Kirai]

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.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[JessLeah]

I like your post, except for one bit. I would hardly call the first two decades of life a time of "luxury" in feeding one's brain. In fact, what a student does with her/his time is highly regulated-- in fact, it is force-fed to the student by teachers and parents. Most of the brightest people I know were/are extremely upset during those first two decades of life, since 99% of one's time is dictated by teachers following pre-programmed lesson plans. What with homework, studying, tests, and classes (all of which seem endless), there is little to no time to pursue one's true intellectual interests. And for the brightest few (note that brightest doesn't necessarily mean "fastest"-- I have an IQ in the 140-150 range, but I am very slow at all things intellectual.. so NO, the bright folks CAN'T simply finish their homework in five minutes...), those first couple of decades are simply eaten up by meaningless busywork...

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[Cap'nMike]

Yes, many scientists do show compassion on a daily basis and this drives their research, I work with many of them every day. But look at the scientists who develop weapons, landmines, chemical warfare agents, do you not believe that they could show a little more compassion in their daily lives. Personally, my research deals with chemical warfare agent decontamination, so I have some idea of the lack of compassion some scientists show. The point which should have been made is that if nearly everyone could be just a little more compasionate, the world would be better off. If you think that most religions in the world are out to hurt people, you have missed the point.

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?

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[barawn]

Define God.

If you define God as an omniscient, omnipotent object, it exists by construction (it's the Universe).

If you define God as an omniscient, omnipotent being, it's unprovable (will is unprovable outside of the object in question).

The problem is the poor definition of God. If you construct "God" as 1, then "God exists" is an axiom inasmuch as "The Universe exists" is an axiom. If you construct "God" as in 2, then "God exists" is an axiom inasmuch as the person believes it, and a completely self-consistent Universe can be built on top of either axiom: "God exists" and "God does not exist."

In other words, either side should just believe what they want, and leave the other side alone, because neither of them could ever be proven to be "more right" than the other, within their own frame of reference.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[UserGoogol]

This is yet another day which makes me think that there are magical elves who follow me around purely to mod me up.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists.

[MyDixieWrecked]

God exists, God created the universe, God loves all humans.

Choose any two.

Humour is a sophisticated weapon

[Space cowboy]

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

Re:Humour is a sophisticated weapon

[Nurseman]

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.

I am curious, is there anyone who takes ANY analyst seriously ? They are ALL paid shills. Everytime something happens in the SCucks case, Pretenderle and Didiot come out of the blue corner, and Dion Cornett comes out of the red corner. Each one has an agenda. Each one has paid "opinions" Would any buisness make an important descision based on these shills ? It's like my beloved NY Post. I like reading it, but take everything with a grain of salt

Re:Humour is a sophisticated weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

What will be interesting is just how long the AdTI will remain a serious news source

Were they ever? I seem to remember that, like, the very first time I ever saw AdTI mentioned on Slashdot the response was "yeah, this isn't a threat, these people have been around awhile, they're these loopy pseudo ayn rand ideological attack dogs for the conservative right wing, no one really listens to them except other right wingers, they're known to have no journalistic integrity anyway".

They don't seem to have much of a reputation to ruin.

Re:Humour is a sophisticated weapon

[MrIrwin]

"What will be interesting is just how long the AdTI will remain a serious news source"

How long has it been a serious news source?

SCO = Santa Claus Operation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh heh heh

Re:SCO = Santa Claus Operation?

[AndroidCat]

No wonder Darl won't let us see the list .. he's checking it twice.

d'oh

[abscondment]

This just in:
SCO Claims they created Linux and sues itself. Happy day.

Dishonest list?

[DAldredge]

http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E-text/Russell/ agnostic.htm

What Is an agnostic?

An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.
Are agnostics atheists?

No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.

Re:Dishonest list?

[Rostin]

Commonly "soft" and "hard" (or some other appropriate adjectives) atheism are distinguished from one another and from agnosticism.

Agnosticism: We are incapable of knowing whether or not God exists

"hard" atheism: God does not exist

"soft" atheism: There is insufficient evidence to believe in God, or belief in God is irrational.

Re:Dishonest list?

[benploni]

Wrong. Linus qualifies as an atheist by his own words.

From an interview in the November 1999 Linux Journal magazine:

Margie: How about religion?
Linus: Hmmmm, completely a-religious -- atheist.

Re:Dishonest list?

[ornil]

I'd like to point out that gnostic is not the opposite of an agnostic (or vice versa, if you prefer). Gnostics (according to OED) are

The designation given to certain heretical sects among the early Christians who claimed to have superior knowledge of things spiritual, and interpreted the sacred writings by a mystic philosophy

I have never seen it used in the sense of opposite to "agnostic" and OED only saw it once a long time ago.

Re:Dishonest list?

[AndroidCat]

His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece.

A careful philosopher. That would be one with the spikey iron things connected to the copper wire into the ground devices on his roof, yes? ;)

Re:Dishonest list?

[JohnFluxx]

My problem with saying that I'm agnostic, is that it seems to imply that I'm assigning equal probability to the existance of God, and nonexistance.

Take the realm of unicorns. I do think there are unicorns, but I suppose that there is a non-zero chance that there is one in the forests somewhere, magical and all. After all, we cannot disprove it since we can argue that magic keeps it hidden.

Does that make me unicorn-agnostic, or unicorn-athiest, so to speak.

Re:Dishonest list?

[arkanes]

The two aren't unrelated. An atheist, by definition, has no belief in (a) God. Period. "Extremist" definitions of atheism are usually only trotted out for flame wars or as ad-hominim attacks.

It is NOT as, alot of religious folk like to pretend "a belief that there is no God", and nor would such a belief be hypocritical, as is often claimed. If God decided to make himself known obviously (desecend from the heavens on shining lightbeams, get interviewed on E!, that sort of thing) most atheists would concede he exists.

Myself, I reserve judgment on the existence of God, although I tend toward the negative. But at least if we're talking about the God in the Christian bible, I wouldn't worship whether I knew he existed or not.

Re:Dishonest list?

[xanadu-xtroot.com]

What Is an agnostic?

There's only one real way of explaining it well...

Re:Dishonest list?

[boots@work]

It depends on what conclusion you draw.

"I think there probably is a unicorn, though we can't see it." - unicornist

"I'm not sure if there is a unicorn, since it might be hidden." - unicorn-agnostic

"I think there aren't any unicorns, otherwise we would have seen one." weak-unicorn-atheist

"It's impossible for something to exist and be absolutely undetectable, so unicorns are a logical impossibility."[*] strong-unicorn-atheist

([*] i'm not necessarily making this argument; it's just an example)

Re:Dishonest list?

[gaijin99]

An agnostic, on the other hand, doesn't think it is possible to know whether deities exist.

So it is quite plausible to be an agnostic theist as well as an agnostic atheist.

You're missing the point, an agnostic holds that the question is unanswerable, or at least unanswered. While you are quite correct in saying that ultimately there are only two options (theism and athiesm) the agnostic doesn't fall into either camp. It is possible, of course, to be an agnostic theist, or an agnostic athiest, but it is hardly necessary.

Let's take an example: a box either contains a blue coin, or it does not. The coinist would believe in the existance of the coin, the acoinist would not believe in the coin. Both are expressing belief. The agnostic refuses belief, he accepts that he is ignorant about the existance, or non-existance, of the coin. The decision is suspened, possibly forever.

I'm definately in the camp of the self-admitted ignorant. I do not know whether any deity exists or not. I can't be an athiest, because I don't *disbelieve* in deities; but I can't be a theist because I don't *believe* in deities either. I'm simply suspending judgement until better evidence comes along. I'm certainly not going to go around having faith in one answer or the other.

I see both athiesm and theism as being essentially the same: both require faith. Agnosticim requires no faith, merely the courage to accept that you don't have an answer to a rather important question. I think that by admitting my ignorance on this topic I'm showing more wisdom than those who claim to know things when there is no evidence. The box might have a coin, then again it might not; unless we can open the box and look I refuse to say one way or the other.

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:Dishonest list?

[fucksl4shd0t]

How very odd. If there is a God, he created you. He gave you a mind and a will. And he sustains your existence this very moment. It seems to me that this question should at least arouse your interest...

If there isn't a God, I don't vanish in a puff of smoke, either. I still exist, somehow, and an alternate explanation must also exist. In fact, many alternate explanations do exist.

In any case, religion can only be proven in the positive. That is, you can only prove that religion is right, you can never prove that it is wrong. What good would it be if it were so easy to disprove? Can't be done, can it?

Without that set point of reference, there's no way to make the kind of judgements you're attempting.

Are there any religions that don't believe in God that maintain some modicum or morality? Why yes there are. IN fact, every single religion (with a few obscure exceptions) contains a set of rules virtually identical to those presented in the Bible, either testament, in fact. Moreover, you'll be hard pressed to find atheists or anybody else lacking religion to be completely immoral people as a result.

Now, I agree that morality is something that for some people requires an objective foundation. Most people seem to be satisfied with a subjective foundation, as in "It's not right to steal because then other people could steal from you." Or "It's not a good idea to steal because you'll go to jail". Whatever. But I am definitely one of those people who require an objective foundation, and the only objective foundation I've found is Freedom. It's real simple, there's one postulate, which is that we are all Free individuals.

To build a system of morality using Freedom as a base, I shall leave as an exercise for the student. It should (and is) be possible to build a system of morality that very closely resembles the common base of morality practiced by every religion (at least taught, if not practiced by every individual), and it should be (and is) possible to wind up with at least 5 of the ten commandments, along with Jesus's revisions, all using Freedom as a base, and requiring no leap of faith that there's God, Jesus, and so forth.

It makes sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

who else would give away free software?

not too sure about the tooth fairy...his prices are kinda steep...

Re:Stand-up.

[dnotj]

because we have a microsoft and SCO section, a comdey section would be redundant.

all hail Linus

[cavebear42]

It's a good thing Linus has a sense of humor. He might smite them down.

Re:all hail Linus

[Anonvmous Coward]

"It's a good thing Linus has a sense of humor. He might smite them down."

I wouldn't be sickened by this comment if it had been modded funny instead of insightful...

Linus first step in creating linux

[Neil Blender]

# ftp ftp.sco.com

20 ProFTPD 0.0.1 Server
Name (sco:admin): anonymous
331 Anonymous login ok, send your complete email address as your password.
Password:
ftp> prompt
Interactive mode off.
ftp> mget *

Cloning

[Anonymous Coward]

Linus copied his code from Santa ...
Slashdot copied their story from ... slashdot ...

And I thought...

[Fred Foobar]

I thought the real father was Darth McBride.

"Linux, I am your father!" :-)

/. 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.

Re:/. should STOP giving creedence to

[XaXXon]

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..

You know...

[JoeLinux]

This is one of the reasons why I love linux: It's so down-to-earth. The early versions of the gentoo installation instructions told you to play Bom-Bad Racing on the PS2 while waiting for it to set up. It's nice to see people laid back. Can you picture Microsoft doing this?

The flaw in this argument...

[LinuxParanoid]

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!

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.

mod DOWN the duplicate post Posters

[dnotj]

This isn't a dupe, we don't read the articles anymore, now we don't even ready the Posting. Wake up people, this is Linus' rebuttal.

Article Text: LW Slashdotted already

LinuxWorld Exclusive: Linus Torvalds Makes Startling Admission, Discloses *Real* Fathers of Linux May 17, 2004 Summary As only Linus Torvalds can, the undisputed - except by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute - inventor of Linux has as promised let LinuxWorld have his immediate comment on the AdTI's president's claims this morning that the parentage of Linux is in doubt. Read his startling admission exclusively here.

"Ok, I admit it. I was just a front-man for the real fathers of Linux, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus."

Thus begins a characteristically Torvaldsian e-mail to LinuxWorld News Desk sent by Linus Torvalds in response to our invitation to comment on the sensationalist claims this morning that he isn't, after all, the inventor of Linux.

"They (for obvious reasons) couldn't step forward to admit that they had gotten bitten by the computer bug, and had been developing a series of operating systems on their own during the off season. But when they started with Linux (which they originally called Freax - they do feel like outsiders, you know, and that's a whole sad story in itself), they felt that they could no longer just let it languish in obscurity. They started to look for a front-man, and since Santa Claus is from Finland and thus has connections to Helsinki University, and the tooth fairy claimed 'He's got good strong teeth,' I got selected."

"Since then," Torvalds continues, "I've lived a life of subterfuge, always afraid that somebody would find out the truth. I'm actually relieved that it's over, and that the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute has finally uncovered the lie. I can now go back to my chosen profession, the exploration of the fascinating mating dance of the common newt."

In a PS he adds:

"Btw, did you know that newts have more offspring if you play the harmonica to them during their mating rituals? It's true."

And in a PPS:

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

Good!

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

At last some proper justice meated out of this Linus wannabe programmer poser guy. The Tocqueville Institute is right to expose such frauds, being funded my Microsoft who, as we all know, is the true father of MS-DOS...

Re:Stand-up.

[NanoGator]

"OK. How come Slashdot doesn't have a comedy section? "

Because if it did, this story would have been rejected.

what they will say

[JoeBuck]

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.

Re:what they will say

[Brandybuck]

RMS: It isn't Linux. It's the GNU System.

AdTI: OMG! Linus didn't write Linux!

Re:what they will say

[Anonymous Coward]

Is "Toqueville" pernounced "TokeVille"?

Re:what they will say

[Pseudonym]

Exactly. The original "study" is correct in that Linus didn't invent very much at all, but they fail to acknowledge that this is completely beside the point. Linus constructed the Linux kernel from scratch. Like all people who progress humanity, he only did so by standing on the shoulders of giants.

For what it's worth, Henry Ford didn't invent the automobile, either, but even decades later, we'd hardly accuse him of theft. Moreover, he built cars that existing drivers would already know how to drive by making them look like the cars that were there beforehand.

The situation is similar to what Darrel Huff in How to Lie with Statistics refers to as "the semi-attached figure". If you can't prove something, prove something else and pretend they're the same. So, for example, you say your toilet cleaner "kills germs faster" and strongly imply, though never right-out say, that this has something to do with your family's health even though it probably doesn't.

Worst of all, this kind of thinking completely ignores how human progress happens. It's the myth of the genius all over again. Progress happens on the fringes of what we already have. When you get down to it, every work is a derivative work (except in the legal sense of the term). Einstein couldn't have come up with the idea of relativity without centuries of work by smart physicists and mathematicians before him.

Hell, Unix is just a castrated version of Multics, right?

Finally some truth from ADTI...

[Anonymous Coward]

At the Tocqueville Institution site here, try clicking accomplishments. ;)

Re:Hello, McFly!!!

[netsharc]

I think it's too far away down the page that anyone would notice it, when the editors just give it an "Update".. but hey, with a fresh article we can now comment about Linus's great statement.

Horrible!

[Woogiemonger]

I can deal with Linus not being the father of Linux, but what I can't deal with is the tooth fairy being a guy! Now I'm picturing a hairy-legged fairy dressed like a ballerina reaching under my pillow. The horrors!

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.

Re:Horrible!

[dema]

You obviously don't watch Ren and Stimpy. The tooth fairy is one ugly little thing!

Re:Horrible!

[jpetts]

Now I'm picturing a hairy-legged fairy dressed like a ballerina reaching under my pillow. The horrors!

Just be glad it's only under your pillow...

Re:Horrible!

[(H)elix1]

Just be glad it's only under your pillow...

(Neal Page)Those aren't pillows!!!!(/Neal Page)

Re:Horrible!

[sharkey]

Now I'm picturing a hairy-legged fairy dressed like a ballerina reaching under my pillow.

You should be so lucky! Here is a chance photo snapped of the tooth-fairy in action It's small and hard to make out, but it frankly scares the hell outta me.

Fathers?

[kevmo]

Wouldn't the tooth fairy be a mother?

Re:Fathers?

[RatBastard]

It's long been known that the Tooth Farie is a drag queen. Santa and Toothy got married today in Boston.

Coincedence? I think not...

[joshua_thijssen]

Have you *EVER* seen santa claus AND linus in the same room at the same time??? I thought so...

Re:Stand-up.

[Zone-MR]

What do you mean it doesn't? The story is in the "It's funny, laugh" section.

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:Linus key quote and hackers.

[csnydermvpsoft]

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

Uhh... that's the timestamp for the last update of the entire .net (and maybe .com too) database - which has obviously been very recent.

Lies, all lies!

[Revvy]

While a formal statement is being prepared, please allow me to express my outrage and personal dismay at the coninuing lies about the origins of the "Linux" operating system. It took many arduous years of skillful coding and deliberate system design for my employer to create what has been stolen from him. In the interest of the public good, he has continued, against my best advice, to allow the bastardization of his avocation to be coninually distributed without compensation or even recognition.

But now, as Linus Torvalds insists on further disregard of the truth, my employer has become enraged and will soon begin legal action to claim his rightful place as the creater of "Linux", originally and forever known to his friends, employees, and supporters as Bunix.

Sincerely,
Bun E. Sue
Chief Counsel
Easter Bunny Inc.

......and in other news.......

[MrIrwin]

....tux reveals that he is the tooth fairy and Santa Claus is his father.

A christmas tune for Linux - finish it

[Anonymous Coward]

To the tune of Oh Christmans tree:

Oh Tannenbaum, Oh Tannenbaum
I stole your O/S named Minix
Oh Tannenbaum, Oh Tannenbaum
I stole your O/S named Minix
:
:

Re:A christmas tune for Linux - finish it

[Canberra Bob]

it showed some promise
it ran quite well
but twas not enough
stole SCO's as well

As the spokesperson

[jd]

For the toothfairy, I neither confirm nor deny this allegation that Linux has anything to do with Teeth-R-Us. Linus has received money from our organization, but only in payment for appropriate dental material. We do have information that kermit the frog has susppect connections, however.

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".

Re:Bad Name - as usual

[Carnildo]

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!

Sacred Cows make the best hamburgers.

Re:Bad Name - as usual

[wishus]

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!".

I think the actual definition is someone who believes there is no god. Compare to theist, monotheist, polytheist, pantheist, etc. Someone who does not know if there is a god or not is an agnostic - he professes no knowledge about the existence of a god.

Still, none of these words convey a sense of how evangelistic the believer is concerning his views.

Re:Bad Name - as usual

[Dirtside]

"Could care less if there is or is not a God -- so, quit arguing incessantly about it and pass the gravy!"

Ah. You mean apatheists. :)

This is cool

[BCW2]

Linus not only believes in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. He has a better sense of humor than 90% of the people in the entire computer industry.

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.

Re:I've worked as a consulatant

[Nurseman]

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.

You are right, and I obviously did not mean to smear you all with the big brush.

BTW I love your work on American Idol (Just kidding :-)

Í like it

[AlecC]

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.

Re:Í like it

[ThisIsFred]

Absolutely. They're more like the foaming-mouthed radicals of the wrong.

ridiculous.

[wastedimage]

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.

Fuck!

[Hooded One]

Santa told me he loved only me. That cheating bastard!

In other news...

[Ruliz Galaxor]

Alexis de Tocqueville admitted to be the easter bunny

"At first I didn't believe it myself, but when I started humping around during easter, I knew I had to be. Besides that, I'm actually quite releaved that the news is out and I don't have to keep it to myself anymore", Alexis commented.

sig(h)

The corporate mods!

[Thinkit4]

I'm guessing it's the same mods who mod up something pro-IP for example. Bring out a poll, and the vast majority here are not religious.

Now we know what Santa does...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the other 364 days of the year.

News Flash

[rhun32]

Olds not the father of the automobile!

Famous scientist believers [Re:Familiar pair...]

[j.leidner]

By most surveys, more than 90% of professional scientists don't believe in a personal god.

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.

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.

Breaking news from Alexis de Tocqueville Institute

[Leomania]

Washington, DC (FantasyNews) May 17th, 2004 - The Alexis de Tocqueville Institute reported today that Linus Torvalds, the public relations spokesman for the Linux operating system that was invented by Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, misled the public when he revealed the actual provenance of Linux.

"He can't be believed or trusted," said Ken Brown, head of the institute. "He says he has good teeth, yet the truth of the matter is that he has a mouth full of cavities. This is entirely consistent with the lies and fabrications this man has put forth since claiming he wrote Linux."

SantaClaus.com agrees ;-)

[Anonymous Coward]

see http://www.santaclaus.com/faq.html#Linux

Re:Famous scientist believers [Re:Familiar pair...

[benploni]

Lots of famous scientists were deeply religious. I never claimed otherwise. I merely expressed lack of surprise that Linus is not.

that must irk RMS real bad

[discogravy]

just cos he's got a beard doesn't give Linus any reason to call RMS "Santa".

And in other news...

[darnok]

The former Iraqi Information Minister has been spotted in New Hampshire, where he is believed to be working for a large corporate enterprise.

According to our translator, he said "I believe Alexis de Tocqueville to have been one of the greatest Iraqis in history, and it is an honour to be serving his esteemed foundation. I believe this role to be the pinnacle of my professional career to date, even exceeding my colonisation of Mars in 1994"

Re:Linus second step in creating linux

[Anonymous Coward]

vi main.h

# (c)Linus
.
. :q

# ftp ftp.sco.com

20 ProFTPD 0.0.1 Server
Name (sco:admin): anonymous
331 Anonymous login ok, send your complete email address as your password.
Password:
ftp> prompt
Interactive mode off.
ftp> mput main.h

AdTI should be renamed...

[Zen Programmer]

The Alexis de Tocqueville Institute should be renamed to the Elmer FUD Institute.

Sorry, that was bad.

the word you are looking for is "agnostic"

[mzs]

I saw some of the other posts and I knew that there were people in the early Church called Gnostics that thought that there was a road of secret knowledge to understanding God and ultimate salvation or something. (Don't ask, nine years of religious educations...) It would make sense that an a-gnostic would be the opposite in some way. I was pleasantly surprised when I went to verify that with a web search. Check out the Word History for agnostic.

Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning "without, not," as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnosis, "knowledge," which was used by early Christian writers to mean "higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things" hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as "Gnostics" a group of his fellow intellectuals"-ists," as he called them - who had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a "man without a rag of a label to cover himself with," Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.

Just goes to show, I can learn something new everyday...

Re:But!

[TEMM]

Where does the easter bunny get its eggs?

Study not authored by Alexis de Tocqueville Inst.

[Kakurenbo Shogun]

A careful analysis of the study reveals that it was not authored by the The Alexis de Tocqueville Institute, but actually cobbled together using words stolen from the English language.

Re:Say it ain't so!

[deragon]

He is. Canada Post forwards the mail to him.

Check section "Santa Letter Writing Program" at: http://www.postescanada.ca/corporate/about/jobs/tr aditions-e.asp

Even the german post acknowledge this, Canada being the direct link to the North Pole. :)

adti.net on freebsd

[MySt1k]

from a post in the Comments of the article,

amomynous commented ... Funny that for all their railing against FOSS software, www.adti.net is served from FreeBSD [netcraft]. http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.adti .net I would think for all their MS schilling, they would go with their own recommendations.

Who is the ADTI ?

[sfjoe]

I picked a couple of names at semi-random (names that seemed to be fairly uncommon) and did a Google search. Apparently, the requirements to be a "Teacher Choice Fellow" are not high. Google had zero results for both Don Koniezco and
Marilyn Ketter Rittmeyer.
Interesting.

What about Al?

[Froboz23]

We're forgetting that Al Gore took the initiative in creating Linux.

Re: I like it

[Unordained]

I don't mean to be any trouble, but could you explain the relationship between this and "the foaming-mouthed radicals of the right" (by which I assume you mean right-wing politics/politicians or maybe some forms of economic thought)?

Tooth Fairy

[xp]

Shouldn't the tooth fairy be Linux's mother?
Unless he's a real fairy. Never mind.

Asim
--
Plants versus Animals

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...

===---===

Linus a Wodehouse fan?

[SilentT]

"I can now go back to my chosen profession, the exploration of the fascinating mating dance of the common newt. ... Btw, did you know that newts have more offspring if you play the harmonica to them during their mating rituals? It's true."

I wonder if Linus was alluding to P.G. Wodehouse here. In some of Wodehouse's novels there is a character by the name of Finknottle (I think) who lives a lonely life in the country and is obsessed with newts. In one book (don't remember which...) he talks about the mating dance of the newt.

Orthodoxy [Re: What do such people believe in]

[j.leidner]

When questioned about their beliefs, the scholars I mentioned describe ideas and concepts that are distinctly unorothodox.

There are different uses of words like fundamentalist/orthodox: the literal sense of "sticking to the very fundaments and core concepts" are nowadays almost overridden by very negative connotations e.g. extremist, "not allowed to have fun"... [anybody expect the Spanish Inquisition ;-) ?].

But a priori, whether a fundamentalist, i.e. somebody who takes the fundaments on which something is built or based very seriously, is a good thing or not depends on what that fundament actually is. And that varies a lot across doctrines. For example, in Christianity, the fundament is the principle of love of God and your neighbour as embodied in the (first two of the) ten commandments. This is the core of Christian orthodoxy (and yes, I'm just re-stating official teaching here); so in that sense a fundamentalist can be something of high moral value in accordance even with other belief systems.

If, on the other hand you consider orthodox to mean what the average person on the street thinks, then it is not too surprising that there's a lot of divergence compared to experts you mention, since the average (wo)man in the street might not (have time to) read as much about religion to clarify their minds in times of time-tables, reality TV, beeping pagers, and ./.

Official Confirmation

[Anonymous Coward]

OK OK, I admit it : I wrote the Linux kernel.

Santa Claus

Re: Agnosticism

[fucksl4shd0t]

I think that ignorance of existence should be enough to qualify one for agnosticism. Otherwise, what am I?

Answer: In too much of a hurry to seek classification.

Solution: Forget about it. When people ask that question wanting to know your religion, tell them their question has no meaning to you. If you have to, acknowledge that while it has meaning to them, that doesn't immediately require it to have meaning to you. It may upset them, but fuck 'em. Get on with your life, don't let little things trouble you. ;)

This is not your father's democracy.

[MarkGriz]

On the AdTI website, their 'mission statement' includes 'helping the spread of democracy.'

They must be talking about Ashcroft's democracy.

Re:I believe in a rock in my backyard

[LawfulGood]

Thanks for your response

I believe a rock in my backyard created all of existence.
I will merrily debate the merits of Christianity versus um... RockInYourBackyardanity.

See how fun it is to declare that a certain belief "might" be true--as is true of absolutely any random theology you could conjure up, such as belief in the tooth fairy?
With all due respect, you're begging the question. We are arguing whether a universal moral standard exists with God as it's foundation. You cannot dismiss the issue by declaring it a "random theology" and associating it with something absurd. The belief in the existence of God is based thousands of years of philosophical observation and reasoning. Examples include:

• That existence cannot be dependent upon an infinite regression of cause and effect and that there just be an un-caused cause.
• That for human free will to exist, there must be a supernatural origin.
• That for morality to exist and not be arbitrary, there must be a supernatural origin.

Now, to debate these underlying principles, and the conclusions derived, is perfectly reasonable (and fun!). But to dismiss the entire question as random absurdity is to not understand it.

Ah, yes, what you're saying is that without belief in God, you can't have morality or ethics.
Actually, I would argue that you can have a system of ethics without a belief in God. However it's arbitrary, and you can't expect anyone else to follow it. Which is not what we find. If I stomp your foot on accident, you probably wouldn't get angry (at least not seriously). If I stomp your foot with malicious intent, you probably would. Why? Because, even if you've never met me, you expect me to recognize a moral standard and act accordingly.

Point is, the concept of ethics and morality in a human society are really the outcome of an evolved set of survival instincts.
I fully agree that we do possess various instincts that promote our own survival as well as the survival of our community (herd). And that this instinct is probably purely natural.

However, I would argue that there is more at work here. For example, suppose that you look outside your window late at night and see someone being attacked. Immediately you'll be affected by at least two natural instincts. You'll have an instinct to protect the herd by intervening and helping the person. But there is also danger involved. You'll likely feel fear at the possibility of being injured or killed if you intervene. So there's a herd instinct to help and a self-preservation instinct to not get involved.

But there's also a third thing in play. You know that you ought to help the person. It's the right thing to do. There's something inside us that tells us which instinct should be encouraged and which should be suppressed. It judges the two instincts and assigns a moral priority. If you don't help the person, you'll feel shame. And other people will view you with disgust.

If the moral law is nothing but instinct, and only those instincts are in your mind, then the stronger of the two instincts must win out. But very often the prompting of the moral law encourages us to choose the weaker of the two instincts. For example, you may want to be safe much more than you want to help a person you don't even know. But at times like this the moral law is most visible, encouraging us to "wake up" or strengthen our herd instinct and suppress our survival instinct. The thing that is doing this encouraging cannot itself be the herd instinct. The herd instinct can't say "I'm asleep, wake me up!" It has to be something else, something that is not an instinct and is above instinct. And this thing I argue to be the supernatural moral law.

Which is a twisted looney way of thinking of course, a belief you're told to think.

But I certain expect this very simple concept to escape you..

...but you happened to

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.