Fathers of Linux Revealed: Tooth Fairy & Santa Claus

Hah! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 11:04 · Score: 5, Funny

I gnu it!

Re:Hah! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 16:18 · Score: 3, Funny

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. by Thinkit4 · 2004-05-17 11:04 · Score: 5, Interesting

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).

--
-I am an elective eunuch.

Re:Familiar pair for atheists. by benploni · 2004-05-17 11:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

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. by s20451 · 2004-05-17 11:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

Education has the highest correlation coefficient to lack of belief in a personal god. By most surveys, more than 90% of professional scientists don't believe in a personal god.

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

In fact in most churches a prerequisite to joining the clergy is an advanced degree. Furthermore, the "professional degree" that you need to be a priest or pastor is a Master of Divinity, which normally requires an undergraduate degree, much like a law degree. There are no shortage of top universities that have excellent theology or divinity departments. Some of the world's most influential and interesting thinkers have been theologians.

As for the "90% of scientists" claim, I think that's a nasty prejudice on the part of scientists, rather than something to be proud of. Think about it: science and religion explore orthogonal aspects of life, neither of which is any less real than the other. Science tells us about what we can observe and test; religion illuminates things that are by nature untestable, like morality, ethics, compassion, and love for our fellow man.

In spite of what some might say, science can't really illuminate our understanding of God very much, because by nature you can't perform an experiment on God. Furthermore God can easily escape whatever assumptions a scientist may make (or, as one Vatican astronomer put it, "God is not a boundary condition"). By the same token our understanding of God can't do much to illuminate science, because when (for example) the bible contradicts a scientific observation, the observation must win. Fortunately most mainline religions acknowledge this, it's just the loudmouth conservative wackos who perpetuate the stereotype that a Christian believes the world is four thousand years old.

In fact my opinion is that the existence of God is an axiom. This fits because axioms are initial assumptions that cannot be tested, and as yet nobody has even developed a convincing test for the existence of God. One either believes that God exists or doesn't exist, and that belief affects the remaining propositions in one's life as any other axiom might. In no way is this incompatible with a career in science. In fact, if one believes (as I do) that God exists, what we know about the universe contributes to a sense of awe concerning the greatness of God. And, as one theologian suggests, this is one important aspect of religion: the "fear" of God puts you and your petty problems into perspective.

Religion really isn't about heaven, or hell, or converting as many atheists as possible, or strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing up a cafe. Religion is about suppressing your own ego and having compassion for those around you, which is something that a lot of scientists could sorely use.

--
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. by UserGoogol · 2004-05-17 11:57 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

--
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. by benploni · 2004-05-17 12:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

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. by Pseudonym · 2004-05-17 12:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. by a_karbon_devel_005 · 2004-05-17 12:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

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. by benploni · 2004-05-17 12:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

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. by Profane+MuthaFucka · 2004-05-17 12:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

having compassion for those around you, which is something that a lot of scientists could sorely use.

OK, this is just an ignorant thing to say.

The fact that you're posting that ignorant comment means that neither you nor your parents died from a childhood disease. Thank a scientist.

In fact, it's not likely that you had any siblings that died in infancy. Thank a scientist.

And you probably more had more fat kids than undernourished in your school when you were a kid. Thank an agricultural scientist.

You probably had the opportunity to know your grandparents, since they probably lived to be about 75 years old or so. Thank a scientist.

You never had to worry about getting yellow fever from a mosquito bite. Thank a scientist.

When it gets dark out, you don't need to go to bed. You can stay up and read to get an education. Thank a scientist.

Hell, you can fricking educate yourself all day long. You don't have to scratch in the dirt just to eat. You've got the luxury of spending the first couple decades of your life just feeding your brain. Thank a whole shitload of scientists

I could go on and on and on, but it's the unvarnished truth that BILLIONS of people are alive today because of what scientists have done. On the other hand, religion's track record is so poor that when Mother Theresa provides a place for poor people to DIE, she's considered a saint.

I think you owe a lot of scientists quite a lot more than an apology, but I doubt they'll get it from you. Just like a bully in grade school, it's just too much damn fun to beat up the smart kid.

--
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. by benploni · 2004-05-17 12:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

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. by boots@work · 2004-05-17 13:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

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. by s20451 · 2004-05-17 13:24 · Score: 5, Funny

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"?

--
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. by Pseudonym · 2004-05-17 13:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. by Slime-dogg · 2004-05-17 15:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

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?

--
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. by Artifakt · 2004-05-17 15:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
Who is John Cabal?
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. by astflgl · 2004-05-17 19:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

axiom (aksZ m) n.1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof. how is "god exists" self evident? how can you call someone intelectually lazy when you take possibly the most massive shortcut it's possible to take in philosophy/religion? and how did you get modded funny?

--
sorry
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. by meringuoid · 2004-05-17 22:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Re:Familiar pair for atheists. by Minna+Kirai · 2004-05-18 00:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

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. by MyDixieWrecked · 2004-05-18 17:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

God exists, God created the universe, God loves all humans.
Choose any two.

--

...spike
Ewwwwww, coconut...

Humour is a sophisticated weapon by Space+cowboy · 2004-05-17 11:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

Only when you are sufficiently confident in your premises do you venture to be droll to your enemies, and make no mistake, the AdTi is Linus' enemy. The use of humour is simultaneously the ultimate statement of confidence and the ultimate put-down - it's a pre-generated sound-bite. It's a kick in the vitals. To all on the (winning) side of Linux, it's a rallying cry. Go Linus.

There's nothing more satisfying than placing your critics up on a pedestal and ripping them to shreds - the pen is indeed mightier than the sword, and it doesn;t depend on pointiness :-)

What will be interesting is just how long the AdTI will remain a serious news source - the ultimate goal is obviously to get them to discredit themselves to such an extent that they can be held up as an example of how *not* to do it. Given their paymaster, the hopeless nature of their case, and the imperatives they must put forward each time, I think we have a significant chance of a sacrificial lamb in Linux' cause... Rope to hang themselves is what we want... Remember that :-)

Simon

--
Physicists get Hadrons!

Re:Humour is a sophisticated weapon by Nurseman · 2004-05-17 11:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

--
Save a Life. Donate Blood. Please.
Re:Humour is a sophisticated weapon by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 11:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by MrIrwin · 2004-05-17 11:27 · Score: 3, Funny

"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?

--
And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)

SCO = Santa Claus Operation? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 11:05 · Score: 4, Funny

Heh heh heh

Re:SCO = Santa Claus Operation? by AndroidCat · 2004-05-17 11:49 · Score: 4, Funny

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

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.

d'oh by abscondment · 2004-05-17 11:06 · Score: 4, Funny

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

Dishonest list? by DAldredge · 2004-05-17 11:07 · Score: 3, Offtopic

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? by Rostin · 2004-05-17 11:34 · Score: 3, Informative

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? by benploni · 2004-05-17 11:36 · Score: 3, Informative

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? by ornil · 2004-05-17 11:44 · Score: 3, Informative

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? by JohnFluxx · 2004-05-17 12:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

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? by arkanes · 2004-05-17 12:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

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? by boots@work · 2004-05-17 12:48 · Score: 4, Funny

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)

It makes sense... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 11:07 · Score: 5, Funny

who else would give away free software?

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

Re:Stand-up. by dnotj · 2004-05-17 11:07 · Score: 3, Funny

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

--
No more Micro$oft bashing from me. Its like bashing at the special olympics.

all hail Linus by cavebear42 · 2004-05-17 11:07 · Score: 3, Funny

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

Linus first step in creating linux by Neil+Blender · 2004-05-17 11:07 · Score: 5, Funny

# 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 *

And I thought... by Fred+Foobar · 2004-05-17 11:08 · Score: 4, Funny

I thought the real father was Darth McBride.

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

--
It was a really good paper.

You know... by JoeLinux · 2004-05-17 11:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

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... by LinuxParanoid · 2004-05-17 11:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

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... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 11:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

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 by dnotj · 2004-05-17 11:13 · Score: 5, Informative

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

--
No more Micro$oft bashing from me. Its like bashing at the special olympics.

what they will say by JoeBuck · 2004-05-17 11:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Brandybuck · 2004-05-17 11:52 · Score: 3, Funny

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

AdTI: OMG! Linus didn't write Linux!

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Re:what they will say by Pseudonym · 2004-05-17 12:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

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?

--
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});

Finally some truth from ADTI... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 11:15 · Score: 5, Funny

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

Horrible! by Woogiemonger · 2004-05-17 11:18 · Score: 4, Funny

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! by jpetts · 2004-05-17 11:54 · Score: 4, Funny

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...

--
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
Re:Horrible! by (H)elix1 · 2004-05-17 12:38 · Score: 3, Funny

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

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

--
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU

Fathers? by kevmo · 2004-05-17 11:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

Wouldn't the tooth fairy be a mother?

Re:Fathers? by RatBastard · 2004-05-17 11:45 · Score: 5, Funny

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

--
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.

Re:Stand-up. by Zone-MR · 2004-05-17 11:21 · Score: 3, Informative

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

Linus key quote and hackers. by strredwolf · 2004-05-17 11:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--

--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";

Re:Linus key quote and hackers. by csnydermvpsoft · 2004-05-17 11:36 · Score: 3, Informative

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! by Revvy · 2004-05-17 11:29 · Score: 4, Funny

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....... by MrIrwin · 2004-05-17 11:29 · Score: 3, Funny

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

--

And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)

A christmas tune for Linux - finish it by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 11:34 · Score: 3, Funny

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
:
:

As the spokesperson by jd · 2004-05-17 11:34 · Score: 3, Funny

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.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)

This is cool by BCW2 · 2004-05-17 11:40 · Score: 4, Funny

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.

--
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.

I've worked as a consulatant by Space+cowboy · 2004-05-17 11:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

... 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.

--
Physicists get Hadrons!

Í like it by AlecC · 2004-05-17 11:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is the right way to respond to the foaming-mouthed radicals of the right.

There is no point in trying to point out their idiocies. Anyone with enough braincells to count in binary can see that they are spouting irrational codswallop. But there is no point in losing your temper and trying to point out the idiocy of their ways - these guys are beyond redemption. Laughter is the safest refuge - laugh lest ye cry. Well done (again), Linus.

--
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.

Re:Í like it by ThisIsFred · 2004-05-17 14:41 · Score: 3, Funny

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

--
Fred

"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS

ridiculous. by wastedimage · 2004-05-17 11:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

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! by Hooded+One · 2004-05-17 11:44 · Score: 4, Funny

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

Re:/. should STOP giving creedence to by XaXXon · 2004-05-17 11:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

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..

In other news... by Ruliz+Galaxor · 2004-05-17 11:50 · Score: 3, Funny

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)

Re:Bad Name - as usual by Carnildo · 2004-05-17 11:55 · Score: 3, Funny

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.

--
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.

Famous scientist believers [Re:Familiar pair...] by j.leidner · 2004-05-17 12:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

SantaClaus.com agrees ;-) by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 12:19 · Score: 4, Funny

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

Re:Famous scientist believers [Re:Familiar pair... by benploni · 2004-05-17 12:20 · Score: 4, Informative

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

Re:Bad Name - as usual by Dirtside · 2004-05-17 12:20 · Score: 4, Funny

"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. :)

--
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased

that must irk RMS real bad by discogravy · 2004-05-17 12:22 · Score: 4, Funny

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

--
FreeBSD for the impatient.

Study not authored by Alexis de Tocqueville Inst. by Kakurenbo+Shogun · 2004-05-17 12:59 · Score: 5, Funny

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.

--
Convert RSS to HTML - integrate webfeeds into your website

Re:Say it ain't so! by deragon · 2004-05-17 13:21 · Score: 3, Funny

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. :)

--
Remember the year 2000? They promised us flying cars. They delivered the PT Cruiser...

adti.net on freebsd by MySt1k · 2004-05-17 13:40 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

--
Doh !

Who is the ADTI ? by sfjoe · 2004-05-17 13:53 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

--
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.

What about Al? by Froboz23 · 2004-05-17 14:03 · Score: 4, Funny

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

--
Take off every Sig. For great justice.

What do such people believe in, though? by lysium · 2004-05-17 15:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

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...

===---===

--
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.

Re:Non-religious morality by hesiod · 2004-05-18 06:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

> 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.

Slashdot Mirror

Fathers of Linux Revealed: Tooth Fairy & Santa Claus

81 of 739 comments (clear)