Slashdot Mirror
Alan Turing Apology Campaign Grows
chrb writes "Several British news sources have recently reported on the growing campaign that calls for an apology to Alan Turing for his persecution by the British government. The petition to the Prime Minister was started by John Graham-Cumming, who has also written to the Queen requesting a Knighthood for Turing, but admits that a pardon is 'unlikely,' saying, 'The most important thing to me is that people hear about Alan Turing and realize his incredible impact on the modern world, and how terrible the impact of prejudice was on him.'"
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
called Iraq and Afghanistan?
Yours In Minsk,
Kilgore Trout
Would you argue that from a scientific, logic point of view, homosexuality is not a flaw? I mean, if ever I saw a trait that evolution would suppress, this would be it.
Why is that the measure of whether something is acceptable? Besides, if you're going to be perfectly "logical" and "scientific" about this, then you should be rejecting the supposition that homosexuality is a trait that evolution would suppress--because it hasn't been suppressed, has it?
gay people are different
Different from what? Heterosexuals? Why is that the measure? And I challenge you to define "heterosexual" and "homosexual" as distinct identities in such a way that they meaningfully describe people's behavior. It's not possible.