The way they phrase they used to express their comment was poor, but they are still somewhat correct. The summary says that "usage" of GPL is declining, that means that there are fewer new projects that are licensed as GPL than there were at some previous point in time and this trend has been happening over time. The fact that GPL now accounts for a smaller percentage of all open source software may indicate that usage of other licenses has increased rather than that usage of GPL has declined.
As others have pointed out, this trend of those with higher incomes having fewer children is more than two generations old. It goes back to the Enlightenment period at least (our ability to track it further than that is limited). This trend has nothing to with abortion and/or modern contraception.
Except that evidence shows that improving the economic situation of people reduces the rate at which they reproduce. The problem with the chart you linked to is that I am pretty sure that in those countries, those with more education are also more wealthy. I am not exactly sure why you think that anybody would pay to import water from Africa. The logic of this article is that countries in Africa that suffer from severe droughts and starvation as a result could improve their food supply by using water from their underground aquifers to irrigate their cropland. The idea being that if their food supply was more reliable and adequate for their population, the standard of living would rise.
Using the underground aquifers to irrigate farmland in these countries would not be a bad thing, if it actually results in a higher standard of living. As I said at the start, every study on the subject has shown that improving the standard of living of a country reduces the rate at which the population increases.
The headline is not supported by the summary let alone by the article. The headline says "Newspapers pollute less on E-readers and Tablets". Yet the summary says nothing about how much pollution is generated to produce a paper newspaper vs reading it on an electronic device. The article and the summary only talk about the relative green house gases of these two distribution methods. Perhaps people have forgotten that there is a lot of very serious pollution out there. Pollution that is actual poison. Even if you consider green house gases pollution, there are many types of pollution that are much worse. This article does not examine those pollutants in any way, so does not really address the issue described by the headline.
Yeah, that's right, those athletes spend their entire lives training for the Olympics and nobody pays them. They just do it for the love of the sport./s
There is so much money in the Olympics it makes the NFL look like chump change. The athletes are getting their share. It may not be coming from the IOC, but it may as well be. The entire proposition is corrupt. Yes, there are a few athletes who are not making a lot of money off of the Olympics, but for the most part the athletes that actually win anything there are making big bucks. The entire thing and everyone involved with it from top to bottom is about exploiting it for every dime they can. The IOC can get away with pushing these rules on the athletes because an Olympic appearance is worth so much to the athletes.
How else will they be able to raise enough money to pay the athletes AND the various big name "non-profit" figures that need to get their cut from these games?
Many Christian groups treat women as second class citizens because they are to remain silent in church, and obey their husbands.
Almost every Christian group (and by an overwhelming margin) that teach that women are to remain silent in church and obey their husbands base that on Ephesians 5:22-24. Those groups, also, emphasize Ephesians 5:25-30 which says that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the Church. How did Christ love the Church? As is made clear in the context of this passage, He did so by dying for the Church.
Yes, Jesus said to render to Caesar what is Caesar's and he said to give to God the things that are God's. There is actually a very convincing argument that Jesus was not saying anything about whether or not we should pay taxes (that is too complicated for this setting). However, that is not important since Paul clearly says that we should pay our taxes.
Going on, paying taxes does not in and of itself help the poor. I would argue that most government programs that are supposedly intended to help the poor actually do more harm to the poor than actual help. Most of those programs actually transfer more wealth to government workers and wealthy supporters of politicians than they do to the poor (or even in actual assistance to the poor in non-monetary ways).
Jesus did not tell the rich man to sell all that he has and give the money to the government. He told the rich man to sell all that he has and give the money to the poor. If he had given the money to the government very little would have gotten to the poor. While more would get to the poor today, it still isn't all that much.
Extremists responsible for this attack represent Muslims about as accurately as McVeigh represents Christians.
Yes, because there is a lot of equivalence to compare people who commit violence in the name of their Muslim faith with McVeigh, who proclaimed himself an agnostic.
Perhaps the power companies see it as an investment.
In most U.S. states (I believe all, but there may be a couple of exceptions), power companies are heavily regulated and have what is essentially a guaranteed return on investment whereby the state government body which regulates their rates lets them increase their rates so as to make a certain percentage of profits over their expenses (occasionally a power company will make an expenditure that is so completely boneheaded that the state regulatory agency makes them eat it and lose profit for a short period of time, but that is only for the most completely boneheaded sort of decision).
What this means is that the power companies absolutely see it as an investment. An investment that will allow them to raise their rates to cover the costs of the rebate program and make some profit over the cost of that program.
Why shouldn't I buy cheap, crappy CFLs? I used to buy cheap, crappy incandescent bulbs and got acceptable performance. Now, I can't buy them in 100 watts anymore and you tell me that I shouldn't complain because the more expensive "cheap crappy CFLs" aren't as good as they were?
That's great, so now I can no longer buy reliable bulbs at stores that are convenient for me to shop at because somebody decided they knew better than I what types of bulbs I ought to buy. Yeah, that really made my life better./s
The flaw in that logic is that it assumes that the bias is racial. It is much more likely to be a cultural bias. The fact of the matter is that I am less likely to have a problem understanding and being understood by Michael Smith than I am Maya Kumar.
Two points, the first one is that all I was doing was pointing out what the original poster actually said, not making a statement about whether or not Jehovah's Witnesses are or are not Christians.
The second point is that the majority of groups which consider themselves Christian have agreed that there are certain characteristic beliefs that define whether or not a particular group is Christian or not. The Jehovah's Witnesses do not meet those criteria.
Think about only this: without the excuse of God, how many politicians would have to find another way to persuade us to follow them in their quest to serve their buddies' interests.
You mean the way that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro kept referring to God as a reason for them to persecute millions of those in the countries they controlled? Oh wait, no, none of them did that. They were all professing atheists.
You are going to tell me what I heard now?
The conversation I had with her definitely covered dinosaurs. She was not confused about what she was saying, and neither was I.
I realise that this might not be the official teaching of the Jehovah's witnesses, but she was a christian, and that was her personal belief.
He was not telling you what you heard. He was telling you that Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian.
There are more than two ways what?
I am going to assume you mean economic systems and you are wrong. There are at their base only two economic systems. In one system, people are free to acquire various types of property and freely exchange it with others on the basis of terms decided upon by the parties to the exchange (this is usually called free market capitalism). In the other system, some select group decides what the rest of society may have and what they may do with whatever goods they acquire (this goes by many different names as people attempt to disguise it as something other than what it is). Every economic system is some variation of one of these two, or a hybridization of them.
You expressly referred to the differential in power between employee and corporation, which is completely irrelevant to this story. BTW there already exist "whistleblower laws" to protect government employees from being fired for pointing out ways that a government bureaucracy is behaving outside of bounds. If those existing laws did not work to protect her (a dubious assumption, considering, as others have pointed out, that there was less than a week from her sending her letter to a congressperson and her firing), what makes you think that another law would do any better?
Jesse James did not "flee west". I can find no evidence that Jesse James committed crimes further west than Kansas (a state that bordered his home state of Missouri). Most of his criminal activity was in Missouri, Iowa and Kentucky (states which neighbored Missouri). In fact, his criminal career came to an end when he led his gang two states away (northward, not westward) into Minnesota and territory that they were unfamiliar with (where the gang was pretty much wiped out by locals who were familiar with the area).
In summary, everything indicates that Jesse James lived most of his life in his home state of Missouri, except for short forays into neighboring states (and one disastrous trip a little further north).
As opposed to every other system whereby the most powerful are the government and have no need to "consolidate" power as they already have all of it and can readily siphon off government money for their own purposes. No amount of ideology about how some economic system is supposed to work will change humans from how they actually behave.
You missed one of the reasons for the TSA, which is to get people used to not traveling as much in preparation to restricting their right to travel.
Have you read that Obama is pushing a law to allow the IRS to restrict people from leaving the US if they suspect that they might owe taxes? There would be no need to actually accuse the person of owing taxes, or even going before a judge to show documentation for that suspicion, just the IRS saying that they suspect that this person owes back taxes.
You do realize that the TSA is part of the organization that you want to act as the "impartial entity", right? You want the government to pass a law regulating on what basis an employer (in this case, the government) can fire an employee and then you want the government to act as "impartial referee" between itself and an employee it seeks to fire. Basically, you want to expand the government to fix a problem created by the government.
Slashdot Mirror
The way they phrase they used to express their comment was poor, but they are still somewhat correct. The summary says that "usage" of GPL is declining, that means that there are fewer new projects that are licensed as GPL than there were at some previous point in time and this trend has been happening over time. The fact that GPL now accounts for a smaller percentage of all open source software may indicate that usage of other licenses has increased rather than that usage of GPL has declined.
As others have pointed out, this trend of those with higher incomes having fewer children is more than two generations old. It goes back to the Enlightenment period at least (our ability to track it further than that is limited). This trend has nothing to with abortion and/or modern contraception.
Except that evidence shows that improving the economic situation of people reduces the rate at which they reproduce. The problem with the chart you linked to is that I am pretty sure that in those countries, those with more education are also more wealthy. I am not exactly sure why you think that anybody would pay to import water from Africa. The logic of this article is that countries in Africa that suffer from severe droughts and starvation as a result could improve their food supply by using water from their underground aquifers to irrigate their cropland. The idea being that if their food supply was more reliable and adequate for their population, the standard of living would rise.
Using the underground aquifers to irrigate farmland in these countries would not be a bad thing, if it actually results in a higher standard of living. As I said at the start, every study on the subject has shown that improving the standard of living of a country reduces the rate at which the population increases.
The headline is not supported by the summary let alone by the article. The headline says "Newspapers pollute less on E-readers and Tablets". Yet the summary says nothing about how much pollution is generated to produce a paper newspaper vs reading it on an electronic device. The article and the summary only talk about the relative green house gases of these two distribution methods. Perhaps people have forgotten that there is a lot of very serious pollution out there. Pollution that is actual poison. Even if you consider green house gases pollution, there are many types of pollution that are much worse. This article does not examine those pollutants in any way, so does not really address the issue described by the headline.
Yeah, that's right, those athletes spend their entire lives training for the Olympics and nobody pays them. They just do it for the love of the sport. /s
There is so much money in the Olympics it makes the NFL look like chump change. The athletes are getting their share. It may not be coming from the IOC, but it may as well be. The entire proposition is corrupt. Yes, there are a few athletes who are not making a lot of money off of the Olympics, but for the most part the athletes that actually win anything there are making big bucks. The entire thing and everyone involved with it from top to bottom is about exploiting it for every dime they can. The IOC can get away with pushing these rules on the athletes because an Olympic appearance is worth so much to the athletes.
How else will they be able to raise enough money to pay the athletes AND the various big name "non-profit" figures that need to get their cut from these games?
Many Christian groups treat women as second class citizens because they are to remain silent in church, and obey their husbands.
Almost every Christian group (and by an overwhelming margin) that teach that women are to remain silent in church and obey their husbands base that on Ephesians 5:22-24. Those groups, also, emphasize Ephesians 5:25-30 which says that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the Church. How did Christ love the Church? As is made clear in the context of this passage, He did so by dying for the Church.
Yes, Jesus said to render to Caesar what is Caesar's and he said to give to God the things that are God's. There is actually a very convincing argument that Jesus was not saying anything about whether or not we should pay taxes (that is too complicated for this setting). However, that is not important since Paul clearly says that we should pay our taxes.
Going on, paying taxes does not in and of itself help the poor. I would argue that most government programs that are supposedly intended to help the poor actually do more harm to the poor than actual help. Most of those programs actually transfer more wealth to government workers and wealthy supporters of politicians than they do to the poor (or even in actual assistance to the poor in non-monetary ways).
Jesus did not tell the rich man to sell all that he has and give the money to the government. He told the rich man to sell all that he has and give the money to the poor. If he had given the money to the government very little would have gotten to the poor. While more would get to the poor today, it still isn't all that much.
Extremists responsible for this attack represent Muslims about as accurately as McVeigh represents Christians.
Yes, because there is a lot of equivalence to compare people who commit violence in the name of their Muslim faith with McVeigh, who proclaimed himself an agnostic.
Timothy McVeigh is not an example of where innocent people were caught in the crossfire of a religious nutjob. McVeigh stated that he was an agnostic.
Perhaps the power companies see it as an investment.
In most U.S. states (I believe all, but there may be a couple of exceptions), power companies are heavily regulated and have what is essentially a guaranteed return on investment whereby the state government body which regulates their rates lets them increase their rates so as to make a certain percentage of profits over their expenses (occasionally a power company will make an expenditure that is so completely boneheaded that the state regulatory agency makes them eat it and lose profit for a short period of time, but that is only for the most completely boneheaded sort of decision).
What this means is that the power companies absolutely see it as an investment. An investment that will allow them to raise their rates to cover the costs of the rebate program and make some profit over the cost of that program.
Why shouldn't I buy cheap, crappy CFLs? I used to buy cheap, crappy incandescent bulbs and got acceptable performance. Now, I can't buy them in 100 watts anymore and you tell me that I shouldn't complain because the more expensive "cheap crappy CFLs" aren't as good as they were?
That's great, so now I can no longer buy reliable bulbs at stores that are convenient for me to shop at because somebody decided they knew better than I what types of bulbs I ought to buy. Yeah, that really made my life better. /s
The flaw in that logic is that it assumes that the bias is racial. It is much more likely to be a cultural bias. The fact of the matter is that I am less likely to have a problem understanding and being understood by Michael Smith than I am Maya Kumar.
That's funny. Calling a town that was created as part of the Soviet gulag a libertarian utopia.
Two points, the first one is that all I was doing was pointing out what the original poster actually said, not making a statement about whether or not Jehovah's Witnesses are or are not Christians.
The second point is that the majority of groups which consider themselves Christian have agreed that there are certain characteristic beliefs that define whether or not a particular group is Christian or not. The Jehovah's Witnesses do not meet those criteria.
Good try, but I think we all know which side would win a true tally of evil bastards.
You are correct, but try convincing the atheists on slashdot of that.
Think about only this: without the excuse of God, how many politicians would have to find another way to persuade us to follow them in their quest to serve their buddies' interests.
You mean the way that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro kept referring to God as a reason for them to persecute millions of those in the countries they controlled? Oh wait, no, none of them did that. They were all professing atheists.
You are going to tell me what I heard now? The conversation I had with her definitely covered dinosaurs. She was not confused about what she was saying, and neither was I. I realise that this might not be the official teaching of the Jehovah's witnesses, but she was a christian, and that was her personal belief.
He was not telling you what you heard. He was telling you that Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian.
There are more than two ways.
There are more than two ways what?
I am going to assume you mean economic systems and you are wrong. There are at their base only two economic systems. In one system, people are free to acquire various types of property and freely exchange it with others on the basis of terms decided upon by the parties to the exchange (this is usually called free market capitalism). In the other system, some select group decides what the rest of society may have and what they may do with whatever goods they acquire (this goes by many different names as people attempt to disguise it as something other than what it is). Every economic system is some variation of one of these two, or a hybridization of them.
You expressly referred to the differential in power between employee and corporation, which is completely irrelevant to this story. BTW there already exist "whistleblower laws" to protect government employees from being fired for pointing out ways that a government bureaucracy is behaving outside of bounds. If those existing laws did not work to protect her (a dubious assumption, considering, as others have pointed out, that there was less than a week from her sending her letter to a congressperson and her firing), what makes you think that another law would do any better?
Jesse James did not "flee west". I can find no evidence that Jesse James committed crimes further west than Kansas (a state that bordered his home state of Missouri). Most of his criminal activity was in Missouri, Iowa and Kentucky (states which neighbored Missouri). In fact, his criminal career came to an end when he led his gang two states away (northward, not westward) into Minnesota and territory that they were unfamiliar with (where the gang was pretty much wiped out by locals who were familiar with the area).
In summary, everything indicates that Jesse James lived most of his life in his home state of Missouri, except for short forays into neighboring states (and one disastrous trip a little further north).
As opposed to every other system whereby the most powerful are the government and have no need to "consolidate" power as they already have all of it and can readily siphon off government money for their own purposes. No amount of ideology about how some economic system is supposed to work will change humans from how they actually behave.
You missed one of the reasons for the TSA, which is to get people used to not traveling as much in preparation to restricting their right to travel.
Have you read that Obama is pushing a law to allow the IRS to restrict people from leaving the US if they suspect that they might owe taxes? There would be no need to actually accuse the person of owing taxes, or even going before a judge to show documentation for that suspicion, just the IRS saying that they suspect that this person owes back taxes.
You do realize that the TSA is part of the organization that you want to act as the "impartial entity", right? You want the government to pass a law regulating on what basis an employer (in this case, the government) can fire an employee and then you want the government to act as "impartial referee" between itself and an employee it seeks to fire. Basically, you want to expand the government to fix a problem created by the government.