As I recall, (and I researched this myself) that Netscape Navigator, and IE are both free whether you use it in a company or personaly.
The liscence wording is pretty dificult to decipher but its there (it uses like a triple negative). We used in the company I worked for as the intranet browser for free, legaly for example. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~ ~^~
Debian does not market or officially support their product
A very true in the grand old tradition of Linux doesn't market or support their product. However, I get more help on the #debianhelp channel then I've ever gotten anywhere. In fact I've seen people come in with questions about WinLinux, Mandrake, Redhat, and Slackware (I don't encourage this by the way) and get answers there because they didn't know where else to turn or they weren't getting the right answers from them.
One of the greatest things about Debian is that they still hold to the old school traditions that people who have been using Linux for a long time have grown to appreciate. The sence of community where we all add value to the product and share in its usefulness.
I think Corel is just doing with Debian what Redhat did with Linux. Only the job is easier becuase Debian is already refined in the community process as a distribution rather than the package level that Redhat starts with. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
I hate to be a party pooper but I can write a short script of every experience I've had with wine, whether it was with Civ II, Axis and Allies, Age of Empires, some pipe game, excel, GospeLink, Palm software and now Harmony (linking Palm with on line calender).
1- I hear about major advances with such and such software 2- I download the latest Wine 3- running Wine I try to install software 4- watch it fail becuase something doesn't link 5- moan 6- contemplate wierd schemes of repartitioning so I can run Windows to get it throught the install so I can try the program 7- give up for another three months
Does anyone know tricks or tips of getting programs to install under wine? I'm with a lot of people who look through the glass at people happily getting things to work and wonder what we're doing wrong from the start. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^ ~
Couldn't have put it better myself, but I'll put it another way any way. There is two things I believe are rules of government.
1) Governments in the world only have the power its citizens give it. Its the authority given by people thing. From John Lock to "The Leviathan" a government has always been the product of the people, and in short amirror of the same.
Is it any wonder where we might get a government that supposedly sits back and laughs at the helpless sheep under its control? Becuase there are people like the origional poster who are so eager to jump on kindergarted ideals of freedom and adolescant knee-jerking against authority. No wonder they think the populas is easy to control.
The most easily lead individuals are the "individualistic" teenagers. I get sick watching MTV and other things targeted at them with there message "We offer something exciting and new" and "You are not going to just follow the croud, that is why you will follow me!" "I agree the world is just too demanding of you, I understand, that is why real freedom is buying our product..."
I used to think I was really something, that I was choosing my own direction. Now I realize I was duped and was being lead around as helplessly as the people I was laughing at. In fact, if anything most of them were really excersizing freedom I don't know how I got it all backwards.
2) No matter how much authority we give the government, there are things it still can't do like take away the reasons drugs are bad.
I too believe that participation is the only way to lead in this world. Its the only way to find out what is really going on. If you don't participate your life is being decided by someone who is participating. It might be unfair, but then isn't there something other than complaining you can do about it (hint, hint). ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^ ~
Like four years now. Its one of the things that might actually motivate me to finish my CS degree or at least take an OS class. This OS I really like.
But I see two things really. The first works off of a comment someone told me when I was shouting that 1.0 came out. He said "Linux getting a little usable and featured for you?"
I see two reasons to get excited about this, one is that the design is new and exciting, the other is the chance to pioneer.
The names in Linux are pretty set in infamy. And they should be they've earned it. But some of us are wanting to do a little pioneering of our own. I think of "Support Your Local Sheriff on this one"
sherrif: "I'm going to Australia, last of the frontier to do a little pioneering."
Town Father:"I thought this was frontier and we was pioneers."
Its a real land of opportunity for people who already feel a little population pressure in Linux.
And the OS design is just great enough to be a real opportunity. Some real avanues to invent some real interesting possibilities. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~ ^~~~^~~^~
But as far as your question, How can I base so much of my life on something I have no empirical evidence exists?
The answer isn't very easy but it is simple. I think there is what feels like a lack of empirical evidence becuase it is evidence that is very difficult to describe and define (empirical means quantifiable or qualifiable essentialy to me).
Lucky the human experience is made up of plenty of these things so we should be quite use to them. For instance if someone never tasted salt how would you describe it to them? It has a definition that is so equaly understood that the name is just a word we tack on to an otherwise undescribable emperical event. Ever hear about a roller coaster ride or wilderness adventure and just get sick at the description of it while the person is getting more and more excited to tell it?
I liked how the Movie Contact approached it. The leading man was asked simularly how he knew there was a God. He responded by asking back she (the leading lady) knew her Dad loved her (which was obvious to the story). I think there are eloquant ways of describing such an event as fatherly love, a true romantic love or a baby birth, but without experiencing it oneself we're just left to ponder if they aren't just a little demented.
Ever notice how when you break up, or really feel in love with someone that all of a sudden songs on the radio make sence? Its really just drivle, but it happens to make sence when we are feeling something simular.
Now I'm saying for me my knowledge or faith in God is built on experiences that happen along a simular and difficult to describe medium. This is contrary to what people think faith is, its my experience that faith is the same as imagionation to some people, and stubborness to see the facts by others.
For me it is the *assurance* (assurance and evidence must come externaly no matter how it is interpreted) of things hoped for which are true. Not just quirky motivation to hope one is right, not what we want to be true but it has to be based on truth or it doesn't work. If you believe in something that isnt' true, no matter how stubborn you are you will eventually see it and if you choose to be more stubborn about it you aren't seeing reality well enough to really use faith in my opinion.
Its through this medium that I definately feel the presence or influence of someone who I can't describe how but I know actualy is working with me helping me be a better person. I "listen" to it and it turns out to be right and the enrichment it brings isn't neccisarily that some galactic gift giver is selfishly pleased that I chose to follow. Its more that I was let in on a way to enjoy life more, like taking a hint on a hot stock from a friend and they were right. This influence let me in on secrets that are simply laws already in place in the universe (therefore not secret at all) but I am very impressed and feel unlikely that I would have learned them on my own. In this way following leads to me getting what I want just like following directions a friend gave me leads me to his house. That to me is almost a scientific method.
Its really to real to ignore, but to difficult to compress into cold words to talk about much. But its there. And I know my life is better for it and for that I can only feel appreciative (I don't even feel lucky or "chosen" if that makes sence, just thankful.)
Anyway I guess I've tried about as well as I can to answer. These experiences are available to all so hopefuly the world won't have to rely on my words (or lack there of) I've seen it enter in to and enrich many peoples' lives and know from watching them and my own personal experience that it is the most important question to definitevely answer "is there a God," and then "what is God like."
Feel free to email me, I enjoy answering questions, and my signature says how far I take my own opinion.... ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~ ~^~~^~
What is "that freedom argument"? I liked the rest its a really good oration on the way the world works and is viewed if you beleive the assumption that there is no divine authority.
I'm not picking, or shoving anything down anyones throaght. I'm just sticking with George Lucas and others who believe ultimately there is no more important question to answer definitavely than is there a God or not. Because if there isn't then your absolutely right. If there is, then you are most likely just mostly right becuase your lesson immediately removes God as a possibility.
And another thing, I don't believe that a person can only hurt themself. No one can really stop someone from hurting themself they can only make it more difficult to do. I'm not arguing that. But I've been around this world enough to know that no one hurts just themself. I know this.
In fact I want to figure out what this word "moral" really means becuase I don't think right wing fanatics who weild it like a weapon know what it means, nor the people that make strawmen moral right dummies and cut them down. I don't know exactly what moral means, I just know that every action has moral as well as social concequences (they hate you and beat you up is a social concequence). And its becuase of this moral fiber (I have no better word for it, so I borrow from poetic liscence) that connects human beings and bonds them together that causes us to hurt when we see others in pain or hurting themselves. No man is an island.
I know people and have been before in instances where the felt no bond with anyone, I've been there too and honestly that even hurt. Like cared if I was happy or even would rather see me suffer, that hurt. Now I feel it for others I see in the same position. I strongly think we all go through that dispair sooner or later, and more than once in a lifetime.
My belief in God comes strongly from an influence that I feel, that lets me know I am connected. It heals, enables and enriches my life. I enjoy that in my life. I don't feel a desperate clinginess to it like some presume a love of God is. I only feel happy its there, and very confident in it. An appreciation really.
I guess I'm getting more personal than I should on such a public flaming forum. People flame what they disagree with, and plenty disagree with the notion that God exists, or whether or not someone can really know that for themself. I suppose its their right. Who knows I bet I misspelled a lot and my grammer is horrible too.:) ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Newton was an avid believer, he was proud that he died a celibate even. Same with the rest, except maybe Darwin but I've never seen where he says "There is no God." I think natural selection was his view of God. Maybe that is like Pasteur who discredited the age old proof of creation (i.e. that bacteria spontaneously form in a flask) but still believed in God.
I see the same arguments in the "liberal" sciences. Mozart was a sex fiend, Shakespeare was gay, and on and on. As it turns out Mozart (from letters we have) had a pronounced love of God, and Shakespeare also (and if the arguments about him being gay are to be believed than any poet of that time must have been gay.)
Scriabin (who I never really liked his music anyway) was self professed as trying to start his own religion. Meanwhile Stravinsky (or maybe Straus I can't remember which) became more famous. And he beleived so much in the need for God's inspiration that he proclaimed that "no good work will ever come of an atheist."
But in the end its all lore. One can't say that science conflicts with religion therefore the good scientists are not religious. One can't rewrite history like that. But you can find out for youreself. Its called independant research, and I strongly recomend it. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
I suppose that religion in general seeks for such justification from God. One who worships him as the founder of this universe and an authority on the laws and principles that when followed make our lives happier now, and after we die would certainly welcome such approval.
Much like Linus adding your code to the kernel, or being promoted by your company, someone with authority has liked your work and endorsed it. Just like Linus and most good bosses do, they are always trying to say what they like to help one understand how to do that.
I guess this is where the "Is it freedom" question comes in. Is it freedom if they told you to do it or they wanted you to do it? Is it freedom if they say one way is good or one way is bad?
The answer is definately yes. One always has the choice to follow or not to follow. However, one doens't really have the authority to proclaim there own choices as good or bad. That authority has to be given either by people agreeing with them (from man if you will) or by the natural laws of the universe (God). These aren't mutualy exclusive but do diverge into seperate entities in some cases....
Now if there is no God, then well there is no such authority right? Then there is no right or wrong except as we proclaim it. If that is true then Katz is right in his article. If it isn't then he is simply wrong on many points.
I guess that is why so many people stress (including George Lucas) that there is no more important question to find the answer for than "Is there a God?"
People can debate it but does that really answer the question? If we all decide there is no God does that mean there is no God?
After that question is answered, I guess the next question is what is God's nature and charectaristics. Then we can decide whether or not to follow God. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Oh dang, I'm not supposed to continue this thread. I guess some people consider Godwin's law to be hypocritical censorship. Hitler would agree with Godwin's view of censorship, just not on the content to be censored.... Dang! I mentioned Hitler again!
Its my oppinion (and Katz's article kind of supports this, Godwin's law really supports this, and the seemingly relentless struggle to remove God "now that we have technology") that no one is more closed minded and opinionated as an open minded modern free thinker.
Your ticked and whining becuase I denounced what? Which half isn't true and why, you FUD spewer?
Wait a second, Govenor Ventura, is that you? You read Slashdot? I could have added WWF to that list to you know. I didn't mention sports as the couch potato opiate, I mentioned *overly* commercialized sports media.
Come meet me in the ring whiney boy, the super On Lawn is headed strait for the top, and isn't afraid of any office wimp who will stand in his way.
You were "the body", you were someone to reckon with, but its time to sit back in that cushy seat where you belong and watch what is mighty to behold! Get in my way and feel the Mower(tm)!!!
Oh, no your not anything, your just an Anonymous **Coward**.... Peace, the mighty On Lawn has left the building. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^ ~~^~
What are the "defined" minimal set of functions? Then we can see where they don't include a central control of the economy.
In practice there is no such thing as a centraly controled economy. Even in Russia, no matter how hard they insist what a Ruble is worth, it is actually sold and traded at different rates. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^ ~
hahahah that was too cool, i want to be the freedonians.
My point was really more like the ESR libertarian government would have too much of an advantage, becuase the actual cost of such a government wasn't factored in enough.
(And my point wasn't that Libertarianism is bad as some have taken it.) ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Hmmm, both "The Leviathan" and John Locks piece (why I remember the name of one, and the writer of the other) state that naturaly a society rely's on the government. But I understand where you say that a people shouldn't have to be dependant of the government, the government in reality depends on its people.
That is a strong belief of mine too. Thats very Jacksonian in my opinion, and the reason that Fredrick Jackson Turner described that a democracy is dead without the existance of free land.
I am Libertarian in party, and ideal. I'd be interested in continuing this over email. Jusst remove the SPsheiLD from my email address. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~ ~^~
I wasn't picking on anyone, I was just trying to figure out what about them you decided was "libertarian." I don't think your views on it being the freest part of the world is very researched or defendable but I won't diasgree either. How was it the freest place on earth? Because the government didn't envoke laws or becuase the government didn't have to?
I see you mean libertarian values to be individualistic, and with an independant (non-reliant) government (what that means I'm still not sure but very interested. I'm not sure you can have a government that doesn't rely on its people, the constitution of the United States describes a... "government for the people, by the people and of the people." (maybe out of order?) That statement to me is very libertarian, and a very dependant government. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~ ~^~~^~
Hmmmm, once again I'm not quite sure where to pick this one up. Hitler's regime had some serious scientific advancements, if that is your opinion of a non-libertarian state.
Its the openness of a libertarian society that could be exemplified by Linux. But then that is a dubious statement becuase the GPL has its own propriety but at least its open propriety. I believe I went over that.
You seem to see this Libertarianism you don't define as the magical way to solve societies ills. I see that it comes with a cost, and a commitment to pay that cost. It can be everything you dream it is, but are you willing to pay the cost?
To pull and exemple from the falling of the Berlin Wall, when Zeiss of West Germany and the Zeiss of East Germany reunited, they seemed to be pretty equal. Eastern Zeiss had some things that Western Zeiss didn't and vice versa. (My Grandpa had the scoop on this as he worked for Zeiss about that time.) Both sides wanted the wall to fall, not just those on the inside.
Socialism has brought about some serious inventions too like lazer eye surgery and HMO's (j/k). Meanwhile how does Armond Hammer get rich? On some new invention? No, pencils and baking soda.
So really, as a type of government we still have to find some way of defining and libertarian state to really decide if it has such an inherant advantage. I remember that Switzerland has an edge on Nobel prize winners, America doesn't. Is one Libertarian and one not? How? Denmark seems to follow the current party platform the best, how many advancements come from them? Is it that much more than anywhere else in europe?
I believe that the pursuit of liberty (the real libertarian belief) will always lead to significant advancement, such platform items like legalizing drug use, and others don't really lead to the pursuit of happiness however. They lead to the rediscovery of misery. And therefore hampered advancement.
Like my origional post said the cost is education, that is the difference between making a government based on liberty and one that is made to suck like a giant leach on the collective red-neck of the NFL/NBA/MLB opiated masses.
I am a libertarian, not anarchist. I believe in a government engaged in liberating citizens. If you want to find out more, remove SPsheiLD from my email address and drop me a line. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Libertarianism is an ideal not a government. It is very government style agnostic. Any government that ensures the liberties of its citizens is Libertarian. This can be a Democracy, Monarchy, or Communism. If anything make it a wonder, but the fight for liberty is as old as time so I have no idea what time period it would be.
I'm also unsure of your definition of Libertarianism, especially since you point to Hong Kong (which was pretty much British right?), Switzerland (which forces every person to be in the military for a certain length of time, and also has a monarchy/democracy mix as I understand), and New Zealand as examples. I don't see a common thread to grasp on to.
They all have laws against drugs maybe thats a common thread. The only country I know of that Drugs are legal is Denmark. Not one of those "We've got money to burn" super producing countries.
Your example of number four is understandable, but I don't see the correspondance to Civ:CTP. Do you doubt that a society that follows libertarian values would have that great a standing army to thwart invation? Maybe a modification of conscription could give a libertarian style government more war ability.
and for V, I don't know if there would be more or less population growth. But sighting the examples you gave above of Switzerland, Hong Kong, and New Zealand it wouldn't be as much as say India, Mexico, or 1800's America. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~ ~^~
This sounds interesting, but I have no idea what you mean.
Could you elaborate?
Note that if Linux is considered at all an application of libertarian views (this being an interesting discussion in itself), then it is interesting to note that information and scientific advances flow quicker to proprietary applications of Fascism, (read Microoft) etc... (look at gimp, litestep, winblinds, cygwin etc...) than they do the other way around (look at wine). The GPL could be represented as a mechanism set up to control that flow, to make it more even. Interesting how it envokes it own propriety to accomplish that.
I am still deliberating on whether or not you would not be able to detect people stealing your technology in a CivCTP libertarian government. Interestingly, I also wonder if Lawyers (protecting the liberties of everyone) would have a stronger or weaker effect. Most likely the same.
In any case it is interesting to note that people banding together to protect a publicaly viewed set of liberties has always been a part of the rise of civilisations.
However, The commiting of liberty to meaning that one does not have to pay consequences for their actions has on the level of a society, whether it by by just the king, or a majority of a democracy has always been a part of the decline of that civilization. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^ ~~~^~~^~
Okay, remembering the interview with Bill Gates where [He] adds: "Someone who owns a newspaper can pick up the phone to the editor and say 'run headlines I like'. "What we do is create tools like a word processor that lets people express their ideas and we're not at all involved in how they choose to use it."
He sounded pretty benign and there were many slashdot posts arguing that he does have an influence. Certain posts already in this thread lead me to beleive that Microsoft may not have actually had a influence on the Gartner report.
But this article does remind me of the many publishing oportunities they do own, and some are more cloaked in influence than others.
Besides, like many posts have mentioned, the Micosoft Spin machine won't work against Linux. Like Linus said himself (quoting from memory on his address at Usenix) "I see the [group of Linux researchers hired by Microsoft] as a Linux User Group in disguise. Sure, they don't report bugs in a very good way... but they spend much of their time and resources finding them." (If someone has the exact quote I welcome them posting it.)
In essence they are devoting Microsoft time and energy to finding the shortcomings of Linux so we can work on them. How could that be wrong? Every time they complain we just make it better. We wind up winning every time, not losing. As a famous publicist said "No publicity is bad publicity..." or something like that.
They can complain about where we aren't but they can't keep us from getting there. I for one thank Microsoft for there (misguided) support, and I note that Mr Bill really isn't as benign to media as he wants to appear. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~ ^~
I think that the coolest part of the contest is the basic notion I feel is behind Open Source success. The ability to have a program work the way you want it to, and the strange anomolie that happens when you add that value to a product, other people like it too.
This contest featured people making Civ:CTP work more like they want it too. And for the most part the things they added would be things I think would be cool to have also. In this age of industial support and directions on what the fine open source programers have achieved, it is refreshing to remember the grass roots still between our toes.
Linux will always be the sandbox where I can make my dreams of computing happen. That is worth more to me ultimately than anything closed can offer. I'm glad to see that was the spirit of this contest, and that it is the product. Good to see the spirit of the Open Source movement still alive.
Just my two cents. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^ ~
Slashdot Mirror
As I recall, (and I researched this myself) that Netscape Navigator, and IE are both free whether you use it in a company or personaly.
~ ~^~
The liscence wording is pretty dificult to decipher but its there (it uses like a triple negative). We used in the company I worked for as the intranet browser for free, legaly for example.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^
Debian does not market or officially support their product
~
A very true in the grand old tradition of Linux doesn't market or support their product. However, I get more help on the #debianhelp channel then I've ever gotten anywhere. In fact I've seen people come in with questions about WinLinux, Mandrake, Redhat, and Slackware (I don't encourage this by the way) and get answers there because they didn't know where else to turn or they weren't getting the right answers from them.
One of the greatest things about Debian is that they still hold to the old school traditions that people who have been using Linux for a long time have grown to appreciate. The sence of community where we all add value to the product and share in its usefulness.
I think Corel is just doing with Debian what Redhat did with Linux. Only the job is easier becuase Debian is already refined in the community process as a distribution rather than the package level that Redhat starts with.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^
what benefits it has over the distro it was based on(redhat?)?
^ ~~~^~~^~
Um Debian?
It has a fancy install and maintenance package, for those who have been previously discouraged by Debian's really basic (but powerful) install tools.
The preview does a good job of showing the improvements.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~
I hate to be a party pooper but I can write a short script of every experience I've had with wine, whether it was with Civ II, Axis and Allies, Age of Empires, some pipe game, excel, GospeLink, Palm software and now Harmony (linking Palm with on line calender).
^ ~
1- I hear about major advances with such and such software
2- I download the latest Wine
3- running Wine I try to install software
4- watch it fail becuase something doesn't link
5- moan
6- contemplate wierd schemes of repartitioning so I can run Windows to get it throught the install so I can try the program
7- give up for another three months
Does anyone know tricks or tips of getting programs to install under wine? I'm with a lot of people who look through the glass at people happily getting things to work and wonder what we're doing wrong from the start.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
Couldn't have put it better myself, but I'll put it another way any way. There is two things I believe are rules of government.
^ ~
1) Governments in the world only have the power its citizens give it. Its the authority given by people thing. From John Lock to "The Leviathan" a government has always been the product of the people, and in short amirror of the same.
Is it any wonder where we might get a government that supposedly sits back and laughs at the helpless sheep under its control? Becuase there are people like the origional poster who are so eager to jump on kindergarted ideals of freedom and adolescant knee-jerking against authority. No wonder they think the populas is easy to control.
The most easily lead individuals are the "individualistic" teenagers. I get sick watching MTV and other things targeted at them with there message "We offer something exciting and new" and "You are not going to just follow the croud, that is why you will follow me!" "I agree the world is just too demanding of you, I understand, that is why real freedom is buying our product..."
I used to think I was really something, that I was choosing my own direction. Now I realize I was duped and was being lead around as helplessly as the people I was laughing at. In fact, if anything most of them were really excersizing freedom I don't know how I got it all backwards.
2) No matter how much authority we give the government, there are things it still can't do like take away the reasons drugs are bad.
I too believe that participation is the only way to lead in this world. Its the only way to find out what is really going on. If you don't participate your life is being decided by someone who is participating. It might be unfair, but then isn't there something other than complaining you can do about it (hint, hint).
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
But I thought I's share some I haven't seen mentioned.
^ ~~^~
One is describing relaxed states.
onlawn (my favorite)
thepier (looks like a cool theatrical character too)
byfire
inbed
fishinhole
downstream
splashfoot
One I've used at work is childhood toy conventions
Transformers
optimus
mirage
megatron
rodimus
Gi Joe, (can't remember some right now)
Barbie (for the geek-chicks)
or one place I saw had things you can do to a ball
punt
kick
slam
spike
dunk
pop
inflate
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~
slimey?~ ^~
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~
Like four years now. Its one of the things that might actually motivate me to finish my CS degree or at least take an OS class. This OS I really like.
~ ^~~~^~~^~
But I see two things really. The first works off of a comment someone told me when I was shouting that 1.0 came out. He said "Linux getting a little usable and featured for you?"
I see two reasons to get excited about this, one is that the design is new and exciting, the other is the chance to pioneer.
The names in Linux are pretty set in infamy. And they should be they've earned it. But some of us are wanting to do a little pioneering of our own. I think of "Support Your Local Sheriff on this one"
sherrif: "I'm going to Australia, last of the frontier to do a little pioneering."
Town Father:"I thought this was frontier and we was pioneers."
Its a real land of opportunity for people who already feel a little population pressure in Linux.
And the OS design is just great enough to be a real opportunity. Some real avanues to invent some real interesting possibilities.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~
I like your writing. I agree with it too.
~ ~^~~^~
But as far as your question, How can I base so much of my life on something I have no empirical evidence exists?
The answer isn't very easy but it is simple. I think there is what feels like a lack of empirical evidence becuase it is evidence that is very difficult to describe and define (empirical means quantifiable or qualifiable essentialy to me).
Lucky the human experience is made up of plenty of these things so we should be quite use to them. For instance if someone never tasted salt how would you describe it to them? It has a definition that is so equaly understood that the name is just a word we tack on to an otherwise undescribable emperical event. Ever hear about a roller coaster ride or wilderness adventure and just get sick at the description of it while the person is getting more and more excited to tell it?
I liked how the Movie Contact approached it. The leading man was asked simularly how he knew there was a God. He responded by asking back she (the leading lady) knew her Dad loved her (which was obvious to the story). I think there are eloquant ways of describing such an event as fatherly love, a true romantic love or a baby birth, but without experiencing it oneself we're just left to ponder if they aren't just a little demented.
Ever notice how when you break up, or really feel in love with someone that all of a sudden songs on the radio make sence? Its really just drivle, but it happens to make sence when we are feeling something simular.
Now I'm saying for me my knowledge or faith in God is built on experiences that happen along a simular and difficult to describe medium. This is contrary to what people think faith is, its my experience that faith is the same as imagionation to some people, and stubborness to see the facts by others.
For me it is the *assurance* (assurance and evidence must come externaly no matter how it is interpreted) of things hoped for which are true. Not just quirky motivation to hope one is right, not what we want to be true but it has to be based on truth or it doesn't work. If you believe in something that isnt' true, no matter how stubborn you are you will eventually see it and if you choose to be more stubborn about it you aren't seeing reality well enough to really use faith in my opinion.
Its through this medium that I definately feel the presence or influence of someone who I can't describe how but I know actualy is working with me helping me be a better person. I "listen" to it and it turns out to be right and the enrichment it brings isn't neccisarily that some galactic gift giver is selfishly pleased that I chose to follow. Its more that I was let in on a way to enjoy life more, like taking a hint on a hot stock from a friend and they were right. This influence let me in on secrets that are simply laws already in place in the universe (therefore not secret at all) but I am very impressed and feel unlikely that I would have learned them on my own. In this way following leads to me getting what I want just like following directions a friend gave me leads me to his house. That to me is almost a scientific method.
Its really to real to ignore, but to difficult to compress into cold words to talk about much. But its there. And I know my life is better for it and for that I can only feel appreciative (I don't even feel lucky or "chosen" if that makes sence, just thankful.)
Anyway I guess I've tried about as well as I can to answer. These experiences are available to all so hopefuly the world won't have to rely on my words (or lack there of) I've seen it enter in to and enrich many peoples' lives and know from watching them and my own personal experience that it is the most important question to definitevely answer "is there a God," and then "what is God like."
Feel free to email me, I enjoy answering questions, and my signature says how far I take my own opinion....
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~
That topic was not meant to be inflamatory.
^ ~
It was from another thought that I didn't carry into the post. Sorry.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
What is "that freedom argument"? I liked the rest its a really good oration on the way the world works and is viewed if you beleive the assumption that there is no divine authority.
:)
I'm not picking, or shoving anything down anyones throaght. I'm just sticking with George Lucas and others who believe ultimately there is no more important question to answer definitavely than is there a God or not. Because if there isn't then your absolutely right. If there is, then you are most likely just mostly right becuase your lesson immediately removes God as a possibility.
And another thing, I don't believe that a person can only hurt themself. No one can really stop someone from hurting themself they can only make it more difficult to do. I'm not arguing that. But I've been around this world enough to know that no one hurts just themself. I know this.
In fact I want to figure out what this word "moral" really means becuase I don't think right wing fanatics who weild it like a weapon know what it means, nor the people that make strawmen moral right dummies and cut them down. I don't know exactly what moral means, I just know that every action has moral as well as social concequences (they hate you and beat you up is a social concequence). And its becuase of this moral fiber (I have no better word for it, so I borrow from poetic liscence) that connects human beings and bonds them together that causes us to hurt when we see others in pain or hurting themselves. No man is an island.
I know people and have been before in instances where the felt no bond with anyone, I've been there too and honestly that even hurt. Like cared if I was happy or even would rather see me suffer, that hurt. Now I feel it for others I see in the same position. I strongly think we all go through that dispair sooner or later, and more than once in a lifetime.
My belief in God comes strongly from an influence that I feel, that lets me know I am connected. It heals, enables and enriches my life. I enjoy that in my life. I don't feel a desperate clinginess to it like some presume a love of God is. I only feel happy its there, and very confident in it. An appreciation really.
I guess I'm getting more personal than I should on such a public flaming forum. People flame what they disagree with, and plenty disagree with the notion that God exists, or whether or not someone can really know that for themself. I suppose its their right. Who knows I bet I misspelled a lot and my grammer is horrible too.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Newton was an avid believer, he was proud that he died a celibate even. Same with the rest, except maybe Darwin but I've never seen where he says "There is no God." I think natural selection was his view of God. Maybe that is like Pasteur who discredited the age old proof of creation (i.e. that bacteria spontaneously form in a flask) but still believed in God.
I see the same arguments in the "liberal" sciences. Mozart was a sex fiend, Shakespeare was gay, and on and on. As it turns out Mozart (from letters we have) had a pronounced love of God, and Shakespeare also (and if the arguments about him being gay are to be believed than any poet of that time must have been gay.)
Scriabin (who I never really liked his music anyway) was self professed as trying to start his own religion. Meanwhile Stravinsky (or maybe Straus I can't remember which) became more famous. And he beleived so much in the need for God's inspiration that he proclaimed that "no good work will ever come of an atheist."
But in the end its all lore. One can't say that science conflicts with religion therefore the good scientists are not religious. One can't rewrite history like that. But you can find out for youreself. Its called independant research, and I strongly recomend it.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
I suppose that religion in general seeks for such justification from God. One who worships him as the founder of this universe and an authority on the laws and principles that when followed make our lives happier now, and after we die would certainly welcome such approval.
Much like Linus adding your code to the kernel, or being promoted by your company, someone with authority has liked your work and endorsed it. Just like Linus and most good bosses do, they are always trying to say what they like to help one understand how to do that.
I guess this is where the "Is it freedom" question comes in. Is it freedom if they told you to do it or they wanted you to do it? Is it freedom if they say one way is good or one way is bad?
The answer is definately yes. One always has the choice to follow or not to follow. However, one doens't really have the authority to proclaim there own choices as good or bad. That authority has to be given either by people agreeing with them (from man if you will) or by the natural laws of the universe (God). These aren't mutualy exclusive but do diverge into seperate entities in some cases....
Now if there is no God, then well there is no such authority right? Then there is no right or wrong except as we proclaim it. If that is true then Katz is right in his article. If it isn't then he is simply wrong on many points.
I guess that is why so many people stress (including George Lucas) that there is no more important question to find the answer for than "Is there a God?"
People can debate it but does that really answer the question? If we all decide there is no God does that mean there is no God?
After that question is answered, I guess the next question is what is God's nature and charectaristics. Then we can decide whether or not to follow God.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Oh dang, I'm not supposed to continue this thread. I guess some people consider Godwin's law to be hypocritical censorship. Hitler would agree with Godwin's view of censorship, just not on the content to be censored.... Dang! I mentioned Hitler again!
Its my oppinion (and Katz's article kind of supports this, Godwin's law really supports this, and the seemingly relentless struggle to remove God "now that we have technology") that no one is more closed minded and opinionated as an open minded modern free thinker.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Your ticked and whining becuase I denounced what? Which half isn't true and why, you FUD spewer?
^ ~~^~
Wait a second, Govenor Ventura, is that you? You read Slashdot? I could have added WWF to that list to you know. I didn't mention sports as the couch potato opiate, I mentioned *overly* commercialized sports media.
Come meet me in the ring whiney boy, the super On Lawn is headed strait for the top, and isn't afraid of any office wimp who will stand in his way.
You were "the body", you were someone to reckon with, but its time to sit back in that cushy seat where you belong and watch what is mighty to behold! Get in my way and feel the Mower(tm)!!!
Oh, no your not anything, your just an Anonymous **Coward**....
Peace, the mighty On Lawn has left the building.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~
A very well put, unsupported argument.
^ ~
What are the "defined" minimal set of functions? Then we can see where they don't include a central control of the economy.
In practice there is no such thing as a centraly controled economy. Even in Russia, no matter how hard they insist what a Ruble is worth, it is actually sold and traded at different rates.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
hahahah that was too cool, i want to be the freedonians.
My point was really more like the ESR libertarian government would have too much of an advantage, becuase the actual cost of such a government wasn't factored in enough.
(And my point wasn't that Libertarianism is bad as some have taken it.)
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Since when has MTV been accused of being serious journalism?~ ~^~~^~
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~
Hmmm, both "The Leviathan" and John Locks piece (why I remember the name of one, and the writer of the other) state that naturaly a society rely's on the government. But I understand where you say that a people shouldn't have to be dependant of the government, the government in reality depends on its people.
~ ~^~
That is a strong belief of mine too. Thats very Jacksonian in my opinion, and the reason that Fredrick Jackson Turner described that a democracy is dead without the existance of free land.
I am Libertarian in party, and ideal. I'd be interested in continuing this over email. Jusst remove the SPsheiLD from my email address.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^
I wasn't picking on anyone, I was just trying to figure out what about them you decided was "libertarian." I don't think your views on it being the freest part of the world is very researched or defendable but I won't diasgree either. How was it the freest place on earth? Because the government didn't envoke laws or becuase the government didn't have to?
~ ~^~~^~
I see you mean libertarian values to be individualistic, and with an independant (non-reliant) government (what that means I'm still not sure but very interested. I'm not sure you can have a government that doesn't rely on its people, the constitution of the United States describes a... "government for the people, by the people and of the people." (maybe out of order?) That statement to me is very libertarian, and a very dependant government.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~
Hmmmm, once again I'm not quite sure where to pick this one up. Hitler's regime had some serious scientific advancements, if that is your opinion of a non-libertarian state.
~
Its the openness of a libertarian society that could be exemplified by Linux. But then that is a dubious statement becuase the GPL has its own propriety but at least its open propriety. I believe I went over that.
You seem to see this Libertarianism you don't define as the magical way to solve societies ills. I see that it comes with a cost, and a commitment to pay that cost. It can be everything you dream it is, but are you willing to pay the cost?
To pull and exemple from the falling of the Berlin Wall, when Zeiss of West Germany and the Zeiss of East Germany reunited, they seemed to be pretty equal. Eastern Zeiss had some things that Western Zeiss didn't and vice versa. (My Grandpa had the scoop on this as he worked for Zeiss about that time.) Both sides wanted the wall to fall, not just those on the inside.
Socialism has brought about some serious inventions too like lazer eye surgery and HMO's (j/k). Meanwhile how does Armond Hammer get rich? On some new invention? No, pencils and baking soda.
So really, as a type of government we still have to find some way of defining and libertarian state to really decide if it has such an inherant advantage. I remember that Switzerland has an edge on Nobel prize winners, America doesn't. Is one Libertarian and one not? How? Denmark seems to follow the current party platform the best, how many advancements come from them? Is it that much more than anywhere else in europe?
I believe that the pursuit of liberty (the real libertarian belief) will always lead to significant advancement, such platform items like legalizing drug use, and others don't really lead to the pursuit of happiness however. They lead to the rediscovery of misery. And therefore hampered advancement.
Like my origional post said the cost is education, that is the difference between making a government based on liberty and one that is made to suck like a giant leach on the collective red-neck of the NFL/NBA/MLB opiated masses.
I am a libertarian, not anarchist. I believe in a government engaged in liberating citizens. If you want to find out more, remove SPsheiLD from my email address and drop me a line.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^
Libertarianism is an ideal not a government. It is very government style agnostic. Any government that ensures the liberties of its citizens is Libertarian. This can be a Democracy, Monarchy, or Communism. If anything make it a wonder, but the fight for liberty is as old as time so I have no idea what time period it would be.
~ ~^~
I'm also unsure of your definition of Libertarianism, especially since you point to Hong Kong (which was pretty much British right?), Switzerland (which forces every person to be in the military for a certain length of time, and also has a monarchy/democracy mix as I understand), and New Zealand as examples. I don't see a common thread to grasp on to.
They all have laws against drugs maybe thats a common thread. The only country I know of that Drugs are legal is Denmark. Not one of those "We've got money to burn" super producing countries.
Your example of number four is understandable, but I don't see the correspondance to Civ:CTP. Do you doubt that a society that follows libertarian values would have that great a standing army to thwart invation? Maybe a modification of conscription could give a libertarian style government more war ability.
and for V, I don't know if there would be more or less population growth. But sighting the examples you gave above of Switzerland, Hong Kong, and New Zealand it wouldn't be as much as say India, Mexico, or 1800's America.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^
This sounds interesting, but I have no idea what you mean.
^ ~~~^~~^~
Could you elaborate?
Note that if Linux is considered at all an application of libertarian views (this being an interesting discussion in itself), then it is interesting to note that information and scientific advances flow quicker to proprietary applications of Fascism, (read Microoft) etc... (look at gimp, litestep, winblinds, cygwin etc...) than they do the other way around (look at wine). The GPL could be represented as a mechanism set up to control that flow, to make it more even. Interesting how it envokes it own propriety to accomplish that.
I am still deliberating on whether or not you would not be able to detect people stealing your technology in a CivCTP libertarian government. Interestingly, I also wonder if Lawyers (protecting the liberties of everyone) would have a stronger or weaker effect. Most likely the same.
In any case it is interesting to note that people banding together to protect a publicaly viewed set of liberties has always been a part of the rise of civilisations.
However, The commiting of liberty to meaning that one does not have to pay consequences for their actions has on the level of a society, whether it by by just the king, or a majority of a democracy has always been a part of the decline of that civilization.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~
Okay, remembering the interview with Bill Gates where [He] adds: "Someone who owns a newspaper can pick up the phone to the editor and say 'run headlines I like'.
~ ^~
"What we do is create tools like a word processor that lets people express their ideas and we're not at all involved in how they choose to use it."
He sounded pretty benign and there were many slashdot posts arguing that he does have an influence. Certain posts already in this thread lead me to beleive that Microsoft may not have actually had a influence on the Gartner report.
But this article does remind me of the many publishing oportunities they do own, and some are more cloaked in influence than others.
Besides, like many posts have mentioned, the Micosoft Spin machine won't work against Linux. Like Linus said himself (quoting from memory on his address at Usenix) "I see the [group of Linux researchers hired by Microsoft] as a Linux User Group in disguise. Sure, they don't report bugs in a very good way... but they spend much of their time and resources finding them." (If someone has the exact quote I welcome them posting it.)
In essence they are devoting Microsoft time and energy to finding the shortcomings of Linux so we can work on them. How could that be wrong? Every time they complain we just make it better. We wind up winning every time, not losing. As a famous publicist said "No publicity is bad publicity..." or something like that.
They can complain about where we aren't but they can't keep us from getting there. I for one thank Microsoft for there (misguided) support, and I note that Mr Bill really isn't as benign to media as he wants to appear.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~
I think that the coolest part of the contest is the basic notion I feel is behind Open Source success. The ability to have a program work the way you want it to, and the strange anomolie that happens when you add that value to a product, other people like it too.
^ ~
This contest featured people making Civ:CTP work more like they want it too. And for the most part the things they added would be things I think would be cool to have also. In this age of industial support and directions on what the fine open source programers have achieved, it is refreshing to remember the grass roots still between our toes.
Linux will always be the sandbox where I can make my dreams of computing happen. That is worth more to me ultimately than anything closed can offer. I'm glad to see that was the spirit of this contest, and that it is the product. Good to see the spirit of the Open Source movement still alive.
Just my two cents.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~