It's also entirely possible for someone to understand the science but believe for religious reasons that the earth does not go around the sun. It's just not rational or scientific because it is rejecting the answers presented by the scientific method and arbitrarily believing something else.
Well, if such a person was willing and able to defend their viewpoints, Id call that rational. Being rational doesn't mean blindly believing whatever someone tells you to believe without using your brain, whether its science or religion in question. Being rational means having a reason behind your beliefs, and being able to defend them logically.
A failure to understand what the opposing viewpoints are does not strengthen your position nor weaken theirs.
Simply because you choose to believe what you believe, because its what you believe ("since no religions are correct, no law of science as it is observed today can ever have changed, thus disproving all religions") is a pretty basic kind of circular logic.
Also, shipping all drivers will make the OS around a few TB. They actually try to include most drivers that are in popular hardware. Are you okay with that?
Wait, what? have you ever heard of Bashrat the Sneaky's driver packs? They basically allow you to do just that on an XP disk. XP SP2 weighs in around 580MB, and if you slipstream drivers for HDDs, LAN, WiFi, chipsets, and the most common graphics drivers, you end up around 680MB. Where the hell did you get the idea that it would take a few TB? Just because many drivers are bundled with bloatware apps doesnt mean that the drivers themselves are really all that big.
Additionally, Im not sure if you're aware that Linux takes this approach to drivers by building them into the kernel? Last I checked it was well under "a few TB".
Before even beginning to RTFA, i knew this was gonna be a garbage article with nothing but assumptions. I wont say that wikipedia doesnt have problems, but whenever i see references to a "cabal" @ wikipedia, my bullshit-radar kicks in.
Did everyone reading the article miss the point where Bagley vandalized another persons wikipedia article, and then wondered why he got banned? Im not an expert on dealing with issues @ wikipedia, but I'm going to take a wild stab and say that performing vandalism in order to get the attention of admins is a rather bad idea. Im gonna go a step further and saying that engaging in an edit war on another article doesnt help your reputation @ wikipedia. Bagley was behaving like a classic troll, regardless of the merits of his claim, and he was acting on a hunch--it states in the article that he wasnt even sure that Weiss was the one engaged in the edit war with him.
Nothing to see here except more register.co.uk bullshit.
what legal implications are you referring to? i think people have some mistaken impression that GPL is viral and would require MS to release source to all their products... or am i reading these comments wrong?
Worst case microsoft would have to supply the freely available source code to ubuntu (oh noes).
Sure, for geeks. But if we want people to stop using IE we must provide a credible alternative. you mean like a browser that doesnt set a disk-cache size of 1370MB by default? Have you seen the shitty cache-sizes that IE sets up by default, and the performance impact it causes?
Slashdot Mirror
It's also entirely possible for someone to understand the science but believe for religious reasons that the earth does not go around the sun. It's just not rational or scientific because it is rejecting the answers presented by the scientific method and arbitrarily believing something else.
Well, if such a person was willing and able to defend their viewpoints, Id call that rational. Being rational doesn't mean blindly believing whatever someone tells you to believe without using your brain, whether its science or religion in question. Being rational means having a reason behind your beliefs, and being able to defend them logically.
Theres also a difference between understanding the opposing viewpoint, and making strawmen out of them.
Scientifically accepted =\= truth, and if you believe it is you have a poor understanding of history.
A failure to understand what the opposing viewpoints are does not strengthen your position nor weaken theirs. Simply because you choose to believe what you believe, because its what you believe ("since no religions are correct, no law of science as it is observed today can ever have changed, thus disproving all religions") is a pretty basic kind of circular logic.
Also, shipping all drivers will make the OS around a few TB. They actually try to include most drivers that are in popular hardware. Are you okay with that?
Wait, what? have you ever heard of Bashrat the Sneaky's driver packs? They basically allow you to do just that on an XP disk. XP SP2 weighs in around 580MB, and if you slipstream drivers for HDDs, LAN, WiFi, chipsets, and the most common graphics drivers, you end up around 680MB. Where the hell did you get the idea that it would take a few TB? Just because many drivers are bundled with bloatware apps doesnt mean that the drivers themselves are really all that big. Additionally, Im not sure if you're aware that Linux takes this approach to drivers by building them into the kernel? Last I checked it was well under "a few TB".
Before even beginning to RTFA, i knew this was gonna be a garbage article with nothing but assumptions. I wont say that wikipedia doesnt have problems, but whenever i see references to a "cabal" @ wikipedia, my bullshit-radar kicks in. Did everyone reading the article miss the point where Bagley vandalized another persons wikipedia article, and then wondered why he got banned? Im not an expert on dealing with issues @ wikipedia, but I'm going to take a wild stab and say that performing vandalism in order to get the attention of admins is a rather bad idea. Im gonna go a step further and saying that engaging in an edit war on another article doesnt help your reputation @ wikipedia. Bagley was behaving like a classic troll, regardless of the merits of his claim, and he was acting on a hunch--it states in the article that he wasnt even sure that Weiss was the one engaged in the edit war with him. Nothing to see here except more register.co.uk bullshit.
what legal implications are you referring to? i think people have some mistaken impression that GPL is viral and would require MS to release source to all their products... or am i reading these comments wrong? Worst case microsoft would have to supply the freely available source code to ubuntu (oh noes).