I love how those on the left (not to say there aren't those on the right who do the same thing) see it as troubling if the FBI abuses their power when dealing with left-aligned groups (like planned parenthood or John Lennon), but it's ok if it involves those on the right (like the "gun nut" at Ruby Ridge, or the Cuban expatriats in Miami). Personally, I think they're all troubling, and to say that the FBI under Ashcroft is any worse than the FBI under Reno is pretty naive, IMHO.
Well, Bin Laden's idea of freedom is his freedom to subject you and everyone you know to an oppressive fundamentalist regime where you have no freedom (especially if you're a woman). I don't know about you, but in my book that's "hating freedom" (at least the type of freedom that I want for myself and everyone else, and am willing to die/kill others to protect).
As for "The Army of God", it's a matter of scope. If they'd bombed the World Trade Cente, bombed two embassies, bombed a nightclub, bombed a Navy ship, and hijacked four planes to use as missiles that destroyed the World Trade Center and severely damaged the Pentagon, killing thousands of people in the process, I think Bush would be mentioning them a little more often.
The license change is not as bad as people are saying. The license has not been changed for the sections of code that link to clients, so you don't have to worry that no GPL program can use X. All of the programs that were previously able to link to X can still do so. However, that doesn't mean that the license isn't obnoxious, and if it causes all of the distributions to drop support for XFree86 4.4, then it's going to be pretty hard to keep.
The problem is that OSS developers are often arrogant, stubborn asses. There's a certain point at which you either have to bow to political pressure or face being shut out. I understand the desire to be credited for your work, but I don't think this is a fight that the XFree86 guys can win. They either have to back down or they're going to get worked around. I just hope this doesn't cause a fragmentation in Linux that will be long-term detrimental.
I remember going to the arcade with my dad when I was little (we're talking early 80's here). He'd give me a bunch of quarters to go play Centipede or PacMan, and then head into the back corner where the pinball machines were. Whenever I'd run out or quarters, I'd go find him, watching in awe for a while, until he'd finally lose his ball, and then get another $5 to go get more quarters.
Those are some good memories...... and even though I'm a damn good pinball player in my own right, my dad can still kick my ass handily.
Well, they may be able to address 32000 x 32000 pixels (actually, I'll bet it's 32768 x 32768), but good luck getting it to actually drive that big of a screen. At 256 megs of maximum memory, you'd need 31 palms just to store that much screen real estate in memory.
No, that is not the original quote. That is just a similar (and more famous) quote. The original quote was taken directly from a redneck who was complaining about all the foreign speaking people shopping in a record store in my hometown.
The problem is that "RTFM" comes across as very elitist, regardless of what is intended. Instead, they should respond with "I think you will find the answer you're looking for here: " and provide a link to the FM, so people can R it. A lot of neophites don't even know where the manual is, so they can't read it (and we both know that manuals for Linux software isn't always easy to find).
I've heard that Replay's have similar problems. Especially with dramatic action shows (specifically, I've heard 24 and Farscape don't play nice with the commercial skipping).
In most cases, there will be a few frames of complete black right before a commercial. I know some of the VCR's that automatically fast-forward through commercials do this, and I'd guess ReplayTV at least uses it as one of its criterian for determining commercials.
Well, that depends on what you consider evidence. Up to this point, you seem to have been using "evidence" to refer primarily (solely?) to scientific evidence, and I disagree that there is some need for me to acquire scientific evidence in order to hold a belief. There are lots of other reasons for believing in something that are quite far from "making it up". For instance, I can take someone's word on it. Similarly, I can rely on other historical evidence, which while not necessarily scientific in nature, can provide enough of a background to allow me to hold a belief/have faith in something, absent scientifc proof that it is true.
I haven't read this book, but as one of these pitiful, irrational lesser humans, I'd be interested in seeing what the author had to say. It's be quite interesting to read the work of someone who's better than me, carefully explaining to me how my own beliefs are not in fact the result of many, many hours of deep philisophical introspection, but just a relic of my African ancestors. I hope he uses small words, so I don't get too confused.
P.P.S. From looking at the Amazon description of the book, and the reader reviews, it doesn't seem like the author is necessarily taking as condescending a view of people's beliefs as the parent of this post is.
Did I say I was trying to justify my beliefs? I didn't think so. Nor was I trying to prove His existence. I was simply explaining how someone could have faith and still seek scientific discovery.
Why do I need evidence? So I can get your approval? Sorry, but my own world-view isn't dependent on LordK3nn3th's acceptance.
It's not irrational to hold beliefs absent scientific proof. It's only irrational to hold beliefs in spite of scientific proof.
Santa Claus, the tooh fairy, and God each have the exact same evidence and validity for believing in them.
Not true. There is very clear evidence that Santa Clause and the tooth fairy don't exist. Not so with God. There may not be scientific evidence that God exists, but that is (as you seem to agree) not a disproof.
I find it amusing that atheists so often feel the need to resort to name-calling as a part of their argument. (Hint: regardless of whether you are or not, most intelligent people view that as a sign that you're losing the argument)
You seem to think that all people who believe in God are too stupid to understand the scientific process and/or are trying to use the scientific process to prove God's existence. I hate to break it to you, though, but the latter went out of style in the 19th century and the former is a pretty hard claim to make given the number of brilliant scientists who have believed in God in one form or another (I don't have examples off the top of my head, but if you don't believe me I can do a little research and give you some examples with links). The truth is that people believe in God for many different reasons, not the least of which is that such a belief simply provides them with the spiritual comfort they need to make it through the day. Personally, I believe because it makes sense to me. The reasons that it makes sense to me are many, and I won't go into them here unless someone expresses a sincere interest in them. Suffice it to say, though, that none of them give a sound scientific reason to believe, yet all of them have been reached through much long, hard philisophical struggle. None of my beliefs are held because I'm blindly following what I learned in Sunday school.
Oh, and with parallel universes, it is not necessarily unreasonable to think that there might in fact be an invisible dragon in my garage (although I have no means of proving that either way, and absolutely no reason to care enough to form an opinion on the matter).
Almost everyone has faith to one degree or another (even if it's just faith in your own existence). Faith and science are not mutually exclusive. A person of faith believes in certain truths he doesn't (and sometimes can't) know the answer to. A person of science seeks a further understanding of truth through logic and experimentation. Personally, I believe in God. I have no supporting evidence, but neither do I have evidence that disproves. However, assuming He exists, it is impossible to prove or disprove said existence because he is outside the domain in which we can experiment. So therefore, believing either way requires faith. I could choose to draw no conclusion, but my instinct leads me towards a certain conclusion and as such I choose to have faith that my instinct is correct. That said, I am a rational, scientifically minded person. In the domain of things I can test, I allow my beliefs to follow what the evidence tells me. For instance, the evidence tells me the evolution is a sound theory, so I believe it--and mold my faith to encompass the evidence, not the other way around. If I were to be given solid proof that there was no God, then I would be disappointed, but I would alter my view of the world accordingly. There are those people who wouldn't. In a way, I admire those people's ability to hold a faith that makes them content in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You are right, though, the people who blindly hold their faith and refuse to believe in science are not going to be the people who make the next great breakthrough in human knowledge.
It is good news, even if the case is thrown out and/or RedHat is award no real damages. This is because RedHat, in contrast to SCO, isn't suing as a means to make profit. They're suing to establish a ruling in their favor, and either of those rulings would be in their favor and would help with people's perceptions of Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
The fourth rule... If this is your first time using Linux, you MUST be sued by SCO.
Well, the best Java IDE is already free (in all senses).
I love how those on the left (not to say there aren't those on the right who do the same thing) see it as troubling if the FBI abuses their power when dealing with left-aligned groups (like planned parenthood or John Lennon), but it's ok if it involves those on the right (like the "gun nut" at Ruby Ridge, or the Cuban expatriats in Miami). Personally, I think they're all troubling, and to say that the FBI under Ashcroft is any worse than the FBI under Reno is pretty naive, IMHO.
Well, Bin Laden's idea of freedom is his freedom to subject you and everyone you know to an oppressive fundamentalist regime where you have no freedom (especially if you're a woman). I don't know about you, but in my book that's "hating freedom" (at least the type of freedom that I want for myself and everyone else, and am willing to die/kill others to protect).
As for "The Army of God", it's a matter of scope. If they'd bombed the World Trade Cente, bombed two embassies, bombed a nightclub, bombed a Navy ship, and hijacked four planes to use as missiles that destroyed the World Trade Center and severely damaged the Pentagon, killing thousands of people in the process, I think Bush would be mentioning them a little more often.
Unfortunately it only works on Window (but they claim they're going to do a Linux version).
The license change is not as bad as people are saying. The license has not been changed for the sections of code that link to clients, so you don't have to worry that no GPL program can use X. All of the programs that were previously able to link to X can still do so. However, that doesn't mean that the license isn't obnoxious, and if it causes all of the distributions to drop support for XFree86 4.4, then it's going to be pretty hard to keep.
The problem is that OSS developers are often arrogant, stubborn asses. There's a certain point at which you either have to bow to political pressure or face being shut out. I understand the desire to be credited for your work, but I don't think this is a fight that the XFree86 guys can win. They either have to back down or they're going to get worked around. I just hope this doesn't cause a fragmentation in Linux that will be long-term detrimental.
I remember going to the arcade with my dad when I was little (we're talking early 80's here). He'd give me a bunch of quarters to go play Centipede or PacMan, and then head into the back corner where the pinball machines were. Whenever I'd run out or quarters, I'd go find him, watching in awe for a while, until he'd finally lose his ball, and then get another $5 to go get more quarters.
... and even though I'm a damn good pinball player in my own right, my dad can still kick my ass handily.
Those are some good memories...
Ah... the mis-spent youths of father and son.
Hmmm... "microscopically small" isn't usually what I'm looking for in porn star breasts.
Well, they may be able to address 32000 x 32000 pixels (actually, I'll bet it's 32768 x 32768), but good luck getting it to actually drive that big of a screen. At 256 megs of maximum memory, you'd need 31 palms just to store that much screen real estate in memory.
To which RMS immediately replies that that should be GNU/SCO/Linux.
No, that is not the original quote. That is just a similar (and more famous) quote. The original quote was taken directly from a redneck who was complaining about all the foreign speaking people shopping in a record store in my hometown.
Interesting!?!?!?
It's not Interesting. It was a freakin' joke!! Geez...
Sorry for replying to my own post...
It's a jobs program, to help out all of the unemployed fontographers, put out of work by the dot-com bust.
Well, I narrowed it down. My work is done. Someone else can take it from here.
The problem is that "RTFM" comes across as very elitist, regardless of what is intended. Instead, they should respond with "I think you will find the answer you're looking for here: " and provide a link to the FM, so people can R it. A lot of neophites don't even know where the manual is, so they can't read it (and we both know that manuals for Linux software isn't always easy to find).
I've heard that Replay's have similar problems. Especially with dramatic action shows (specifically, I've heard 24 and Farscape don't play nice with the commercial skipping).
In most cases, there will be a few frames of complete black right before a commercial. I know some of the VCR's that automatically fast-forward through commercials do this, and I'd guess ReplayTV at least uses it as one of its criterian for determining commercials.
Well, that depends on what you consider evidence. Up to this point, you seem to have been using "evidence" to refer primarily (solely?) to scientific evidence, and I disagree that there is some need for me to acquire scientific evidence in order to hold a belief. There are lots of other reasons for believing in something that are quite far from "making it up". For instance, I can take someone's word on it. Similarly, I can rely on other historical evidence, which while not necessarily scientific in nature, can provide enough of a background to allow me to hold a belief/have faith in something, absent scientifc proof that it is true.
I haven't read this book, but as one of these pitiful, irrational lesser humans, I'd be interested in seeing what the author had to say. It's be quite interesting to read the work of someone who's better than me, carefully explaining to me how my own beliefs are not in fact the result of many, many hours of deep philisophical introspection, but just a relic of my African ancestors. I hope he uses small words, so I don't get too confused.
P.S. According to Amazon, the book was written by Pascal Boyer
P.P.S. From looking at the Amazon description of the book, and the reader reviews, it doesn't seem like the author is necessarily taking as condescending a view of people's beliefs as the parent of this post is.
Did I say I was trying to justify my beliefs? I didn't think so. Nor was I trying to prove His existence. I was simply explaining how someone could have faith and still seek scientific discovery.
Why do I need evidence? So I can get your approval? Sorry, but my own world-view isn't dependent on LordK3nn3th's acceptance.
It's not irrational to hold beliefs absent scientific proof. It's only irrational to hold beliefs in spite of scientific proof.
Not true. There is very clear evidence that Santa Clause and the tooth fairy don't exist. Not so with God. There may not be scientific evidence that God exists, but that is (as you seem to agree) not a disproof.
I find it amusing that atheists so often feel the need to resort to name-calling as a part of their argument. (Hint: regardless of whether you are or not, most intelligent people view that as a sign that you're losing the argument)
You seem to think that all people who believe in God are too stupid to understand the scientific process and/or are trying to use the scientific process to prove God's existence. I hate to break it to you, though, but the latter went out of style in the 19th century and the former is a pretty hard claim to make given the number of brilliant scientists who have believed in God in one form or another (I don't have examples off the top of my head, but if you don't believe me I can do a little research and give you some examples with links). The truth is that people believe in God for many different reasons, not the least of which is that such a belief simply provides them with the spiritual comfort they need to make it through the day. Personally, I believe because it makes sense to me. The reasons that it makes sense to me are many, and I won't go into them here unless someone expresses a sincere interest in them. Suffice it to say, though, that none of them give a sound scientific reason to believe, yet all of them have been reached through much long, hard philisophical struggle. None of my beliefs are held because I'm blindly following what I learned in Sunday school.
Oh, and with parallel universes, it is not necessarily unreasonable to think that there might in fact be an invisible dragon in my garage (although I have no means of proving that either way, and absolutely no reason to care enough to form an opinion on the matter).
Almost everyone has faith to one degree or another (even if it's just faith in your own existence). Faith and science are not mutually exclusive. A person of faith believes in certain truths he doesn't (and sometimes can't) know the answer to. A person of science seeks a further understanding of truth through logic and experimentation. Personally, I believe in God. I have no supporting evidence, but neither do I have evidence that disproves. However, assuming He exists, it is impossible to prove or disprove said existence because he is outside the domain in which we can experiment. So therefore, believing either way requires faith. I could choose to draw no conclusion, but my instinct leads me towards a certain conclusion and as such I choose to have faith that my instinct is correct. That said, I am a rational, scientifically minded person. In the domain of things I can test, I allow my beliefs to follow what the evidence tells me. For instance, the evidence tells me the evolution is a sound theory, so I believe it--and mold my faith to encompass the evidence, not the other way around. If I were to be given solid proof that there was no God, then I would be disappointed, but I would alter my view of the world accordingly. There are those people who wouldn't. In a way, I admire those people's ability to hold a faith that makes them content in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You are right, though, the people who blindly hold their faith and refuse to believe in science are not going to be the people who make the next great breakthrough in human knowledge.
It is good news, even if the case is thrown out and/or RedHat is award no real damages. This is because RedHat, in contrast to SCO, isn't suing as a means to make profit. They're suing to establish a ruling in their favor, and either of those rulings would be in their favor and would help with people's perceptions of Linux.