Evolution is non-disprovable because the only alternative you see to it is a 'God' and you can't get around believing in that so you are stuck with DE. The DE community is constantly developing new fantastic theories to explain what has happened here on this earth in a 10 billion year lifespan (actually, a lot shorter than that due to habitability issues.)
Wow, you really are out of touch with science, aren't you? Earth is estimated at about 4.5 billion years old.
And I can give you 'rational, positive evidence' to support ID. An advanced races has created a brand new imperfect, inferior one right here on earth. Look at Monsanto. There is your evidence of ID occuring.
Evidence that intelligent design has happened is not evidence that it is the source of all speciation on Earth. You sound like a Creationist who thinks he's proved that all of the world's geology was formed in 6,000 years because he was able to find ONE bit of geology that was formed in 6,000 yrs.
I am unfamiliar with the fused chromosome example you've given. It's interesting and I will have to look further into it, and see if the leaders of the ID movement can account for it. It still doesn't explain the mechanism for speciation occuring.
Well, it wasn't supposed to. I was just demonstrating the idea of prediction.
I'd also add that, listening to DE advocates, it sounds like that doesn't meet the criteria for science either because it isn't disprovable, either.
As I noted in my post, not finding any evidence of chromosome fusion (or other reason for a "missing" chromosome pair) would have been a blow to evolutionary theory. It wouldn't necessary have totally disproven it consider all the evidence there is for evolution, but it woudl certainly have posed a problem for the theory.
The idea is that your theory makes a prediction, you check to see if that prediction holds true. If it doesn't, there's something wrong with your theory. If it does hold true, your theory is confirmed.
Conversely, I can give you an example of DE occuring to match your fused chromosome theory. An advanced race (humans) created a new species (genetically engineered crops). There you go.
There I go? I don't even understand what you said.
Because it proposes no mechanisms and makes no predictions. ID starts and ends with: "organisms are intelligently designed." Or in the negative form: "evolution couldn't have happened." That's it. There's no more to it. Nothing.
You think that a forum whose members' favorite TV shows are all about life from other planets wouldn't be open to seeing the possibility that life on this planet came from somewhere else.
It is one thing to be open to some possibility, it is quite another to have evidence that it actually happened.
Vestigal organs - that's the best argument I can see of DE. Common DNA? That's just as likely to occur when you have a common designer using a working template (like a car platform). But leaving things behind is the sign of a sloppy designer - unless they weren't actually left behind and really do have medical purpose we haven't discovered yet.
Ok, lets say I accept, for the sake of argument, that there is/was some common designer making organisms with similar DNA. Then what? How did those "templates" manifest as actual organisms? Does ID propose ANY mechanism at all? ANY? Does ID give us any predictions on what we might find in future research? Here's an examples of a prediction that evolution makes:
Evolutionary theory suggests that humans and other apes have a common ancestor. But there is one problem. Humans have 46 chromosomes and other great apes have 48. This is a problem because a species doesn't just suddenly lose a pair of chromosomes. That would be fatal. One way to reduce the number of chromosomes that isn't fatal is for them to fuse. So when we map the human genome, we should see a fused chromosome pair. This is the prediction. Well guess what? When the human genome was mapped, they found exactly that. Chromosome pair #2 has the unmistakable signs of being a combination of two chromosomes. This in and of itself does not prove evolution, of course, but it illustrates the scientific principal of prediction. A theory must predict something not yet discovered... preferably lots of things.
Can ID make any such prediction? Nope. It doesn't make a difference to ID whether humans and apes have the same or different number of chromosomes. Whatever happens, you just say "well, that's how the designer decided to do it." End o story. And that is the real problem with ID as a theory. There is nothing which could possibly refute it. ID explains anythingthing... and by doing so it explains nothing. Any possible situation we coudl come up with could conceivably be the result of a designer. It is absolutely useless as a theory. It can predict nothing because it explains anything. Giant two-headed horse-bird? Oh, the designer must have wanted it that way. Something like that might through a wrench in evolutionary theory... but not ID. According to ID, anything can happen. According to ID, you coudl find a human anywhere in the fossil record (but we don't, of course, we only find them very recently).
It's a cheap smear to look at Intelligent Design arguments and then try to smear and associates their advocates with Biblical Literalists/Mystics. Thinking little of Darwinian Evolution and having some respect for ID theory is not something off limits to athiests, agnostics, or non-dogmatic spiritualists.
The point is that ID isn't a theory at all. It is an idea. ID proposes not one mechanism. As far as as the idea of intelligent design is concerned, new organisms just kind of *poofed* into existence at semi-regular intervals throughout Earth's history. Wake me up with ID proponents are willing to suggests a specific mechanism by which the supposed "designs" came into this world.
Consider probability. Knowing the age of the earth and the probability of evolution to have occured - whether gradually or through the punctuated equalbrium method - is near impossible. To suggest that somehow there is a hand of God guiding evolution despite mathematical improbability is directly contrary to the extreme anti-faith positions of DE's advocates.
So you think organisms just *poofing* into existence at semi-regular intervals over the course of Earth's history is more proabably than them developing naturally over time?
Consider history. The more ignorant among followers of DE will try to point to the process of 'natural selection' as evidence of DE and try to confuse the two very theories (though NS is clearly beyond the realm of theory.) There is no record of DE occuring. No observable examples. No fossils or DNA showing actual evidence of evolution occuring.
You're looking for evidence in the wrong places. Or rather, you're missing the forest for the trees. You're not going to find evidence for evolution in individual fossils or individual samples of DNA. You look at how they all fit together (the "forest.)
Consider precidence. As of now, humans have used their own 'intelligent design' to create new species and variations of plants and animals - such as crops that are immune to insects. Here we have a real, witnessed example of ID actually occuring, including all of the mechanisms involved in it. Can you say the same for DE?
The problem stems from our brains collapsing everything into chemical reactions and electrical potential, all of which can be quite easily represented by numbers.
Really? Easily? When has it been done? And when have we ever gone from "numbers" to a living, breathing human being?
The author also fails to mention that the quality of life has gone up.
But perhaps not nearly as much as it could go up with a little more careful examination of how we, as individuals, apply technology to life.
I think a lot of people here on slashdot have a severe knee jerk reaction to anyone who dares criticize technology. They get automatically cast as luddites who would have us all living in caves, hunting and gathering for food. And that is just a stupid and thoughtless characterization.
On the other hand, I don't think "mechanization" is that important in the grand scheme of things.
...
Want to completely ruin the movie? Give everybody in it a cell phone.
I think "machanization" is just an outdated choices of words. I think cell phones would be included. So really, it is about the "mechanization." You just illustrated it.
You've got to be kidding. Flash was around and popular for things like animations and online games long before YouTube. It has also been available in more browsers than IE for as long as I can remember. I know I was using Flash on Linux years ago.
Guess you missed the part that taught one when to use "their", "there" and "they're"... maybe you should have taken better notes?
Thanks, but I know hte difference. It was a typo. I tend to type phonetically and sometimes the wrong homophone goes down. I just need to edit my posts better.
Your ability to pick apart a lesson and note only the important parts might be greater than average. Unfortunately, not everyone is the note-taker that you are.
I get that. That's why I suggested a note taking class. Doesn't even have to be a full term class really. Just a workshop sort of thing.
Though you may be onto some larger problem... people dont' know how ot pick out the important bits in a class.. and instead just try to memorize everything that was said or writen. Traditionally, I don't study much at all for exams (except maybe finals) and still manage to come out with at least a B. It isn't that I have a particularly good memory or something.. i just know what bits of a lecture or the book are important to know and make sure I know them before i move on. A lot of text books will even help you with that by putting important terms in bold. For math and science courses, it is just a matter of doing the homework (which I'm really bad bout unles it is being graded). I hardly take notes at all in math/science.
The experience was exactly the opposite for me. I'd rather spend class time actually paying attention and absorbing the material than mindlessly copying text off the wall.
No kidding! What was most annoying in college was teh 5 students who couldn't copy down the information fast enough and had to ask the instructor to stop while they wrote it down before movign on. How awkward. I just wanted to yell to to them, "Just pay attention and maybe take some abridged notes! You're holding up the class!" I don't mind if other people stop to ask questions or something, but holding things up to copy what is being said/written on the board word for word1? WTF?
Somebody needs to teach these people effective, efficient note taking. Notes are for little tidbits that weren't in the reading material or things you want to research further later... not to copy down, verbatim what the instructor is saying!And this is why the technological solutions are inadaquate. Students don't need a copy of everything on the board or what is said. They need they're own personal notes.
There is value in using computers for education in K-12. Software can quiz students and adapt to their mistakes to help them learn actively.
Ooo, wow, computers can "quiz" kids. Amazing! Now all our problems are solved! Oh wait, someone has to teach them the stuff they're being quized about in the first place... which is like 95% of the job.
When we have strong AI teachers will be outdated because they won't be able to give students the one-on-one time the computer can.
Oh right, as if schools/teachers weren't rigid and robotic enough as it is. "Strong AI?" Give me a break. You don't have any ideas what "Strong AI" might actually be like, much less whether it not it coudl be an effective a a human teacher in the long run. You're so disconnected from reality that it is just sad. Is this what computers has taught YOU? To be disconnected from reality?
Yes, but I was able to name two off the top of my head and you could only name one
Well good for you. Am I supposed to be impressed? I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in going tit for tat with you. It is pointless.
(which was arguably a different case, but I would have been willing to give it to you for the sake of discussion).
What discussion? You apparently just want to to have a political pissing contest: "See can name more political hypocrites."
My point was that conservatives generally stop listening to people who are demonstrated hypocrites
You demonstrated no such thing. You certainly didn't establish any generalizations. You merely gave two examples of liberals who are hypocrites after being "found out" (although Al Gore may be a bad example because AFAIK he pays extra for "green" energy and runs offices out of this "mansion."). You didn't give a single example of a conservative who was found to be a hypocrite and then lost influence. How can you possibly suggest that your point was made?
And as for Barbara Streisand... who the hell cares what she says?
Well excuse me. I was just stating one example that came to mind. I'm sorry I didn't live up to your expectations. If you had read through my entire post you'd notice that I'm not particularly interested in making broad generalizations about personal integrity based on political views.
I didn't hear the original quote,did you? in context? (I have a vague recollection of having come across the quote and that it seemed to be more aimed at users of drugs that are illegal than at people who misuse legal drugs,
What's the difference? Oxycontin (Mr. Limaugh's drug of choice) isn't much different than heroin. They are both very strong opiates. Both have plenty of recreational value and both are very addictive.
but that is a vague recollection, but that could be an incorrect recollection. He wasn't calling on me to change my behavior)
Only because you are (presumably) not a drug user. Am I to understand that because the statement wasn't directed at you, personally, it doesn't count?
More importantly has he been outspoken about all illegal drug users going to jail since he was caught abusing drugs?
Honestly, I don't listen to the nut job. I wouldn't know. I would guess that he makes the (meaningless) distinction between the use illegal drugs vs. abuse of legal drugs.
Al Gore still claims that greenhouse gases are the greatest threat to humanity and that all Americans must make great sacrifices to reduce them even after being shown to do more to generate greenhouse gases at ONE of his mansions each month than the average American does in a year (even going so far as to justify this behavior). My point was in reply to a poster who said that conservatives say "Do as I say, not as I do." The fact of the matter is that I can name more liberal elites who express this attitude publicly than I can conservative elites.
Maybe because you're biased and spend more time/effort looking for liberal hypocrisy?
Keep in mind that this is most likely a young person, with not much experience in anything.
Is it too much to expect a person who is interested in programming to be doing it before college... or at least before their final year of college?
Maybe it is too much to expect. It is just that all the good programmers I know where doing it before college. Especially the ones using Linux. How can you be interested in programming as a Linux user and NOT have already have contributed to something? Or at least spent time on mailing lists, or have checked out source from CVS/SVN. I dunno, I guess there is always room in the world for people who just pick something to major in in college and decide that is what they're going to do... even if they weren't into it before college. It is just that, again, all the really good programmers I know were doing it before college. But I guess it goes for most lines of work... a great chef was probably cooking long before culinary school. A great businessman was probably tinkering with business before school (selling lemonade or whatever). But not everyone is like that. Maybe I identify too closely with my career choice.
Not all colleges are the same.I assume that holds true even in the US.Hence expecting the "same" from every final year CS graduate is not meaningful.
It has nothing to do with the particular college. I thought I made that clear. A lot of programmers don't even go to college... or at least not for CS. It has to do with an individual's interest in CS/IT. And if you're not into it before college.. or at least before your final year, then something is probably not right and I question your level of interest and/or commitment.
There is no cultural difference.We understand the binary language as good as its creators.
Talk about meaningless statements... What is the "binary language" and who are its creators? Is there a decimal language? A hexidecimal language?
Actually, it is the other way around. From the post you linked to (a very good description):
"...maintaining packages means that you deal with an upstream component (the software that you download from a web page) and the downstream component (additions made by the "package maintainer" that make the pile of files a Debian package)."
The upstream is the original source. A downstream build is what you get from apt-get. It is the original source with distribution specific patches applied.
Anyway, this particular bit of "jargon" is somewhat specific to distribution package management and not so much OSS development in general. If you're working on the "upstream" version of a program (where most developers are), you're not likely to hear the term unless some Debian package maintainer is on the list trying to get his distribution patch applied to the "upstream" version. The more changes/patches a package maintainer can push "upstream", the less he has to do to prepare the package for each new release.
Let me add that with search engines and wikipedia there is no excuse for not knowing the terminology except laziness.
Well, i dunno about that. Lack of genuine interest could also account for it. That is part of the reason why I suggested the possibility of a new line of work. It wasn't an insult. I wasn't suggesting that he's necessarily lazy or dumb.
Any time I meet a graduate of CS, or in this case in their final year, who hasn't already gotten involved in an OSS project or even some significant personal project, I can't help but question their level of interest in the subject. Especially if they are a Linux user already. I mean, how can you NOT already be familiar with things like "nightly builds" as a linux user? Never been on a mailing list for a project you're interested in?? Come on! Most good programmers I know were writing code before they even got to college... some of them didn't even bother with a CS degree.
Of course, this could also be part of a culture diffeernce between India and the US that I am not aware of. I'm open to that possibility. -matthew
Rush Limbaugh comes to mind. Although he seems to be submitting to random drug tests, he does maintain that he shouldn't have to go to jail despite using drugs illegally. You might remember that Mr. Limbaugh was very outspoken about sending all illegal drug users to jail. Which is, I might add, odd for someone who supposedly supports "small government" and individual freedom. Imagine how much tax money would be spent if we sent every illegal drug user to jail. It would be like half the population or more depending how recent the drug offense had to be to qualify.
Anyway, it is stupid to make generalizations about the personal integrity of people based on their political views. People re people whether their conservative or liberal.
That's another thing to look out for: passive agression. There's quite a lot of it on the Internet. There's about ten times as much in the F/OSS world. I'm not really sure why. People seem to get more possessive about things that they're giving away.
But that's just it, your not "giving it away" in the w/FOSS software world. You're sharing your work. With commercial software there's an understanding that you don't really own your work. You're selling your time to a company. So of course F/OSS developers take things more personally. It *is* personal. And that is why it is so great.
It's also a big problem. With all the jargon about, the rule is "don't be afraid to ask". With all the agression, that becomes "be afraid, be very afraid". Fortunately, you can just leave the angry people alone and move on to something more fun. Just remember, they're lucky to have you. Probably. Unless you're an idiot or something.
Don't be "afraid" to ask. Just be careful to do some leg work on your own. It is very easy to get used to having your questions answered that you don't stop and do some basic research on eyour onw. It happens to me every once in a while. You start asking question and then you realize (or have someone politly or not so politely point it out) tht you could have just googled the answer or tried it. For example, you might ask a group "What if I typed this, woudl I get the right result?" Well, the simple thing to do would just be to try it and find out. I don't think the agression is really as common ans you make it sound. Sometime people (even smart people) ask dumb questions and waste people's time. And sometimes these people need to be told "Hey! RTFM!"
"but most are overloaded with jargon like upstream/downstream, nightly builds, and so forth"
Um, this is pretty basic language used on real-world projects. You need to learn the "jargon" as well as actual programming. That's just the way it is. If this scares you, you may want to consider another line of work.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, you really are out of touch with science, aren't you? Earth is estimated at about 4.5 billion years old.
Evidence that intelligent design has happened is not evidence that it is the source of all speciation on Earth. You sound like a Creationist who thinks he's proved that all of the world's geology was formed in 6,000 years because he was able to find ONE bit of geology that was formed in 6,000 yrs.
Man, I'm glad you're not a scientist.
-matthew
$100 says you won't.
Well, it wasn't supposed to. I was just demonstrating the idea of prediction.
As I noted in my post, not finding any evidence of chromosome fusion (or other reason for a "missing" chromosome pair) would have been a blow to evolutionary theory. It wouldn't necessary have totally disproven it consider all the evidence there is for evolution, but it woudl certainly have posed a problem for the theory.
The idea is that your theory makes a prediction, you check to see if that prediction holds true. If it doesn't, there's something wrong with your theory. If it does hold true, your theory is confirmed.
There I go? I don't even understand what you said.
-matthew
Because it proposes no mechanisms and makes no predictions. ID starts and ends with: "organisms are intelligently designed." Or in the negative form: "evolution couldn't have happened." That's it. There's no more to it. Nothing.
It is one thing to be open to some possibility, it is quite another to have evidence that it actually happened.
Ok, lets say I accept, for the sake of argument, that there is/was some common designer making organisms with similar DNA. Then what? How did those "templates" manifest as actual organisms? Does ID propose ANY mechanism at all? ANY? Does ID give us any predictions on what we might find in future research? Here's an examples of a prediction that evolution makes:
Evolutionary theory suggests that humans and other apes have a common ancestor. But there is one problem. Humans have 46 chromosomes and other great apes have 48. This is a problem because a species doesn't just suddenly lose a pair of chromosomes. That would be fatal. One way to reduce the number of chromosomes that isn't fatal is for them to fuse. So when we map the human genome, we should see a fused chromosome pair. This is the prediction. Well guess what? When the human genome was mapped, they found exactly that. Chromosome pair #2 has the unmistakable signs of being a combination of two chromosomes. This in and of itself does not prove evolution, of course, but it illustrates the scientific principal of prediction. A theory must predict something not yet discovered... preferably lots of things.
Can ID make any such prediction? Nope. It doesn't make a difference to ID whether humans and apes have the same or different number of chromosomes. Whatever happens, you just say "well, that's how the designer decided to do it." End o story. And that is the real problem with ID as a theory. There is nothing which could possibly refute it. ID explains anythingthing... and by doing so it explains nothing. Any possible situation we coudl come up with could conceivably be the result of a designer. It is absolutely useless as a theory. It can predict nothing because it explains anything. Giant two-headed horse-bird? Oh, the designer must have wanted it that way. Something like that might through a wrench in evolutionary theory... but not ID. According to ID, anything can happen. According to ID, you coudl find a human anywhere in the fossil record (but we don't, of course, we only find them very recently).
-matthew
Give this a looksee: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
The point is that ID isn't a theory at all. It is an idea. ID proposes not one mechanism. As far as as the idea of intelligent design is concerned, new organisms just kind of *poofed* into existence at semi-regular intervals throughout Earth's history. Wake me up with ID proponents are willing to suggests a specific mechanism by which the supposed "designs" came into this world.
So you think organisms just *poofing* into existence at semi-regular intervals over the course of Earth's history is more proabably than them developing naturally over time?
You're looking for evidence in the wrong places. Or rather, you're missing the forest for the trees. You're not going to find evidence for evolution in individual fossils or individual samples of DNA. You look at how they all fit together (the "forest.)
Lookup "ring species." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
-matthew
Really? Easily? When has it been done? And when have we ever gone from "numbers" to a living, breathing human being?
But perhaps not nearly as much as it could go up with a little more careful examination of how we, as individuals, apply technology to life.
I think a lot of people here on slashdot have a severe knee jerk reaction to anyone who dares criticize technology. They get automatically cast as luddites who would have us all living in caves, hunting and gathering for food. And that is just a stupid and thoughtless characterization.
-matthew
I think "machanization" is just an outdated choices of words. I think cell phones would be included. So really, it is about the "mechanization." You just illustrated it.
-matthew
You've got to be kidding. Flash was around and popular for things like animations and online games long before YouTube. It has also been available in more browsers than IE for as long as I can remember. I know I was using Flash on Linux years ago.
-matthew
Thanks, but I know hte difference. It was a typo. I tend to type phonetically and sometimes the wrong homophone goes down. I just need to edit my posts better.
-matthew
I get that. That's why I suggested a note taking class. Doesn't even have to be a full term class really. Just a workshop sort of thing.
Though you may be onto some larger problem... people dont' know how ot pick out the important bits in a class.. and instead just try to memorize everything that was said or writen. Traditionally, I don't study much at all for exams (except maybe finals) and still manage to come out with at least a B. It isn't that I have a particularly good memory or something.. i just know what bits of a lecture or the book are important to know and make sure I know them before i move on. A lot of text books will even help you with that by putting important terms in bold. For math and science courses, it is just a matter of doing the homework (which I'm really bad bout unles it is being graded). I hardly take notes at all in math/science.
-matthew
And the number one way you know you're being watched is...
When the NSA can't even find enough electricity to power their surveillance and data processing equipment.
Scary stuff.
-matthew
No kidding! What was most annoying in college was teh 5 students who couldn't copy down the information fast enough and had to ask the instructor to stop while they wrote it down before movign on. How awkward. I just wanted to yell to to them, "Just pay attention and maybe take some abridged notes! You're holding up the class!" I don't mind if other people stop to ask questions or something, but holding things up to copy what is being said/written on the board word for word1? WTF?
Somebody needs to teach these people effective, efficient note taking. Notes are for little tidbits that weren't in the reading material or things you want to research further later... not to copy down, verbatim what the instructor is saying!And this is why the technological solutions are inadaquate. Students don't need a copy of everything on the board or what is said. They need they're own personal notes.
-matthew
Ooo, wow, computers can "quiz" kids. Amazing! Now all our problems are solved! Oh wait, someone has to teach them the stuff they're being quized about in the first place... which is like 95% of the job.
Oh right, as if schools/teachers weren't rigid and robotic enough as it is. "Strong AI?" Give me a break. You don't have any ideas what "Strong AI" might actually be like, much less whether it not it coudl be an effective a a human teacher in the long run. You're so disconnected from reality that it is just sad. Is this what computers has taught YOU? To be disconnected from reality?
-matthew
Well good for you. Am I supposed to be impressed? I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in going tit for tat with you. It is pointless.
What discussion? You apparently just want to to have a political pissing contest: "See can name more political hypocrites."
You demonstrated no such thing. You certainly didn't establish any generalizations. You merely gave two examples of liberals who are hypocrites after being "found out" (although Al Gore may be a bad example because AFAIK he pays extra for "green" energy and runs offices out of this "mansion."). You didn't give a single example of a conservative who was found to be a hypocrite and then lost influence. How can you possibly suggest that your point was made?
And as for Barbara Streisand... who the hell cares what she says?
-matthew
Well excuse me. I was just stating one example that came to mind. I'm sorry I didn't live up to your expectations. If you had read through my entire post you'd notice that I'm not particularly interested in making broad generalizations about personal integrity based on political views.
What's the difference? Oxycontin (Mr. Limaugh's drug of choice) isn't much different than heroin. They are both very strong opiates. Both have plenty of recreational value and both are very addictive.
Only because you are (presumably) not a drug user. Am I to understand that because the statement wasn't directed at you, personally, it doesn't count?
More importantly has he been outspoken about all illegal drug users going to jail since he was caught abusing drugs?
Honestly, I don't listen to the nut job. I wouldn't know. I would guess that he makes the (meaningless) distinction between the use illegal drugs vs. abuse of legal drugs.
Maybe because you're biased and spend more time/effort looking for liberal hypocrisy?
-matthew
Is it too much to expect a person who is interested in programming to be doing it before college... or at least before their final year of college?
Maybe it is too much to expect. It is just that all the good programmers I know where doing it before college. Especially the ones using Linux. How can you be interested in programming as a Linux user and NOT have already have contributed to something? Or at least spent time on mailing lists, or have checked out source from CVS/SVN. I dunno, I guess there is always room in the world for people who just pick something to major in in college and decide that is what they're going to do... even if they weren't into it before college. It is just that, again, all the really good programmers I know were doing it before college. But I guess it goes for most lines of work... a great chef was probably cooking long before culinary school. A great businessman was probably tinkering with business before school (selling lemonade or whatever). But not everyone is like that. Maybe I identify too closely with my career choice.
-matthew
It has nothing to do with the particular college. I thought I made that clear. A lot of programmers don't even go to college... or at least not for CS. It has to do with an individual's interest in CS/IT. And if you're not into it before college.. or at least before your final year, then something is probably not right and I question your level of interest and/or commitment.
Talk about meaningless statements... What is the "binary language" and who are its creators? Is there a decimal language? A hexidecimal language?
-matthew
Actually, it is the other way around. From the post you linked to (a very good description):
"...maintaining packages means that you deal with an
upstream component (the software that you download from a web page) and
the downstream component (additions made by the "package maintainer"
that make the pile of files a Debian package)."
The upstream is the original source. A downstream build is what you get from apt-get. It is the original source with distribution specific patches applied.
Anyway, this particular bit of "jargon" is somewhat specific to distribution package management and not so much OSS development in general. If you're working on the "upstream" version of a program (where most developers are), you're not likely to hear the term unless some Debian package maintainer is on the list trying to get his distribution patch applied to the "upstream" version. The more changes/patches a package maintainer can push "upstream", the less he has to do to prepare the package for each new release.
-matthew
Well, i dunno about that. Lack of genuine interest could also account for it. That is part of the reason why I suggested the possibility of a new line of work. It wasn't an insult. I wasn't suggesting that he's necessarily lazy or dumb.
Any time I meet a graduate of CS, or in this case in their final year, who hasn't already gotten involved in an OSS project or even some significant personal project, I can't help but question their level of interest in the subject. Especially if they are a Linux user already. I mean, how can you NOT already be familiar with things like "nightly builds" as a linux user? Never been on a mailing list for a project you're interested in?? Come on! Most good programmers I know were writing code before they even got to college... some of them didn't even bother with a CS degree.
Of course, this could also be part of a culture diffeernce between India and the US that I am not aware of. I'm open to that possibility.
-matthew
Rush Limbaugh comes to mind. Although he seems to be submitting to random drug tests, he does maintain that he shouldn't have to go to jail despite using drugs illegally. You might remember that Mr. Limbaugh was very outspoken about sending all illegal drug users to jail. Which is, I might add, odd for someone who supposedly supports "small government" and individual freedom. Imagine how much tax money would be spent if we sent every illegal drug user to jail. It would be like half the population or more depending how recent the drug offense had to be to qualify.
Anyway, it is stupid to make generalizations about the personal integrity of people based on their political views. People re people whether their conservative or liberal.
-matthew
But that's just it, your not "giving it away" in the w/FOSS software world. You're sharing your work. With commercial software there's an understanding that you don't really own your work. You're selling your time to a company. So of course F/OSS developers take things more personally. It *is* personal. And that is why it is so great.
Don't be "afraid" to ask. Just be careful to do some leg work on your own. It is very easy to get used to having your questions answered that you don't stop and do some basic research on eyour onw. It happens to me every once in a while. You start asking question and then you realize (or have someone politly or not so politely point it out) tht you could have just googled the answer or tried it. For example, you might ask a group "What if I typed this, woudl I get the right result?" Well, the simple thing to do would just be to try it and find out. I don't think the agression is really as common ans you make it sound. Sometime people (even smart people) ask dumb questions and waste people's time. And sometimes these people need to be told "Hey! RTFM!"
-matthew
"but most are overloaded with jargon like upstream/downstream, nightly builds, and so forth"
Um, this is pretty basic language used on real-world projects. You need to learn the "jargon" as well as actual programming. That's just the way it is. If this scares you, you may want to consider another line of work.
-matthew
Crapton is nothing! Just wait until they start charging fucktons!
-matthew
Well, whad-a-ya-know... they thought of it. It isn't part of XP, AFAICT.
Now, if I could just tear myself away from this pesky Mac and, like, try Vista or something. Nah, never gonna happen.
-matthew