Good reply. I'd have to say, now that I understand both licenses a little better, that I could respect them both.
So... GPL is like Democracy (or Communism, as some would put it), and BSD is like Anarchy.:) Maybe not the best analogies, but hey... (I guess commercial licensing would be like a Dictatorship under this idea).
I suppose either license, in the right hands, is a great thing. In the wrong hands, an awful thing. At least folks can pick what suits them.
Tom Christiansen asks: I don't know how to ask this question without it sounding like stirring the pot, but what about the growing chasm between free software (giftware) and GNU software (the viral kind, not the nice LGPL kind)? This is a real issue for some people in some situations. Think about the many BSD resellers and vendors who have custom packaging in highly competitive fields, like video editing? Doesn't the friction hurt everyone? Apple has turned to BSD not Linux, and the GPL is cited as one reason why. This seems to be devisive. There are no end of flamewars on/. and elsewhere, and the heat diminishes the light. What kind of reconciliation is possible? Or is "take no prisoners" just the way it has to work?
ESR answers:
I don't see a chasm there, Tom. After all, we're all still writing and exchanging code. We're all using basically the same set of licenses. I don't think there are properly two different movements t all, outside the imaginations of a few rather fanatical partisans on both sides.
Here is the reality test: if you're running a project and someone sends you a patch, will you stop to enquire whether that person is a member of the correct faction before you apply it? I don't think so...
So despite the verbal fireworks and philosophical disputes, we're all hackers together. What unites us is more important than what divides us.
Supposing I use some GPL code in a program, and then sell the binaries only. I'm breaking the GPL, right?
Now supposing I use some LGPL or BSDish code in a program, and then sell the binaries. I'm fine... or am I?
Is this where the friction happens? It seems to me that some folks would like the, er, "option" of making a profit from software they create with the help of Open Source libs or something, without redistributing their code.
I am reading an alien's words. An intensely paranoid being, vaguely affraid of some imaginary Luddite, which appears mysteriaously in all of the "articles" it writes. A being trapped in a cage, fooled into believing that thinking can ever be truly free.
An alien whose audience is on a different planet, which audience only reads the alien writing out of boredom.
Yes, an alien who wants, O so much, to be an earthling. An important earthling.
*sigh* I'm just glad I don't pay for Slashdot content.
Your responses seem to indicate that your thinking is oddly similar to mine, despite the fact that we come to nearly opposite conclusions.
Yeah, I consider myself a devout Christian. But to be honest, if I had to argue mainstream Christianity, I'd rather take the atheist's side.:) I honestly do share many views about modern Christianity that a lot of atheists point out.
One thing that I'm not clear on is that, if you recognize that faith is something that one believes without solid evidence, how does one decide what to believe in? Why become Muslim, or Christian, or Hindu, or Jewish, or Wiccan? More importantly, why become any of these? What's wrong with making up your own hope/belief and having faith in that?
Most of the people that I consider "honestly" religious don't always attach themselves to any particular denomination. As you can imagine, there are those who come up with their own crazy ideas. And you'd probably be right if you suggested the motive was, oh, probably lucre rather than faith.
There are so many reasons humans pick one church over another. Tradition. Culture. Violence. Opression. Want to fit in. Strokes the ego. Seems logical at the time. Make new friends. Socialize. Etc.
As for my own religion, I must say that I grew up with it. For most of my life, it was a matter of being too young to know anything else. After awhile it became part of my culture and tradition. Not the best reasons to be religious. Then came a time when I started to think on my own. I discovered other religions and was profoundly embarrased by them.:) Then I discovered all of the awful things people say about my church. That was a hard time because everything I was taught to believe in was being challenged, and it didn't feel good. Looking back, I'm glad I saw the other side because it made me have to choose. I don't look at my church anymore as "that's how it's always been, so it must be right." Instead, I actually try and find things out for myself.
I chose to keep my faith because it has served me well in the past. I hope someday I'll have more than just faith to affirm my beliefs. I think in the end (whether it's personal anihilation or a continuation of life after death) I will be my own reward. If my faith can help me conceive something more noble, or motivate me to live a little better, or just feel happier about myself, well I suppose that is some form of reason, if you like.
Although there may be liquid oceans on Europa, it is a good possibility that they are not made of water. As you know, water freezes at a relatively high temperature, and vaporizes at a relatively cool temperature. "Relative" to temperatures normally found on other planets, that is.
Although HPTi may believe in Linux as a clustering solution, it would appear that they have trusted their web page to IIS 4.0. It also seems that their web authoring tool is MS based, judging from the occurence of "?" where normal punctuation would be found.
This is good news, but it only affirms the role of Linux in niche markets. It will be some time before it is accepted widely as a general purpose business or desktop solution.
Feelings are indeed quite irrational. Feelings are abstract emotions, not reasoned responses. The term "rational" refers to reasoning, not emotional responses. Faith is an emotional response, and hence not any more rational than nostalgia, lust, or annoyance are.
What I mean by "feelings are very rational" is that feelings are the product of some physical need. For example, I could explain why I feel faith, or why I like it, etc. There is a physical reason or need that suggests the feeling.
My opinion is that, to be truly religious (not fanatical), one must know why they believe.
Many atheists compare faith to delusion. And in most cases, I would tend to agree with them (not that I think it's necessarily a bad thing). However, if a person realizes what his faith is, and understands that it is not based on solid, (perhaps scientific) evidence, then this person is not deluded. Delusion consists, critically, of the person being unable to separate the belief from reality. Not that the belief is necessarily untrue, but rather that there is no "real" evidence to support it.
One can hope for whatever one wants, but this doesn't increase the chances of it actually happening.
I can't argue with that. Still, many humans require hope to live hapily. For some of us, faith gives us hope, and that is reasonable to me.
I think faith is powerful because it can help one see possibilities, how things might be, or how they could be. Imagine how much stuff is out there that will never be proven in our lifetime, yet is actual fact. I think it is ok to believe in something without proof, but I think one must admit that the belief is based upon faith.
Not the bastardized faith that makes the theist want to pile religion upon the unwilling.
Religion is irrational. Faith is irrational. These are given.
I know of no widely accepted standard that has proven this statment. If such is "given," then I ask, by whom?
Have you ever felt genuine faith before? If not, you have no place to say it is irrational. Feelings afterall, are very rational.
Describing faith to someone is difficlt to do with words. I immagine it would be something like explaining taste to someone who has no tongue; or color to a person with no eyes to see.
And so the prospect of faith, a belief in something with no physical evidence, can only be thought as irrational to those who have never felt it before. Or to those whose faith has let them down and have become disillusioned with their beliefs.
Anyway, the point is that few non-believers get upset with believers, it's usually the other way around.
I'm a believer, but I will admit that your statement here holds true generally, at least from my observations. It is unfortunate how few of us actually pause to consider our religion, and how ready we are to accept tradition with so little thought.
This I would not call faith at all. Faith is more akin to a desire, or hope for something to be true. It often influences one's actions, and sometimes the consequences positively affirm the faith.
Many theists, though, just like to argue.
We atheists have (usually) put a hell of a lot of thought into the subject
This is not untrue of some theists as well. There are those of us who know why we are religious. Granted, usually it doesn't come down to the tangible evidence, rather the faith that we have at last found.
Some hold the opinion that, to find truth, one must doubt all until tangible evidences present themselves.
I say, to have a truly open mind, one must not doubt, but seek. It is not bad to believe; in believing we discover. Only when we are unable to change our beliefs is when we have truly closed our minds.
There are many who (at times rightly) criticize the Utah Mormons for their oddities. Or rather, for the difficulty which some of us have understanding life in the "real" world (if I may use the phrase).
I suggest that this is due more to the Mormon culture than the Mormon religion. Many of us are only Mormon because our parents and grandparents were. This seems to be the same in any religion.
However, in the case of Orson Scott Card, and indeed even C.S. Lewis, these men know why they are religious. If more of us were that way, I'll bet there would be a lot less religious strife in the world.
Oh - and as for beer in Utah, you are right that it is not easy to come by at lunch time. However, I have a good friend who visits sometimes on business. The only souvinirs he has brought back with him have been tee-shirts from our various Utah breweries which, according to him, are not bad at all.
I agree that government needs at least some way to get into things that could yield important evidence. There are, however, very good arguments against allowing the feds this kind of power anywhere, anytime.
First of all, if it's easy for the feds to snoop, then it's probably not much harder for other people. This would constitute a breach of security for many people.
Secondly, it seems that when a government entity is granted power over something, there is inevitably somebody who is willing to use the power unethically.
My hope is that the government would first secure some sort of court order, and then go to the service provider before performing the tap.
I think, legal or not, if the government has the technology, they will use it. The legislation is only for show.
Also, there is another neutrino observer planned somewhere in Canada that I stumbled across surfing the Web. "Snow" something I think it is called.
I thought it was interesting because scientists theorize that the "missing" mass associated with current models of the universe could possibly be accounted for in the neutrinos - if it turns out the neutrinos actually have mass.
I don't recall if there have been any conclusive observations made with relation to neutrinos and mass, but it seems at least that several different types of neutrinos have been identified.
Hey, what happens when a male and female get together in sexual intercourse? Wow, people have known about this for who knows how many millenia. Actually, it's a rather simple procedure which requires no scientific knowledge whatever.
The prospect of humans creating life asexually is intriguing, yet hardly unprecedented in nature. The difference is that it requires all of our sentience to put the pieces together.
For many this is a feat of science. For others, a issue of religion. So tell me what is life, really? What is God? Some have answered those questions for themselves, yet rarely the answer seems the same. But this much I know: judging on the amount of posts I'm seeing, it's an important topic for just about everybody.
If the power of God is creation, or procreation, then science can certainly be justified to the theist. To some this is enobling, and to others, heresy. Pick your side.
My only grief is to see the human creative genius and procreative power be abused. Science for war, and sex for entertainment and lust. At the end of it all, I suggest that the theist and the atheist alike are left with their own reward: themselves.
What is this woman doing letting little Kenny watch SouthPark? If I were a 5 year old Kenny, I'd be disturbed too.
Lady, SouthPark ain't for kids. Hell, I grew up long ago and I still can't handle it. You gotta use discretion when you let your kids watch TV, especially when they don't understand the adult oriented humor.
Flip side of the coin: There are so freaking many incompetent parents out there who don't understand the role of television in the family. They have a hard enough time dressing themselves, let alone raising kids. Unfortunately, they can't help breeding.
So why don't TV networks get a clue and not air a cartoon of something that you wouldn't want your kids looking at? Look, somebody has to be responsible. If the parents aren't going to be, somebody should be.
Hey, I'm not saying "ban" everyting, but for crying out loud, all you do is turn on the TV and there it is...
FreeBSD has some good features. It does make a fantastic server. And the security features are great. My company uses FreeBSD for firewall, proxy, and web servers. We use OpenBSD for Kerberos.
Linux also makes a great server. I'll admit it doesn't yet have all of the same features as FreeBSD, but it is still amazingly stable and fast. We use Linux on the desktop at work, and also for mail and web servers.
Sparc Solaris is our production OS, we use that to run Sybase and also another web server. It also handles telephony. We originally ran SunOS 4 until Solaris 2.5 came out.
The official company web site, hosted on UUNET, is run on BSDI. It has served us well over the years.
And I find that Windows is sometimes stable enough to be useful as a game platform.
So what is all this about the "best" OS? They are all good for something. It just happens that, for me right now, Linux is the most generally satisfying. If I have to be in front of a computer 12 hours a day, I want it to be a Linux box on my desktop. If I have to be programming, I want to program from my Linux environment. If I need a server, most any Unix or "Unix-like" OS available today will be fine with me. If I want to play games, I'll go find a Windows machine or a Playstation.
I thought the article was markedly biased. It is unfortunate that the FreeBSD crowd feels displaced by the Linux crowd.
What is it that makes a patent "defensible?" I take it, then, that you can get a patent for less, but not a "defensible" patent.
In trying to stop intellectual crime, they have only succeeded in making it worse.
Re:No computers in Utah? What about Novell, WP?
on
911 Calls Linux
·
· Score: 1
Um... actually there was very little in my post that was factual. My intention here was to mock the bigots whose minds are so closed that they must persist in spreading these kinds of ideas about Utah and Mormons. They are about 90% rhetoric and 10% fact.
Why doesn't somebody like, say, the FSF start making their own software patents? Then let's suppose they license these ideas as "free to use by any and all." Then supposing they stipulate that whoever uses such patented code must also re-distribute the code, free of cost.
Maybe that would help open up the source code for a lot of future projects.
Wow, this is the most gullible rant I've read in a long time. Let me guess: you're a non-mormon Utahn. The mormons piss you off because their lifestyle ain't the same as yours. So, you go off into some imaginary world and write this kind of trash?
Church and State are not separate? How many Mormon sermons have been preached on the mandatory separation of church and state? You wouldn't know. Sure, people's values and beliefs influence the legislation in Utah. It's that way everywhere. Wake up.
People have the idea they are #1 in the world and to hell with everyone else? Yes, I see you've been inside everyone's mind, so you must know exactly what they think.
Lowest wage rates huh.... listen, why don't you try asking for a raise instead of bitching about how Utah has the lowest wages? Which is compeltely untrue anyway. It's not the highest, but dead last it ain't.
Lowest spending on pupils... sure helps when you don't have to pay a bodyguard and police force to take care of them. I guess there are those whose minds are so narrow that they can't see spending less per student as a good thing.
Most people have never seen the outside of this area? Hello, 50% of the Utah Mormon male population is bi-lingual. Why? Because they spend 2 years proselyting in foreign countries. And a significant number of the females do as well. And those who aren't sent foreign go to some other state. Utahns are among the best traveled in the world.
Hey, I'm beginning to see why you can't stand Utah. With your attitude, it's gotta be tough getting along. As has been demonstrated.
Re:Maybe we should all move to utah
on
911 Calls Linux
·
· Score: 1
Why, what a fine stereotype you have drawn. Yes, all Utahns are fanatical and there are many stories of mobs forming to expel the evil beer-drinking scum from the state. In fact, it is illegal to run a brewery in Utah, or sell beer.
This is, naturally, all due to the prominant religion, which of course, is little more than a brainwashing cult. This is why all Utahns can't drink beer, because their church forbids it and they believe that people who drink beer will go to hell. Plus, they can tell people what they have to do because everyone in Utah is brainwashed. Utahns can't act for themselves or make their own decisions. This is why people in Utah are so stupid and there are no computers. Plus, Utah's schools are the worst on the planet because you're not supposed to learn. You're supposed to do only what your Leaders tell you, because only that is right and nothing else.
And there's so much prozac because... wanna know why? It's their church's fault. Because they force everybody to not have sex until they're married, and they can't drink beer or smoke stuff, and the way they enforce all of this is by guilt and subversion. Oh, and did I mention brainwashing? Yes, and this makes it so that everyone in Utah has to have Prozac because they are all being repressed.
Will somebody please moderate me up because my post slams Utah and the mormons? It's quite on topic, really.
I also live in Utah. All of my friends use Linux. My entire department uses Linux. My company uses Linux for it's main networking machines. I used to work for Corel Corporation, which created the WordPerfect office suite right here in Orem. Novell's headquarters are right next door. Caldera systems is based in Provo as well. We have plenty of ISPs and web hosting companies. There are plenty of Linux users around.
Yeah, alcohol is pretty bad. I don't drink; never have.
Of course, the "myth" that alcohol is worse than dope has very little "proof," unless you believe the b@st@rds at newscientist.com. I find their "new" science almost as silly as some religions. It seems that the same would apply to the pompous new book from the Lindesmith Center ("Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts"). It is notable that this "medical" book has only received crital acclaim from such magazines a "Rolling Stones." Even the supposed medical virtues of the drug are hotly contested, and there is currently much more scientific evidence to the contrary. Currently there are no medical institutions in the United States that recognize any medical benefits of smoked marijuana.
Also, claims that legalization of this and other drugs will result in lower crime are completely unsubstantiated. In fact, those countries (such as the Netherlands) that have experimented with such legalization policies are now re-thinking their policies. Crime rates and addiction cases have drastically risen as a result of legalization in these areas. Great Britain, Sweden and Egypt have also experimented with legalization policies. They were forced to abandon such politics in the face of remarkable rise in crime and substance abuse.
Earlier this century Opium was legalized in China, resulting in 90 million addicts which took 50 years to rectify. Similar things have gone on in Thailand and Iran, which are still struggling to fix the situation.
In April, 1994 21 major European cities formed a coalition against drugs, an acknowledgment that legalization has failed.
Other countries, particularly in the Middle East and Orient, exact a high price for drug trafficking; and such enjoy a relative freedom from the plague of drug abuse and crime. This, may I add, is NEVER mentioned by legalization proponents.
Since the 1970's over 10,500 studies have been conducted showing the harmful consequences of Marijuana use. "Newscience" and "NORML" don't want you to know that. They'd rather ignore the bulk of scientific evidence presented against their case. They'd rather enjoy their blunts legally, and pay less. They don't particularly care that history has shown their case completely irrational. No, to them Amdsterdam is a complete success story. Look at the handful of good things that have come of it. Of course, we won't mention the millions of nightmares it's caused... that's all irrelevant anyway. 'Long as we get our high.
Well, if you want me to post more references for my numbers here, I'd be pleased to do so.
What the hell is this? Just because some wacko Congressman in 1937 said ridiculous things about marijuana, that's supposed to be the root of all the obviously "false" ideas about the drug?
I don't understand where people get off on this idea that marijuana is harmless. The same people who have say that 80% percent of us have tried it, and 50% are still smoking regularly. What kind of numbers are these? Dude, you just have to justify it to yourself and everybody else. Those numbers are plain wrong.
Marijuana never did anybody good. Not even Mr. Sagan. Ok, maybe there's some medicinal value to the weed, but it's not something you want to be smoking.
Shall we get the facts straight?
1) Although it is not proven that Marijuana causes cancer, it has been shown that it contains as much or more of same chemicals contained in cigarettes that have been shown to cause cancer.
2) Marijuana users are far more prone to chest infections, such as pneumonia. Hey, what did Sagan die of? 2+2 = 5, right?
3) The THC in marijuana has been shown to affect the immune system. Unlike alcohol, THC can stay in your body for weeks depending on how often you smoke.
4) It is VERY evident that marijuana affects the neuralogical systems of the body. There are many well documented side effects of the drug. Doctors are still researching the effect of marijuana on the brain.
5) Studies among teenagers have shown that those who smoke marijuana are up to 104 times more likely to try and become addicted to other, more dangerous drugs, than those who have not tried.
6) Less than 1 in 4 high school students have ever used, or ever will use marijuana. I doubt that number is higher with responsible, job holding adults.
7) Marijuana is addictive. While not everyone who uses becomes an addict, there are many who seek it out compulsively. In 1995 165,000 people entered drug treatment programs to seek help for marijuana abuse.
8) Frequent heavy users of marijuana develop a tolerance to the drug. They require an increasingly higher dosage to get the high they seek.
It pisses me off to see posts like this. People who are likely to encourage kids and others to view marijuana and other drugs (tobacco and alcohol included) as a harmless thing. Then get all righteous, spurting BS about "freedom" and "lies." Yeah, everything you read on the 'net is true. Isn't it wonderful what you learn?
Here are some references to look up, next time you want to post this kind of garbage about marijuana:
1.Brookoff, D.; Cook, C. S.; Williams, C.; and Mann, C. S. Testing reckless drivers for cocaine and marijuana. New England Journal of Medicine, 331:518-522, 1994.
2.Cornelius, M. D.; Taylor, P. M.; Geva, D.; and Day, N. L. Prenatal tobacco and marijuana use among adolescents: effects on offspring gestational age, growth, and morphology. Pediatrics, 95: 738-743. 1995.
3.Crowley, T. J.; Macdonald, M. J.; Whitmore. E. A.; and Mikulich, S. K. Cannabis Dependence, Withdrawal, and Reinforcing Effects Among Adolescents With Conduct Symptoms and Substance Use Disorders. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 1998.
4.Fletcher, J. M.; Page, J. B.; Francis, D. I.; Copeland, K.; Naus, M. J.; Davis. C. M.; Morris, R.; Krauskopf, D.; and Satz, P. Cognitive correlates of long-term cannabis use in Costa Rican men. Arch. of General Psychiatry, 53: 1051-1057, 1996.
5.Harder. S. and Reitbrock, S. Concentration-effect relationship of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and prediction of psychotropic effects after smoking marijuana. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 35(4): 155-159, 1997.
6.Jones, R.T. et al. Clinical relevance of cannabis tolerance and dependence. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 21 (Suppl 1): 143-152,1981.
7.Kandel, D.B. Stages in adolescent involvement with drugs. Science, 190:912-914, 1975.
8.Liguori, A.; Gatto, C. P.; and Robinson, J. H. Effects of marijuana on equilibrium. psychomotor performance, and simulated driving. Behavioral Pharmacology, 9:599-609, 1998.
9.National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors, Inc.. State Resources and Services Related to Alcohol and Other Drug Problems for Fiscal Year 1995: An Analysis of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Profile Data, July 1997.
10.National Institute on Drug Abuse. National Survey Results on Drug Use from The Monitoring The Future Study, 1975-1997, Volume I/Secondary School Students. NIH Publication No. 98-4345. Printed 1998.
11.Pope, H. G. and Yurgelun-Todd, D. The Residual Cognitive Effects of Heavy Marijuana Use in College Students. Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol 275, No. 7, February 21, 1996.
12.Rodriguez de Fonseca, F.; Carrera, M. R. A.; Navarro, M.; Koob, G. F.; and Weiss, F. Activation of Corticotropin-Releasing Factor in the Limbic System During Cannabinoid Withdrawal. Science, Vol. 276, June 27, 1997.
13.Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Sciences. Preliminary Results From the 1996 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. DHHS No. (SMA) 97-3149. Rockville, MD: SAMHSA, July 1997.
14.University of Michigan. News and Information Services. Drug use among American teens shows signs of leveling after a long rise. December 18, 1997.
15.Wu, T. C.; Tashkin, D. P.; Djahed, B.; and Rose, J.E. Pulmonary hazards of smoking marijuana as compared with tobacco. New England Journal of Medicine, 318: 347-351, 1988.
While I agree that $250,000 fine and 3 years imprisonment is serious penalty for this kind of thing, there are some points I'd like to contest:
1) This is a MAXIMUM penalty, not necessarily the penaltly that will be paid. This is written clearly in all commercial software license agreements.
2) $100,000 is probably a slightly conservative estimate for a 3 year term. That's over $33,000 a year, which is almost the average salary of the American worker.
3) If the guy had $2500 worth of software on his site, and say (over time) an estimated 10,000 people downloaded the the whole site, that is at least $25,000,000 of commercial software and music software being distributed at no cost.
4) I'm a geek, and I don't have a pirated copy of Windows. Or any illegal MP3s. All of my MP3s are from CDs I own. And what's the point of pirating software when you can get better for free?
I hope the judge has some pity on this kid and lets him make it up in a way that he is able. But let's face it, piracy is illegal. Yeah, a little software piracy actually does help make money for Microsoft and other companies, but if there were no laws against it, a lot of people would be out of a job.
Also, if you're going to pirate software, you should know the consequences in advance. If you know what the penalty is in advance, you can't say it's "cruel." If you don't; well, then you're just plain dumb.
And it's not unusual; I remember having read these terms of penalty for many years.
Slashdot Mirror
Good reply. I'd have to say, now that I understand both licenses a little better, that I could respect them both.
:) Maybe not the best analogies, but hey... (I guess commercial licensing would be like a Dictatorship under this idea).
So... GPL is like Democracy (or Communism, as some would put it), and BSD is like Anarchy.
I suppose either license, in the right hands, is a great thing. In the wrong hands, an awful thing. At least folks can pick what suits them.
I have a question about this:
/. and elsewhere, and the heat diminishes the light. What kind of reconciliation is possible? Or is "take no prisoners" just the way it has to work?
Tom Christiansen asks:
I don't know how to ask this question without it sounding like stirring the pot, but what about the growing chasm between free software (giftware) and GNU software (the viral kind, not the nice LGPL kind)? This is a real issue for some people in some situations. Think about the many BSD resellers and vendors who have custom packaging in highly competitive fields, like video editing? Doesn't the friction hurt everyone? Apple has turned to BSD not Linux, and the GPL is cited as one reason why. This seems to be devisive. There are no end of flamewars on
ESR answers:
I don't see a chasm there, Tom. After all, we're all still writing and exchanging code. We're all using basically the same set of licenses. I don't think there are properly two different movements t all, outside the imaginations of a few rather fanatical partisans on both sides.
Here is the reality test: if you're running a project and someone sends you a patch, will you stop to enquire whether that person is a member of the correct faction before you apply it? I don't think so...
So despite the verbal fireworks and philosophical disputes, we're all hackers together. What unites us is more important than what divides us.
Supposing I use some GPL code in a program, and then sell the binaries only. I'm breaking the GPL, right?
Now supposing I use some LGPL or BSDish code in a program, and then sell the binaries. I'm fine... or am I?
Is this where the friction happens? It seems to me that some folks would like the, er, "option" of making a profit from software they create with the help of Open Source libs or something, without redistributing their code.
Maybe I'm just confused about the whole thing.
I am reading an alien's words. An intensely paranoid being, vaguely affraid of some imaginary Luddite, which appears mysteriaously in all of the "articles" it writes. A being trapped in a cage, fooled into believing that thinking can ever be truly free.
An alien whose audience is on a different planet, which audience only reads the alien writing out of boredom.
Yes, an alien who wants, O so much, to be an earthling. An important earthling.
*sigh* I'm just glad I don't pay for Slashdot content.
Your responses seem to indicate that your thinking is oddly similar to mine, despite the fact that we come to nearly opposite conclusions.
:) I honestly do share many views about modern Christianity that a lot of atheists point out.
:) Then I discovered all of the awful things people say about my church. That was a hard time because everything I was taught to believe in was being challenged, and it didn't feel good. Looking back, I'm glad I saw the other side because it made me have to choose. I don't look at my church anymore as "that's how it's always been, so it must be right." Instead, I actually try and find things out for myself.
Yeah, I consider myself a devout Christian. But to be honest, if I had to argue mainstream Christianity, I'd rather take the atheist's side.
One thing that I'm not clear on is that, if you recognize that faith is something that one believes without solid evidence, how does one decide what to believe in? Why become Muslim, or Christian, or Hindu, or Jewish, or Wiccan? More importantly, why become any of these? What's wrong with making up your own hope/belief and having faith in that?
Most of the people that I consider "honestly" religious don't always attach themselves to any particular denomination. As you can imagine, there are those who come up with their own crazy ideas. And you'd probably be right if you suggested the motive was, oh, probably lucre rather than faith.
There are so many reasons humans pick one church over another. Tradition. Culture. Violence. Opression. Want to fit in. Strokes the ego. Seems logical at the time. Make new friends. Socialize. Etc.
As for my own religion, I must say that I grew up with it. For most of my life, it was a matter of being too young to know anything else. After awhile it became part of my culture and tradition. Not the best reasons to be religious. Then came a time when I started to think on my own. I discovered other religions and was profoundly embarrased by them.
I chose to keep my faith because it has served me well in the past. I hope someday I'll have more than just faith to affirm my beliefs. I think in the end (whether it's personal anihilation or a continuation of life after death) I will be my own reward. If my faith can help me conceive something more noble, or motivate me to live a little better, or just feel happier about myself, well I suppose that is some form of reason, if you like.
Although there may be liquid oceans on Europa, it is a good possibility that they are not made of water. As you know, water freezes at a relatively high temperature, and vaporizes at a relatively cool temperature. "Relative" to temperatures normally found on other planets, that is.
Although HPTi may believe in Linux as a clustering solution, it would appear that they have trusted their web page to IIS 4.0. It also seems that their web authoring tool is MS based, judging from the occurence of "?" where normal punctuation would be found.
This is good news, but it only affirms the role of Linux in niche markets. It will be some time before it is accepted widely as a general purpose business or desktop solution.
Feelings are indeed quite irrational. Feelings are abstract emotions, not reasoned responses. The term "rational" refers to reasoning, not emotional responses. Faith is an emotional response, and hence not any more rational than nostalgia, lust, or annoyance are.
What I mean by "feelings are very rational" is that feelings are the product of some physical need. For example, I could explain why I feel faith, or why I like it, etc. There is a physical reason or need that suggests the feeling.
My opinion is that, to be truly religious (not fanatical), one must know why they believe.
Many atheists compare faith to delusion. And in most cases, I would tend to agree with them (not that I think it's necessarily a bad thing). However, if a person realizes what his faith is, and understands that it is not based on solid, (perhaps scientific) evidence, then this person is not deluded. Delusion consists, critically, of the person being unable to separate the belief from reality. Not that the belief is necessarily untrue, but rather that there is no "real" evidence to support it.
One can hope for whatever one wants, but this doesn't increase the chances of it actually happening.
I can't argue with that. Still, many humans require hope to live hapily. For some of us, faith gives us hope, and that is reasonable to me.
I think faith is powerful because it can help one see possibilities, how things might be, or how they could be. Imagine how much stuff is out there that will never be proven in our lifetime, yet is actual fact. I think it is ok to believe in something without proof, but I think one must admit that the belief is based upon faith.
Not the bastardized faith that makes the theist want to pile religion upon the unwilling.
Religion is irrational. Faith is irrational. These are given.
I know of no widely accepted standard that has proven this statment. If such is "given," then I ask, by whom?
Have you ever felt genuine faith before? If not, you have no place to say it is irrational. Feelings afterall, are very rational.
Describing faith to someone is difficlt to do with words. I immagine it would be something like explaining taste to someone who has no tongue; or color to a person with no eyes to see.
And so the prospect of faith, a belief in something with no physical evidence, can only be thought as irrational to those who have never felt it before. Or to those whose faith has let them down and have become disillusioned with their beliefs.
Anyway, the point is that few non-believers get upset with believers, it's usually the other way around.
I'm a believer, but I will admit that your statement here holds true generally, at least from my observations. It is unfortunate how few of us actually pause to consider our religion, and how ready we are to accept tradition with so little thought.
This I would not call faith at all. Faith is more akin to a desire, or hope for something to be true. It often influences one's actions, and sometimes the consequences positively affirm the faith.
Many theists, though, just like to argue.
We atheists have (usually) put a hell of a lot of thought into the subject
This is not untrue of some theists as well. There are those of us who know why we are religious. Granted, usually it doesn't come down to the tangible evidence, rather the faith that we have at last found.
Some hold the opinion that, to find truth, one must doubt all until tangible evidences present themselves.
I say, to have a truly open mind, one must not doubt, but seek. It is not bad to believe; in believing we discover. Only when we are unable to change our beliefs is when we have truly closed our minds.
I suggest that Card is a genuine Mormon.
There are many who (at times rightly) criticize the Utah Mormons for their oddities. Or rather, for the difficulty which some of us have understanding life in the "real" world (if I may use the phrase).
I suggest that this is due more to the Mormon culture than the Mormon religion. Many of us are only Mormon because our parents and grandparents were. This seems to be the same in any religion.
However, in the case of Orson Scott Card, and indeed even C.S. Lewis, these men know why they are religious. If more of us were that way, I'll bet there would be a lot less religious strife in the world.
Oh - and as for beer in Utah, you are right that it is not easy to come by at lunch time. However, I have a good friend who visits sometimes on business. The only souvinirs he has brought back with him have been tee-shirts from our various Utah breweries which, according to him, are not bad at all.
I agree that government needs at least some way to get into things that could yield important evidence. There are, however, very good arguments against allowing the feds this kind of power anywhere, anytime.
First of all, if it's easy for the feds to snoop, then it's probably not much harder for other people. This would constitute a breach of security for many people.
Secondly, it seems that when a government entity is granted power over something, there is inevitably somebody who is willing to use the power unethically.
My hope is that the government would first secure some sort of court order, and then go to the service provider before performing the tap.
I think, legal or not, if the government has the technology, they will use it. The legislation is only for show.
Also, there is another neutrino observer planned somewhere in Canada that I stumbled across surfing the Web. "Snow" something I think it is called.
I thought it was interesting because scientists theorize that the "missing" mass associated with current models of the universe could possibly be accounted for in the neutrinos - if it turns out the neutrinos actually have mass.
I don't recall if there have been any conclusive observations made with relation to neutrinos and mass, but it seems at least that several different types of neutrinos have been identified.
Hey, what happens when a male and female get together in sexual intercourse? Wow, people have known about this for who knows how many millenia. Actually, it's a rather simple procedure which requires no scientific knowledge whatever.
The prospect of humans creating life asexually is intriguing, yet hardly unprecedented in nature. The difference is that it requires all of our sentience to put the pieces together.
For many this is a feat of science. For others, a issue of religion. So tell me what is life, really? What is God? Some have answered those questions for themselves, yet rarely the answer seems the same. But this much I know: judging on the amount of posts I'm seeing, it's an important topic for just about everybody.
If the power of God is creation, or procreation, then science can certainly be justified to the theist. To some this is enobling, and to others, heresy. Pick your side.
My only grief is to see the human creative genius and procreative power be abused. Science for war, and sex for entertainment and lust. At the end of it all, I suggest that the theist and the atheist alike are left with their own reward: themselves.
What is this woman doing letting little Kenny watch SouthPark? If I were a 5 year old Kenny, I'd be disturbed too.
Lady, SouthPark ain't for kids. Hell, I grew up long ago and I still can't handle it. You gotta use discretion when you let your kids watch TV, especially when they don't understand the adult oriented humor.
Flip side of the coin: There are so freaking many incompetent parents out there who don't understand the role of television in the family. They have a hard enough time dressing themselves, let alone raising kids. Unfortunately, they can't help breeding.
So why don't TV networks get a clue and not air a cartoon of something that you wouldn't want your kids looking at? Look, somebody has to be responsible. If the parents aren't going to be, somebody should be.
Hey, I'm not saying "ban" everyting, but for crying out loud, all you do is turn on the TV and there it is...
I personally prefer the more voluptuous curves.
FreeBSD has some good features. It does make a fantastic server. And the security features are great. My company uses FreeBSD for firewall, proxy, and web servers. We use OpenBSD for Kerberos.
Linux also makes a great server. I'll admit it doesn't yet have all of the same features as FreeBSD, but it is still amazingly stable and fast. We use Linux on the desktop at work, and also for mail and web servers.
Sparc Solaris is our production OS, we use that to run Sybase and also another web server. It also handles telephony. We originally ran SunOS 4 until Solaris 2.5 came out.
The official company web site, hosted on UUNET, is run on BSDI. It has served us well over the years.
And I find that Windows is sometimes stable enough to be useful as a game platform.
So what is all this about the "best" OS? They are all good for something. It just happens that, for me right now, Linux is the most generally satisfying. If I have to be in front of a computer 12 hours a day, I want it to be a Linux box on my desktop. If I have to be programming, I want to program from my Linux environment. If I need a server, most any Unix or "Unix-like" OS available today will be fine with me. If I want to play games, I'll go find a Windows machine or a Playstation.
I thought the article was markedly biased. It is unfortunate that the FreeBSD crowd feels displaced by the Linux crowd.
What is it that makes a patent "defensible?" I take it, then, that you can get a patent for less, but not a "defensible" patent.
In trying to stop intellectual crime, they have only succeeded in making it worse.
Um... actually there was very little in my post that was factual. My intention here was to mock the bigots whose minds are so closed that they must persist in spreading these kinds of ideas about Utah and Mormons. They are about 90% rhetoric and 10% fact.
So...
Why doesn't somebody like, say, the FSF start making their own software patents? Then let's suppose they license these ideas as "free to use by any and all." Then supposing they stipulate that whoever uses such patented code must also re-distribute the code, free of cost.
Maybe that would help open up the source code for a lot of future projects.
Wow, this is the most gullible rant I've read in a long time. Let me guess: you're a non-mormon Utahn. The mormons piss you off because their lifestyle ain't the same as yours. So, you go off into some imaginary world and write this kind of trash?
Church and State are not separate? How many Mormon sermons have been preached on the mandatory separation of church and state? You wouldn't know. Sure, people's values and beliefs influence the legislation in Utah. It's that way everywhere. Wake up.
People have the idea they are #1 in the world and to hell with everyone else? Yes, I see you've been inside everyone's mind, so you must know exactly what they think.
Lowest wage rates huh.... listen, why don't you try asking for a raise instead of bitching about how Utah has the lowest wages? Which is compeltely untrue anyway. It's not the highest, but dead last it ain't.
Lowest spending on pupils... sure helps when you don't have to pay a bodyguard and police force to take care of them. I guess there are those whose minds are so narrow that they can't see spending less per student as a good thing.
Most people have never seen the outside of this area? Hello, 50% of the Utah Mormon male population is bi-lingual. Why? Because they spend 2 years proselyting in foreign countries. And a significant number of the females do as well. And those who aren't sent foreign go to some other state. Utahns are among the best traveled in the world.
Hey, I'm beginning to see why you can't stand Utah. With your attitude, it's gotta be tough getting along. As has been demonstrated.
Why, what a fine stereotype you have drawn. Yes, all Utahns are fanatical and there are many stories of mobs forming to expel the evil beer-drinking scum from the state. In fact, it is illegal to run a brewery in Utah, or sell beer.
This is, naturally, all due to the prominant religion, which of course, is little more than a brainwashing cult. This is why all Utahns can't drink beer, because their church forbids it and they believe that people who drink beer will go to hell. Plus, they can tell people what they have to do because everyone in Utah is brainwashed. Utahns can't act for themselves or make their own decisions. This is why people in Utah are so stupid and there are no computers. Plus, Utah's schools are the worst on the planet because you're not supposed to learn. You're supposed to do only what your Leaders tell you, because only that is right and nothing else.
And there's so much prozac because... wanna know why? It's their church's fault. Because they force everybody to not have sex until they're married, and they can't drink beer or smoke stuff, and the way they enforce all of this is by guilt and subversion. Oh, and did I mention brainwashing? Yes, and this makes it so that everyone in Utah has to have Prozac because they are all being repressed.
Will somebody please moderate me up because my post slams Utah and the mormons? It's quite on topic, really.
I also live in Utah. All of my friends use Linux. My entire department uses Linux. My company uses Linux for it's main networking machines. I used to work for Corel Corporation, which created the WordPerfect office suite right here in Orem. Novell's headquarters are right next door. Caldera systems is based in Provo as well. We have plenty of ISPs and web hosting companies. There are plenty of Linux users around.
Why not just use the Gimp and Blender or POV-Ray or BMRT or Radiance? Or a mix of all of them?
Yeah, alcohol is pretty bad. I don't drink; never have.
Of course, the "myth" that alcohol is worse than dope has very little "proof," unless you believe the b@st@rds at newscientist.com. I find their "new" science almost as silly as some religions. It seems that the same would apply to the pompous new book from the Lindesmith Center ("Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts"). It is notable that this "medical" book has only received crital acclaim from such magazines a "Rolling Stones." Even the supposed medical virtues of the drug are hotly contested, and there is currently much more scientific evidence to the contrary. Currently there are no medical institutions in the United States that recognize any medical benefits of smoked marijuana.
Also, claims that legalization of this and other drugs will result in lower crime are completely unsubstantiated. In fact, those countries (such as the Netherlands) that have experimented with such legalization policies are now re-thinking their policies. Crime rates and addiction cases have drastically risen as a result of legalization in these areas. Great Britain, Sweden and Egypt have also experimented with legalization policies. They were forced to abandon such politics in the face of remarkable rise in crime and substance abuse.
Earlier this century Opium was legalized in China, resulting in 90 million addicts which took 50 years to rectify. Similar things have gone on in Thailand and Iran, which are still struggling to fix the situation.
In April, 1994 21 major European cities formed a coalition against drugs, an acknowledgment that legalization has failed.
Other countries, particularly in the Middle East and Orient, exact a high price for drug trafficking; and such enjoy a relative freedom from the plague of drug abuse and crime. This, may I add, is NEVER mentioned by legalization proponents.
Since the 1970's over 10,500 studies have been conducted showing the harmful consequences of Marijuana use. "Newscience" and "NORML" don't want you to know that. They'd rather ignore the bulk of scientific evidence presented against their case. They'd rather enjoy their blunts legally, and pay less. They don't particularly care that history has shown their case completely irrational. No, to them Amdsterdam is a complete success story. Look at the handful of good things that have come of it. Of course, we won't mention the millions of nightmares it's caused... that's all irrelevant anyway. 'Long as we get our high.
Well, if you want me to post more references for my numbers here, I'd be pleased to do so.
What the hell is this? Just because some wacko Congressman in 1937 said ridiculous things about marijuana, that's supposed to be the root of all the obviously "false" ideas about the drug?
I don't understand where people get off on this idea that marijuana is harmless. The same people who have say that 80% percent of us have tried it, and 50% are still smoking regularly. What kind of numbers are these? Dude, you just have to justify it to yourself and everybody else. Those numbers are plain wrong.
Marijuana never did anybody good. Not even Mr. Sagan. Ok, maybe there's some medicinal value to the weed, but it's not something you want to be smoking.
Shall we get the facts straight?
1) Although it is not proven that Marijuana causes cancer, it has been shown that it contains as much or more of same chemicals contained in cigarettes that have been shown to cause cancer.
2) Marijuana users are far more prone to chest infections, such as pneumonia. Hey, what did Sagan die of? 2+2 = 5, right?
3) The THC in marijuana has been shown to affect the immune system. Unlike alcohol, THC can stay in your body for weeks depending on how often you smoke.
4) It is VERY evident that marijuana affects the neuralogical systems of the body. There are many well documented side effects of the drug. Doctors are still researching the effect of marijuana on the brain.
5) Studies among teenagers have shown that those who smoke marijuana are up to 104 times more likely to try and become addicted to other, more dangerous drugs, than those who have not tried.
6) Less than 1 in 4 high school students have ever used, or ever will use marijuana. I doubt that number is higher with responsible, job holding adults.
7) Marijuana is addictive. While not everyone who uses becomes an addict, there are many who seek it out compulsively. In 1995 165,000 people entered drug treatment programs to seek help for marijuana abuse.
8) Frequent heavy users of marijuana develop a tolerance to the drug. They require an increasingly higher dosage to get the high they seek.
It pisses me off to see posts like this. People who are likely to encourage kids and others to view marijuana and other drugs (tobacco and alcohol included) as a harmless thing. Then get all righteous, spurting BS about "freedom" and "lies." Yeah, everything you read on the 'net is true. Isn't it wonderful what you learn?
Here are some references to look up, next time you want to post this kind of garbage about marijuana:
1.Brookoff, D.; Cook, C. S.; Williams, C.; and Mann, C. S. Testing reckless drivers for cocaine and marijuana. New England Journal of Medicine,
331:518-522, 1994.
2.Cornelius, M. D.; Taylor, P. M.; Geva, D.; and Day, N. L. Prenatal tobacco and marijuana use among adolescents: effects on offspring
gestational age, growth, and morphology. Pediatrics, 95: 738-743. 1995.
3.Crowley, T. J.; Macdonald, M. J.; Whitmore. E. A.; and Mikulich, S. K. Cannabis Dependence, Withdrawal, and Reinforcing Effects Among
Adolescents With Conduct Symptoms and Substance Use Disorders. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 1998.
4.Fletcher, J. M.; Page, J. B.; Francis, D. I.; Copeland, K.; Naus, M. J.; Davis. C. M.; Morris, R.; Krauskopf, D.; and Satz, P. Cognitive correlates
of long-term cannabis use in Costa Rican men. Arch. of General Psychiatry, 53: 1051-1057, 1996.
5.Harder. S. and Reitbrock, S. Concentration-effect relationship of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and prediction of psychotropic effects after
smoking marijuana. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 35(4): 155-159, 1997.
6.Jones, R.T. et al. Clinical relevance of cannabis tolerance and dependence. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 21 (Suppl 1): 143-152,1981.
7.Kandel, D.B. Stages in adolescent involvement with drugs. Science, 190:912-914, 1975.
8.Liguori, A.; Gatto, C. P.; and Robinson, J. H. Effects of marijuana on equilibrium. psychomotor performance, and simulated driving. Behavioral
Pharmacology, 9:599-609, 1998.
9.National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors, Inc.. State Resources and Services Related to Alcohol and Other Drug
Problems for Fiscal Year 1995: An Analysis of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Profile Data, July 1997.
10.National Institute on Drug Abuse. National Survey Results on Drug Use from The Monitoring The Future Study, 1975-1997, Volume
I/Secondary School Students. NIH Publication No. 98-4345. Printed 1998.
11.Pope, H. G. and Yurgelun-Todd, D. The Residual Cognitive Effects of Heavy Marijuana Use in College Students. Journal of the American
Medical Association, Vol 275, No. 7, February 21, 1996.
12.Rodriguez de Fonseca, F.; Carrera, M. R. A.; Navarro, M.; Koob, G. F.; and Weiss, F. Activation of Corticotropin-Releasing Factor in the
Limbic System During Cannabinoid Withdrawal. Science, Vol. 276, June 27, 1997.
13.Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Sciences. Preliminary Results From the 1996 National
Household Survey on Drug Abuse. DHHS No. (SMA) 97-3149. Rockville, MD: SAMHSA, July 1997.
14.University of Michigan. News and Information Services. Drug use among American teens shows signs of leveling after a long rise. December
18, 1997.
15.Wu, T. C.; Tashkin, D. P.; Djahed, B.; and Rose, J.E. Pulmonary hazards of smoking marijuana as compared with tobacco. New England
Journal of Medicine, 318: 347-351, 1988.
While I agree that $250,000 fine and 3 years imprisonment is serious penalty for this kind of thing, there are some points I'd like to contest:
1) This is a MAXIMUM penalty, not necessarily the penaltly that will be paid. This is written clearly in all commercial software license agreements.
2) $100,000 is probably a slightly conservative estimate for a 3 year term. That's over $33,000 a year, which is almost the average salary of the American worker.
3) If the guy had $2500 worth of software on his site, and say (over time) an estimated 10,000 people downloaded the the whole site, that is at least $25,000,000 of commercial software and music software being distributed at no cost.
4) I'm a geek, and I don't have a pirated copy of Windows. Or any illegal MP3s. All of my MP3s are from CDs I own. And what's the point of pirating software when you can get better for free?
I hope the judge has some pity on this kid and lets him make it up in a way that he is able. But let's face it, piracy is illegal. Yeah, a little software piracy actually does help make money for Microsoft and other companies, but if there were no laws against it, a lot of people would be out of a job.
Also, if you're going to pirate software, you should know the consequences in advance. If you know what the penalty is in advance, you can't say it's "cruel." If you don't; well, then you're just plain dumb.
And it's not unusual; I remember having read these terms of penalty for many years.