You know, I hear vague references to the "critical assumptions that have been proven wrong" over and over again, and I've never heard them adequately explained. Most of the "critical assumptions" the young earthers point to are things like "the speed of light is a constant from any frame of reference". I followed your link to the review of that book and read this quote out of it:
No one has ever bred a new species artificially--and both plant and animal breeders have been trying for hundreds of years, as have scientists.
I've heard this one before too. And it's wrong. Way wrong. There are several observed instances of speciation (especially in the world of botany). A good easy read to start with can be found at the Talk.origins Speciation Faq if you're interested in the background and some references to real papers on the issue. I'm sorry, but any book published after 1915 or so that claims that scientists and plant breeders have never been able to come up with new species is blatantly ignoring established facts and probably not worth your time.
They're right. The RIAA never threatened him with direct action. The letter only said something along the lines of "your actions could subject you to legal action under the rules of the DMCA". Big difference, hmm? "I'm not saying I'll kill you if you come on my property. It's just that if you come on my property, you might...ummm...die a violent death." The RIAA's claim that no threats were made is infuriatingly insulting.
Fair enough, and I'll agree that the comment was pretty lame . However, the extent of the "fact reporting" in this case was "there's an article over there." The way I see it, shoving everything CmdrTaco posts into the "journalism" mold just because he and the other/. editors act in that capacity on a regular basis is unreasonable when all he was doing in this case was pointing us to another person's article. Given the nature of the site, I don't see how posting even a stupid comment in an area that historically seems reserved for editorial remarks and wisecracks is out of line.
On the positive side, you can be reasonably sure that the utilities that come with it aren't broken. I use Debian mainly because I'm sick of distros that come with nonfunctional software straight out of the box. Sure, I enjoy playing with bleeding edge stuff and occasionally looking for bugs (but as more of a hardware guy, software debugging gets pretty old after a while), but when I want to set up a workstation with solid engineering/communication functionality, the number of distributions I trust narrows significantly.
RedHat has done a great job with a lot of things over the years, and the number of skilled Linux admins who got their start playing with RedHat says a lot for RH's ability to make Linux accessible to new users (and while "skilled" doesn't necessarily apply to me, the rest of that statement does). However, I doubt if anybody can say that they're totally innocent of jumping the gun with a lot of changes they make to their actual releases. Beta is great to play with, but after it comes disguised as a stable release a few times, people start to become a bit wary.
I think that the "always" qualifier may have disappeared there... The point is that I doubt if any reasonable person believes that posting a link to linuxnews.pl necessitates the same degree of journalistic integrity and procedure as say...reporting on something as the primary source. I also doubt if CmdrTaco sees posting a link to linuxnews.pl to be journalism in any strict sense. I could be wrong there, though.
As for the link you posted, you are correct. However, I think that the reference to "journalism" had more to do with things like what Roblimo was doing--reporting the facts as he had researched them to the masses. Regardless, the original point still stands: claiming that posting a link to somebody else's work requires witholding one's opinion on the issue and that those who don't are violating the sacred "journalistic separation of news and editorial" is ludicrous.
I hate to point this out, but the people in charge of Slashdot don't always claim to be or have to be "journalists" in the strictest sense. This is kind of part of the nature of the site. You get links to interesting news pieces written by other people, interviews with questions *we* generate and editorials. In case you haven't noticed, this is *not* a newspaper. It's their site. If they want to make editorial comments when they point you toward a piece of news, that doesn't sound all that unreasonable.
This is not the same as a journalist trying to pass off his opinion as fact in a news report he's writing. Deal with it.
Well... a Java implementation is typically supplied by the operating system vendor to allow the operating system to run Java software. It's OS functionality. Instant message software and the like are applications specifically designed to compete with other companies' applications. One allows you to run more software and the other one makes you less likely to use other vendors' software. Different.
That's a nice thought, and way down the road, it might happen. However, how many good companies that could have pushed innovation faster will be put out of business in the process? Society also changed eventually and pulled itself out of the dark ages. How much more advanced to you think we would be if we never had to deal with long periods during which innovation and progress are put down, though?
Oh, it's not all of us. Just enough of of those in power over here still think that it's the 19th century and just enough (less than than half but more than enough based on the last election...) who like it that way.
I have to say, I'm not all that opposed to a limited defense program to knock out one crazy launch for whatever reason (accident or nutcase dictator with a funny hat and big boots), but pissing of everybody else in the world and setting off another arms race doesn't seem quite worth it. If we're really doing this to defend against rogue launches and terrorists, why don't all the superpowers cooperate and design a system that had this limited capability? Everybody who would be hurt by the shield (the nuclear powers) would then get the benefit of a limited shield against a couple of kooky launches *and* we'd still be able to blow each other to hell. Somehow, I don't think that defense against terrorists and small rogue nations is what Mr. Bush has in mind...
I'm sorry, but saying that the two products don't compete is rediculous. If I'm looking for a vector graphics solution, I can buy a Windows/Mac shop with Illustrator or set up a Linux shop with KIllustrator (not as good, but *free*). They perform the same function. They both compete for the "vector art" dollar. If you're looking at the "vector art for Windows" dollar, certainly they don't. That comparison is like saying that IIS and Apache or Exchange and Sendmail don't compete. Different operating systems, yes. However, they are substitutable.
As for the actual trademark, it's obvious that KIllustrator was using the name to imply (correctly) that it's like the famous Adobe Illistrator. It's not a terrible thing to do since they're not making a profit, but Adobe certainly has every right to be angry (and litigious) about the fact that a competitor (read: one whose products can substitute for theirs and cost them money) is using the fame that Adobe has earned to further their competing product's name recognition. It's sad to see a well intentioned project get bumped around like this, but Adobe is well justified in keeping competitors from stealing its thunder.
Exactly what liberties do you think are infringed upon by the government's ability to monitor your behavior in a public place? The only ones that I can think of have to do with breaking laws that you would not otherwise break when a police officer is standing there. Face it. Your "privacy" in public is still limited by the fact that other people can see you while you're out there, whether there are police there or not. The only difference between a police presence and a general "public" presence is the fact that the police care whether your litter and tag walls while the general public may not.
True, the Constitution doesn't enumerate all of our rights, but the idea that what you do in a public place is protected by some sort of right to privacy has been repeatedly rejected by the courts.
I'm not sure where this "guilty until proven innocent" thing comes into play. Watching somebody in a public place is hardly an assumption of guilt. Snagging people off the street is one thing, but watching them and arresting them if they're caught on camera doing something wrong is quite another. Get a grip.
Something everybody seems to be missing in this conversation is that the government is not funding Linux R&D for the sake of Linux. The government (and basically everybody else who is pouring a fortune into Linux) is funding it because it's the right starting point to create tools that they need. Releasing the code under GPL is simply a byproduct of using GPL code in the first place.
Actually, the post was correct. The economy may have been sluggish, but it was by no means in the recession it was in after Reagan took office. The main problem was tremendous inflation. Combined with a stagnant economy, things generally sucked. That was the economic issue that helped get Reagan into office.
As for hyper-Democrat manuals, the fact that the major dip into recession was engineered during the Reagan administration (actually not by Reagan himself but rather Paul Volker, then chairman of the Federal Reserve) isn't entirely a bad thing. It was designed to stave off inflation by cutting the money supply back sharply, and it worked. It was the economic equivalent of ripping a banage off quickly. It may have been rough, but it turned things around the right way. Relax before you start seeing the *gasp* liberal propaganda force hiding in every shadow.
Gee...I was under the impression that one of the reasons people set up web sites was to share their opinions and ideas. I wasn't aware that it suddenly became wrong as soon as people actually started listening.
Exactly. This is akin to saying that sharing *any* information undermines intellectual property. To make MS happy, apparently we have to keep everything we know a secret. Remind me to stop teaching people how to write shell scripts. There are books out there on shell scripting, and I wouldn't want to "undermine" their intellectual property by giving away some of mine for free...
Gotta love that one. Linux isn't a threat in terms of sales competition, but it's somehow powerful enough to "threaten innovation"? What's up with that? No power to compete but power to bring down a market? Eh?
Napster probably isn't the best idea. Sure, he gave stuff away, but it was mostly other people's stuff....
Better examples might be all the greedy technology people who released software under the GPL/BSD/etc. licenses. I think that the technology people who created the open technology that runs most of the Internet deserve a little more respect than Schroeder gives them.
Slashdot Mirror
No one has ever bred a new species artificially--and both plant and animal breeders have been trying for hundreds of years, as have scientists.
I've heard this one before too. And it's wrong. Way wrong. There are several observed instances of speciation (especially in the world of botany). A good easy read to start with can be found at the Talk.origins Speciation Faq if you're interested in the background and some references to real papers on the issue. I'm sorry, but any book published after 1915 or so that claims that scientists and plant breeders have never been able to come up with new species is blatantly ignoring established facts and probably not worth your time.
They're right. The RIAA never threatened him with direct action. The letter only said something along the lines of "your actions could subject you to legal action under the rules of the DMCA". Big difference, hmm? "I'm not saying I'll kill you if you come on my property. It's just that if you come on my property, you might...ummm...die a violent death." The RIAA's claim that no threats were made is infuriatingly insulting.
Fair enough, and I'll agree that the comment was pretty lame . However, the extent of the "fact reporting" in this case was "there's an article over there." The way I see it, shoving everything CmdrTaco posts into the "journalism" mold just because he and the other /. editors act in that capacity on a regular basis is unreasonable when all he was doing in this case was pointing us to another person's article. Given the nature of the site, I don't see how posting even a stupid comment in an area that historically seems reserved for editorial remarks and wisecracks is out of line.
RedHat has done a great job with a lot of things over the years, and the number of skilled Linux admins who got their start playing with RedHat says a lot for RH's ability to make Linux accessible to new users (and while "skilled" doesn't necessarily apply to me, the rest of that statement does). However, I doubt if anybody can say that they're totally innocent of jumping the gun with a lot of changes they make to their actual releases. Beta is great to play with, but after it comes disguised as a stable release a few times, people start to become a bit wary.
As for the link you posted, you are correct. However, I think that the reference to "journalism" had more to do with things like what Roblimo was doing--reporting the facts as he had researched them to the masses. Regardless, the original point still stands: claiming that posting a link to somebody else's work requires witholding one's opinion on the issue and that those who don't are violating the sacred "journalistic separation of news and editorial" is ludicrous.
This is not the same as a journalist trying to pass off his opinion as fact in a news report he's writing. Deal with it.
I have to say, I'm not all that opposed to a limited defense program to knock out one crazy launch for whatever reason (accident or nutcase dictator with a funny hat and big boots), but pissing of everybody else in the world and setting off another arms race doesn't seem quite worth it. If we're really doing this to defend against rogue launches and terrorists, why don't all the superpowers cooperate and design a system that had this limited capability? Everybody who would be hurt by the shield (the nuclear powers) would then get the benefit of a limited shield against a couple of kooky launches *and* we'd still be able to blow each other to hell. Somehow, I don't think that defense against terrorists and small rogue nations is what Mr. Bush has in mind...
I'm sorry, but saying that the two products don't compete is rediculous. If I'm looking for a vector graphics solution, I can buy a Windows/Mac shop with Illustrator or set up a Linux shop with KIllustrator (not as good, but *free*). They perform the same function. They both compete for the "vector art" dollar. If you're looking at the "vector art for Windows" dollar, certainly they don't. That comparison is like saying that IIS and Apache or Exchange and Sendmail don't compete. Different operating systems, yes. However, they are substitutable.
As for the actual trademark, it's obvious that KIllustrator was using the name to imply (correctly) that it's like the famous Adobe Illistrator. It's not a terrible thing to do since they're not making a profit, but Adobe certainly has every right to be angry (and litigious) about the fact that a competitor (read: one whose products can substitute for theirs and cost them money) is using the fame that Adobe has earned to further their competing product's name recognition. It's sad to see a well intentioned project get bumped around like this, but Adobe is well justified in keeping competitors from stealing its thunder.
Exactly what liberties do you think are infringed upon by the government's ability to monitor your behavior in a public place? The only ones that I can think of have to do with breaking laws that you would not otherwise break when a police officer is standing there. Face it. Your "privacy" in public is still limited by the fact that other people can see you while you're out there, whether there are police there or not. The only difference between a police presence and a general "public" presence is the fact that the police care whether your litter and tag walls while the general public may not.
True, the Constitution doesn't enumerate all of our rights, but the idea that what you do in a public place is protected by some sort of right to privacy has been repeatedly rejected by the courts.
I'm not sure where this "guilty until proven innocent" thing comes into play. Watching somebody in a public place is hardly an assumption of guilt. Snagging people off the street is one thing, but watching them and arresting them if they're caught on camera doing something wrong is quite another. Get a grip.
Keyword: "remote"
Local and remote are not the same. Hence the different names.
But of course you have time to post a message bitching and moaning about it here. Funny how that works out.
Something everybody seems to be missing in this conversation is that the government is not funding Linux R&D for the sake of Linux. The government (and basically everybody else who is pouring a fortune into Linux) is funding it because it's the right starting point to create tools that they need. Releasing the code under GPL is simply a byproduct of using GPL code in the first place.
As for hyper-Democrat manuals, the fact that the major dip into recession was engineered during the Reagan administration (actually not by Reagan himself but rather Paul Volker, then chairman of the Federal Reserve) isn't entirely a bad thing. It was designed to stave off inflation by cutting the money supply back sharply, and it worked. It was the economic equivalent of ripping a banage off quickly. It may have been rough, but it turned things around the right way. Relax before you start seeing the *gasp* liberal propaganda force hiding in every shadow.
But none of Clinton's opponents won the popular vote. Slight difference there.
I think that's where the word "unsolicited" comes into play...
I'm not sure how Slashdot could have gotten the LA Times article any earlier...it was just printed yesterday.
The other option is that one of them looked better than the other in a given dress.
Do these pants make my butt look big?
Exactly. This is akin to saying that sharing *any* information undermines intellectual property. To make MS happy, apparently we have to keep everything we know a secret. Remind me to stop teaching people how to write shell scripts. There are books out there on shell scripting, and I wouldn't want to "undermine" their intellectual property by giving away some of mine for free...
Gotta love that one. Linux isn't a threat in terms of sales competition, but it's somehow powerful enough to "threaten innovation"? What's up with that? No power to compete but power to bring down a market? Eh?
Napster probably isn't the best idea. Sure, he gave stuff away, but it was mostly other people's stuff....
Better examples might be all the greedy technology people who released software under the GPL/BSD/etc. licenses. I think that the technology people who created the open technology that runs most of the Internet deserve a little more respect than Schroeder gives them.