That is the justification is frequently used, but if you completely replace the toolchain of any unix-like operating system with GNU ones, that does not make that particular system suddenly GNU. The GNU tools were all ported to Linux, but Linux is not and has never been part of the GNU project, so calling it GNU/Linux is a misnomer.
Nobody will argue that the utilities that came with Linux were all GNU, but that does not make it GNU/Linux any more than the system that I used while I was at university should have been called GNU/HPUX because the system administrator had replaced all the standard HPUX tools with GNU ones.
Linux was originally developed with and for the tools that came with Minix at the time... almost all of which were also GNU, but nobody ever called Minux GNU/Minix. It's more the case that the GNU tools were ported to Linux just as they were to Minix.
No... it's not appropriate. It completely misrepresents the origins of LInux as having anything to do with the GNU project.
Linux was GNU licensed, but was not *ever* part of the GNU project. If GNU made a distro of LInux it would be reasonable to call that distro GNU/Linux, but afaik they do not. The term would still be inapplicable to other distros, however.
I think the use case for its advantage would be development time by taking advantage of certain features that didn't exist in the language previously... but saving development time is meaningless if you can't actually develop for your intended target architecture.
X isn't GNU licensed... replacing it with Wayland would not decrease the amount of GNU code in the system.
And GNU/Linux was a term coined by Stallman, probably because he may have been getting antsy about there not being an official GNU kernel yet, and so he figured he'd just appropriate another one without actually asking anybody... one that already existed with a GNU license, and was already in respectable condition. But Linux was never actually part of the GNU project, so calling it GNU/Linux strikes me as something of a misnomer. Like calling a Japanese car an American car just because it is driven in the USA.
To be fair, however.... dealerships aren't particularly up front about that information either. You can calculate it yourself easily enough... but the figure that they advertise cars for is in my experience substantially less than what you'll actually end up forking out after all is said and done.
How is it more "moral" to pay 45k without interest for borrowing 30k than it is to borrow 30k and pay back what works out to 45k over time?
And of course you realize that if you usually still have the option of paying it back faster anyways, so that you will actually pay even less interest... although some financial institutions may impose a limit on exactly how much faster you're allowed to pay it back without renegotiating the terms, but even then, the terms can usually be renegotiated from time to time as one's financial ability to repay a loan improves over time anyways.
I mean, sure... I can understand it being difficult for new users to adapt to. I can even understand it being removed as a default behavior out of the box, but why can't the feature just be a configurable setting in the window manager's properties file?
Putting aside that I can't see how they ever came to the conclusion that the universe needed a flu vaccination, what's even harder to figure out is what size of dosage will they need to service something that's (last I heard) approximately 56 billion light years wide, and where the hell are they going to inject the needle?
The first statement is probably true. I am not so arrogant as to believe my life is interesting enough for anyone else to track.
The second statement is prorbaably half true... that is, the first part is probably true. The second part is unknown, but that does not necessarily mean that it is false.
The third statement is false, but does not alter the veracity of the preceding statements.
Analogy fail. One exists, and anyone can see that it does. The other does not, evidently, and you're not liable to find support that it does outside of conspiracy theories, which rest on the fallacious method of selectively ignoring evidence which might actually disprove the theory while focusing almost exclusively on alleged agendas for which is no definitive proof that such agendas ever actually played any part in the outcome.
In practice, most people are too uninteresting for anyone else, particularly people with the resources to utilize spy drones capable of seeing through walls, to bother trying to spy on.
Try living in the real world instead of one built around your own paranoia and fears.
You really think people will be able to print full working automobiles, appliances, and assorted consumer electronics at home within the next few decades?
Your comment rings suspiciously like the rantings of a paranoid.
Of course in public anything goes, but you'd be very hard pressed to substantiate that people are under 24/7 surveillance even when they are in private, and not utilizing any kind of network connectivity.
Clearly, by that reasoning, free will is impossible regardless of the existence of an omniscient deity, since you cannot choose to do what you won't end up doing. This leaves any intelligent foreknowledge out of the equation completely.
The point being that the presence of an omniscient being does not impact the presence or absence of free will.
Most things that I spend real money on are composed of multiple different substances, not just fixed piece of plastic that can be reproduced by injection moulding (not that injection moulding is particularly cheap, but I'm just saying that the bulk of things that I spend money on are fully assembled objects made of many parts and materials and would not be practical for the current regime of home 3d printers).
Because, as the inventor of Pastafarianism correctly noted... there are *more* than just two sides. There is an inherently unbounded number of perspectives. To that end, in formal education, it's best to only discuss what we can actually prove with the tools that we have available. Other perspectives are best left as discussions for philosophy, not science.
Problematically, more than half of this Bible has been edited away for political reasons over time, under the guise of weeding out false accounts, inconvenient truths are dumped by the wayside.
You may find that you have to tread significantly into conspiracy theory territory to maintain that premise. I'm not saying it's impossible, but archaeological finds made well after the Bible had become what we know it as today does seem to suggest that almost all of the books which are in the bible, and most notably those in the old testament, at least, were actually almost astoundingly preserved... as we have since discovered ancient documents that are on the order of multiple centuries older than the oldest documents that were known to exist at the time of King James.
Although far from proof of divine origin, it is easily indicative how valued those documents likely were by the culture at the time who clearly took great pains to ensure that they were accurately preserved. The notion that the modern bible has been altered significantly since its origin is really not that sustainable in practice (it's also a form of poisoning the well, which is related to ad-hominem, and is commonly considered a fallacy) and is, perhaps, one of the weaker arguments that one might use in disputing the bible's credibility.
Slashdot Mirror
In the 1970's, there was a hockey team called the Scouts... They are defunct now, but afaik it wasn't because of their name.
What bullying tactics were employed beyond "change your name or we'll sue"?
Because if that's it... I'm not sure why they caved. "Scout" is a pretty generic word.
That is the justification is frequently used, but if you completely replace the toolchain of any unix-like operating system with GNU ones, that does not make that particular system suddenly GNU. The GNU tools were all ported to Linux, but Linux is not and has never been part of the GNU project, so calling it GNU/Linux is a misnomer.
Nobody will argue that the utilities that came with Linux were all GNU, but that does not make it GNU/Linux any more than the system that I used while I was at university should have been called GNU/HPUX because the system administrator had replaced all the standard HPUX tools with GNU ones.
Linux was originally developed with and for the tools that came with Minix at the time... almost all of which were also GNU, but nobody ever called Minux GNU/Minix. It's more the case that the GNU tools were ported to Linux just as they were to Minix.
No... it's not appropriate. It completely misrepresents the origins of LInux as having anything to do with the GNU project.
Linux was GNU licensed, but was not *ever* part of the GNU project. If GNU made a distro of LInux it would be reasonable to call that distro GNU/Linux, but afaik they do not. The term would still be inapplicable to other distros, however.
I think the use case for its advantage would be development time by taking advantage of certain features that didn't exist in the language previously... but saving development time is meaningless if you can't actually develop for your intended target architecture.
X isn't GNU licensed... replacing it with Wayland would not decrease the amount of GNU code in the system.
And GNU/Linux was a term coined by Stallman, probably because he may have been getting antsy about there not being an official GNU kernel yet, and so he figured he'd just appropriate another one without actually asking anybody... one that already existed with a GNU license, and was already in respectable condition. But Linux was never actually part of the GNU project, so calling it GNU/Linux strikes me as something of a misnomer. Like calling a Japanese car an American car just because it is driven in the USA.
I'd call it even, personally.
To be fair, however.... dealerships aren't particularly up front about that information either. You can calculate it yourself easily enough... but the figure that they advertise cars for is in my experience substantially less than what you'll actually end up forking out after all is said and done.
From the wording in the article, it seems to suggest that they will be removing the feature entirely in the future.
How is it more "moral" to pay 45k without interest for borrowing 30k than it is to borrow 30k and pay back what works out to 45k over time?
And of course you realize that if you usually still have the option of paying it back faster anyways, so that you will actually pay even less interest... although some financial institutions may impose a limit on exactly how much faster you're allowed to pay it back without renegotiating the terms, but even then, the terms can usually be renegotiated from time to time as one's financial ability to repay a loan improves over time anyways.
I mean, sure... I can understand it being difficult for new users to adapt to. I can even understand it being removed as a default behavior out of the box, but why can't the feature just be a configurable setting in the window manager's properties file?
Uhmmm.... I'd imagine that it comes with a caveat that it not be creating any kind of disturbance for other passengers.
Putting aside that I can't see how they ever came to the conclusion that the universe needed a flu vaccination, what's even harder to figure out is what size of dosage will they need to service something that's (last I heard) approximately 56 billion light years wide, and where the hell are they going to inject the needle?
The first statement is probably true. I am not so arrogant as to believe my life is interesting enough for anyone else to track.
The second statement is prorbaably half true... that is, the first part is probably true. The second part is unknown, but that does not necessarily mean that it is false.
The third statement is false, but does not alter the veracity of the preceding statements.
The fourth is irrelevant.
Analogy fail. One exists, and anyone can see that it does. The other does not, evidently, and you're not liable to find support that it does outside of conspiracy theories, which rest on the fallacious method of selectively ignoring evidence which might actually disprove the theory while focusing almost exclusively on alleged agendas for which is no definitive proof that such agendas ever actually played any part in the outcome.
"Can" is not the same as "will".
In practice, most people are too uninteresting for anyone else, particularly people with the resources to utilize spy drones capable of seeing through walls, to bother trying to spy on.
Try living in the real world instead of one built around your own paranoia and fears.
You really think people will be able to print full working automobiles, appliances, and assorted consumer electronics at home within the next few decades?
Possible, perhaps... but not remotely practical for the foreseeable future.
Your comment rings suspiciously like the rantings of a paranoid.
Of course in public anything goes, but you'd be very hard pressed to substantiate that people are under 24/7 surveillance even when they are in private, and not utilizing any kind of network connectivity.
Clearly, by that reasoning, free will is impossible regardless of the existence of an omniscient deity, since you cannot choose to do what you won't end up doing. This leaves any intelligent foreknowledge out of the equation completely.
The point being that the presence of an omniscient being does not impact the presence or absence of free will.
Most things that I spend real money on are composed of multiple different substances, not just fixed piece of plastic that can be reproduced by injection moulding (not that injection moulding is particularly cheap, but I'm just saying that the bulk of things that I spend money on are fully assembled objects made of many parts and materials and would not be practical for the current regime of home 3d printers).
Doesn't this exploit bypass the fingerprint lockscreen?
Because, as the inventor of Pastafarianism correctly noted... there are *more* than just two sides. There is an inherently unbounded number of perspectives. To that end, in formal education, it's best to only discuss what we can actually prove with the tools that we have available. Other perspectives are best left as discussions for philosophy, not science.
You may find that you have to tread significantly into conspiracy theory territory to maintain that premise. I'm not saying it's impossible, but archaeological finds made well after the Bible had become what we know it as today does seem to suggest that almost all of the books which are in the bible, and most notably those in the old testament, at least, were actually almost astoundingly preserved... as we have since discovered ancient documents that are on the order of multiple centuries older than the oldest documents that were known to exist at the time of King James.
Although far from proof of divine origin, it is easily indicative how valued those documents likely were by the culture at the time who clearly took great pains to ensure that they were accurately preserved. The notion that the modern bible has been altered significantly since its origin is really not that sustainable in practice (it's also a form of poisoning the well, which is related to ad-hominem, and is commonly considered a fallacy) and is, perhaps, one of the weaker arguments that one might use in disputing the bible's credibility.