Not precisely. Being against the members of some religion isn't the same as being against the members of all religions (different from you own).
I'm not thrilled by Christians, but that doesn't mean I like Muslims. In fact, I consider that a higher proportion of them are likely to become violent criminals with a bias targeting non-Muslims than Christians are likely to become violent criminals with a bias targeting non-Christians. Please note, this is a statistical prediction, not a prediction targeting any particular individual. And it also has to do with the current culture I live in. There were times in the past when the prediction could quite reasonably have been reversed. (And not *that* far in the past. It should probably have been reversed in the early 1900's.)
The Muslim religion, taken at face value, gives much more reason to be violent and bigoted towards non-Muslims than does the Christian religion, but both seem to give ample support towards either end of the scale (of violence) and people seem to come out of either with what they bring to it. So it's the enveloping culture more than the religion itself which is the determining factor. And, of course, a statistical variation among people as to how they react to an environment. The details of the religious doctrine seem to play a quite minor role, falling almost into the area of "This is useful as a justification.".
AFAIKT, all executives are selective in the enforcement of the laws, and always have been. If nothing else they can cite prioritization of activity. You first enforce the laws you deem most important, and get around to the ones you deem less important as you have the time and energy.
An interesting question, but as posed I can't think of an ethical way to answer it based on anything beyond prejudice.
The closest thing I can think of to an example is various examples of enforcement of the GPL, and that's not a very close example, as the enforcement is handled by different groups with different agendas. Also it's often quite difficult to prove violation. But Linux is run supporting both gay and homophobic sites, and hosts various applications for those purposes with splendid indifference to purposes. The only concern is whether any distributed binaries have the source code available. OTOH, that's all the license would allow them to enforce.
P.S.: How legal is his retrospective change in the terms of his license? I suspect that he has no grounds whatsoever, but I've never used the code and perhaps it depends on access to some remote server.
If you're worried about the NSA, this won't do a bit of good. If, however, you're worried about the DOJ, this may be an adequate defense. Which means that it's likely to be a safe place to hide corporate shenanigans, but not something the intelligence agencies are interested in.
It is, indeed, probably the greatest failing. But can you even propose a workable system that does better on this point? (And it's certainly not the only failing. But that doesn't mean that any other approach would work better.)
RedHat does most to buy the Linux Ecosystem. It also supports some of the system developers, but I don't think it's the majority of the support.
Now it you were talking about Gnome, then I'd agree without question. And as someone else mentioned, systemd. Strangely, I haven't been happy with the direction that Gnome has been headed in the last several years, and I see no benefit in systemd. (I don't really see any big reason to avoid it, but I see no benefit. I wouldn't have even considered it if it hadn't been shoved into Debian.)
So while Red Hat is putting a lot of money into Linux, and using that money to steer development, I haven't been exceptionally happy with the *direction* that they've been steering the development.
I remember a *long* time ago (Fortran IV, compiler written by the university that leased the computer) I had this truly horrendous bug where the value of 1 was set to 10. I eventually (*eventually*) traced it down to a '1' instead of an 'I' in a do loop.
I only ever found the error because of other problems caused by the loop not executing as a loop, but only as an assignment. I never did figure out what parse made than an assignment to '1' instead of to 'DO101' (i.e. 'DO 10 1', spaces aren't significant in Fortran IV).
I suspect the points raised by a different poster are the correct answer: 1) The measurements were approximate, and 2) The measurements weren't taken at corresponding places on the edge.
The vessel may have been made by antique methods, but it was done by Phoenician craftsmen, who could make accurate circular figures if they cared to. (I can't remember the exact group of Phoenicians, but perhaps they were from Tyre.)
Good and valid points, but not ones I've ever heard raised before. I'd need to go back and read the text again to be certain, and it's not going to change the popular arguments. (But I will be less certain that the bible intentionally stated that pi was three in the future.)
The original story was a lot more amusing than that. The bill actually got entered into the legislative calendar, but nobody could understand it, so they referred it to the committee on swamps, where it died. (And it started when an author(?) of a math textbook offered to donate his royalties to the state if they would just adopt this bill [and, IIRC, make his book the state's official math text].)
I'm sure there was more to the story, but that's all I ever heard the details on. There may even have been a religious angle, because there's a place in the Bible where the value of pi *is* stated to be 3. (A circular vessel with such a diameter and such a circumference. It's somewhere around Solomon.)
I'm not thrilled by systemd, but Debian accepted it also...even if I don't know why, and suspect that the procedure violate the guidelines. But there may actually be some valid reason for it, even if none of the justifications have made much sense to me.
Unfortunately, that model doesn't work. And at many distances from the sun ices are stable enough to create a core to build things around. Interestingly Jupiter's orbit is around the place where water ice becomes solid enough to form such a core. This might be taken as an argument that Jupiter formed in position, and never moved, which in turn would imply that the same was true for the other giant planets.
Please note that this is not a complete model, but only an argument that would need to be countered in any model that required that the giant planets migrate. It does, however, seem to indicate that the small rocky planets, including Earth, probably DID migrate. If this is the reason that the asteroids are small fragments, then the larger rocky planets probably formed further out but in the shadow of one of the giants, so they didn't have a chance to grow, that the giants probably at one time had much larger families of moons, and that orbital interactions destabilized the orbits of some of them, sending some fraction of those flying into the inner solar system. Then SOMETHING has to have slowed them down to allow capture. This is going to be difficult to explain as Venus, e.g., has a nearly circular orbit. Possibly there was still a large disk of unconsolidated matter which acted as a resistive medium. The "late heavy bombardment" could have been the final clearing of the area.
Please note: This is only the sketch of a hypothesis. This doesn't even rise to the level of hypothesis. But if we start with "A large disk of spinning sand and rock", then Earth won't end up with any water. Earth orbit is too hot even currently.
To be fair, the left are also science deniers whenever it suits their political agenda. Start talking about inherent differences between populations of people and you'll soon find out. But they don't usually have a lot of money invested in their bias, so they're more flexible. (Slightly.)
Most of humanity of every stripe is unwilling to change it's beliefs just because of evidence. It needs a strong political or religious (i.e. emotional) motivation. I have hypotheses as to why, but very little in the way of evidence.
IIRC, there have been a few found, or possibly found. (Free planets are quite hard to see, and you can't get repeated observations.)
The real problem is that "dark matter", whatever it may be, is non-baryonic. I.e., it doesn't contain protons. And electrons are so light that you can't plausibly make it out of combinations of leptons (e.g. an electron bound to a tau-positron).
That said, I've never heard it explicitly stated that it must be non-quarkish matter, so perhaps it's made of quarks in some stable configuration larger than triplets. But IFAIK so far all attempts to detect such entities (outside of accelerators) have failed.
Someone earlier said that the original contracts were for up to four years. If changing terms like that within the span of the contract *isn't* illegal, then it should be.
Since I've never heard a "yo' mama" joke that I thought even a trifle funny, I wouldn't consider that a major loss. I consider it an unfortunate weakness that I occasionally find a racially or nationality based joke to be funny. Nobody's perfect. At least I avoid telling them.
If you want to make jokes that are less bad, tell them about your boss, or someone with equivalent power over you.
I'm sorry, but while that's not extremely bad, it's still bad. Bad comes in gradations as much as does good...and they aren't always even contradictory. But denigrating a group of people counts as bad. That's why these days villains normally have green skin...that doesn't hurt anybody. Polish jokes, however, are bad, and people who choose to tell them are being at least slightly bad. That may be involved in why they were replaced by elephant jokes (among the people that I knew), though if so I wasn't aware of it.
Jokes and actions aimed at putting someone else "one down" are alway bad actions, even when there is no intention of causing injury. (And putting someone "one up" isn't the opposite, though it's usually not perceived as humor.)
I don't know about currently, but in the 1980's the Black Panthers were much less a hate group than a mutual protection society. This, of course, is not how they were depicted in the media, but I lived in an area where they were operating.
Of course, it's possible that what was true about the local group was not true of other chapters, but the media lied frequently enough when I had information that I don't believe them about when I don't have information.
Slashdot Mirror
Not precisely. Being against the members of some religion isn't the same as being against the members of all religions (different from you own).
I'm not thrilled by Christians, but that doesn't mean I like Muslims. In fact, I consider that a higher proportion of them are likely to become violent criminals with a bias targeting non-Muslims than Christians are likely to become violent criminals with a bias targeting non-Christians. Please note, this is a statistical prediction, not a prediction targeting any particular individual. And it also has to do with the current culture I live in. There were times in the past when the prediction could quite reasonably have been reversed. (And not *that* far in the past. It should probably have been reversed in the early 1900's.)
The Muslim religion, taken at face value, gives much more reason to be violent and bigoted towards non-Muslims than does the Christian religion, but both seem to give ample support towards either end of the scale (of violence) and people seem to come out of either with what they bring to it. So it's the enveloping culture more than the religion itself which is the determining factor. And, of course, a statistical variation among people as to how they react to an environment. The details of the religious doctrine seem to play a quite minor role, falling almost into the area of "This is useful as a justification.".
AFAIKT, all executives are selective in the enforcement of the laws, and always have been. If nothing else they can cite prioritization of activity. You first enforce the laws you deem most important, and get around to the ones you deem less important as you have the time and energy.
An interesting question, but as posed I can't think of an ethical way to answer it based on anything beyond prejudice.
The closest thing I can think of to an example is various examples of enforcement of the GPL, and that's not a very close example, as the enforcement is handled by different groups with different agendas. Also it's often quite difficult to prove violation. But Linux is run supporting both gay and homophobic sites, and hosts various applications for those purposes with splendid indifference to purposes. The only concern is whether any distributed binaries have the source code available. OTOH, that's all the license would allow them to enforce.
P.S.: How legal is his retrospective change in the terms of his license? I suspect that he has no grounds whatsoever, but I've never used the code and perhaps it depends on access to some remote server.
But Buddhism doesn't have the reputation of being aggressively hostile. Calvinism would be a better example.
You left out a bunch of management at corporations.
If you're worried about the NSA, this won't do a bit of good. If, however, you're worried about the DOJ, this may be an adequate defense. Which means that it's likely to be a safe place to hide corporate shenanigans, but not something the intelligence agencies are interested in.
So who benefits?
It is, indeed, probably the greatest failing. But can you even propose a workable system that does better on this point? (And it's certainly not the only failing. But that doesn't mean that any other approach would work better.)
RedHat does most to buy the Linux Ecosystem. It also supports some of the system developers, but I don't think it's the majority of the support.
Now it you were talking about Gnome, then I'd agree without question. And as someone else mentioned, systemd. Strangely, I haven't been happy with the direction that Gnome has been headed in the last several years, and I see no benefit in systemd. (I don't really see any big reason to avoid it, but I see no benefit. I wouldn't have even considered it if it hadn't been shoved into Debian.)
So while Red Hat is putting a lot of money into Linux, and using that money to steer development, I haven't been exceptionally happy with the *direction* that they've been steering the development.
Is that still true?
I remember a *long* time ago (Fortran IV, compiler written by the university that leased the computer) I had this truly horrendous bug where the value of 1 was set to 10. I eventually (*eventually*) traced it down to a '1' instead of an 'I' in a do loop.
I only ever found the error because of other problems caused by the loop not executing as a loop, but only as an assignment. I never did figure out what parse made than an assignment to '1' instead of to 'DO101' (i.e. 'DO 10 1', spaces aren't significant in Fortran IV).
I suspect the points raised by a different poster are the correct answer:
1) The measurements were approximate, and
2) The measurements weren't taken at corresponding places on the edge.
The vessel may have been made by antique methods, but it was done by Phoenician craftsmen, who could make accurate circular figures if they cared to. (I can't remember the exact group of Phoenicians, but perhaps they were from Tyre.)
Good and valid points, but not ones I've ever heard raised before. I'd need to go back and read the text again to be certain, and it's not going to change the popular arguments. (But I will be less certain that the bible intentionally stated that pi was three in the future.)
The original story was a lot more amusing than that. The bill actually got entered into the legislative calendar, but nobody could understand it, so they referred it to the committee on swamps, where it died. (And it started when an author(?) of a math textbook offered to donate his royalties to the state if they would just adopt this bill [and, IIRC, make his book the state's official math text].)
I'm sure there was more to the story, but that's all I ever heard the details on. There may even have been a religious angle, because there's a place in the Bible where the value of pi *is* stated to be 3. (A circular vessel with such a diameter and such a circumference. It's somewhere around Solomon.)
Extremely helpful. I kept reading it as a misspelled Man (in) The Middle...and kept wondering what the D could actually stand for.
Sounds like I got the meaning correct, though.
I'm not thrilled by systemd, but Debian accepted it also...even if I don't know why, and suspect that the procedure violate the guidelines. But there may actually be some valid reason for it, even if none of the justifications have made much sense to me.
Unfortunately, that model doesn't work. And at many distances from the sun ices are stable enough to create a core to build things around. Interestingly Jupiter's orbit is around the place where water ice becomes solid enough to form such a core. This might be taken as an argument that Jupiter formed in position, and never moved, which in turn would imply that the same was true for the other giant planets.
Please note that this is not a complete model, but only an argument that would need to be countered in any model that required that the giant planets migrate. It does, however, seem to indicate that the small rocky planets, including Earth, probably DID migrate. If this is the reason that the asteroids are small fragments, then the larger rocky planets probably formed further out but in the shadow of one of the giants, so they didn't have a chance to grow, that the giants probably at one time had much larger families of moons, and that orbital interactions destabilized the orbits of some of them, sending some fraction of those flying into the inner solar system. Then SOMETHING has to have slowed them down to allow capture. This is going to be difficult to explain as Venus, e.g., has a nearly circular orbit. Possibly there was still a large disk of unconsolidated matter which acted as a resistive medium. The "late heavy bombardment" could have been the final clearing of the area.
Please note: This is only the sketch of a hypothesis. This doesn't even rise to the level of hypothesis. But if we start with "A large disk of spinning sand and rock", then Earth won't end up with any water. Earth orbit is too hot even currently.
To be fair, the left are also science deniers whenever it suits their political agenda. Start talking about inherent differences between populations of people and you'll soon find out. But they don't usually have a lot of money invested in their bias, so they're more flexible. (Slightly.)
Most of humanity of every stripe is unwilling to change it's beliefs just because of evidence. It needs a strong political or religious (i.e. emotional) motivation. I have hypotheses as to why, but very little in the way of evidence.
IIRC, there have been a few found, or possibly found. (Free planets are quite hard to see, and you can't get repeated observations.)
The real problem is that "dark matter", whatever it may be, is non-baryonic. I.e., it doesn't contain protons. And electrons are so light that you can't plausibly make it out of combinations of leptons (e.g. an electron bound to a tau-positron).
That said, I've never heard it explicitly stated that it must be non-quarkish matter, so perhaps it's made of quarks in some stable configuration larger than triplets. But IFAIK so far all attempts to detect such entities (outside of accelerators) have failed.
Someone earlier said that the original contracts were for up to four years. If changing terms like that within the span of the contract *isn't* illegal, then it should be.
Since I've never heard a "yo' mama" joke that I thought even a trifle funny, I wouldn't consider that a major loss. I consider it an unfortunate weakness that I occasionally find a racially or nationality based joke to be funny. Nobody's perfect. At least I avoid telling them.
If you want to make jokes that are less bad, tell them about your boss, or someone with equivalent power over you.
You still didn't identify them.
What did those call letters stand for again?
I'm sorry, but while that's not extremely bad, it's still bad. Bad comes in gradations as much as does good...and they aren't always even contradictory. But denigrating a group of people counts as bad. That's why these days villains normally have green skin...that doesn't hurt anybody. Polish jokes, however, are bad, and people who choose to tell them are being at least slightly bad. That may be involved in why they were replaced by elephant jokes (among the people that I knew), though if so I wasn't aware of it.
Jokes and actions aimed at putting someone else "one down" are alway bad actions, even when there is no intention of causing injury. (And putting someone "one up" isn't the opposite, though it's usually not perceived as humor.)
"real terrorists"? You mean the police? If not, who? I doubt you mean the US Army.
Well, that lets out Associated Press.
(I'm sure they prefer to have two independent confirmations, but they've published stories and photos without that requirement.)
I don't know about currently, but in the 1980's the Black Panthers were much less a hate group than a mutual protection society. This, of course, is not how they were depicted in the media, but I lived in an area where they were operating.
Of course, it's possible that what was true about the local group was not true of other chapters, but the media lied frequently enough when I had information that I don't believe them about when I don't have information.