This may, actually, be in keeping with the "spirit of the law". IIUC, "the spirit" of the laws regarding self-incrimination are to prevent confessions being coerced under torture. They haven't been totally effective at that, but they've done a "pretty good" job, and this doesn't seem to be a case that infringes onto that spirit. (Unlike various cases where someone is ordered to decrypt something...which does seem to infringe on that. I count being held in prision as a mild form of torture...which grades into a more extreme form in some cases.)
I *slightly* disagree. It's entirely appropriate that construction companies be required to preserve historic artifacts. What's not appropriate is that *particular* construction companies be so required. That's, as mentioned, counter productive, and places the burden on those who are conscientious. It needs to be a general fee levied on ALL construction companies, with a partial rebate to those that find and appropriately report them. Doing it the other way creates and adverse incentive, as stated.
So. Perhaps tornado shelters are a good idea. If so, at least a part of the construction cost should be remitted for installng one. And perhaps some sort of punishment ("You go the end of the line in case of emergency"?) should be implemented for lack of one.
That said, I'm not sure it should be legal to sell or rent properties lacking a tornado shelter in areas where a tornado is likely. You may not be able to install it due to lack of finances, but this doesn't mean you should be able to transfer the problem to someone else. Perhaps sale should be allowed if the purchaser signed a clear statement in 14 point type saying (approximately) "I understand that the state believes living in this place is unsafe due to the lack of a tornado shelter.". Renting is, however, a separate problem. Landlords have a long history of totally ignoring the safety of their tennants, so I don't think they should be granted ANY slack.
His point was that only loons take those parts seriously among any but the Moslem religions, and that the Moslems DO that those parts (or their equivalents) seriously.
I'm not totally sure that I agree with him, but his point does have some measure of validity. OTOH, tolerance levels can change quickly, and parts that are ignored by one generation can be revived by a following generation. It's happened before. (His argument about religions "growing up" fails on that basis. A temporary level of tolerance doesn't guarantee anything permanent. There was a time when the Moslem culture was the most tolerant on Earth (bar a few isolated islands). Then they were invaded by Tamerlane, and most of them were killed off, and most of the rest became refugees. A few centuries(?) of recovery, and then onslaughts by Christians. (My timeline is a bit uncertain here.) Since then tolerance among the Moslems has been in sharp decline. Now a large number of them worship hate. And they still aren't among the least tolerant cultures. Only the least tolerant major culture.
That said, I, also, am less given to trust someone who identifies him/her self as Moslem. I don't know how sensible this is, and if I get to know someone, group identification becomes unimportant compared to how they have been observed to act. But when judging an unknown member of a group, the first impression is largely an echo of my attitude towards the group. And even when I know someone a bit, I acknowledge that I make frequent mistakes.
Unfortunately for your argument, politics is not a linear continuum. Fascism is a form of authoritarianism, and is closely allied to other forms of authoritarianism, some of which are "left wing".
To a stickler for definitions it would be fair to claim that there is no fascist government in the world today. So you can't win that way either.
As words are generally used, a term defines an approximate centroid of ideas, and can be used to refer to those ideas "near" to the centroid. If the GP was referring to the authoritarian aspect of fascism, there's nothing incoherent about claiming that the government in Washington is a left-wing fascist government, whether or not you agree with it. (I'm not sure I do, though it is certainly centralist, authoritarian, and solicitous of business interests. What I'm not sure is that it's left-wing. It seems more right-wing to me, even if not as gonzo-nutbar right-wing as the current Republicans.)
So to me to characterise it as fascist seems quite reasonable. Do remember that Fascist is not the same as Nazi. And that Nazis were considered a variant of Socialist. (I'm not sure that was ever claimed of the Fascists.)
Well, maybe they've come up with new theories, but back when I had a part-time summer job calculating IQ scores, the idea was that it as a normalized value of "g", where g stood for general intelligence. Now as I don't believe that any such entity exists, I can't accept their theory. But it does measure something, because the results are approximately replicable. So all I can say about it is that it measures the results of taking the test.
OTOH, yes, most people who both understand and accept the test as valid believe that it's measuring something real beyond it's results, and it *is* attempting to measure general intelligence.
For that matter, you could read S.J.Gould's "The Mismeasurement of Man" for some interesting history behind why the IQ test was originally developed. And what the originators thought it proved. (I don't really class IQ tests with phrenology, but the same motives inspired both of them.)
Older headphones could be used as mics, but I'm not all all sure that's true of recent technology. (The last ones I was certain that it worked for were carbon membranes. Around 1950.)
So, are you even certain that your initial statement is true? (I don't know that it isn't, but that's much different from knowning that it is.)
However, presuming that it is, then speakers could be used as mics. They wouldn't be very good ones, but probably good enough that signal processing could recover the sound. So then we come to the capabilities of the electronic system that they are plugged into.
In short, there are very good reasons why mics and speakers are generally separate pieces of hardware.
OTOH, are you aware that, at least in some people, with a sensitive enough mic you can hear some of their thoughts through the ear? The volume is quite low, and you don't, IIRC, hear non-verbalized thoughts (I'm not even quite sure what that would mean). Something about pre-verbal thoughts constricting muscles in the vocal chords, but not sufficiently that speech results. Why you can hear it through the ear I do not know.
In this case IQ is defined as the "measurement" of the test. So it's not that "You are confusing the measuring stick with the quantity being measured.", the definition is just recursive. I also want to call it invalid, but I can't. It is valid, it just isn't a measure of intelligence in any useful way. And because there IS no such characteristic as "general intelligence" you probably can't do any better.
Yes, there are people of IQ exactly 100, though which people depends on exactly which test you're using. There are a finite number of questions, so the gradation is not continuous.
N.B.: because of the rules of scoring, there ARE IQ tests in which nobody has an IQ of exactly 100, but that's because of the number of questions and the rules used for converting "right" answers into points. In some tests they are such that no combination of answers will yield an value of exactly 100. In others, there are combination(s) of answers that will yield that value.
P.S.: IQ is useful as an indication of potential for academic success. It's not perfect, even for that, but it's useful. And it's better for English majors than for Engineers even in that restricted role. And less useful for Political Science that for either, because too much of that is, appropriately, classroom politics.
P.P.S.: There are various different tests, called IQ tests, that measure different intellectual strengths. There isn't one that actually measures "general intelligence", probably because there isn't actually any such entity. There are instead various intellectual capabilities that are useful in various different situations. Which is most important depends on what your current situation is.
This is already a third party repository, and many third party repositories don't have proper signing. I don't know what the status was for debian-multimedia.
I can answer one of the questions: "Where do you think all of those funds come from?"
The government prints money, and then gives that money value by promising that if you don't give it back to them, they will claim all your property by force. That is the ONLY reason that "paper money" has value. It's true that others will accept the money in exchange for goods, but only because they, also, need to pay off the government to avoid forcible dispossession.
There is not now, and never was, an absolutely free society. It's probably logically impossible. This is why I'm not an anarchist.
Similarly, there is no totally unfree society. That's probably logically possible, but not at all practical.
The argument should be about which particular freedoms are necessary, and which rules are acceptable. Unfortunately, from their very nature governments tend to desire a more controlled society, no matter how controlled their current society is. Different parts of the government desire different kinds of controls. Spying groups want to be free to spy on anyone and everyone. Is that freedom or control? Police groups want to be free to use any degree of force they find useful. (Some of them go a bit beyond that and want to be free to use any degree of force they chose to.) Is that freedom? The same can be said of local bullies and gangsters. Is THAT freedom?
It's not a simple question. If my right to swing my arm ends with your nose, what if I just come close? What if you intentionally put your nose in the way?
The government has clearly gone further than most libertarians think acceptable. Many conservatives, however, seem to feel that any action that suppresses "deviants" (defined as those who deviate from their interpretation of the convervative belief) is justified. Many fearful people seem to feel that any government action that causes them to feel safer is justified. Notice that that has *no* evidencial test. Etc.
I have my doubts that more than 50% of the people believe the government has gone too far. It would probably need to approach 75% before there was massive counterpressure.
By ship. I'm pretty sure an airplane would never cross the Bering Strait from Shanghai to London. (IIRC Northern route for an Airplane means across Canada...usually southern Canada. Not real sure about that, though.) Ships have to make all kinds of detours to avoid land masses.
Various groups of people noting the increase of land-ice becoming sea-ice, and sea-ice breaking off and floating away. And people worrying about penguin population. Several different sources, none that technical, but all reasonably reputable academics.
That one chart could use a bit of explanation, and doesn't show *that* much anyway. It does seem to show a short term increase in "anomoly", but it doesn't explain what that is, or how they measured it. (Possibly it's linked to from a page that does explain those things, but if so there doesn't seem to be a return link.)
Even a coop big enough to work in, and a flock of around 30 chickens isn't too bad. But they need to have enough space, or things DO get bet.
Actually, if you've got enough space, you almost don't need to care for them. Separate the losers of fights until they recover, a bit of food (though with enough space they'll mainly find their own. Still, you want them to accept you, and to lock them in the coop at night, so you don't lose a bunch to raccoons or skunks. And you need to have fresh water available. (Open pans won't work, as chickens have no idea of sanitary habits. Either flowing water or a water dispenser...the dispenser is usually easier.)
It also matters just what breed of chickens you have. Some breeds like to make a nest for their eggs and hide out in it. Others are quite happy with nest that you make in the coop. Especially if you put a glass egg in it. My grandfather (or perhaps grandmother) preferred Rhode Island Reds. Some prefer Plymouth Rocks, but they like to build their own nests. And, of course, commercial places tend to perfer Leghorns. They lay larger eggs.
Still, if you have chickens, you can't go away on vacation, not even for a weekend. You need to ensure that they are safely locked up every night, and let them out in the morning. (Unless, that is, you have a much larger secure area. If you lock them up in a small area too long, you get fights, and the loser can't flee...which generally means one dead chicken.)
I don't *think* that's a reasonable question. IIUC it's a lot shorter to go from, say, Shanghai to London via Central America than via the Bering Strait. I'll admit, though, that I don't have a globe in front of me, so I could be wrong about that.
One thing it would lead to is a massive invasive species problem. The Panama Canal has already unleashed a few invasive species with severe economic and environmental consequences. A "sea level" canal would be much worse.
OTOH, because of the difference is heights, you wouldn't need to finish digging the canal. Just dig a small one, and let the tides dig the rest. When it's large enough, stick in at least one lock, so the currents become manageable. (That's probably a silly idea, but just looking at it I can't see why. Just looking at it, it looks like the hard part would be stopping things long enough that you could put in that final lock.)
P.S.: About the difference in heights. Tide makes more difference than that, so I don't think the currents would always flow in the same direction.
Sorry, but Greenland IS melting, and lots of people haven't changed their ideas. Of course, it's a long way from a complete melt, and perhaps it won't. Similarly, Antartica is melting, as in losing tons of water every year. But there are a lot of tons to go through, and parts of it probably won't melt within the next few centuries. (IIRC, there are parts of Antartica where the ice is getting thicker, but those are a minority, and the average is less ice with each succeeding year.)
But note that these effects aren't ones that people can see directly, so they tend to discount them. Also, people have a hard time thinking about processes, so they tend not to.
I'm sure. He didn't say what he was doing with it, though, so I presume that it wasn't a full install. There's a lot of stuff in the standard install that isn't really needed for many purposes. Many people severely customize it.
OTOH, he did say he was using firefox, which does raise some questions...though it doesn't provide many answers.
Deciding how to refuse to accept changes without alienating the coders. So he's reluctant to reject the code they've worked so hard on without a specific reason. Here he's reminding people of what the reason is when a release candidate is being worked on. (He's also suggesting that they stage it for the next version.)
Anyone who gets offended at this particular post is just being silly. It's not directed at anyone in particular, it's just a general notice that they should notice that the version says "Release Candidate" and act appropriately. And not get offended if he rejects inappropriate code changes.
Please note, Linus can't pay developers, so he has to use other approaches. This one seems to work. (Actually, he's being quite mild here. Much moreso than the Slashdot headline indicates.)
It's *much* worse than that. Every change is a potential new bug, even if it fixes a standing bug. Well, if it fixes a standing bug, maybe it's worthwhile. But if it doesn't, it means that all the pervious tests haven't passed the new code. This is extremely bad. It's not good even in documentation. (I've had an important part of a system fail because of a bug introduced when documentation was changed. But that's VERY rare.)
At the release candidate stage ONLY bug-fixes should be accepted. In the late release candidate stage, only bug-fixes for significant bugs should be accepted. In a final release candidate stage, only bug-fixes for critical bugs should be accepted.
I think you haven't been following Linux development very long. There are several branches at all times, each with their own maintainer. Linus controls the final merge, but it's the same basic process used in the other trees.
The question is, when Linus retires, will there be one sucessor or several, not whether there will be any. And that depends on the politics at the time.
Also, somebody needs to be in charge of the final merge. Some one person. If you have several independent trees, each one of them needs someone in charge of the merges into their trees. It's better PR to have one tree that is released. Currently that one's managed by Linus. But note that that's PR. Each distro really manages it's own tree, and they can accept and reject software and patches without reference to what Linus decides. And they frequently do. For eas of reference they generally describe what they're using as a customization of some particular Linux kernel.
A release candidate is NOT!! the place for streamlining and tightening the code. It's a place where only bug-fixes should be added to anything beyond documentation.
Your comment reveals why Linus is tearing his hair out trying to get the release candidate changes smaller.
Save the cleanup and streamlining for the next version, NOT for the release candidate.
Slashdot Mirror
This may, actually, be in keeping with the "spirit of the law". IIUC, "the spirit" of the laws regarding self-incrimination are to prevent confessions being coerced under torture. They haven't been totally effective at that, but they've done a "pretty good" job, and this doesn't seem to be a case that infringes onto that spirit. (Unlike various cases where someone is ordered to decrypt something...which does seem to infringe on that. I count being held in prision as a mild form of torture...which grades into a more extreme form in some cases.)
I *slightly* disagree. It's entirely appropriate that construction companies be required to preserve historic artifacts. What's not appropriate is that *particular* construction companies be so required. That's, as mentioned, counter productive, and places the burden on those who are conscientious. It needs to be a general fee levied on ALL construction companies, with a partial rebate to those that find and appropriately report them. Doing it the other way creates and adverse incentive, as stated.
So. Perhaps tornado shelters are a good idea. If so, at least a part of the construction cost should be remitted for installng one. And perhaps some sort of punishment ("You go the end of the line in case of emergency"?) should be implemented for lack of one.
That said, I'm not sure it should be legal to sell or rent properties lacking a tornado shelter in areas where a tornado is likely. You may not be able to install it due to lack of finances, but this doesn't mean you should be able to transfer the problem to someone else. Perhaps sale should be allowed if the purchaser signed a clear statement in 14 point type saying (approximately) "I understand that the state believes living in this place is unsafe due to the lack of a tornado shelter.". Renting is, however, a separate problem. Landlords have a long history of totally ignoring the safety of their tennants, so I don't think they should be granted ANY slack.
I can't quite remember the reference. I know I've encountered that before in descriptions of this case.
His point was that only loons take those parts seriously among any but the Moslem religions, and that the Moslems DO that those parts (or their equivalents) seriously.
I'm not totally sure that I agree with him, but his point does have some measure of validity. OTOH, tolerance levels can change quickly, and parts that are ignored by one generation can be revived by a following generation. It's happened before. (His argument about religions "growing up" fails on that basis. A temporary level of tolerance doesn't guarantee anything permanent. There was a time when the Moslem culture was the most tolerant on Earth (bar a few isolated islands). Then they were invaded by Tamerlane, and most of them were killed off, and most of the rest became refugees. A few centuries(?) of recovery, and then onslaughts by Christians. (My timeline is a bit uncertain here.) Since then tolerance among the Moslems has been in sharp decline. Now a large number of them worship hate. And they still aren't among the least tolerant cultures. Only the least tolerant major culture.
That said, I, also, am less given to trust someone who identifies him/her self as Moslem. I don't know how sensible this is, and if I get to know someone, group identification becomes unimportant compared to how they have been observed to act. But when judging an unknown member of a group, the first impression is largely an echo of my attitude towards the group. And even when I know someone a bit, I acknowledge that I make frequent mistakes.
Unfortunately for your argument, politics is not a linear continuum. Fascism is a form of authoritarianism, and is closely allied to other forms of authoritarianism, some of which are "left wing".
To a stickler for definitions it would be fair to claim that there is no fascist government in the world today. So you can't win that way either.
As words are generally used, a term defines an approximate centroid of ideas, and can be used to refer to those ideas "near" to the centroid. If the GP was referring to the authoritarian aspect of fascism, there's nothing incoherent about claiming that the government in Washington is a left-wing fascist government, whether or not you agree with it. (I'm not sure I do, though it is certainly centralist, authoritarian, and solicitous of business interests. What I'm not sure is that it's left-wing. It seems more right-wing to me, even if not as gonzo-nutbar right-wing as the current Republicans.)
So to me to characterise it as fascist seems quite reasonable. Do remember that Fascist is not the same as Nazi. And that Nazis were considered a variant of Socialist. (I'm not sure that was ever claimed of the Fascists.)
Well, maybe they've come up with new theories, but back when I had a part-time summer job calculating IQ scores, the idea was that it as a normalized value of "g", where g stood for general intelligence. Now as I don't believe that any such entity exists, I can't accept their theory. But it does measure something, because the results are approximately replicable. So all I can say about it is that it measures the results of taking the test.
OTOH, yes, most people who both understand and accept the test as valid believe that it's measuring something real beyond it's results, and it *is* attempting to measure general intelligence.
For that matter, you could read S.J.Gould's "The Mismeasurement of Man" for some interesting history behind why the IQ test was originally developed. And what the originators thought it proved. (I don't really class IQ tests with phrenology, but the same motives inspired both of them.)
Older headphones could be used as mics, but I'm not all all sure that's true of recent technology. (The last ones I was certain that it worked for were carbon membranes. Around 1950.)
So, are you even certain that your initial statement is true? (I don't know that it isn't, but that's much different from knowning that it is.)
However, presuming that it is, then speakers could be used as mics. They wouldn't be very good ones, but probably good enough that signal processing could recover the sound. So then we come to the capabilities of the electronic system that they are plugged into.
In short, there are very good reasons why mics and speakers are generally separate pieces of hardware.
OTOH, are you aware that, at least in some people, with a sensitive enough mic you can hear some of their thoughts through the ear? The volume is quite low, and you don't, IIRC, hear non-verbalized thoughts (I'm not even quite sure what that would mean). Something about pre-verbal thoughts constricting muscles in the vocal chords, but not sufficiently that speech results. Why you can hear it through the ear I do not know.
In this case IQ is defined as the "measurement" of the test. So it's not that "You are confusing the measuring stick with the quantity being measured.", the definition is just recursive. I also want to call it invalid, but I can't. It is valid, it just isn't a measure of intelligence in any useful way. And because there IS no such characteristic as "general intelligence" you probably can't do any better.
Yes, there are people of IQ exactly 100, though which people depends on exactly which test you're using. There are a finite number of questions, so the gradation is not continuous.
N.B.: because of the rules of scoring, there ARE IQ tests in which nobody has an IQ of exactly 100, but that's because of the number of questions and the rules used for converting "right" answers into points. In some tests they are such that no combination of answers will yield an value of exactly 100. In others, there are combination(s) of answers that will yield that value.
P.S.: IQ is useful as an indication of potential for academic success. It's not perfect, even for that, but it's useful. And it's better for English majors than for Engineers even in that restricted role. And less useful for Political Science that for either, because too much of that is, appropriately, classroom politics.
P.P.S.: There are various different tests, called IQ tests, that measure different intellectual strengths. There isn't one that actually measures "general intelligence", probably because there isn't actually any such entity. There are instead various intellectual capabilities that are useful in various different situations. Which is most important depends on what your current situation is.
This is already a third party repository, and many third party repositories don't have proper signing. I don't know what the status was for debian-multimedia.
I can answer one of the questions: "Where do you think all of those funds come from?"
The government prints money, and then gives that money value by promising that if you don't give it back to them, they will claim all your property by force. That is the ONLY reason that "paper money" has value. It's true that others will accept the money in exchange for goods, but only because they, also, need to pay off the government to avoid forcible dispossession.
There is not now, and never was, an absolutely free society. It's probably logically impossible. This is why I'm not an anarchist.
Similarly, there is no totally unfree society. That's probably logically possible, but not at all practical.
The argument should be about which particular freedoms are necessary, and which rules are acceptable. Unfortunately, from their very nature governments tend to desire a more controlled society, no matter how controlled their current society is. Different parts of the government desire different kinds of controls. Spying groups want to be free to spy on anyone and everyone. Is that freedom or control? Police groups want to be free to use any degree of force they find useful. (Some of them go a bit beyond that and want to be free to use any degree of force they chose to.) Is that freedom? The same can be said of local bullies and gangsters. Is THAT freedom?
It's not a simple question. If my right to swing my arm ends with your nose, what if I just come close? What if you intentionally put your nose in the way?
The government has clearly gone further than most libertarians think acceptable. Many conservatives, however, seem to feel that any action that suppresses "deviants" (defined as those who deviate from their interpretation of the convervative belief) is justified. Many fearful people seem to feel that any government action that causes them to feel safer is justified. Notice that that has *no* evidencial test. Etc.
I have my doubts that more than 50% of the people believe the government has gone too far. It would probably need to approach 75% before there was massive counterpressure.
By ship. I'm pretty sure an airplane would never cross the Bering Strait from Shanghai to London. (IIRC Northern route for an Airplane means across Canada...usually southern Canada. Not real sure about that, though.) Ships have to make all kinds of detours to avoid land masses.
Various groups of people noting the increase of land-ice becoming sea-ice, and sea-ice breaking off and floating away. And people worrying about penguin population. Several different sources, none that technical, but all reasonably reputable academics.
That one chart could use a bit of explanation, and doesn't show *that* much anyway. It does seem to show a short term increase in "anomoly", but it doesn't explain what that is, or how they measured it. (Possibly it's linked to from a page that does explain those things, but if so there doesn't seem to be a return link.)
Even a coop big enough to work in, and a flock of around 30 chickens isn't too bad. But they need to have enough space, or things DO get bet.
Actually, if you've got enough space, you almost don't need to care for them. Separate the losers of fights until they recover, a bit of food (though with enough space they'll mainly find their own. Still, you want them to accept you, and to lock them in the coop at night, so you don't lose a bunch to raccoons or skunks. And you need to have fresh water available. (Open pans won't work, as chickens have no idea of sanitary habits. Either flowing water or a water dispenser...the dispenser is usually easier.)
It also matters just what breed of chickens you have. Some breeds like to make a nest for their eggs and hide out in it. Others are quite happy with nest that you make in the coop. Especially if you put a glass egg in it. My grandfather (or perhaps grandmother) preferred Rhode Island Reds. Some prefer Plymouth Rocks, but they like to build their own nests. And, of course, commercial places tend to perfer Leghorns. They lay larger eggs.
Still, if you have chickens, you can't go away on vacation, not even for a weekend. You need to ensure that they are safely locked up every night, and let them out in the morning. (Unless, that is, you have a much larger secure area. If you lock them up in a small area too long, you get fights, and the loser can't flee...which generally means one dead chicken.)
I don't *think* that's a reasonable question. IIUC it's a lot shorter to go from, say, Shanghai to London via Central America than via the Bering Strait. I'll admit, though, that I don't have a globe in front of me, so I could be wrong about that.
One thing it would lead to is a massive invasive species problem. The Panama Canal has already unleashed a few invasive species with severe economic and environmental consequences. A "sea level" canal would be much worse.
OTOH, because of the difference is heights, you wouldn't need to finish digging the canal. Just dig a small one, and let the tides dig the rest. When it's large enough, stick in at least one lock, so the currents become manageable. (That's probably a silly idea, but just looking at it I can't see why. Just looking at it, it looks like the hard part would be stopping things long enough that you could put in that final lock.)
P.S.: About the difference in heights. Tide makes more difference than that, so I don't think the currents would always flow in the same direction.
Sorry, but Greenland IS melting, and lots of people haven't changed their ideas. Of course, it's a long way from a complete melt, and perhaps it won't. Similarly, Antartica is melting, as in losing tons of water every year. But there are a lot of tons to go through, and parts of it probably won't melt within the next few centuries. (IIRC, there are parts of Antartica where the ice is getting thicker, but those are a minority, and the average is less ice with each succeeding year.)
But note that these effects aren't ones that people can see directly, so they tend to discount them. Also, people have a hard time thinking about processes, so they tend not to.
I'm sure. He didn't say what he was doing with it, though, so I presume that it wasn't a full install. There's a lot of stuff in the standard install that isn't really needed for many purposes. Many people severely customize it.
OTOH, he did say he was using firefox, which does raise some questions...though it doesn't provide many answers.
Deciding how to refuse to accept changes without alienating the coders. So he's reluctant to reject the code they've worked so hard on without a specific reason. Here he's reminding people of what the reason is when a release candidate is being worked on. (He's also suggesting that they stage it for the next version.)
Anyone who gets offended at this particular post is just being silly. It's not directed at anyone in particular, it's just a general notice that they should notice that the version says "Release Candidate" and act appropriately. And not get offended if he rejects inappropriate code changes.
Please note, Linus can't pay developers, so he has to use other approaches. This one seems to work. (Actually, he's being quite mild here. Much moreso than the Slashdot headline indicates.)
It's *much* worse than that. Every change is a potential new bug, even if it fixes a standing bug. Well, if it fixes a standing bug, maybe it's worthwhile. But if it doesn't, it means that all the pervious tests haven't passed the new code. This is extremely bad. It's not good even in documentation. (I've had an important part of a system fail because of a bug introduced when documentation was changed. But that's VERY rare.)
At the release candidate stage ONLY bug-fixes should be accepted. In the late release candidate stage, only bug-fixes for significant bugs should be accepted. In a final release candidate stage, only bug-fixes for critical bugs should be accepted.
I think you haven't been following Linux development very long. There are several branches at all times, each with their own maintainer. Linus controls the final merge, but it's the same basic process used in the other trees.
The question is, when Linus retires, will there be one sucessor or several, not whether there will be any. And that depends on the politics at the time.
Also, somebody needs to be in charge of the final merge. Some one person. If you have several independent trees, each one of them needs someone in charge of the merges into their trees. It's better PR to have one tree that is released. Currently that one's managed by Linus. But note that that's PR. Each distro really manages it's own tree, and they can accept and reject software and patches without reference to what Linus decides. And they frequently do. For eas of reference they generally describe what they're using as a customization of some particular Linux kernel.
A release candidate is NOT!! the place for streamlining and tightening the code. It's a place where only bug-fixes should be added to anything beyond documentation.
Your comment reveals why Linus is tearing his hair out trying to get the release candidate changes smaller.
Save the cleanup and streamlining for the next version, NOT for the release candidate.
He basically said "Stop making cosmetic changes in a release candidtate, or I will get abusive."
There was a bit more to it than that, including a threat to curse their dead pet hampster, but that was the nut of it.
FWIW, I believe that he was taliking about Debian stable. (Sorry, I don't remember the name.)
OTOH, that's a guess, as I've never tried to run in that particular configuration.