The definition of a solicitation should be carefully limited to avoid any impact on non-commercial speech, such as speech about religion or politics.
I really don't agree with this. People shouldn't be allowed to spam me with unsolicited advertising for their church or political party any more than for a new penis enlarger. It may not be "Unsolicited Commercial E-mail," but it's certainly spam.
This is a property rights issue, not a free speech issue; people need to stop treating it as if it was the latter.
Well, I rather suspect that the main reason why you see a lot more Java bashing is because most CS students used to have to learn C++; now they have to learn Java. Since/. is mostly high schoolers and college kids, you have a whole bunch of people that were forced to learn the language in the last few years. Obviously, you're going to end up with quite a few people that don't like it.
There's not really all that much bashing of any other non-free stuff (the exception being Microsoft, but that's mostly because they're still beating up on the penguin.) I don't see it as being the primary reason for Java bashing.
Not only that; if you use pan and scan, all your colors will end up being washed out. Just look at those photos!
</sarcasm>
I guess that the people at widescreen.org don't think that their arguments can stand on their merits. As someone else pointed out, scaling them to the same height is also misleading.
Wait a second... isn't the whole argument for widescreen that "you lose information when changing the ratio"? I don't see how it's any better to crop (automatically -- even worse than by hand) TV shows instead of movies. I only occasionally watch movies at home (granted, I don't watch a whole lot of TV in general, but when I do, it's usually not movies.) Therefore, it seems that 4:3 is a better choice for me. Someone who watches a lot of movies might want to make the opposite choice.
Of course, the real solution is to have a high-resolution, large screen, so that letterboxed video doesn't look terrible. As it is, I'm rather indifferent to letterboxed movies -- it has its strong points, but you do lose a lot of detail. Unfortunately, I'm far too poor at the moment to go out and buy anything to make that a reality.
Remember to support your favorite artists and go to their concerts and buy their merch.
I've never bought into this. I don't particularly want to go to concerts. I don't want T-shirts or other such stuff. What I want is a piece of plastic with the music on it; and I'm perfectly willing to pay for the privelege. If the band members signed a contract that doesn't give them money for it, I don't feel terribly sorry for them. I'm certainly not going to pay for something that I don't want, and then go and steal something that I do.
No way. When I write OS software, I retain the copyright. The community didn't write the software, I did. I freely allow the community to make use of it in practically any manner that they see fit, but that still doesn't mean that I have lost the ownership of my work.
Let's see. He suggests some sugar-coating -- change/home into/users,/var into/log -- why is "users" a better name than "home"? He reinvents a few things, like default applications of various types (I know debian already does this; I imagine others do too.) And, of course, it's far too confusing to make the user choose a desktop environment upon installation -- we have to make sure that others aren't possible to use. He suggests drag-and-drop package installation... I have a hard time that nobody's done that before (how hard could it possibly be?) but maybe he's right there.
Most of the ideas aren't really bad... but they're not terribly interesting either, and they're certainly nothing that hasn't been rehashed during slashdot conversations every other week -- and the truth is, he probably could have implemented virtually all his suggestions in not much more time than it took to write his article. Why doesn't he do it, and then let us know how it turned out?
I rather agree with the parent. Talking to a lawyer instead of Slashdot would probably be a good start... I'm sure that you don't have to invoke the DMCA just to get the guy's name and address.
I don't think I am at all. There is a very real difference between those who accept the Bible (and creationism) on faith alone, and those who work on trying to justify it by using a scientific framework. Lumping them together is a popular way to attack them.
You're certainly entitled to think that any creationist is thinking shallowly. Many of them might say the same about you. I don't buy the notion that you can call that "ignorant;" it's not the same thing. And I certainly don't believe that someone who believes in creation is unfit to practice medicine. That's just religious discrimination, not an intelligent policy.
Well, AFAICT, nobody was trying to teach religion in a science class here. The problem was that people were claiming that nobody should hold particular religious beliefs, because they are "ignorant." I agree with you on the not-in-science-class bit; it was just the general intolerance that offended me.
Why should those who disagree with part of a class be thrown out? It doesn't sound like they want to change the school curriculum -- they simply want to be able to hold a personal belief that differs from that of the professor's. Only those who are unable to defend their beliefs have reason to be frightened of the beliefs of others.
Much more reasonable would have been for the teacher to ask them to explain the theory of evolution. If students can understand and apply it, what's the big deal if they don't necessarily believe it?
I can see it now... people getting tossed out of school because of nonconformist thoughts. Somehow, I find the prospect a little bit frightening.
I think you're talking about so-called "Creation Science," which is completely different than creationism. (I say it's so-called because it attempts to call itself science, while rejecting the tenets of science. That's certainly dishonest.) Creationists can hold a wide variety of beliefs, some of which include complete literal interpretation of the Bible and some which don't. Like I said in my first post to this thread, the actions of a few shouldn't determine your opinion of everyone who believes in creation. I don't believe that someone who happens to believe what the Bible says should be labeled obstructionist, as long as they are tolerant of other belief systems.
Lest I sound intolerant myself, I'm not against everyone who tries to find a scientific basis for the Bible. Just those who are deceptive and dishonest about it. (A lot of the anti-evolution "proof" comes to mind.)
Science and religion are not incompatible, even if they contradict each other. Coming from a scientific background, they should know about the theory of evolution, and understand its application to medicine, and still believe that God created the earth. Indeed, it's interesting to note that the proportion of scientists that hold particular religious beliefs is generally not much different than that of the rest of the population.
As a side not, I'm not particularly convinced that knowledge of evolution is very important to the work of a doctor. Granted, I'm not one, but I don't see how the treatment of disease today depends on whether or not we came from sea slugs, the Garden of Eden, or the vital organs of a Greek god.
Do you happen to have any links to some good stuff on that? I admit, I don't tend to think to well of those who attempt to put religion into a provable scientific framework -- but that's mostly because I haven't heard much of anyone but the nuts.
Since everyone seems to be pissed off about my attacking the scientific establishment, I will say: Science types are no better or worse about attacking different viewpoints than religious people. Religious fanatics will often claim that they are enlightened, and those who believe in science are blind. Those participating in this debate have taken exactly the opposite view.
"Validate: tr.v.... 3. To establish the soundness of; corroborate." I see no reason in the definition why religious beliefs cannot validate something. If you're going to argue that "validate" means "scientifically prove," then you're rewriting the dictionary.
As far as "giving creationism equal treatment" goes: Should we teach it as fact in schools? No. School science classrooms are places for science, not religion. However, should the teachers tell the students that if they believe in creationism, that makes them ignorant? That's what Knightstalker is saying, and that's what I take issue with. The people who dismiss anyone else's beliefs as stupid, ignorant or otherwise worthless are the ones who really annoy me. A blanket statement of that nature is not part of any intelligent debate; it's just a cheap attempt to cut down those you see as your "opponents."
If someone has a belief system that causes no harm and describes how they see the world... what's the problem with that?
For a more concrete, easier to digest example: political views are virtually always unscientific. You can't add up a bunch of numbers and get "Vote Nader" out. And yet we, (excluding the few zealots who everyone ignores), recognize that multiple political outlooks can be used to inform your decisions, and that holding one political view over another doesn't make you ignorant.
Yes. Religious beliefs are a perfectly good way to "validate knowledge." It happens to be unscientific, and is thus labeled ignorant by people who don't know the difference.
Slashdot Mirror
The definition of a solicitation should be carefully limited to avoid any impact on non-commercial speech, such as speech about religion or politics.
I really don't agree with this. People shouldn't be allowed to spam me with unsolicited advertising for their church or political party any more than for a new penis enlarger. It may not be "Unsolicited Commercial E-mail," but it's certainly spam.
This is a property rights issue, not a free speech issue; people need to stop treating it as if it was the latter.
Well, I rather suspect that the main reason why you see a lot more Java bashing is because most CS students used to have to learn C++; now they have to learn Java. Since /. is mostly high schoolers and college kids, you have a whole bunch of people that were forced to learn the language in the last few years. Obviously, you're going to end up with quite a few people that don't like it.
There's not really all that much bashing of any other non-free stuff (the exception being Microsoft, but that's mostly because they're still beating up on the penguin.) I don't see it as being the primary reason for Java bashing.
so does the computer games industry, the oil business, the car industry etc etc etc
All of those are funny too.
For your reading pleasure: 420.
How about ed? Lightweight, fast, unobtrusive, and nearly universally available.
Not only that; if you use pan and scan, all your colors will end up being washed out. Just look at those photos!
</sarcasm>
I guess that the people at widescreen.org don't think that their arguments can stand on their merits. As someone else pointed out, scaling them to the same height is also misleading.
Actually, they'll probably just wait until everyone has a widescreen TV, and then switch to less wide ratio ... say, 4:3?
Of course, the real solution is to have a high-resolution, large screen, so that letterboxed video doesn't look terrible. As it is, I'm rather indifferent to letterboxed movies -- it has its strong points, but you do lose a lot of detail. Unfortunately, I'm far too poor at the moment to go out and buy anything to make that a reality.
Remember to support your favorite artists and go to their concerts and buy their merch.
I've never bought into this. I don't particularly want to go to concerts. I don't want T-shirts or other such stuff. What I want is a piece of plastic with the music on it; and I'm perfectly willing to pay for the privelege. If the band members signed a contract that doesn't give them money for it, I don't feel terribly sorry for them. I'm certainly not going to pay for something that I don't want, and then go and steal something that I do.
In exchange motorcyclists may no longer ride between cars.
They're not allowed to anyway. What makes you think that they would keep their end of the bargain?
Nah, we've already got it.
OSS belongs to the community.
No way. When I write OS software, I retain the copyright. The community didn't write the software, I did. I freely allow the community to make use of it in practically any manner that they see fit, but that still doesn't mean that I have lost the ownership of my work.
Patriot 2 hasn't passed, but the fact that they are even considering it as a viable law is frightening.
So if you knew that, why did you claim that it had? I think that we ought to attach one of these things to you.
Well, there goes that advertiser's business model...
Let's see. He suggests some sugar-coating -- change /home into /users, /var into /log -- why is "users" a better name than "home"? He reinvents a few things, like default applications of various types (I know debian already does this; I imagine others do too.) And, of course, it's far too confusing to make the user choose a desktop environment upon installation -- we have to make sure that others aren't possible to use. He suggests drag-and-drop package installation ... I have a hard time that nobody's done that before (how hard could it possibly be?) but maybe he's right there.
... but they're not terribly interesting either, and they're certainly nothing that hasn't been rehashed during slashdot conversations every other week -- and the truth is, he probably could have implemented virtually all his suggestions in not much more time than it took to write his article. Why doesn't he do it, and then let us know how it turned out?
Most of the ideas aren't really bad
I rather agree with the parent. Talking to a lawyer instead of Slashdot would probably be a good start ... I'm sure that you don't have to invoke the DMCA just to get the guy's name and address.
I don't think I am at all. There is a very real difference between those who accept the Bible (and creationism) on faith alone, and those who work on trying to justify it by using a scientific framework. Lumping them together is a popular way to attack them.
You're certainly entitled to think that any creationist is thinking shallowly. Many of them might say the same about you. I don't buy the notion that you can call that "ignorant;" it's not the same thing. And I certainly don't believe that someone who believes in creation is unfit to practice medicine. That's just religious discrimination, not an intelligent policy.
Well, AFAICT, nobody was trying to teach religion in a science class here. The problem was that people were claiming that nobody should hold particular religious beliefs, because they are "ignorant." I agree with you on the not-in-science-class bit; it was just the general intolerance that offended me.
Why should those who disagree with part of a class be thrown out? It doesn't sound like they want to change the school curriculum -- they simply want to be able to hold a personal belief that differs from that of the professor's. Only those who are unable to defend their beliefs have reason to be frightened of the beliefs of others.
... people getting tossed out of school because of nonconformist thoughts. Somehow, I find the prospect a little bit frightening.
Much more reasonable would have been for the teacher to ask them to explain the theory of evolution. If students can understand and apply it, what's the big deal if they don't necessarily believe it?
I can see it now
I think you're talking about so-called "Creation Science," which is completely different than creationism. (I say it's so-called because it attempts to call itself science, while rejecting the tenets of science. That's certainly dishonest.) Creationists can hold a wide variety of beliefs, some of which include complete literal interpretation of the Bible and some which don't. Like I said in my first post to this thread, the actions of a few shouldn't determine your opinion of everyone who believes in creation. I don't believe that someone who happens to believe what the Bible says should be labeled obstructionist, as long as they are tolerant of other belief systems.
Lest I sound intolerant myself, I'm not against everyone who tries to find a scientific basis for the Bible. Just those who are deceptive and dishonest about it. (A lot of the anti-evolution "proof" comes to mind.)
Science and religion are not incompatible, even if they contradict each other. Coming from a scientific background, they should know about the theory of evolution, and understand its application to medicine, and still believe that God created the earth. Indeed, it's interesting to note that the proportion of scientists that hold particular religious beliefs is generally not much different than that of the rest of the population.
As a side not, I'm not particularly convinced that knowledge of evolution is very important to the work of a doctor. Granted, I'm not one, but I don't see how the treatment of disease today depends on whether or not we came from sea slugs, the Garden of Eden, or the vital organs of a Greek god.
Do you happen to have any links to some good stuff on that? I admit, I don't tend to think to well of those who attempt to put religion into a provable scientific framework -- but that's mostly because I haven't heard much of anyone but the nuts.
Since everyone seems to be pissed off about my attacking the scientific establishment, I will say: Science types are no better or worse about attacking different viewpoints than religious people. Religious fanatics will often claim that they are enlightened, and those who believe in science are blind. Those participating in this debate have taken exactly the opposite view.
"Validate: tr.v. ... 3. To establish the soundness of; corroborate." I see no reason in the definition why religious beliefs cannot validate something. If you're going to argue that "validate" means "scientifically prove," then you're rewriting the dictionary.
As far as "giving creationism equal treatment" goes: Should we teach it as fact in schools? No. School science classrooms are places for science, not religion. However, should the teachers tell the students that if they believe in creationism, that makes them ignorant? That's what Knightstalker is saying, and that's what I take issue with. The people who dismiss anyone else's beliefs as stupid, ignorant or otherwise worthless are the ones who really annoy me. A blanket statement of that nature is not part of any intelligent debate; it's just a cheap attempt to cut down those you see as your "opponents."
If someone has a belief system that causes no harm and describes how they see the world ... what's the problem with that?
For a more concrete, easier to digest example: political views are virtually always unscientific. You can't add up a bunch of numbers and get "Vote Nader" out. And yet we, (excluding the few zealots who everyone ignores), recognize that multiple political outlooks can be used to inform your decisions, and that holding one political view over another doesn't make you ignorant.
Yes. Religious beliefs are a perfectly good way to "validate knowledge." It happens to be unscientific, and is thus labeled ignorant by people who don't know the difference.