I didn't get from the article that the aggregators they're talking about are RSS readers, but rather other sites that repost their content (like Huffington Post, for example). If they offer content via syndication feeds, I think it's somewhat implicit that you can read those feeds with your reader (as long as you don't re-publish the content on your own site).
Someone can claim you stole their code whether or not you accepted a patch of theirs, reviewed a patch, or opened an email from them.
As far as I know, GNU still requires copyright assignment, so a system like that is not necessarily DOA.
Finally, whether or not a maintainer accepts patches is not really the issue here, it's whether you can patch the software they offer, for yourself and possibly others. You don't need the maintainer to accept the patch in order to patch your own copy of the source code. I'm just pointing out if they're going to eventually release the source anyway, why not just release it now, warts and all, and possibly get some side benefit of donated fixes?
Why is releasing the source code considered an afterthought, something that falls into the category of API documentation (that is, we'll do it later, got bigger things to worry about)? If they want to fix the issues, wouldn't providing the source code early and letting others hack at them and provide suggested fixes help with that?
They have the source, all they have to do is make it publicly available. How is that so distracting from providing support? Some folks on their discussions groups want the source so they can help fix issues, why don't they provide support for them?
Are you only including Muslim countries that are "like Pakistan" in your challenge? That is, only very conservative Muslim countries, with a literacy rate hovering around 57%?
In fact, if you ask moderate, well-educated Muslim scholars, many (most?) will respond in the same way as the Catholic church's position: evolution and speciation is a fact, but that God is somewhere in the process. This line of reasoning has existed in Islam since as early as the 19th century.
Unfortunately, it's an axiomatic statement, and it doesn't prevent contradictions between scientific findings and sacred texts, nor provide a methodology for resolving such contradictions.
many stories in the bible aren't meant to be taken literally
How does one tell which stories were meant to be taken figuratively and which literally? And if the answer to that is clear today, why did many past generations (and many among us today) take them literally? Wouldn't a divinely-inspired text make clear which parts were figurative and which were literal, to avoid confusion? Jesus' parables seem to be clear on that point, but what about the Old Testament stories?
If you want to answer the question "does science conflict with religion?" (leaving out the "always", as it's not clear from the book abstract if that word was really in the survey, or if Michael Cooney's summary added it), you cannot answer it by simply surveying an arbitrary set of scientists. That only gives you the answer to the question "do scientists believe that science conflicts with religion?", or maybe "does the practice of science conflict with having religious beliefs?".
I would say the original question falls under the category of philosophy of science and/or epistemology. Not all scientific practitioners are experts in philosophy of science or epistemology, in fact I'd guess that most are not. Thus, their opinions on the question, while perhaps interesting in their own right, do not offer convincing arguments any more than surveying a random sample of scientists from all domains can offer convincing conclusions about climate change. If you want to that, you ask scientists that specialize in climatology and related disicplines.
The abstract also mentions this:
Nearly 50 percent of them are religious. Many others are what she calls "spiritual entrepreneurs," seeking creative ways to work with the tensions between science and faith outside the constraints of traditional religion.
That sounds very suspect to me. I'd like to know what the definition of "religious" is.. is it a self-reported label, or are specific beliefs queried? And the label "spiritual entrepreneurs" sounds like complete gobbledygook. "Seeking creative ways to work with the tensions between science and faith" does not sound equivalent to a position that science doesn't conflict with religion. In fact, if you have to get creative outside of "traditional religion" to "work with the tensions", that implies that those individuals do recognize a conflict between science and religion. If there's no conflict, you don't need to find creative workarounds.
Indeed... that's certainy fraudulent (unless they had a bank charter, and were paying insurance on their deposits, which they didn't and weren't), but it doesn't sound like the definition of a Ponzi scheme at all.
A Ponzi scheme relies on the promise of future returns. Poker is a zero-sum game (actually, less than zero if you take commission/table fees into account). Investors in a Ponzi scheme don't believe they're taking each other's money, they believe the investment strategy is paying profits to all investors.
It sounds like these guys just decided to give themselves some interest-free (and illegal) loans from their players' deposits.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't get from the article that the aggregators they're talking about are RSS readers, but rather other sites that repost their content (like Huffington Post, for example). If they offer content via syndication feeds, I think it's somewhat implicit that you can read those feeds with your reader (as long as you don't re-publish the content on your own site).
Lest this happen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yeUswA8xPY
I don't know about you, but I pay my electric bill. Usually.
To summarize what you said: "stop snitching".
Someone can claim you stole their code whether or not you accepted a patch of theirs, reviewed a patch, or opened an email from them.
As far as I know, GNU still requires copyright assignment, so a system like that is not necessarily DOA.
Finally, whether or not a maintainer accepts patches is not really the issue here, it's whether you can patch the software they offer, for yourself and possibly others. You don't need the maintainer to accept the patch in order to patch your own copy of the source code. I'm just pointing out if they're going to eventually release the source anyway, why not just release it now, warts and all, and possibly get some side benefit of donated fixes?
They can always choose not to accept changes, or require copyright transfer, or unlimited license.
Why is releasing the source code considered an afterthought, something that falls into the category of API documentation (that is, we'll do it later, got bigger things to worry about)? If they want to fix the issues, wouldn't providing the source code early and letting others hack at them and provide suggested fixes help with that?
They have the source, all they have to do is make it publicly available. How is that so distracting from providing support? Some folks on their discussions groups want the source so they can help fix issues, why don't they provide support for them?
If only members of Congress showed as much concern about the illegal wiretapping and data snooping done by the FBI and NSA.
Those of us who want to *read* our email when it comes in, not just search for it later?
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." -- Matthew 5:17
Sorry, buddy, you're going to hell.
Are you only including Muslim countries that are "like Pakistan" in your challenge? That is, only very conservative Muslim countries, with a literacy rate hovering around 57%?
In fact, if you ask moderate, well-educated Muslim scholars, many (most?) will respond in the same way as the Catholic church's position: evolution and speciation is a fact, but that God is somewhere in the process. This line of reasoning has existed in Islam since as early as the 19th century.
Unfortunately, it's an axiomatic statement, and it doesn't prevent contradictions between scientific findings and sacred texts, nor provide a methodology for resolving such contradictions.
How does one tell which stories were meant to be taken figuratively and which literally? And if the answer to that is clear today, why did many past generations (and many among us today) take them literally? Wouldn't a divinely-inspired text make clear which parts were figurative and which were literal, to avoid confusion? Jesus' parables seem to be clear on that point, but what about the Old Testament stories?
If you want to answer the question "does science conflict with religion?" (leaving out the "always", as it's not clear from the book abstract if that word was really in the survey, or if Michael Cooney's summary added it), you cannot answer it by simply surveying an arbitrary set of scientists. That only gives you the answer to the question "do scientists believe that science conflicts with religion?", or maybe "does the practice of science conflict with having religious beliefs?".
I would say the original question falls under the category of philosophy of science and/or epistemology. Not all scientific practitioners are experts in philosophy of science or epistemology, in fact I'd guess that most are not. Thus, their opinions on the question, while perhaps interesting in their own right, do not offer convincing arguments any more than surveying a random sample of scientists from all domains can offer convincing conclusions about climate change. If you want to that, you ask scientists that specialize in climatology and related disicplines.
The abstract also mentions this:
That sounds very suspect to me. I'd like to know what the definition of "religious" is.. is it a self-reported label, or are specific beliefs queried? And the label "spiritual entrepreneurs" sounds like complete gobbledygook. "Seeking creative ways to work with the tensions between science and faith" does not sound equivalent to a position that science doesn't conflict with religion. In fact, if you have to get creative outside of "traditional religion" to "work with the tensions", that implies that those individuals do recognize a conflict between science and religion. If there's no conflict, you don't need to find creative workarounds.
Indeed. If you're having sex with someone, be safe and practice abstinence at the last moment, and pull out.
It's the only safe way to do it.
We've found a way to produce the most abundant element in the universe!
Brilliant. That will keep them occupied as they die of thirst.
You can watch sports on TV, and many people do, but people still go to the stadiums.
I can see just about any famous painting I want with a Google Images search, but I still go to museums.
There's tons of fake designer handbags on the market, but Coach and Burberry still take in a lot of cash.
Sometimes, there's just no substitute for the real thing.
How dare they constrain these hard-working job creators with their stifling government regulations!
Indeed... that's certainy fraudulent (unless they had a bank charter, and were paying insurance on their deposits, which they didn't and weren't), but it doesn't sound like the definition of a Ponzi scheme at all.
A Ponzi scheme relies on the promise of future returns. Poker is a zero-sum game (actually, less than zero if you take commission/table fees into account). Investors in a Ponzi scheme don't believe they're taking each other's money, they believe the investment strategy is paying profits to all investors.
It sounds like these guys just decided to give themselves some interest-free (and illegal) loans from their players' deposits.
They wore what?
[Citation needed]
...but wait until this happens with man-birds!
Hey I'm with you, Lucas screwed up that scene.
I don't know if they took credit or not, but they sure took money for their works.