I read your post differently then you intended. Brevity is never better than clarity, so you did not seem to be saying the same thing as your reply to me. I appreciate you questioning my intelligence though. Why do you say one insightful thing and then berate people who respond? Are you insecure that people may think less of you if you don't call people out in a petty way?
Lucas lost his balance in so many ways. This is something that bothered _you_ about it, but _you_ are just cherry picking. It's a buffet of bad direction, poor writing and over-reliance on effects. It is only spefic to you, nimrod.
My catholic upbringing really messed me up for a long time. I doubt it would have been any different if I was anything else religious. Teaching people to give of others what you shouldn't give to yourself is morally bankrupt. As long as this christians expound that I should be ashamed of looking out for myself before others and shouldn't treat another as he treats me, I will continue to think that they are all self-hating puppets. Jaded, sure, but morality comes from me and is judged by me. If you accept anyone elses morality that just seems wrong, then it is.
This, of course, gets called "moral relativism" but my standards for moral conduct are simple, do onto others as you would have them done onto you. If it fails that test, it isn't right.
I am not sure if it is based on grimms or the folktales that proceeded it or if it isn't based on it at all, but the broadway musical "Into the Woods" by Stephen Soundheim does indeed contain that. None the less, you are correct about realistic explanations ruining a story. Science Fiction often suffers this since it wants to be probable and fairy tales never do.
You are discussing the symptom and not it's cause. It is unreasonable to think that religion causes ingnorance because it is easy to find ignorance without religion. Religion is often used as an excuse why someone is functionally illiterate about the world around him. I am not religious in the slightest, but I can't see how a "conciever of everything" couldn't exist. If, as us science/math inclined tend to believe, the universe is computable, then something has to compute it. If it isn't computable then science can never discover its fundemental tennets.
No, the problem lies within the fact that people would rather not have to think for themselves. I regularly get bombarded by coworkers and friends, questions that they could have answered themselves in less time than it takes to ask. Learned helplessness is the norm, not the exception in my experience. For those of us who this is not true for, it is absolutely maddening how ignorant people are.
Whenever anyone says something against or not supporting Linux, there is a serious backlash. Where is Tannenbaum or De Raadt. For a moment, can't we assume that these are quite intelligent people who may have a valid point regarding Linux?
I can't say that there was anything in the contents of article that had a "point". Mr. De Raadt always comes off as someone who doesn't care to understand an issue, but has an opinion of it regardless. I have no idea how smart he is or isn't but my impression of him from what he says is that he is a miserable, cantankerous moron.
Mr. Tannenbaum on the other hand comes across as an intelligent rational academic. His beefs with "linux" come from his perspective, that of teaching. A monolithic blob kernel would be detrimental to his goals, namely teaching OS design. Microkernels make a _lot_ of sense there. But I have never seen him lambaste linux for having stupid developers and users.
This pathetic article has nothing to do with Theo and Linux. Even though this is what most of it blabbers on about it has more to do with hyping Lok. They are trying to get people to think that lok's competitors are inferior since there is a comment in kernel that seems unusual. Theo get's support from lok and he already has a major chip on his shoulder about something I can care less about. Forbes articles are more often than not hype. Theo is just being used, mostly becuase he makes an excellent tool.
While the humor was to deride both microsoft and gentoo I do wish him good luck. I am far more interested in microsoft "playing nice" then I am hoping for their destruction. If Robbins can get microsoft to see that developers are interested in monkeying with all levels of their systems and get them to open up some of them for the hobbyist crowd then I will be the first to applaud his successes. Heck, if he can get them to create a decent CLI tool chain I would be pleased as punch.
You have got to be the most optimistic person I have seen in years. It is testament to the fact that cronie capitalism can't crush everyones spirit.
The only hidden aspect of your situation is that those resellers are the customers of the electronics manufacturer, not you. When the customer says, you need to drop the cost by $10 dollars to maintain margins, that quality capacitor that keeps your TV color balanced just so for the lifetime of the product is junked in favor of one with half the expected lifetime and tends to be finicky in any low power situation. This result is actually worse than if I paid that recycle tax directly instead of a reseller paying it for me.
Groupwise does indeed support html mail and has as long as I can remember. It is most likely the configuration of your client that is stopping support.
You said this need is filled by a plugin. OO supports scripting. What is it that wouldn't fill the need?
It isn't about flipping microsoft any animal. It is about best practices. You shouldn't consider activeX as a viable alternative _ever_. It sends the wrong messages to users and developers. So that doesn't suit you, the guy who depends on this junk for your job, well somebody has already stepped forward and provided a solution. Security be damned, there it is.
OO isn't a web browser so why would it ever? Maybe you mean VBA... assuming yes, the answer is they can't and no one besides microsoft or a licensee can. They don't license it for free so it isn't possible.
Of course it is a good thing. If you go the other way you make it harder to do the right thing whenever you figure out what that may be. Coddling the users makes systems insecure, overbearing and uncooperative. The GP is a certified moron for posting in a linux thread that an administrator shouldn't be able to do whatever the hell he pleases.
Computers are the most complicated tools that _everyone_ can use but few are willing to learn. Hey maybe longhorn will meet this need, but I bet you Microsoft doesn't consider running as Administrator as a viable option anymore.
AxtiveX is the Microsoft API in answer to Java. It lacks sandbox execution so any ActiveX embedded code can trivially access anything on Windows. The reason even microsoft doesn't think you should blindly execute any activeX component is that it is equivalent to a local binary in terms of system access.
If you fail to see why it is insecure and bad for an untrusted network then please change your settings for activeX in the "internet" zone to enable and browse until you get the point.
The reason software that exists is of poor quality is a function of both those who work on it _and_ the amount of features required for the product. I would argue that MS Office is a great application if you require the list of features the various applications need to provide. The problem with office is that 99% of the list is extraneous for 99% of it's users. I have seen people try to use excel as a database. Others use it as a viewer for slices of a database. Excel is ok at doing this but making it ok at this has detracted from it's actual problem domain, namely analyzing rather small numeric datasets.
Now the other %99 percent of software (domain specific spec software) developed in house for a company will fall into the other category. Most companies do want to hire a scientist to develop for them, they really would rather hire a spreadsheet jocky who can understand what if/then/else does and pay them accordingly. The real problem is the proprietary domain specific applications that are developed by those same spreadsheet jockeys (you know who you are wintam developer). You get neither the skill of a well trained scientist nor the internal expertise of the application.
Due to the length of time since this story was posted this reply is mostly out of respect of your inquiry.
*falsifiable is related to the requirement that, for a theory to be considered scientific, you must be able to make an observation that proves the theory false. IOW, If i had a theory that the color blue that I perceive is perceived by others to be what I would consider green, that would be an ideology and not a scientific theory. I could not prove (to any degree of certainty) that my theory is wrong (or for that matter, right) so it fails to be one that can be studied with the scientific method.
The difference, if it isn't apparent, between an ideology and a scientific theory, has to do with the ability to be able to investigate its propositions as ideologies do not require this. Solipsism, or "the universe is only in your mind", is an ideology but is not falsifiable. Where as Special Relativity (E = (lorentz factor)mc^2) is both an ideology and a scientific theory. Anyone can take take that theoretical model and test its propositions. It is falsifiable if a clock on a satellite invariably measured the passage of time at the same rate as a clock on earth. Experiments bear this out, so we say that adds weight to the theory. Solipsism postulates that your subjective experience is the only way to observe the universe. Since you and I may disagree on this subject or any other I am by default right since I am the only thing that matters in this case. You cannot show that the idea is false because the ideology says that your ideas are irrelevant. Since there is no way objectively or rationally to make this ideology false, we cannot investigate it methodically and therefore it is not a scientific theory.
Science is a methodology in which we explore rational ideas through empiricism. This requires objectivity since if we cannot agree about interpretation, data or methodology we have no way to agree about phenomena we experience. The scientific method is what gives us the tool to explore said phenomena. This leads us to your second point...
*"umm... what?" Exactly as it says and as is illustrated above. When science talks about its theories, the best conversations employ no priori assumption that the theory talked about is true. In fact, old theories get revised or disposed of when people are skeptical of their propositions, conclusions and interpretation of supporting data. Along those lines, science is always critical of it's data. Can results be duplicated? Are their other valid interpretations of the repeatable measurements? I do not believe at all in evolution, but I do agree that it best fits the mountains of data that it covers.
*"... evolution does not explain the beginning of life..." To best answer this we must explore what is evolution? What evolution is not is a singular idea. There is evolution, the data. Also there is evolution, the theories of mechanisms (such as "adaption through natural selection"). What it is not is "abiogenesis". This is what you elude to but indeed is not part of any of the theories of the mechanisms of evolution. It is strictly out of scope for those theories and is not a source of issue for them. You may feel it is, but that is an ideological issue and not a problem with the data, the theories or science.
*"Evolution is a theory, as is creationism" Evolution is a set of data and theories of mechanisms. The theories of mechanisms are scientific theories since they can be proved false. Adaption through Natural Selection would be false if it was shown that under no circumstance will a population of bacteria become tolerant to a toxin. Creationist non-evolution (as well as Intelligent Design) is an ideology, with the central tenet being "All that exists was designed and produced by God". Even though many have tried to prove and disprove God's existence, no one has done so logically or scientifically and is most likely not possible. If I cannot prove o
Evolution through natural selection is both falsifiable and testable. Experiments that demonstrate it's principles are boundless and are cross displine. You can test it with a petri-dish, a greenhouse or a spreadsheet.
Both perspectives are not on equal footing. No amount of hand waving, appeals to fairness or brain washing is going to change the fact that creationism is a myth. Ignore it all you want but the facts that brought evolution into the same scientific esteem as general relativity.
If you understand the scientific method you would not believe in evolution, you would understand the hyposthesis and be critical of the data. You would also instantly knock creationism right out of contention.
Which they do, in various humanities curiculla. In these classes they talk about all sorts of faiths. Indeed mine was mandatory and very interesting because it put all religions on equal footing. The more bizarre thing was Biology was in no way mandatory, I never had to hear evolution at all in during my high school attendance. I learned of evolution in it's proper place, biology class, and I learned of creation in it's proper place, mythology.
And what would you "teach" about creationism? What hands on exercise could you do to illustrate it's hypothesis?
If creationist feel left out of the science classroom it is because they are. There has never been anything out of the creationist camp that resembles science. I have yet to be shown anything other then criticisms of evolution, which shows that evolution is actually better tested and proves nothing of spontaneous generation.
If beating the drum of political correctness seems to be a good way to win over rational minds you don't understand your audience. If you think it is unfair that theology does not get taught in science class then think of the converse. Maybe all churches should be forced to have science curricula read after the sermon with a notice in the bibles that "The contents of this book have in no way been substantiated and has not been edited to correct obvious mistakes".
For the length Of time I have been reading them, they have always been what they are, namely laymen accessible science. It is the best _affordable_ science magazine out there. If you are looking for in depth peer-reviewed science, you have nature at $320 a year subscription.
In the other direction you have Discover (which continues to move south). It is even cheaper a year then SciAm. I think it is only a matter of time before G4 buys them and merges game content into the already fluffy content.
Gold does not corrode readily and silver-oxide is a conductor. gold->silver should not cause either one to corrode differently, instead air contact and dc current (as in any speaker signal) will. on the other hand, both have a different electrical characteristics that will alter the sound. How noticable and whether it is a bad thing is probably a matter of taste and imagination.
Nice... a page right out of "How to make friends and influence people".
The IT industry is as incestuous as any other and burned bridges *will* come back to haunt you.
I've given as much as six months
As nice as it is to wear foil hats, at some point you just have to admit you have a fetish. A lack of backbone is great in a lackey but is horrid any step further up the corporate ladder.
Slashdot Mirror
I read your post differently then you intended. Brevity is never better than clarity, so you did not seem to be saying the same thing as your reply to me. I appreciate you questioning my intelligence though. Why do you say one insightful thing and then berate people who respond? Are you insecure that people may think less of you if you don't call people out in a petty way?
Lucas lost his balance in so many ways. This is something that bothered _you_ about it, but _you_ are just cherry picking. It's a buffet of bad direction, poor writing and over-reliance on effects. It is only spefic to you, nimrod.
My catholic upbringing really messed me up for a long time. I doubt it would have been any different if I was anything else religious. Teaching people to give of others what you shouldn't give to yourself is morally bankrupt. As long as this christians expound that I should be ashamed of looking out for myself before others and shouldn't treat another as he treats me, I will continue to think that they are all self-hating puppets. Jaded, sure, but morality comes from me and is judged by me. If you accept anyone elses morality that just seems wrong, then it is.
This, of course, gets called "moral relativism" but my standards for moral conduct are simple, do onto others as you would have them done onto you. If it fails that test, it isn't right.
I am not sure if it is based on grimms or the folktales that proceeded it or if it isn't based on it at all, but the broadway musical "Into the Woods" by Stephen Soundheim does indeed contain that. None the less, you are correct about realistic explanations ruining a story. Science Fiction often suffers this since it wants to be probable and fairy tales never do.
You are discussing the symptom and not it's cause. It is unreasonable to think that religion causes ingnorance because it is easy to find ignorance without religion. Religion is often used as an excuse why someone is functionally illiterate about the world around him. I am not religious in the slightest, but I can't see how a "conciever of everything" couldn't exist. If, as us science/math inclined tend to believe, the universe is computable, then something has to compute it. If it isn't computable then science can never discover its fundemental tennets.
No, the problem lies within the fact that people would rather not have to think for themselves. I regularly get bombarded by coworkers and friends, questions that they could have answered themselves in less time than it takes to ask. Learned helplessness is the norm, not the exception in my experience. For those of us who this is not true for, it is absolutely maddening how ignorant people are.
Mr. Tannenbaum on the other hand comes across as an intelligent rational academic. His beefs with "linux" come from his perspective, that of teaching. A monolithic blob kernel would be detrimental to his goals, namely teaching OS design. Microkernels make a _lot_ of sense there. But I have never seen him lambaste linux for having stupid developers and users.
This pathetic article has nothing to do with Theo and Linux. Even though this is what most of it blabbers on about it has more to do with hyping Lok. They are trying to get people to think that lok's competitors are inferior since there is a comment in kernel that seems unusual. Theo get's support from lok and he already has a major chip on his shoulder about something I can care less about. Forbes articles are more often than not hype. Theo is just being used, mostly becuase he makes an excellent tool.
While the humor was to deride both microsoft and gentoo I do wish him good luck. I am far more interested in microsoft "playing nice" then I am hoping for their destruction. If Robbins can get microsoft to see that developers are interested in monkeying with all levels of their systems and get them to open up some of them for the hobbyist crowd then I will be the first to applaud his successes. Heck, if he can get them to create a decent CLI tool chain I would be pleased as punch.
/ r e p \t \t \t
You have got to be the most optimistic person I have seen in years. It is testament to the fact that cronie capitalism can't crush everyones spirit.
The only hidden aspect of your situation is that those resellers are the customers of the electronics manufacturer, not you. When the customer says, you need to drop the cost by $10 dollars to maintain margins, that quality capacitor that keeps your TV color balanced just so for the lifetime of the product is junked in favor of one with half the expected lifetime and tends to be finicky in any low power situation. This result is actually worse than if I paid that recycle tax directly instead of a reseller paying it for me.
Groupwise does indeed support html mail and has as long as I can remember. It is most likely the configuration of your client that is stopping support.
Complaining about overly terse technical explanations in internet infrastructure dicussion on slashdot seems like you are actively avoiding reality.
You said this need is filled by a plugin. OO supports scripting. What is it that wouldn't fill the need?
It isn't about flipping microsoft any animal. It is about best practices. You shouldn't consider activeX as a viable alternative _ever_. It sends the wrong messages to users and developers. So that doesn't suit you, the guy who depends on this junk for your job, well somebody has already stepped forward and provided a solution. Security be damned, there it is.
OO isn't a web browser so why would it ever? Maybe you mean VBA... assuming yes, the answer is they can't and no one besides microsoft or a licensee can. They don't license it for free so it isn't possible.
Of course it is a good thing. If you go the other way you make it harder to do the right thing whenever you figure out what that may be. Coddling the users makes systems insecure, overbearing and uncooperative. The GP is a certified moron for posting in a linux thread that an administrator shouldn't be able to do whatever the hell he pleases.
Computers are the most complicated tools that _everyone_ can use but few are willing to learn. Hey maybe longhorn will meet this need, but I bet you Microsoft doesn't consider running as Administrator as a viable option anymore.
Great... how does it work in linux?
AxtiveX is the Microsoft API in answer to Java. It lacks sandbox execution so any ActiveX embedded code can trivially access anything on Windows. The reason even microsoft doesn't think you should blindly execute any activeX component is that it is equivalent to a local binary in terms of system access.
If you fail to see why it is insecure and bad for an untrusted network then please change your settings for activeX in the "internet" zone to enable and browse until you get the point.
The reason software that exists is of poor quality is a function of both those who work on it _and_ the amount of features required for the product. I would argue that MS Office is a great application if you require the list of features the various applications need to provide. The problem with office is that 99% of the list is extraneous for 99% of it's users. I have seen people try to use excel as a database. Others use it as a viewer for slices of a database. Excel is ok at doing this but making it ok at this has detracted from it's actual problem domain, namely analyzing rather small numeric datasets.
Now the other %99 percent of software (domain specific spec software) developed in house for a company will fall into the other category. Most companies do want to hire a scientist to develop for them, they really would rather hire a spreadsheet jocky who can understand what if/then/else does and pay them accordingly. The real problem is the proprietary domain specific applications that are developed by those same spreadsheet jockeys (you know who you are wintam developer). You get neither the skill of a well trained scientist nor the internal expertise of the application.
Due to the length of time since this story was posted this reply is mostly out of respect of your inquiry.
*falsifiable is related to the requirement that, for a theory to be considered scientific, you must be able to make an observation that proves the theory false. IOW, If i had a theory that the color blue that I perceive is perceived by others to be what I would consider green, that would be an ideology and not a scientific theory. I could not prove (to any degree of certainty) that my theory is wrong (or for that matter, right) so it fails to be one that can be studied with the scientific method.
The difference, if it isn't apparent, between an ideology and a scientific theory, has to do with the ability to be able to investigate its propositions as ideologies do not require this. Solipsism, or "the universe is only in your mind", is an ideology but is not falsifiable. Where as Special Relativity (E = (lorentz factor)mc^2) is both an ideology and a scientific theory. Anyone can take take that theoretical model and test its propositions. It is falsifiable if a clock on a satellite invariably measured the passage of time at the same rate as a clock on earth. Experiments bear this out, so we say that adds weight to the theory. Solipsism postulates that your subjective experience is the only way to observe the universe. Since you and I may disagree on this subject or any other I am by default right since I am the only thing that matters in this case. You cannot show that the idea is false because the ideology says that your ideas are irrelevant. Since there is no way objectively or rationally to make this ideology false, we cannot investigate it methodically and therefore it is not a scientific theory.
Science is a methodology in which we explore rational ideas through empiricism. This requires objectivity since if we cannot agree about interpretation, data or methodology we have no way to agree about phenomena we experience. The scientific method is what gives us the tool to explore said phenomena. This leads us to your second point...
*"umm... what?" Exactly as it says and as is illustrated above. When science talks about its theories, the best conversations employ no priori assumption that the theory talked about is true. In fact, old theories get revised or disposed of when people are skeptical of their propositions, conclusions and interpretation of supporting data. Along those lines, science is always critical of it's data. Can results be duplicated? Are their other valid interpretations of the repeatable measurements? I do not believe at all in evolution, but I do agree that it best fits the mountains of data that it covers.
*"... evolution does not explain the beginning of life..." To best answer this we must explore what is evolution? What evolution is not is a singular idea. There is evolution, the data. Also there is evolution, the theories of mechanisms (such as "adaption through natural selection"). What it is not is "abiogenesis". This is what you elude to but indeed is not part of any of the theories of the mechanisms of evolution. It is strictly out of scope for those theories and is not a source of issue for them. You may feel it is, but that is an ideological issue and not a problem with the data, the theories or science.
*"Evolution is a theory, as is creationism" Evolution is a set of data and theories of mechanisms. The theories of mechanisms are scientific theories since they can be proved false. Adaption through Natural Selection would be false if it was shown that under no circumstance will a population of bacteria become tolerant to a toxin. Creationist non-evolution (as well as Intelligent Design) is an ideology, with the central tenet being "All that exists was designed and produced by God". Even though many have tried to prove and disprove God's existence, no one has done so logically or scientifically and is most likely not possible. If I cannot prove o
Evolution through natural selection is both falsifiable and testable. Experiments that demonstrate it's principles are boundless and are cross displine. You can test it with a petri-dish, a greenhouse or a spreadsheet.
Both perspectives are not on equal footing. No amount of hand waving, appeals to fairness or brain washing is going to change the fact that creationism is a myth. Ignore it all you want but the facts that brought evolution into the same scientific esteem as general relativity.
If you understand the scientific method you would not believe in evolution, you would understand the hyposthesis and be critical of the data. You would also instantly knock creationism right out of contention.
Which they do, in various humanities curiculla. In these classes they talk about all sorts of faiths. Indeed mine was mandatory and very interesting because it put all religions on equal footing. The more bizarre thing was Biology was in no way mandatory, I never had to hear evolution at all in during my high school attendance. I learned of evolution in it's proper place, biology class, and I learned of creation in it's proper place, mythology.
Thanks for the pointer. I'll definitely check this out.
And what would you "teach" about creationism? What hands on exercise could you do to illustrate it's hypothesis?
If creationist feel left out of the science classroom it is because they are. There has never been anything out of the creationist camp that resembles science. I have yet to be shown anything other then criticisms of evolution, which shows that evolution is actually better tested and proves nothing of spontaneous generation.
If beating the drum of political correctness seems to be a good way to win over rational minds you don't understand your audience. If you think it is unfair that theology does not get taught in science class then think of the converse. Maybe all churches should be forced to have science curricula read after the sermon with a notice in the bibles that "The contents of this book have in no way been substantiated and has not been edited to correct obvious mistakes".
For the length Of time I have been reading them, they have always been what they are, namely laymen accessible science. It is the best _affordable_ science magazine out there. If you are looking for in depth peer-reviewed science, you have nature at $320 a year subscription.
In the other direction you have Discover (which continues to move south). It is even cheaper a year then SciAm. I think it is only a matter of time before G4 buys them and merges game content into the already fluffy content.
Gold does not corrode readily and silver-oxide is a conductor. gold->silver should not cause either one to corrode differently, instead air contact and dc current (as in any speaker signal) will. on the other hand, both have a different electrical characteristics that will alter the sound. How noticable and whether it is a bad thing is probably a matter of taste and imagination.
Disregard the parent.
Nice... a page right out of "How to make friends and influence people".
The IT industry is as incestuous as any other and burned bridges *will* come back to haunt you.
I've given as much as six months
As nice as it is to wear foil hats, at some point you just have to admit you have a fetish. A lack of backbone is great in a lackey but is horrid any step further up the corporate ladder.
Does that go both ways?