I already have an open source OS that runs Linux binaries. I have no interest in another closed source OS that runs windoze binaries. As far as I can tell, the SkyOS web site presents no justification for this OS.
I'm having a hard enough time getting our office staff to switch to KDE. Why would I want to mess about with SkyOS? Does anyone know?
Actually, the Mandrake graphical installer thingy has a tool/step for setting this up. It has little check checkboxes in a tree widget for selecting which servers you want started automatically. The defaults are pretty good, too.
(Sorry I took so long to respond. My wife dragged me kicking and screaming from the X session:)
Oh so your claim is that would be much better of if religion were to disappear completely?
Show me one example of society that benefited from lack of religion.
Yes, this is my claim.
Here's why: The oldest known civilization with an organized religion, Sumer, was founded around seven thousand years ago. Humans may have invented religion somewhat earlier than this, but probably not much earlier (a wide variety cults existed much earlier; but I don't think that these qualify as religions). Groups of people whose members adopted a common religion tended to form highly cohesive, top-down, hierarchical, command and control societies. They formed sophisticated bureaucracies capable of planning for more than one season. They developed armies capable of making war. As a result, they were able either to wipe out or absorb other groups that didn't have religion; thus, religion as a force for social organization yielded huge benefits for those who practiced it; however, this process gave rise to incredibly brutal societies, and required of its participants unquestioning obedience to the managers of the religions, which stifled inquiry.
One group conquered and absorbed others only to be, itself, conquered and absorbed by another, more powerful group. As this process of consolidation was repeated over time, a diminishing number of larger and larger, increasingly powerful aggregates came to dominate the world.
Today, the social organization benefit of religion is provided by a wide variety of alternative instutions such as universities, professional organizations, community groups and things like Slashdot; none of which require brutality or mandate ignorance. For the most part, diplomacy has replaced conquest as the leading means of achieving further consolidation. The few remaining aggregates are so large, and so powerful that a major armed conflict between two or more of them would very possibly result in the cessation of most forms of life on our planet. At the same time, religious groups continue to discourage inquiry, and to foment antagonism among members of different religions.
I, like millions of other people, observe a moral code that makes no reference to religion. Most scientists are atheists, and I would put our morality up against the morality of any religion any day. While it is possible that absent the invention of religion, we might never have achieved civilization (though, this is by no means certain), the same religion has now become an impediment to the further advancement of civilization.
So did Bush with specific limitation.
You didn't read the article
People truly do fear consequences of science gone wrong.
This is a completely separate issue having nothing to do with separation of curch and state. If people have fears, they should be addressed. What is it that people fear about stem cell research? Where has this been expressed? I have not seen a poll that measures this.
. . . I do recognize value of organized religion ( as a glue for a society.)
Historically, religion has been a source of division within our society. It is only by setting aside our religious differences that we have held together. America is a great power because, by and large, we have embraced the rational, scientific view of the universe (and because of our geographic isolation from potential adversaries, our abunance of domestic natural resources, and other purely external factors).
But they have to be derived from something and if majority of citizens opt for values based on their religious beliefs there is NOTHING wrong with that. They can do it because it is their country.
The bottom line: nobody is asking you to stop doing what you are doing but to simply to consider the fact that if you are being founded by citizens of this country and consequently you have to adhere to rules set by them.
You may not realize that two thirds of Americans support federal funding of stem cell research (AP story). So, this is not a case in which the American people have reached a moral concensus, and their representatives are merely implementing a policy based on that concensus. This is a case of a religious minority inflicting its moral code on the majority.
The constitution makes reference to a god; however, it deliberately makes no refernce to any specific religion. Different religions dictate different moral codes. Even within a particular religion, these codes change over time (e.g., American Christians only began their opposition to abortion in the the 1820s). Our constitution is very carefully designed to allow people who disagree about such things (like you and me) to coexist peacefully without one group dominating another. Also, note that the primary authors of the constitution were Deists.
I respect your right to practice your religion (or lack thereof) as you see fit, and our constitution requires that you respect mine. In no case should the laws of this country be derived from any religion. This is what the constitution requires.
Some 72 percent of America's top scientists are atheists and a further 20 percent are agnostics (Larson 1998). In the general population of scientists, around 60 percent don't believe in a god. You may not recognize how, well, painful it is for us to witness the increasing intrusion of religion into public policy. We are at least as gravely concerned about these issues as you are. And, if this trend continues, as much as we love our country, not a few of us may decide to leave (Europe has no christian right to speak of, for example). I hope that this prospect, however remote, worries you and yours as much as it worries me and mine.
Well, you do live in predominantly Christian society and therefore you will be subjected to their version of morality.
I live in a society whose predominant morality is spelled out in the constitution. You may recall that the first settlers of this land came here to escape state religion as did my ancestors, and very possibly yours. Separation of church and state is the original principle of our nation.
If, say, fifty years from now, a majority of Americans have converted to, say, scientology, would you rather enjoy protections from the influence of their morality or would you prefer to be subject to it? Separation of church and state guarantees that no religion, not even that of the majority, will be imposed upon our society.
Sound principles are worth defending even when their defense is a cause of inconvenience. Unless you know that your particular morality will remain popular indefinitely, better to preserve the principle of church and state now in case you may have need of it later.
"Remember, this is not a scientific question but a moral one."
And, this is precisely my point. This decision is based upon a Christian morality. I am not a Christian, and I do not want my behavior, or the bahavior of my society, to be governed by a Christian morality. The constitution of the United States guarantees separation of church and state. This means that the government may not resort to religion as a basis for public policy. This decision clearly violates the principle of separation of church and state.
we just don't know how far we can go playing with this stuff before we end up venturing into Mengele territory.
Tissue engineering, the major application of stem cell research, has nothing in common with eugenics. This kind of rhetoric simply clouds the issue. W, and his far right constituency, object to this research because they believe that a divine being objects to it.
Feynman Lectures on Computation, which deals with physical limitations of computing, quantum computing, reversible logic, etc. It is likely to keep its currency for a long time.
Technically, that may be correct. But people commonly call them that in any case. Whatever. A POTS line is capable (theoretically) of carrying 1 DS0, Mr. Smartypants.
I've participated in the launch and operation of a couple of rapidly growing ISPs over the years. One thing that we _really_ had problems with was getting more dialup lines when we needed them. Sometimes, we had to wait up to three months to get a few additional lines while our users screamed. Also, the potential competitor you mentioned may be experiencing lots of disconnects because of bad phone service, and you might wind up having the same problem.
In my experience, it is absolutely essential to establish excellent rapport with your telco. You should be on a shoot-the-shit basis with at least one human being there who can push your orders through, and resolve other issues.
Beyond that, get modems that can cycle themselves when they get hung. It's no fun going in to cycle hung modems at all hours. And, you should know that dialup is the least fun end of the business (compared to hosting and development); I wholeheartedly agree with the other posters who recommend outsourcing if you can.
I did an extended consulting gig in a third world country a couple of years ago. The people I worked with there were all very intelligent, and had a good general knowledge of computer science (the kind you get from going to school). But, their knowledge of specific technologies (like perl and EJB) was very spotty. This, I found, was directly traceable to the fact that they got all of their knowledge of these subjects from the Web. They couldn't afford to buy the books, you see.
A good computer book provides thorough end to end coverage of a subject (a great one lays it out in a way that is easy to understand and possibly fun).
Listen, if someone in Iran or China wants to do something pro-western surreptitiously, the NSA would love to help. Just call their toll-free number, and order their free "Getting Started with the National Security Agengy" packet. Seriously, though, I would consider this option.
Also, be aware that PRC probably monitors Slashdot. Wouldn't you?
Well, I just happened to put up a story yesterday about the new Toyota Prius. It's our top story at the moment. The Prius is a four door, has a bigger interior, and produces even fewer harmful emissions than the Insight. I'm trying to get ahold of one to do a test drive.
I read about a pair of blood type studies, one conducted during the Korean war, the other more recently, that found that about ten percent of children were the result of maternal infidelity (IOW, mom was outsourcing). Don't recall where it was. But I'm sure you could find it.
I also wonder whether it might have had something to do with demographics. Back in the early sixties, when Kennedy proposed that we go to the Moon, the US was a 'young country'; meaning that there were lots of young, idealistic people around. When I was a kid, they were closing schools because there weren't enough kids. I think that young people, generally, are more likely to be dreamers. And it rubs off on the older generation, too.
Now, with ~50M kids in school, we're a young country again for the first time since the sixties. And we're contemplating a Mars shot.
This may be a half baked hypothesis. Just something I wonder about.
I've been waiting for a Mars shot since I was a kid back in the seventies. We were supposed to have space stations, and a lunar base by 2001, remember? We got Reaganomics, instead. Lame, lame.
Remember the Viking lander? I've had an itching case of technolust for a manned Mars mission for longer than I can remember.
It would be just swell if there turned out to be life on Mars (OK, if it were completely unrelated to life on earth, it would be Fucking Amazing). But it'll be plenty amazing to me, and to plenty of other people I know, if we can just get there.
Slashdot Mirror
No love lost.
The interview with Woz starts at T = 55:27
I'm having a hard enough time getting our office staff to switch to KDE. Why would I want to mess about with SkyOS? Does anyone know?
Actually, the Mandrake graphical installer thingy has a tool/step for setting this up. It has little check checkboxes in a tree widget for selecting which servers you want started automatically. The defaults are pretty good, too.
Yes, this is my claim.
Here's why: The oldest known civilization with an organized religion, Sumer, was founded around seven thousand years ago. Humans may have invented religion somewhat earlier than this, but probably not much earlier (a wide variety cults existed much earlier; but I don't think that these qualify as religions). Groups of people whose members adopted a common religion tended to form highly cohesive, top-down, hierarchical, command and control societies. They formed sophisticated bureaucracies capable of planning for more than one season. They developed armies capable of making war. As a result, they were able either to wipe out or absorb other groups that didn't have religion; thus, religion as a force for social organization yielded huge benefits for those who practiced it; however, this process gave rise to incredibly brutal societies, and required of its participants unquestioning obedience to the managers of the religions, which stifled inquiry.
One group conquered and absorbed others only to be, itself, conquered and absorbed by another, more powerful group. As this process of consolidation was repeated over time, a diminishing number of larger and larger, increasingly powerful aggregates came to dominate the world.
Today, the social organization benefit of religion is provided by a wide variety of alternative instutions such as universities, professional organizations, community groups and things like Slashdot; none of which require brutality or mandate ignorance. For the most part, diplomacy has replaced conquest as the leading means of achieving further consolidation. The few remaining aggregates are so large, and so powerful that a major armed conflict between two or more of them would very possibly result in the cessation of most forms of life on our planet. At the same time, religious groups continue to discourage inquiry, and to foment antagonism among members of different religions.
I, like millions of other people, observe a moral code that makes no reference to religion. Most scientists are atheists, and I would put our morality up against the morality of any religion any day. While it is possible that absent the invention of religion, we might never have achieved civilization (though, this is by no means certain), the same religion has now become an impediment to the further advancement of civilization.
You didn't read the article
This is a completely separate issue having nothing to do with separation of curch and state. If people have fears, they should be addressed. What is it that people fear about stem cell research? Where has this been expressed? I have not seen a poll that measures this.
How embarassing! I was thinking of the Declaration of Independence (which deliberately makes no reference to any specific religion, all the same).
Historically, religion has been a source of division within our society. It is only by setting aside our religious differences that we have held together. America is a great power because, by and large, we have embraced the rational, scientific view of the universe (and because of our geographic isolation from potential adversaries, our abunance of domestic natural resources, and other purely external factors).
You may not realize that two thirds of Americans support federal funding of stem cell research (AP story). So, this is not a case in which the American people have reached a moral concensus, and their representatives are merely implementing a policy based on that concensus. This is a case of a religious minority inflicting its moral code on the majority.
I respect your right to practice your religion (or lack thereof) as you see fit, and our constitution requires that you respect mine. In no case should the laws of this country be derived from any religion. This is what the constitution requires.
Some 72 percent of America's top scientists are atheists and a further 20 percent are agnostics (Larson 1998). In the general population of scientists, around 60 percent don't believe in a god. You may not recognize how, well, painful it is for us to witness the increasing intrusion of religion into public policy. We are at least as gravely concerned about these issues as you are. And, if this trend continues, as much as we love our country, not a few of us may decide to leave (Europe has no christian right to speak of, for example). I hope that this prospect, however remote, worries you and yours as much as it worries me and mine.
I live in a society whose predominant morality is spelled out in the constitution. You may recall that the first settlers of this land came here to escape state religion as did my ancestors, and very possibly yours. Separation of church and state is the original principle of our nation.
If, say, fifty years from now, a majority of Americans have converted to, say, scientology, would you rather enjoy protections from the influence of their morality or would you prefer to be subject to it? Separation of church and state guarantees that no religion, not even that of the majority, will be imposed upon our society.
Sound principles are worth defending even when their defense is a cause of inconvenience. Unless you know that your particular morality will remain popular indefinitely, better to preserve the principle of church and state now in case you may have need of it later.
And, this is precisely my point. This decision is based upon a Christian morality. I am not a Christian, and I do not want my behavior, or the bahavior of my society, to be governed by a Christian morality. The constitution of the United States guarantees separation of church and state. This means that the government may not resort to religion as a basis for public policy. This decision clearly violates the principle of separation of church and state.
Tissue engineering, the major application of stem cell research, has nothing in common with eugenics. This kind of rhetoric simply clouds the issue. W, and his far right constituency, object to this research because they believe that a divine being objects to it.
Well, what are the philosophical underpinnings of this policy? What would have to be true in order for this to be considered a rational decision?
If you're paying through the nose for per CPU licenses then it often makes sense to get the fastest processor your application runs on.
--
--
I've participated in the launch and operation of a couple of rapidly growing ISPs over the years. One thing that we _really_ had problems with was getting more dialup lines when we needed them. Sometimes, we had to wait up to three months to get a few additional lines while our users screamed. Also, the potential competitor you mentioned may be experiencing lots of disconnects because of bad phone service, and you might wind up having the same problem.
In my experience, it is absolutely essential to establish excellent rapport with your telco. You should be on a shoot-the-shit basis with at least one human being there who can push your orders through, and resolve other issues.
Beyond that, get modems that can cycle themselves when they get hung. It's no fun going in to cycle hung modems at all hours. And, you should know that dialup is the least fun end of the business (compared to hosting and development); I wholeheartedly agree with the other posters who recommend outsourcing if you can.
Good luck!
--
A good computer book provides thorough end to end coverage of a subject (a great one lays it out in a way that is easy to understand and possibly fun).
--
--
Also, be aware that PRC probably monitors Slashdot. Wouldn't you?
--
--
Try the new Toyoto Previa. It produces fewer emissions, too.
--
--
--
Now, with ~50M kids in school, we're a young country again for the first time since the sixties. And we're contemplating a Mars shot.
This may be a half baked hypothesis. Just something I wonder about.
--
Remember the Viking lander? I've had an itching case of technolust for a manned Mars mission for longer than I can remember.
It would be just swell if there turned out to be life on Mars (OK, if it were completely unrelated to life on earth, it would be Fucking Amazing). But it'll be plenty amazing to me, and to plenty of other people I know, if we can just get there.
Does anybody else in here feel the way I do?
--
--