Again, though, even if we assume it's all fully legal - which it may well be, it does not seem in the ethos of open source (hence the usage of kosher) to prohibit access to that part of the code which was shared and has not been changed since. What they do with the bits that are theirs that replaced the open source stuff, that's their business, along with the code that was never shared and always closed. The remainder --- uhhhhhh. It feels very icky that anyone, owner included, can retroactively alter the rights to something.
My understanding is that a developer only has to provide source code to users within some time frame. They don't have to distribute to the public in general. Once they stop providing and supporting the software (binaries) and that time frame (3 years ?) elapses they may no longer be obligated to provide the source code at all.
What do you mean by "outside of the universe"? When I speak of "the universe", I define it to mean, "everything that exists."
An earlier part of this thread, or perhaps it was a sibling thread, discussed the concept of a metaverse where our universe is one of many. This seems consistent with the idea that god created the universe, somehow being part of the event known as the big bang.
In any case, when religious people speak of "God", I'm pretty sure most of them aren't defining it as, "something that can't interact with our region of the universe in any way."
Generally residing outside of the universe does not preclude interaction if and when desired given that we are talking about a being the presumably had a part in the big bang. It seems to merely indicate an inability to detect when not interacting.
In a true scientific setting, you'll never hear an idea be rejected because an authority figure or holy book said that it wasn't so. It will be rejected based on lack of supporting evidence.
That is not true. Leading scientists rejected the big bang theory when proposed because of a holy book. They merely did so due to hostility rather than faith. Students interested in string theory were advised not to do research in that area because authority figures in the scientific community were dismissive of the theory.
No. That illustration is not what the bible describes, it is what interpretations that are making quite a stretch describe. Stretches of the nature that something being above the earth implies the earth is flat.
I'd also like to point out that you've completely ignored my statement that the Bible has been used to justify such atrocities as slavery.
Its an irrelevant straw man, off topic related to the church and science. Many scientists back in the day supported slavery and various atrocities as well.
No, it's quite relevant. It shows that religious minds are willing to use their faith to justify atrocities.
No it shows that human minds are able to use anything to justify atrocities. There are ample examples in modern history of human minds using some political writing to justify atrocities. There are ample examples of men of science using scientific theory and concepts to justify atrocities.
Catholics are not a majority of christians in the US. Also the graph shows that those believing in a literal interpretation are declining and those with faith believing in evolution are increasing.
So Catholics believe that the Bible advocates evolution while other Christians believe that the same bible argue against evolution. Also, you may have missed some of the other data in that source:
Catholics and various other denominations have nothing against evolution. The stats are US centric, basically you are cherry picking a subpopulation to artificially inflate the stats. Altering the conversation from christianity in general.
40 percent of Americans still believe that humans were created by God within the last 10,000 years
And the fact remains that this survey also shows that this group is in decline.
Another 38 percent of respondents believe that humans have evolved from more basic organisms but with God playing a role in the process... I'll admit that it's pretty vague because "playing a role in the process" doesn't tell us much about what god is supposed to be doing, but it shows that there are a lot of people on the fence about fact and faith.
Not really. As the church in question teaches, scientific discoveries are not in conflict with faith. There is no fence according to this church and those churches who share similar views.
Sorry, I guess I still did not explain things very well. When I referred to the "more important characteristic" as having experience in risky activities where thing go bad rather quickly and need to be resolved very very quickly I did not mean to imply that pilots are the only source of such experience. Pilots are just an example building off of the background of the original generation of astronauts.
A mars mission is not going to be a short trip. The crew is going to need a wide variety of skills. A pilot will be necessary, so will an engineer/mechanic. Such a person may very well come the submarine community, there might even be some similar equipment. A year and a half mission, perhaps a doctor would be useful, maybe a battlefield surgeon from the Army or Navy. Biologist, maybe someone who worked in a stressful and technical environment at the CDC where lethal organism were handled. Geologist, maybe the guy who walks down to the lava to get a fresh sample. Again I am not offering an exclusive list of backgrounds, just examples.
FWIW. I have enjoyed seeing various aircraft at air shows and museums. I have also loved taking tours of the WW2 subs USS Ling and USS Bowfin. The engineering was amazing. I loved the practicality of when there was a vertical gap between some large machinery a drill press was installed and where there was a horizontal gap a lathe was installed, metal stored under the deck for the manufacture of part at sea,...
I could have phrased things better. I didn't really mean to suggest they should necessarily all be test pilots, that was more of a reference to what old school astronauts were. I think they should all have some sort of experience in extremely high risk activities where things go wrong and someone has to deal with it really really quickly. Preferably having actually experienced such situations. I think having experienced such situations and having dealt with them is what is the more important characteristic of test and combat pilots, not necessarily their piloting skills.
Also of note: Sergei Krikalev has spent 803 days, 9 hours and 39 minutes, or 2.2 years in space over the span of six spaceflights on Soyuz, the Space Shuttle, Mir, and International Space Station.
Aren't the feature differences just because there's a wider choice of motherboards out on the open market when you buy them yourself, whereas in a brand-name computer you only have one or a small number of m'board and CPU choices? And it still has nothing to do with laptops, you can't (in any practical way) choose or change the motherboard in a laptop or netbook.
The feature differences in the do-it-yourself market are there because hobbyists are more discerning about features and probably willing to pay a little more, as opposed to mass produced systems that are probably more concerned about costs.
Again, the ***exact same company*** that produces hobbyist do-it-yourself motherboards ***also sells laptops***. If they can service the hobbyist market for motherboards they can service the hobbyist market for linux laptops. The laptops only need a ***slightly reconfigured BIOS***, its a pretty minor thing compared to what they already do.
the build-it-yourself market exists only because it's just the same parts sold separately as opposed to together in a brand-name box.
Not really. The retail oriented motherboards are typically different from motherboards in brand name boxes. These differences tend to be more involved than a simple BIOS with different settings as a Linux friendly laptop would require.
How did they simulate zero gravity and its adverse effects on the human body??
Mir and ISS have done that. This seems to be a psychological test regarding isolation. However without the extreme risk of actual interplanetary spaceflight the psychological data might be limited. The stress of such a risk has to have an effect.
Which make me wonder if candidates for a Mars mission should be "old school" astronauts, those with experience as test pilots and who probably flew combat missions as well, or who did night carrier landing (*), etc.
(*) Maybe its a myth but I once heard that during the Vietnam war the US Navy wired up some pilots to record vital signs related to stress. Pilots were more stressed during night carrier landings than on combat missions near/over Hanoi (a very hazardous area for these pilots).
For example, a theologian-astronomer from that time named Giovanni Maria Tolosani said the following:
It appears that [Copernicus] is unskilled with regard to [the interpretation of] holy scripture, since he contradicts several of its principles, not without danger of infidelity to himself and the readers of his book.
And many prominent scientists rejected the big bang theory, and string theory, etc. Eventually they came around. So did those within the church regarding Copernicus as more data became available and tools (telescopes, mathematics) improved. Note that Copernicus' work was never banned, and while Galileo's original work was banned (due to political content mostly) a revised edition was allowed that had the mocking of the pope removed and just contained the scientific arguments supporting Copernicus. Admittedly it took the church quite a while to admit Galileo's persecution was political in nature and a mistake.
The specifically cited biblical passages linked to in previous posts did not seem to state that the earth was flat, and seemed to show that the proponent's interpretation of scripture was quite a stretch. Also note that those relatively modern scientists who criticized the big bang theory also questioned the author's competence as a scientist, seems a bit similar to your quote in this regard. It seems that men of science can fail regardless of whether they have faith or not. Humans screw up. Humans introduce their personal bias and social pressures into scientific debate.
I'd also like to point out that you've completely ignored my statement that the Bible has been used to justify such atrocities as slavery.
Its an irrelevant straw man, off topic related to the church and science. Many scientists back in the day supported slavery and various atrocities as well.
Perhaps you would be surprised to learn that the church teaches evolution in its science classes.
Catholics are not a majority of christians in the US. Also the graph shows that those believing in a literal interpretation are declining and those with faith believing in evolution are increasing.
But anyway, I'm still curious why god would talk to ancient shepherds and have them author books of divine events decades after they happened, then not bother to make sure that the translations of the books were maintained or come back to tell us more information.
I'd be more curious as to why God does not prevent wars, does not cure cancer, etc. Add your question to the end of a very long list.
You're just repeating the exact same thing you said several posts back,...
Well the post I responded to seemed to have missed that post given its laptop comment.
... so I'll repeat my answer - no vacuum exists because the market for Linux on laptops and netbooks is too small, no one is going to make special versions of any hardware for the Linux consumer market.
Pardon the repeat but this was debunked previously too. Given that the very small hobbyist build-it-yourself market is viable the consumer Linux market would seem viable too.
The "special version" is just different BIOS firmware.
I'm talking about laptops and netbooks and there's no build-your-own market for those. I'm sure it'll always be possible to put together a desktop PC yourself that doesn't have this UEFI stuff locked in, but you can forget about laptops and netbooks.
Nope. One of these motherboard vendors, ASUS, is already offering laptops. Others may follow, especially if a vacuum exists because major vendors don't offer Linux compatible options.
Non-compete clauses are unenforceable in California but non-disclosure is something entirely different. Former AMD employees will never be allowed to disclose proprietary information (trade secrets, business plans, etc) of AMD.
The interview is often a very good indicator of what the job is like. It's just as much of a way for the interviewee to evaluate their prospective employer as it is for the employer evaluating the employee.
Amen.
I once interviewed for a programming position at a very young and small company. Most of the interview was done by the owner, a business/marketing guy with some technical knowledge of the industry they develop applications for but with no real knowledge of software development (other than it takes longer than expected). For the programming test I was handed over to his lead developer. The test was crap but I probably did well on it. When I was back with the owner he asked how the test went. I decided to do my side of the evaluation. I told him I probably did well but that the test wasn't very good. I explained why. The test seemed like a sampling of multiple choice questions from quizzes and tests from a bunch of different CS classes. Given that a CS type degree was required the applicant presumably passed all these classes so nothing new was really learned. At least it was easy to grade, however like many things you get out what you put in. If a test is to be given it should test for something a degree does not necessarily demonstrate, the ability to actually develop code that solves the problem or task at hand. That is what you are going to pay people for. The preceding was not some kind of soliloquy, the owner seemed interested and asked questions of his own and the above gives an overview of what was discussed. The interview ran long due to this conversation. I was offered the position a few days later. The owners lack of software experience was a concern but I got a good vibe from our chat about the test and from his responses to some of my general questions. I took the job. It worked out well, he trusted us and took our opinions quite seriously when he needed to make decisions. Oh, my first task was to write a new programming test.
Today when I interview people and get to the part where I will answer any questions they have, and they say they don't have any, I point out that an interview works both ways. That this is their chance to find out if this company is a good fit for them. Usually there is surprise and a few seconds of confusion but most are able to come up with some questions at that point.
Again, as I said to a similar poster above, the point is not about the power of the PC, it is that typical buyers would not take the slightest account of whether Secure Boot could be disabled or not.
The larger point is that the system as shipped from the factory exceeded the user's needs. It is nearly a certainty that the system is viewed as an appliance to be used and not something to be tinkered with.
The problem, as you ask and do not seem to have spotted yet, is that it will not be possible to kick Windows off a PC and install Linux or BSD instead - if Secure Boot cannot not be switched off.
No, vendors won't. If these locked down UEFI setups (with no off switch or way to import your own keys) become the default it's game over. The void left by the Linux market would be too tiny to make it economically worth producing different hardware designs, especially when margins are already razor thin.
These vendors are already serving the very small build your own PC market. If this little niche is worth their effort then the Linux community will also be worth their effort.
The 10s of thousands of apps on the app store says it's not to hard to satisfy Apple's whims. Whims being disinformation about well defined policies. And most of the policies would not impede NASA. The only things I can think of relate to licensing such as open source licenses.
I don't believe Apple has any problem with FOSS apps being on the App Store. The developers are free to provide users with their source code.
Even that isn't really true. If you give a precise definition of what you mean by "God" - that is, if you present a coherent theory - that theory will make predictions, and those predictions could (at least theoretically) be compared to experiment. Let's replace the word "God" by "Entity X":
Theory: X exists outside of the universe.
Result: There is no ability to perform a test of this theory.
Of course why would they bother with an app store for the public when they could simply have their free iOS apps appear on the Apple App Store at no cost to NASA?
Because what can and can't be made available then becomes subject to the whims of Apple?
Actually, Apple allows enterprise developers to offer internal app stores for their users. Given that the summary says "app store for its scientists" there may be no conflict here. NASA would only be prohibited from offering an iOS App Store to the public in general. Of course why would they bother with an app store for the public when they could simply have their free iOS apps appear on the Apple App Store at no cost to NASA?
No one is saying ignore priests, they are saying ignore people who deal in faith based fantasies that are not even remotely testable or falsafiable. That those people tent to be priests and that priests generally only talk about that type of stuff is the cruch of the arguement.
That does not seem an accurate characterizations. While these priests talks about things outside of science quite often, when they do talk about science they seem to be in agreement with the scientist. Their church teaches that the findings of science are not in conflict with faith. So when the topic is scientific in nature there seems to be no reason to automatically mistrust these priests. YMMV depending on the specific church that members of the clergy belong too.
I'm just pointing out that some folks with a deep faith are also actual scientists.
All this really demonstrates is the human capacity to hold two conflicting ideas in their head without experiencing cognitive dissonance.
Not really, some churches explicitly say that there is no conflict between science and faith. That science explains the mechanics of god's universe, including the evolution of the universe and of life.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, though, even if we assume it's all fully legal - which it may well be, it does not seem in the ethos of open source (hence the usage of kosher) to prohibit access to that part of the code which was shared and has not been changed since. What they do with the bits that are theirs that replaced the open source stuff, that's their business, along with the code that was never shared and always closed. The remainder --- uhhhhhh. It feels very icky that anyone, owner included, can retroactively alter the rights to something.
My understanding is that a developer only has to provide source code to users within some time frame. They don't have to distribute to the public in general. Once they stop providing and supporting the software (binaries) and that time frame (3 years ?) elapses they may no longer be obligated to provide the source code at all.
What do you mean by "outside of the universe"? When I speak of "the universe", I define it to mean, "everything that exists."
An earlier part of this thread, or perhaps it was a sibling thread, discussed the concept of a metaverse where our universe is one of many. This seems consistent with the idea that god created the universe, somehow being part of the event known as the big bang.
In any case, when religious people speak of "God", I'm pretty sure most of them aren't defining it as, "something that can't interact with our region of the universe in any way."
Generally residing outside of the universe does not preclude interaction if and when desired given that we are talking about a being the presumably had a part in the big bang. It seems to merely indicate an inability to detect when not interacting.
In a true scientific setting, you'll never hear an idea be rejected because an authority figure or holy book said that it wasn't so. It will be rejected based on lack of supporting evidence.
That is not true. Leading scientists rejected the big bang theory when proposed because of a holy book. They merely did so due to hostility rather than faith. Students interested in string theory were advised not to do research in that area because authority figures in the scientific community were dismissive of the theory.
Are you talking about this source? If you scroll down, there's an illustration of the cosmos as described by the Bible, which the rest of that source covers.
No. That illustration is not what the bible describes, it is what interpretations that are making quite a stretch describe. Stretches of the nature that something being above the earth implies the earth is flat.
I'd also like to point out that you've completely ignored my statement that the Bible has been used to justify such atrocities as slavery.
Its an irrelevant straw man, off topic related to the church and science. Many scientists back in the day supported slavery and various atrocities as well.
No, it's quite relevant. It shows that religious minds are willing to use their faith to justify atrocities.
No it shows that human minds are able to use anything to justify atrocities. There are ample examples in modern history of human minds using some political writing to justify atrocities. There are ample examples of men of science using scientific theory and concepts to justify atrocities.
Catholics are not a majority of christians in the US. Also the graph shows that those believing in a literal interpretation are declining and those with faith believing in evolution are increasing.
So Catholics believe that the Bible advocates evolution while other Christians believe that the same bible argue against evolution. Also, you may have missed some of the other data in that source:
Catholics and various other denominations have nothing against evolution. The stats are US centric, basically you are cherry picking a subpopulation to artificially inflate the stats. Altering the conversation from christianity in general.
40 percent of Americans still believe that humans were created by God within the last 10,000 years
And the fact remains that this survey also shows that this group is in decline.
Another 38 percent of respondents believe that humans have evolved from more basic organisms but with God playing a role in the process ... I'll admit that it's pretty vague because "playing a role in the process" doesn't tell us much about what god is supposed to be doing, but it shows that there are a lot of people on the fence about fact and faith.
Not really. As the church in question teaches, scientific discoveries are not in conflict with faith. There is no fence according to this church and those churches who share similar views.
Sorry, I guess I still did not explain things very well. When I referred to the "more important characteristic" as having experience in risky activities where thing go bad rather quickly and need to be resolved very very quickly I did not mean to imply that pilots are the only source of such experience. Pilots are just an example building off of the background of the original generation of astronauts.
...
A mars mission is not going to be a short trip. The crew is going to need a wide variety of skills. A pilot will be necessary, so will an engineer/mechanic. Such a person may very well come the submarine community, there might even be some similar equipment. A year and a half mission, perhaps a doctor would be useful, maybe a battlefield surgeon from the Army or Navy. Biologist, maybe someone who worked in a stressful and technical environment at the CDC where lethal organism were handled. Geologist, maybe the guy who walks down to the lava to get a fresh sample. Again I am not offering an exclusive list of backgrounds, just examples.
FWIW. I have enjoyed seeing various aircraft at air shows and museums. I have also loved taking tours of the WW2 subs USS Ling and USS Bowfin. The engineering was amazing. I loved the practicality of when there was a vertical gap between some large machinery a drill press was installed and where there was a horizontal gap a lathe was installed, metal stored under the deck for the manufacture of part at sea,
So why should astronauts be pilots at all?
I could have phrased things better. I didn't really mean to suggest they should necessarily all be test pilots, that was more of a reference to what old school astronauts were. I think they should all have some sort of experience in extremely high risk activities where things go wrong and someone has to deal with it really really quickly. Preferably having actually experienced such situations. I think having experienced such situations and having dealt with them is what is the more important characteristic of test and combat pilots, not necessarily their piloting skills.
I don't think anyone stayed in a space station for 520 days though.
Valeri Polyakov, launched 8 January 1994 (Soyuz TM-18), stayed at Mir for 437.7 days. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_records#Ten_longest_human_space_flights
Also of note: Sergei Krikalev has spent 803 days, 9 hours and 39 minutes, or 2.2 years in space over the span of six spaceflights on Soyuz, the Space Shuttle, Mir, and International Space Station.
I don't think anyone stayed in a space station for 520 days though.
Valeri Polyakov, launched 8 January 1994 (Soyuz TM-18), stayed at Mir for 437.7 days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_records#Ten_longest_human_space_flights
Aren't the feature differences just because there's a wider choice of motherboards out on the open market when you buy them yourself, whereas in a brand-name computer you only have one or a small number of m'board and CPU choices? And it still has nothing to do with laptops, you can't (in any practical way) choose or change the motherboard in a laptop or netbook.
The feature differences in the do-it-yourself market are there because hobbyists are more discerning about features and probably willing to pay a little more, as opposed to mass produced systems that are probably more concerned about costs.
Again, the ***exact same company*** that produces hobbyist do-it-yourself motherboards ***also sells laptops***. If they can service the hobbyist market for motherboards they can service the hobbyist market for linux laptops. The laptops only need a ***slightly reconfigured BIOS***, its a pretty minor thing compared to what they already do.
the build-it-yourself market exists only because it's just the same parts sold separately as opposed to together in a brand-name box.
Not really. The retail oriented motherboards are typically different from motherboards in brand name boxes. These differences tend to be more involved than a simple BIOS with different settings as a Linux friendly laptop would require.
How did they simulate zero gravity and its adverse effects on the human body??
Mir and ISS have done that. This seems to be a psychological test regarding isolation. However without the extreme risk of actual interplanetary spaceflight the psychological data might be limited. The stress of such a risk has to have an effect.
Which make me wonder if candidates for a Mars mission should be "old school" astronauts, those with experience as test pilots and who probably flew combat missions as well, or who did night carrier landing (*), etc.
(*) Maybe its a myth but I once heard that during the Vietnam war the US Navy wired up some pilots to record vital signs related to stress. Pilots were more stressed during night carrier landings than on combat missions near/over Hanoi (a very hazardous area for these pilots).
For example, a theologian-astronomer from that time named Giovanni Maria Tolosani said the following:
It appears that [Copernicus] is unskilled with regard to [the interpretation of] holy scripture, since he contradicts several of its principles, not without danger of infidelity to himself and the readers of his book.
And many prominent scientists rejected the big bang theory, and string theory, etc. Eventually they came around. So did those within the church regarding Copernicus as more data became available and tools (telescopes, mathematics) improved. Note that Copernicus' work was never banned, and while Galileo's original work was banned (due to political content mostly) a revised edition was allowed that had the mocking of the pope removed and just contained the scientific arguments supporting Copernicus. Admittedly it took the church quite a while to admit Galileo's persecution was political in nature and a mistake.
The specifically cited biblical passages linked to in previous posts did not seem to state that the earth was flat, and seemed to show that the proponent's interpretation of scripture was quite a stretch. Also note that those relatively modern scientists who criticized the big bang theory also questioned the author's competence as a scientist, seems a bit similar to your quote in this regard. It seems that men of science can fail regardless of whether they have faith or not. Humans screw up. Humans introduce their personal bias and social pressures into scientific debate.
I'd also like to point out that you've completely ignored my statement that the Bible has been used to justify such atrocities as slavery.
Its an irrelevant straw man, off topic related to the church and science. Many scientists back in the day supported slavery and various atrocities as well.
Perhaps you would be surprised to learn that the church teaches evolution in its science classes.
Yes, that would be very surprising, especially considering that there's a still large division between creationists and people who believe in evolution (at least in the USA).
Catholics are not a majority of christians in the US. Also the graph shows that those believing in a literal interpretation are declining and those with faith believing in evolution are increasing.
But anyway, I'm still curious why god would talk to ancient shepherds and have them author books of divine events decades after they happened, then not bother to make sure that the translations of the books were maintained or come back to tell us more information.
I'd be more curious as to why God does not prevent wars, does not cure cancer, etc. Add your question to the end of a very long list.
You're just repeating the exact same thing you said several posts back, ...
Well the post I responded to seemed to have missed that post given its laptop comment.
... so I'll repeat my answer - no vacuum exists because the market for Linux on laptops and netbooks is too small, no one is going to make special versions of any hardware for the Linux consumer market.
Pardon the repeat but this was debunked previously too. Given that the very small hobbyist build-it-yourself market is viable the consumer Linux market would seem viable too.
The "special version" is just different BIOS firmware.
This story has nothing to do with iOS apps or any Apple platform.
However the post I responded do did bring up Apple.
I'm talking about laptops and netbooks and there's no build-your-own market for those. I'm sure it'll always be possible to put together a desktop PC yourself that doesn't have this UEFI stuff locked in, but you can forget about laptops and netbooks.
Nope. One of these motherboard vendors, ASUS, is already offering laptops. Others may follow, especially if a vacuum exists because major vendors don't offer Linux compatible options.
Non-compete clauses are unenforceable in California but non-disclosure is something entirely different. Former AMD employees will never be allowed to disclose proprietary information (trade secrets, business plans, etc) of AMD.
Whatever happened to tests like drinking the interview panel under the table?
Regrettably that's for marketing not software development. Maybe for project leads that have to interface with other departments.
The interview is often a very good indicator of what the job is like. It's just as much of a way for the interviewee to evaluate their prospective employer as it is for the employer evaluating the employee.
Amen.
I once interviewed for a programming position at a very young and small company. Most of the interview was done by the owner, a business/marketing guy with some technical knowledge of the industry they develop applications for but with no real knowledge of software development (other than it takes longer than expected). For the programming test I was handed over to his lead developer. The test was crap but I probably did well on it. When I was back with the owner he asked how the test went. I decided to do my side of the evaluation. I told him I probably did well but that the test wasn't very good. I explained why. The test seemed like a sampling of multiple choice questions from quizzes and tests from a bunch of different CS classes. Given that a CS type degree was required the applicant presumably passed all these classes so nothing new was really learned. At least it was easy to grade, however like many things you get out what you put in. If a test is to be given it should test for something a degree does not necessarily demonstrate, the ability to actually develop code that solves the problem or task at hand. That is what you are going to pay people for. The preceding was not some kind of soliloquy, the owner seemed interested and asked questions of his own and the above gives an overview of what was discussed. The interview ran long due to this conversation. I was offered the position a few days later. The owners lack of software experience was a concern but I got a good vibe from our chat about the test and from his responses to some of my general questions. I took the job. It worked out well, he trusted us and took our opinions quite seriously when he needed to make decisions. Oh, my first task was to write a new programming test.
Today when I interview people and get to the part where I will answer any questions they have, and they say they don't have any, I point out that an interview works both ways. That this is their chance to find out if this company is a good fit for them. Usually there is surprise and a few seconds of confusion but most are able to come up with some questions at that point.
Again, as I said to a similar poster above, the point is not about the power of the PC, it is that typical buyers would not take the slightest account of whether Secure Boot could be disabled or not.
The larger point is that the system as shipped from the factory exceeded the user's needs. It is nearly a certainty that the system is viewed as an appliance to be used and not something to be tinkered with.
The problem, as you ask and do not seem to have spotted yet, is that it will not be possible to kick Windows off a PC and install Linux or BSD instead - if Secure Boot cannot not be switched off.
You are mistaken. My post found here, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2506468&cid=37930364, argues why the purported problem seems to be somewhat hysterical - an inconvenience not the end of the world.
No, vendors won't. If these locked down UEFI setups (with no off switch or way to import your own keys) become the default it's game over. The void left by the Linux market would be too tiny to make it economically worth producing different hardware designs, especially when margins are already razor thin.
These vendors are already serving the very small build your own PC market. If this little niche is worth their effort then the Linux community will also be worth their effort.
The 10s of thousands of apps on the app store says it's not to hard to satisfy Apple's whims. Whims being disinformation about well defined policies. And most of the policies would not impede NASA. The only things I can think of relate to licensing such as open source licenses.
I don't believe Apple has any problem with FOSS apps being on the App Store. The developers are free to provide users with their source code.
Even that isn't really true. If you give a precise definition of what you mean by "God" - that is, if you present a coherent theory - that theory will make predictions, and those predictions could (at least theoretically) be compared to experiment. Let's replace the word "God" by "Entity X":
Theory: X exists outside of the universe.
Result: There is no ability to perform a test of this theory.
Of course why would they bother with an app store for the public when they could simply have their free iOS apps appear on the Apple App Store at no cost to NASA?
Because what can and can't be made available then becomes subject to the whims of Apple?
"Whims" is a very big mischaracterization.
About to be sued by Apple in 5, 4, 3...
Actually, Apple allows enterprise developers to offer internal app stores for their users. Given that the summary says "app store for its scientists" there may be no conflict here. NASA would only be prohibited from offering an iOS App Store to the public in general. Of course why would they bother with an app store for the public when they could simply have their free iOS apps appear on the Apple App Store at no cost to NASA?
No one is saying ignore priests, they are saying ignore people who deal in faith based fantasies that are not even remotely testable or falsafiable. That those people tent to be priests and that priests generally only talk about that type of stuff is the cruch of the arguement.
That does not seem an accurate characterizations. While these priests talks about things outside of science quite often, when they do talk about science they seem to be in agreement with the scientist. Their church teaches that the findings of science are not in conflict with faith. So when the topic is scientific in nature there seems to be no reason to automatically mistrust these priests. YMMV depending on the specific church that members of the clergy belong too.
I'm just pointing out that some folks with a deep faith are also actual scientists.
All this really demonstrates is the human capacity to hold two conflicting ideas in their head without experiencing cognitive dissonance.
Not really, some churches explicitly say that there is no conflict between science and faith. That science explains the mechanics of god's universe, including the evolution of the universe and of life.