The CoC doesn't say the code is better by X, the CiC says the opposite, that the code is NOT better by X.
That you do not know this says you have not read the CoC but have let others read it for you.
RTFM.
All the CoC says is that you can't - repeat, can't - judge code by the contributor, only the code. If that's what you want to achieve, then maybe that's what you want to achieve it.
The author has no right granted by the GPL to revoke the freedoms of others. Indeed, the GPL is explicit. Nobody, not even the author, can remove the freedom of another.
Bruce Perens has forgotten more than those 1% have learned. There are probably a dozen in the community I regard as demigods, Linus and RMS are two, Alan Cox and Bruce Perens are two others.
You... No. Same with the other nutters. You have to earn respect and accusing Bruce of ignorance does not earn respect.
Not really. How, precisely, do you have absolute totalitarian individuals with free as in freedom?
Is that the best the right can do?
I am tired of this stupidity. If you're not willing to read the CoC or apply common sense, you earn the contempt of others. Don't blame them for treating you the way you behave.
The only ones signalling are the nutters who object to standards, who believe they can decide who can contribute, who think that gender matters more than the code.
Their signals are not POSIX compliant. I see no value in them. If they cannot survive on quality, they don't offer anything of value.
The Byzantine General's Problem defines a class of parallel problem that can be solved when M out of N components are correct. In fact, the term "Byzantine fault tolerance" is now used in any class of problem where you need M out of N components, where M is usually given as half N plus one, but a few links give 2/3rds.
So if you have a single point of failure, you don't have such a solution.
If you have two paths, you can't prove which is correct and still don't have such a solution.
All I have done is argued that in a system that has X layers, each layer must be independently fault tolerant or you're reliably transmitting bogus data.
You can further improve on this by using provable, secure software (so the result of each phase is predictable and unlikely to be altered) and encryption where nobody possesses both encryption and decryption keys (since it's effectively impossible to stuff the ballot box).
These extensions don't impact the Byzantine fault tolerance, except insofar as they reduce the chances of corruption to begin with.
This system would not be trivial to set up, but it beats all others as it answers all the usual objections.
All you're looking for is something that is extensible (so the glue remains constant, you just add what you need) that allows you to plug components in.
You're using several such frameworks when communicating with Slashdot.
He doesn't want to be lumped in with extremists. Sounds fair. Who would?
Far as code is concerned, the extremists are those opposed to contributors based on who they are and not what they wrote. The extremists are not interested in free as in freedom, they despise the likes of Richard Stallman for being of the "wrong politics" (as if that made any difference to the code) and they reject scientists, academics and mathematicians the world over because of their chromosomes or base melatonin levels.
Real coders care about the code. They do not live in a post-meritocratic society, they just don't ignore the merit of others because of the language, culture, religion or philosophy they come from. Why should a meritocratic society give a damn which way you part your hair or whether you have a Star Trek fetish? Does it affect the results? Yes/no? If no, then that should be your answer to giving a damn.
There is absolutely bugger all in the CoC that says anything different. If you're reading something different, that's your issue, nobody else's.
The difference between boys and girls in STEM subjects is absolutely zero. Except in schools where they're told one or the other is inferior at something. Then you see a difference.
Since women haven't had the same opportunities, there will be some imbalance. So you shouldn't expect equal contributions just yet. That should, however, be possible. Nothing stops equal numbers of patches of equal quality. Neither gender is impaired.
In practice, women have left Linux and they have complained that patches have been rejected on the basis of what is between their legs. Far as I know, neither gender uses anything there to type code. (I won't say design, very few Linux coders design.)
The rabid extremists can froth all they like, but the fact is that they're killing Linux and the Free Software movement in their bid for Ultimate Power.
Free As In Freedom is not limited to any group. It belongs to everyone. That is what makes it free.
I'd argue something slightly different. There are several cases here that need considering.
1. The code doesn't work and the person is told so and maybe given some basic factual information on why, in a neutral way. Not sure anyone could seriously object.
2. Ditto, but in a slightly more biologically improbable/infeasible turn of phrase. Not necessarily as constructive, but still perfectly ok.
3. Ditto, but in a way that is specifically intended to not solve the problem and is also specifically intended to drive off a category of developer. Elitists do not believe in free as in freedom, they believe in power as in theirs. They have no business being in the community and can (see 2) off.
4. The code has no problems, the problem is purely the category of developer. Again, elitists who have no interest in freedom and wish to deprive others of that which the free community has given freely.
Different cultures have different languages and different values. What is true for one may not be true for another.
Also, no psychology study other than the Stamford Prisoner experiment has ever been successfully replicated. Be wary of psych research.
Nobody has the right to impose their standards on another, no matter who they are or how righteous they think they are. Everyone has the right to set their own boundaries.
Now, if you join a community where you know swearing is common (such as the Linux kernel mailing list) then that is the boundary you are setting. It's like a firewall. You can't connect to an address you block and if you punch a hole through to connect then it's no longer blocked.
Why? Why should anyone have to do anything, merely to please you and those like you? Give me one good reason why I should change how I am to suit you. How I am doesn't affect you.
But if how you are affects me, that's when we talk. You don't get to impose, I don't get to impose. We decide what change causes least harm and maximum gain.
And if you won't talk? Too bad. You don't get to impose your standards or your language on me.
Objective truths are not patriarchal, neither is good code.
Good code just is. It's a mathematical thing and mathematics has no gender.
Attacks against those who seek true objective societies, where it is the content of the code and not the gender of the coder that matters, show that the trolls really do not understand the argument.
They do identical work under identical conditions. This makes as much sense as demanding a unique class definition for each instance in Java. But I've stopped expecting the world to be rational. Imagining it to be filled with Golgafrinchams makes everything make much more sense.
Unclear definition of recent. Recent as in X years or recent as in common phylum?
I'd prefer ETL (extra-terrestrial life) - which telescopes can now detect - to be defined and then have layers on that for various levels of complexity. Maybe even start with NTL (non-terrestrial life). Granularity allows distinction and analysis.
Self-diagnosis is a problem, but isn't necessarily wrong. Provided it is done objectively, using reasonable, rational, psychiatry-approved methods.
Diagnosis by one autist of another, provided it is of very standard, recognised, psychiatry-approved diagnostic traits, following your standard differential diagnostic key, is better than self-diagnosis, provided it's done with a clear head and a good understanding of the terms.
The best is obviously professional, provided it's not in the U.S. where undear-diagnosis is a serious problem. Even in Britain, where diagnosis of males is 1:75 is one seventh what it should be. In the U.S., diagnosis can be one quarter that again, because there's no money in it. No drugs means no kickbacks. Doctors there look for money first, patients second.
Under-diagnosis for females is closer to ten times those values.
Reliable diagnosis can now be done with blood screening. But it isn't offered by most places. Why do a blood test for something you can't treat?
I do my homework, from the research journals not Wikipedia.
And there are 65 well-established genes for Autism specifically (Asperger's no longer exists as an official diagnosis and hasn't since DSM-V) and 12 that are shared with 5 related conditions such as schizophrenia.
Twin studies and familial studies, along with diagnosed cases and control groups were involved in numerous studies. These studies have been consistent and clear.
This is established, peer-reviewed and documented. Not by Wikipedia editors but geneticists. You know, people who know what they're doing. You can argue theories, but you can't argue facts.
fMRI studies have confirmed, since 2004, that the disorder is structural and closely related to schizophrenia. This isn't open to interpretation, because these studies are reproducible and were properly carried out, analyzed and controlled. You can talk about frozen salmon all you like, it doesn't apply.
MRI studies have indicated that there is a structural difference.
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation studies indicate adverse effects by people with autism spectrum disorders. Specifically. In other words, no we're not bloody well making it up, this is reality. Reality is not a democracy, it is what it is, what you like has no bearing on that.
Blood samples taken from infants can test for autism with near-100% accuracy. How can anyone say that's psychological? Those blood tests look for specific proteins expected to be mis-folded according to the genetic information. Ergo, the genetic information is solid. Feel free to go to the researchers and scream at them that their blood test is a fraud, because if autism isn't genetic then it would be. You would still be wrong and you would get no sympathy from anyone when you're stewing in HMP after security was called.
Autism runs in families, it is identifiable in a blood screen in infancy (possibly even pre-birth), never develops in later life (it's there from birth or not at all) and appears in genetic and neurological tests.
My guess is that it's probably not a result of environment. As in there's bugger all chance of that.
These are the facts. And you offer... Wikipedia.
Ok. I can't convince someone who limits themselves to such theories, all I can do is present the facts. You ignoring them is your problem, not your privilege.
Slashdot Mirror
If we'd convinced people without a brain, you'd be in favour of it. Obviously, those aren't the ones convinced.
But you don't want a meritocracy.
The CoC prevents people judging people for reasons other than merit. You despise that. Ergo, you don't want to judge on merit.
Didn't realize that? Then read before complaining.
Golden goose? Those would be Valerie Aurora and other female developers driven away from the kernel.
Also, all the men that were forced away for not confirming to your ideals. The mailing list has hundreds of top coders quitting because of your side.
You've already killed the golden geese and roasted them. That's your side. If you gave a damn about merit, you'd never have forced them away.
Don't blame others for your actions.
Yes. That was decided in trials involving advertising, first amendment, political speech and other related stuff.
I don't agree with deliberate false claims intending to mislead, particularly when expertise is claimed and thus undermined
However, that's their system.
The CoC doesn't say the code is better by X, the CiC says the opposite, that the code is NOT better by X.
That you do not know this says you have not read the CoC but have let others read it for you.
RTFM.
All the CoC says is that you can't - repeat, can't - judge code by the contributor, only the code. If that's what you want to achieve, then maybe that's what you want to achieve it.
The author has no right granted by the GPL to revoke the freedoms of others. Indeed, the GPL is explicit. Nobody, not even the author, can remove the freedom of another.
Europe protects the freedoms that matter.
If you don't want freedom, don't use software that is founded on freedom.
And get off my lawn.
Established law includes case law. Bruce's testimony is relevant to case law. Wikipedia is not.
If you want a counter argument with teeth, you need a PJ who can grok law.
A wiki... Not so much.
The 1% who care either can't read or won't.
Bruce Perens has forgotten more than those 1% have learned. There are probably a dozen in the community I regard as demigods, Linus and RMS are two, Alan Cox and Bruce Perens are two others.
You... No. Same with the other nutters. You have to earn respect and accusing Bruce of ignorance does not earn respect.
Not really. How, precisely, do you have absolute totalitarian individuals with free as in freedom?
Is that the best the right can do?
I am tired of this stupidity. If you're not willing to read the CoC or apply common sense, you earn the contempt of others. Don't blame them for treating you the way you behave.
It's open source. Who gives an f what you support? If the code is good, it will survive. If you aren't, you'll be forgotten.
There is no war against men, just stupidity.
Nobody's fault but yours if you elect to belong to the latter group.
Ummmm, no. The CoC says only that contributions must be judged on merit not genitals.
Before opposing something, it helps to RTFM.
The only ones signalling are the nutters who object to standards, who believe they can decide who can contribute, who think that gender matters more than the code.
Their signals are not POSIX compliant. I see no value in them. If they cannot survive on quality, they don't offer anything of value.
The Byzantine General's Problem defines a class of parallel problem that can be solved when M out of N components are correct. In fact, the term "Byzantine fault tolerance" is now used in any class of problem where you need M out of N components, where M is usually given as half N plus one, but a few links give 2/3rds.
So if you have a single point of failure, you don't have such a solution.
If you have two paths, you can't prove which is correct and still don't have such a solution.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~ssch...
All I have done is argued that in a system that has X layers, each layer must be independently fault tolerant or you're reliably transmitting bogus data.
You can further improve on this by using provable, secure software (so the result of each phase is predictable and unlikely to be altered) and encryption where nobody possesses both encryption and decryption keys (since it's effectively impossible to stuff the ballot box).
These extensions don't impact the Byzantine fault tolerance, except insofar as they reduce the chances of corruption to begin with.
This system would not be trivial to set up, but it beats all others as it answers all the usual objections.
You can't?
I'm surprised.
All you're looking for is something that is extensible (so the glue remains constant, you just add what you need) that allows you to plug components in.
You're using several such frameworks when communicating with Slashdot.
You're trying to be funny, but fail miserably. Don't try to riff off issues you don't comprehend by playing to words you don't understand.
He doesn't want to be lumped in with extremists. Sounds fair. Who would?
Far as code is concerned, the extremists are those opposed to contributors based on who they are and not what they wrote. The extremists are not interested in free as in freedom, they despise the likes of Richard Stallman for being of the "wrong politics" (as if that made any difference to the code) and they reject scientists, academics and mathematicians the world over because of their chromosomes or base melatonin levels.
Real coders care about the code. They do not live in a post-meritocratic society, they just don't ignore the merit of others because of the language, culture, religion or philosophy they come from. Why should a meritocratic society give a damn which way you part your hair or whether you have a Star Trek fetish? Does it affect the results? Yes/no? If no, then that should be your answer to giving a damn.
There is absolutely bugger all in the CoC that says anything different. If you're reading something different, that's your issue, nobody else's.
The difference between boys and girls in STEM subjects is absolutely zero. Except in schools where they're told one or the other is inferior at something. Then you see a difference.
Since women haven't had the same opportunities, there will be some imbalance. So you shouldn't expect equal contributions just yet. That should, however, be possible. Nothing stops equal numbers of patches of equal quality. Neither gender is impaired.
In practice, women have left Linux and they have complained that patches have been rejected on the basis of what is between their legs. Far as I know, neither gender uses anything there to type code. (I won't say design, very few Linux coders design.)
The rabid extremists can froth all they like, but the fact is that they're killing Linux and the Free Software movement in their bid for Ultimate Power.
Free As In Freedom is not limited to any group. It belongs to everyone. That is what makes it free.
I'd argue something slightly different. There are several cases here that need considering.
1. The code doesn't work and the person is told so and maybe given some basic factual information on why, in a neutral way. Not sure anyone could seriously object.
2. Ditto, but in a slightly more biologically improbable/infeasible turn of phrase. Not necessarily as constructive, but still perfectly ok.
3. Ditto, but in a way that is specifically intended to not solve the problem and is also specifically intended to drive off a category of developer. Elitists do not believe in free as in freedom, they believe in power as in theirs. They have no business being in the community and can (see 2) off.
4. The code has no problems, the problem is purely the category of developer. Again, elitists who have no interest in freedom and wish to deprive others of that which the free community has given freely.
Different cultures have different languages and different values. What is true for one may not be true for another.
Also, no psychology study other than the Stamford Prisoner experiment has ever been successfully replicated. Be wary of psych research.
Nobody has the right to impose their standards on another, no matter who they are or how righteous they think they are. Everyone has the right to set their own boundaries.
Now, if you join a community where you know swearing is common (such as the Linux kernel mailing list) then that is the boundary you are setting. It's like a firewall. You can't connect to an address you block and if you punch a hole through to connect then it's no longer blocked.
Why? Why should anyone have to do anything, merely to please you and those like you? Give me one good reason why I should change how I am to suit you. How I am doesn't affect you.
But if how you are affects me, that's when we talk. You don't get to impose, I don't get to impose. We decide what change causes least harm and maximum gain.
And if you won't talk? Too bad. You don't get to impose your standards or your language on me.
Objective truths are not patriarchal, neither is good code.
Good code just is. It's a mathematical thing and mathematics has no gender.
Attacks against those who seek true objective societies, where it is the content of the code and not the gender of the coder that matters, show that the trolls really do not understand the argument.
They do identical work under identical conditions. This makes as much sense as demanding a unique class definition for each instance in Java. But I've stopped expecting the world to be rational. Imagining it to be filled with Golgafrinchams makes everything make much more sense.
Unclear definition of recent. Recent as in X years or recent as in common phylum?
I'd prefer ETL (extra-terrestrial life) - which telescopes can now detect - to be defined and then have layers on that for various levels of complexity. Maybe even start with NTL (non-terrestrial life). Granularity allows distinction and analysis.
One in ten on the planet have it.
Self-diagnosis is a problem, but isn't necessarily wrong. Provided it is done objectively, using reasonable, rational, psychiatry-approved methods.
Diagnosis by one autist of another, provided it is of very standard, recognised, psychiatry-approved diagnostic traits, following your standard differential diagnostic key, is better than self-diagnosis, provided it's done with a clear head and a good understanding of the terms.
The best is obviously professional, provided it's not in the U.S. where undear-diagnosis is a serious problem. Even in Britain, where diagnosis of males is 1:75 is one seventh what it should be. In the U.S., diagnosis can be one quarter that again, because there's no money in it. No drugs means no kickbacks. Doctors there look for money first, patients second.
Under-diagnosis for females is closer to ten times those values.
Reliable diagnosis can now be done with blood screening. But it isn't offered by most places. Why do a blood test for something you can't treat?
I do my homework, from the research journals not Wikipedia.
And there are 65 well-established genes for Autism specifically (Asperger's no longer exists as an official diagnosis and hasn't since DSM-V) and 12 that are shared with 5 related conditions such as schizophrenia.
Twin studies and familial studies, along with diagnosed cases and control groups were involved in numerous studies. These studies have been consistent and clear.
This is established, peer-reviewed and documented. Not by Wikipedia editors but geneticists. You know, people who know what they're doing. You can argue theories, but you can't argue facts.
fMRI studies have confirmed, since 2004, that the disorder is structural and closely related to schizophrenia. This isn't open to interpretation, because these studies are reproducible and were properly carried out, analyzed and controlled. You can talk about frozen salmon all you like, it doesn't apply.
MRI studies have indicated that there is a structural difference.
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation studies indicate adverse effects by people with autism spectrum disorders. Specifically. In other words, no we're not bloody well making it up, this is reality. Reality is not a democracy, it is what it is, what you like has no bearing on that.
Blood samples taken from infants can test for autism with near-100% accuracy. How can anyone say that's psychological? Those blood tests look for specific proteins expected to be mis-folded according to the genetic information. Ergo, the genetic information is solid. Feel free to go to the researchers and scream at them that their blood test is a fraud, because if autism isn't genetic then it would be. You would still be wrong and you would get no sympathy from anyone when you're stewing in HMP after security was called.
Autism runs in families, it is identifiable in a blood screen in infancy (possibly even pre-birth), never develops in later life (it's there from birth or not at all) and appears in genetic and neurological tests.
My guess is that it's probably not a result of environment. As in there's bugger all chance of that.
These are the facts. And you offer... Wikipedia.
Ok. I can't convince someone who limits themselves to such theories, all I can do is present the facts. You ignoring them is your problem, not your privilege.