That's where the real mysteries of science comes in my friend...
If we can get the funding to go to Mars, and we do find evidence of bacteria and magnetosomes, the question is why are they so similar? Maybe it is because they came from the same place; maybe it means something else. It isn't hogwash until we know they do or don't exist. It would be stunning to find out life somehow migrated from one planet to the other.
We don't even know that Martian life uses DNA, or the same set of amino acids we do... Thus the interest prompted by the Martian metorite...
A theory tossed around is the meta-stability of a liquid core inside a solid shell;
It's very high momentum rotation won't allow it to stop or change directions, in a way very similar to a gyroscope, but perhaps because there is a fluid layer between the core and the shell, one of the two just flips around because of metastability.
Imagine an eggshell with its liquid center. You could toss the egg in the air, and it would spin, but it's interior would not because there is a relatively low friction between the yolk and the shell, which could also account for the 'flip' as evidenced by the earth every couple aeons or so.
But it would offer us non-creationists and scientists a chance to observe how similar or different said life form is. Would they use the same DNA bases? DNA? Amino acids? Etc...
I'm surprised you haven't gotten a lot of flak from the Dilberts of the world railing against an oppressive/authoritative upper management...
There is a difference between making people accountable for their actions and actually scrutinizing their actions. I would assume that making people accountable be of much much higher importance than just being able to see and regulate. Self regulation, self motivation, self autmonomy seems to be more effective and efficient than having cops at every intersection preventing jay walking and running red lights.
IANAM But I am not a manager, so I may be wrong on this angle.
It really depends on whether you were informed or had access to such information when you applied, didn't you? It's very much available information at Caltech at least, and if you don't read it is your fault, not theirs. It is a tradeoff for a world-class education vs privacy concerns. I accepted the tradeoff; I'm not sure if anyone who is good enough to get into a private school will refuse that kind of tradeoff.
True true. But that doesn't necessitate the hoards called for by the rumor site. One would think a small intrepid band of heroes would fulfill the job quite nicely.
Okay, makes perfect sense then, your comment. In my haste I had interpreted her statement to mean that Open Source, as an alternative to the Free Software movement, was practical and pragmatic and utilitarian, free from judgemental or ideological issues, where the Free Software name and movement demands freedom of ideas, software, source, and use, unconditionally, for the betterment of software, humanity, and individuals who code. Perhaps it is my wrong for assigning that value to her statement, but at least to my eyes it had a value that I understood.
But you are right that her sentence was essentially wordy, verbose, and could have been more concisely state as such Open Source stresses productivity, useability, and efficient use of resources and manpower whereas Free Software argues for the unconditional freedom of use, dissemination, and spread of source, ideas, and information
How do you get the tab feature? Non-blanking whitespace?
Of course, the above assumes my interpretation of her statement is correct, but as all things, to each their own.
On the other hand I do feel as if your last statement about affirmative action uncalled for. Highlighting her fault as a function of her gender isn't appropriate when it is something any person can do, especially if it has no relation to gender. Being pompous, verbose, silly, or wordy are faults that do not limit themselves to women.
On your last statement about stealing free software, yes, it can be done. Using Open Source software assumes that modified code is returned back to the fold. If M$ takes the Linux kernal as their own for Win2010, modifies it for specific functionality and adds DVD, 3d acceleration, and USB, and doesn't give back to the Open Source movement, they have essentially abused the concept of Open Source, without any recompense for the effort others have put into it. If I took the source, added USB somehow somewhere, the value added is recompense to all the others that worked on it before I, and the work others have done are the recompense for me adding USB, for without a workable OS I would have no need for USB either.
If you're using the Free Software definition, then by making the previously open software proprietary, M$ has violated and abused the Free Software movement, and the same arguments as above hold.
It's assuming that people's time and energy are equivalent to value and monetary worth, and by taking without giving anything back, you are stealing.
Why is the onus on me? I'm not trying to make anyone agree with me. The only concession I'm asking is that your disagreement with me doesn't indicate any sort of moral or character flaw, other than you disagree with me.
I don't get pissed off, btw, as long as flames aren't being tossed =).
Your comment confuses me; you mention you cannot disprove Santa or the Tooth Fairy, but you don't believe in their existence.
You also mention things cannot be disproven; that is incorrect. A disproof can be performed by assuming Santa Claus exists, and this existence indicates another truth or value that is obviously false, and thus by assuming he exists, you show that he cannot.
How do you disprove that I am dead? Easy... Assume that I am dead. If I were dead, I would no longer exist on the same plane of existence as you. If I cannot interact with you, I cannot send you this message. If you see this message, then I have sent it, and I cannot be dead. It doesn't mean I'm not a computer entity, or a virus, or a non-human, it just means, under the definition of dead as non-existence with accordance to this reality, I can't be dead.
The real tricky part is making sure the base assumptions are all correct in the first place. We don't know that the dead can't interact with our existence, just as we don't know that the stars don't interact with our existence. In fact its a given that gravitational forces, neutrinos, gamma rays, alpha particles, and photons from stars to interact very physically with us and our existence. Showing how they do so is tough, but until astrologists can show us that they do, the best we should do is give them their chance to do so. Likewise for those who advocate quantum superstrings or hyperdimensional folds or quantum foam. None of those have any shred of proof, yet people are spending millions/billions of dollars building supercolliders and performing deep space, deep earth, and other experiments to show/disprove those theories.
So do let you in on my background, I'm at Caltech and perfectly familiar with the scientific process, scientific minds, beliefs, and attitudes, some of which I agree with, some of which I don't, all of which are 'correct' because they are scientifically persued.
Believe what you, but we should only care about what you can *prove*.
Its usually very much the case that, at least scientifically, you prove what you believe... First comes understanding, then belief, then scientific proof, and then because it can be proven, it can be shared, spread, and explained. I myself don't believe in higher dimensions and super strings and such, but I acknowledge that the assumed symmetry of such structures can explain away alot, even if they are complex and highly artificial.
I find it highly ironic that Rebecca rails against"orgainzed religion" when, apparently, she practices one of the older organized religions - Wica. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.
From my own understandings of Wica, the point is that there is no pressure to be homogenous; railing against organized religion is not complaining about religion, but complaining about the organization. So while she may be hypocritical and all that, it really isn't so strange or hypocritical to complain about organized religion while believing in Wica. Complaining about religious beliefs and being Wica is being hypocritical...
Intelligent people along time ago agreed to the following two rules.
1) the burden of proof rests with the affirmative. 2) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
You would be surprised at the mysticism rampant here at Caltech, esp with regards to religious beliefs. A counter to those two rules may be... 1)Extraordinary results require extraordinary beliefs. 2)Some things cannot be understood.
The more a scientist looks at and examines the universe and existence, the more wondrous, awe inspiring, and grandeous it is, it it becomes more and more apparent how perfect everything is, how extraordinary that anything like this universe even exists. When we start approaching axiomatic fundamentals that cannot be proven, but must be assumed in order to explain higher levels of science, then we start to hit the wall, and that only some religions even attempt to tackle. They are bunk to you, and they will stay that way until a scientist somewhere finds some connection, some proof; however, the point is that even without the proof, the religion is just as correct, just as truthful, just as useful, until that proof is found. The hard question of course is which religion, which belief, which set of systems to put your faith and belief into?
Likewise in science, past the quantum level we start running into unification and symmetry problems. Do we subscribe to superstrings and vibrational modes? Or multi-dimensional forces whose interactions describe our more common and mundane existence? Or is it some quantum foam/bubbles whose structure, birth, and decay describe the transience and the future of our existence?
Until we can find out which religion, belief system, or rules is correct, it should be held that all of them are correct; or more correctly, all of them have an equal chance of being correct, or some mix of them. Schrodinger and the uncertainty principle and all that, if you subscribe to scientific belief so much. Perhaps we will understand subquantum reality, but scientists today are betting we won't get much farther than an abstract symbology and model that can explain the universal forces and interactions. Maybe it will take millions of years to prove that there is a God, just as it would take millions of years to prove in the superstring theory, but you can't discount either as a working model if it is useful to explain phenomena or results.
God satisfies one criteria; his existence explains how and why everything exists and works. So far science can't.
So thats what you believe and not what you can prove. So why should we consider your beliefs to be anything by whimsical fancy?
All beliefs are whimsical fancy. It makes them no less powerful or useful to explain to children why teeth must fall out, or why pain and suffering exists, or why sometimes you just can't succeed. Find a scientific explanation for pain, suffering, futility, and despair before you tell me you believe that they exist...
Why do you not require proof before you believe those things, and you would (I hope) require proof that a car you are buying really does have X miles on it, before you believe that it really is worth Y?
Faith must exist. I won't go crashing my car to prove that it suceeds in a n-mph crash safety test. I won't hit into a tree to believe my airbag works and is safe. I won't drive down to Visa headquarters to prove that they aren't misusing my credit history to do things. I question, and I examine, but some things, some times, have to be taken on trust. Certainly not everything, and not anything, but how do you prove that a waiter didn't copy your credit card, or mischarged you? How do you know/prove that God doesn't exist, when the proof cited is all of existence?
Perhaps you're not as rational as you might believe. Its nice to think that something happens to us after we die, other than just decaying, but its no more valid that any other belief, like the tooth fairy, without proof.
I'm very proud to know I am not at all rational. I believe no person is rational-that we are reasonable, that we are intelligent, but rational I do not believe. I firmly believe that everything you explain as rational, I explain as hindsight. You only believe in quantum or electromagnitism because it's already been proven. If you were born 100 years ago, you would not believe that the speed of light was 2,987,000 meters per second; except people who did believe it was a constant value did the work to prove it was so, while people who did not believe it did not work to disprove/prove it. You frown upon God as bunk-but what happens if 2 years from now a researcher discovers proof? Rationally, of course you'll change your mind, because there is proof. But the scientist is the one who believes, trusts, has faith that there is a good, and works to show so despite the taunts and the comments against him. Just because you change your mind with proof doesn't make you any less wrong; and the person who believed without proof just didn't think in the right way or asked the right questions. However, they would still be right.
The truth is HARD to find and requires one to set aside ones *beliefs*, think rationally, logically and work within the scientific method - and even then to look harder
Would it surprise you if I told you I don't think there is a universal truth, or even much of a local truth? Knowing relativity makes one understand everything is always tainted by interpretation and context, and that the only real constant absolute may just be the speed of light... and even that is being questioned right now. If one did not have beliefs and preconceptions before using the scientific method, there would be nothing to prove or disprove. You must believe in something, whether you believe it right or wrong, befure you can show it to be right or wrong. Milliken, if you know him, showed that the electric charge was quantized; but he only showed it as such because he believed very firmly that it was so, months, years, before it could be shown. The key to the scientific method is to be willing to give up your faith and belief if you are shown to be wrong.
I do agree that we have a problem with poor thinking and short-term thinking, but the solutions have little to do with rationality and proof; science works wonderfully with faith and belief, with reasonability and generality and beauty being the much more important forces than anything else.
Excuse me, but can you please enlighten me? What is so wrong with the statement:
Open Source requirements are similar to those of Free Software, but the packaging is different, lacking any value-laden, ideological generalities.
Maybe I don't know enough grammer(I don't have a law degree from Harvard, am working for a CS/EE at Caltech), or I don't know enough about Open Source vs Free Software. I admit, sometimes I get confused by all the rhetoric and semantics bandied about among the many factions that visit daily/.
And exactly how does affirmative action make her statement any more or less ignorant than your own? Perhaps it is just I being ignorant, and as soon as someone enlightens me I can join you in your elevated position of worth and value, and laugh at RLE and others who make the same ignorant mistake I must have for not catching whatever you have seen.
If I am not mistaken, clones are almost inherently unstable copies of the originals. Something about forced resonance, cloning errors, and the high force potential of the originals makes the Jedi clones very dangerous and prone to the dark.
I would imagine it be pointless to clone normal people, as robots and droids would be much more effective. So using a Force virus to disable or weaken the clones would not be so Dark, except perhaps dangerous in that normal healthy Light Jedi would also be affected.
Besides the fact that part of the allure of the Star Wars universe is the small band of heroes myth; said band sorta gets lost in a crowd of thousands...
Assuming you are aware of the Quake series of games, and the forthcoming Quake3:Arena, here is some code that is not GPLed, with some minor competition from Crystal Space, but far ahead of Crystal Space at the same time.
Their source is not open, as that is what they have spent years of their lives working on, but on the other hand they make no secret of what exactly they do or why they do it. If another group of coders feel up to the challenge, they are free to implement and play and release on their own everything mentioned by Id software. Nor do they restrict usage of their engine; you can download the binaries off the net, and using free tools one could make from scratch their own Quake game, and release it for free. If you want to make money off the time effort, energy, and skill you put into the game, you have to license the code from Id, but in response you also get the source and support as well.
Can you counter that Crystal Space or any other group are as dedicated, able, or competent as Id software? Only thus far commercial products have been even close, competatively, and thus when we pay for their products we are paying for state of the art cutting edge. No insult to those working on Crystal Space, it really does look nice, but without the mix of commercial rewards and personal dedication found in a small company as Id software, things don't get done nearly as fast. Deadlines, costs, budgets, and resource constraints work wonderfully to sharpen and hone a company and group that doesn't really exist outside in the Open Source model, except perhaps for passion, and I don't think you'll find a lack of passion at Id software.
So? How does this demean RLE or anyone else to believe this? The original poster made some comments about her qualifications for her beliefs.
How is the belief that stars can affect us be any more or less arrogant that there exists a supreme creator that sits and watches over all of us like a parental figure, throwing at us tragedy and misery, joy, bliss, and heartache? Or the belief that the entire universe and all of existence can be analyzed, dissected, understood, and predicted? That seems awfully misguided and arrogant, and is the norm for many scientists, whom the original poster was praising.
How can you say that stars and such don't affect our personal relationships? How can you show there isn't a God laughing at our foolishness, or crying at our stupidity, or smiling at our uniqueness? How can you prove that fate or destiny doesn't exist?
There are subtle differences that even I don't quite understand that some people happen to believe.
As far as I understand, there are several different views;
free software; freely given away to be freely used. Source is by no means always included. The ability to use Id software's Quake/Quake2 engine to make any game and release it for free, for example. You don't get access to the source for the engines, nor can you modify them nor improve them except for utilization of a plug in modification architecture.
Free Software; freely given away to be used, learned from, modified, and redistributed. A unique concept in a world where ideas are worth money. Sometimes mixed with Open Source... I think Free Software can't be sold, but I'm not sure. Sometimes Linux is classified under Free Software, sometimes it isn't.
Open Source; source is always available. The option of pricing and selling exists. Modifications to source must always be released if a product or distibution is made, IIRC. Linux is very much Open Source; sometimes it is also Free Software. I get confused sometimes =)
If your distinction between free and open is not about price, I can't really cogently answer you. Sorry.
No, he's not the main force behind Linux, necessarily, but he is/was very powerful in the Free Software/Open Source movement. My own conception of him sees him in the same light as Marx, perhaps, because of his strong ideologies and beliefs. I don't necessarily believe Marx was wrong either, just that all the particular implementations left some things to be desired. RMS really does seem to believe that information has no reason to be closed and proprietary, not since doing so only retards software development and such.
The commercial push of Linux is very strongly scented of a Darwinistic evolutionary competative situation in which the best implementations, the best service, and the most marketing will probabaly prevail, and that is all well and Good. But RMS complains that the intellectual/spiritual side of the equation is being ignored by those who have supplanted the movement with the Open Source initiative; he wants attention not only for his own ego, as he admits, but so he can use the attention to focus on the values and strengths of Free Source; not Costless Software, but that information and exchange of ideas is good and vital.
It has nothing to do with how the real world operates; RMS sees an ideal, wants the ideal, and is working for it, even if it is unrealistic or unattainable. The Open Source model's engineering benefits are immense, what with massive parallization and debugging, fast turnaround, distributed responsibility and costs, and self improvement, but RMS is pushing something else just as good/noble/beneficial, but for different reasons and effects.
I'm not sure I want to believe in the mass warfare scene mentioned in the page...
Brings to mind the stupid war scenes in Starship Troopers. Unless Jedi can deal with radiation, explode a couple neutron bombs in the upper atmosphere to neutralize life forms. Very evil, I know, and indiscriminate against civilians and natural fauna/flora...
Or a Jedi virus... A Force poison or Force disease, or a Force bomb...
As inspiring as masses of Jedi might be, it seems particularly unproductive, unless written in such a way that such an approach is necessary and unavoidable. I just can't think of any reason myself... Thinking along the lines of the storming of Normandy/Omaha beach in WWII, except that if airborn weapons are available, its stupid to waste people this way, esp if there are millions of clones on the one side and an army of unique individuals on the other...
But as always I trust to Lucas' vision, and just assume it is a rumor.
What's your beef against astrology, just because you don't believe in it? How does belief in anything question anyone's common sense? It's not that I agree or disagree, but your excuses and rationalizations for your belief bother me. Even scientists, especially scientists, use your mentioned method of thinking; they already believe or know or assume something, and all of their experiements then are to prove and disprove their belief; you don't come to a conclusion without knowing what you are looking for in the first place!
It may sound odd, but it's really true. A scientist(maybe not all, but the ones I work with at Caltech), have an intuitive or idealized model that has no proof, no understanding, or logic, except it seems right, or it would simplify a whole lot of things if the universe really did work like this, so they set up all these experiments and tests to show that the universe does work like this... If they can't show it, then they throw it away, of course, but the underlying process is to have a preconcieved belief beforehand! Scientists are no more trained to think logically than anyone else-we are just able to change our minds more easily, if given enough proof, and sometimes not even that.
I can't and won't argue with your analysis or opinion over her personality and abilities, since they are exactly opinions, but I strongly disagree with your comments about her beliefs, opinions, and mindset; to each their own, and if it works for her, there really is no reason for you to comment or criticize her for them.
I feel sorry for you that you seem to only attract such a poor sample of the female species. Perhaps it's your attitude that does it?
People, men and women, respond according to the body language and signal you send off, and by this insulting piece, if you are anything at all like this tactless, rude, and discourteous post, I wouldn't be surprised if women tended to act as you've described.
Heck, if you were like this around me I would be pissed and edgy too, and I'm not bisexual, overweight, nihlistic, or arrogant. I just don't like people who seem to be like you...
Argh. What is this? Some schoolyard playground? Name calling and smearing and ugh.
If I were in her position and someone challenged me like that, I would believe it was a sexist comment or statement; and it was fully in her right to be upset. While I don't myself believe she was in the right to start calling names herself, it can be excused for being upset. Perhaps it was unintentional or a coincidence that the original poster decried 2 female journalists, Judith Lewis and now Rebeca Eisenberg, but it sure sounded sexist because of that.
What reason/excuse/rationalization do you have for name calling unless it's to continue the life of this thread by calling people out to respond? It's bad enough that there is such a low female:male ratio in the techno-geek circles without us making it worse by insulting, demeaning, or assaulting those who do frequent our circles. I'm not talking special treatment, but about courtesy and respect, difficult things to conjure in anonymous cyber-realities, but still worthwhile and noble things.
Why is Wica any more nonsense than Christianity or Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism, Shinto, etc?
Personal beliefs are exactly that, and while may embarrass or bother you, it's not exactly as if she or anyone else is forcing it upon you. Myself I don't really know the precepts of Wica, except one of my friends dabbles/is interested in it, but that doesn't detract any more than another of my friends being Christian or Buddhist, or preferring Red Hat to Debian to SuSE, or liking pork over chicken over tofu.
Astrology is only as bunk as believing in a hellfire and brimstone God, Hell, and Heavan, or in little tiny partially charged wave-particles interacting via strange carriers to produce forces of interactions, repulsion, attraction, and other things. I myself don't believe in astrology, but I also don't believe in Hell, eternal damnation, or eternal paradise. I believe in an afterlife and a soul, and other things, but there is no proof to them.
A person is a bundle of contradictions, paradoxes, and misleading beliefs-but don't hold it agains her or anyone else, since everyone is like that, even you...
I am impressed. It's refreshing to actually get feedback and hear from the author of content linked to by/.
It is a bother how rude and disrespectful people can get, but I hope it doesn't stop you from continuing your contributions, esp to/. Every voice is important, otherwise we get swamped by noise and pointless rhetoric of trolls and flames.
I at least appreciated the article =) Back to bashing trolls and posting comments...
I'm wondering myself if the previous poster has some sort of gender bias against the reporter...
I liked the article, if a bit short. Some more in depth anaylsis into the issues, even if biased, incorrect, and silly, gives us at least the mindset of those that are ignorant... However, I didn't think she was any of those.
Are you talking business in general? I can agree. Id software specifically? It would hard pressed for me to concede that these 12 people have no morals, and that all the care about is money. Sure, the money is important, but if money were all they cared about, they wouldn't be porting to Linux, they wouldn't be using OpenGL, and they wouldn't be making Quake3:Arena.
Linux is an unproven untested market. OpenGL is not quite as well supported as M$'s DirectX libraries... Quake3:Arena is a risk; they want to do something fun, entertaining, and worthwhile. If they wanted more money, they would do something like Half Life or KingPin or Sin, or heck, even a Deer Hunter clone.
I fail to see your point to my arguments, or to any arguments. Sure, you lie, cheat, and shoot people for money. Who cares? What's the big deal about worshipping money? I much prefer looking and flirting with cute girls over working, but I work just enough to support myself, and live comfortable. No more. Is money something worthwhile in itself?
Why am I the sucker, by the way? It would be nice if you could tell me, so I can fix whatever gaping flaw I have that you see...
??? Why even posting if it isn't a useful comment or discussion?
Fine, take your $50 elsewhere if you don't want Q3:Arena. It's your money, your time, your leisure. Go grab FFVIII or watch a few movies or get drunk or whatever. It's not my concern your free time and money. I'm talking because I want to hear comments and discussion. I have yet to hear a pirate be defend themselves; those that try before they buy aren't really the pirates I talk or complain about, because they do buy the games they play.
I'm waiting to hear from a pirate to defend their actions cogently, legitamately, and carefully. I'm feeling much better now, so no more death threats from me =) Ahh. Sugar.
Hey, I understand that. There are many of my friends who believe in a try before you buy policy; I don't begrudge them this, as it is a good gauge on whether to spend $50 or so. I get around this by renting for a few dollars, or watching all my friends play a game or two before deciding I want to own it myself. It just bothered me that the original poster didn't make any mention of his real intentions beyond downloading the game. This is real entertainment, probably worth hundreds of hours in the near future, and it would make my investment be worth much less if some guys downloaded and never played it. If it plays it for day and decides he doesn't want it, then fine. Not a problem I have.
Slashdot Mirror
That's where the real mysteries of science comes in my friend...
If we can get the funding to go to Mars, and we do find evidence of bacteria and magnetosomes, the question is why are they so similar? Maybe it is because they came from the same place; maybe it means something else. It isn't hogwash until we know they do or don't exist. It would be stunning to find out life somehow migrated from one planet to the other.
We don't even know that Martian life uses DNA, or the same set of amino acids we do... Thus the interest prompted by the Martian metorite...
AS
A theory tossed around is the meta-stability of a liquid core inside a solid shell;
It's very high momentum rotation won't allow it to stop or change directions, in a way very similar to a gyroscope, but perhaps because there is a fluid layer between the core and the shell, one of the two just flips around because of metastability.
Imagine an eggshell with its liquid center. You could toss the egg in the air, and it would spin, but it's interior would not because there is a relatively low friction between the yolk and the shell, which could also account for the 'flip' as evidenced by the earth every couple aeons or so.
AS
But it would offer us non-creationists and scientists a chance to observe how similar or different said life form is. Would they use the same DNA bases? DNA? Amino acids? Etc...
AS
I'm surprised you haven't gotten a lot of flak from the Dilberts of the world railing against an oppressive/authoritative upper management...
There is a difference between making people accountable for their actions and actually scrutinizing their actions. I would assume that making people accountable be of much much higher importance than just being able to see and regulate. Self regulation, self motivation, self autmonomy seems to be more effective and efficient than having cops at every intersection preventing jay walking and running red lights.
IANAM
But I am not a manager, so I may be wrong on this angle.
AS
AS
It really depends on whether you were informed or had access to such information when you applied, didn't you? It's very much available information at Caltech at least, and if you don't read it is your fault, not theirs. It is a tradeoff for a world-class education vs privacy concerns. I accepted the tradeoff; I'm not sure if anyone who is good enough to get into a private school will refuse that kind of tradeoff.
AS
AS
True true.
But that doesn't necessitate the hoards called for by the rumor site. One would think a small intrepid band of heroes would fulfill the job quite nicely.
AS
AS
Okay, makes perfect sense then, your comment. In my haste I had interpreted her statement to mean that Open Source, as an alternative to the Free Software movement, was practical and pragmatic and utilitarian, free from judgemental or ideological issues, where the Free Software name and movement demands freedom of ideas, software, source, and use, unconditionally, for the betterment of software, humanity, and individuals who code. Perhaps it is my wrong for assigning that value to her statement, but at least to my eyes it had a value that I understood.
But you are right that her sentence was essentially wordy, verbose, and could have been more concisely state as such
Open Source stresses productivity, useability, and efficient use of resources and manpower whereas Free Software argues for the unconditional freedom of use, dissemination, and spread of source, ideas, and information
How do you get the tab feature? Non-blanking whitespace?
Of course, the above assumes my interpretation of her statement is correct, but as all things, to each their own.
On the other hand I do feel as if your last statement about affirmative action uncalled for. Highlighting her fault as a function of her gender isn't appropriate when it is something any person can do, especially if it has no relation to gender. Being pompous, verbose, silly, or wordy are faults that do not limit themselves to women.
On your last statement about stealing free software, yes, it can be done. Using Open Source software assumes that modified code is returned back to the fold. If M$ takes the Linux kernal as their own for Win2010, modifies it for specific functionality and adds DVD, 3d acceleration, and USB, and doesn't give back to the Open Source movement, they have essentially abused the concept of Open Source, without any recompense for the effort others have put into it. If I took the source, added USB somehow somewhere, the value added is recompense to all the others that worked on it before I, and the work others have done are the recompense for me adding USB, for without a workable OS I would have no need for USB either.
If you're using the Free Software definition, then by making the previously open software proprietary, M$ has violated and abused the Free Software movement, and the same arguments as above hold.
It's assuming that people's time and energy are equivalent to value and monetary worth, and by taking without giving anything back, you are stealing.
AS
AS
Why is the onus on me? I'm not trying to make anyone agree with me. The only concession I'm asking is that your disagreement with me doesn't indicate any sort of moral or character flaw, other than you disagree with me.
I don't get pissed off, btw, as long as flames aren't being tossed =).
Your comment confuses me; you mention you cannot disprove Santa or the Tooth Fairy, but you don't believe in their existence.
You also mention things cannot be disproven; that is incorrect. A disproof can be performed by assuming Santa Claus exists, and this existence indicates another truth or value that is obviously false, and thus by assuming he exists, you show that he cannot.
How do you disprove that I am dead? Easy...
Assume that I am dead. If I were dead, I would no longer exist on the same plane of existence as you. If I cannot interact with you, I cannot send you this message. If you see this message, then I have sent it, and I cannot be dead. It doesn't mean I'm not a computer entity, or a virus, or a non-human, it just means, under the definition of dead as non-existence with accordance to this reality, I can't be dead.
The real tricky part is making sure the base assumptions are all correct in the first place. We don't know that the dead can't interact with our existence, just as we don't know that the stars don't interact with our existence. In fact its a given that gravitational forces, neutrinos, gamma rays, alpha particles, and photons from stars to interact very physically with us and our existence. Showing how they do so is tough, but until astrologists can show us that they do, the best we should do is give them their chance to do so. Likewise for those who advocate quantum superstrings or hyperdimensional folds or quantum foam. None of those have any shred of proof, yet people are spending millions/billions of dollars building supercolliders and performing deep space, deep earth, and other experiments to show/disprove those theories.
AS
AS
So do let you in on my background, I'm at Caltech and perfectly familiar with the scientific process, scientific minds, beliefs, and attitudes, some of which I agree with, some of which I don't, all of which are 'correct' because they are scientifically persued.
Believe what you, but we should only care about what you can *prove*.
Its usually very much the case that, at least scientifically, you prove what you believe... First comes understanding, then belief, then scientific proof, and then because it can be proven, it can be shared, spread, and explained. I myself don't believe in higher dimensions and super strings and such, but I acknowledge that the assumed symmetry of such structures can explain away alot, even if they are complex and highly artificial.
I find it highly ironic that Rebecca rails against"orgainzed religion" when, apparently, she practices one of the older organized religions - Wica. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.
From my own understandings of Wica, the point is that there is no pressure to be homogenous; railing against organized religion is not complaining about religion, but complaining about the organization. So while she may be hypocritical and all that, it really isn't so strange or hypocritical to complain about organized religion while believing in Wica. Complaining about religious beliefs and being Wica is being hypocritical...
Intelligent people along time ago agreed to the following two rules.
1) the burden of proof rests with the affirmative.
2) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
You would be surprised at the mysticism rampant here at Caltech, esp with regards to religious beliefs. A counter to those two rules may be...
1)Extraordinary results require extraordinary beliefs.
2)Some things cannot be understood.
The more a scientist looks at and examines the universe and existence, the more wondrous, awe inspiring, and grandeous it is, it it becomes more and more apparent how perfect everything is, how extraordinary that anything like this universe even exists. When we start approaching axiomatic fundamentals that cannot be proven, but must be assumed in order to explain higher levels of science, then we start to hit the wall, and that only some religions even attempt to tackle. They are bunk to you, and they will stay that way until a scientist somewhere finds some connection, some proof; however, the point is that even without the proof, the religion is just as correct, just as truthful, just as useful, until that proof is found. The hard question of course is which religion, which belief, which set of systems to put your faith and belief into?
Likewise in science, past the quantum level we start running into unification and symmetry problems. Do we subscribe to superstrings and vibrational modes? Or multi-dimensional forces whose interactions describe our more common and mundane existence? Or is it some quantum foam/bubbles whose structure, birth, and decay describe the transience and the future of our existence?
Until we can find out which religion, belief system, or rules is correct, it should be held that all of them are correct; or more correctly, all of them have an equal chance of being correct, or some mix of them. Schrodinger and the uncertainty principle and all that, if you subscribe to scientific belief so much. Perhaps we will understand subquantum reality, but scientists today are betting we won't get much farther than an abstract symbology and model that can explain the universal forces and interactions. Maybe it will take millions of years to prove that there is a God, just as it would take millions of years to prove in the superstring theory, but you can't discount either as a working model if it is useful to explain phenomena or results.
God satisfies one criteria; his existence explains how and why everything exists and works. So far science can't.
So thats what you believe and not what you can prove. So why should we consider your beliefs to be anything by whimsical fancy?
All beliefs are whimsical fancy. It makes them no less powerful or useful to explain to children why teeth must fall out, or why pain and suffering exists, or why sometimes you just can't succeed. Find a scientific explanation for pain, suffering, futility, and despair before you tell me you believe that they exist...
Why do you not require proof before you believe those things, and you would (I hope) require proof that a car you are buying really does have X miles on it, before you believe that it really is worth Y?
Faith must exist. I won't go crashing my car to prove that it suceeds in a n-mph crash safety test. I won't hit into a tree to believe my airbag works and is safe. I won't drive down to Visa headquarters to prove that they aren't misusing my credit history to do things. I question, and I examine, but some things, some times, have to be taken on trust. Certainly not everything, and not anything, but how do you prove that a waiter didn't copy your credit card, or mischarged you? How do you know/prove that God doesn't exist, when the proof cited is all of existence?
Perhaps you're not as rational as you might believe. Its nice to think that something happens to us after we die, other than just decaying, but its no more valid that any other belief, like the tooth fairy, without proof.
I'm very proud to know I am not at all rational. I believe no person is rational-that we are reasonable, that we are intelligent, but rational I do not believe. I firmly believe that everything you explain as rational, I explain as hindsight. You only believe in quantum or electromagnitism because it's already been proven. If you were born 100 years ago, you would not believe that the speed of light was 2,987,000 meters per second; except people who did believe it was a constant value did the work to prove it was so, while people who did not believe it did not work to disprove/prove it. You frown upon God as bunk-but what happens if 2 years from now a researcher discovers proof? Rationally, of course you'll change your mind, because there is proof. But the scientist is the one who believes, trusts, has faith that there is a good, and works to show so despite the taunts and the comments against him. Just because you change your mind with proof doesn't make you any less wrong; and the person who believed without proof just didn't think in the right way or asked the right questions. However, they would still be right.
The truth is HARD to find and requires one to set aside ones *beliefs*, think rationally, logically and work within the scientific method - and even then to look harder
Would it surprise you if I told you I don't think there is a universal truth, or even much of a local truth? Knowing relativity makes one understand everything is always tainted by interpretation and context, and that the only real constant absolute may just be the speed of light... and even that is being questioned right now. If one did not have beliefs and preconceptions before using the scientific method, there would be nothing to prove or disprove. You must believe in something, whether you believe it right or wrong, befure you can show it to be right or wrong. Milliken, if you know him, showed that the electric charge was quantized; but he only showed it as such because he believed very firmly that it was so, months, years, before it could be shown. The key to the scientific method is to be willing to give up your faith and belief if you are shown to be wrong.
I do agree that we have a problem with poor thinking and short-term thinking, but the solutions have little to do with rationality and proof; science works wonderfully with faith and belief, with reasonability and generality and beauty being the much more important forces than anything else.
AS
AS
Excuse me, but can you please enlighten me?
/.
What is so wrong with the statement:
Open Source requirements are similar to those of
Free Software, but the packaging is different,
lacking any value-laden, ideological generalities.
Maybe I don't know enough grammer(I don't have a law degree from Harvard, am working for a CS/EE at Caltech), or I don't know enough about Open Source vs Free Software. I admit, sometimes I get confused by all the rhetoric and semantics bandied about among the many factions that visit daily
And exactly how does affirmative action make her statement any more or less ignorant than your own? Perhaps it is just I being ignorant, and as soon as someone enlightens me I can join you in your elevated position of worth and value, and laugh at RLE and others who make the same ignorant mistake I must have for not catching whatever you have seen.
Thanks.
AS
AS
If I am not mistaken, clones are almost inherently unstable copies of the originals. Something about forced resonance, cloning errors, and the high force potential of the originals makes the Jedi clones very dangerous and prone to the dark.
I would imagine it be pointless to clone normal people, as robots and droids would be much more effective. So using a Force virus to disable or weaken the clones would not be so Dark, except perhaps dangerous in that normal healthy Light Jedi would also be affected.
Besides the fact that part of the allure of the Star Wars universe is the small band of heroes myth; said band sorta gets lost in a crowd of thousands...
AS
AS
Sometimes you do just pay for talent;
Assuming you are aware of the Quake series of games, and the forthcoming Quake3:Arena, here is some code that is not GPLed, with some minor competition from Crystal Space, but far ahead of Crystal Space at the same time.
Their source is not open, as that is what they have spent years of their lives working on, but on the other hand they make no secret of what exactly they do or why they do it. If another group of coders feel up to the challenge, they are free to implement and play and release on their own everything mentioned by Id software. Nor do they restrict usage of their engine; you can download the binaries off the net, and using free tools one could make from scratch their own Quake game, and release it for free. If you want to make money off the time effort, energy, and skill you put into the game, you have to license the code from Id, but in response you also get the source and support as well.
Can you counter that Crystal Space or any other group are as dedicated, able, or competent as Id software? Only thus far commercial products have been even close, competatively, and thus when we pay for their products we are paying for state of the art cutting edge. No insult to those working on Crystal Space, it really does look nice, but without the mix of commercial rewards and personal dedication found in a small company as Id software, things don't get done nearly as fast. Deadlines, costs, budgets, and resource constraints work wonderfully to sharpen and hone a company and group that doesn't really exist outside in the Open Source model, except perhaps for passion, and I don't think you'll find a lack of passion at Id software.
AS
AS
So? How does this demean RLE or anyone else to believe this? The original poster made some comments about her qualifications for her beliefs.
How is the belief that stars can affect us be any more or less arrogant that there exists a supreme creator that sits and watches over all of us like a parental figure, throwing at us tragedy and misery, joy, bliss, and heartache? Or the belief that the entire universe and all of existence can be analyzed, dissected, understood, and predicted? That seems awfully misguided and arrogant, and is the norm for many scientists, whom the original poster was praising.
How can you say that stars and such don't affect our personal relationships? How can you show there isn't a God laughing at our foolishness, or crying at our stupidity, or smiling at our uniqueness? How can you prove that fate or destiny doesn't exist?
AS
AS
There are subtle differences that even I don't quite understand that some people happen to believe.
As far as I understand, there are several different views;
free software; freely given away to be freely used. Source is by no means always included. The ability to use Id software's Quake/Quake2 engine to make any game and release it for free, for example. You don't get access to the source for the engines, nor can you modify them nor improve them except for utilization of a plug in modification architecture.
Free Software; freely given away to be used, learned from, modified, and redistributed. A unique concept in a world where ideas are worth money. Sometimes mixed with Open Source... I think Free Software can't be sold, but I'm not sure. Sometimes Linux is classified under Free Software, sometimes it isn't.
Open Source; source is always available. The option of pricing and selling exists. Modifications to source must always be released if a product or distibution is made, IIRC. Linux is very much Open Source; sometimes it is also Free Software. I get confused sometimes =)
If your distinction between free and open is not about price, I can't really cogently answer you. Sorry.
AS
AS
No, he's not the main force behind Linux, necessarily, but he is/was very powerful in the Free Software/Open Source movement. My own conception of him sees him in the same light as Marx, perhaps, because of his strong ideologies and beliefs. I don't necessarily believe Marx was wrong either, just that all the particular implementations left some things to be desired. RMS really does seem to believe that information has no reason to be closed and proprietary, not since doing so only retards software development and such.
The commercial push of Linux is very strongly scented of a Darwinistic evolutionary competative situation in which the best implementations, the best service, and the most marketing will probabaly prevail, and that is all well and Good. But RMS complains that the intellectual/spiritual side of the equation is being ignored by those who have supplanted the movement with the Open Source initiative; he wants attention not only for his own ego, as he admits, but so he can use the attention to focus on the values and strengths of Free Source; not Costless Software, but that information and exchange of ideas is good and vital.
It has nothing to do with how the real world operates; RMS sees an ideal, wants the ideal, and is working for it, even if it is unrealistic or unattainable. The Open Source model's engineering benefits are immense, what with massive parallization and debugging, fast turnaround, distributed responsibility and costs, and self improvement, but RMS is pushing something else just as good/noble/beneficial, but for different reasons and effects.
AS
AS
I'm not sure I want to believe in the mass warfare scene mentioned in the page...
Brings to mind the stupid war scenes in Starship Troopers. Unless Jedi can deal with radiation, explode a couple neutron bombs in the upper atmosphere to neutralize life forms. Very evil, I know, and indiscriminate against civilians and natural fauna/flora...
Or a Jedi virus... A Force poison or Force disease, or a Force bomb...
As inspiring as masses of Jedi might be, it seems particularly unproductive, unless written in such a way that such an approach is necessary and unavoidable. I just can't think of any reason myself... Thinking along the lines of the storming of Normandy/Omaha beach in WWII, except that if airborn weapons are available, its stupid to waste people this way, esp if there are millions of clones on the one side and an army of unique individuals on the other...
But as always I trust to Lucas' vision, and just assume it is a rumor.
AS
AS
What's your beef against astrology, just because you don't believe in it? How does belief in anything question anyone's common sense? It's not that I agree or disagree, but your excuses and rationalizations for your belief bother me. Even scientists, especially scientists, use your mentioned method of thinking; they already believe or know or assume something, and all of their experiements then are to prove and disprove their belief; you don't come to a conclusion without knowing what you are looking for in the first place!
It may sound odd, but it's really true. A scientist(maybe not all, but the ones I work with at Caltech), have an intuitive or idealized model that has no proof, no understanding, or logic, except it seems right, or it would simplify a whole lot of things if the universe really did work like this, so they set up all these experiments and tests to show that the universe does work like this... If they can't show it, then they throw it away, of course, but the underlying process is to have a preconcieved belief beforehand! Scientists are no more trained to think logically than anyone else-we are just able to change our minds more easily, if given enough proof, and sometimes not even that.
I can't and won't argue with your analysis or opinion over her personality and abilities, since they are exactly opinions, but I strongly disagree with your comments about her beliefs, opinions, and mindset; to each their own, and if it works for her, there really is no reason for you to comment or criticize her for them.
AS
AS
I feel sorry for you that you seem to only attract such a poor sample of the female species. Perhaps it's your attitude that does it?
People, men and women, respond according to the body language and signal you send off, and by this insulting piece, if you are anything at all like this tactless, rude, and discourteous post, I wouldn't be surprised if women tended to act as you've described.
Heck, if you were like this around me I would be pissed and edgy too, and I'm not bisexual, overweight, nihlistic, or arrogant. I just don't like people who seem to be like you...
AS
AS
Argh. What is this? Some schoolyard playground? Name calling and smearing and ugh.
If I were in her position and someone challenged me like that, I would believe it was a sexist comment or statement; and it was fully in her right to be upset. While I don't myself believe she was in the right to start calling names herself, it can be excused for being upset. Perhaps it was unintentional or a coincidence that the original poster decried 2 female journalists, Judith Lewis and now Rebeca Eisenberg, but it sure sounded sexist because of that.
What reason/excuse/rationalization do you have for name calling unless it's to continue the life of this thread by calling people out to respond? It's bad enough that there is such a low female:male ratio in the techno-geek circles without us making it worse by insulting, demeaning, or assaulting those who do frequent our circles. I'm not talking special treatment, but about courtesy and respect, difficult things to conjure in anonymous cyber-realities, but still worthwhile and noble things.
As well, you're probably a lost cause...
AS
AS
Why is Wica any more nonsense than Christianity or Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism, Shinto, etc?
Personal beliefs are exactly that, and while may embarrass or bother you, it's not exactly as if she or anyone else is forcing it upon you. Myself I don't really know the precepts of Wica, except one of my friends dabbles/is interested in it, but that doesn't detract any more than another of my friends being Christian or Buddhist, or preferring Red Hat to Debian to SuSE, or liking pork over chicken over tofu.
Astrology is only as bunk as believing in a hellfire and brimstone God, Hell, and Heavan, or in little tiny partially charged wave-particles interacting via strange carriers to produce forces of interactions, repulsion, attraction, and other things. I myself don't believe in astrology, but I also don't believe in Hell, eternal damnation, or eternal paradise. I believe in an afterlife and a soul, and other things, but there is no proof to them.
A person is a bundle of contradictions, paradoxes, and misleading beliefs-but don't hold it agains her or anyone else, since everyone is like that, even you...
AS
AS
I am impressed. It's refreshing to actually get feedback and hear from the author of content linked to by /.
/. Every voice is important, otherwise we get swamped by noise and pointless rhetoric of trolls and flames.
It is a bother how rude and disrespectful people can get, but I hope it doesn't stop you from continuing your contributions, esp to
I at least appreciated the article =) Back to bashing trolls and posting comments...
AS
AS
I'm wondering myself if the previous poster has some sort of gender bias against the reporter...
I liked the article, if a bit short. Some more in depth anaylsis into the issues, even if biased, incorrect, and silly, gives us at least the mindset of those that are ignorant... However, I didn't think she was any of those.
AS
AS
What does morals have to do with anything?
Are you talking business in general? I can agree. Id software specifically? It would hard pressed for me to concede that these 12 people have no morals, and that all the care about is money. Sure, the money is important, but if money were all they cared about, they wouldn't be porting to Linux, they wouldn't be using OpenGL, and they wouldn't be making Quake3:Arena.
Linux is an unproven untested market.
OpenGL is not quite as well supported as M$'s DirectX libraries...
Quake3:Arena is a risk; they want to do something fun, entertaining, and worthwhile. If they wanted more money, they would do something like Half Life or KingPin or Sin, or heck, even a Deer Hunter clone.
I fail to see your point to my arguments, or to any arguments. Sure, you lie, cheat, and shoot people for money. Who cares? What's the big deal about worshipping money? I much prefer looking and flirting with cute girls over working, but I work just enough to support myself, and live comfortable. No more. Is money something worthwhile in itself?
Why am I the sucker, by the way? It would be nice if you could tell me, so I can fix whatever gaping flaw I have that you see...
AS
AS
???
Why even posting if it isn't a useful comment or discussion?
Fine, take your $50 elsewhere if you don't want Q3:Arena. It's your money, your time, your leisure. Go grab FFVIII or watch a few movies or get drunk or whatever. It's not my concern your free time and money. I'm talking because I want to hear comments and discussion. I have yet to hear a pirate be defend themselves; those that try before they buy aren't really the pirates I talk or complain about, because they do buy the games they play.
I'm waiting to hear from a pirate to defend their actions cogently, legitamately, and carefully. I'm feeling much better now, so no more death threats from me =) Ahh. Sugar.
AS
AS
Hey, I understand that. There are many of my friends who believe in a try before you buy policy; I don't begrudge them this, as it is a good gauge on whether to spend $50 or so. I get around this by renting for a few dollars, or watching all my friends play a game or two before deciding I want to own it myself. It just bothered me that the original poster didn't make any mention of his real intentions beyond downloading the game. This is real entertainment, probably worth hundreds of hours in the near future, and it would make my investment be worth much less if some guys downloaded and never played it. If it plays it for day and decides he doesn't want it, then fine. Not a problem I have.
AS
AS