...that the wide use of Linux in the court system will make judges just a little more skeptical of the legal antics that Microsoft will undoubtedly be throwing against it in the years ahead.
They are completely correct. It was the first programming language for a personal computer.
That's still a far cry from the first programming language, which is what the quote actually says. Some of us were happily banging away in languages like Fortran and PL/1 well before then.
Still, their place in history can't be denied. They were at the forefront of an industry in its infancy and did perhaps more than anyone to make it a great one.
No. We don't want a lot of power in the hands of the people biotech wise.
That's silly. What we're talking about is "open sourcing" knowledge and understanding (which by and large already are) and the computational tools for manipulating it. Putting that to practical use will always require a great deal of scientific background and resources, just as it always has. Making biological knowledge itself a "state secret" is the best way to destroy it.
After a while I simply adopt the attitude of "you guys figure this out, send me a copy of the court ruling, if it's OK to have it we'll put the site back
The default ought to be for the site to stay up until you get a valid court order to take it down, no lawyers required. As things are, the RIAA, MPAA, and their ilk are shifting the cost of defending their copyrights onto you.
Considering attitudes like this are so prevalent in the Linux community...
Attitudes like this? The parent merely speculated about why one might make one choice (a full desktop) over another (a leaner window manager). I use Gnome and am not the least bit offended; I like the eye candy. You don't see attitudes like this in the Windows community only because there are no such choices. We simply do as Microsoft says.
I see this project having a difficult time making a dent.
Who said anything about making a dent? It's a homebrew project that achieves some reasonable capability on the cheap. Even once it's refined to the point where it equals professional gear in quality of output (if not ease of use), there will always be those who prefer to shell out the big bucks, for the prestige or whatever (they're audiophiles!).
So, for those of you who think this kind of research is a terrible thing, an affront to God and man -- please go off somewhere to die quietly. And those of us who choose to live will drink a toast on your graves.
Most of us would like to live longer, healthy lives. But here's an important point that I haven't seen anyone make here yet: Aging is not a "disease" or a "wearing out" of the body. Aging and death is an extremely important evolutionary adaptation that promotes the ultimate survival of the species -- all species -- by limiting the number of generations that individuals typically span. We know that it is important because (a) we are beginning to understand the genetic programming and biological mechanisms that cause aging, and (b) we see that there are no species (as far as I am aware) that have survived without this programming and these mechanisms.
There are likely many reasons for this, but one that comes to mind is that species cannot adapt genetically very well if populations don't "turn over" at a reasonable rate. I know that this is true in computer simulations of evolutionary processes, because I've done quite a few myself. The ratio of average lifespan to generation length is a critical variable along with mutation rates and recombination frequencies; it has an optimum above which things just get muddy and fitness doesn't progress much over time.
I probably wouldn't pass up the opportunity myself either, but a "cure" for aging would almost certainly be a very bad thing for the future of mankind.
After owning the fricking country for the last year and then some, the fact that no evidence has been found for any stated prewar justification is troubling, to say the least.
Not to mention the fact that they have had "access" to just about everybody who would know about WMD if they existed, and still have gotten nowhere (despite having "ways" of making people talk). Perhaps they didn't bother to ask, knowing that it was all bullshit from the beginning...
but he has shown initiative and would have a great deal to contribute to open source development (especially, if he wings a job in a company with a good repository of juicy proprietory code.)
Ummm... I think you have it in reverse, don't you? When you write open source, it's out there for everyone to see. On the other hand, who knows what's behind closed doors, or where it came from...
.... and Linux joined the world of professional software development!! =)
I hope not, since the "unprofessional" model has worked so well (and I'm not being sarcastic). This is more an acknowledgement that GNU/Linux is swimming in dangerous waters, and has enemies with money to burn. Even though SCO's claims have apparently turned out to be lame, you have to assume that intellectual property traps are being set left and right.
But isn't world oil production determined by the large cartels -- OPEC et al -- and not by the amount of oil left?
No, the looming crisis has to do with the amount of oil that is physically left in the ground, and the sharply rising cost of exploiting it as existing oilfields are depleted. We're talking decades and not centuries here.
But as Dick Cheney says, sometimes you gotta say, "WTF", and burn all you can before your kids and grandkids get ahold of it!
Of course, Godwin's Law is embraced as well by people that really are comparable to Nazis, since the label is generally bad PR even to many of those that it fits...
This reasoning really isn't too surprising, if you understand what his Gaia hypothesis is all about. The earth, as a living organism, will "adapt" to the insult of a little nuclear ("nucular", if you're a Bushie) waste scattered about, through some sort of homeostatic mechanism. Apparently this doesn't apply to rising CO2 levels, however...
You're missing a fundamental concept of biological evolution.
No, I don't think I am.
Evolution happens by mutation. Often, these mutations are environmentally caused. Sometimes by some weird random genetic crossing.
You're wrong on both counts. While there have been reports of environmentally induced mutation, they are undoubtedly very rare. The vast majority of mutations are essentially random, and the role of the environment is selection. "Genetic crossings" have nothing to do with mutation, but of course are very important in evolution (whether you mean matings or the exchange of transgenic elements).
In fact, it has long been standard practice to induce random mutation in plant seeds through exposure to radiation and/or chemical mutagens (like colchicine) and then to screen for desired traits. Just about all of the grains, fruits, and vegetables we find in the supermarket were developed this way, as were almost all of the flowers we plant on our gardens. Modern methods of genetic engineering are much more efficient, lead more directly to the desired modification, and result in far fewer genetic "side effects" that must be culled out through prolongerd directed breeding. As far as I know, those older methods -- messy and unpredictable as they are -- have never provoked any widespread public opposition.
So if we ever get to the point of inserting modfied DNA into the human genome to "cure" mutations that exist in family lines, will parents have to pay royalties in order to have children?
Now that is interesting. Absent any laws to the contrary, I suppose there could be a royalty on each offspring with the new gene; wouldn't matter how many times you tried. Good thing patents only last 17 years!
Slashdot Mirror
...that the wide use of Linux in the court system will make judges just a little more skeptical of the legal antics that Microsoft will undoubtedly be throwing against it in the years ahead.
I made up my own religion, and it's irrefutably the only non-silly one. I'm the only person on Earth who's not going straight to Hell!
And you don't even have to do that.
I've been using that for years. Always wondered why I couldn't find an O'Reilly Nutshell book on it, though...
That's still a far cry from the first programming language, which is what the quote actually says. Some of us were happily banging away in languages like Fortran and PL/1 well before then.
Still, their place in history can't be denied. They were at the forefront of an industry in its infancy and did perhaps more than anyone to make it a great one.
Ummm... Just how is that?
That's silly. What we're talking about is "open sourcing" knowledge and understanding (which by and large already are) and the computational tools for manipulating it. Putting that to practical use will always require a great deal of scientific background and resources, just as it always has. Making biological knowledge itself a "state secret" is the best way to destroy it.
The default ought to be for the site to stay up until you get a valid court order to take it down, no lawyers required. As things are, the RIAA, MPAA, and their ilk are shifting the cost of defending their copyrights onto you.
Attitudes like this? The parent merely speculated about why one might make one choice (a full desktop) over another (a leaner window manager). I use Gnome and am not the least bit offended; I like the eye candy. You don't see attitudes like this in the Windows community only because there are no such choices. We simply do as Microsoft says.
Sounds like your dumb friends have a dumb friend, themselves...
True enough. But nevertheless, I stand by my original statement.
Then consider the cost of 10 bicycles...
I'll take Mary Ann over Ginger any day...
Who said anything about making a dent? It's a homebrew project that achieves some reasonable capability on the cheap. Even once it's refined to the point where it equals professional gear in quality of output (if not ease of use), there will always be those who prefer to shell out the big bucks, for the prestige or whatever (they're audiophiles!).
Most of us would like to live longer, healthy lives. But here's an important point that I haven't seen anyone make here yet: Aging is not a "disease" or a "wearing out" of the body. Aging and death is an extremely important evolutionary adaptation that promotes the ultimate survival of the species -- all species -- by limiting the number of generations that individuals typically span. We know that it is important because (a) we are beginning to understand the genetic programming and biological mechanisms that cause aging, and (b) we see that there are no species (as far as I am aware) that have survived without this programming and these mechanisms.
There are likely many reasons for this, but one that comes to mind is that species cannot adapt genetically very well if populations don't "turn over" at a reasonable rate. I know that this is true in computer simulations of evolutionary processes, because I've done quite a few myself. The ratio of average lifespan to generation length is a critical variable along with mutation rates and recombination frequencies; it has an optimum above which things just get muddy and fitness doesn't progress much over time.
I probably wouldn't pass up the opportunity myself either, but a "cure" for aging would almost certainly be a very bad thing for the future of mankind.
Not to mention the fact that they have had "access" to just about everybody who would know about WMD if they existed, and still have gotten nowhere (despite having "ways" of making people talk). Perhaps they didn't bother to ask, knowing that it was all bullshit from the beginning...
Ummm... I think you have it in reverse, don't you? When you write open source, it's out there for everyone to see. On the other hand, who knows what's behind closed doors, or where it came from...
I hope not, since the "unprofessional" model has worked so well (and I'm not being sarcastic). This is more an acknowledgement that GNU/Linux is swimming in dangerous waters, and has enemies with money to burn. Even though SCO's claims have apparently turned out to be lame, you have to assume that intellectual property traps are being set left and right.
No, the looming crisis has to do with the amount of oil that is physically left in the ground, and the sharply rising cost of exploiting it as existing oilfields are depleted. We're talking decades and not centuries here.
But as Dick Cheney says, sometimes you gotta say, "WTF", and burn all you can before your kids and grandkids get ahold of it!
Of course, Godwin's Law is embraced as well by people that really are comparable to Nazis, since the label is generally bad PR even to many of those that it fits...
This reasoning really isn't too surprising, if you understand what his Gaia hypothesis is all about. The earth, as a living organism, will "adapt" to the insult of a little nuclear ("nucular", if you're a Bushie) waste scattered about, through some sort of homeostatic mechanism. Apparently this doesn't apply to rising CO2 levels, however...
Ummm... I think that was precisely the point. Our "need" for behemoth vehicles in the U.S. causes us to scarf more petroleum.
No, I don't think I am.
Evolution happens by mutation. Often, these mutations are environmentally caused. Sometimes by some weird random genetic crossing.
You're wrong on both counts. While there have been reports of environmentally induced mutation, they are undoubtedly very rare. The vast majority of mutations are essentially random, and the role of the environment is selection. "Genetic crossings" have nothing to do with mutation, but of course are very important in evolution (whether you mean matings or the exchange of transgenic elements).
In fact, it has long been standard practice to induce random mutation in plant seeds through exposure to radiation and/or chemical mutagens (like colchicine) and then to screen for desired traits. Just about all of the grains, fruits, and vegetables we find in the supermarket were developed this way, as were almost all of the flowers we plant on our gardens. Modern methods of genetic engineering are much more efficient, lead more directly to the desired modification, and result in far fewer genetic "side effects" that must be culled out through prolongerd directed breeding. As far as I know, those older methods -- messy and unpredictable as they are -- have never provoked any widespread public opposition.
That's not going to help much if you suddenly need many thousands of tons of it...
Now that is interesting. Absent any laws to the contrary, I suppose there could be a royalty on each offspring with the new gene; wouldn't matter how many times you tried. Good thing patents only last 17 years!