Except there aren't really apps for that kind of screen in Windows... Same goes for Linux DE-s. They used Android because there are apps for that kind of screen and input type. Intel wants to get a grip of the mobile market so I guess it's natural to promote Android x86 and start from there up. Do you see a better alternative?
Well, yeah, because it's faith.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is also faith.
But the belief without proof is put there to be challenged, rather than covering every choice with reasoning without data.
The merits of this approach is that tradition is a part of culture, it has extensive peer review and may sometimes, by trusting weighted data over random one, provide a better base for an uninformed decision. Given I don't have the means to keep myself informed in every topic I may stumble upon, I prefer it while I accumulate real data, than having to build my reasoning from scratch. I also believe that if you prove that something is false you have better chance of taking it into consideration than memorizing the reasoning by itself.
To my defense, I wasn't really trolling, but you guys made me realize my true calling. What's a troll without people picking his teeth... And before I turn bitter, you should really ask yourself about that law the following 2 questions: "Why are those guys so into pushing a philosophical belief as something to look at in science classes?" and "Why are you defending the other perspective?"
We had three people showing the mess of religious creationism, the history of the debate you aren't capable of putting to rest, and why that philosophy reveals flaws in evolutionism and other scientific theories while being so wrinkled. The point was some of that had the merit of showing we don't know everything. And the conclusion is that beyond the things I know I have no control over, there are things I assume I have no control over, and maybe there are things I can't imagine i have control over, but something definitively has.
On the upside you are better defined as individuals than we are. Back here, it's actually hard to cut your roots and be an entirely different and unique individual. We fail when we are put against peer pressure, unless family legacy contains some exotic treats...
I for one have inherited my mother's (and uncle's) bad habit of presenting the opposite perspective to anything. It really bugs people.
Usually I reach a point where my perspective has been shared with my interlocutor, as I understand what you are referring. Before I declare myself beaten, as you had a better argument, I will mention only that I don't find religion entirely illogical, nor it's adherents deaf to reason. I believe the point they defend is worth defending not until the scientific community agrees upon the most likely theory, but until they can understand that the scientific theory has more merit than tradition or dogma.
So I wasn't talking about religious fundamentalists, I was defending creationist position from a philosophic standpoint, I respect it and I expect it to be treated not as point of divergence, but as a basis to be confirmed or refuted by a solid solution, just like evolutionism.
Ok so you are coming from the christian approach.
But what about the idea that life was created by an entity and given the model that for the last, say, million of years evolved to what's today? And by evolved I don't mean from ape to human. Let's assume primitives humans were also created in this process.
We have evidence that some of that doesn't add up. Let's add the hypothesis that whatever intelligence did it could theoretically hide it's traces in order to, say, conserve purity and independence of intelligence here. This is a wild shot, but is it plausible?
We were taught that faith is what guides us in the darkness, and that it guides decisions when there isn't anything to base your decision on. We use it to describe trust until we can identify it's statistical model. We use it to describe feelings and desires until we dip into psychology and chemical reactions. If you would rather flip a coin or roll a dice...
I have to agree, I didn't pick the right analogy.
My whole point was that science and knowledge is an ongoing process and shouldn't dismiss ideas or philosophies especially in corner cases.
I understand evolutionism and I know it holds true given all the hypothesis are true. Mutation and genetics are elements that validate the model, but you cannot assume or prove that an external factor couldn't have created the model in the first place. This is devil's advocate here, but why would you be comfortable with people excluding one of the possibilities just because they got their reasoning hinted in some tradition or belief.
I absolutely hate seeing people entangled in some rigid thinking because their religion says so, as they are incapable to enrich themselves just because they would rather defer to some dogma, but I hate more people that cannot accept a different perspective if it doesn't originate in whatever is approved by scientific forums. We lose in divergent thinking, in originality and spirituality, as we are incapable in acknowledging our limits and by extension our requirements in development.
In Romania we don't have bills with what gets taught in school, we have a ministry that pushes a curriculum and teachers who more or less ignores it. We were taught that pride is foolish and counter-productive, and that it's way better to healthily weigh perspectives even when the result proves us wrong. We still have the pride to never admit fault, but we acknowledge the winning reasoning.
If in United States there are, as we would say, more types of freedom, why isn't education free enough that each parent can contribute to their children's education with whatever they see fit? We call this "the seven years from home", and defends not only individuals and their particularities, but also community and family legacy, tradition. Kids shouldn't go through assembly lines, they need to be treated as evolving individuals, cultivating their spirituality and later on filling the gaps with rigorous knowledge, where the science holds.
God dammit how I need to mod you up.
Cosmology formed by uniting multiple disciplines and therefore has more theories than I'd like to know. Anyway... some of them feel like scientific proof that God exist and there is merit for both the data and the rationale used. If geekoid likes to defend a pure atheist point of view that's cool. But by science method of reasoning he should be absolutely certain that he can find an answer to questions like: What happened before the Big Bang? and Where all of Universe came from? Since I cannot defend with certainty any scientific answer that doesn't raise problem I personally default to faith, as I accept that I lack both evidence and intelligence to explain corner cases of science.
Creationism is not science, it's philosophy. And philosophy is not really crap, but rather a kick-start in knowledge. It has known limits and stops at the questions. And I give it merits where others would not because a well-chosen placeholder for gaps is for me preferable to the illusion that there's nothing there to challenge my reasoning.
Well you blew my funny remark, but it's ok. Thank you. You realize that when the games are ready and the word gets out people will try to buy it, until they find them advertised as free. FSF is an example of civic sense in the global village, it's a shame that so few get it. I'm looking forward to see the results.
I agree with your point of view, but from a spiritual point of view all religious communities agree that we lack the inner resources to guide ourselves for the better. Think of it as you're the one claiming global warming needs irrefutable proof when some concerns are proposed for study. You see them as trying to do something fishy, or waste time, while they see you as being ignorant and malicious.
You should push your objections with an argument they understand.
Well I give merits to the scientific method, but it's not really healthy to expect it to explain everything. Some people have faiths/confessions/beliefs beyond what they can prove. For the simple minded, as we're not all of us geniuses, it's a way to adhere to moral principles and describe a comfortable personality. The upside is that people unsuitable for science exploration won't run amok challenging all the rules and questioning everything, and the downside is that they'll prefer not to think using scientific method rigorously. This usually happens.
As for presenting creationism in science class, the only way that would be alright to happen is by defending some of it's merits in cosmology. Otherwise I agree with you: It's unsuitable for a science class and should be treated as philosophy, rather than scientific discipline. Here in Romania, as the official religion is orthodoxy, we have religion classes in schools. More than that, in my college there is a cosmology discipline taught by a philosopher, a teologist and a math teacher putting in front of the students the merits of different philosophies and limits in human knowledge. We were taught to question both traditional religious teachings and science theorems in a way that isn't disruptive in our environment/community and while respecting each other's choice.
Well some cosmologists aim for a compromise, why the hell shouldn't all be presented and let each kid/student/person/parent choose and pursue. They did it to my generation and it wasn't that bad... I mean some cosmological theories cover the fact that we evolved to this point, but that the Universe was created by some omnipotent being, a level of intelligence that ensured the event with minimal chance of us being here happen (did I just write that?).
SJVN is the mnemonic for "That Guy In That One Video In That One Slashdot Article Saying Something Before I Got Lazy And Moved To Comments Instead Of Watching"... I believe TGITOVITOSASSBIGLAMTCIOW was too long so they shortened it.Also, the abbreviation sounded a little weird...
You mean GNU's Debian GNU/Linux software distribution, which is pretty much the largest and one of the most influential distribution in time and space (yea, I just wrote that on purpose). Maybe GPLv3 looks like the other kind of evil, disruptive for business and a dorkly way to artificially create a difference between free and open, but FOSS communities will not abandon the huge Debian repositories. Before you abandon GPLv3 by assuming it's impractical for business and a deterrent of real investment you should get into their shoes and their mindset to see that the letter and the spirit of that evil license has a slot for decent business models and thriving communities.
No, the year of Linux desktop isn't afoot by a long shot. No, I don't believe Linux can fit the bill for anyone. No, i'm not some kind of cultist preaching "free" and "open". But I believe the fun part is just beginning and I should remind you that a few years ago most people assumed all computers run Windows, and now everyone assumes BSD licensed stuff will replace GPLv3 stuff.
On the feature side, there are countless opportunities, but they'll be dependent upon your framework and what it does. For example, if you have a service that is geolocation aware, your propietary database might be a list of locations of interest.
That's basically giving the software for free and selling complementary stuff (be it specific data, content, solution based upon the software, access to some physical service such as call center, hosting of data, hosting of application, hosting of infrastructure, training, feedback and support, turnkey customization, specific paid updates/features...). It allows the base product to be maintained closed to the community, QA and governance ensures compatibility and direction and you also make money. The easiest money you get from the lazy, which is clever, and I guess plenty of people are doing it and making big money.
Linux can't become 'the PC OS' by following three fundamental axes: costs, consistency and substance.
Following the cost axis, on your left, you see free software, open, with some documentation and inconsistent support. NO WARRANTIES AND NO MARKETING. It is not a cow so don't try to milk it.
As for consistency, freedom made it so colorful and chaotic it's really hard to get around or use it as a base. On the other side it's very flexible, customisable and powerfully diverse. It doesn't have a head to decapitate, it's like a commie hive, based on equality of itches to scratch.
For the final axis, it lacks the solid state and logic Windows or Mac has, that one direction, that one single point of delivery, it's divergently creative, it's really "meta" so you can't envisage it as a product, or an array of products and so it cares less about that and if it runs products or not. Linux stopped being just one penguin the second Linus shared it's code.
I actually use only Linux at home because it costs me less, gives me freedom and it never stops challenging me. Now if you would stop these damn articles and let me fix my Xorg.conf it would be wonderful.
Don't be too rush to state that the Soviet model is flawed enough to be impractical. Most of the communism's flaws were from the way information and intelligence was handled, and for that matter pure capitalism doesn't really cut it either.
I think neither freedom, nor dictatorship can, as core postulates, solve problems and sustain (business)systems when you discuss ways to make money, because even if you aggressively centralise planning and logistics, or aggressively decentralise all management people can not properly optimise and perform efficiently at work, no matter how you regulate information and intelligence. i believe that an organic approach based on fairness and well planned renewability as an ideology should be a good direction both in politics and business, and this type of policy can assure well regulated and efficient workflow.
This "free-market" you are talking about allow simultaneous existence of both cvasi-anarchic FOSS and cvasi-dictatorial corporative environments. They both have huge advantages and disadvantages, so really you cannot (using curent ideologies, that is) praise, nor condemn Nokia's recent choices in business. They want better penetration of american markets and a powerful platform available fast that can comply with their intelectual property policies. That's what Symbian was before they open sourced it for lack of developer traction. They started toying with Maemo and later MeeGo in order to replace it, only to bump into the same policy problem that made development slow, and later to not consider Android as platform. They wanted to control their property better and still make money. Now they don't really need Qt, they'll sell it, it's users are almost used to it, as it happened before, and also FOSS world has plenty examples, so there won't be that much trouble. Notice how freedom to own and freedom to share can't mix up properly here. This is a giant deja-vu and proper renewable business model have both as an obstacle. Lack of choices versus lack of moderation.
---
imma probably make smartphone apps based on ruby and GTK and someday people will buy it, if I do a fair job....
Well nVidia can't really quit developing graphic card drivers and promoting the Windows platform... I mean FOSS users would like seeing nVidia giving more attention to linux and the other *nix-es, and also getting back at Microsoft by moving to OSX should still benefit FOSS, at least in a way.
But as long as there are Microsoft technologies such as DirectX and Direct3D in the middle, PC Gaming will more or less be a Windows asset, without Microsoft backing anything...
Slashdot Mirror
Except there aren't really apps for that kind of screen in Windows... Same goes for Linux DE-s. They used Android because there are apps for that kind of screen and input type. Intel wants to get a grip of the mobile market so I guess it's natural to promote Android x86 and start from there up. Do you see a better alternative?
The kind that installs and never uninstalls? We already have that.
Thank you, you just made me believe again in /. . I also got modded down for the same point.
Well, yeah, because it's faith.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is also faith.
But the belief without proof is put there to be challenged, rather than covering every choice with reasoning without data. The merits of this approach is that tradition is a part of culture, it has extensive peer review and may sometimes, by trusting weighted data over random one, provide a better base for an uninformed decision. Given I don't have the means to keep myself informed in every topic I may stumble upon, I prefer it while I accumulate real data, than having to build my reasoning from scratch. I also believe that if you prove that something is false you have better chance of taking it into consideration than memorizing the reasoning by itself.
To my defense, I wasn't really trolling, but you guys made me realize my true calling. What's a troll without people picking his teeth... And before I turn bitter, you should really ask yourself about that law the following 2 questions: "Why are those guys so into pushing a philosophical belief as something to look at in science classes?" and "Why are you defending the other perspective?"
We had three people showing the mess of religious creationism, the history of the debate you aren't capable of putting to rest, and why that philosophy reveals flaws in evolutionism and other scientific theories while being so wrinkled. The point was some of that had the merit of showing we don't know everything. And the conclusion is that beyond the things I know I have no control over, there are things I assume I have no control over, and maybe there are things I can't imagine i have control over, but something definitively has.
On the upside you are better defined as individuals than we are. Back here, it's actually hard to cut your roots and be an entirely different and unique individual. We fail when we are put against peer pressure, unless family legacy contains some exotic treats...
I for one have inherited my mother's (and uncle's) bad habit of presenting the opposite perspective to anything. It really bugs people.
Usually I reach a point where my perspective has been shared with my interlocutor, as I understand what you are referring. Before I declare myself beaten, as you had a better argument, I will mention only that I don't find religion entirely illogical, nor it's adherents deaf to reason. I believe the point they defend is worth defending not until the scientific community agrees upon the most likely theory, but until they can understand that the scientific theory has more merit than tradition or dogma.
So I wasn't talking about religious fundamentalists, I was defending creationist position from a philosophic standpoint, I respect it and I expect it to be treated not as point of divergence, but as a basis to be confirmed or refuted by a solid solution, just like evolutionism.
Ok so you are coming from the christian approach.
But what about the idea that life was created by an entity and given the model that for the last, say, million of years evolved to what's today? And by evolved I don't mean from ape to human. Let's assume primitives humans were also created in this process.
We have evidence that some of that doesn't add up. Let's add the hypothesis that whatever intelligence did it could theoretically hide it's traces in order to, say, conserve purity and independence of intelligence here. This is a wild shot, but is it plausible?
We were taught that faith is what guides us in the darkness, and that it guides decisions when there isn't anything to base your decision on. We use it to describe trust until we can identify it's statistical model. We use it to describe feelings and desires until we dip into psychology and chemical reactions. If you would rather flip a coin or roll a dice...
I have to agree, I didn't pick the right analogy.
My whole point was that science and knowledge is an ongoing process and shouldn't dismiss ideas or philosophies especially in corner cases.
I understand evolutionism and I know it holds true given all the hypothesis are true. Mutation and genetics are elements that validate the model, but you cannot assume or prove that an external factor couldn't have created the model in the first place. This is devil's advocate here, but why would you be comfortable with people excluding one of the possibilities just because they got their reasoning hinted in some tradition or belief.
I absolutely hate seeing people entangled in some rigid thinking because their religion says so, as they are incapable to enrich themselves just because they would rather defer to some dogma, but I hate more people that cannot accept a different perspective if it doesn't originate in whatever is approved by scientific forums. We lose in divergent thinking, in originality and spirituality, as we are incapable in acknowledging our limits and by extension our requirements in development.
Just until I get proof. I don't stop searching outside my cubicle, but I don't assume I understand what's out there.
In Romania we don't have bills with what gets taught in school, we have a ministry that pushes a curriculum and teachers who more or less ignores it. We were taught that pride is foolish and counter-productive, and that it's way better to healthily weigh perspectives even when the result proves us wrong. We still have the pride to never admit fault, but we acknowledge the winning reasoning.
If in United States there are, as we would say, more types of freedom, why isn't education free enough that each parent can contribute to their children's education with whatever they see fit? We call this "the seven years from home", and defends not only individuals and their particularities, but also community and family legacy, tradition. Kids shouldn't go through assembly lines, they need to be treated as evolving individuals, cultivating their spirituality and later on filling the gaps with rigorous knowledge, where the science holds.
God dammit how I need to mod you up.
Cosmology formed by uniting multiple disciplines and therefore has more theories than I'd like to know. Anyway... some of them feel like scientific proof that God exist and there is merit for both the data and the rationale used. If geekoid likes to defend a pure atheist point of view that's cool. But by science method of reasoning he should be absolutely certain that he can find an answer to questions like: What happened before the Big Bang? and Where all of Universe came from? Since I cannot defend with certainty any scientific answer that doesn't raise problem I personally default to faith, as I accept that I lack both evidence and intelligence to explain corner cases of science.
Creationism is not science, it's philosophy. And philosophy is not really crap, but rather a kick-start in knowledge. It has known limits and stops at the questions. And I give it merits where others would not because a well-chosen placeholder for gaps is for me preferable to the illusion that there's nothing there to challenge my reasoning.
Well you blew my funny remark, but it's ok. Thank you. You realize that when the games are ready and the word gets out people will try to buy it, until they find them advertised as free. FSF is an example of civic sense in the global village, it's a shame that so few get it. I'm looking forward to see the results.
I agree with your point of view, but from a spiritual point of view all religious communities agree that we lack the inner resources to guide ourselves for the better. Think of it as you're the one claiming global warming needs irrefutable proof when some concerns are proposed for study. You see them as trying to do something fishy, or waste time, while they see you as being ignorant and malicious. You should push your objections with an argument they understand.
Well I give merits to the scientific method, but it's not really healthy to expect it to explain everything. Some people have faiths/confessions/beliefs beyond what they can prove. For the simple minded, as we're not all of us geniuses, it's a way to adhere to moral principles and describe a comfortable personality. The upside is that people unsuitable for science exploration won't run amok challenging all the rules and questioning everything, and the downside is that they'll prefer not to think using scientific method rigorously. This usually happens.
As for presenting creationism in science class, the only way that would be alright to happen is by defending some of it's merits in cosmology. Otherwise I agree with you: It's unsuitable for a science class and should be treated as philosophy, rather than scientific discipline. Here in Romania, as the official religion is orthodoxy, we have religion classes in schools. More than that, in my college there is a cosmology discipline taught by a philosopher, a teologist and a math teacher putting in front of the students the merits of different philosophies and limits in human knowledge. We were taught to question both traditional religious teachings and science theorems in a way that isn't disruptive in our environment/community and while respecting each other's choice.
... when is the release date and where can I buy it from?
Well some cosmologists aim for a compromise, why the hell shouldn't all be presented and let each kid/student/person/parent choose and pursue. They did it to my generation and it wasn't that bad... I mean some cosmological theories cover the fact that we evolved to this point, but that the Universe was created by some omnipotent being, a level of intelligence that ensured the event with minimal chance of us being here happen (did I just write that?).
SJVN is the mnemonic for "That Guy In That One Video In That One Slashdot Article Saying Something Before I Got Lazy And Moved To Comments Instead Of Watching" ... I believe TGITOVITOSASSBIGLAMTCIOW was too long so they shortened it.Also, the abbreviation sounded a little weird...
You mean GNU's Debian GNU/Linux software distribution, which is pretty much the largest and one of the most influential distribution in time and space (yea, I just wrote that on purpose). Maybe GPLv3 looks like the other kind of evil, disruptive for business and a dorkly way to artificially create a difference between free and open, but FOSS communities will not abandon the huge Debian repositories. Before you abandon GPLv3 by assuming it's impractical for business and a deterrent of real investment you should get into their shoes and their mindset to see that the letter and the spirit of that evil license has a slot for decent business models and thriving communities.
No, the year of Linux desktop isn't afoot by a long shot. No, I don't believe Linux can fit the bill for anyone. No, i'm not some kind of cultist preaching "free" and "open". But I believe the fun part is just beginning and I should remind you that a few years ago most people assumed all computers run Windows, and now everyone assumes BSD licensed stuff will replace GPLv3 stuff.
On the feature side, there are countless opportunities, but they'll be dependent upon your framework and what it does. For example, if you have a service that is geolocation aware, your propietary database might be a list of locations of interest.
That's basically giving the software for free and selling complementary stuff (be it specific data, content, solution based upon the software, access to some physical service such as call center, hosting of data, hosting of application, hosting of infrastructure, training, feedback and support, turnkey customization, specific paid updates/features...). It allows the base product to be maintained closed to the community, QA and governance ensures compatibility and direction and you also make money. The easiest money you get from the lazy, which is clever, and I guess plenty of people are doing it and making big money.
Linux can't become 'the PC OS' by following three fundamental axes: costs, consistency and substance. Following the cost axis, on your left, you see free software, open, with some documentation and inconsistent support. NO WARRANTIES AND NO MARKETING. It is not a cow so don't try to milk it. As for consistency, freedom made it so colorful and chaotic it's really hard to get around or use it as a base. On the other side it's very flexible, customisable and powerfully diverse. It doesn't have a head to decapitate, it's like a commie hive, based on equality of itches to scratch. For the final axis, it lacks the solid state and logic Windows or Mac has, that one direction, that one single point of delivery, it's divergently creative, it's really "meta" so you can't envisage it as a product, or an array of products and so it cares less about that and if it runs products or not. Linux stopped being just one penguin the second Linus shared it's code. I actually use only Linux at home because it costs me less, gives me freedom and it never stops challenging me. Now if you would stop these damn articles and let me fix my Xorg.conf it would be wonderful.
Don't be too rush to state that the Soviet model is flawed enough to be impractical. Most of the communism's flaws were from the way information and intelligence was handled, and for that matter pure capitalism doesn't really cut it either. I think neither freedom, nor dictatorship can, as core postulates, solve problems and sustain (business)systems when you discuss ways to make money, because even if you aggressively centralise planning and logistics, or aggressively decentralise all management people can not properly optimise and perform efficiently at work, no matter how you regulate information and intelligence. i believe that an organic approach based on fairness and well planned renewability as an ideology should be a good direction both in politics and business, and this type of policy can assure well regulated and efficient workflow. This "free-market" you are talking about allow simultaneous existence of both cvasi-anarchic FOSS and cvasi-dictatorial corporative environments. They both have huge advantages and disadvantages, so really you cannot (using curent ideologies, that is) praise, nor condemn Nokia's recent choices in business. They want better penetration of american markets and a powerful platform available fast that can comply with their intelectual property policies. That's what Symbian was before they open sourced it for lack of developer traction. They started toying with Maemo and later MeeGo in order to replace it, only to bump into the same policy problem that made development slow, and later to not consider Android as platform. They wanted to control their property better and still make money. Now they don't really need Qt, they'll sell it, it's users are almost used to it, as it happened before, and also FOSS world has plenty examples, so there won't be that much trouble. Notice how freedom to own and freedom to share can't mix up properly here. This is a giant deja-vu and proper renewable business model have both as an obstacle. Lack of choices versus lack of moderation. --- imma probably make smartphone apps based on ruby and GTK and someday people will buy it, if I do a fair job....
Well nVidia can't really quit developing graphic card drivers and promoting the Windows platform... I mean FOSS users would like seeing nVidia giving more attention to linux and the other *nix-es, and also getting back at Microsoft by moving to OSX should still benefit FOSS, at least in a way. But as long as there are Microsoft technologies such as DirectX and Direct3D in the middle, PC Gaming will more or less be a Windows asset, without Microsoft backing anything...