amazon is a private company and has the right to refuse business to anyone it wants.
The issue is, that they _did_ want my business by selling me the kindle in the first place. Censoring the content for that device _after_ I bought it, is not OK.
I can't guess what your definition of stable is, but I can tell you mine. It's based on my experience with 0.22 and 0.23. Stable means my mythbackend service runs 24/7 and hardly ever crashes. If it ever crashes, I have a small cron script that detects it and restarts the service. Mythfrontend gets started once a day and hardly ever crashes (I don't leave it open over night).
Regardless of your or my definition, what counts for a bump in version numbering is what the developers define as stable.
Of course the MythTV "marketing department" is looking for ways to get people to use their product, otherwise they wouldn't be releasing at all
Well, not really. If MythTV was a closed source project you could be right. Code gets released by developers because sharing it makes other developers contribute their improvements/fixes back. To have lots of users is nice, but is not in itself the driving motivation to do releases or set a version number.
And part of having a sensible versioning scheme is to make users understand what it means to upgrade to a new release.
No, that's what release notes are for. A version numbers have so many meanings and uses, that it can't be pinned down like that. The version number you seem to suggest is something like Windows 3.1, but even Microsoft has changed that to product names like Windows 98 or Office 2003. The version number used by MythTV just reflects that the developers deem it stable for production environments AND that they will backport some fixes while developing the next version. To sum it up: 0.23 just states that the code is stable.
If you need a marketing name for this version that includes every information you might need to know, I suggest this one: "iMythTV Premium 2010 (Service Pack 0)"
Does it really matter to you that much what number the version has? The versioning in MythTV is just a rolling number stating a stable release. It does not state that it is beta or unstable or anything else. If it makes you happy call it 9.10 or 1.0 for all it matters.
0.23 = Stable version as of 10th of May 2010. 0.23-fixes = Stable version + all backported fixes as of the moment you download the code from svn.
Civilians died unnecessarily in Kosovo, that is a fact. Civilians being killed in one ware is just as unnecessary as in any other.I remember quiet clearly that the Kosovo war was very controversial in Germany. I personally was very upset with the civilian casualties that resulted due to the war. I clearly remember that the media did report and comment harshly on the linked civilian deaths, but it seems that both the press and NATO did take it as seriously. As an example read is this report: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,HRW,,SRB,,3ae6a86b0,0.html
>What goes around comes around. A very productive way of dealing with the issue at hand.
What the comity could do is take the million and invest it at say 3%. Create a new price called the Perelman price and give the interests away to the winner every 5 years.
Did I miss this? Aren't Mangas just another kiddy porn depiction? Are they now illegal in Australia? Are the authorities arresting every Japanese with Mangas in their suitcase as they try to enter the country?
I am not sure if to agree with you or not. Maybe I don't get your definition of "sketchy". In Germany you basically are protected by the constitution, similar to the US version. But (there is always a but) history has left its mark. There is one big exception to freedom of speech in Germany due to the second world war: Holocaust Denial and Volksverhetzung (incitement of aggression against a group of people), both not allowed. I can follow why those exceptions where put in in Germany, even if I don't like them, being a freedom of speech purist myself. But I am pretty sure that the Canadian issue at hand has nothing to do with German law.
There are probably better informed people on Slashdot than me on this topic. As far as I know you only need to provide a document with your hardware, that states that you are using GPLed software in your product and that if your customer so wishes, you would gladly provide the source code upon request. I personally prefer when companies, regardless of the size/relevance of their changes to the software, post these on their website. It just feels more "community" like, which is also a nice way of marketing your company to open source friendly customers.
I am one of those who edits a page once a month. I have a few pages and topics a like and have added to my watch-list. Most of the reverts I see and do myself are plain vandalism. The remainder are punctuation and a bit of grammar.
I have had few cases of something I thought to be good being reverted. Recently on a page I added a few new facts that had been reported in the news, with citations. They where reverted by a moderator without a comment (I call that rude). After confronting him on his personal page, he argued that he could not read Spanish, therefore could not confirm my citation. Oddly, as I pointed out, the topic was a topic for which you absolutely need to be fluent in Spanish to read primary and secondary sources. Well, after a bit he got a moderator who could read Spanish to check my citations. But did not revert his revert, I had to do it myself.
Did this make me stop contributing to the Wikipedia. NO! It is our duty to confront such morons until they give in.
I am with you, I should have asked what proof he had, instead of assuming there was none. On the other hand, he could just have given it to start with...
But the study is in no way useless. It is a peer reviewed meta study (highest form of scientific proof) that shows conclusively that there is no significant difference in nutrients between organic and non-organic food. I find that useful, as one prominent argument in favor of organic food is, that it was supposedly more nutritious. That has been shown to be wrong.
I don't get your point here, but maybe we are on the same page. If you want to answer the scientific question "Do organic foods have more/same/less nutrients than non organic grown food?" then you pick one variable and test both types of food. This is what the studies in this meta study did. Each study chose one nutrient and check if it was present in both food types. As far as this metastudy goes, there is no significant difference between both.
I seem to have hit a nerve. The parent insinuated that the study was paid by "corporate interests", provided no proof for his claim. It is just clear that the parent poster has no clue how organics are produced, as most are produced by, guess what, corporations. This tends to be the argument of conspiracy theorists on the side of organic foods.
To answer your questions:
I don't know where you get your facts? Here a quote from the article.
This research was split into two separate parts, one of which looked at differences in nutrient levels and their significance, while the other looked at the health benefits of eating organic food.
It states clearly that both nutrition AND health benefits where studied. It does not exclusively look at nutrition. Check the actual study, they state to have tested: vitamin C, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, total soluble solids,
titratable acidity, copper, iron, nitrates, manganese, ash, specific proteins, sodium, plant
non-digestible carbohydrates, -carotene and sulphur.
Yes, I usually hear people argue for organic on only one level. It is supposed to be healthier than normal supermarket food. I guess you want to argue nutrition != healthy. But that is not what the study focused on. From the article:
Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority.
Whats to argue against that? It leaves everything else open: you can argue that organics have less pesticides, taste better, no chemical enhancers or what ever other claim not tested by this study. But that is how science works. You single out ONE variable, keep everything else constant, peer-review, publish. I see nothing strange here, especially something that would point to the study being paid by "corporate interests".
why would you engineer the study to avoid accounting for the very factors that make the products attractive to them?
Where do you get the impression that someone was "avoiding" dealing with any other factors. It is just the nature of the beast, that you have to choose ONE variable to do a study, and these scientist chose nutritional value. I am pretty sure there are copious studies on how organic food contains less pesticides. I still don't see how choosing nutritional value makes you think it was paid by "corporate interests"?
The actual title of the study is "Comparison of composition (nutrients and other substances) of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs: a systematic review of the available literature". "Organic 'has no health benefits'", that was title of the BBC article. I also find that article overly simplistic, but that is modern news reporting style, but don't read that cynical slant you report.
And on your last comment
I do not disagree with its outcome nor its methods
How can you disagree with the outcome? Organic foods have just the same amount of nutritional value as non organics. That's a fact based on this study. Again, I see no reason to think that for this reason it was paid by "corporate interests"?
Agreed, but what does that have to do with foods being organic? Organic would mean using more, not less space to produce the same amount. You are arguing for a vegetarian lifestyle, not an organic one.
Your argument does not fly with me. The study is clearly useful, as most (not you, of course) argue that organic is better for your health. It shows that there is "currently" no clear health benefit. Future studies might show this to be wrong, but for now this if scientifically accurate.
Check out this podcast about Organic Food Myths, including that organic food is "good" for the environment... http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4019
I agree with you on the personal myth debunking... but how does organic farming benefit the environment? Most information I have found, is that organic farming uses significantly more space to grow the same amount of product. This in turn means, that if everyone where to switch to organic foods, then we would need more agricultural square kilometers, which would in turn have to come from undeveloped or otherwise used space. So if you, like I do, hate deforestation and the real impact on the environment, then organic should not be for you. Organic food seems short sighted to me.
tells me you didn't like the outcome of the study, had no better arguments, then had to fall back to insinuating without proof that the scientist are just crooks who will bend the truth to earn a few bucks. Ahh, I love a good conspiracy.
Slashdot Mirror
I have been using gitso for a few years now. My mom and sister have an icon called "help me" on the desktop. Thats all that is required.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.aclunj.policetape&feature=search_result#?t=W251bGwsMSwxLDEsIm9yZy5hY2x1bmoucG9saWNldGFwZSJd description: Citizens can hold police accountable in the palms of their hands with "Police Tape," a smartphone application from the ACLU of New Jersey that allows people to securely and discreetly record and store interactions with police, as well as provide legal information about citizens' rights when interacting with the police.
ohh, again that liberal manipulation! where are those god fearing wires when you need them?
amazon is a private company and has the right to refuse business to anyone it wants.
The issue is, that they _did_ want my business by selling me the kindle in the first place. Censoring the content for that device _after_ I bought it, is not OK.
same reason. Mastercard stoped their customers from transfering funds to Wikileaks.
I can't guess what your definition of stable is, but I can tell you mine. It's based on my experience with 0.22 and 0.23. Stable means my mythbackend service runs 24/7 and hardly ever crashes. If it ever crashes, I have a small cron script that detects it and restarts the service. Mythfrontend gets started once a day and hardly ever crashes (I don't leave it open over night).
Regardless of your or my definition, what counts for a bump in version numbering is what the developers define as stable.
I suggest you try 0.23 as most of your concerns have been addressed.
Of course the MythTV "marketing department" is looking for ways to get people to use their product, otherwise they wouldn't be releasing at all
Well, not really. If MythTV was a closed source project you could be right. Code gets released by developers because sharing it makes other developers contribute their improvements/fixes back. To have lots of users is nice, but is not in itself the driving motivation to do releases or set a version number.
And part of having a sensible versioning scheme is to make users understand what it means to upgrade to a new release.
No, that's what release notes are for. A version numbers have so many meanings and uses, that it can't be pinned down like that. The version number you seem to suggest is something like Windows 3.1, but even Microsoft has changed that to product names like Windows 98 or Office 2003. The version number used by MythTV just reflects that the developers deem it stable for production environments AND that they will backport some fixes while developing the next version. To sum it up: 0.23 just states that the code is stable.
If you need a marketing name for this version that includes every information you might need to know, I suggest this one: "iMythTV Premium 2010 (Service Pack 0)"
Does it really matter to you that much what number the version has? The versioning in MythTV is just a rolling number stating a stable release. It does not state that it is beta or unstable or anything else. If it makes you happy call it 9.10 or 1.0 for all it matters.
0.23 = Stable version as of 10th of May 2010.
0.23-fixes = Stable version + all backported fixes as of the moment you download the code from svn.
What is your argument? What are you implying?
Civilians died unnecessarily in Kosovo, that is a fact. Civilians being killed in one ware is just as unnecessary as in any other.I remember quiet clearly that the Kosovo war was very controversial in Germany. I personally was very upset with the civilian casualties that resulted due to the war. I clearly remember that the media did report and comment harshly on the linked civilian deaths, but it seems that both the press and NATO did take it as seriously. As an example read is this report: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,HRW,,SRB,,3ae6a86b0,0.html
>What goes around comes around.
A very productive way of dealing with the issue at hand.
What the comity could do is take the million and invest it at say 3%. Create a new price called the Perelman price and give the interests away to the winner every 5 years.
with this one we could get 30 frames out of the html5/javascript version of freeciv!
Did I miss this? Aren't Mangas just another kiddy porn depiction? Are they now illegal in Australia? Are the authorities arresting every Japanese with Mangas in their suitcase as they try to enter the country?
I am not sure if to agree with you or not. Maybe I don't get your definition of "sketchy". In Germany you basically are protected by the constitution, similar to the US version. But (there is always a but) history has left its mark. There is one big exception to freedom of speech in Germany due to the second world war: Holocaust Denial and Volksverhetzung (incitement of aggression against a group of people), both not allowed. I can follow why those exceptions where put in in Germany, even if I don't like them, being a freedom of speech purist myself. But I am pretty sure that the Canadian issue at hand has nothing to do with German law.
There are probably better informed people on Slashdot than me on this topic. As far as I know you only need to provide a document with your hardware, that states that you are using GPLed software in your product and that if your customer so wishes, you would gladly provide the source code upon request. I personally prefer when companies, regardless of the size/relevance of their changes to the software, post these on their website. It just feels more "community" like, which is also a nice way of marketing your company to open source friendly customers.
I am one of those who edits a page once a month. I have a few pages and topics a like and have added to my watch-list. Most of the reverts I see and do myself are plain vandalism. The remainder are punctuation and a bit of grammar.
I have had few cases of something I thought to be good being reverted. Recently on a page I added a few new facts that had been reported in the news, with citations. They where reverted by a moderator without a comment (I call that rude). After confronting him on his personal page, he argued that he could not read Spanish, therefore could not confirm my citation. Oddly, as I pointed out, the topic was a topic for which you absolutely need to be fluent in Spanish to read primary and secondary sources. Well, after a bit he got a moderator who could read Spanish to check my citations. But did not revert his revert, I had to do it myself.
Did this make me stop contributing to the Wikipedia. NO! It is our duty to confront such morons until they give in.
I am with you, I should have asked what proof he had, instead of assuming there was none. On the other hand, he could just have given it to start with... But the study is in no way useless. It is a peer reviewed meta study (highest form of scientific proof) that shows conclusively that there is no significant difference in nutrients between organic and non-organic food. I find that useful, as one prominent argument in favor of organic food is, that it was supposedly more nutritious. That has been shown to be wrong.
I don't get your point here, but maybe we are on the same page. If you want to answer the scientific question "Do organic foods have more/same/less nutrients than non organic grown food?" then you pick one variable and test both types of food. This is what the studies in this meta study did. Each study chose one nutrient and check if it was present in both food types. As far as this metastudy goes, there is no significant difference between both.
This research was split into two separate parts, one of which looked at differences in nutrient levels and their significance, while the other looked at the health benefits of eating organic food.
It states clearly that both nutrition AND health benefits where studied. It does not exclusively look at nutrition. Check the actual study, they state to have tested: vitamin C, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, total soluble solids, titratable acidity, copper, iron, nitrates, manganese, ash, specific proteins, sodium, plant non-digestible carbohydrates, -carotene and sulphur.
Yes, I usually hear people argue for organic on only one level. It is supposed to be healthier than normal supermarket food. I guess you want to argue nutrition != healthy. But that is not what the study focused on. From the article:
Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority.
Whats to argue against that? It leaves everything else open: you can argue that organics have less pesticides, taste better, no chemical enhancers or what ever other claim not tested by this study. But that is how science works. You single out ONE variable, keep everything else constant, peer-review, publish. I see nothing strange here, especially something that would point to the study being paid by "corporate interests".
why would you engineer the study to avoid accounting for the very factors that make the products attractive to them?
Where do you get the impression that someone was "avoiding" dealing with any other factors. It is just the nature of the beast, that you have to choose ONE variable to do a study, and these scientist chose nutritional value. I am pretty sure there are copious studies on how organic food contains less pesticides. I still don't see how choosing nutritional value makes you think it was paid by "corporate interests"? The actual title of the study is "Comparison of composition (nutrients and other substances) of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs: a systematic review of the available literature". "Organic 'has no health benefits'", that was title of the BBC article. I also find that article overly simplistic, but that is modern news reporting style, but don't read that cynical slant you report. And on your last comment
I do not disagree with its outcome nor its methods
How can you disagree with the outcome? Organic foods have just the same amount of nutritional value as non organics. That's a fact based on this study. Again, I see no reason to think that for this reason it was paid by "corporate interests"?
Agreed, but what does that have to do with foods being organic? Organic would mean using more, not less space to produce the same amount. You are arguing for a vegetarian lifestyle, not an organic one.
Your argument does not fly with me. The study is clearly useful, as most (not you, of course) argue that organic is better for your health. It shows that there is "currently" no clear health benefit. Future studies might show this to be wrong, but for now this if scientifically accurate. Check out this podcast about Organic Food Myths, including that organic food is "good" for the environment... http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4019
I do think that it is hard to imagine it. But, hey, some have a vivid imagination.
I agree with you on the personal myth debunking... but how does organic farming benefit the environment? Most information I have found, is that organic farming uses significantly more space to grow the same amount of product. This in turn means, that if everyone where to switch to organic foods, then we would need more agricultural square kilometers, which would in turn have to come from undeveloped or otherwise used space. So if you, like I do, hate deforestation and the real impact on the environment, then organic should not be for you. Organic food seems short sighted to me.
When you write it makes them "nicer", what do you mean? What is the "significant" benefit of organic products?
tells me you didn't like the outcome of the study, had no better arguments, then had to fall back to insinuating without proof that the scientist are just crooks who will bend the truth to earn a few bucks. Ahh, I love a good conspiracy.