Double opt-in is a name spammers use to refer to the practice of requiring a confirmationg e-mail to confirm that the person who signed up for the list actually receives mail at that address. That is, someone types an e-mail address into a web form, but they are only added to the list once they reply to a confirmation e-mail. This prevents people from signing other people up for e-mail lists.
And there is a further trick behind this-- the spammers themselves can gather addresses, spam you, and when you complain, claim that somebody else must have signed you up, a "circumstance beyond their control".
My roommate and me got some emails early this year from some matchmaking company, thanking us for having subscribed to their service, telling us that they had already charged our credit cards for it, and that we could use the service by going to the URL they gave us. I complained loudly to their ISP, and got back an angry reply from the company itself (not the ISP; the ISP just forwarded my complaint to them, apparently) saying that if we had gotten that email was because either we had signed up, or sombody had signed us up, and that in the latter case it wasn't their fault.
But Larry Wall, as a linguist, would say it is a characteristic of all natural languages.
Reading Perl zealots, one gets the impression that Larry Wall is right up there with Noam Chomsky. God, like every other sentence is "Larry Wall is a linguist". When was the last fucking time Wall worked with linguistics? 1979?
Anyway, the argument is pure bullshit. First of all, it assumes you want programming languages to be like natural languages, which is a questionable assumption in itself. Second, it is not an argument at all-- it is just the bald assertion that pearl is like a natural language because Wall says so, and Wall is a linguist, and Wall would never lie to us, so it must be true. Never mind that noone's ever given an actual argument supporting Wall's BS.
Face it, Perl is no more like natural language than any other language.
In English, for instance, there are countless dozens of ways to rephrase "My silly aunt's accountancy course starts next week."
And most of them are considerably longer, or, more importantly, don't quite mean the same thing. So?
This thing about Perl being "like a natural language" is self-serving BS spread by Wall; he abuses his title to give it credibility. Only monolingual pearl zealot g**ks who have never tried their hand at actually learning a natural language swallow it. If pearl actuallt were like a natural language, you'd have a miserable time learning it, your programs would all do something different than what you thought they did, and you'd never get the prepositions right.
[...] groups like Debian that want to distribute A) only GPL and GPL-compatible software and B) Python.
WTF?
Debian wants to distribute free software, and they wrote the DFSG to clarify what they mean with that. There is no preference for the GPL like you claim above.
A CONTRARY RESULT WOULD MEAN THAT CONTENT OWNERS WOULD NOT DARE TO MAKE THEIR WORKS AVAILABLE FOR TRANSMISSION ON THE INTERNET. THIS WOULD BE A GREAT LOSS TO THE PUBLIC INCLUDING THE ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SUBMITTED COMMENTS.(TIME WARNER)
I don't see why you even have to make the argument about bands. This is obvious bullshit posturing. Like, Time Warner *really* expects anybody to believe that they will not sell content if this law does not go my way? What kind of irrational business decision would that be? They would get sued by their stockholders if they tried anything of the sort.
And anyway, if their claim were true, well, I guess a world with one less power hungry USian media megacorporation trying to get into the net is only a good thing.
You twist logic to your convenience. Let's review your own words:
RMS has been bitching and whining for years about Qt and its licensing.
Because for those years, Qt was either not free, or GPL incompatible, and a major free software project was based on it. Duh.
So the new, current situation is irrelevant to the evaluation of my statement there. Because it was explicitly addressed to a situation previous to the current one. So you have obviously shown that you have no interest in having a rational discussion with me-- you resort to dirty tricks like this strawman argument to try to make me look bad. Of course, I'm not an idiot like you were gambling I were, and I know precisely how to answer those attacks-- by exposing them.
Your immoral tactics give lie to your claims.
One would think that RMS might at least show
the slimmest bit of gratitude for Troll Tech's capitulation to his demands.
Point out which part of RMS's editorial is addressed to Troll. Point out where he makes any demands of the Trolls.
Saying "he demanded for years that Qt be GPLed" doesn't cut it-- from your reference to Troll Tech's "capitulation" (note the deliberately inflammatory, martial vocabulary you use here), you are talking about the current situation. Yet you drag in the past to its evaluation. One begins to see that you don't have many tricks up your sleeve-- you use the same fallacious, demagogical method throughout.
There is no difference between retroactively attacking Troll Tech for having the unmitigated gall to develop a non-GPL library and retroactively attacking the KDE team for using a non-GPL library. Either scenario involves pissing all over somebody else's hard work because they did it in a manner that you didn't like.
"There is no diffenrence between retroactively attacking King Leopold for his business practices in the Congo and retroactively attacking Hitler for his rehabilitation of the German economy. Either scenario involves pissing all over somebody else's hard work because they did it in an manner that you didn't like."
Ok, so you have another trick. State the obviously wrong with great conviction. Dude, I insist, IHBT.
RMS may be (mostly) admirable but he is not God.
But he is clearly doing His work here on Earth; he is taking us a step closer to His Kingdom.
KDE and GNOME are on the same team (that is, the team of open source desktop environments.)
Gnome has been in the team of Freedom since the start; heaven, it started because KDE was *not* on this team. KDE has clearly shown through their actions that they have not entered this team. So when RMS says "Go Gnome!", he's saying "Go Freedom!"
Your use of the term "open source" gives you away, anyway, as somebody who values authority over freedom. The Kingdom of God does not tolerate authority, as Christ himself reveals: "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over
them, and those who exercise authority over them are called `benefactors'. But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves", Luke 24:25-26.
No, you haven't been trolled. My username is intended to severely punish knee-jerk moderators in meta-moderation (usernames and signatures aren't displayed in M2.)
There are some a priori analytic issues, hinted at ever so slightly, that prevent me, in this particular thread, from being considered as a object of a trolling, believe me.
when they license the library in the manner that he has been asking for, he goes back and attacks them some more.
"Attack"? What kind of crack are you smoking?
He said that, despite he believes that, despite the fact that there could conceivably be a legal cause against people for breaking the GPL in the past, he's not going to pursue that path ever, and urges everbody to do likewise. How is "You're now guaranteed I'm not going to ever sue you for this" an attack?
Personally, I find him [RMS] very disagreeable (all this crap about KDE developers having forfeitted their rights to certain GPL code is bogus - it completely goes against my idea of "free" software)
Frankly, whatever your idea of "free" software is, it's not fucking relevant in discussing this particular issue. It's a matter of licensing, for Christ sakes. If the KDE developers violated the GPL in the past, as RMS claims, they lost all privileges the GPL conferred them in so doing, and thus are not entitled create derivative works.
Whatever your dreamy, idiotic idea of what free software should be, this is a fucking fact about licensing, which is not affected by your trivial, ineffective intellectual machinations.
Is the Internet just a sequential evolution of how we handle information or is it truly a new 'society'?
In all fairness, one thing would not exclude the other. This is like asking "Was the agricultural revolution in the Neolithic just a sequential evolution of how we acquire food, or was it truly a new 'society'?"
But still, the idea behind your question is dead on. All this hype about the "Information Age" is just corporate propaganda bullshit designed to sell books, IT stocks and technology, plus do clearly misguided things like spend school's scarce money on computers and not on teachers, to the benefit of the IT industry.
Take the Neolithic, for example. This involved major changes in the forms of production of basic goods, and the living conditions of the majority of people in the societies affected-- hunting ceased to be the primary economic activity of personkind, to be supplanted by agriculture. People settled into towns, instead of wandering around.
The industrial revolution: the way goods were produced was radically altered. Instead of skilled craftpersons organically creating the end product, the unskilled laborers tend to the machines that make the product. Social effect: deskilling of workers, but above all, people move to the cities.
Now try to show whether the "Infomation Age" (whose "start", anyway, should be the invention of the telegraph, the first device to allow instant communication) has made major changes in the modes of production of the basic goods, or whether it has made fundamental material changes in the way people in "information societies" live. And the answer is: No. This is still the industrial age.
If you want your kids to not be under any of these "bad influences", then unplug the TV and throw it out the window.
Won't work for us. We don't have a TV at our place.
The problem is simple: you can't isolate your kids from their peers. And their peers have a huge influence on them. At my place, we let our kid go to other homes to play with other kids in the neighborhood or schoolmates. There he is exposed to violent entertainment and play. Are you suggesting that I isolate my kid from his social surroundings and peers? Hardly possible, and the attempt will likely only hurt us.
I rented the first couple of episodes of Neon Genesis: Evangelion not too long ago, and found it the silliest, most pretentions Power Rangers crap I'd seen in a long time.
I caught it halfway when I first saw it, around episode 16-17. I've heard similar opinions to yours from people who have only watched the first couple episodes.
I was not impressed by the extremely overdone, half-baked religious references, either. (Angels? Flaming crosses? Can we be any more subtle?)
Neither was I. Some people seem to get a kick out of that, for some reason-- you stick something weird in anything, and they go "ooh, aah, this is profound". Oh, well.
My question for anime fans here, is, should I bother? Does it get any better after the first tape?
Character development, intricate plot, and the very tense atmosphere maintained are the good points behind Evangelion.
Once again people are going to look overseas for the cause of their problems.
I have done no such thing, my brother.
There is one root cause for social problems-- the departure from the ways of God. Its personal manifestation is sin, and its social manifestation is the class war.
In the scheme of things, Japanese anime is just a symptom.
Obviously you've only watched a couple/few episodes of the dubs. Either that or you've closed your mind to violence so much that you don't give anything with a hint of violence a chance.
No. It turned out my child was watching this series at a friend's house, and explained it to me. I know how children perceive this first hand.
They actually have much less violence over there [Japan] than we do here - and a lot more respect for life in general to boot. Personally, I think some of this comes from the fact that they don't feel the need to tell their children that violence doesn't exist - they don't shield their kids from it - so their kids learn about it - as well as the consequences involved.
Japan, where they invented tentacle hentai? The world capital of child porn? Now I'm supposed to let the Japanese dictate what is right for my child and what isn't?
And how do our western societies "shield" children from violence? It's all over the fucking media, for Christ's sake.
I think what really hurts our youth today is the lack of truly noble role-models - not the portrayal of violence on TV.
This statement of yours is put in very bad light by your comments below. I'll get back to it.
Many parents would rather blame their kids violent actions on a violent cartoon rather than the fact that they never *discussed* violence with their kids. If parents would stand up and *be* the role-models for their kids - they wouldn't have to look elsewhere for commercial role-models
It's not like children have to look elsewhere for role models-- the huge media corporations, which have such an inordinate power in shaping our culture, bombbard them with it everywhere. If they want to have friends in school, if they want to play with them, they have to participate in the same sort of games and watch the same TV shows-- participate in the representation of violence-- otherwise they are ridiculed and rejected.
There are redeeming qualities of DBZ, if you'd bother to look for them. DBZ has the time-honoured good vs. evil theme - the hero is noble and kind-hearted to a fault, fighting only when given no choice in the situation, or challenged (martial artist honor).
Please. This is a simplistic, ideological portrayal. There are no "good" people, or "bad" people. We are all just internally conflicted sinners, with the calling of God to establish His Kingdom.
This kind of simplistic, "good vs. evil" mentality is a tool of the ruling class to brainwash us into thinking it is O.K. to hurt the "evil" people. Whenever a war comes about, this is the argument that is pulled out-- "The Germans/Japanese are evil, they want to spread evil all over the world, we would rather not fight, but we have to fight and kill them. Show no mercy-- they are evil."
The real world is, of course, more complex than that. As the expression says, "War is a bunch of young men who don't know each other killing each other, for the benefit of a few old mean who know each other, but don't kill each other" (sounds kinda awkward translated to English, but in French it sounds all right).
And that "martial artist honor" thing is just an euphemism for chauvinistic my-dick-is-bigger than-yours penis waving. As Christ said, turn the other cheek.
Re:FSF now prefers Qt/KDE over Gtk/Gnome
on
Qt Going GPL
·
· Score: 4
But given that FSF prefer libraries to be covered by the GPL rather than the LGPL, they should now consider Qt preferable over Gtk.
I don't think so.
The idea behind the RMS editorial you're thinking about is that the GPL is preferable when you are providing functionality not available in other libraries. The LGPL is meant for situations where you provide functionality that the non-free competition already provides.
Since there's plenty of GUI toolkits around, free or otherwise, I don't think it matters a bit. And, since Troll will sell you licenses to develop non-free software with Qt, the whole RMS anti-LGPL argument is kinda demolished in this case.
Note: I'm an experienced Debian user, so when I mention shortcomings in what follows, I do so as someone who has experienced them through 2.5 years. Debian is good, but, hell, it's not perfect. Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I've been investigating FreeBSD documentation lately quite a lot, since I plan to use it in my next workstation (sometime this month).
[Debian's] package management system is simply amazing. No other Linux distribution (well, except the ones based on Debian;-) come even close. Heck, no other OS has anything like it, period!
This statement is put into doubt by the ignorance you show below about BSDs.
Imagine a system, similar to FreeBSD's ports, that:
1. Works with binaries. You can download and install binaries instead of having to wait for it to compile.
Why, FreeBSD's pkg_add does this. Downloads dependencies, too.
You can also request to get source though, and compile it (just like in FreeBSD).
Not just like FreeBSD. The Debian support for auto-managing dependencies does not extend to source. If you don't have the packages required to build the source, it will simply fail.
2. Figures out dependencies auto-magically and downloads all the required libraries.
FreeBSD already does this.
3. *Handles upgrades*. "apt-get upgrade" will upgrade the packages you have installed.
Take a look here. Essentially, pkg_version -cv' is the FreeBSD equivalent to apt-get upgrade.
The point is simple-- the philosphies behind apt and the ports trees are different, and there are many intricacies behind each. To make a fair comparison one needs to know each in depth.
The ports tree's emphasis is on building from source, and it simply whoops apt/dpkg's ass at this. In my particular environment, I'm finding that this is a feature I could use-- I build a few Debian packages by hand frequently to enable features, which I see could more easily done in FreeBSD.
I've yet to try FreeBSD, but I suspect Debian's automatic configuration of packages is superior, and will get even better as more and more packages are made to use debconf. But once your system is configured appropriately, this is no longer an issue.
Also, I think FreeBSDs development model (e.g. the base OS/ports split) lends itself to more frequent, high quality stable releases for the basic system, and fairly up to date additional packages. You can't get this combination in Debian-- you either run stable, where you get a well-tested system with out of date software, or unstable, where you are on the bleeding edge. (I run both versions in two different machines).
In short, FreeBSD, from what I've researched, is a very good system, which I suspect I will much prefer to Debian (and this comes from a 2.5 year Debian user).
It's fairly obvious, isn't it? I'll highlight it for you:
You download a.src.rpm, do an "rpm -i" on it, modify the spec file in/usr/src/redhat/SPECS. And then you just do an "rpm -bb" to build a binary package [...]
This is the problem. You have to manually make modifications.
With a ports system, you throw a patch into the patches directory for the package, and it gets automatically applied to the source tree in the normal build process.
The only difference is you have to download the source ahead of time for rpm's. But any changes you make to a FreeBSD ports Makefile will need to be redone when the package gets updated anyways.
Unless you do as I say above-- you drop a patch into the patches directory for the port.
Right now, the ports retrieves the source tarball from a site, all the required source tarballs, and then builds them one by one. Why can't we have a binary ports system as well?
In FreeBSD, this is the difference between a port and a package-- packages are what ports build. From the FreeBSD Ports page:
For most ports, a precompiled package also exists, saving the user the work of having to compile anything at all. Each port contains a link to its corresponding package and you may either simply download that file and then run the
pkg_add command on it or you can simply grab the link location and hand it straight to pkg_add since it's capable of accepting FTP URLs as well as filenames.
pkg_add will download and install dependencies, too.
There's such a thing as a source rpm. Every binary rpm must have a corresponding source rpm. If you want to build something yourself, all you need to do is download the.src.rpm, install it, and modify the spec file.
The problem is that this is not automated.
I can understand the poster's complaint. I run Debian, and I frequently need to compile packages from source, enabling options that are disabled by default (in my case, Kerberos 4). Whenever a new version comes out, if I wish to update to it, I have to download the source for that, make my modifications again, and only then can I compile a new version.
A mechanism where users specify local options that the package building system would use during the build process would be the perfect solution here.
That's entirely untested, though, so it might not work as I imagine.
It does not do at all what I said.
For example, my system has absolutely no Gnome software on it, no libraries, no nothing. If I run your command with the gnome-games package, it will download the gnome-games source, try to compile it, and fail, because the libraries and headers needed for a successful build are not already present in the system.
The correct thing to do is to know beforehand which packages are going to be needed to build the program, build those, and then build the original package.
Yes, something does beat apt-install, it's called FreeBSD ports and it does everything you've just outlined -- download, build and install software INCLUDING development dependencies. Maybe its Debian that could only benefit from a tool like ports.
Frankly, Debian has the infrastructure in place to do this, but the developers just don't seem interested. Source packages have a "Build-depends" field that says which packages are needed to build them, so this would be a matter of downloading a source package, recursively satisfying its build dependencies from source, and then building it. I bet this could be written in pearl in a few hours.
Well, hell, you say... Intel can so this if they want (just like Nintendo's "right" to?).
The Pentium's interfaces and protocols are the property of Intel, right? Then Slashdot has criminal CATEGORIES on this site... AMD, Cyrix and Transmeta are all thevin' stinkin' criminals.
Strawman argument. As I say in another message above, explain to me how AMD processors are an artifact whose main use is software piracy, and then we could have a rational discussion. Since you can't, your analogy stutters and dies.
My assault rifle analogy completely escaped you, right? Read it again.
Publicize and thus legitimize? Come on now. They are informing us, people in search for "News for nerds, stuff that matters" about a programmer appearing on a chat channel. Nothing more nothing less.
This is an ideological statement of the sort of which the "free press" hides behind. "We're just informing people; we don't bow to any ideology." The truth of the matter is that the media has only a finite amount of space and time, and that by choosing some stories over others they indeed take an ideological stand.
The extreme example is, of course, when the press covers terrorist and extremist groups. Terrorist and extremist groups are by definition minuscule; their sole means to advance their causes is by using the media. Thus when the media covers a bombing attack, they promote terrorism. Of course, though you see stories about terrorist bombings, you see no stories criticizing the media for covering terrorist attacks. The gross result is that the media promotes terrorism.
The argument can be made in and exactly parallel manner about this/. story.
PS: thanks for the patronizing "duhs", you're contributing to my already low opinion of Debian users.
The "duhs" are due to the fact that by just looking at the Debian front page, you could have seen that the security announcements are right there. How long could it take you to point your browser at the logical place to find out about Debian, the home page, and skim the page? Certainly less time than what you've spent reading and posting on/.
so, what you are implying by your flame is that you can indeed speak hindi, mandarin, or other languages extremely poorly and still be understood? That has not been my experience.
Your isolated experience does not make for evidence. Period. You fail to give even one valid reason why this could be the case, and given the level of ignorance about linguistics you show, you just don't have to knowledge to make an argument one way or another.
For the record, I've studied Linguistics far beyond Ling 101.
From my reading in linguistics and semantics this is one of the key reasons for the development of english based pidjin dialects.
You have got to be making this up about the reading. I can't believe that unless you give a reference.
The reason there are many english based pidgins and creoles is simply because the English were trading all over the world. Still, there have been pidgins and creoles based in a good deal many languages.
As for spanglish, I live in L.A. I hear it all the time. There is a fair body of spanish words that are incorporated into common everyday usage. If your linguistics 101 course teaches otherwise it is wrong.
Well, you have just shown your ignorance again. If you knew the first thing about the topic, you'd have understood that my gripe was at your term "spanglish creole", which is pure and absolute nonsense. "Spanglish" is not a creole, pure and simple. You just show that you don't know what a creole is. Again, go to Ling 101, or pick an intro book, and check out what a creole is. (While you're at it, check code-switching, too.)
And you don't have anything to teach me about "Spanglish": my first language is Spanish, and I've lived both among Puerto Ricans and Dominicans in NYC and Mexicans in California. So-called "Spanglish" is either code-switching (switching between two or more languages or dialects in spontaneous speech), or the use of loanwords from English in Spanish, or both. (Note that the two phenomena mentioned are completely different things; loanwords are adapted to the grammar and pronunciation of the borrowing language, and thus are used even by people who don't speak the source language; code-swtiching involves using the grammar and pronunciation of both languages. That's why I put the "Spanglish" label in quotes; it is not descriptively adequate, since it doesn't make this crucial distinction.)
Slashdot Mirror
The version in Potato is not up to date, though; grab the version from unstable, and you'll be in heaven.
And there is a further trick behind this-- the spammers themselves can gather addresses, spam you, and when you complain, claim that somebody else must have signed you up, a "circumstance beyond their control".
My roommate and me got some emails early this year from some matchmaking company, thanking us for having subscribed to their service, telling us that they had already charged our credit cards for it, and that we could use the service by going to the URL they gave us. I complained loudly to their ISP, and got back an angry reply from the company itself (not the ISP; the ISP just forwarded my complaint to them, apparently) saying that if we had gotten that email was because either we had signed up, or sombody had signed us up, and that in the latter case it wasn't their fault.
Reading Perl zealots, one gets the impression that Larry Wall is right up there with Noam Chomsky. God, like every other sentence is "Larry Wall is a linguist". When was the last fucking time Wall worked with linguistics? 1979?
Anyway, the argument is pure bullshit. First of all, it assumes you want programming languages to be like natural languages, which is a questionable assumption in itself. Second, it is not an argument at all-- it is just the bald assertion that pearl is like a natural language because Wall says so, and Wall is a linguist, and Wall would never lie to us, so it must be true. Never mind that noone's ever given an actual argument supporting Wall's BS.
Face it, Perl is no more like natural language than any other language.
In English, for instance, there are countless dozens of ways to rephrase "My silly aunt's accountancy course starts next week."
And most of them are considerably longer, or, more importantly, don't quite mean the same thing. So?
This thing about Perl being "like a natural language" is self-serving BS spread by Wall; he abuses his title to give it credibility. Only monolingual pearl zealot g**ks who have never tried their hand at actually learning a natural language swallow it. If pearl actuallt were like a natural language, you'd have a miserable time learning it, your programs would all do something different than what you thought they did, and you'd never get the prepositions right.
WTF?
Debian wants to distribute free software, and they wrote the DFSG to clarify what they mean with that. There is no preference for the GPL like you claim above.
I don't see why you even have to make the argument about bands. This is obvious bullshit posturing. Like, Time Warner *really* expects anybody to believe that they will not sell content if this law does not go my way? What kind of irrational business decision would that be? They would get sued by their stockholders if they tried anything of the sort.
And anyway, if their claim were true, well, I guess a world with one less power hungry USian media megacorporation trying to get into the net is only a good thing.
You twist logic to your convenience. Let's review your own words:
Because for those years, Qt was either not free, or GPL incompatible, and a major free software project was based on it. Duh.
So the new, current situation is irrelevant to the evaluation of my statement there. Because it was explicitly addressed to a situation previous to the current one. So you have obviously shown that you have no interest in having a rational discussion with me-- you resort to dirty tricks like this strawman argument to try to make me look bad. Of course, I'm not an idiot like you were gambling I were, and I know precisely how to answer those attacks-- by exposing them.
Your immoral tactics give lie to your claims.
One would think that RMS might at least show the slimmest bit of gratitude for Troll Tech's capitulation to his demands.
Point out which part of RMS's editorial is addressed to Troll. Point out where he makes any demands of the Trolls.
Saying "he demanded for years that Qt be GPLed" doesn't cut it-- from your reference to Troll Tech's "capitulation" (note the deliberately inflammatory, martial vocabulary you use here), you are talking about the current situation. Yet you drag in the past to its evaluation. One begins to see that you don't have many tricks up your sleeve-- you use the same fallacious, demagogical method throughout.
There is no difference between retroactively attacking Troll Tech for having the unmitigated gall to develop a non-GPL library and retroactively attacking the KDE team for using a non-GPL library. Either scenario involves pissing all over somebody else's hard work because they did it in a manner that you didn't like.
"There is no diffenrence between retroactively attacking King Leopold for his business practices in the Congo and retroactively attacking Hitler for his rehabilitation of the German economy. Either scenario involves pissing all over somebody else's hard work because they did it in an manner that you didn't like."
Ok, so you have another trick. State the obviously wrong with great conviction. Dude, I insist, IHBT.
RMS may be (mostly) admirable but he is not God.
But he is clearly doing His work here on Earth; he is taking us a step closer to His Kingdom.
KDE and GNOME are on the same team (that is, the team of open source desktop environments.)
Gnome has been in the team of Freedom since the start; heaven, it started because KDE was *not* on this team. KDE has clearly shown through their actions that they have not entered this team. So when RMS says "Go Gnome!", he's saying "Go Freedom!"
Your use of the term "open source" gives you away, anyway, as somebody who values authority over freedom. The Kingdom of God does not tolerate authority, as Christ himself reveals: "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called `benefactors'. But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves", Luke 24:25-26.
No, you haven't been trolled. My username is intended to severely punish knee-jerk moderators in meta-moderation (usernames and signatures aren't displayed in M2.)
There are some a priori analytic issues, hinted at ever so slightly, that prevent me, in this particular thread, from being considered as a object of a trolling, believe me.
"Attack"? What kind of crack are you smoking?
He said that, despite he believes that, despite the fact that there could conceivably be a legal cause against people for breaking the GPL in the past, he's not going to pursue that path ever, and urges everbody to do likewise. How is "You're now guaranteed I'm not going to ever sue you for this" an attack?
Frankly, whatever your idea of "free" software is, it's not fucking relevant in discussing this particular issue. It's a matter of licensing, for Christ sakes. If the KDE developers violated the GPL in the past, as RMS claims, they lost all privileges the GPL conferred them in so doing, and thus are not entitled create derivative works.
Whatever your dreamy, idiotic idea of what free software should be, this is a fucking fact about licensing, which is not affected by your trivial, ineffective intellectual machinations.
In all fairness, one thing would not exclude the other. This is like asking "Was the agricultural revolution in the Neolithic just a sequential evolution of how we acquire food, or was it truly a new 'society'?"
But still, the idea behind your question is dead on. All this hype about the "Information Age" is just corporate propaganda bullshit designed to sell books, IT stocks and technology, plus do clearly misguided things like spend school's scarce money on computers and not on teachers, to the benefit of the IT industry.
Take the Neolithic, for example. This involved major changes in the forms of production of basic goods, and the living conditions of the majority of people in the societies affected-- hunting ceased to be the primary economic activity of personkind, to be supplanted by agriculture. People settled into towns, instead of wandering around.
The industrial revolution: the way goods were produced was radically altered. Instead of skilled craftpersons organically creating the end product, the unskilled laborers tend to the machines that make the product. Social effect: deskilling of workers, but above all, people move to the cities.
Now try to show whether the "Infomation Age" (whose "start", anyway, should be the invention of the telegraph, the first device to allow instant communication) has made major changes in the modes of production of the basic goods, or whether it has made fundamental material changes in the way people in "information societies" live. And the answer is: No. This is still the industrial age.
Won't work for us. We don't have a TV at our place.
The problem is simple: you can't isolate your kids from their peers. And their peers have a huge influence on them. At my place, we let our kid go to other homes to play with other kids in the neighborhood or schoolmates. There he is exposed to violent entertainment and play. Are you suggesting that I isolate my kid from his social surroundings and peers? Hardly possible, and the attempt will likely only hurt us.
I caught it halfway when I first saw it, around episode 16-17. I've heard similar opinions to yours from people who have only watched the first couple episodes.
I was not impressed by the extremely overdone, half-baked religious references, either. (Angels? Flaming crosses? Can we be any more subtle?)
Neither was I. Some people seem to get a kick out of that, for some reason-- you stick something weird in anything, and they go "ooh, aah, this is profound". Oh, well.
My question for anime fans here, is, should I bother? Does it get any better after the first tape?
Character development, intricate plot, and the very tense atmosphere maintained are the good points behind Evangelion.
I have done no such thing, my brother.
There is one root cause for social problems-- the departure from the ways of God. Its personal manifestation is sin, and its social manifestation is the class war.
In the scheme of things, Japanese anime is just a symptom.
No. It turned out my child was watching this series at a friend's house, and explained it to me. I know how children perceive this first hand.
They actually have much less violence over there [Japan] than we do here - and a lot more respect for life in general to boot. Personally, I think some of this comes from the fact that they don't feel the need to tell their children that violence doesn't exist - they don't shield their kids from it - so their kids learn about it - as well as the consequences involved.
Japan, where they invented tentacle hentai? The world capital of child porn? Now I'm supposed to let the Japanese dictate what is right for my child and what isn't?
And how do our western societies "shield" children from violence? It's all over the fucking media, for Christ's sake.
I think what really hurts our youth today is the lack of truly noble role-models - not the portrayal of violence on TV.
This statement of yours is put in very bad light by your comments below. I'll get back to it.
Many parents would rather blame their kids violent actions on a violent cartoon rather than the fact that they never *discussed* violence with their kids. If parents would stand up and *be* the role-models for their kids - they wouldn't have to look elsewhere for commercial role-models
It's not like children have to look elsewhere for role models-- the huge media corporations, which have such an inordinate power in shaping our culture, bombbard them with it everywhere. If they want to have friends in school, if they want to play with them, they have to participate in the same sort of games and watch the same TV shows-- participate in the representation of violence-- otherwise they are ridiculed and rejected.
There are redeeming qualities of DBZ, if you'd bother to look for them. DBZ has the time-honoured good vs. evil theme - the hero is noble and kind-hearted to a fault, fighting only when given no choice in the situation, or challenged (martial artist honor).
Please. This is a simplistic, ideological portrayal. There are no "good" people, or "bad" people. We are all just internally conflicted sinners, with the calling of God to establish His Kingdom.
This kind of simplistic, "good vs. evil" mentality is a tool of the ruling class to brainwash us into thinking it is O.K. to hurt the "evil" people. Whenever a war comes about, this is the argument that is pulled out-- "The Germans/Japanese are evil, they want to spread evil all over the world, we would rather not fight, but we have to fight and kill them. Show no mercy-- they are evil."
The real world is, of course, more complex than that. As the expression says, "War is a bunch of young men who don't know each other killing each other, for the benefit of a few old mean who know each other, but don't kill each other" (sounds kinda awkward translated to English, but in French it sounds all right).
And that "martial artist honor" thing is just an euphemism for chauvinistic my-dick-is-bigger than-yours penis waving. As Christ said, turn the other cheek.
I don't think so.
The idea behind the RMS editorial you're thinking about is that the GPL is preferable when you are providing functionality not available in other libraries. The LGPL is meant for situations where you provide functionality that the non-free competition already provides.
Since there's plenty of GUI toolkits around, free or otherwise, I don't think it matters a bit. And, since Troll will sell you licenses to develop non-free software with Qt, the whole RMS anti-LGPL argument is kinda demolished in this case.
But this is all speculation, isn't it?
[Debian's] package management system is simply amazing. No other Linux distribution (well, except the ones based on Debian ;-) come even close. Heck, no other OS has anything like it, period!
This statement is put into doubt by the ignorance you show below about BSDs.
Imagine a system, similar to FreeBSD's ports, that:
1. Works with binaries. You can download and install binaries instead of having to wait for it to compile.
Why, FreeBSD's pkg_add does this. Downloads dependencies, too.
You can also request to get source though, and compile it (just like in FreeBSD).
Not just like FreeBSD. The Debian support for auto-managing dependencies does not extend to source. If you don't have the packages required to build the source, it will simply fail.
2. Figures out dependencies auto-magically and downloads all the required libraries.
FreeBSD already does this.
3. *Handles upgrades*. "apt-get upgrade" will upgrade the packages you have installed.
Take a look here. Essentially, pkg_version -cv' is the FreeBSD equivalent to apt-get upgrade.
The point is simple-- the philosphies behind apt and the ports trees are different, and there are many intricacies behind each. To make a fair comparison one needs to know each in depth.
The ports tree's emphasis is on building from source, and it simply whoops apt/dpkg's ass at this. In my particular environment, I'm finding that this is a feature I could use-- I build a few Debian packages by hand frequently to enable features, which I see could more easily done in FreeBSD.
I've yet to try FreeBSD, but I suspect Debian's automatic configuration of packages is superior, and will get even better as more and more packages are made to use debconf. But once your system is configured appropriately, this is no longer an issue.
Also, I think FreeBSDs development model (e.g. the base OS/ports split) lends itself to more frequent, high quality stable releases for the basic system, and fairly up to date additional packages. You can't get this combination in Debian-- you either run stable, where you get a well-tested system with out of date software, or unstable, where you are on the bleeding edge. (I run both versions in two different machines).
In short, FreeBSD, from what I've researched, is a very good system, which I suspect I will much prefer to Debian (and this comes from a 2.5 year Debian user).
It's fairly obvious, isn't it? I'll highlight it for you:
You download a .src.rpm, do an "rpm -i" on it, modify the spec file in /usr/src/redhat/SPECS. And then you just do an "rpm -bb" to build a binary package [...]
This is the problem. You have to manually make modifications.
With a ports system, you throw a patch into the patches directory for the package, and it gets automatically applied to the source tree in the normal build process.
The only difference is you have to download the source ahead of time for rpm's. But any changes you make to a FreeBSD ports Makefile will need to be redone when the package gets updated anyways.
Unless you do as I say above-- you drop a patch into the patches directory for the port.
In FreeBSD, this is the difference between a port and a package-- packages are what ports build. From the FreeBSD Ports page:
pkg_add will download and install dependencies, too.The problem is that this is not automated.
I can understand the poster's complaint. I run Debian, and I frequently need to compile packages from source, enabling options that are disabled by default (in my case, Kerberos 4). Whenever a new version comes out, if I wish to update to it, I have to download the source for that, make my modifications again, and only then can I compile a new version.
A mechanism where users specify local options that the package building system would use during the build process would be the perfect solution here.
It does not do at all what I said.
For example, my system has absolutely no Gnome software on it, no libraries, no nothing. If I run your command with the gnome-games package, it will download the gnome-games source, try to compile it, and fail, because the libraries and headers needed for a successful build are not already present in the system.
The correct thing to do is to know beforehand which packages are going to be needed to build the program, build those, and then build the original package.
Frankly, Debian has the infrastructure in place to do this, but the developers just don't seem interested. Source packages have a "Build-depends" field that says which packages are needed to build them, so this would be a matter of downloading a source package, recursively satisfying its build dependencies from source, and then building it. I bet this could be written in pearl in a few hours.
Strawman argument. As I say in another message above, explain to me how AMD processors are an artifact whose main use is software piracy, and then we could have a rational discussion. Since you can't, your analogy stutters and dies.
My assault rifle analogy completely escaped you, right? Read it again.
This is an ideological statement of the sort of which the "free press" hides behind. "We're just informing people; we don't bow to any ideology." The truth of the matter is that the media has only a finite amount of space and time, and that by choosing some stories over others they indeed take an ideological stand.
The extreme example is, of course, when the press covers terrorist and extremist groups. Terrorist and extremist groups are by definition minuscule; their sole means to advance their causes is by using the media. Thus when the media covers a bombing attack, they promote terrorism. Of course, though you see stories about terrorist bombings, you see no stories criticizing the media for covering terrorist attacks. The gross result is that the media promotes terrorism.
The argument can be made in and exactly parallel manner about this /. story.
deb http://security.debian.org/ potato/updates main contrib non-free
There might also be a line for the non-us collection, but I can't remember what it was right now.
The "duhs" are due to the fact that by just looking at the Debian front page, you could have seen that the security announcements are right there. How long could it take you to point your browser at the logical place to find out about Debian, the home page, and skim the page? Certainly less time than what you've spent reading and posting on /.
Your isolated experience does not make for evidence. Period. You fail to give even one valid reason why this could be the case, and given the level of ignorance about linguistics you show, you just don't have to knowledge to make an argument one way or another.
For the record, I've studied Linguistics far beyond Ling 101.
From my reading in linguistics and semantics this is one of the key reasons for the development of english based pidjin dialects.
You have got to be making this up about the reading. I can't believe that unless you give a reference.
The reason there are many english based pidgins and creoles is simply because the English were trading all over the world. Still, there have been pidgins and creoles based in a good deal many languages.
As for spanglish, I live in L.A. I hear it all the time. There is a fair body of spanish words that are incorporated into common everyday usage. If your linguistics 101 course teaches otherwise it is wrong.
Well, you have just shown your ignorance again. If you knew the first thing about the topic, you'd have understood that my gripe was at your term "spanglish creole", which is pure and absolute nonsense. "Spanglish" is not a creole, pure and simple. You just show that you don't know what a creole is. Again, go to Ling 101, or pick an intro book, and check out what a creole is. (While you're at it, check code-switching, too.)
And you don't have anything to teach me about "Spanglish": my first language is Spanish, and I've lived both among Puerto Ricans and Dominicans in NYC and Mexicans in California. So-called "Spanglish" is either code-switching (switching between two or more languages or dialects in spontaneous speech), or the use of loanwords from English in Spanish, or both. (Note that the two phenomena mentioned are completely different things; loanwords are adapted to the grammar and pronunciation of the borrowing language, and thus are used even by people who don't speak the source language; code-swtiching involves using the grammar and pronunciation of both languages. That's why I put the "Spanglish" label in quotes; it is not descriptively adequate, since it doesn't make this crucial distinction.)