Prediction #1: Sony will push these as a "next generation" mass storage medium for computer data. People who has about backwards compatibility for existing CDROMs will either be told to "get into the 21st Century" OR swept under the rug.
Prediction #2: Sony will NOT push these as a "next generation" mass storage medium for MUSIC data. People who has about "more music for the dollar" will be told that there are problems with backwards compatibility with existing CD players. --
I had to re-read this summary about 3 times before I realized that "speedbumps" weren't problems (as in "we hit a speedbump") but feature enhancements (as in "we bumped up the speed"). --
I read an interesting, online-only article at Linux Journal about a 18 months ago on a topic called "color reactance". Essentially it advocated (and partially demonstrated) how you could have programs set "traffic lights" (or window frame colors, or something) to indicate states. For instance, a program that needs attention could be set to flash yellow whereas one that is finished could flash green (or whatever).
When I first say the Aqua screenshots, I thought Apple had done this. They have a trio of traffic lights on the upper right of every window. But it turns out they are just eye-candied versions of the old close/minimize/maximize buttons. --
"Education is not just about transferring information, and isn't improved by transferring it more efficiently."
What is education about then and how does this statement apply to computers?
"Kids will always know more than the teachers. This will inevitably lead to huge conflicts."
This is not "inevitable". Kids (usually) don't know more than their teachers in any another field, even the rapidly changing ones (say, physics). In any case, this isn't a computer problem, it is a social one.
"Computers aren't programmable. Not anymore. They used to come with BASIC interpreters. Now you just get Windows on the home PC, or a Mac."
Again, not a computer problem, a "bundling" problem. For instance, RedHat Linux comes with many many many programming languages.
"A lot of the so-called educational software is a joke..."
Another non-computer problem. This one is just poor software. Easily fixed by using different software.
"Multiuser systems in schools tend to be run on an utterly fascist basis, due to admin cluelessness and underfundedness."
And finally another non-computer problem (surprise!). This one is social/administrative.
Now, I didn't mean to pick you to pieces specifically, but you were the highest rated at the time I read the story. Your subject line is that "computers don't work in the classroom". But as we can see above the REAL problem is that "computers aren't used correctly in the classroom". Big difference. --
Do you really think the membership of this "organization" is going to do anything? The only reason MS wants to you sign up is so they can put another tick mark on a list they are going to show to any politician who will stand still for over 5 seconds.
In other words, just signing up gives them ammo ("Senator Bob, we have 8 million members!") --
Where do you think software improvements come from, if not user feedback? Make product. Get it "out there". Get feedback ("hard to use", etc). Improve product. Iterate. Installfests are step 2.
In any case, I don't believe in building the system down to the user. I believe in building the system down to a "reasonable level" and the educating the user up to that same level. --
"God has not sent AIDS to destroy us, merely to guide us to the correct path."
And I repeat my question. When a cure for AIDS is found and we can "stray from the path" with impunity, does this mean that the path changed? Or what we successfully defeated one of God's "tests"? Or will you change your mind about AIDS being a test? No, you'll probably say that "now we've gone too far" and you'll die and angry bitter person. And your son (or grandson) will look back and wonder what all the hubbub was. O tempora, O mores.
"Those of us who know the Truth in their hearts can easily reconcile any of your so-called "contradictions". Only the faithless have this "problem" with the word of God."
Methinks you doth protest too much. I wasn't comparing the OT and the NT to find contradictions--I'm well aware of the standard (and I think reasonable) reasons for the the discrepancies.
I was comparing the "liberal agenda" to the NT and your "God is raining fire and brimstone down on us" rhetoric to the OT.
"...but for those of us who know what is really going on the real truth of the atheist-liberal agenda is readily apparent."
So....are you going to fill me in? Or do I only get to know the "real truth" once I reach the "inner circle". Will I also get a secret handshake?
I see you chose to ignore the USSR argument. The original statement was that we (humans) had managed not to blow up Earth. You said it was because we had "Christian ethics". I pointed out that Communists didn't subscribe to these ethics and also didn't blow us up. You respond with offtopic references to the fall of the USSR.
"I do not have a problem with science per se, merely those blasphemous aspects which seek to undermine the Truth of the Creation and God's role in the Universe..."
They you DO have a problem with science per se. Science is about asking questions and finding answers. The fundamental belief of ALL scientists is that there are no questions that "should not be asked". If you feel that certain areas "shouldn't be explored" then you are anti-science, period. --
"AIDS is not there no punish those of low moral quality, it is there to punish us all for allowing these people to become part of normal society rather than being reviled for their unGodly perversions."
And when someone comes up with a cure for AIDS (besides putting homosexuals in concentration camps, I mean)? Does that mean that humans are smarter than God? Or does it mean God decided homos are "OK after all"? Or is it your contention that AIDS cannot and will not be cured? If so, that is a prediction that can be checked, so soon we'll know if God exists and what his feelings on same-sex marriage are.
"...the liberal "educators" that have an agenda to destroy any trace of Christian ethics from children's education."
Which Christian ethics are we talking about? The ones from the New Testament like "love thy neighbor" or the ones from the Old Testament like "an eye for an eye"? Didn't you get the word? Jesus made the OT obsolete. All the liberals *I* know are trying to help people--sounds a lot like "love" doesn't it? (before you conclude that I am a liberal, though, consider that "trying" and "succeeding" are two different things).
[Responding to "we haven't blown ourselves up with nuclear weapons"] "Because up until recently decent Christian ethics were viewed as important, and people heeded the word of God."
Are you under the impression that the US is the only country with nuclear weapons? The USSR had them at the same time as us and they didn't blow up the planet either. Remember the USSR? The "Evil Empire" run by "militant atheists"?
"I think you are mistaking me for some kind of Luddite, which I am obviously not."
It's less obvious than you think.
"I am merely concerned about the dangers which genetics poses..."
Someone actually concerned with dangers will inform themselves and then propose solutions. YOU are using frankenscience to try to scare people "back to God".
"...and how Christianity has been slandered and then abanonded by a society that is walking straight into Satan's grasp with open arms."
How is genetic research related to Christianity? The only link you provide is the old "things man was not meant to meddle with". Read a history book; this phrase has been used to decry airplanes, electricity, astronomy and probably the written word.
"Any right-thinking person should agree with what I'm saying."
As long as you define "right-thinking" correctly, anyway. --
Lets not get too excited about this. The researchers are doing an EXPERIMENT. Obviously the first part was "can we make mice big by removing this gene?" But the second part is just as important "what else breaks when we remove this gene?"
Given the function (growth inhibition) of the gene in question, I'm going to bet these mice are especially susceptible to cancer. --
No, do NOT deliberately make bad software. That's unethical. In fact, I would even argue that dragging your feet or lying about the real cost would be unethical.
A better solution is:
Step 1) Understand what you are being asked to create. Maybe your unease is caused by a misunderstanding.
2) Talk to the relevant manager (or as high as you can get access to). Explain your concerns. If there are channels, go through them. Document all conversations/memos/emails/etc.
3) If asked to implement anyway you have several choices:
a) If the action is illegal you can refuse to do it and "blow the whistle". There are laws that no action can be taken against a whistleblower so you are theoretically safe (I don't know how well this works in practice, though).
b) If the action is merely unethical the situation is murkier. If the business you are working for is part of a professional association, check their code of ethics and procedures for compliance. For instance, if a doctor wants you to write software that transmits medical data over an unsecured channel, you might be able report him to the AMA. (warning: this is only an example)
c) If your situation still hasn't been covered by the above, you may have to go it alone. Personally I would quit and maybe publish information (Internet, other media outlets, etc) regarding the proposed action. Yeah yeah, "I have mouths to feed". But a child is more than a mouth. I'd rather have my child miss a meal than seeing Daddy doing something wrong. Besides, programmer's (and engineers of all kinds) have no problem finding work. Even at McDonald's. --
From the GPL (Section 0): 'The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language.'
(emphasis added)
This phrase makes it seem clear to me that a non-GPL'd library cannot be linked to a GPL'd program (which is then distributed).
"...Stallman himself has written code which had to link in proprietary libraries."
I'd like to see some references on this. Make sure that we are talking about STATIC linking, too. Dynamic linking against non-GPL'd libraries is probably OK.
The key here is distribution. When you ship a GPL'd binary, the entire source code to make that binary must be included. If you've linked a library staticly, then the source for that library must be available. Another quote (Section 3-3a):
You may copy and distribute the Program...in executable form...provided that you also...[a]ccompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code
Again, if it is in executable form AND the libraries are static then the "complete source code" includes the library's source code. --
1) If people are complaining to TrollTech about making Qt free, they (the complainers) are idiots. The problem is not Qt, the problem is KDE. Qt is not in any danger, KDE is the project is that has (potentially) linked GPL with non-GPL.
2) You are right that a->b != b->a. But the GPL also talks about "derivative works". So, for instance, I take work "myprog.o" and add "libqt.a" and create work "myprog". "myprog" is a derivative work of a GPL'd work "myprog.o" and a non-GPL'd work "libqt.a". --
My dad bought me a Packard Bell in, oh it must have been 1995--from WalMart no less. It was a 486 75 (DX4...4? yes, 4). Came with Win3.1.
I still have that machine. I threw out the soundcard/modem (piece of crap) and I recently replaced the CDROM with a tape drive (and added a SCSI card)--but everything else is original equipment. It's running Linux headless (no monitor, kbd or mouse) and acting as the server for my home network. Provides file space, print services (laser and soon-to-be color), proxy/nat/firewall, etc. It's a horse. --
Paleontologists on Planet P1 determine that Event E1 occurred T1 time units "ago".
Said Paleos travel to Planet P2 and determine that even E2 occurred T1 times units "ago".
If travel time is an insignificant fraction of T1, then E1 and E2 happened "simultaneously" (for some common sense definition of that word). --
Re:p0.00001 means I believe in God?
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 1
"I don't think it is a matter of whether something is unlikely enough."
Maybe not for you. But *I* subscribe to Occam's Razor. And given the evidence in the book (which is only hypothetical after all), God's existence is the simplest explanation. --
Slashdot Mirror
Prediction #1: Sony will push these as a "next generation" mass storage medium for computer data. People who has about backwards compatibility for existing CDROMs will either be told to "get into the 21st Century" OR swept under the rug.
Prediction #2: Sony will NOT push these as a "next generation" mass storage medium for MUSIC data. People who has about "more music for the dollar" will be told that there are problems with backwards compatibility with existing CD players.
--
I had to re-read this summary about 3 times before I realized that "speedbumps" weren't problems (as in "we hit a speedbump") but feature enhancements (as in "we bumped up the speed").
--
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that they are using a "foot-long piston" to power a "flat plate"? That what a shoe is already!
--
Although it may have something to do with sex. Remember, "words have gender, people have sex".
--
I don't know if this counts as research, but blender (www.blender.nl) has a totally fresh (if hard to use at first) take on a space-saving GUI.
--
I read an interesting, online-only article at Linux Journal about a 18 months ago on a topic called "color reactance". Essentially it advocated (and partially demonstrated) how you could have programs set "traffic lights" (or window frame colors, or something) to indicate states. For instance, a program that needs attention could be set to flash yellow whereas one that is finished could flash green (or whatever).
When I first say the Aqua screenshots, I thought Apple had done this. They have a trio of traffic lights on the upper right of every window. But it turns out they are just eye-candied versions of the old close/minimize/maximize buttons.
--
"Education is not just about transferring information, and isn't improved by transferring it more efficiently."
What is education about then and how does this statement apply to computers?
"Kids will always know more than the teachers. This will inevitably lead to huge conflicts."
This is not "inevitable". Kids (usually) don't know more than their teachers in any another field, even the rapidly changing ones (say, physics). In any case, this isn't a computer problem, it is a social one.
"Computers aren't programmable. Not anymore. They used to come with BASIC interpreters. Now you just get Windows on the home PC, or a Mac."
Again, not a computer problem, a "bundling" problem. For instance, RedHat Linux comes with many many many programming languages.
"A lot of the so-called educational software is a joke..."
Another non-computer problem. This one is just poor software. Easily fixed by using different software.
"Multiuser systems in schools tend to be run on an utterly fascist basis, due to admin cluelessness and underfundedness."
And finally another non-computer problem (surprise!). This one is social/administrative.
Now, I didn't mean to pick you to pieces specifically, but you were the highest rated at the time I read the story. Your subject line is that "computers don't work in the classroom". But as we can see above the REAL problem is that "computers aren't used correctly in the classroom". Big difference.
--
Do you really think the membership of this "organization" is going to do anything? The only reason MS wants to you sign up is so they can put another tick mark on a list they are going to show to any politician who will stand still for over 5 seconds.
In other words, just signing up gives them ammo ("Senator Bob, we have 8 million members!")
--
...blah blah blah. Where are the pics of the booth babes?
--
Where do you think software improvements come from, if not user feedback? Make product. Get it "out there". Get feedback ("hard to use", etc). Improve product. Iterate. Installfests are step 2.
In any case, I don't believe in building the system down to the user. I believe in building the system down to a "reasonable level" and the educating the user up to that same level.
--
"God has not sent AIDS to destroy us, merely to guide us to the correct path."
And I repeat my question. When a cure for AIDS is found and we can "stray from the path" with impunity, does this mean that the path changed? Or what we successfully defeated one of God's "tests"? Or will you change your mind about AIDS being a test? No, you'll probably say that "now we've gone too far" and you'll die and angry bitter person. And your son (or grandson) will look back and wonder what all the hubbub was. O tempora, O mores.
"Those of us who know the Truth in their hearts can easily reconcile any of your so-called "contradictions". Only the faithless have this "problem" with the word of God."
Methinks you doth protest too much. I wasn't comparing the OT and the NT to find contradictions--I'm well aware of the standard (and I think reasonable) reasons for the the discrepancies.
I was comparing the "liberal agenda" to the NT and your "God is raining fire and brimstone down on us" rhetoric to the OT.
"...but for those of us who know what is really going on the real truth of the atheist-liberal agenda is readily apparent."
So....are you going to fill me in? Or do I only get to know the "real truth" once I reach the "inner circle". Will I also get a secret handshake?
I see you chose to ignore the USSR argument. The original statement was that we (humans) had managed not to blow up Earth. You said it was because we had "Christian ethics". I pointed out that Communists didn't subscribe to these ethics and also didn't blow us up. You respond with offtopic references to the fall of the USSR.
"I do not have a problem with science per se, merely those blasphemous aspects which seek to undermine the Truth of the Creation and God's role in the Universe..."
They you DO have a problem with science per se. Science is about asking questions and finding answers. The fundamental belief of ALL scientists is that there are no questions that "should not be asked". If you feel that certain areas "shouldn't be explored" then you are anti-science, period.
--
This boils down to: TUX is in the kernel plus some modules. Great for speed. Bad for security and stability.
--
"AIDS is not there no punish those of low moral quality, it is there to punish us all for allowing these people to become part of normal society rather than being reviled for their unGodly perversions."
And when someone comes up with a cure for AIDS (besides putting homosexuals in concentration camps, I mean)? Does that mean that humans are smarter than God? Or does it mean God decided homos are "OK after all"? Or is it your contention that AIDS cannot and will not be cured? If so, that is a prediction that can be checked, so soon we'll know if God exists and what his feelings on same-sex marriage are.
"...the liberal "educators" that have an agenda to destroy any trace of Christian ethics from children's education."
Which Christian ethics are we talking about? The ones from the New Testament like "love thy neighbor" or the ones from the Old Testament like "an eye for an eye"? Didn't you get the word? Jesus made the OT obsolete. All the liberals *I* know are trying to help people--sounds a lot like "love" doesn't it? (before you conclude that I am a liberal, though, consider that "trying" and "succeeding" are two different things).
[Responding to "we haven't blown ourselves up with nuclear weapons"] "Because up until recently decent Christian ethics were viewed as important, and people heeded the word of God."
Are you under the impression that the US is the only country with nuclear weapons? The USSR had them at the same time as us and they didn't blow up the planet either. Remember the USSR? The "Evil Empire" run by "militant atheists"?
"I think you are mistaking me for some kind of Luddite, which I am obviously not."
It's less obvious than you think.
"I am merely concerned about the dangers which genetics poses..."
Someone actually concerned with dangers will inform themselves and then propose solutions. YOU are using frankenscience to try to scare people "back to God".
"...and how Christianity has been slandered and then abanonded by a society that is walking straight into Satan's grasp with open arms."
How is genetic research related to Christianity? The only link you provide is the old "things man was not meant to meddle with". Read a history book; this phrase has been used to decry airplanes, electricity, astronomy and probably the written word.
"Any right-thinking person should agree with what I'm saying."
As long as you define "right-thinking" correctly, anyway.
--
IIRC, he died of an infection caused by ill-fitting shoes.
--
Lets not get too excited about this. The researchers are doing an EXPERIMENT. Obviously the first part was "can we make mice big by removing this gene?" But the second part is just as important "what else breaks when we remove this gene?"
Given the function (growth inhibition) of the gene in question, I'm going to bet these mice are especially susceptible to cancer.
--
Could it have been chips? Ruffles in particular? If so, I think we know who to blame: Homer.
Freedom! Horrible horrible freedom!
--
No, do NOT deliberately make bad software. That's unethical. In fact, I would even argue that dragging your feet or lying about the real cost would be unethical.
A better solution is:
Step 1) Understand what you are being asked to create. Maybe your unease is caused by a misunderstanding.
2) Talk to the relevant manager (or as high as you can get access to). Explain your concerns. If there are channels, go through them. Document all conversations/memos/emails/etc.
3) If asked to implement anyway you have several choices:
a) If the action is illegal you can refuse to do it and "blow the whistle". There are laws that no action can be taken against a whistleblower so you are theoretically safe (I don't know how well this works in practice, though).
b) If the action is merely unethical the situation is murkier. If the business you are working for is part of a professional association, check their code of ethics and procedures for compliance. For instance, if a doctor wants you to write software that transmits medical data over an unsecured channel, you might be able report him to the AMA. (warning: this is only an example)
c) If your situation still hasn't been covered by the above, you may have to go it alone. Personally I would quit and maybe publish information (Internet, other media outlets, etc) regarding the proposed action. Yeah yeah, "I have mouths to feed". But a child is more than a mouth. I'd rather have my child miss a meal than seeing Daddy doing something wrong. Besides, programmer's (and engineers of all kinds) have no problem finding work. Even at McDonald's.
--
...This class was brought to you by the language C and the number F.
--
From the GPL (Section 0):
'The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language.'
(emphasis added)
This phrase makes it seem clear to me that a non-GPL'd library cannot be linked to a GPL'd program (which is then distributed).
"...Stallman himself has written code which had to link in proprietary libraries."
I'd like to see some references on this. Make sure that we are talking about STATIC linking, too. Dynamic linking against non-GPL'd libraries is probably OK.
The key here is distribution. When you ship a GPL'd binary, the entire source code to make that binary must be included. If you've linked a library staticly, then the source for that library must be available. Another quote (Section 3-3a):
You may copy and distribute the Program...in executable form...provided that you also...[a]ccompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code
Again, if it is in executable form AND the libraries are static then the "complete source code" includes the library's source code.
--
1) If people are complaining to TrollTech about making Qt free, they (the complainers) are idiots. The problem is not Qt, the problem is KDE. Qt is not in any danger, KDE is the project is that has (potentially) linked GPL with non-GPL.
2) You are right that a->b != b->a. But the GPL also talks about "derivative works". So, for instance, I take work "myprog.o" and add "libqt.a" and create work "myprog". "myprog" is a derivative work of a GPL'd work "myprog.o" and a non-GPL'd work "libqt.a".
--
Not only will I not back you up, I will raucously deride you:
Just imagine Christopher Lloyd saying it: One...point twenty one...gigawatts!
Trust me, I've seen this movie more times than I care to think of. Heck, I saw it 3 times on the first day I saw it.
--
My dad bought me a Packard Bell in, oh it must have been 1995--from WalMart no less. It was a 486 75 (DX4...4? yes, 4). Came with Win3.1.
I still have that machine. I threw out the soundcard/modem (piece of crap) and I recently replaced the CDROM with a tape drive (and added a SCSI card)--but everything else is original equipment. It's running Linux headless (no monitor, kbd or mouse) and acting as the server for my home network. Provides file space, print services (laser and soon-to-be color), proxy/nat/firewall, etc. It's a horse.
--
If you thought "Distress" was good, read "Permutation City" (a book) and "Axiomatic" (a collection of short stories.
--
Paleontologists on Planet P1 determine that Event E1 occurred T1 time units "ago".
Said Paleos travel to Planet P2 and determine that even E2 occurred T1 times units "ago".
If travel time is an insignificant fraction of T1, then E1 and E2 happened "simultaneously" (for some common sense definition of that word).
--
"I don't think it is a matter of whether something is unlikely enough."
Maybe not for you. But *I* subscribe to Occam's Razor. And given the evidence in the book (which is only hypothetical after all), God's existence is the simplest explanation.
--