Yes, but the idea of having a 3d desktop that doesn't have to go through x.org extension is pretty exciting. While wayland is not doing the 3d rendering, it is making the 3d rendering chain more efficient.
Note to people who give notes to libertarians: Not all libertarians think every problem can be solved by the free market. Libertarians are not anarchists.
An inalienable rights are pretty much worthless without some entity (state legal system, vigilante posse, etc) to enforce it. Making theft and assault illegal through legislation, creates an environment where theft and assault are deterred and punished, and people don't need to spend as much effort preventing their own victimization.
The whole point of government is to protect rights through legislation. If the legislation is bad, then it will be protecting the wrong rights (i.e. the rights of corporations to hinder their competitors, the rights of politicians to accept bribes, etc), but you don't get to pretend that laws against theft and assault are not legislation because they are "inalienable rights"
If you want to play that game, then you need to specify that you are actually talking about "legislation not confirming an inalienable right (as determined by you)" rather than simply "all legislation".
However, saying "I can divide up every piece of legislation into 2 categories: "Inalienable right" and "bad legislation"" is not very interesting.
Someone who wants to get rid of all legislation is an anarchist. Most people called libertarians these days are just republicans. libertarians were at one point simply in favor of minimal effective government (not no government), and they were not left nor right. The idea of "minimal effective government" is already a middle ground between anarchy and bloated government.
That's to prevent your kids from threatening to kill and rape other people on the internet. They can however still call in fake threats to 911 and have the swat team burst into your house pointing automatic weapons in your face.
Yeah but once you give them the keys, they will just kill you and your whole family. You being the only one who knows your keys is the only thing keeping you alive at that point.
Yeah, and we'll really be too scared to do anything when the government repeals the constitution and imprisoning people and torturing their families when they speak out. And the gun nuts that said we should have oppose gun control to provide the check against tyranny will turn out to be be right. And none of it will matter because the singularity will arrive and a super intelligent AI will simply conquer the entire planet with gray goo.
If anyone or group had the political power to make distribution of an algorithm illegal, they wouldn't need to pass some BS law like this first to do it.
Or even better, devoting effort to clang/llvm. In any case it's probably not a great idea to allow your competitor's compiler be a part of how your processor is benchmarked.
And despite all the underhanded stuff intel did in the past, their integrated GPUs are better supported under Linux than AMD which is very important to me. I am still hopeful and waiting for AMD's open source drivers to be good, hopefully by the time Wayland is standard.
WTF is a false comparison? Comparisons are not true or false.
Syrian refugees aren't citizens and have no right, or good reason, to be here.
If only citizens could be here, North and South America would be uninhabited by humans. We as the current occupants of this country get to decide who gets to come here legally. So yes, the ones we grant permission to come here, have the right to come here (because we gave it to them).
Therefore, there's no reason to risk terrorists coming in with the refugees as they did in Paris and have been planning to do in the US.
And in addition to the Syrian refugees who might be terrorist, we also have right wing gun nuts who might be domestic terrorists, so we'd batter be safe and kick all those shitheads out of the country in the name of safety as well.
On the other hand, US citizens have a constitutional right to possess guns for protection from both the common criminal and terrorists who perpetrate mass shootings.
How many shootings were prevented by "good guys with guns"? Zero? Almost zero? I honestly don't think gun control will actually work, so I don't really have a strong desire to see it happen, but this fantasy that people are using their guns to stop mass shootings is retarded.
And, since you can't banish guns out of existence, it will always be better for a population to be armed so they can defend themselves, than leaving them disarmed and defenseless like the countless who've been gunned down in so-called "gun-free" zones. That's just common sense.
Yeah and in this case "common sense" is wrong. Guns are not saving anybody. People get gunned down in gun-full zones all the time too. Common sense (i.e. the sense that people commonly have), is really good for substituting fantasy for reality.
If good guys are always shooting bad guys in movies then it must be happening in real life too.
What I don't understand is how supposedly Christian people fight so hard for the right to defend themselves with deadly force when placed in danger, but completely reject the idea of helping people of a different religion if it means the slightest chance have being exposed to danger (and ignore other dangers like those posed by gun ownership).
Hell, a bunch of terrorists sneaking into the country might be just the opportunity for you nutjobs to show how well you can stop terrorism through gun ownership, except deep down you know just as well as I do, that you aren't stopping shit with your guns. You just like to pretend to have some sense of power in a world that you are completely scared shirtless of, and this fear is rendering you incapable of being a good person and helping people who actually need it.
If this were a movie, you'd be the assholes using oars to beat women and children trying to get to your half full life raft.
I didn't say it wasn't biased, nor did I say that the bias and factual correctness are connected. wolfgang_spangler claimed the summary was ill-informed in addition to being bias-filled, and I was asking which bits of information were bad.
Sort of like how letting all the Syrian refugees come to the the US won't increase violence one iota since the demographic of Syrian refugees isn't terrorists.
Theology is not the study of everything, unless you believe in that particular brand of theology. One could just as easily say that palm reading is the study of everything, because the whole universe both natural and super natural are governed by the lines in people's hands.
The reason science does not have anything to say about the super natural is not because it is out of the realm of science (e.g. as opposed to theology). Science does not have anything to say about the super natural because the ideology of science rejects the legitimacy of "knowledge" based on holy books, or divine revelation, dreams, spiritual experiences, etc.
Science does not reject that God exists or any other supernatural claims. Science rejects the method by which religion claims to have acquired this knowledge.
There are always things science is not going to know. Science will never prove or disprove God, and neither will any theologian in a manner that science deems legitimate.
Furthermore, if something actually happened in a way that it could be observed, (e.g. Jesus walking on water), then according to science, this is a natural phenomenon, and it can be studied just like any other natural phenomenon. It's not so much that science rejects anything supernatural, it's that it treats anything observable as natural and therefore in it's domain.
Ghosts are not super natural if they actually exist and haunt houses.
That is yet another flawed analogy. The photons are reflected or emitted directly from the object. As opposed to its gravitational influence on some other object, where one is directly observing the *other* object, hence the inferred indirect detection of the first object.
I don't think you are understanding what I am saying.
Yes the photons are being "directly" emitted from the object, and the fact that we are observing not the thing itself, but the photons directly emitted from the thing is a layer of indirection. How directly something is observed is relative. It's not discrete, it's a spectrum.
As opposed to its gravitational influence on some other object, where one is directly observing the *other* object, hence the inferred indirect detection of the first object.
Yes it is *one more* layer of indirection. This doesn't mean we are not observing dark matter. It means we are observing dark matter in a more indirect way than we observe most other stuff in the cosmos (which we also observe indirectly).
"The existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, on radiation, and on the large-scale structure of the universe. Dark matter has not been detected directly, making it one of the greatest mysteries in modern astrophysics."
As opposed to what? What properties of anything do we know about anything that are not inferred from their effects on other things?
Yes we don't know that much about dark matter. It's not because we can't observe it (which is what you originally claimed). Yes we can't observe it directly, I am not disagreeing with that. What I am saying is that we can't directly observe anything. Everything we observe is indirect, some more indirect than others.
Actually, a lot of science was done by the church once upon a time. Before trotting out the Galileo line (which you're probably itching to do) you might actually want to look into him a bit more closely too.
Which is why I have yet to mention Galileo in any of my comments? Because I'm itching to bring him up? Believe me, if I wanted to bring him up I would have.
Galileo is not important to the point I am making, which not that "no religious person or organization ever did science". It is that the tenets of religion are antithetical to the tenets of science. Religion assumes it knows things that do not meet the standard of proof in science.
What makes religion antithetical to science is not that they persecuted Galileo, it's that they have other modes of determining truth that are incompatible with science.
They've actually contributed quite a bit to science over the years and some of them are of the mind that the two coexist nicely and don't need to be separated.
The Nazi's also contributed quite a bit to science. This should not lend any credibility to the validity of Nazism.
Err... Some even postulate that science (at least math) proves that there is a creator. There are more than a few documentaries on the subject and there's at least one episode of the hour-long program with Morgan Freeman that goes into this at some detail.
Anyone can make a documentary about anything. Morgan Freeman is an actor.
Quite frequently they posit that our very existence is so improbable as to be considered mathematically impossible.
Have you ever heard of the anthropic principle?
I can create a lottery with thousands possible numbers to choose from and hundreds that are chosen, and the number of possibilities will be more than the number of atoms in the known universe. Each possibility is "mathematically impossible", but the odds that one will get chosen are 100%. Extremely improbable things regularly happen with very high probability, because of the countless number of things that are constantly happening.
This logic is flawed:
1. The chances of winning the lottery are so small they are basically 0.
2. Because the chance of all the possibilities is zero, the chance that someone will ever win the lottery is also 0 (the sum of lots of zeroes)
No, your understanding is coming up short. Your infrared analogy is complete failure, an instrument to detect dark matter is as real today as your beloved unicorn.
You don't know what you are talking about. What counts as direct detection for you? When you see an object you are only indirectly detecting it by detecting photons emitted or reflected form the object.
The direct detection problem, what I refer to as "observable" is not limited to electromagnetism
Well if it's not limited to electromagnetism, why isn't gravitation a valid tool for detection? Furthermore, I would advise you to discard your limited definition of what is "observable".
"Dark matter is a hypothetical kind of matter that cannot be seen with telescopes but accounts for most of the matter in the universe.
Once again you seem to be fixated on photons as the only way to "see" things.
The existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, on radiation, and on the large-scale structure of the universe.
Just like how the existence and properties of stars are inferred from their electromagnetic effects (i.e. photons).
Dark matter has not been detected directly, making it one of the greatest mysteries in modern astrophysics.
1. we have not even detected the sun "directly", we have only ever detected photons emitted form it (we assume). 2. It's not like something can't be a mystery once you detect it. Case in point, we *can* detect dark matter, but since we don't know everything about it, it's still a mystery. Just like how gravity itself is a mystery because we haven't yet rectified the theory of gravity with both relativity and quantum mechanics, even though we have "detected" it.
This terminology of not "detecting dark matter directly" is specifically referring to the fact that we have not seen photons emitted from dark matter. And what I am suggesting is that this point of view only makes sense when you make photons a more valid form of detection (e.g. like making visible light photons a more valid form of photon to be detected). It's all detectable with the right tools and algorithms. You're choice in what you call "direct" vs. "indirect" is arbitrary and relative.
Slashdot Mirror
That makes both of us.... except I was being facetious.
Yes, but the idea of having a 3d desktop that doesn't have to go through x.org extension is pretty exciting. While wayland is not doing the 3d rendering, it is making the 3d rendering chain more efficient.
Note to people who give notes to libertarians: Not all libertarians think every problem can be solved by the free market. Libertarians are not anarchists.
Are you a libertarian caricature troll or something?
Laws making it illegal to drive through red lights?
An inalienable rights are pretty much worthless without some entity (state legal system, vigilante posse, etc) to enforce it. Making theft and assault illegal through legislation, creates an environment where theft and assault are deterred and punished, and people don't need to spend as much effort preventing their own victimization.
The whole point of government is to protect rights through legislation. If the legislation is bad, then it will be protecting the wrong rights (i.e. the rights of corporations to hinder their competitors, the rights of politicians to accept bribes, etc), but you don't get to pretend that laws against theft and assault are not legislation because they are "inalienable rights"
If you want to play that game, then you need to specify that you are actually talking about "legislation not confirming an inalienable right (as determined by you)" rather than simply "all legislation".
However, saying "I can divide up every piece of legislation into 2 categories: "Inalienable right" and "bad legislation"" is not very interesting.
Someone who wants to get rid of all legislation is an anarchist. Most people called libertarians these days are just republicans. libertarians were at one point simply in favor of minimal effective government (not no government), and they were not left nor right. The idea of "minimal effective government" is already a middle ground between anarchy and bloated government.
Why especially democrats? Plus that's easy: voter identification, immigration, reproductive systems, etc, the stuff republicans *do* want to control.
Both parties are authoritarian. They are just authoritarian for different subsets of issues.
Supporting freedom is about more than supporting only freedoms for yourself and people like you.
That's to prevent your kids from threatening to kill and rape other people on the internet. They can however still call in fake threats to 911 and have the swat team burst into your house pointing automatic weapons in your face.
Yeah but once you give them the keys, they will just kill you and your whole family. You being the only one who knows your keys is the only thing keeping you alive at that point.
By closing up the internet in some way?
Yeah, and we'll really be too scared to do anything when the government repeals the constitution and imprisoning people and torturing their families when they speak out. And the gun nuts that said we should have oppose gun control to provide the check against tyranny will turn out to be be right. And none of it will matter because the singularity will arrive and a super intelligent AI will simply conquer the entire planet with gray goo.
If anyone or group had the political power to make distribution of an algorithm illegal, they wouldn't need to pass some BS law like this first to do it.
Or even better, devoting effort to clang/llvm. In any case it's probably not a great idea to allow your competitor's compiler be a part of how your processor is benchmarked.
And despite all the underhanded stuff intel did in the past, their integrated GPUs are better supported under Linux than AMD which is very important to me. I am still hopeful and waiting for AMD's open source drivers to be good, hopefully by the time Wayland is standard.
WTF is a false comparison? Comparisons are not true or false.
Syrian refugees aren't citizens and have no right, or good reason, to be here.
If only citizens could be here, North and South America would be uninhabited by humans. We as the current occupants of this country get to decide who gets to come here legally. So yes, the ones we grant permission to come here, have the right to come here (because we gave it to them).
Therefore, there's no reason to risk terrorists coming in with the refugees as they did in Paris and have been planning to do in the US.
And in addition to the Syrian refugees who might be terrorist, we also have right wing gun nuts who might be domestic terrorists, so we'd batter be safe and kick all those shitheads out of the country in the name of safety as well.
On the other hand, US citizens have a constitutional right to possess guns for protection from both the common criminal and terrorists who perpetrate mass shootings.
How many shootings were prevented by "good guys with guns"? Zero? Almost zero? I honestly don't think gun control will actually work, so I don't really have a strong desire to see it happen, but this fantasy that people are using their guns to stop mass shootings is retarded.
And, since you can't banish guns out of existence, it will always be better for a population to be armed so they can defend themselves, than leaving them disarmed and defenseless like the countless who've been gunned down in so-called "gun-free" zones. That's just common sense.
Yeah and in this case "common sense" is wrong. Guns are not saving anybody. People get gunned down in gun-full zones all the time too. Common sense (i.e. the sense that people commonly have), is really good for substituting fantasy for reality.
If good guys are always shooting bad guys in movies then it must be happening in real life too.
What I don't understand is how supposedly Christian people fight so hard for the right to defend themselves with deadly force when placed in danger, but completely reject the idea of helping people of a different religion if it means the slightest chance have being exposed to danger (and ignore other dangers like those posed by gun ownership).
Hell, a bunch of terrorists sneaking into the country might be just the opportunity for you nutjobs to show how well you can stop terrorism through gun ownership, except deep down you know just as well as I do, that you aren't stopping shit with your guns. You just like to pretend to have some sense of power in a world that you are completely scared shirtless of, and this fear is rendering you incapable of being a good person and helping people who actually need it.
If this were a movie, you'd be the assholes using oars to beat women and children trying to get to your half full life raft.
He managed not to lose his trust fund, unlike many of his trust-fund baby cohort, so I guess that's something to be proud of.
I didn't say it wasn't biased, nor did I say that the bias and factual correctness are connected. wolfgang_spangler claimed the summary was ill-informed in addition to being bias-filled, and I was asking which bits of information were bad.
Sort of like how letting all the Syrian refugees come to the the US won't increase violence one iota since the demographic of Syrian refugees isn't terrorists.
Which piece(s) information was/were incorrect?
Theology is not the study of everything, unless you believe in that particular brand of theology. One could just as easily say that palm reading is the study of everything, because the whole universe both natural and super natural are governed by the lines in people's hands.
The reason science does not have anything to say about the super natural is not because it is out of the realm of science (e.g. as opposed to theology). Science does not have anything to say about the super natural because the ideology of science rejects the legitimacy of "knowledge" based on holy books, or divine revelation, dreams, spiritual experiences, etc.
Science does not reject that God exists or any other supernatural claims. Science rejects the method by which religion claims to have acquired this knowledge.
There are always things science is not going to know. Science will never prove or disprove God, and neither will any theologian in a manner that science deems legitimate.
Furthermore, if something actually happened in a way that it could be observed, (e.g. Jesus walking on water), then according to science, this is a natural phenomenon, and it can be studied just like any other natural phenomenon. It's not so much that science rejects anything supernatural, it's that it treats anything observable as natural and therefore in it's domain.
Ghosts are not super natural if they actually exist and haunt houses.
That is yet another flawed analogy. The photons are reflected or emitted directly from the object. As opposed to its gravitational influence on some other object, where one is directly observing the *other* object, hence the inferred indirect detection of the first object.
I don't think you are understanding what I am saying.
Yes the photons are being "directly" emitted from the object, and the fact that we are observing not the thing itself, but the photons directly emitted from the thing is a layer of indirection. How directly something is observed is relative. It's not discrete, it's a spectrum.
As opposed to its gravitational influence on some other object, where one is directly observing the *other* object, hence the inferred indirect detection of the first object.
Yes it is *one more* layer of indirection. This doesn't mean we are not observing dark matter. It means we are observing dark matter in a more indirect way than we observe most other stuff in the cosmos (which we also observe indirectly).
"The existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, on radiation, and on the large-scale structure of the universe. Dark matter has not been detected directly, making it one of the greatest mysteries in modern astrophysics."
As opposed to what? What properties of anything do we know about anything that are not inferred from their effects on other things?
Yes we don't know that much about dark matter. It's not because we can't observe it (which is what you originally claimed). Yes we can't observe it directly, I am not disagreeing with that. What I am saying is that we can't directly observe anything. Everything we observe is indirect, some more indirect than others.
Actually, a lot of science was done by the church once upon a time. Before trotting out the Galileo line (which you're probably itching to do) you might actually want to look into him a bit more closely too.
Which is why I have yet to mention Galileo in any of my comments? Because I'm itching to bring him up? Believe me, if I wanted to bring him up I would have.
Galileo is not important to the point I am making, which not that "no religious person or organization ever did science". It is that the tenets of religion are antithetical to the tenets of science. Religion assumes it knows things that do not meet the standard of proof in science.
What makes religion antithetical to science is not that they persecuted Galileo, it's that they have other modes of determining truth that are incompatible with science.
They've actually contributed quite a bit to science over the years and some of them are of the mind that the two coexist nicely and don't need to be separated.
The Nazi's also contributed quite a bit to science. This should not lend any credibility to the validity of Nazism.
Err... Some even postulate that science (at least math) proves that there is a creator. There are more than a few documentaries on the subject and there's at least one episode of the hour-long program with Morgan Freeman that goes into this at some detail.
Anyone can make a documentary about anything. Morgan Freeman is an actor.
Quite frequently they posit that our very existence is so improbable as to be considered mathematically impossible.
Have you ever heard of the anthropic principle?
I can create a lottery with thousands possible numbers to choose from and hundreds that are chosen, and the number of possibilities will be more than the number of atoms in the known universe. Each possibility is "mathematically impossible", but the odds that one will get chosen are 100%. Extremely improbable things regularly happen with very high probability, because of the countless number of things that are constantly happening.
This logic is flawed:
1. The chances of winning the lottery are so small they are basically 0.
2. Because the chance of all the possibilities is zero, the chance that someone will ever win the lottery is also 0 (the sum of lots of zeroes)
No, your understanding is coming up short. Your infrared analogy is complete failure, an instrument to detect dark matter is as real today as your beloved unicorn.
You don't know what you are talking about. What counts as direct detection for you? When you see an object you are only indirectly detecting it by detecting photons emitted or reflected form the object.
The direct detection problem, what I refer to as "observable" is not limited to electromagnetism
Well if it's not limited to electromagnetism, why isn't gravitation a valid tool for detection? Furthermore, I would advise you to discard your limited definition of what is "observable".
"Dark matter is a hypothetical kind of matter that cannot be seen with telescopes but accounts for most of the matter in the universe.
Once again you seem to be fixated on photons as the only way to "see" things.
The existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, on radiation, and on the large-scale structure of the universe.
Just like how the existence and properties of stars are inferred from their electromagnetic effects (i.e. photons).
Dark matter has not been detected directly, making it one of the greatest mysteries in modern astrophysics.
1. we have not even detected the sun "directly", we have only ever detected photons emitted form it (we assume). 2. It's not like something can't be a mystery once you detect it. Case in point, we *can* detect dark matter, but since we don't know everything about it, it's still a mystery. Just like how gravity itself is a mystery because we haven't yet rectified the theory of gravity with both relativity and quantum mechanics, even though we have "detected" it.
This terminology of not "detecting dark matter directly" is specifically referring to the fact that we have not seen photons emitted from dark matter. And what I am suggesting is that this point of view only makes sense when you make photons a more valid form of detection (e.g. like making visible light photons a more valid form of photon to be detected). It's all detectable with the right tools and algorithms. You're choice in what you call "direct" vs. "indirect" is arbitrary and relative.
And I am pointing out that this is as irrelevant as saying that it began with people who ate chocolate.
I can't be a nice person without accepting the belief's of others?
I'm sure you are a very nice person, so make sure you respect my beliefs and accept them as the truth.