You assume being a "product of evolution" precludes being a "special creation".You assume being a "product of evolution" precludes being a "special creation".
That's because it does:
Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man'(TM)s body developed from previous biological forms, under God'(TM)s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul.
It's not Evolution if someone is "guiding it".
Well, let's put it this way: If you believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, all-pervading God, there is literally nothing in the entire universe that's "atheistic".
I have no idea what "atheistic evolution" is supposed to be. There's either Evolution - a natural phenomenon - or there's some supernatural force (call it "God" if you want) fiddling away in the background "guiding" things.
So-called "guided Evolution" is just Creationism for people who want to pretend they're not Creationists. The only thing they disagree with the literal-Creation-in-7-days crew on is the scale of meddling "god" has supposedly done.
The oldest Christian church (the Catholics) have no beef with evolution.
Yes, they do. The Catholic Church cherry-picks a few bits of Evolution to call "ok", to try and distance themselves from the crazier Creationists out there, but they still think humans are a "special creation" and, therefore, not the product of Evolution.
I've never wanted socialized medicine, because I fail to see how having a Government ration my health care and stick it's nose into my business is any improvement over having a private company do the same.
Because the highest priority of the private company is to *not* pay any of your claims.
a) mitochlorians (my reaction was visceral disgust the second they said it. The mighty "Force" became akin to a viral infection.
See, the hate for midichlorians is something I really don't get. Why, in an ostensibly science fiction movie do people go nuts when someone tries to give a nod to science ?
Didn't you notice from the review how incredibly slow flash drives are for small random writes? And that's what matters for swap, as pages in memory are 4KiB.
I would expect that small random *reads* are much more prevalent for swap, and that writes tend to go out in relatively large sequential transfers.
Unless your system is thrashing. But if that is true, it doesn't really matter what your swap is on.
I, on the other hand, have zero complaints about my several OCZ "Rally2" USB drives.
They also have ca. 10x the write performance and ca. 2x the read performance of the no-name one I picked up in a supermarket for the same price, as well, so I'd also have to agree that USB drives are not yet an "undifferentiated commodity".
No, I can't. I didn't intend to imply that MS was worse than other proprietary OS vendors. I just meant that proprietary OS vendors were worse than open-source OS vendors.
Say what ? Apart from a handful of examples, you're lucky to get more than a year or two worth of "support" out of pretty much any piece of OSS software.
For certain things (eg: kernel modules) you're lucky to get more than a few _months_ worth.
No, "upgrade to the next version" (even when it's free) is not "support".
Nobody really knew why businesses seemed to always pick Intel, and thus their market share was by far larger than AMD.
Because a) it's not just about who's cheapest and b) back then Intel were faster (particularly in the server room and with high end workstations - eg: 4+ CPU Pentium Pro boxes).
And if AMD had the share they deserved back when Athlon 64 was blowing away Intel they would have made more money and had more money for R&D in which case would have likely been able to keep up with Intel. The cause and effect is pretty obvious.
ACtually, no, given AMD's ability to develop an Intel beater in the first place, despite Intel's massively larger budget, it's not obvious at all.
When the Athlon was first debuted, it stomped Intel's current Pentium offerings.
The Athlon was, for many years, crippled by a string of truly awful chipsets rife with bugs, poor performance, instability, and just general weirdness.
VIA did more to hurt AMD in the marketplace than Intel could ever have hoped to in their wildest dreams.
Since they're aiming for retailing this for around $180, you can easily hit $200/per node once you add a stick of RAM. That looks cheaper than any other solution once you've added a power supply.
A $300 dual-core Dell Vostro or $800 quad-core Nehalem Dell Studio XPS will destroy it in pretty much every metric.
To know whether or not you signing your code means anything.
Signing authority does not evaluate code _in_ _any_ _way_.
I never said it did. You state your source code was available, presumably to imply that in some way makes it more trustworthy and/or verifiable.
Why should I?
Presumably, because you're trying to sell software.
What issues, exactly? Mac OS X does not tell you what you can do with your legally bought computer. Same goes for XP and Linux.
Neither does Vista. Not being able to load unsigned driver in no way "tells you what you can do with your legally bought computer". It just stops you loading that driver in Vista. You are still perfectly free to use your "legally bought computer" with Linux, FreeBSD, as a paperweight, or anything else.
I do not object to paying for software (I have MSDN subscription).
But apparently a code signing certificate is too much ? That is, after all, essentially what your entire argument boils down to.
But I absolutely detest to pay (_and_ to agree to restrictive conditions) to be able to use my computer and let my users use it too.
Then you're a hypocrite for using Windows at all. The driver signing in Vista x64 is no more of a "restrictive condition" than any of the numerous others entailed in using Windows or, indeed, pretty much any closed source product.
My driver is signed. By my key, with my fingerprint on several keyservers.
How do I know anything about you ?
Also, you can download the sources and compile them yourself.
Hardly an option. I have neither the skills nor time to properly audit your code.
However, Windows requires the code to be signed by Microsoft (technically, your certificate must be cross-signed with a key of a trusted party of Microsoft).
Yes. You may find similar situations in, say, Apple not allowing OS X on non-Apple hardware, or Red Hat not allowing the download of binaries without a RHN subscription.
Pay me $500.
Uh uh. First you need some software worth $500 (or, say, 500x$1).
Linux? Windows XP? Even Mac OS X doesn't require signed drivers, for FSM's sake!
Of course, they all have their own different "control" issues instead.
Why not? Am I not allowed to do it?
You can do whatever you want. It is a mystery to me why someone so clearly opposed to pretty much every aspect of Windows software development - from the relative lack of platform customisability to the costs involved - would continue to practice it, however.
Same reason you would use signed code anywhere else.
Also, it costs money.
So did your computer. Or are you banging rocks together to write your code ?
So, you do admit that Microsoft controls what users should and should not do?
No more so than anyone else in their position.
Given that Windows is obviously an incredibly poor fit for pretty much every aspect of your software development process, from philosophy to budget, the real question here is: why the hell are you writing Windows software ?
This is a myth. The very idea that Microsoft would seek to deliberately break the program that was the primary reason they had >90% of their customers doesn't even pass the laugh test. It would be like saying Apple's motto was "MacOS ain't done 'til Photoshop won't run" in the '90s.
So given that this takes less than thirty seconds to find on MSDN, including waiting for the pages to load, does that mean you simply didn't bother looking, or you're just an idiot ?
If a producer of X says I can only consume X if I also consume Y, I loose one degree of freedom (ie. the choice of whether or not to consume Y).
Your analogy is broken because it does not account for the fact that both X and Y are produced by the same entity and said entity actually considers them not two products X and Y, but a single product, Z.
No, one issue is that by default, the way they have set up OEM licensing, everyone pays for a Microsoft license. Lowering the refund hurdle aside, that's inherently anti-competitive and unrealistic - the vast majority of people are going to use what came with the system, after all, they already paid for it. It works to stifle any competition. Netscape died a painful death.
Netscape died a painful death because they deserved to. Their software sucked and no-one wanted to use it.
Another example. Why is there no competition for MS Outlook? It's a mail program that appears designed to make its users look like drooling idiots. I especially like the " would like to withdraw this message" messages I get all the time. "Oh but the calendar feature is wonderful." I also like how it takes at least 3 or 4 reposts to schedule a meeting and by the time that is accomplished, even Outlook can get confused about the results. (And don't get me started about the idiocy that is top-posting).
There is competition for Outlook, it's just not good enough. The fact you don't like Outlook, does not mean everyone else hates it as well.
You kids have no idea what things were like in the 80s when there was competition, variety and innovation.
I most certainly do remember the '80s, with its patchwork quilt of incompatible, inconsistent, dissimilar software you had to glue together yourself at great expense of both time and money. I'd take the (relatively) consistent, coherent and widely-compatible platforms of today over that in an instant.
10 or 20 browsers, on top of 10 or 20 O/Ses running on 5 or 10 hardware architectures would make for an extremely hostile (to) web malware environment *and* those who try to buck established standards.
Not to mention anyone trying to write software for more than a tiny minority of the marketplace.
No, that was NOT what they did, you douchebag. They made windows crash if it detected dr-dos, and caldera got a tidy sum as the usual too late and useless remedy out of the lawsuit. Stop with your revisionism.
No, in some Windows 3.x betas they detected a non-MS-DOS and displayed a warning message.
Slashdot Mirror
You assume being a "product of evolution" precludes being a "special creation".You assume being a "product of evolution" precludes being a "special creation".
That's because it does:
Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man'(TM)s body developed from previous biological forms, under God'(TM)s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul.
It's not Evolution if someone is "guiding it".
Well, let's put it this way: If you believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, all-pervading God, there is literally nothing in the entire universe that's "atheistic".
I have no idea what "atheistic evolution" is supposed to be. There's either Evolution - a natural phenomenon - or there's some supernatural force (call it "God" if you want) fiddling away in the background "guiding" things.
So-called "guided Evolution" is just Creationism for people who want to pretend they're not Creationists. The only thing they disagree with the literal-Creation-in-7-days crew on is the scale of meddling "god" has supposedly done.
The oldest Christian church (the Catholics) have no beef with evolution.
Yes, they do. The Catholic Church cherry-picks a few bits of Evolution to call "ok", to try and distance themselves from the crazier Creationists out there, but they still think humans are a "special creation" and, therefore, not the product of Evolution.
I've never wanted socialized medicine, because I fail to see how having a Government ration my health care and stick it's nose into my business is any improvement over having a private company do the same.
Because the highest priority of the private company is to *not* pay any of your claims.
a) mitochlorians (my reaction was visceral disgust the second they said it. The mighty "Force" became akin to a viral infection.
See, the hate for midichlorians is something I really don't get. Why, in an ostensibly science fiction movie do people go nuts when someone tries to give a nod to science ?
If I were to get pulled over, and knew I was over the now ridiculously LOW limit of .08...
That's not a "ridiculously LOW" limit. Indeed, for most of the world it's _over_ the limit.
Yes, you can slipstream them into the CD but so far that has proved to be too much of a hassle.(secretly awaits any tips on easy slipstreaming)
Er, nLite ?
Didn't you notice from the review how incredibly slow flash drives are for small random writes? And that's what matters for swap, as pages in memory are 4KiB.
I would expect that small random *reads* are much more prevalent for swap, and that writes tend to go out in relatively large sequential transfers.
Unless your system is thrashing. But if that is true, it doesn't really matter what your swap is on.
I, on the other hand, have zero complaints about my several OCZ "Rally2" USB drives.
They also have ca. 10x the write performance and ca. 2x the read performance of the no-name one I picked up in a supermarket for the same price, as well, so I'd also have to agree that USB drives are not yet an "undifferentiated commodity".
No, I can't. I didn't intend to imply that MS was worse than other proprietary OS vendors. I just meant that proprietary OS vendors were worse than open-source OS vendors.
Say what ? Apart from a handful of examples, you're lucky to get more than a year or two worth of "support" out of pretty much any piece of OSS software.
For certain things (eg: kernel modules) you're lucky to get more than a few _months_ worth.
No, "upgrade to the next version" (even when it's free) is not "support".
Nobody really knew why businesses seemed to always pick Intel, and thus their market share was by far larger than AMD.
Because a) it's not just about who's cheapest and b) back then Intel were faster (particularly in the server room and with high end workstations - eg: 4+ CPU Pentium Pro boxes).
And if AMD had the share they deserved back when Athlon 64 was blowing away Intel they would have made more money and had more money for R&D in which case would have likely been able to keep up with Intel. The cause and effect is pretty obvious.
ACtually, no, given AMD's ability to develop an Intel beater in the first place, despite Intel's massively larger budget, it's not obvious at all.
When the Athlon was first debuted, it stomped Intel's current Pentium offerings.
The Athlon was, for many years, crippled by a string of truly awful chipsets rife with bugs, poor performance, instability, and just general weirdness.
VIA did more to hurt AMD in the marketplace than Intel could ever have hoped to in their wildest dreams.
Since they're aiming for retailing this for around $180, you can easily hit $200/per node once you add a stick of RAM. That looks cheaper than any other solution once you've added a power supply.
A $300 dual-core Dell Vostro or $800 quad-core Nehalem Dell Studio XPS will destroy it in pretty much every metric.
Why do you need to know anything about me?
To know whether or not you signing your code means anything.
Signing authority does not evaluate code _in_ _any_ _way_.
I never said it did. You state your source code was available, presumably to imply that in some way makes it more trustworthy and/or verifiable.
Why should I?
Presumably, because you're trying to sell software.
What issues, exactly? Mac OS X does not tell you what you can do with your legally bought computer. Same goes for XP and Linux.
Neither does Vista. Not being able to load unsigned driver in no way "tells you what you can do with your legally bought computer". It just stops you loading that driver in Vista. You are still perfectly free to use your "legally bought computer" with Linux, FreeBSD, as a paperweight, or anything else.
I do not object to paying for software (I have MSDN subscription).
But apparently a code signing certificate is too much ? That is, after all, essentially what your entire argument boils down to.
But I absolutely detest to pay (_and_ to agree to restrictive conditions) to be able to use my computer and let my users use it too.
Then you're a hypocrite for using Windows at all. The driver signing in Vista x64 is no more of a "restrictive condition" than any of the numerous others entailed in using Windows or, indeed, pretty much any closed source product.
My driver is signed. By my key, with my fingerprint on several keyservers.
How do I know anything about you ?
Also, you can download the sources and compile them yourself.
Hardly an option. I have neither the skills nor time to properly audit your code.
However, Windows requires the code to be signed by Microsoft (technically, your certificate must be cross-signed with a key of a trusted party of Microsoft).
Yes. You may find similar situations in, say, Apple not allowing OS X on non-Apple hardware, or Red Hat not allowing the download of binaries without a RHN subscription.
Pay me $500.
Uh uh. First you need some software worth $500 (or, say, 500x$1).
Linux? Windows XP? Even Mac OS X doesn't require signed drivers, for FSM's sake!
Of course, they all have their own different "control" issues instead.
Why not? Am I not allowed to do it?
You can do whatever you want. It is a mystery to me why someone so clearly opposed to pretty much every aspect of Windows software development - from the relative lack of platform customisability to the costs involved - would continue to practice it, however.
Why? And what for?
Same reason you would use signed code anywhere else.
Also, it costs money.
So did your computer. Or are you banging rocks together to write your code ?
So, you do admit that Microsoft controls what users should and should not do?
No more so than anyone else in their position.
Given that Windows is obviously an incredibly poor fit for pretty much every aspect of your software development process, from philosophy to budget, the real question here is: why the hell are you writing Windows software ?
DOS ain't done 'till Lotus won't run.
This is a myth. The very idea that Microsoft would seek to deliberately break the program that was the primary reason they had >90% of their customers doesn't even pass the laugh test. It would be like saying Apple's motto was "MacOS ain't done 'til Photoshop won't run" in the '90s.
So, should I ask all my users to press F8 on _every_ _fucking_ boot?
No, you should get your driver signed.
Or maybe to enable a test certificate which defaces the desktop?
That could also work.
There's no way for users to turn off driver validation. All existing methods are so convoluted, they resemble that passage.
Yes. That's because you're not supposed to turn it off.
Yeah, sure. Let me quote a relevant passage:
So given that this takes less than thirty seconds to find on MSDN, including waiting for the pages to load, does that mean you simply didn't bother looking, or you're just an idiot ?
If a producer of X says I can only consume X if I also consume Y, I loose one degree of freedom (ie. the choice of whether or not to consume Y).
Your analogy is broken because it does not account for the fact that both X and Y are produced by the same entity and said entity actually considers them not two products X and Y, but a single product, Z.
Unsigned drivers on x64 Windows (including OpenSource drivers which I help to develop).
You can install them fine, just boot into the appropriate mode.
No, one issue is that by default, the way they have set up OEM licensing, everyone pays for a Microsoft license. Lowering the refund hurdle aside, that's inherently anti-competitive and unrealistic - the vast majority of people are going to use what came with the system, after all, they already paid for it. It works to stifle any competition. Netscape died a painful death.
Netscape died a painful death because they deserved to. Their software sucked and no-one wanted to use it.
Another example. Why is there no competition for MS Outlook? It's a mail program that appears designed to make its users look like drooling idiots. I especially like the " would like to withdraw this message" messages I get all the time. "Oh but the calendar feature is wonderful." I also like how it takes at least 3 or 4 reposts to schedule a meeting and by the time that is accomplished, even Outlook can get confused about the results. (And don't get me started about the idiocy that is top-posting).
There is competition for Outlook, it's just not good enough. The fact you don't like Outlook, does not mean everyone else hates it as well.
You kids have no idea what things were like in the 80s when there was competition, variety and innovation.
I most certainly do remember the '80s, with its patchwork quilt of incompatible, inconsistent, dissimilar software you had to glue together yourself at great expense of both time and money. I'd take the (relatively) consistent, coherent and widely-compatible platforms of today over that in an instant.
10 or 20 browsers, on top of 10 or 20 O/Ses running on 5 or 10 hardware architectures would make for an extremely hostile (to) web malware environment *and* those who try to buck established standards.
Not to mention anyone trying to write software for more than a tiny minority of the marketplace.
Please notice that I did not use "M$" in the body of this post. The use of "M$" inflaes the paid Microsoft shills that seem to hang out here.
If you act like a child, you should not be surprised when you get treated like one.
No, that was NOT what they did, you douchebag. They made windows crash if it detected dr-dos, and caldera got a tidy sum as the usual too late and useless remedy out of the lawsuit. Stop with your revisionism.
No, in some Windows 3.x betas they detected a non-MS-DOS and displayed a warning message.