Indeed, that probably goes for everyone here. Linus sounds like a cool guy. I especially agree with "I really hate big laptops. I can't understand people who lug around 15" (or 17"!) monsters. The right weight for a laptop is 1kg, no more." Mine is about the size of a hard cover book, and weighs about he same.
Depends on what you do with it. My "15-inch monster" isn't too bad - it's a Retina MBP, so it's relatively light and thin - and I use it as my primary machine, so I want a bit more "disk" space and screen space. I mainly move it around the house, so it's good that it's portable, but it doesn't have to be as portable as a road warrior's machine.
Of course, "GUI or CLI" is a bit ill-stated. I "use a GUI" in the sense that I don't do a console login on my Mac and run on the console tty, but a lot of what I do is in a GUI app called "Terminal", so I'm using a CLI in a GUI. In the 2007 interview in answer to "What software do you use everyday? Your browser, desktop (if any), email client and so on?" he said "Well, ignoring the actual development stuff (make, compiler, editor etc), it ends up being mostly just xterms and "alpine" (the newer version of the venerable old "pine" email reader. Strictly text-based, thank you very much)." In the next paragraph he also included a browser, but it sounds as if it's in the "a lot is a CLI in a GUI" category.
Oh, come on, Slashdot! I'm not allowed to use an ordered list in my comments?
You are, but their POS stylesheet hides the numbers. If, for example, I "Disable Styles" in Safari 6's Develop menu, your list magically becomes numbered - the page looks completely like ass, but at least the fucking ordered lists are numbered, not just ordered. At least as I read, for example, the HTML 4 section on lists, "visual user agents" should "number ordered list items". I guess a stylesheet are supposed to be able to override any aspect of presentation in the spec, but it's still really bogus to have a stylesheet that turns off numbering for ordered list items.
(And Slashdot should allow titles to be a bit longer, assuming this isn't some unfortunate interaction between Slashdot and Safari - the box in which to type the title has some extra space at the end even with my longest-I-could-type title which, alas, required me to abbreviate "rendered" as "rendered".)
"duh, of course the universe is tuned such that life can exist, if it *wasn't*, we wouldn't be here". - You forgot the part where it conflicts with anything I said. Yes, the universe is tuned for life. Now what fine-tuned it if not God?
"The anthropic principle" is not a valid answer: it is an observation, not a cause.
...or maybe it just is. There is no inherent reason why there has to be an Answer(TM). Some people may want to hear an Answer, but that's another matter.
"Because there's only one configuration of the simplest possible genome that works?" - There's more than one, but there's certainly a lot less than 4^4800. Say there are 10^60 possible combinations (much more than the number of atoms in the earth and a huge overestimate), in that case you still have 4^4700 to deal with. Have fun!
"I want a citation for the 'because Evolutionists are scared of it' part of 'that is rejected out of hand because Evolutionists are scared of it.'" They are scared of the idea that anything supernatural has an impact on their lives, and they deal with this fear by denying the possibility of God's existence.
That's not a citation, that's an assertion. No good reason has been presented for me to believe that assertion.
It almost never comes to the surface due to the deeply ingrained denial, but how else do you account for the repeated attempts of evolutionists to push ID out of science when it is obviously valid?
How about "it's not obviously valid"?
"No. What is this obsession you have with fear? Are you projecting here?" I'm just hoping you'll see reason.
Try exhibiting some reason; that'll make it easier to see it.
It is right to fear God, for he has power over everything - "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Proverbs 9:10). If you accept God's rule you have no need to fear for you are living in harmony with him, but if you deny him you have reason to fear.
Assuming that he exists and is pissy about people not believing in him. I've seen no evidence for or against the former; I suppose it's not inconceivable that, if he exists, he's the latter, but it seems rather, well, petty for somebody who creates universes.
Really? That's the best you've got? 'We exist and we came to exist by chance, therefore it's likely that we exist.' Presupposing your conclusion is bad form. It's also a logical fallacy.
Apparently you don't understand the weak Anthropic Principle. Hint: it's not "We exist and we came to exist by chance, therefor it's likely that we exist", it's "duh, of course the universe is tuned such that life can exist, if it didn't, we wouldn't be here".
And the evidence that it's "just not possible" is?
Ok, you asked for it. The simplest genome known today has 580000 base pairs. Assuming that the simplest possible genome is 1 percent of that (more accurate predictions run about 60-70 percent of that but I'm being very generous here), and assuming that generating a genome is synonymous with generating a cell which is a massive simplification in your favor, you still need to come up with genetic information with a probability of one in 4^5800.
Because there's only one configuration of the simplest possible genome that works? [Citation needed].
[Citation needed]
The definition of a scientific theory: "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment"
Sorry, I didn't make it clear enough. I want a citation for the "because Evolutionists are scared of it" part of "that is rejected out of hand because Evolutionists are scared of it."
You first.
You've seen just one of the data points I could bring to bear on the issue. Are you scared yet?
No. What is this obsession you have with fear? Are you projecting here?
2 - Earth is precisely fine-tuned for life. See "The Privileged Planet" for a crash course that is by no means conclusive, there is much more than that.
3 - Life is incredibly irreducibly complex at the cellular level. Good luck generating a living cell from non-living material under any conditions, it's just not possible.
And the evidence that it's "just not possible" is?
Intelligent Design is not just a denial of Evolution, it is a very well-supported scientific theory that is rejected out of hand because Evolutionists are scared of it.
[Citation needed]
Are you scared? Or will you bring actual evidence to the table?
Many people that consider themselves 'creationists' and are very vocal about the issue are ignorant of the very beliefs they claim to be proponents of.
Which beliefs are those? Those of "young earth" creationists or those of "old earth" creationists?
What exactly do you mean when you say 'evolution'? What I have found is that in the minds of many it is all inclusive (especially when taken into the context of the creation/evolution debate)- including everything from the origin of matter
Well, yes, anybody who thinks "evolution" includes the origin of matter is clueless - evolutionary theory has nothing to say about quark-gluon plasmas, matter/anti-matter symmetry, and the like.
For example, evolutionists are quick to say that creationism makes no predictions and therefore cannot be tested by the scientific method. This has been proven false over and over
So what are some of the predictions made by that particular segment of creationist (the ones who don't deny micro-evolution - and are, I suspect, mainly old earth creationists) that are different from those made by evolutionists and that have been proven true?
I'll take it you haven't been paying attention to Canadian politics. Our current government is running a bit of a deficit in the "rationality" department.
Nothing has really changed, except there is even more hypocrisy, since each voter is trying to control the behavior of his neighbor without actually believing in the Law.
But the creation story of Paul Broun Jr. is also a powerful illustration of the political evolution that has taken place in the Deep South. His father, Paul Broun Sr., who died in 2005, was a Democrat who served in the Georgia Senate for 38 years, arriving in Atlanta in 1962 as a moderate from the university town, in the era of segregation and Lester Maddox. Broun Sr. was a Southern populist who fought to have government dollars spent inside his district to build up the infrastructure for a booming economy. One of his greatest bricks-and-mortar achievements is the perimeter highway that now circles the congested downtown of Athens; today that road is named the Paul Broun Sr. Highway. The father’s success and those road signs provided priceless name recognition and a kind of free advertising for Paul Broun Jr. — even though the son is an ultra-conservative Republican who is dedicated to fighting to kill the types of government projects that his father had championed.
Today, Paul Broun Jr. talks of his dad as someone with whom he differed politically at times but for whom he had enormous respect. The favor wasn’t always returned. “His father denied him,” a Democratic state lawmaker from junior Broun’s congressional district — Alan Powell of Hartwell, Georgia — says. Powell was a close friend of the father who initially doubted the two men could even be related to each other when he heard of the Republican Broun’s extremist views in the 1990s. “That’s my crazy-ass son,” Powell says his colleague sighed after he asked Broun Sr. about it at lunch one day.
OK, I "searchedaround." The evidence I've found suggests that the influence of religion on secular education is not a concern limited to either the USA or Christianity.
Those things fit within what I pointed: US cultural influence abroad.
The US is at fault for Muslim creationism? Crazy people from the US may be supporting Christian creationism in other countries, but do, say, the crazy Turkish Muslim creationists spring from US support?
...Homo Sapien - the name, more or less, means "of the same wisdom/intelligence".
Minor nit - you're mixing Greek ("homo" as "of the same") with Latin ("sapien" as "wise/intelligent"). In Latin, "homo" means "man"; see this online etymology dictionary, for example.
But of course, I don't expect this argument probably isn't going to change your mind about what you believe. Your tenacity to keep responding suggests that your resolution is quite firm, and you are fairly certain of what you believe you know.
I suspect we have a pot and a kettle here.
For what it's worth, I've never argued that ignorance is evidence of God.... I've argued that things existing at all can be taken as quite reasonable evidence that there is a God... since this universe appears to obey principles of causality, and everything in it has a beginning. God isn't a special case or exception to this necessity of origin because God isn't really part of the universe in the first place.
Of course, the creator of the universe could just be a normal entity in another universe who's running us in a simulator (Nick Bostrom, please pick up the white courtesy phone), and that universe could itself be a simulation.
Or, alternatively, a committee (or something else not-Yahweh).
In the end, I see suggesting the notion that there is no God to be much like a character in a story suggesting that the book he is in didn't have an author at all. It's absurd, in fact.
Meanwhile, some people around the country — joined by some voters in Broun’s own 10th District — were starting to ask, just who is this guy, anyway? There was a time when Paul Broun Jr. asked the same question of himself. It happened in 1986, when the 40-year-old baby boomer was into booze and into his fourth marriage already — and having problems with both. Broun was at an NFL football game and drinking heavily when he noticed the fan who was a quasi-celebrity back during the Reagan years, the guy with the crazy rainbow-haired wig who stood in the end zone seats with the sign, “John 3:16.” Broun said in a speech on the floor of Congress after his election to Congress two decades later that he was captivated by this “gentleman with this big type hair wig on.” A few weeks later, after another fight with his new wife, he took out a Bible, read the verse, and decided to dedicate his life to Christ. (Ironically, it was the exact same year and at the same age that George W. Bush quit drinking as well.) Broun now considers his odyssey to the corridors of power the result of Jesus’ calling. He fails to add the kicker to the story, that the wig-wearing fan, a fellow named Rollen Stewart, is currently serving three life sentences for kidnapping.
Or, to steal and tweak Cheech and Chong's line, "I used to be all messed up on booze. Now I'm all messed up on the Lord." It's sad that some people need something in their lives to keep their brain from racing off in the wrong direction; unfortunately, they either abuse substances and hurt themselves or they abuse religion and run the risk of hurting others.
Why not just mind your own business and let people think and say what they want?
Did the person to whom you're responding say he didn't want to let them think and say what they want? He may think they're idiots, but, well, if you don't want him to say he thinks they're idiots, my response to you is "Why not just mind your own business and let people think and say what they want?"
"amd64" is called that because that's what AMD branded their implementation of x86_64.
...which also happened to be the first implementation. They originally called it "x86-64" before it was released, and later called it "AMD64".
You know what Intel calls their x86_64 implementation? "Intel 64"
After having called it names such as "EM64T".
In any case, the history was "AMD came out with it first, Intel licensed it from AMD and came out with its own implementations, and there are several different names for it, with some OSes calling it "amd64", some calling it "x86-64"/"x86_64", and some calling it "x64"".
by default you are not allowed to install programs that don't come from the app store
This is completely false.
By default, programs that are downloaded from the Internet that haven't been signed won't run unless you right click the icon and override the protection.
...and if they have been signed by an identified developer, you don't even have to do that, you can just run them (or, if they have an installer package, start the installer with the package).
(And you can download them with something that doesn't set the quarantine extended attribute, or build them yourself if you have source, and run them just fine, but that's a bit more geeky.)
Congratulations, they passed the one version of Windows even Microsoft can't recommend to anyone.
No, you didn't disprove him. The posting to which you were replying said "Microsoft is trying the walled garden technique the Apple has going, but I don't foresee it being as effective or foolproof as Apple's." and "Sometimes I feel like Microsoft si kind of flopping around like a fish on land when it comes to tablets.", neither of which are referring to desktop/laptop machines (where neither Windows nor OS X offer a complete walled garden - no, Mountain Lion and Lion 10.7.5 aren't walled gardens unless you crank up the Gatekeeper level to "App Store only" and never left-click to override it) and "The current release cycle of good > bad > good > bad will most likely continue and Windows 8 will flop. At least I hope it does and it will force them to rethink their stupid Start menu removal, amongst other things.", which I suspect is thinking of W8 going like Vista where most users with W7 sticking with W7 rather than upgrading, and perhaps hardware vendors offering W7 as well as W8, not thinking that OS X will have a bigger market share than Windows.
In other news, leaked reports claim that Assange is not an Australian. He was actually born in Kenya, was raised as an Islamic communist fascist agnostic atheist
"and then a second as rescuers try to drag victims from the rubble."... Yeah. That's bullcrap. That is not US strategy or tactic. Never has been.
I.e., the quote from page 74 of said report, "There is now significant evidence that the US has repeatedly engaged in a practice sometimes referred to as "double tap," in which a targeted strike site is hit multiple times in relatively quick succession. Evidence also indicates that such secondary strikes have killed and maimed first responders coming to the rescue of those injured in the first strike.", is false?
(Note that the report wasn't claiming that this was a deliberate attempt to kill or injure first responders, just that it was happening.)
FYI quoting the Daily Mail makes you look like an ignorrant racist. It's widely ridiculed as a poorly researched right-wing propaganda machine in the UK.
I'm not saying they're lying about this particular story
They're not. As the report to which they're referring (as found through the Slashdot story about it) says in the Executive Summary, "Drones hover twenty-four hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles, and public spaces without warning." and says, on page 74, "There is now significant evidence that the US has repeatedly engaged in a practice sometimes referred to as "double tap," in which a targeted strike site is hit multiple times in relatively quick succession. Evidence also indicates that such secondary strikes have killed and maimed first responders coming to the rescue of those injured in the first strike."
but I'm willing to bet there are several less inflammatory ways to interpret their source's data.
Yes, a less inflammatory source than the Daily Mail (such as the original report) would have been a better choice.
I hope I live to see those war criminals, Bush and Obama among them, hauled in front of the Hague and sentenced to spending the rest of their lives in jail.
Brace yourself for disappointment.
Tell me, do you have similar hopes for the planners of the 7/7 Bombings? The Madrid bombings? The Bali Bombing? The Mumbai attack? The 9/11 attack? Any of the countless other terrorist bombings and attacks?
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, that probably goes for everyone here. Linus sounds like a cool guy. I especially agree with "I really hate big laptops. I can't understand people who lug around 15" (or 17"!) monsters. The right weight for a laptop is 1kg, no more." Mine is about the size of a hard cover book, and weighs about he same.
Depends on what you do with it. My "15-inch monster" isn't too bad - it's a Retina MBP, so it's relatively light and thin - and I use it as my primary machine, so I want a bit more "disk" space and screen space. I mainly move it around the house, so it's good that it's portable, but it doesn't have to be as portable as a road warrior's machine.
I wonder what distro Linux uses?
Well, at least earlier in 2012, part of the answer was "not OpenSUSE", at least on the laptop. He's apparently used Fedora in the past, at least; he probably doesn't use any of the Real Man's Linux Distributions, given that, at least back in 2007, he said "Funnily enough, the only distributions I tend to refuse to touch are the "technical" ones, so I've never run Debian, because as far as I'm concerned, the whole and only point of a distribution is to make it easy to install (so that I can then get to the part I care about, namely the kernel), so Debian or one of the "compile everything by hand" ones simply weren't interesting to me."
If he uses a GUI or a CLI? If GUI (which I doubt), which one?
Prepare to have your doubts busted; at least as of whenever he made the announcement (I'm not going to sign into my Google account just to read his posting, but the article in question is from April 2011), he was using Xfce, after switching from KDE 4 to GNOME 2.
Of course, "GUI or CLI" is a bit ill-stated. I "use a GUI" in the sense that I don't do a console login on my Mac and run on the console tty, but a lot of what I do is in a GUI app called "Terminal", so I'm using a CLI in a GUI. In the 2007 interview in answer to "What software do you use everyday? Your browser, desktop (if any), email client and so on?" he said "Well, ignoring the actual development stuff (make, compiler, editor etc), it ends up being mostly just xterms and "alpine" (the newer version of the venerable old "pine" email reader. Strictly text-based, thank you very much)." In the next paragraph he also included a browser, but it sounds as if it's in the "a lot is a CLI in a GUI" category.
Oh, come on, Slashdot! I'm not allowed to use an ordered list in my comments?
You are, but their POS stylesheet hides the numbers. If, for example, I "Disable Styles" in Safari 6's Develop menu, your list magically becomes numbered - the page looks completely like ass, but at least the fucking ordered lists are numbered, not just ordered. At least as I read, for example, the HTML 4 section on lists, "visual user agents" should "number ordered list items". I guess a stylesheet are supposed to be able to override any aspect of presentation in the spec, but it's still really bogus to have a stylesheet that turns off numbering for ordered list items.
(And Slashdot should allow titles to be a bit longer, assuming this isn't some unfortunate interaction between Slashdot and Safari - the box in which to type the title has some extra space at the end even with my longest-I-could-type title which, alas, required me to abbreviate "rendered" as "rendered".)
"duh, of course the universe is tuned such that life can exist, if it *wasn't*, we wouldn't be here". - You forgot the part where it conflicts with anything I said. Yes, the universe is tuned for life. Now what fine-tuned it if not God?
Well, people have come up with a bunch of ideas over time. Or maybe it's whoever who set up the simulation in which we live, and maybe he/she/it/they live in another simulation, etc....
"The anthropic principle" is not a valid answer: it is an observation, not a cause.
...or maybe it just is. There is no inherent reason why there has to be an Answer(TM). Some people may want to hear an Answer, but that's another matter.
"Because there's only one configuration of the simplest possible genome that works?" - There's more than one, but there's certainly a lot less than 4^4800. Say there are 10^60 possible combinations (much more than the number of atoms in the earth and a huge overestimate), in that case you still have 4^4700 to deal with. Have fun!
Actually, the search space is much smaller, and there's a lot of stuff in the primeval oceans, so with massively parallel search of the search space....
"I want a citation for the 'because Evolutionists are scared of it' part of 'that is rejected out of hand because Evolutionists are scared of it.'" They are scared of the idea that anything supernatural has an impact on their lives, and they deal with this fear by denying the possibility of God's existence.
That's not a citation, that's an assertion. No good reason has been presented for me to believe that assertion.
It almost never comes to the surface due to the deeply ingrained denial, but how else do you account for the repeated attempts of evolutionists to push ID out of science when it is obviously valid?
How about "it's not obviously valid"?
"No. What is this obsession you have with fear? Are you projecting here?" I'm just hoping you'll see reason.
Try exhibiting some reason; that'll make it easier to see it.
It is right to fear God, for he has power over everything - "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Proverbs 9:10). If you accept God's rule you have no need to fear for you are living in harmony with him, but if you deny him you have reason to fear.
Assuming that he exists and is pissy about people not believing in him. I've seen no evidence for or against the former; I suppose it's not inconceivable that, if he exists, he's the latter, but it seems rather, well, petty for somebody who creates universes.
Try harder.
Really? That's the best you've got? 'We exist and we came to exist by chance, therefore it's likely that we exist.' Presupposing your conclusion is bad form. It's also a logical fallacy.
Apparently you don't understand the weak Anthropic Principle. Hint: it's not "We exist and we came to exist by chance, therefor it's likely that we exist", it's "duh, of course the universe is tuned such that life can exist, if it didn't, we wouldn't be here".
And the evidence that it's "just not possible" is?
Ok, you asked for it. The simplest genome known today has 580000 base pairs. Assuming that the simplest possible genome is 1 percent of that (more accurate predictions run about 60-70 percent of that but I'm being very generous here), and assuming that generating a genome is synonymous with generating a cell which is a massive simplification in your favor, you still need to come up with genetic information with a probability of one in 4^5800.
Because there's only one configuration of the simplest possible genome that works? [Citation needed].
[Citation needed]
The definition of a scientific theory: "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment"
Sorry, I didn't make it clear enough. I want a citation for the "because Evolutionists are scared of it" part of "that is rejected out of hand because Evolutionists are scared of it."
You first.
You've seen just one of the data points I could bring to bear on the issue. Are you scared yet?
No. What is this obsession you have with fear? Are you projecting here?
2 - Earth is precisely fine-tuned for life. See "The Privileged Planet" for a crash course that is by no means conclusive, there is much more than that.
Try harder.
3 - Life is incredibly irreducibly complex at the cellular level. Good luck generating a living cell from non-living material under any conditions, it's just not possible.
And the evidence that it's "just not possible" is?
Intelligent Design is not just a denial of Evolution, it is a very well-supported scientific theory that is rejected out of hand because Evolutionists are scared of it.
[Citation needed]
Are you scared? Or will you bring actual evidence to the table?
You first.
The whole problem with the matter is this:
Many people that consider themselves 'creationists' and are very vocal about the issue are ignorant of the very beliefs they claim to be proponents of.
Which beliefs are those? Those of "young earth" creationists or those of "old earth" creationists?
What exactly do you mean when you say 'evolution'? What I have found is that in the minds of many it is all inclusive (especially when taken into the context of the creation/evolution debate)- including everything from the origin of matter
Well, yes, anybody who thinks "evolution" includes the origin of matter is clueless - evolutionary theory has nothing to say about quark-gluon plasmas, matter/anti-matter symmetry, and the like.
For example, evolutionists are quick to say that creationism makes no predictions and therefore cannot be tested by the scientific method. This has been proven false over and over
So what are some of the predictions made by that particular segment of creationist (the ones who don't deny micro-evolution - and are, I suspect, mainly old earth creationists) that are different from those made by evolutionists and that have been proven true?
I'll take it you haven't been paying attention to Canadian politics. Our current government is running a bit of a deficit in the "rationality" department.
Nothing has really changed, except there is even more hypocrisy, since each voter is trying to control the behavior of his neighbor without actually believing in the Law.
Like that didn't happen back then.
His father was first elected to the Georgia state senate in 1963. Southern Democrats were a different kind of animal then.
His father was a different sort as well, as per this Salon article about Junior:
Old English (with thou's and thy's) isn't the Holy Text's original language?
Minor nit: more like Early Modern English than Old English or even Middle English.
OK, I "searched around." The evidence I've found suggests that the influence of religion on secular education is not a concern limited to either the USA or Christianity.
Those things fit within what I pointed: US cultural influence abroad.
The US is at fault for Muslim creationism? Crazy people from the US may be supporting Christian creationism in other countries, but do, say, the crazy Turkish Muslim creationists spring from US support?
...Homo Sapien - the name, more or less, means "of the same wisdom/intelligence".
Minor nit - you're mixing Greek ("homo" as "of the same") with Latin ("sapien" as "wise/intelligent"). In Latin, "homo" means "man"; see this online etymology dictionary, for example.
But of course, I don't expect this argument probably isn't going to change your mind about what you believe. Your tenacity to keep responding suggests that your resolution is quite firm, and you are fairly certain of what you believe you know.
I suspect we have a pot and a kettle here.
For what it's worth, I've never argued that ignorance is evidence of God.... I've argued that things existing at all can be taken as quite reasonable evidence that there is a God... since this universe appears to obey principles of causality, and everything in it has a beginning. God isn't a special case or exception to this necessity of origin because God isn't really part of the universe in the first place.
Of course, the creator of the universe could just be a normal entity in another universe who's running us in a simulator (Nick Bostrom, please pick up the white courtesy phone), and that universe could itself be a simulation.
Or, alternatively, a committee (or something else not-Yahweh).
In the end, I see suggesting the notion that there is no God to be much like a character in a story suggesting that the book he is in didn't have an author at all. It's absurd, in fact.
But what if we're not characters in a book?
Actually, this makes me wonder if he's developing a disorder of some sort.
Developing? As per a Salon story about him:
Or, to steal and tweak Cheech and Chong's line, "I used to be all messed up on booze. Now I'm all messed up on the Lord." It's sad that some people need something in their lives to keep their brain from racing off in the wrong direction; unfortunately, they either abuse substances and hurt themselves or they abuse religion and run the risk of hurting others.
...that ne alien civilisations monitor the progress of earth. If there where any, this would be the point they'd nuke us from orbit...
...or broadcast videos of us as a reality show.
Why not just mind your own business and let people think and say what they want?
Did the person to whom you're responding say he didn't want to let them think and say what they want? He may think they're idiots, but, well, if you don't want him to say he thinks they're idiots, my response to you is "Why not just mind your own business and let people think and say what they want?"
"amd64" is called that because that's what AMD branded their implementation of x86_64.
...which also happened to be the first implementation. They originally called it "x86-64" before it was released, and later called it "AMD64".
You know what Intel calls their x86_64 implementation? "Intel 64"
After having called it names such as "EM64T".
In any case, the history was "AMD came out with it first, Intel licensed it from AMD and came out with its own implementations, and there are several different names for it, with some OSes calling it "amd64", some calling it "x86-64"/"x86_64", and some calling it "x64"".
by default you are not allowed to install programs that don't come from the app store
This is completely false.
By default, programs that are downloaded from the Internet that haven't been signed won't run unless you right click the icon and override the protection.
...and if they have been signed by an identified developer, you don't even have to do that, you can just run them (or, if they have an installer package, start the installer with the package).
(And you can download them with something that doesn't set the quarantine extended attribute, or build them yourself if you have source, and run them just fine, but that's a bit more geeky.)
Yep, clearly Apple is doing everything right and Microsoft has no idea. That's why the market share is so in favor of Apple over Microsoft.
http://www.bgr.com/2012/09/03/windows-os-x-market-share-august-2012/
Congratulations, they passed the one version of Windows even Microsoft can't recommend to anyone.
No, you didn't disprove him. The posting to which you were replying said "Microsoft is trying the walled garden technique the Apple has going, but I don't foresee it being as effective or foolproof as Apple's." and "Sometimes I feel like Microsoft si kind of flopping around like a fish on land when it comes to tablets.", neither of which are referring to desktop/laptop machines (where neither Windows nor OS X offer a complete walled garden - no, Mountain Lion and Lion 10.7.5 aren't walled gardens unless you crank up the Gatekeeper level to "App Store only" and never left-click to override it) and "The current release cycle of good > bad > good > bad will most likely continue and Windows 8 will flop. At least I hope it does and it will force them to rethink their stupid Start menu removal, amongst other things.", which I suspect is thinking of W8 going like Vista where most users with W7 sticking with W7 rather than upgrading, and perhaps hardware vendors offering W7 as well as W8, not thinking that OS X will have a bigger market share than Windows.
Capacitor, Cornell-Dublier, 1932
Awesome, I'm using that name if I ever sign up for a /. account!
I'm using it if I ever start a rock band.
chances are, you were dumber in 1985
Unlikely, unless he regressed from 1984 to 1985.
In other news, leaked reports claim that Assange is not an Australian. He was actually born in Kenya, was raised as an Islamic communist fascist agnostic atheist
You forgot "anti-colonialist".
The daily mail is your source? Seriously? A tabloid known for sensationalizing its reports, using dubious sources, etc? Wow.
Yup. A much better source is the original report.
"and then a second as rescuers try to drag victims from the rubble." ... Yeah. That's bullcrap. That is not US strategy or tactic. Never has been.
I.e., the quote from page 74 of said report, "There is now significant evidence that the US has repeatedly engaged in a practice sometimes referred to as "double tap," in which a targeted strike site is hit multiple times in relatively quick succession. Evidence also indicates that such secondary strikes have killed and maimed first responders coming to the rescue of those injured in the first strike.", is false?
(Note that the report wasn't claiming that this was a deliberate attempt to kill or injure first responders, just that it was happening.)
FYI quoting the Daily Mail makes you look like an ignorrant racist. It's widely ridiculed as a poorly researched right-wing propaganda machine in the UK.
I'm not saying they're lying about this particular story
They're not. As the report to which they're referring (as found through the Slashdot story about it) says in the Executive Summary, "Drones hover twenty-four hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles, and public spaces without warning." and says, on page 74, "There is now significant evidence that the US has repeatedly engaged in a practice sometimes referred to as "double tap," in which a targeted strike site is hit multiple times in relatively quick succession. Evidence also indicates that such secondary strikes have killed and maimed first responders coming to the rescue of those injured in the first strike."
but I'm willing to bet there are several less inflammatory ways to interpret their source's data.
Yes, a less inflammatory source than the Daily Mail (such as the original report) would have been a better choice.
I hope I live to see those war criminals, Bush and Obama among them, hauled in front of the Hague and sentenced to spending the rest of their lives in jail.
Brace yourself for disappointment.
Tell me, do you have similar hopes for the planners of the 7/7 Bombings? The Madrid bombings? The Bali Bombing? The Mumbai attack? The 9/11 attack? Any of the countless other terrorist bombings and attacks?
Yes, I'd like to see all of them on trial.