Somebody at NASA didn't do their homework. Very similar spherical hopping robots were developed in 1997 at Sandia, with DARPA funding. They actually work; they're not just a proposed project with pretty pictures.
That effort suffers from a fatal flaw: it does not fund the proponents of the current effort. With enough funding, this new effort's proponents should be able to overcome this shortcoming.
In any case, the point is this -swarms are BETTER at dealing with tough conditions than individual bots. Secondly, having a master bot defeats almost all purposes of having a swarm in the first place. It would be better to just design the swarm in such a way that they are able to gather themselves up at a meeting point when the time comes.
While this is true, the best approach is likely to be one that combines the swarming and master bot approaches. During normal operations, individual bots maneuver independently, but when the situation warrants, the swarm coalesces into a master bot that can meet greater challenges.
Is it really that rational to believe that an omnipotent being that wants us to follow its rules is either incapable of expressing those rules clearly, or refuses to?
Sure, why not? It's not unreasonable to think that an omnipotent being might prefer obfuscation. If it were obvious that an omnipotent being existed, then it would diminish the significance of believing in that being; if one exists, perhaps its goal is to maximize the significance of belief.
There's nothing intrinsic to omnipotence that demands a direct approach to every course of action. In fact, if an omnipotent being were to exist, it's reasonable to think that finite beings such as ourselves might not understand its actions, so action (or lack of action) that appears inconsistent (such as the "argument from evil") cannot disprove the existence of an omnipotent being.
it's completely unfair for the author of this article to hold OOo up as some sort of typical example of an Open Source project
But OpenOffice.org is typical of OS projects that have "brand name" recognition among end-users.
What other Open Source projects that have "brand name" recognition among end-users are huge, bloated monstrosities written in multiple programming languages, are commented in multiple spoken languages, were developed with "cathedral" style methods and are notoriously difficult to compile from scratch? Please name them (so that I know what to avoid!)
OpenOffice.org has its strengths and I do use it periodically, but it is a very atypical Open Source project.
From my perspective, this is the "closed" portion of the open source movement, with the mindset that no commercial software, be it a Photoshop, AutoCad, Quicken, or an Oracle, has any place whatsoever.
It would be more precise to say that that is the "Free Software movement" not the "Open Source movement". The Free Software folks are the ones making moral arguments, while the Open Source folks are the ones making practical arguments. The very nature of making practical arguments gives credibility to closed-source programs that work better than their OSS equivalents (if any); it's no skin off an OSS advocate's nose to agree that you should use a closed-source program if a superior open-source program does not yet exist. (Strictly speaking, a Free Software advocate might agree to that language, but would say that a non-free license makes a program inherently inferior, even though it is superior if you only consider quality.)
It's all about competing for budget dollars. If any government agency or group manages to expand its role, it gets more money. There's tons of inter-service political wrangling of this nature. Another example is the continued existence of the Marines due to their ability to invent new roles and missions for themselves (to the point where the Navy is forming a new group of land-fighting sailors to fill the role of small-m marines). Another example is how the Air Force doesn't want the Army to have any fixed wing combat aircraft (including drones, but they lost that fight) because they consider those budgets to be their "turf".
I don't even know where to begin making a joke about this.
I suggest starting with how "COX" sounds like "cocks", pointing out how "cock" in some countries is slang for male genitals and then pointing out the juxtaposition of that and the word "sex". HTH.
I really don't think you're trolling, and even though this is such a wildly ideological question that I'm not sure any answer will satisfy you, I'll try.
No, I'm not trolling, I'm seriously interested. The previous poster seemed to be saying that a military occupation is inherently bad, which seems nonsensical to me; the circumstances of a military occupation are extremely important in determining whether or not it is morally acceptable. The only arguments that I know of for arguing that military occupation is always morally unacceptable are those that object to the military's existence in the first place, which is why I referred to that argument in my post.
First, imagine that a coalition of nations has 200 military bases scattered across the USA: NYC has 5 alone, and even Alamagordo NM has one. Like most military bases where the occupying force has some impunity, the off-duty soldiers are a little rowdy. 1) How would the locals perceive this, as a moral issue? Does anyone have a moral right to occupy the USA? 2) Would anyone protest, or perhaps organize violent resistance? Would there be any moral arguments for doing so?
Interestingly, aside from the coalition of foreign nations part, this is strikingly similar to the current situation. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there are 200 military bases scattered across the USA, and there's a red light district outside most. Lately there have been more protestors outside of military bases too.
Since it's true in the US now, I assume that if it were a hostile military occupation, some of the locals would still be opposed, and their protests could take violent or nonviolent forms. Yes, there are sometimes moral arguments in favor of opposing foreign military troops who are occupying one's country, and yes, someone might have the moral right or duty to occupy the US, depending on the US's actions. I'm not seeing anything that would prohibit military occupation in general.
Second, consider the issue of sovereignty. This notion is founded in morals, in the loose sense of the term. Sovereignty good, foreign occupation bad, so long as you believe people have a right to determine their own collective path. So-called democracy, even the kleptocratic republicanism used in the States, purports to hold this up as a moral issue.
Sovereignty is great, but always respecting it only works as long as you only interact with those who also always respect it. In the absence of that, observing others' right to determine their own collective path is not always morally correct (their collective choice might be to enslave me.) It's the difference between theoretical pacifism and practical pacifism: the practical pacifist realizes that peace will be maximized in the long run by occasionally ganging up on those who start trouble. (There are many practical pacifists in the military.) As long as that is true, military occupation of another country can sometimes be morally justified.
To make the claim that hostile military occupation of another country is always or automatically bad, one needs to eliminate all counterexamples. There are counterexamples that I can't eliminate, so military occupation of another country is not always or automatically bad.
having a military base on foreign soil sound a lot like Militart Occupation to me.
Unfortunately, that says more about you than it does about the topic at hand. But as long as you've brought it up, what is moral or immoral about military occupation? Or is it the existence of a military itself that is immoral? (If so, I'm with the earlier poster who said "Fine, let's get rid of our armies. You first.")
So. Let me get this straight, without any trolling intended. You say you have no qualms slaying a man who attacks you like this (pulling you etc.)?
Of course I would have qualms. Killing a man isn't to be done lightly, and I don't know if I would actually defend myself. I've lived half my life since my last fistfight, and I'm a different person now; I might choose a nonviolent response. But I believe strongly that people have the right to respond violently to violence, and even though I respect those who choose nonviolence, I think there might be an ethical imperative to respond violently to violence, for the good of society. "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing" etc.; to allow a crime to be committed when I have the power to do something about it might be unethical even if the crime is being committed against myself. I haven't decided to my own satisfaction yet if nonviolence actually is the morally correct approach to a situation like that, and of course the details matter greatly. (Am I alone in the car? Are my wife and child at risk? Etc.)
That's the theoretical side of the question. Practically speaking, most people are like me: weaklings. Firearms allow us to defend ourselves or others anyway, but they don't give the degree of precise control that we would have if we were martial arts experts. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is.
Amazingly, people carrying guns don't become mindless killers that will shoot people at the slightest provocation.
But that's exactly what you would be doing according to your description. If someone pulled me out of my car through the window WITHOUT USING A WEAPON I would hit him back with punches and whatnot but I would definitely avoid killing him.
Pulling someone out of a car through the window is not "the slightest provocation". If someone is big and strong enough to do that to me, against my will, then they're big and strong enough to seriously injure me with their bare hands. My bare hands, alas, are not very good at fighting; if I were in that situation, and (as is likely) I did not have a firearm, I would be in for the beating of my life, resulting in potentially life-long injuries. How is it extreme to defend yourself from that with a firearm, if you have one and are trained in its use? From a practical perspective, if you had a firearm and your assailant didn't, that would probably end the fight right there. If your assailant is aware that you have the ability to defend yourself (regardless of what the means is) then most of the time they will be deterred from attacking you in the first place.
I remember Cingular as Ameritech in disguise, and then Ameritech was bought by SBC. So SBC and Cingular are associated in my mind with all of the incompetence of Ameritech.
I've noticed that wherever somebody is from in the US, they tend to think that their local Baby Bell is the worst of the bunch.
I don't think so. They may ask if its intel compatible or ia32 compatible. A PC does not imply intel based, just that its a PERSONAL COMPUTER.
You know that, and I know that, but the "computer community" is not so well-informed. It sees "PC" as the opposite of "Mac", as in: "is that computer a PC or a Mac?" Other kinds of computers aren't even on the radar.
It takes more than proper spelling to make a newspaper or magazine "good", and it takes more than bad spelling to make a blog "bad". (Unfortunately; I'm a spelling/grammar nazi too.)
I agree. I'd love to have some rich corporation publicly and obviously infringe my copyright. Statutory damages alone for willful copyright infringement can be up to $150,000 these days. That would make a nice down payment on my retirement.
I'd say that it's the GPL that's intentionally incompatible with licenses such as the CDDL, and not the opposite.
That's certainly true, but the opposite of what I said would be to say that the GPL was specifically made incompatible with the CDDL, which is not true, since the GPL came first.
The GPL is also incompatible with Apache's License...
See this post, which I made two and a half hours before your post. It not only addresses that statement, but the other relevant portions of your post as well. (I choose not to address the "GPL sucks" stuff, because it's irrelevant to the question of why people object to Sun's actions.)
It would allow porn sites to self-censor, so to speak. A porn site on an xxx domain could claim more legitimately that you can't accidentally get there. It offers an opportunity for porn sites to claim to be "good netizens". It gives you something that you can filter out, if you want, without any worries about accidentally filtering out non-pornographic content.
If you actually want to know the answer, most of the flak Sun gets seems to be because they intentionally chose an open source license that's not compatible with the GPL.
I guess then Firefox and Apache aren't open enough for you either.
I didn't say the CDDL "wasn't open enough", or even "wasn't open". In fact, I specifically stated, in the portion of my post that you quoted, that the CDDL is an open source license. I was explaining why other people fault Sun for taking active steps to reduce compatibility with other Open Source projects.
Firefox is in the process of being triple-licensed MPL/GPL/LGPL. See the relicensing FAQ for more information.
The Apache License is currently not GPL-compatible, but there are two factors that prevent a backlash against the Apache Foundation similar to the backlash against Sun. First, Apache is the clear industry leader in its niche, so those looking for code exchange are interested in conforming to them. This is not the case with Sun; OpenSolaris is the new kid on the block, as far as open source OSes go, and there are plenty of existing open source OSes that would love to exchange code with OpenSolaris. Second, people who like the GPL tend to think that the Apache license is actually superior, and I believe that one of the goals of the GPL v3 process is to achieve compatibility with the Apache License. So, incompatibility between GPL and Apache License projects will probably not last forever (for those GPL projects that use the "or later" clause of the license.)
A situation that does involve a similar backlash is the one that exists between the BSD license, from the perspective of the BSDs, and the GPL. Many BSD developers do not add GPL code to their projects in order to maintain license purity (which is not at all objectionable.) They give the GPL flak because if it were published under their preferred license, they could include GPL code in their projects without changing their own licenses, which would be useful to them.
If you think this is "not very" open, could you be more specific about why and how?
If you actually want to know the answer, most of the flak Sun gets seems to be because they intentionally chose an open source license that's not compatible with the GPL. One of the huge benefits of open source is that different projects can share each others' code; witness the synergy that happens between the different BSDs. They have the same license, so they can cherry-pick each others' best features, and as a result they all win. The CDDL effectively blocks this from happening between OpenSolaris and other systems, and in fact, there's even debate over whether or not an OpenSolaris fork that uses the Solaris kernel and a GNU userland would even be legal.
Slashdot Mirror
That effort suffers from a fatal flaw: it does not fund the proponents of the current effort. With enough funding, this new effort's proponents should be able to overcome this shortcoming.
While this is true, the best approach is likely to be one that combines the swarming and master bot approaches. During normal operations, individual bots maneuver independently, but when the situation warrants, the swarm coalesces into a master bot that can meet greater challenges.
And I'll form the head!
Sure, why not? It's not unreasonable to think that an omnipotent being might prefer obfuscation. If it were obvious that an omnipotent being existed, then it would diminish the significance of believing in that being; if one exists, perhaps its goal is to maximize the significance of belief.
There's nothing intrinsic to omnipotence that demands a direct approach to every course of action. In fact, if an omnipotent being were to exist, it's reasonable to think that finite beings such as ourselves might not understand its actions, so action (or lack of action) that appears inconsistent (such as the "argument from evil") cannot disprove the existence of an omnipotent being.
What other Open Source projects that have "brand name" recognition among end-users are huge, bloated monstrosities written in multiple programming languages, are commented in multiple spoken languages, were developed with "cathedral" style methods and are notoriously difficult to compile from scratch? Please name them (so that I know what to avoid!)
OpenOffice.org has its strengths and I do use it periodically, but it is a very atypical Open Source project.
It would be more precise to say that that is the "Free Software movement" not the "Open Source movement". The Free Software folks are the ones making moral arguments, while the Open Source folks are the ones making practical arguments. The very nature of making practical arguments gives credibility to closed-source programs that work better than their OSS equivalents (if any); it's no skin off an OSS advocate's nose to agree that you should use a closed-source program if a superior open-source program does not yet exist. (Strictly speaking, a Free Software advocate might agree to that language, but would say that a non-free license makes a program inherently inferior, even though it is superior if you only consider quality.)
It's all about competing for budget dollars. If any government agency or group manages to expand its role, it gets more money. There's tons of inter-service political wrangling of this nature. Another example is the continued existence of the Marines due to their ability to invent new roles and missions for themselves (to the point where the Navy is forming a new group of land-fighting sailors to fill the role of small-m marines). Another example is how the Air Force doesn't want the Army to have any fixed wing combat aircraft (including drones, but they lost that fight) because they consider those budgets to be their "turf".
I suggest starting with how "COX" sounds like "cocks", pointing out how "cock" in some countries is slang for male genitals and then pointing out the juxtaposition of that and the word "sex". HTH.
No, I'm not trolling, I'm seriously interested. The previous poster seemed to be saying that a military occupation is inherently bad, which seems nonsensical to me; the circumstances of a military occupation are extremely important in determining whether or not it is morally acceptable. The only arguments that I know of for arguing that military occupation is always morally unacceptable are those that object to the military's existence in the first place, which is why I referred to that argument in my post.
Interestingly, aside from the coalition of foreign nations part, this is strikingly similar to the current situation. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there are 200 military bases scattered across the USA, and there's a red light district outside most. Lately there have been more protestors outside of military bases too.
Since it's true in the US now, I assume that if it were a hostile military occupation, some of the locals would still be opposed, and their protests could take violent or nonviolent forms. Yes, there are sometimes moral arguments in favor of opposing foreign military troops who are occupying one's country, and yes, someone might have the moral right or duty to occupy the US, depending on the US's actions. I'm not seeing anything that would prohibit military occupation in general.
Sovereignty is great, but always respecting it only works as long as you only interact with those who also always respect it. In the absence of that, observing others' right to determine their own collective path is not always morally correct (their collective choice might be to enslave me.) It's the difference between theoretical pacifism and practical pacifism: the practical pacifist realizes that peace will be maximized in the long run by occasionally ganging up on those who start trouble. (There are many practical pacifists in the military.) As long as that is true, military occupation of another country can sometimes be morally justified.
To make the claim that hostile military occupation of another country is always or automatically bad, one needs to eliminate all counterexamples. There are counterexamples that I can't eliminate, so military occupation of another country is not always or automatically bad.
Unfortunately, that says more about you than it does about the topic at hand. But as long as you've brought it up, what is moral or immoral about military occupation? Or is it the existence of a military itself that is immoral? (If so, I'm with the earlier poster who said "Fine, let's get rid of our armies. You first.")
What is moral or immoral about having military bases on foreign soil?
So what you're saying is that we need to take a niggardly approach to our public speech?
Of course I would have qualms. Killing a man isn't to be done lightly, and I don't know if I would actually defend myself. I've lived half my life since my last fistfight, and I'm a different person now; I might choose a nonviolent response. But I believe strongly that people have the right to respond violently to violence, and even though I respect those who choose nonviolence, I think there might be an ethical imperative to respond violently to violence, for the good of society. "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing" etc.; to allow a crime to be committed when I have the power to do something about it might be unethical even if the crime is being committed against myself. I haven't decided to my own satisfaction yet if nonviolence actually is the morally correct approach to a situation like that, and of course the details matter greatly. (Am I alone in the car? Are my wife and child at risk? Etc.)
That's the theoretical side of the question. Practically speaking, most people are like me: weaklings. Firearms allow us to defend ourselves or others anyway, but they don't give the degree of precise control that we would have if we were martial arts experts. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is.
Pulling someone out of a car through the window is not "the slightest provocation". If someone is big and strong enough to do that to me, against my will, then they're big and strong enough to seriously injure me with their bare hands. My bare hands, alas, are not very good at fighting; if I were in that situation, and (as is likely) I did not have a firearm, I would be in for the beating of my life, resulting in potentially life-long injuries. How is it extreme to defend yourself from that with a firearm, if you have one and are trained in its use? From a practical perspective, if you had a firearm and your assailant didn't, that would probably end the fight right there. If your assailant is aware that you have the ability to defend yourself (regardless of what the means is) then most of the time they will be deterred from attacking you in the first place.
I've noticed that wherever somebody is from in the US, they tend to think that their local Baby Bell is the worst of the bunch.
You know that, and I know that, but the "computer community" is not so well-informed. It sees "PC" as the opposite of "Mac", as in: "is that computer a PC or a Mac?" Other kinds of computers aren't even on the radar.
It takes more than proper spelling to make a newspaper or magazine "good", and it takes more than bad spelling to make a blog "bad". (Unfortunately; I'm a spelling/grammar nazi too.)
I agree. I'd love to have some rich corporation publicly and obviously infringe my copyright. Statutory damages alone for willful copyright infringement can be up to $150,000 these days. That would make a nice down payment on my retirement.
Can I retract my retraction? What nobody has said is OK is the law, not the activity that the law bans. I think it's time to go take a nap.
D'oh, that's what I get for not thinking clearly. "OK" should have been "Not OK". I don't think anybody's suggested in this thread that it's not OK.
There's a huge difference between "unenforceable" and "OK". Nobody in this subthread has said that it's OK.
Not only that, but if it becomes compatible with the Apache License, GPLv3 would actually decrease the license incompatibilities of the libre-verse.
That's certainly true, but the opposite of what I said would be to say that the GPL was specifically made incompatible with the CDDL, which is not true, since the GPL came first.
See this post, which I made two and a half hours before your post. It not only addresses that statement, but the other relevant portions of your post as well. (I choose not to address the "GPL sucks" stuff, because it's irrelevant to the question of why people object to Sun's actions.)
It would allow porn sites to self-censor, so to speak. A porn site on an xxx domain could claim more legitimately that you can't accidentally get there. It offers an opportunity for porn sites to claim to be "good netizens". It gives you something that you can filter out, if you want, without any worries about accidentally filtering out non-pornographic content.
I didn't say the CDDL "wasn't open enough", or even "wasn't open". In fact, I specifically stated, in the portion of my post that you quoted, that the CDDL is an open source license. I was explaining why other people fault Sun for taking active steps to reduce compatibility with other Open Source projects.
Firefox is in the process of being triple-licensed MPL/GPL/LGPL. See the relicensing FAQ for more information.
The Apache License is currently not GPL-compatible, but there are two factors that prevent a backlash against the Apache Foundation similar to the backlash against Sun. First, Apache is the clear industry leader in its niche, so those looking for code exchange are interested in conforming to them. This is not the case with Sun; OpenSolaris is the new kid on the block, as far as open source OSes go, and there are plenty of existing open source OSes that would love to exchange code with OpenSolaris. Second, people who like the GPL tend to think that the Apache license is actually superior, and I believe that one of the goals of the GPL v3 process is to achieve compatibility with the Apache License. So, incompatibility between GPL and Apache License projects will probably not last forever (for those GPL projects that use the "or later" clause of the license.)
A situation that does involve a similar backlash is the one that exists between the BSD license, from the perspective of the BSDs, and the GPL. Many BSD developers do not add GPL code to their projects in order to maintain license purity (which is not at all objectionable.) They give the GPL flak because if it were published under their preferred license, they could include GPL code in their projects without changing their own licenses, which would be useful to them.
If you actually want to know the answer, most of the flak Sun gets seems to be because they intentionally chose an open source license that's not compatible with the GPL. One of the huge benefits of open source is that different projects can share each others' code; witness the synergy that happens between the different BSDs. They have the same license, so they can cherry-pick each others' best features, and as a result they all win. The CDDL effectively blocks this from happening between OpenSolaris and other systems, and in fact, there's even debate over whether or not an OpenSolaris fork that uses the Solaris kernel and a GNU userland would even be legal.