Why make it a church issue? Is it so important to knock down those who believe something different?
Because every time I tell a conservative person that I want to live 500 years and have cat's eyes and coordination to run through the moon-lit forest, they look funny at me?
Allow me to introduce myself. I'm a conservative person, and I think it would be just great to live 500 years and have improved vision and coordination. Personally, though, I'm hoping for improved mental capacity through the application of computer technology; when I was a kid I could remember the names of all of the kids in my school, but today I can't even remember the names of all of my in-laws.
I see no moral difference between positive use of genetic manipulation and positive use of medicine. Both could theoretically be misused, but it's the misuse that's wrong, not the thing itself.
Wow! Talk about lying! You've taken the words "he lied" and made it seem like they were in my post.
I recommend learning a bit more about how slashdot works before flying off the handle. Actually looking will reveal that I responded to an anonymous coward, who responded to an anonymous coward, who responded to you.
Selling Operating Systems is not thier core buisness -- thier core buisness is selling computer hardware.
While that's true, the reason that most people buy Mac hardware is so that they can get the MacOS. If Apple used a variant of Windows XP that ran on their hardware instead of MacOS, their sales would be lower.
Apple uses their software to make their hardware more attractive, and most of the attraction that their hardware has is due to the software that comes with it.
As long as they're abiding by the terms of the license, does Apple, any corporation, or any entity for that matter, have any obligation to contribute anything back to the project?
A Free Software advocate would say that they have a moral imperative, and that this moral imperative is reflected (not determined) by the terms of the GPL.
Who gets to decide when someone is contributing "enough"?
I'm not sure if it's necessary for somebody to decide whether or not someone has contributed "enough". People or corporations are free to write as much or as little code as they want.
This aspect of the bill is completely ridiculous. It allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to overthrow the government and establish a dictatorship, if, in his sole opinion, doing so is necessary to put up better fences between the US and Mexico. There is no legal recourse: it is now the law that such actions can't be challenged in court. It's a blank check.
To get a copyright for a work, you should have to register a highest-possible-quality unencrypted digital copy of the work with the copyright office.
No, that's just to register a copyright. Something doesn't actually have to be registered to be copyrighted. Any work is automatically copyrighted at the time of completion, whether or not it's registered or even published.
The previous poster is not describing the current situation, they are describing their preferred situation.
The GPL is not an End User License Agreement. It is a set of terms that allows you to redistribute a copyrighted work under circumstances that would normally not allow you to do so.
You were talking about the motivation of the "creationist side", and I can't imagine they have any seriously interest in clarifying what portions of the field of evolution are solid tested science and what areas are more speculative and developmental science.
That was sort of what I was getting at. Some people do make the erroneous claim that all portions of the field of evolution are solid tested science, and by showing that's not true, creationists hope to discredit those people, and by extension, the entire field.
It would be a great example of a straw man attack, except that some people actually do believe that all portions of the field of evolution have been conclusively proven and it's all over but the shouting.
Except that it's not about groups of scientists debating each other, it's about groups of hacks debating each other, so it's not the "field of evolution" being discredited, but the hacks on the other side. Actual scientists don't call public hearings before the school board, they write journal articles.
The hacks on either side of the evolution "issue" simply use the "debate" to move their own agenda. They assign more importance to it than it actually deserves, and most of the time just end up talking past each other. They do this because hacks on one side see evolution as a way to discredit religion, while hacks on the other side think that evolution somehow discredits religion.
The reality is that it just isn't that big of a deal.
Libertarians often have this funny idea that just because something is a good thing, there is a financial incentive to make it happen. This is in reality rarely the case.
Well, I think of myself as libertarian, and I think that if something is a good thing, there will be people who will do it despite financial disincentive.
I said that any claim that evolution is not actually testable, or ha[s] not yet been adequately tested is comparable to making that claim about astronomy.
"Evolution" is an extremely imprecise term. I'm quite confident that somewhere in that huge pile of hypotheses and sound bites there are some that are not testable, or have not yet been adequately tested. It's not one theory, it's a whole bunch of different theories, hypotheses, claims and speculations (in decreasing order of rigor), and learning more about the individual details is an ongoing process, not a done deal.
The way it is worded, it doesn't explicitly state that you have to do all these things for it to be science.
I disagree. The word "and" is used to connect all of those things. If the word "or" was used, or the phrase "and/or", then your interpretation would be more accurate, I think.
You have to look at it from the other angle. What do the creationists get out of apparently tightening up the definition of science?
Answer: They're trying to use the strength of science against it. Basically science comes up with a hypothesis. Then scientists try to break it. If it breaks they try again in different ways. That's how we learn.
Obviously the creationists want to use that by saying to the schools. "Since science is constantly evolving and testing itself why not teach "Intelligent Bollocks" in the classes and let the students compare the two. Obviously if evolution is as strong as the scientists say it is you've got nothing to worry about".
I disagree. What I think the creationists are trying to gain is this: they seek to discredit certain aspects of popular dogma that are not actually testable, or have not yet been adequately tested.
I think that's a good thing; I'm all for intellectual rigor. It is ironic that it's coming from the creationist side of the fence.
By not having "natural explanation" in the sentence, they can truly claim that creationism _IS_ science.
If creationism can be accurately described as a "continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena" then it is science.
If creationism doesn't meet that definition (hint: it doesn't) then that definition can't be used to claim that creationism is science.
Personally, I think that's a pretty good definition to use, although I'd replace "adequate" with "accurate".
The standard GPL-fanatic always downs on the BSD license for some reason, and I've never understood it. Some people want to make code and then give it away for anyone (even the great evil that resides in Redmond) to use. Sometimes I think some opensource people get too caught up in the "opensource everything!" work that they forget the end goal is better software for everyone.
That is one end goal, but it isn't the end goal of the GPL fanatic. The GPL fanatic's goal is to spread what they consider to be "software freedom."
It might help your understanding to realize that the GPL fanatic's definition of "software freedom" is different than the BSD license fanatic's definition. To the GPL fanatic, the BSD license is less free because BSD licensed code can be used to improve non-free code.
It's no coincidence that this dispute is often compared to religion: the BSD license fanatic says "Do what thou wilt" and the GPL fanatic says "God says that this is the right way to behave, and to do otherwise is sin."
(This is the fanatics I'm talking about, not the level-headed advocates.)
So another way to think of it is this way: the problem is that the software doesn't age. It stays exactly the same, but everything else changes.
In general, software is one of the things that changes. A significant source of "aging" is from changes made by a maintainer who is not familiar with the system. I'm talking about the general case, not the situation with Comair; I don't know what the maintenance history of the crew management system was.
It's not reasonable to expect the same software to run on the same hardware under the same conditions for 20 years, even though it does happen in some extreme cases (like space probes.)
Sure it is. You'd be surprised. Here's just one example of many. Your wi drivers license information, if you have one, is stored in a database system written in assembler. It was originally written for another state, and is probably pushing 30-40 years old (we are talking pre-SQL here). Why is it still in use? Isn't it too 'old'? Well, many reasons, I'll guess at a few: requirements haven't changed much. It's paid for. It works. It's supported (somehow) by IBM. It is extremely fast. Well designed. Talk about ROI.
It's likely that the hardware in question has had components wear out and be replaced during that span of time. It's also likely that the software has undergone some amount of modification, if only shortly after being deployed. The users have certainly changed, the business practices of the DMV may have changed and the system utilization has certainly increased as the population has increased.
I'm a big fan of building software that works for a long time, but it doesn't happen very often.
Then it would be "system aging" not "software aging"; the mistake is in your choice of terminology.
It's a software-based system. In addition to being one of its components, "software" is also a synonym.
"Aging" in fact is still a terrible term to use to describe this process, since it has little or nothing to do with time and everything to do with modification and utilization.
It does have to do with time: as time progresses, poor modifications increase in number, increasing the bug count.
You're making a poor generalization based on innaccurate assumptions of utilization across the board.
I'm making a gross generalization, which of course looks poor if you consider atypical cases. In general, software does age, because it does change, and a common trend in legacy systems is for the developers making the changes to understand the system less and less as time goes on. This is true even when the developer is the creator; I understand the program that I put into maintenance mode 2 years ago much less now than I did when I worked on it every day. That's why good documentation is so important.
In addition, it's not my generalization; I'm simply parroting stuff that other people have discovered and documented.
It escapes me why people feel the need to come up with inaccurate terms for things that are already easily described and then try to defend them when the inevitable misunderstanding results.
what better term do you suggest? Bitrot? It's the same thing.
Who exactly was changing the code, since no one there supposedly knew FORTRAN?
It is the system that changes when software ages; the system is comprised of software, hardware, data, documentation, users and business practices. It's not necessary for every one of those to change in order for change to occur.
in fact software does not "age"
This is a commonly held myth, and it leads people to think that maintenance of software-based systems is not necessary. That's a big mistake.
Software doesn't wear out, but a software-based system does deteriorate. That's what people are talking about when they refer to "software aging".
That's what software aging is. When people talk about software aging, they're not talking about something that doesn't exist, they're talking about the effect that I described: ongoing changes with less and less understanding of the system.
We're talking about the same software running on the same hardware for 20 years. If nothing changes, it will continue to function.
Change is inevitable. It is common and reasonable to expect change in the hardware, the inputs, the business models and the code itself. It's not reasonable to expect the same software to run on the same hardware under the same conditions for 20 years, even though it does happen in some extreme cases (like space probes.)
Slashdot Mirror
Allow me to introduce myself. I'm a conservative person, and I think it would be just great to live 500 years and have improved vision and coordination. Personally, though, I'm hoping for improved mental capacity through the application of computer technology; when I was a kid I could remember the names of all of the kids in my school, but today I can't even remember the names of all of my in-laws.
I see no moral difference between positive use of genetic manipulation and positive use of medicine. Both could theoretically be misused, but it's the misuse that's wrong, not the thing itself.
I recommend learning a bit more about how slashdot works before flying off the handle. Actually looking will reveal that I responded to an anonymous coward, who responded to an anonymous coward, who responded to you.
Actually, that's what deceit is.
Ironically, most of them also rely on usability as the most important factor in their arguments.
"Never" is a long time. Lots of companies and people make money with OSS, and nothing's going to change that.
While that's true, the reason that most people buy Mac hardware is so that they can get the MacOS. If Apple used a variant of Windows XP that ran on their hardware instead of MacOS, their sales would be lower.
Apple uses their software to make their hardware more attractive, and most of the attraction that their hardware has is due to the software that comes with it.
A Free Software advocate would say that they have a moral imperative, and that this moral imperative is reflected (not determined) by the terms of the GPL.
I'm not sure if it's necessary for somebody to decide whether or not someone has contributed "enough". People or corporations are free to write as much or as little code as they want.
Reportedly, the sections in question were added back in by the committee that negotiated the differences between the House and Senate version.
This aspect of the bill is completely ridiculous. It allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to overthrow the government and establish a dictatorship, if, in his sole opinion, doing so is necessary to put up better fences between the US and Mexico. There is no legal recourse: it is now the law that such actions can't be challenged in court. It's a blank check.
The previous poster is not describing the current situation, they are describing their preferred situation.
The GPL is not an End User License Agreement. It is a set of terms that allows you to redistribute a copyrighted work under circumstances that would normally not allow you to do so.
That was sort of what I was getting at. Some people do make the erroneous claim that all portions of the field of evolution are solid tested science, and by showing that's not true, creationists hope to discredit those people, and by extension, the entire field.
It would be a great example of a straw man attack, except that some people actually do believe that all portions of the field of evolution have been conclusively proven and it's all over but the shouting.
Except that it's not about groups of scientists debating each other, it's about groups of hacks debating each other, so it's not the "field of evolution" being discredited, but the hacks on the other side. Actual scientists don't call public hearings before the school board, they write journal articles.
The hacks on either side of the evolution "issue" simply use the "debate" to move their own agenda. They assign more importance to it than it actually deserves, and most of the time just end up talking past each other. They do this because hacks on one side see evolution as a way to discredit religion, while hacks on the other side think that evolution somehow discredits religion.
The reality is that it just isn't that big of a deal.
Well, I think of myself as libertarian, and I think that if something is a good thing, there will be people who will do it despite financial disincentive.
Saving lives is one of those things.
"Evolution" is an extremely imprecise term. I'm quite confident that somewhere in that huge pile of hypotheses and sound bites there are some that are not testable, or have not yet been adequately tested. It's not one theory, it's a whole bunch of different theories, hypotheses, claims and speculations (in decreasing order of rigor), and learning more about the individual details is an ongoing process, not a done deal.
I don't know much about astronomy, so I can't say. Science is all about testing a hypothesis. Are you saying that astronomy is not science?
Cite?
The statement "Jack, Jill and Joe went to the beach" is not correct if one of them did not go to the beach.
I disagree. The word "and" is used to connect all of those things. If the word "or" was used, or the phrase "and/or", then your interpretation would be more accurate, I think.
I disagree. What I think the creationists are trying to gain is this: they seek to discredit certain aspects of popular dogma that are not actually testable, or have not yet been adequately tested.
I think that's a good thing; I'm all for intellectual rigor. It is ironic that it's coming from the creationist side of the fence.
In order for one of them to take the place of evolution by natural selection, it would have to meet all aspects of the definition, not just one.
If creationism can be accurately described as a "continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena" then it is science.
If creationism doesn't meet that definition (hint: it doesn't) then that definition can't be used to claim that creationism is science.
Personally, I think that's a pretty good definition to use, although I'd replace "adequate" with "accurate".
That is one end goal, but it isn't the end goal of the GPL fanatic. The GPL fanatic's goal is to spread what they consider to be "software freedom."
It might help your understanding to realize that the GPL fanatic's definition of "software freedom" is different than the BSD license fanatic's definition. To the GPL fanatic, the BSD license is less free because BSD licensed code can be used to improve non-free code.
It's no coincidence that this dispute is often compared to religion: the BSD license fanatic says "Do what thou wilt" and the GPL fanatic says "God says that this is the right way to behave, and to do otherwise is sin."
(This is the fanatics I'm talking about, not the level-headed advocates.)
In general, software is one of the things that changes. A significant source of "aging" is from changes made by a maintainer who is not familiar with the system. I'm talking about the general case, not the situation with Comair; I don't know what the maintenance history of the crew management system was.
It's likely that the hardware in question has had components wear out and be replaced during that span of time. It's also likely that the software has undergone some amount of modification, if only shortly after being deployed. The users have certainly changed, the business practices of the DMV may have changed and the system utilization has certainly increased as the population has increased.
I'm a big fan of building software that works for a long time, but it doesn't happen very often.
It does have to do with time: as time progresses, poor modifications increase in number, increasing the bug count.
I'm making a gross generalization, which of course looks poor if you consider atypical cases. In general, software does age, because it does change, and a common trend in legacy systems is for the developers making the changes to understand the system less and less as time goes on. This is true even when the developer is the creator; I understand the program that I put into maintenance mode 2 years ago much less now than I did when I worked on it every day. That's why good documentation is so important.
In addition, it's not my generalization; I'm simply parroting stuff that other people have discovered and documented.
what better term do you suggest? Bitrot? It's the same thing.
It is the system that changes when software ages; the system is comprised of software, hardware, data, documentation, users and business practices. It's not necessary for every one of those to change in order for change to occur.
This is a commonly held myth, and it leads people to think that maintenance of software-based systems is not necessary. That's a big mistake.
Software doesn't wear out, but a software-based system does deteriorate. That's what people are talking about when they refer to "software aging".
That's what software aging is. When people talk about software aging, they're not talking about something that doesn't exist, they're talking about the effect that I described: ongoing changes with less and less understanding of the system.
Change is inevitable. It is common and reasonable to expect change in the hardware, the inputs, the business models and the code itself. It's not reasonable to expect the same software to run on the same hardware under the same conditions for 20 years, even though it does happen in some extreme cases (like space probes.)