Just as a heads up to Mac users... the next major revision of Mac OS X, Panther, will be changing from Sendmail to Postfix. So if you use Mac OS X, you don't need to do anything special other than buy Panther when it becomes available.
Personally, that's what is pushing me over the edge to learn Postfix and use it on my OpenBSD servers. In a nostalgic way, it's too bad... I once made some seriously good money writing custom sendmail.cf files on a consulting basis.
No, IDC's numbers actually are not based on sales. I used to work for Red Hat and went to a couple of the presentations that IDC gave to senior management, where they talked about the difficulty of measuring usage of a free OS. They described their methodology, which consisted of polling and sampling from multiple sources.
It's not perfect, but I'd bet that their numbers are within 20% of the actual usage.
Re:*sigh* please do a google search
on
Joining the ACLU?
·
· Score: 1
*Snort*
OK, does this more concise quote make you happier? Thomas Jefferson: "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
Re:True. But that's not the whole story.
on
Joining the ACLU?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Dictionary.com says: "The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation." That sounds pretty much like Scouts, insisting on a Diety but not doing anything useful with the concept after that.
No, not at all. A Deist belief system does not allow for any kind of divine revelation, such as through prophets, messiahs, or holy texts. If the Scouts were Deist, they would expel Christians and Jews, instead of just expelling Atheists.
Progressive Creationists are similarly not even remotely like Deists. Deists believe in a clockwork universe that was created and then abandoned, while Creationists generally believe in scriptural texts (the "supernatural revelation" referred to in the definition you quote) and other tinkering by the Creator.
I apologize for the low quality of the link I posted, googling will get you better info if you're interested. Deism is a fairly well articulated set of beliefs that grew out of the Enlightenment and doesn't resemble Christianity at all, except in the belief in a similar moral code (but the code of "natural rights" is derivable from the observed universe, instead of consisting of given commandments) and in a Creator.
Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and most of those referred to as the American "Founding Fathers" were Deists rather than Christians, and had some fairly nasty things to say about Christianity (Thomas Jefferson: "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." And Tom Paine, well, he specialized in denouncing Christianity).
Founding Fathers were Deists, not Christians
on
Joining the ACLU?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The Founding Fathers were openly religious. The practice of praying to God, and not just any God, the Christian God embraced by the Christian religions, in government has continued even today
Uh... no.
The "Founding Fathers," were generally Deists, not Christians. Deist beliefs are incompatible with Christianity. Deism, and the entire philosophy of Natural Rights, is an outgrowth of the Age of Reason that embraced a Creator that did not reveal itself by revelation but through its creation itself.
Let's look at what some of the best-known "founding fathers" said about Christianity, society, and Law:
Thomas Jefferson: Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
Ben Franklin:
"I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works... I mean real good works... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity."
Thomas Paine: The fable of Christ and his twelve apostles, which is a parody on the sun and the twelve signs of the zodiac, copied from the ancient religions of the eastern world, is the least hurtful part."
James Madison: "Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.
John Adams: As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?
Here are some other links on the whole "Founding Fathers were Christian" bogon:
Re:True. But that's not the whole story.
on
Joining the ACLU?
·
· Score: 1
The Scouts are definitely not a Deist organization. Perhaps you meant theist?
This, by the way, is what the "Founding Fathers" actually were (for the most part). A Deist is not somebody who believes in a god, a Deist is someone who believes in a specific type of God, which differs substantially from the Christian Jehovah / Jewish Yaweh / Muslim Allah.
OK, keep in mind while reading the following that I'm a member of the ACLU. I'm going to touch on some of their less popular positions, though.
The ACLU tends to be fanatical on matters of speech, even when most people would not necessarily be on their side. The case that Bill O'Reiley likes to rail against is where they have helped defend the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)... they really do believe that everybody has the right to say anything, no matter what it is and what might be done with that information.
They have also been famous in defending (and winning) the right of groups like the Ku Klux Klan and fascist Nazi-praising groups to march. Again, for them it's a bright line: no matter how vile the speech, the speaker has the right to say it.
They have also been very active in challenging the Bush Administration's position that they are able to keep suspected terrorists incommunicado for as long as they like.
I wouldn't necessarily want to live in a world where the ACLU positions always ended up prevailaing. I do, however, believe that they are a very necessary counterbalance to those interests that would drag us back to the bad old days of McCarthyism (I would ask Ann Coulter, "Have you no shame, Madame?") and other reactionary movements.
On September 11th, I sent money to two groups: the Red Cross and the ACLU.
Why? Because rocket programs are dual purpose. They can be used to deliver civilians and satellites into orbit, or they can be used to deliver to deliver nuclear warhead payloads.
And India is now a nuclear power.
In other words, India will end up with nuclear ICBMs.
Now, I don't have anything particular about India - I'd say this about any country. More countries having nuclear ICBM capability is simply not a recipe for world peace.
The discovery of new extremophiles is very important to biotech.
A discussion of the various discoveries from extremophiles is here. I'm going to focus on one process, made possible by genes from hyperthermophiles from deep ocean vents.
One process, PCR (Polymer Chain Reaction), the technology that allows us to create large batches of identical DNA, depends upon polymerase taken from these organisms.
The reason is this: in order to for PCR to work, a solution of polymerase and the desired DNA sequence is heated so that the DNA will quickly uncoil, allowing the polymerase to go to work - copying each strand of DNA present, doubling the amount of DNA. The solution is cooled, and then the process repeats, doubling the amount of DNA each time. Unfortunately, "normal" polymerase quickly breaks down at the best temperatures for this process.
Extremophile polymerase changes all of this, since it's perfectly happy to operate at these high temperatures.
One cheap ($20 new) game that tries to do something like this with the Roman Empire called Legion.
Mileage Warning: (Yours may differ) In my brief playing of it, it really sucked, despite the positive review I linked to above. To me, it looked like it overstressed the Civilization model to try to fit Roman history in ways that did were not conducive to good game design (ie, were not fun).
A common trade statistic quoted between countries is a trade deficit. That's associated with a flow of capital out of one country to another, and is often a point of concern or even international tension.
Are we going to have to worry about a trade deficit with the imaginary world now? Is the imagination part of the free trade zone? Is this why people like Pat Buchannan want to erect walls around people's imaginations?
In a Linux Journal editorial a few years back, Eric Hughes (of the Cypherpunks) put it very well:
"I still can't figure out how the claim that the GNU Public License encourages free speech is not utterly disingenuous. The GPL is the opposite of free speech; it's a highly detailed copyright agreement with the purpose of restricting the expression of derivative works."
Among other things, some of the instruments (I'm thinking of the NICMOS, don't remember whether any others require this) must be cooled by liquid nitrogen in order to prevent interference from IR emitted by the instruments themselves.
If you think that's bad, COBE had to be cooled by liquid helium.
More speculatively, I imagine occasional physical adjustment have to be made from time to time too, like replacing lubricants, servicing gyros, replacing batteries, and replenishing propellents - space is a fairly hostile environment and you can't expect something as complex as the Hubble to work for 20 years there without some TLC.
You are quite wrong about that. Giving away code means gaining fame - that is, if the code is good.
Nonsense. IF YOU ARE LUCKY, that will happen. There's plenty of great code out there that doesn't result in fame - because it's attached to projects that don't catch the public interest, or because it's on a fork of a project that never reaches critical mass.
That's all a crap shoot. My point is that it's a fool who expects anything in return.
It's constantly amazing to me too how many of the Gnu-Uber-Alles folks don't really understand that they are giving their work away for free and can not reasonably expect anything in return. Not a salary, not an occasional trip, not even acknowledgement. Free means free, you can't expect jack in return. Those are the terms you choose when you use the GPL!
Feeling otherwise really is just feeling proprietary, like the fruits of your work is your property and you can expect something in return. Sorry, that's not what the GPL is about, the GPL is about giving up any control you have over how the result is used or how (or whether) you are compensated (beyond the GPL). The "freedom" isn't for the creator of the new work, the freedom is for the users to not owe you a damned thing in return.
Slashdot Mirror
Just as a heads up to Mac users... the next major revision of Mac OS X, Panther, will be changing from Sendmail to Postfix. So if you use Mac OS X, you don't need to do anything special other than buy Panther when it becomes available.
Personally, that's what is pushing me over the edge to learn Postfix and use it on my OpenBSD servers. In a nostalgic way, it's too bad... I once made some seriously good money writing custom sendmail.cf files on a consulting basis.
No, IDC's numbers actually are not based on sales. I used to work for Red Hat and went to a couple of the presentations that IDC gave to senior management, where they talked about the difficulty of measuring usage of a free OS. They described their methodology, which consisted of polling and sampling from multiple sources.
It's not perfect, but I'd bet that their numbers are within 20% of the actual usage.
...except the fur SuSE part.
[Half-smiley.]
*Snort*
OK, does this more concise quote make you happier? Thomas Jefferson: "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
Progressive Creationists are similarly not even remotely like Deists. Deists believe in a clockwork universe that was created and then abandoned, while Creationists generally believe in scriptural texts (the "supernatural revelation" referred to in the definition you quote) and other tinkering by the Creator.
I apologize for the low quality of the link I posted, googling will get you better info if you're interested. Deism is a fairly well articulated set of beliefs that grew out of the Enlightenment and doesn't resemble Christianity at all, except in the belief in a similar moral code (but the code of "natural rights" is derivable from the observed universe, instead of consisting of given commandments) and in a Creator.
Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and most of those referred to as the American "Founding Fathers" were Deists rather than Christians, and had some fairly nasty things to say about Christianity (Thomas Jefferson: "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." And Tom Paine, well, he specialized in denouncing Christianity).
Uh... no.
The "Founding Fathers," were generally Deists, not Christians. Deist beliefs are incompatible with Christianity. Deism, and the entire philosophy of Natural Rights, is an outgrowth of the Age of Reason that embraced a Creator that did not reveal itself by revelation but through its creation itself.
Let's look at what some of the best-known "founding fathers" said about Christianity, society, and Law:
- Thomas Jefferson : Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
- Ben Franklin:
"I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works
... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity."
- Thomas Paine : The fable of Christ and his twelve apostles, which is a parody on the sun and the twelve signs of the zodiac, copied from the ancient religions of the eastern world, is the least hurtful part."
- James Madison: "Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.
- John Adams: As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?
Here are some other links on the whole "Founding Fathers were Christian" bogon:Have you no shame, sir?
The Scouts are definitely not a Deist organization. Perhaps you meant theist?
This, by the way, is what the "Founding Fathers" actually were (for the most part). A Deist is not somebody who believes in a god, a Deist is someone who believes in a specific type of God, which differs substantially from the Christian Jehovah / Jewish Yaweh / Muslim Allah.
We are in agreement. It is too bad.
They support the right to say anything, not bully people who disagree with them in front of private businesses.
The Boy Scouts are a religious organization if they can expel members for being atheists.
Or maybe you, like Bush Sr., believe that Atheists should not be considered American citizens with the right of freedom of religion?
OK, keep in mind while reading the following that I'm a member of the ACLU. I'm going to touch on some of their less popular positions, though.
The ACLU tends to be fanatical on matters of speech, even when most people would not necessarily be on their side. The case that Bill O'Reiley likes to rail against is where they have helped defend the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)... they really do believe that everybody has the right to say anything, no matter what it is and what might be done with that information.
They have also been famous in defending (and winning) the right of groups like the Ku Klux Klan and fascist Nazi-praising groups to march. Again, for them it's a bright line: no matter how vile the speech, the speaker has the right to say it.
They have also been very active in challenging the Bush Administration's position that they are able to keep suspected terrorists incommunicado for as long as they like.
I wouldn't necessarily want to live in a world where the ACLU positions always ended up prevailaing. I do, however, believe that they are a very necessary counterbalance to those interests that would drag us back to the bad old days of McCarthyism (I would ask Ann Coulter, "Have you no shame, Madame?") and other reactionary movements.
On September 11th, I sent money to two groups: the Red Cross and the ACLU.
They knew that.
They just don't seem to have known that it's not funny.
[Sorry, first copy attached to wrong message.]
Don't be silly.
<deadpan>
After all, we must destroy freedom in order to save it.
</deadpan>
Don't be silly.
<deadpan>
After all, we must destroy freedom in order to save it.
</deadpan>
Why? Because rocket programs are dual purpose. They can be used to deliver civilians and satellites into orbit, or they can be used to deliver to deliver nuclear warhead payloads.
And India is now a nuclear power.
In other words, India will end up with nuclear ICBMs.
Now, I don't have anything particular about India - I'd say this about any country. More countries having nuclear ICBM capability is simply not a recipe for world peace.
The discovery of new extremophiles is very important to biotech.
A discussion of the various discoveries from extremophiles is here. I'm going to focus on one process, made possible by genes from hyperthermophiles from deep ocean vents. One process, PCR (Polymer Chain Reaction), the technology that allows us to create large batches of identical DNA, depends upon polymerase taken from these organisms.
The reason is this: in order to for PCR to work, a solution of polymerase and the desired DNA sequence is heated so that the DNA will quickly uncoil, allowing the polymerase to go to work - copying each strand of DNA present, doubling the amount of DNA. The solution is cooled, and then the process repeats, doubling the amount of DNA each time. Unfortunately, "normal" polymerase quickly breaks down at the best temperatures for this process.
Extremophile polymerase changes all of this, since it's perfectly happy to operate at these high temperatures.
One cheap ($20 new) game that tries to do something like this with the Roman Empire called Legion .
Mileage Warning: (Yours may differ) In my brief playing of it, it really sucked, despite the positive review I linked to above. To me, it looked like it overstressed the Civilization model to try to fit Roman history in ways that did were not conducive to good game design (ie, were not fun).
All seriousness aside....
A common trade statistic quoted between countries is a trade deficit. That's associated with a flow of capital out of one country to another, and is often a point of concern or even international tension.
Are we going to have to worry about a trade deficit with the imaginary world now? Is the imagination part of the free trade zone? Is this why people like Pat Buchannan want to erect walls around people's imaginations?
Oy....
Among other things, some of the instruments (I'm thinking of the NICMOS, don't remember whether any others require this) must be cooled by liquid nitrogen in order to prevent interference from IR emitted by the instruments themselves.
If you think that's bad, COBE had to be cooled by liquid helium.
You can read more about the instrumentation here.
More speculatively, I imagine occasional physical adjustment have to be made from time to time too, like replacing lubricants, servicing gyros, replacing batteries, and replenishing propellents - space is a fairly hostile environment and you can't expect something as complex as the Hubble to work for 20 years there without some TLC.
The Tungsten T doesn't do 802.11 - it's the Bluetooth Tungsten. For Bluetooth, its range is fine.
That's all a crap shoot. My point is that it's a fool who expects anything in return.
Yeah.
It's constantly amazing to me too how many of the Gnu-Uber-Alles folks don't really understand that they are giving their work away for free and can not reasonably expect anything in return. Not a salary, not an occasional trip, not even acknowledgement. Free means free, you can't expect jack in return. Those are the terms you choose when you use the GPL!
Feeling otherwise really is just feeling proprietary, like the fruits of your work is your property and you can expect something in return. Sorry, that's not what the GPL is about, the GPL is about giving up any control you have over how the result is used or how (or whether) you are compensated (beyond the GPL). The "freedom" isn't for the creator of the new work, the freedom is for the users to not owe you a damned thing in return.