Well, they might believe (mistakenly IMHO) in a man called "Jesus" who may have been a prophet, but they surely don't believe in "Jesus Christ". If they did they would be Christ-ians.
Christ is not a surname any more than H is the middle initial.
No, he is happy with the effect of the GPLv2. He just doesn't believe in the principles that drove RMS to write it that way. Essentially it is "quid pro quo" vs "maintain end user freedom", though that is of course a simplification. That's why he doesn't like GPLv3. It's wholly in accordance with the principles behind GPLv2, but messes with the effect that Linus is fond of.
But from my point of view, while a lot of politicians tend to vote for things they don't understand fully, and thereby chose the wrong option, on matters relating to technological and business law I think it's fair to say that Bill does understand things pretty well, but still chooses to come down on what I consider the "bad" side. Now of course I understand that he does it for perfectly sound financial and ambition related motives, but that is not really what I look for in a politician.
but all I can make out is some references to a "square showing a given" something, some numbers, and something about moving some bits of the mechanism but not others.
That's what it's meant to say! Some ancient maintenance engineer's guarantee of a job for life.
Are not easily breakable except on earlier phones I'm afraid. SIM lock is not like DRM. It is possible to do it properly. For these kind of rulings to be meaningful they need to be backed up by regulation mandating that carriers give the key to unlock it (or not do it in the first place).
Well, not necessarily. You are assuming that the 99% people are closer to chimps, but they could well just be farther or equidistant from chimps. It depends on where the variation is.
Often the reason that people don't admit something is worse is because it can't be treated in isolation. If you take the "better" option for something you are often also selecting the "worse" option for a whole bunch of other things. Public policy and cultural ways are often come as a whole package.
I think the point is that it didn't matter one bit whether he neglected his duty or not. Let's face it people don't like to give up control. It was forked (after a period of stagnation) and now continues with renewed vigor regardless of what he thought.
As others have pointed out, it's what governments should be doing anyway, since it's developed with public funds, and is also an issue of freedom and openness in government.
For the foisting on everyone else I agree. Eric S. Raymond should be answering support calls from anyone who ever has a problem installing Linux. RedHat, Novell and IBM already are.
It's the people who want leadership of others who are the problem. For the most part they want FOSS to be like a charity ("think of the good they could do if they were just a little bit more directed!").
It's not a charity. It's a somewhat cooperative enterprise for mutual benefit. As soon as the benefit stops being mutual so does the cooperation. Third parties only get a free ride only so long as their interests coincide with those of the contributing community.
The only "problem" is that the noise from non contributing third parties saying how it doesn't meet their needs gets far too much publicity.
But you don't cost anybody anything. The people involved have already made the decision to share. If you are willing to wait for a random person to implement a feature you need, then your need obviously is not all that great. Thinking you have gotten one over on them is dumb at best. It's not a zero sum game.
Yes, but even if he is not willing someone else may be. And there is next to no distinction between him and someone else and yourself in the open source world. If you just want a feature implemented, any body's code is as good as anybody else's. Maintenance is another matter of course...
I believe in God, however, I don't think it has anything to do with Bible or this physical world.
So it's a god you made up in your own mind? You are his/her prophet?
The question "Why does existence exist?" (which is what the whole business with gods boils down to eventually) does not ask anything meaningful. "Why not?" is as good a question, and the only answer to the first you are going to get that doesn't depend on "make believe stuff that people just imagined in their heads".
This physical world is all there is. There is no why.
Speaking as a 21st century human it's wonderful that we are able to appreciate how amazing and beautiful the physical world is, either at the everyday surface level or at the sub atomic and mathematical level, but it's thanks to a the physical process of evolution having created the physical processes in our brains.
Physical processes just encompass more than we give them credit for (i.e. everything).
The blame for Nazi Germany can be laid squarely at the door of Hitler's brand of personal evil, and the legacy of Christianity's 2000 year demonization of Judaism. Martin Luther, founder of Germany's home religion was as anti-Jew than many a Nazi. Adolf Hitler died a member of the Catholic Church, and the history of Catholic treatment of Jews is horrendous. To blame Atheism for Nazism is to completely abdicate responsibility for Christianity's history. What do you think the Second Vatican Council was about if not trying to sort out (Catholic) Christianity's future given it's culpability in fostering the atmosphere in which Nazism thrived?
assuming the general Judao-Christian moral traits of peace, justice, brotherhood, etc. or the like
Those "traits" are not supported by history. It ought to be easy to be peaceful and support justice among your own brothers, and it didn't even manage that on any sort of consistent basis. For people outside of that brotherhood and it's hardly worth talking about seriously.
Some Atheists may have an agenda, but that's no different really than saying some people in Green Street have an agenda. It's not some huge Green Street conspiracy. There is not some common philosophy behind what Atheists think. We just don't believe in one more god than the rest of the people.
Liberalism, Conservatism, Humanism, Secularism, these are philosophies and the people who follow them do have an agenda, and some of them might also be atheist.
Furthermore, Islam is much, much more rigid and comprehensive than Christianity, or some other system. Islam isn't just about religion, it also regulates day to day life and political and legal matters.
2000 years of history says you are wrong to make this distinction. Christianity on average has been just as totalitarian as Islam. Christianity moderated by Democracy, Religious Freedom, Rational and Scientific knowledge, a few of centuries of the Enlightenment and assorted revolutions directly against it's power, not to mention the fact that it's your local religion, might appear to be meek enough, but it is not inherently so, and has been vehemently and violently opposed to most of what we in "the West" hold today as basic values. That's not to say it is nice to have to deal with a medieval religion like Islam again, but Freedom must be won in every generation, and giving Christanity an easy ride is not the way to defeat fundamentalist Islam.
There's an interesting metaphor in "The Ancestor's Tale". If you held hands with your father (or mother) and he with his and so on, after 500 miles you'd have a common ancestor of chimps and humans. I think it's a cute metaphor, but 500 miles is a long way all the same, and prejudice aside, chimps are not really so astoundingly different. I'm not entirely sure how far you'd have to continue to get to the common ancestor of humans and bananas, but anyway what I find astounding is that you'd still get there in the end just holding hands from child to parent. There is a direct family link from you to a banana tree.
Consider this question: "How would you go about detecting life on Earth?". See how ridiculous it sounds? Life is obvious, even in it's most un-obvious forms. Mars might possibly have been alive once, but it's pretty much dead now.
Statistics is the only maths course that I wish had been treated with more care in my CS degree, and in my Software Engineering related job(s) it's the one that I have had the most use and need of. Whether it's relevant for "pure" CS I have no idea, but would suppose that proper understanding and use of statistics is relevant for all science and engineering disciplines.
Adding to that, though it's not exactly maths or CS as such, a better understanding of economics and the practical economic or accounting mechanisms and tools used in business and life would come in handy.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, they might believe (mistakenly IMHO) in a man called "Jesus" who may have been a prophet, but they surely don't believe in "Jesus Christ". If they did they would be Christ-ians.
Christ is not a surname any more than H is the middle initial.
No, he is happy with the effect of the GPLv2. He just doesn't believe in the principles that drove RMS to write it that way. Essentially it is "quid pro quo" vs "maintain end user freedom", though that is of course a simplification. That's why he doesn't like GPLv3. It's wholly in accordance with the principles behind GPLv2, but messes with the effect that Linus is fond of.
Well, I'm not American for a start :)
But from my point of view, while a lot of politicians tend to vote for things they don't understand fully, and thereby chose the wrong option, on matters relating to technological and business law I think it's fair to say that Bill does understand things pretty well, but still chooses to come down on what I consider the "bad" side. Now of course I understand that he does it for perfectly sound financial and ambition related motives, but that is not really what I look for in a politician.
Are not easily breakable except on earlier phones I'm afraid. SIM lock is not like DRM. It is possible to do it properly. For these kind of rulings to be meaningful they need to be backed up by regulation mandating that carriers give the key to unlock it (or not do it in the first place).
They should receive it the same way as everyone else unless they are idolaters of the written word :P
Well, not necessarily. You are assuming that the 99% people are closer to chimps, but they could well just be farther or equidistant from chimps. It depends on where the variation is.
Often the reason that people don't admit something is worse is because it can't be treated in isolation. If you take the "better" option for something you are often also selecting the "worse" option for a whole bunch of other things. Public policy and cultural ways are often come as a whole package.
I think the point is that it didn't matter one bit whether he neglected his duty or not. Let's face it people don't like to give up control. It was forked (after a period of stagnation) and now continues with renewed vigor regardless of what he thought.
As others have pointed out, it's what governments should be doing anyway, since it's developed with public funds, and is also an issue of freedom and openness in government.
For the foisting on everyone else I agree. Eric S. Raymond should be answering support calls from anyone who ever has a problem installing Linux. RedHat, Novell and IBM already are.
It's the people who want leadership of others who are the problem. For the most part they want FOSS to be like a charity ("think of the good they could do if they were just a little bit more directed!").
It's not a charity. It's a somewhat cooperative enterprise for mutual benefit. As soon as the benefit stops being mutual so does the cooperation. Third parties only get a free ride only so long as their interests coincide with those of the contributing community.
The only "problem" is that the noise from non contributing third parties saying how it doesn't meet their needs gets far too much publicity.
But you don't cost anybody anything. The people involved have already made the decision to share. If you are willing to wait for a random person to implement a feature you need, then your need obviously is not all that great. Thinking you have gotten one over on them is dumb at best. It's not a zero sum game.
Yes, but even if he is not willing someone else may be. And there is next to no distinction between him and someone else and yourself in the open source world. If you just want a feature implemented, any body's code is as good as anybody else's. Maintenance is another matter of course...
The question "Why does existence exist?" (which is what the whole business with gods boils down to eventually) does not ask anything meaningful. "Why not?" is as good a question, and the only answer to the first you are going to get that doesn't depend on "make believe stuff that people just imagined in their heads".
This physical world is all there is. There is no why.
Speaking as a 21st century human it's wonderful that we are able to appreciate how amazing and beautiful the physical world is, either at the everyday surface level or at the sub atomic and mathematical level, but it's thanks to a the physical process of evolution having created the physical processes in our brains.
Physical processes just encompass more than we give them credit for (i.e. everything).
You mean it's not in my appendix?!
Those "traits" are not supported by history. It ought to be easy to be peaceful and support justice among your own brothers, and it didn't even manage that on any sort of consistent basis. For people outside of that brotherhood and it's hardly worth talking about seriously.
Some Atheists may have an agenda, but that's no different really than saying some people in Green Street have an agenda. It's not some huge Green Street conspiracy. There is not some common philosophy behind what Atheists think. We just don't believe in one more god than the rest of the people.
Liberalism, Conservatism, Humanism, Secularism, these are philosophies and the people who follow them do have an agenda, and some of them might also be atheist.
Why would you want to tamper an already perfectly good passport? It's cloning of perfectly good passports that they need to prevent.
Hadn't seen articles posted from someone's Slashdot journal to the front page before. Is this a new trend or just a random occurrence?
There's an interesting metaphor in "The Ancestor's Tale". If you held hands with your father (or mother) and he with his and so on, after 500 miles you'd have a common ancestor of chimps and humans. I think it's a cute metaphor, but 500 miles is a long way all the same, and prejudice aside, chimps are not really so astoundingly different. I'm not entirely sure how far you'd have to continue to get to the common ancestor of humans and bananas, but anyway what I find astounding is that you'd still get there in the end just holding hands from child to parent. There is a direct family link from you to a banana tree.
Consider this question: "How would you go about detecting life on Earth?". See how ridiculous it sounds? Life is obvious, even in it's most un-obvious forms. Mars might possibly have been alive once, but it's pretty much dead now.
Statistics is the only maths course that I wish had been treated with more care in my CS degree, and in my Software Engineering related job(s) it's the one that I have had the most use and need of. Whether it's relevant for "pure" CS I have no idea, but would suppose that proper understanding and use of statistics is relevant for all science and engineering disciplines.
Adding to that, though it's not exactly maths or CS as such, a better understanding of economics and the practical economic or accounting mechanisms and tools used in business and life would come in handy.