Well, given that radians are based on the actual mathamatics of angles (i.e., one radian is a "straight angle"), I guess God did. Or whatever deity you believe in. Athiests will have to blame it on random chance, and I'm not sure about agnostics.
Huh? Pi radians is a straight angle. One radian is a little over 60 degrees, hardle a straight angle.
While I agree that radians are related to a natural property of circles (specifically, the length of a one radian arc is equal to the radius of the arc), it isn't what you claimed.
I thought the founding fathers of C++ were Bjarne Stroustrup.
Stroustrup is the original creator of C++, but several of the other big names were involved pretty much from the start, and a lot of them have worked together over the years. Stan Lippman is one such person.
Ok, my memory may be faulty, but I'd have to agree with the grandparent post. I don't recall much from Stan before the mid-nineties, while (again, IIRC) Bjarne sired it in the early 80's. "Founding Father" seems a little bit of a stretch if he wasn't in the picture much for the first 60% of the history.
One can do cold fusion right now - muon catalysed. etc.
You only say that because you are being reasonable. The whole cold fusion "debate" has been polarized into a knee jerk flamefest, where you seemingly have to accept that either 1) cold fusion is impossible, or 2) cold fusion is trivially easy but big-money is supressing it.
There is a small cadre of reasonable people, who notice that fusion can and does take place under "low-temp/pressure" condition (where "low" is relative, just as it is for "high-temp" superconductors, etc.), but that does not mean anyone has the foggiest idea how to do anything usefull with it. So far as I can tell, these people are routinely shouted down/ignored by both sides.
If they (our hypothetical potentially wronged propritary software developer) want people to to take their claims seriously, they should conduct themselves in a manner that supports that position. In other words, do what's right rather than what's expedient. This is generally known as "acting in good faith".
Suppose they are distributing a binary mass of GPL'd goo, call it BGv13, and the associated source code SCv13. One day they discover that it contains proprietary code P. What should they do?
Stop distributing BGv13
Notify the world that they should also stop, and explain clearly what the problem is. Note that under the GPL, the world would be obligated to listen.
Notify everyone to whom they gave BGv13 that there is a problem and a update will be coming soon.
Produce SCv14 = SCv13 - P, and compile it to produce BGv14. Start distributing that.
Notify the people from whom they got the tainted version of the problem, and work with them to resolve the problem.
If anyone to whom they had given BGv13 asks for the source, they should appologize and explain that the source for that version is unavailable due to licensing problems, and send them BGv14 & SCv14
All of this should be done as soon as possible, and in a non-confrontational manner. Once they are not themselves contributing to the problem, they may want to pursue the matter (at apropriate levels of firmness) with anyone who is still distributing P without a license.
What they should not do is continue providing BGv13 for over a year, threaten people right and left, but refuse to tell anyone what P is or why they even think it's in SCv13 in the first place.
It isn't rocket science. What do you do if you find out that you're in the wrong seat at a concert (or someone else is in your seat)? What do you do if someone starts reading your paper on the subway? Do you atempt to resolve things reasonably, communicating what you think the problem is, or do you start by yelling, threatening, etc.?
While I agree with you in spirit, I can't help but think that what you are suggesting would be far worse than the problem it proports to solve. If someone knowingly distributes something they wrote under the GPL, then they have done just that. No waiting for an indefinite period and saying "April fools!" or "Gosh, we knew our code was in the stuff we were distributing under the GPL, but we didn't intend it" or shouting "Psyche!" at the world.
In the circumstance you discribe, there must have been some other version of the software, distributed under some other terms, before it was ever added to the GPL'd aglomeration. What they should do is strip their code out, and distribute the GPL'd mass minus their code under the GPL, and offer their original product under whatever licence they wish.
They don't have to "stop all their GPL activities" but they shouldn't knowingly distribute something under the GPL (or, for that matter, under any licence) if they don't intend to honour its terms.
How are you going to get the windows boxes to do this without openning up SMB to the world unencrypted. (Hint you pretty much can't without a firewall box extern to windows)
I don't see why not. I've done it under NT4, and I can't imagine (well, I can imagine, but I don't think it's true) that the newer mswin versions are less functional in this regard. A quick peek at google seems to support the idea that it's possible (I haven't used an msbox for several years, but from what I see on google it appears the filtering, etc. seems to have gotten a little easier, if anything). You simply filter (block) external traffic to the port in question, so that the only access is through the tunnel.
Either way you don't know what you are talking about so I suggest you clam up.
I'm sorry, I misquoted you. You said "bullies," not "thugs"; specifically, what you said was:
If you raise a fist to denounce my 'bullies" you will be charged for intimidating an official as well.
But (while we're on the topic of misquoting) your sig contains two errors:
I asked if you were a diety slumming on slashshdot, I did not state that I belived it. There is a world of difference between asking if something is true and stating that it is true--a distinction which, if you are consistent in failing to grasp it, may underlie your discomfort with this whole thread.
So he wants to be secure and you are suggesting that he turns file sharing on on the windows boxes. Yeah that will really work.
I don't think you are understanding what I'm suggesting. It isn't all that complicated:
Use ssh to set up a TCP/IP tunnel between the boxes.
Route smb trafic over the tunnel
Allow smb connections over the tunnel (not to the world, obviously).
Use this to mount the mswin box on the linux box
Backup to your hearts content
Using rsync over an unecrypted channel would be just about as insecure as using file sharing. I wouldn't advise any backup system over an unencrypted channel.
It's suggesting that the theoretical model for how planets are formed may not be accurate.
Right, but their basis for suggesting that is a pattern in the data that is totaly explained by known selection bias in the data.
Occam's razor, if nothing else, should have made them stop and think. If you knowingly mount a security camera in an ammusement park angled so that it can only see people over six feet tall, do you then conclude that an alternative theory of amusement parks is needed, because by the standard model you would have expected to see more children than you did? Or do you say "sample bias" and try to develop a better camera setup?
We can't detect earth-like planets at earth-like distances from their starts (yet) but we can detect large planets that orbit close to their stars. So of course the extra-solar planetary systems we find will be the ones with a gas giant close in. That just proves that our detection methods are detecting the sort of things that can be detected with those detection methods. It says nothing about what we aren't detecting (yet) one way or another.
Save for the fact he's looking to pull the backups from Linux not push them from Windows.
So he does a
sudo mount -t smbfs//mswinmachine/c/mnt/mswinmachine -o...
on the linux box and then runs whatever backup solution he likes on the linux box (against the mount point). You can't get much more "pull from linux" than that.
I've invented time travel! At least, it appears I've discovered a way to post something that is redundant with posts that came after it. I don't know how I did it, but that's the only way I could have gotten moderated "redundant" under the circumstances (I mean, surely the moderators couldn't have made a mistake! Get real). So I must have done something to the spacetime thingy-whatzit.
Unless maybe the spacetime thingy-whatzit is doing something to me...
Sounds to me as if Artifakt is simply stating the law
Then you must have skipped past all the places in the thread where said things like "I will have you arested..." or "....my thugs..."; it sounds (to me) much more personal than simply stating the law.
For that matter, I would be interested in seeing a law that makes the leap you and Artifakt make so readily: that a sticker asking a question (e.g. "My ATM keeps a paper record--why can't this thing?") would somehow "impede or coerce" a voter.
And you also seem to be missing the point of civil disobedience: Ghandi went to jail, Thoreau went to jail, King went to jail; the point is to protest while they still just put you in jail, rather than waiting till the day (as has happened in many times and places) when they instead simply quietly shoot you.
Well it certainly isn't civil obedience now, is it?
Since the generally accepted meaning of the term "civil disobedience" is non-violent disobeying of a law or otherwise challenging civil authority as a means of protest, I'm not at all sure how you can be so definite that it's not civil disobedience, especially as you argue that it is illegal.
Are you claiming that it is violent?
Or not a form of protest?
How is, for example, throwing tea in a harbour or chaining yourself to a tree civil disobedience, while this is not?
-- MarkusQ
P.S. I just noticed this:
but you'll have to stand there next to the rest of the spokesmen for and against various candidates and issues
The "rest" of them? I'm not taking a stand "for or against" any "candidates and issues"; I'm not wanting one side to win so much as wanting the process to be fair and open. I'd much rather have "my side" lose a fair election than win a crooked one.
Which may be why I'm so worried when people start getting angry at the thought of trying to make sure that the election isn't rigged. Both sides should want to make sure there isn't any funny stuff going on, I would think...rather than getting angry when ask how why know everyone's vote is counted, they should be trying to help answer the question.
If your doctor threatened to have you arested if you asked any other patients about side-effects of the medicine he was prescribing, would you just shug and swallow it?
At that point, the burden of proof will be on you that you were not picking a particular precinct known to favor one party or candidate, and therefore that you WERE trying to influence the election, and I really doubt you will be able to prove that to a jury.
Yes, I can see that point, but it relies on a very questionable assumption:
You will be tring to disuade them from voting, based only on your opinion of either whether they are informed of facts you think are important, or if they are competent to make a decision that the state already has ruled they are competent to make, and doing that is illegal, pure and simple.
Where in the heck does this come from? The fact is, I want people to vote, and want their vote to be counted. Because I'm worried that my country is having a fast one pulled on it, and (like many before me) I'm willing to put concern for my contry ahead of my personal comfort & safety.
What I can't figure out is why you are responding as you do. If you were really someone involved in the electorial process, and it was honest, I'd think you'd be telling me about all the wonderful things that have been done to make sure that my vote is counted, not telling me how harshly you'll deal with me if I persist in questioning it.
And that brings up another point: who are you that you can not only have me arested but be assured of a conviction and state what sentence I will be given? All of this first person ("I will have you arrested") stuff is a little off-putting. I can't figure out if you're the executive branch, or the judicial branch, or just some diety slumming on slashdot.
For that matter, just tunnel to port 139 via ssh. So port 9139 (for example) on the linux box gets forwarded over ssh to port 139 on the ms/win box, and then you start samba with port=9139...dirt simple, no?
Gosh. So the laws meant to prevent advocating a candidate or position now also apply to questioning the integrity of the process?
Why? If the Machines (your capital M) are honest and the people behind them have nothing to hide, there should be no objection to questioning the system. After all, I can talk about the weather inside the line, offer someone my business card, wear a shirt with the name of my favorite band or diety, or pretty much anything else, unless it could in someway be construed as an attempt to effect the outcome of the election.
If you think that questioning the integrity of the machines is an attempt to alter the outcome of the election, what you are saying is, in effect, the outcome of the election will somehow be different if we don't ask if the machines are honest.
If you are caught (unlikely) and any one challenges you, you have a great position; if they ask you a question, you can say something like "I'll answer your question if you answer mine"; if they threaten you, point out that, given how many people gave their lives to keep America free, you'd feel rather silly if you caved in to their petty bullying. If you want more fun, ask them if they are assuming (on circumstantial grounds) that you put the sticker there, or if they claim they saw you do it. If the later, what in the heck were they doing watching you vote?
All the excitement of fighting for your country, without the nasty fear of death thing!
The picture is obviously faked. I mean, come on, do you really think there's some cosmic version of the HOLLYWOOD sign bobbing along beside us? Or that in several hundred years of telescopic obersevation of the heavens no one would have noticed the enormous "Earth/Moon" signs?
This line of "reasoning" has gotten repeated so many times, people are starting to accept it as true without questioning it. So let's stop a moment to question it here.
The drugs protected by patents wouldn't even exist to save anyone if the pharmaceutical companies didn't think they could profit from developing them.
Yeah. And no one whould write an operating system from scratch if they weren't assured of making a fortune. Or, for that matter, a novel.
And, by the same logic, nobody ever makes food or thinks up new foods because you can't patent or copyright them.
Do you think that brilliant research doctors and investors decide to develop drugs because they'll get a warm, fuzzy feeling in their hearts?
No, the brilliant ones do it because they are obsessed. It's the dedicated ones that do it because they care.
Oh, and (in my experience) the ones that only do it for the money are the hacks that we'd be better of without. Pretty much the same as in any field.
Do you think that a geneticist is going to work his tail off to develop some vaccine to save some people in sub-saharan africa, who can't pay for it, or work for a profitible company that will reward him so he can live comfortably and maybe even send his kids to college?
Well, given the fact that they always seem to talk about the choice (again, in my experience) in terms like "selling out" vs. "doing what I love" the fact that many of them "sell out" doesn't mean they like it.
There are actually many logical steps here, all highly questionable if you stop to think about them:
Nothing ever gets created without the creator being reasonably assured of a profit
The more talented and creative people are, the more they are obsessed with money
You can't make a profit at all unless you can crush anyone who tries to compete with you
R&D is the reason companies need to make so much money, even though they spend far more on marketing, lobying, etc.
The pharmaceutical companies profits are causing all the progress; and, by implication, general advances in science and technology have nothing to do with it (oh why didn't they think to give patents and promises of obscene profits to the alchemists! Think what they could have accomplished!)
Slashdot Mirror
Huh? Pi radians is a straight angle. One radian is a little over 60 degrees, hardle a straight angle.
While I agree that radians are related to a natural property of circles (specifically, the length of a one radian arc is equal to the radius of the arc), it isn't what you claimed.
-- MarkusQ
Ok, my memory may be faulty, but I'd have to agree with the grandparent post. I don't recall much from Stan before the mid-nineties, while (again, IIRC) Bjarne sired it in the early 80's. "Founding Father" seems a little bit of a stretch if he wasn't in the picture much for the first 60% of the history.
One of C++'s "Favorite Uncles" maybe?
-- MarkusQ
One can do cold fusion right now - muon catalysed. etc.
You only say that because you are being reasonable. The whole cold fusion "debate" has been polarized into a knee jerk flamefest, where you seemingly have to accept that either 1) cold fusion is impossible, or 2) cold fusion is trivially easy but big-money is supressing it.
There is a small cadre of reasonable people, who notice that fusion can and does take place under "low-temp/pressure" condition (where "low" is relative, just as it is for "high-temp" superconductors, etc.), but that does not mean anyone has the foggiest idea how to do anything usefull with it. So far as I can tell, these people are routinely shouted down/ignored by both sides.
-- MarkusQ
If they (our hypothetical potentially wronged propritary software developer) want people to to take their claims seriously, they should conduct themselves in a manner that supports that position. In other words, do what's right rather than what's expedient. This is generally known as "acting in good faith".
Suppose they are distributing a binary mass of GPL'd goo, call it BGv13, and the associated source code SCv13. One day they discover that it contains proprietary code P. What should they do?
- Stop distributing BGv13
- Notify the world that they should also stop, and explain clearly what the problem is. Note that under the GPL, the world would be obligated to listen.
- Notify everyone to whom they gave BGv13 that there is a problem and a update will be coming soon.
- Produce SCv14 = SCv13 - P, and compile it to produce BGv14. Start distributing that.
- Notify the people from whom they got the tainted version of the problem, and work with them to resolve the problem.
- If anyone to whom they had given BGv13 asks for the source, they should appologize and explain that the source for that version is unavailable due to licensing problems, and send them BGv14 & SCv14
All of this should be done as soon as possible, and in a non-confrontational manner. Once they are not themselves contributing to the problem, they may want to pursue the matter (at apropriate levels of firmness) with anyone who is still distributing P without a license.What they should not do is continue providing BGv13 for over a year, threaten people right and left, but refuse to tell anyone what P is or why they even think it's in SCv13 in the first place.
It isn't rocket science. What do you do if you find out that you're in the wrong seat at a concert (or someone else is in your seat)? What do you do if someone starts reading your paper on the subway? Do you atempt to resolve things reasonably, communicating what you think the problem is, or do you start by yelling, threatening, etc.?
-- MarkusQ
While I agree with you in spirit, I can't help but think that what you are suggesting would be far worse than the problem it proports to solve. If someone knowingly distributes something they wrote under the GPL, then they have done just that. No waiting for an indefinite period and saying "April fools!" or "Gosh, we knew our code was in the stuff we were distributing under the GPL, but we didn't intend it" or shouting "Psyche!" at the world.
In the circumstance you discribe, there must have been some other version of the software, distributed under some other terms, before it was ever added to the GPL'd aglomeration. What they should do is strip their code out, and distribute the GPL'd mass minus their code under the GPL, and offer their original product under whatever licence they wish.
They don't have to "stop all their GPL activities" but they shouldn't knowingly distribute something under the GPL (or, for that matter, under any licence) if they don't intend to honour its terms.
-- MarkusQ
Are you telling me there's a penguin on the telly?
-- MarkusQ
Does anybody have a link that doesn't require registration?
I'm boycotting things that require registration.
-- MarkusQ
Yipes! I'm logged in!
Of course not. It's a movement to ksh.
-- MarkusQ
I don't see why not. I've done it under NT4, and I can't imagine (well, I can imagine, but I don't think it's true) that the newer mswin versions are less functional in this regard. A quick peek at google seems to support the idea that it's possible (I haven't used an msbox for several years, but from what I see on google it appears the filtering, etc. seems to have gotten a little easier, if anything). You simply filter (block) external traffic to the port in question, so that the only access is through the tunnel. Gosh, I was thinking the same thing.
-- MarkusQ
I'm sorry, I misquoted you. You said "bullies," not "thugs"; specifically, what you said was:
But (while we're on the topic of misquoting) your sig contains two errors:
- I asked if you were a diety slumming on slashshdot, I did not state that I belived it. There is a world of difference between asking if something is true and stating that it is true--a distinction which, if you are consistent in failing to grasp it, may underlie your discomfort with this whole thread.
- You misspelled my nick.
-- MarkusQSo he wants to be secure and you are suggesting that he turns file sharing on on the windows boxes. Yeah that will really work.
I don't think you are understanding what I'm suggesting. It isn't all that complicated:
- Use ssh to set up a TCP/IP tunnel between the boxes.
- Route smb trafic over the tunnel
- Allow smb connections over the tunnel (not to the world, obviously).
- Use this to mount the mswin box on the linux box
- Backup to your hearts content
Using rsync over an unecrypted channel would be just about as insecure as using file sharing. I wouldn't advise any backup system over an unencrypted channel.-- MarkusQ
It's suggesting that the theoretical model for how planets are formed may not be accurate.
Right, but their basis for suggesting that is a pattern in the data that is totaly explained by known selection bias in the data. Occam's razor, if nothing else, should have made them stop and think. If you knowingly mount a security camera in an ammusement park angled so that it can only see people over six feet tall, do you then conclude that an alternative theory of amusement parks is needed, because by the standard model you would have expected to see more children than you did? Or do you say "sample bias" and try to develop a better camera setup?
We can't detect earth-like planets at earth-like distances from their starts (yet) but we can detect large planets that orbit close to their stars. So of course the extra-solar planetary systems we find will be the ones with a gas giant close in. That just proves that our detection methods are detecting the sort of things that can be detected with those detection methods. It says nothing about what we aren't detecting (yet) one way or another.
-- MarkusQ
Ah...you don't like my signature, is that it?
Or maybe you disagreed with the moderator guidelines?
Or you don't think "funny" is a meaningful concept?
-- MarkusQ
Save for the fact he's looking to pull the backups from Linux not push them from Windows.
So he does a
on the linux box and then runs whatever backup solution he likes on the linux box (against the mount point). You can't get much more "pull from linux" than that.-- MarkusQ
I've invented time travel! At least, it appears I've discovered a way to post something that is redundant with posts that came after it. I don't know how I did it, but that's the only way I could have gotten moderated "redundant" under the circumstances (I mean, surely the moderators couldn't have made a mistake! Get real). So I must have done something to the spacetime thingy-whatzit.
Unless maybe the spacetime thingy-whatzit is doing something to me...
-- MarkusQ
-- MarkusQ
Sounds to me as if Artifakt is simply stating the law
Then you must have skipped past all the places in the thread where said things like " I will have you arested..." or ".... my thugs..."; it sounds (to me) much more personal than simply stating the law.
For that matter, I would be interested in seeing a law that makes the leap you and Artifakt make so readily: that a sticker asking a question (e.g. "My ATM keeps a paper record--why can't this thing?") would somehow "impede or coerce" a voter.
And you also seem to be missing the point of civil disobedience: Ghandi went to jail, Thoreau went to jail, King went to jail; the point is to protest while they still just put you in jail, rather than waiting till the day (as has happened in many times and places) when they instead simply quietly shoot you.
-- MarkusQ
Well it certainly isn't civil obedience now, is it?
Since the generally accepted meaning of the term "civil disobedience" is non-violent disobeying of a law or otherwise challenging civil authority as a means of protest, I'm not at all sure how you can be so definite that it's not civil disobedience, especially as you argue that it is illegal.
Are you claiming that it is violent?
Or not a form of protest?
How is, for example, throwing tea in a harbour or chaining yourself to a tree civil disobedience, while this is not?
-- MarkusQ
P.S. I just noticed this:
The "rest" of them? I'm not taking a stand "for or against" any "candidates and issues"; I'm not wanting one side to win so much as wanting the process to be fair and open. I'd much rather have "my side" lose a fair election than win a crooked one.Which may be why I'm so worried when people start getting angry at the thought of trying to make sure that the election isn't rigged. Both sides should want to make sure there isn't any funny stuff going on, I would think...rather than getting angry when ask how why know everyone's vote is counted, they should be trying to help answer the question.
If your doctor threatened to have you arested if you asked any other patients about side-effects of the medicine he was prescribing, would you just shug and swallow it?
Yes, I can see that point, but it relies on a very questionable assumption: Where in the heck does this come from? The fact is, I want people to vote, and want their vote to be counted. Because I'm worried that my country is having a fast one pulled on it, and (like many before me) I'm willing to put concern for my contry ahead of my personal comfort & safety.
What I can't figure out is why you are responding as you do. If you were really someone involved in the electorial process, and it was honest, I'd think you'd be telling me about all the wonderful things that have been done to make sure that my vote is counted, not telling me how harshly you'll deal with me if I persist in questioning it.
And that brings up another point: who are you that you can not only have me arested but be assured of a conviction and state what sentence I will be given? All of this first person ("I will have you arrested") stuff is a little off-putting. I can't figure out if you're the executive branch, or the judicial branch, or just some diety slumming on slashdot.
Or do you work for Diebold?
-- MarkusQ
For that matter, just tunnel to port 139 via ssh. So port 9139 (for example) on the linux box gets forwarded over ssh to port 139 on the ms/win box, and then you start samba with port=9139...dirt simple, no?
-- MarkusQ
Another one:
-- MarkusQ
Gosh. So the laws meant to prevent advocating a candidate or position now also apply to questioning the integrity of the process?
Why? If the Machines (your capital M) are honest and the people behind them have nothing to hide, there should be no objection to questioning the system. After all, I can talk about the weather inside the line, offer someone my business card, wear a shirt with the name of my favorite band or diety, or pretty much anything else, unless it could in someway be construed as an attempt to effect the outcome of the election.
If you think that questioning the integrity of the machines is an attempt to alter the outcome of the election, what you are saying is, in effect, the outcome of the election will somehow be different if we don't ask if the machines are honest.
This does not allay my fears.
-- MarkusQ
I love it!
You can get laser printable colored label stock at most office supply stores for a reasonable price. Print them up and hand them out to your friends!
If you are caught (unlikely) and any one challenges you, you have a great position; if they ask you a question, you can say something like "I'll answer your question if you answer mine"; if they threaten you, point out that, given how many people gave their lives to keep America free, you'd feel rather silly if you caved in to their petty bullying. If you want more fun, ask them if they are assuming (on circumstantial grounds) that you put the sticker there, or if they claim they saw you do it. If the later, what in the heck were they doing watching you vote?
All the excitement of fighting for your country, without the nasty fear of death thing!
-- MarkusQ
The picture is obviously faked. I mean, come on, do you really think there's some cosmic version of the HOLLYWOOD sign bobbing along beside us? Or that in several hundred years of telescopic obersevation of the heavens no one would have noticed the enormous "Earth/Moon" signs?
We've been gimped I tell you!
-- MarkusQ
This line of "reasoning" has gotten repeated so many times, people are starting to accept it as true without questioning it. So let's stop a moment to question it here. Yeah. And no one whould write an operating system from scratch if they weren't assured of making a fortune. Or, for that matter, a novel.
And, by the same logic, nobody ever makes food or thinks up new foods because you can't patent or copyright them.
No, the brilliant ones do it because they are obsessed. It's the dedicated ones that do it because they care.
Oh, and (in my experience) the ones that only do it for the money are the hacks that we'd be better of without. Pretty much the same as in any field.
Well, given the fact that they always seem to talk about the choice (again, in my experience) in terms like "selling out" vs. "doing what I love" the fact that many of them "sell out" doesn't mean they like it.
There are actually many logical steps here, all highly questionable if you stop to think about them:
- Nothing ever gets created without the creator being reasonably assured of a profit
- The more talented and creative people are, the more they are obsessed with money
- You can't make a profit at all unless you can crush anyone who tries to compete with you
- R&D is the reason companies need to make so much money, even though they spend far more on marketing, lobying, etc.
- The pharmaceutical companies profits are causing all the progress; and, by implication, general advances in science and technology have nothing to do with it (oh why didn't they think to give patents and promises of obscene profits to the alchemists! Think what they could have accomplished!)
...you get the idea
-- MarkusQ