If high functioning autism was that good it would be much more widespread in human populations, but what we see in reality, they're minority and the outcomes are more adverse in average. ASD/ADHD might predispose the person to certain professions (since they lack in many other areas) but the widespread mantra of disabled peoples' high predisposition to unusual talents or even genius is somewhat exaggerated and quite dangerous. Most disabled people are just disabled people, no more, period.
I'm aware of the "heterozygote advantage" phenomenon but this doesn't mean that some people should suffer because they "won" a bad combination of genes. The problem is if parents' child has high genetic susceptibility to ADHD, autism, schizophrenia or diabetes no sane parent would choose their child's suffering for potential adaptation to other (including unrealistic) environments.
Your other "undesirable traits" are just as likely to give advantages in some situations and situations change. New diseases, need for certain types of intelligence, needs for certain types of warriors are possibilities.
There are plenty of people who, despite not working as everyone else thinks they should who have made significant contributions to our society, particularly within science..
Maybe I was too harsh. As a person with neurodevelopmental disorder I didn't say that disabled people can't have any talents. There is just no scientific evidence that people with quite serious neurobiological developmental disorders have much more chance to be gifted or have any other significant advantage. For most of us it's just a curse which makes lives harder with no other significant advantage. It's like to win a lottery at best, 99.9999% only lose.
This isn't insightful, it's full on fucking Nazism.
How is, for instance, minimizing the risk of an unborn child developing ADHD or autism spectrum disorder via gene therapy is Nazism? Parents just want healthy and happy children, not a cursed and, most likely, failed "geniuses".
It's fuckwads like you who needs to be exterminated, not people with various neurological disorders.
Yeah, ironically being one of these people I'm becoming more and more convinced that it would be better for the humanity to firstly detect and abort irrational people like you.
I also believe in the potential of gene editing, it seems the only way of humane eugenics. There are indeed many undesirable/defective people (such as ones having ADHD, schizophrenia, autism spectrum, cystic fibrosis, down syndrome, etc) which are burden to our society, no matter how insulting it would sound. But genome editing is still in its infancy and any error or mistake can be very catastrophic, that's why we must still be very cautious.
the GNU project was initially built with proprietary tools on UNIX workstations. It only became fully self hosting in 1994 with the Linux kernel, a full 11 years after starting the project.
Clearly RMS was entirely prepared to put up with the imperfection of the world.
Being unable to permanently put up with imperfection doesn't necessarily mean inability to temporarily deal with proprietary "evil". He just doesn't accept that proprietary software has its place when there are no sane alternatives.
For example, what software do you use to design complex parts for a car? What software do you use for complex PCB design? What software do you use to create music? What games do you or your relatives/children play? What accounting software do you use? What mail services do you use? How do you even search any information in internet? And so on. If you are able to do such (even relatively trivial daily) things without directly or indirectly dealing with "proprietary evil" than you might not even exist at all.
We can make fun of RMS but it's the world that's sick.
The world isn't ideal, and many things (not only software) sometimes require compromises to work. One of these things are closed source proprietary programs which have many reasons (including economic, security, quality) to have place in our world and they won't disappear anytime soon. RMS is just too idealistic to be able to put up with the imperfection of the world. The world just can't magically become ideal. IMHO Eric Raymond is a much better FSF leader candidate since RMS is doing more harm than good to FOSS because of his idealism.
Firstly, why iOS when there is Mac OS with relatively high market share?
Secondly, Google is more focused on Chrome OS as a desktop OS. Chrome OS has Linux and Android app support.
GPLv3 usage increased only marginally, it's still a minority among other non copyleft licenses (and even not mainstream among GPL licenses) and didn't help to prevent the decline of the all GPL versions combined. Compared to it, GPLv2 decline was dramatic and even then it still has the lion's share among GPL licenses.
There is no reason for GPLv2 should or would lose its popularity due to the mere existence of GPLv3. If you meant GPLv3 is not popular, you could have said it. But in that sense, "lose its popularity" does not make any sense because it would never had popularity to lose.
Or you are saying GPLv3 was first popular, and then became unpopular. That cannot be caused by the release of GPLv3 - because it could not have been popular before its own release.
I meant the notorious GPLv3, GPLv2 was actually not that bad. Since GPLv3 release GPL began to lose its popularity. Of course, most old projects which were initially GPL will continue to be GPL but much more new open source projects use non copyleft licenses.
The point is that Stallman made the license business unfriendly to the extent that most companies started to shun GPL. Ideology and working business models are incompatible things. Most companies and end users don't care about ideology. Developers want money for their hard work and the users want get shit done without any hiccups. Stallman is just too idealistic, his logic is "all or nothing", but *most* people only care about quality and usability, not whether it's FOSS or not, period.
Well, forced freedom isn't true freedom. Tivoization is a hardware issue, you still have the source code to compile your liberated version of software and use it on your liberated device. It's your freedom to lock down the binary and sell it with the hardware. The software doesn't become less free of this.
He does more harm than good for free / open source software, especially after the release of a broken license called GPLv3 which doesn't even permit to lock down the binaries compiled from a code using this license. GPL was very popular at its time but after GPLv3 nonsense it's now in decline.
Who said that it's dead??? They just removed Armadillo UI and now internally test their proprietary (yet) GUIs. Armadillo was a test GUI btw, it has no chance to get into a final product.
Just how GIMP isn't optimized for basic editing tasks.
Use the right tool for the right job and stop complaining about how your plane doesn't fit through the bank's drive-through.
That's the problem, GIMP isn't usually the right tool for both basic and more advanced tasks. Even for semi professionals it has usability problems. GNU/Linux didn't conquered the consumer world for similar reasons - it's only targeted for "professionals". The developers are too arrogant to listen to their users and fix bugs/usability issues, most people would rather use a cracked version of Windows.
From my experience it's even more awkward to use than most basic image editors. The point is that for many use cases an image editor like Paint.Net is good enough, where GIMP is much more complicated. And most (semi)professionals would rather use a cracked version of Photoshop. For most users GIMP is more like an overcomplicated and unintuitive version of Ms Paint where the basic functionality, such as lines/circles/rectangles in toolbar, is missing.
Slashdot Mirror
...is a quite dynamic multiplayer online game like slither.io? Saving the states of these kinds of pages will likely introduce bugs.
And sometimes it led to bugs even on own Google sites.
If high functioning autism was that good it would be much more widespread in human populations, but what we see in reality, they're minority and the outcomes are more adverse in average. ASD/ADHD might predispose the person to certain professions (since they lack in many other areas) but the widespread mantra of disabled peoples' high predisposition to unusual talents or even genius is somewhat exaggerated and quite dangerous. Most disabled people are just disabled people, no more, period.
Modern civilization and, especially, medicine almost eliminated natural selection, so harmful mutations will slowly but steadily accumulate in human populations if we won't prevent this with gene therapy. We will become sicker, dumber and more dependent on medicine. So what future potential adaptive traits are you talking about?
Maybe I was too harsh. As a person with neurodevelopmental disorder I didn't say that disabled people can't have any talents. There is just no scientific evidence that people with quite serious neurobiological developmental disorders have much more chance to be gifted or have any other significant advantage. For most of us it's just a curse which makes lives harder with no other significant advantage. It's like to win a lottery at best, 99.9999% only lose.
How is, for instance, minimizing the risk of an unborn child developing ADHD or autism spectrum disorder via gene therapy is Nazism? Parents just want healthy and happy children, not a cursed and, most likely, failed "geniuses".
Yeah, ironically being one of these people I'm becoming more and more convinced that it would be better for the humanity to firstly detect and abort irrational people like you.
I also believe in the potential of gene editing, it seems the only way of humane eugenics. There are indeed many undesirable/defective people (such as ones having ADHD, schizophrenia, autism spectrum, cystic fibrosis, down syndrome, etc) which are burden to our society, no matter how insulting it would sound. But genome editing is still in its infancy and any error or mistake can be very catastrophic, that's why we must still be very cautious.
Being unable to permanently put up with imperfection doesn't necessarily mean inability to temporarily deal with proprietary "evil". He just doesn't accept that proprietary software has its place when there are no sane alternatives.
For example, what software do you use to design complex parts for a car? What software do you use for complex PCB design? What software do you use to create music? What games do you or your relatives/children play? What accounting software do you use? What mail services do you use? How do you even search any information in internet? And so on. If you are able to do such (even relatively trivial daily) things without directly or indirectly dealing with "proprietary evil" than you might not even exist at all.
And that's why I chose Raymond, he is more practical and not as idealistic and militant as RMS.
The world isn't ideal, and many things (not only software) sometimes require compromises to work. One of these things are closed source proprietary programs which have many reasons (including economic, security, quality) to have place in our world and they won't disappear anytime soon. RMS is just too idealistic to be able to put up with the imperfection of the world. The world just can't magically become ideal. IMHO Eric Raymond is a much better FSF leader candidate since RMS is doing more harm than good to FOSS because of his idealism.
Mac OS can be considered as the desktop version of iOS.
Firstly, why iOS when there is Mac OS with relatively high market share? Secondly, Google is more focused on Chrome OS as a desktop OS. Chrome OS has Linux and Android app support.
Yeah, the only bad side of Windows 8/8.1 is the UI, which can be fixed by classic shell, but otherwise it's very solid underneath and faster.
Finally the users may enjoy a somewhat stable system.
GPLv3 usage increased only marginally, it's still a minority among other non copyleft licenses (and even not mainstream among GPL licenses) and didn't help to prevent the decline of the all GPL versions combined. Compared to it, GPLv2 decline was dramatic and even then it still has the lion's share among GPL licenses.
Wrong, GPL percentage is declining overall.
GPLv3 is almost dead since its birth.
I meant the notorious GPLv3, GPLv2 was actually not that bad. Since GPLv3 release GPL began to lose its popularity. Of course, most old projects which were initially GPL will continue to be GPL but much more new open source projects use non copyleft licenses.
The point is that Stallman made the license business unfriendly to the extent that most companies started to shun GPL. Ideology and working business models are incompatible things. Most companies and end users don't care about ideology. Developers want money for their hard work and the users want get shit done without any hiccups. Stallman is just too idealistic, his logic is "all or nothing", but *most* people only care about quality and usability, not whether it's FOSS or not, period.
Well, forced freedom isn't true freedom. Tivoization is a hardware issue, you still have the source code to compile your liberated version of software and use it on your liberated device. It's your freedom to lock down the binary and sell it with the hardware. The software doesn't become less free of this.
He does more harm than good for free / open source software, especially after the release of a broken license called GPLv3 which doesn't even permit to lock down the binaries compiled from a code using this license. GPL was very popular at its time but after GPLv3 nonsense it's now in decline.
I won't wonder if Chrome OS becomes a decent alternative to Windows one day.
Who said that it's dead??? They just removed Armadillo UI and now internally test their proprietary (yet) GUIs. Armadillo was a test GUI btw, it has no chance to get into a final product.
That's the problem, GIMP isn't usually the right tool for both basic and more advanced tasks. Even for semi professionals it has usability problems. GNU/Linux didn't conquered the consumer world for similar reasons - it's only targeted for "professionals". The developers are too arrogant to listen to their users and fix bugs/usability issues, most people would rather use a cracked version of Windows.
From my experience it's even more awkward to use than most basic image editors. The point is that for many use cases an image editor like Paint .Net is good enough, where GIMP is much more complicated. And most (semi)professionals would rather use a cracked version of Photoshop. For most users GIMP is more like an overcomplicated and unintuitive version of Ms Paint where the basic functionality, such as lines/circles/rectangles in toolbar, is missing.
...but refuse to fix basic usability issues like missing lines/rectangles/rounds from GUI mode.
How much better, considering that it gradually becomes similar to Chrome?