Which is why we should promote open standards, so that everything works with everything else. Caving in to the some faddish proprietary protocol or format works against this goal.
People don't like change and if you can make linux the smallest change possible, then you'll get more people.
If you compromise fundamental principles, what's the point in getting more people? "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
The Free Software movement is not a popularity contest.
We're having fun and freedom over here in the Free Software community. Love for others to join us, but if your iPod is more important to you than freedom, well, best wishes. If you'd like to bring your iPod over, you should put pressure on the guys you bought it from to allow its free use.
But then people, like the moderator, thought "Irradiation = Nuk-u-lar = glow-in-the-dark = CANCER!" and the practice stopped.
Perhaps a few people thought that. Others considered that exposing food to ionizing radiation destroys part of its nutritional value, produces chemical by-products of questionable safety, and is a strategy used to promote the long-distance transport of food over locally-grown produce, and came to the conclusion that it's a stupid idea.
It doesn't matter if Excel, Word and Visio are *better* than the open source alternatives... you don't consider that.
The fact that the Free Software alternatives are free makes them *better*. Trusting my valuable data to closed-source software that uses proprietary formats would be unwise.
[From TFA]: Raymond warned that Linux risks getting locked out of new hardware platforms for the next 30 years unless it proves it can work with iPods, MP3s and WMP.
Nah. The question is not "Why doesn't Linux work with my iPod?", it's "Why don't iPods work with my choice of operating system?"
While digital personal music players are certainly here to stay, the iPod itself is a fad, a trend, which in 30 years will be as meaningful as the original Sony Walkman is today. For the Free Software community to compromise its core principles for compatibility with a fad would be foolish.
No, there are cavities within the brain that are called sinuses, so there's no connection with yoga etc. and breathing.
There are sinuses within the brain, yes, unrelated to the paranasal sinuses. It is however the paranasal sinuses that produce nitric oxide, not the sinuses of the dura mater.
Are you setting up a "mouth-breather" pseudo-joke?
Nah. Sorry if I was unclear. I was thinking about yoga, meditation, qi gong, and various martial arts, and their focus on proper breathing, which generally involves inhaling through the nose (and thus inhaling a bit of nitric oxide from the sinuses), and that these arts also focus on certain states of consciousness. I've always thought that the link between special breathing methods and altered states of consciousness was a pretty simple question of oxygen and carbon dioxide, now I'm wondering at the role of nitric oxide.
As a kid, I spent enough time with stuffed-up nasal passages from allergies to not find anything funny about mouth breathing.
One interesting thing about this is that nitric oxide is produced in the sinuses. Does "proper" nasal breathing result in altering the concentration of this molecule in the blood and therefore have an effect on consciousness?
Re:Corporations are free and open societies
on
Tibet's Mesh
·
· Score: 1
Corporations are merely voluntary associations between individuals.
No, corporations are legal persons created by the government (via the issuance of a charter), immortal persons with all of the rights and few of the responsibilities of real people.
Creating corporations is one way that the capitalist state helps to concentrate control of economic resources into the hands of a minority.
he planned to use bombs 10x as powerful as that for a major terrorist attack on 11 airliners over the Pacific ocean.
And despite the success of this test, this larger attack never happened. Perhaps they figured out that 10 times that volume of nitroglycerine was a little hard to sneak past security?
Yes Virgina somebody manged to smuggle nitroglycerin on to an airliner and use it as a bomb.
Yeah, a bomb that killed one person. I don't mean to downplay the risks, but a determined attacker with a sharpened pencil and the advantage of surprise could kill more people than that before being taken down.
Small amounts of explosives will not bring down a plane. Such a small bomb may kill somebody, but so can a few whacks upside the head with a laptop computer. An attack like that doesn't measure up to fear-mongering like "mass murder on an unimaginable scale."
No, scary stuff is asking yourself what is the percentage of recent attackers (you know, people who have actually killed trainloads of people) in Europe were Muslims?
Depends on how conveniently you define "recent". There have been both Catholic and Protestant acts of terrorism in Ireland; there's the Basques, mostly Roman Catholics, in Spain. I couldn't find any information about the religious links of Greece's "November 17" terrorists or ELA.
the original Trojan horse was a gift bearing Greeks, not the other way around:)
It was Greeks bearing a gift bearing Greeks. And if a few of those Greeks was carring presents, say birthday presents to give to somebody after the battle or something, then it would be Greeks bearing a gift bearing Greeks bearing gifts.
Paper is a friggin' waste to recycle. It's biodegradable for one.
Paper in landfills does not degrade.
The tree's used to make it in the U.S. all come from tree farms. These trees are grown specifically for this purpose
What do you think used to be on the land where "tree farms" are planted? When paper is recycled, there's less need for tree farms, and real forest could be allowed to return to those areas.
(Of course, wood is a lousy feedstock to make paper out of in the first place; hemp, jutte, or bamboo would be much more sensible.
But when a person does that, he ceases to be a scientist.
What, you're going to kick people out of the "scientist's club" if they engage in any unscientific behavior? You won't have many people left. Newton would be gone, for his interest in alchemy and the Bible.
And I just bet that your house is filled with things that came as a spinoff of the program. And now you whine "But because I want them they would have been invented anyways" but when? By whom?
How about by federally funded researchers given the mission "Develop useful stuff for use here on Earth" rather than "Send guys to the moon to bring back some rocks?"
I like the space program as much as anybody. But the spinoff argument doesn't fly as a primary reason to go into space.
Genetic differences disallowing breeding between closely related sub-species of birds mean that the birds lost some genetic information that allowed them to breed.
Uh, no, it doesn't. A population that becomes genetically distinct from another may have gained or changed information.
So, this means that some of these birds cannot mate and produce offspring
There is a very large difference between populations of organisms that cannot breed at all (and will therefore very quickly die out), and populations of organisms than can breed withing their own group but cannot interbreed between groups. The first is sterility, the second is speciation.
That is not evolution in the sense of simple beings evolving into higher life forms but rather "devolution" or genetic loss of information and decay in the gene structure.
Evolution via natural selection doesn't care about our judgements of "higher" or "lower" life forms. It selects for the ability to survive and produce offspring.
Second, there's no such thing as a "science zealot" because zealotry is inherently unscientific.
True, however it must be admitted that scientists are people too and engage in much unscientific behavior. It is entirely possible for a scientists to be a zealot, i.e. to adopt extreme ideology or become a fanatical partisan.
Of course, standing up for the idea of natural selection in the face of pro-cretionism political forces is not zealotry at all.
I am assuming you don't count http://ogrish.com/ ? There is undoubtedly a lot of killings and deaths posted there.
Yes, and those are not snuff films. A snuff film is not just a film made of someone dying, plenty of deaths have been caught on film or video over the years. A snuff film is (hypothetically) someone dying explictly so that a film of it can be made and sold - i.e., if they ran out of film, they wouldn't kill the guy until they reloaded the camera.
I assume videos of beheadings and dismemberment using not-so-sharp blades are not considered snuff, since they are not mass marketed?
Films of people dying obviously exist. They are not snuff films. A snuff film is a killing done explictly to be filmed and sold, i.e. if they ran out of film, they'd wait to kill the guy until the camera was reloaded.
Snuff films depict the killing of a human being -- a human sacrifice (without the aid of special effects or other trickery) perpetuated for the medium of film and circulated amongst a jaded few for the purpose of entertainment.
Films take to inspire terror - the execution videos taken by Islamic extremists, the bombing raid footage proudly displayed by the American military - aren't snuff films.
Nobody is born with an inate right to enjoy all episodes of "24" for free.
You've got it backwards. Nobody is born with an inate right to point guns at other people to prevent them from making copies of all episodes of "24".
Copyright is an artifical right created by the state. Its purpose is to "promote the progress of science and useful arts". However, this purpose can no longer be achieved by an artifical monopoly on the making of copies. Other means must be found.
(I have for years suggested that a model based on songwriter's performance royalites would be much more workable; you can give it away (like singing in the shower or playing at a friend's party), but if you make money, you owe the author a cut. A royalty-right, not a copy-right.)
The sooner governments, and the corporations they are symbiotic with, recognize that information can no longer be controlled, the sooner we can get on with new models that let writers get paid.
If you create something that brings benefit to a million people and costs ten million dollars to develop, whats your model? to not bother unless you find some idiot to pay 10 million
Find a million people to chip in ten bucks each. Or ten million to chip in a buck each, or a hundred million to put in a dime. (By the time you get to groups of 100,000,000, they may have organized a group of representatives to make some spending decisions on behalf of the group, you might try to convince those representatives for a grant.)
Slashdot Mirror
I would guess that hard drives might be damaged by cold.
Which is why we should promote open standards, so that everything works with everything else. Caving in to the some faddish proprietary protocol or format works against this goal.
If you compromise fundamental principles, what's the point in getting more people? "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
The Free Software movement is not a popularity contest.
We're having fun and freedom over here in the Free Software community. Love for others to join us, but if your iPod is more important to you than freedom, well, best wishes. If you'd like to bring your iPod over, you should put pressure on the guys you bought it from to allow its free use.
Perhaps a few people thought that. Others considered that exposing food to ionizing radiation destroys part of its nutritional value, produces chemical by-products of questionable safety, and is a strategy used to promote the long-distance transport of food over locally-grown produce, and came to the conclusion that it's a stupid idea.
I suggest this Consumer's Union article.
The fact that the Free Software alternatives are free makes them *better*. Trusting my valuable data to closed-source software that uses proprietary formats would be unwise.
No, we eat nuts. Ethical anthrocentrism that says it's ok to kill sentient non-human animals for our pleasure, now that's nuts.
Nah. The question is not "Why doesn't Linux work with my iPod?", it's "Why don't iPods work with my choice of operating system?"
While digital personal music players are certainly here to stay, the iPod itself is a fad, a trend, which in 30 years will be as meaningful as the original Sony Walkman is today. For the Free Software community to compromise its core principles for compatibility with a fad would be foolish.
There are sinuses within the brain, yes, unrelated to the paranasal sinuses. It is however the paranasal sinuses that produce nitric oxide, not the sinuses of the dura mater.
Nah. Sorry if I was unclear. I was thinking about yoga, meditation, qi gong, and various martial arts, and their focus on proper breathing, which generally involves inhaling through the nose (and thus inhaling a bit of nitric oxide from the sinuses), and that these arts also focus on certain states of consciousness. I've always thought that the link between special breathing methods and altered states of consciousness was a pretty simple question of oxygen and carbon dioxide, now I'm wondering at the role of nitric oxide.
As a kid, I spent enough time with stuffed-up nasal passages from allergies to not find anything funny about mouth breathing.
One interesting thing about this is that nitric oxide is produced in the sinuses. Does "proper" nasal breathing result in altering the concentration of this molecule in the blood and therefore have an effect on consciousness?
No, corporations are legal persons created by the government (via the issuance of a charter), immortal persons with all of the rights and few of the responsibilities of real people.
Creating corporations is one way that the capitalist state helps to concentrate control of economic resources into the hands of a minority.
Er, the DL doesn't live in Tibet. Hasn't since he fled in 1959 during the Chinese invasion.
He writes books read by millions, gives high-profile interviews, makes public appearances. Doesn't need a blog to be heard.
And despite the success of this test, this larger attack never happened. Perhaps they figured out that 10 times that volume of nitroglycerine was a little hard to sneak past security?
Yeah, a bomb that killed one person. I don't mean to downplay the risks, but a determined attacker with a sharpened pencil and the advantage of surprise could kill more people than that before being taken down.
Small amounts of explosives will not bring down a plane. Such a small bomb may kill somebody, but so can a few whacks upside the head with a laptop computer. An attack like that doesn't measure up to fear-mongering like "mass murder on an unimaginable scale."
Depends on how conveniently you define "recent". There have been both Catholic and Protestant acts of terrorism in Ireland; there's the Basques, mostly Roman Catholics, in Spain. I couldn't find any information about the religious links of Greece's "November 17" terrorists or ELA.
The German version of QWERTY.
It was Greeks bearing a gift bearing Greeks. And if a few of those Greeks was carring presents, say birthday presents to give to somebody after the battle or something, then it would be Greeks bearing a gift bearing Greeks bearing gifts.
Paper in landfills does not degrade.
What do you think used to be on the land where "tree farms" are planted? When paper is recycled, there's less need for tree farms, and real forest could be allowed to return to those areas.
(Of course, wood is a lousy feedstock to make paper out of in the first place; hemp, jutte, or bamboo would be much more sensible.
What, you're going to kick people out of the "scientist's club" if they engage in any unscientific behavior? You won't have many people left. Newton would be gone, for his interest in alchemy and the Bible.
That's pretty extreme ideology you've got there. Better kick yourself out.
How about by federally funded researchers given the mission "Develop useful stuff for use here on Earth" rather than "Send guys to the moon to bring back some rocks?"
I like the space program as much as anybody. But the spinoff argument doesn't fly as a primary reason to go into space.
Uh, no, it doesn't. A population that becomes genetically distinct from another may have gained or changed information.
There is a very large difference between populations of organisms that cannot breed at all (and will therefore very quickly die out), and populations of organisms than can breed withing their own group but cannot interbreed between groups. The first is sterility, the second is speciation.
Evolution via natural selection doesn't care about our judgements of "higher" or "lower" life forms. It selects for the ability to survive and produce offspring.
True, however it must be admitted that scientists are people too and engage in much unscientific behavior. It is entirely possible for a scientists to be a zealot, i.e. to adopt extreme ideology or become a fanatical partisan.
Of course, standing up for the idea of natural selection in the face of pro-cretionism political forces is not zealotry at all.
Yes, and those are not snuff films. A snuff film is not just a film made of someone dying, plenty of deaths have been caught on film or video over the years. A snuff film is (hypothetically) someone dying explictly so that a film of it can be made and sold - i.e., if they ran out of film, they wouldn't kill the guy until they reloaded the camera.
Here's that Snopes link one more time: http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/snuff.htm.
Films of people dying obviously exist. They are not snuff films. A snuff film is a killing done explictly to be filmed and sold, i.e. if they ran out of film, they'd wait to kill the guy until the camera was reloaded.
Snopes quotes Kerekes and Slater's "Killing for Culture", which they call "the bible on the snuff film rumor":
Films take to inspire terror - the execution videos taken by Islamic extremists, the bombing raid footage proudly displayed by the American military - aren't snuff films.
You've got it backwards. Nobody is born with an inate right to point guns at other people to prevent them from making copies of all episodes of "24".
Copyright is an artifical right created by the state. Its purpose is to "promote the progress of science and useful arts". However, this purpose can no longer be achieved by an artifical monopoly on the making of copies. Other means must be found.
(I have for years suggested that a model based on songwriter's performance royalites would be much more workable; you can give it away (like singing in the shower or playing at a friend's party), but if you make money, you owe the author a cut. A royalty-right, not a copy-right.)
The sooner governments, and the corporations they are symbiotic with, recognize that information can no longer be controlled, the sooner we can get on with new models that let writers get paid.
Find a million people to chip in ten bucks each. Or ten million to chip in a buck each, or a hundred million to put in a dime. (By the time you get to groups of 100,000,000, they may have organized a group of representatives to make some spending decisions on behalf of the group, you might try to convince those representatives for a grant.)