"freedom" and "free" why they decided to use the moniker "free" in FSF instead of Freedom is anyones guess really.
Maybe because freedom is a noun and free is an adjective. They are not interchangeable. Freedom Software Foundation is very awkward English, and it has a totally different meaning than Free Software Foundation.
Everybody knows that Windows is a product of Microsoft. While many have heard of Linux, few have heard of Gnu, so I think there is a crucial difference.
Interestingly, a young Richard Stallman argued [templetons.com]that spammers had every right to send spam.
But he retracted in the very next email:
Well, Geoff forwarded me a copy of the DEC message, and I eat my words. I sure would have minded it! Nobody should be allowed to send a message with a header that long, no matter what it is about.
The ones *they see* could be unique if just one person from that mailing reports it to them. Also, they could be including the random text in every email, which actually does make it so that every spam is unique.
Just how do you submit a complex transactional XML document using REST? Parsing a URL query string with 200 name-value pairs, then assembling that back into the XML document that the recipient expects does not seem like a good solution. Surely, submitting a SOAP document that wraps the XML document is better in this case.
It is understandable that Amazon sees most people using REST. They're mostly hobbyists and amateur programmers, and REST is easier and sufficient for the very simple things that you can do via the Amazon web services api, but if one were trying to submit more information -- say a long purchase order -- the limitations of REST would be more apparent. The RPC style of SOAP is often better with REST, but for the document-exchange style, REST is inadequate.
Dude, ninjas rock. You diss them now, but when you hear the electric guitars start wailing in the distance, you'll take back your words (hint: a ninja is about to flip out, and you'll probably lose your head).
Wrong. Said person would try to change his country for the better, probably by trying to influence the opinions of others who hold the shameful attitutes.
So if I believe that gravity is a result of angels that live inside every atom and yearn to be close to their friends in other atoms, I'm not a complete moron somehow? I just don't get it. If you say that one can believe absolutely anything without being stupid, why should one try to be reasonable and actually find out the truth, rather than just accepting everything our priest or parent told us as a child? I'm sorry, but some things are stupid. I'm not passing judgment on any particular belief, except for the belief that one can believe anything without being stupid.
wtf is the value-add to all your whining, people;-) ? Please, can we all just get back to value-adding to our core competencies and saving money in the bottom line?
Isn't the purpose of copyright to create a (monopoly) market for the holder?
No. Article I, section 8, of the Constituion states that Congress is empowered "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." This is the source of copyright, and as you can see, public benefit, in the form of progress in science and the useful arts, is the purpose of copyright. Granting the exclusive right (which is subject to restrictions) is just a means to that end.
Perhaps if the evil mean republicans -- as you refer to them -- were not totally destroying the country and systematically undoing two hundred years of progress in expanding the scope of civil liberties and making equality for all more than just a pipe dream, then, perhaps, it would just be a joke. Or if perhaps you suffer under the illusion that the systematic erosion of our most basic civil liberties is just something to be joked about at a cocktail party, then, too, indeed it is a joke.
If you think I'm over-reacting, then I can only say that we are as Germany was in 1936. Sure, it could, possibly, turn out okay, but things are likely to get incredibly ugly from here on out. Pretend otherwise at your own peril....
Nice dictionary. That makes Buddhism a cult (I'm thinking Theravada Buddhism, to be precise).
Re:Non-violence is immoral?!?! QWZX
on
Linus Is A Hero
·
· Score: 2
Okay, one last response, since you are being reasonable now. Necessary and sufficient conditions are types of conditions for the existence of something, or the truth of something. Let us consider human beings for a moment. Having a y chromosome is a necessary condition for being a man, since there is no man that lacks a y chromosome. Having a y chromosome is also a sufficient condition in this case, because if foo is a human, and foo has a y chromosome, then it follows that foo is definitely a man (I'm ignoring the xyy people for the sake of clarity). Having an x chromosome, however, is a necessary but not sufficient condition. If foo is a man, then foo definitely has an x chromosome, but if you all you know is that foo has an x chromosome, then you don't know enough to determine that foo is a man (could be a woman with xx), therefore, it is not a sufficient condition. Having both an x and a y chromosome is also a necessary and a sufficient condition. A sufficient condition for being a woman is that foo does not have any y chromosomes. A necessary and sufficient condition is that foo has at least two x chromosomes. I hope this makes clear what I mean by necessary and sufficient.
To relate this back to my original remark, having a clear (correct) explanation that doesn't rely on hypotheticals is a sufficient condition for establishing the truth of the claim, but it is not necessary. To say that it isn't necessary is to say that there are other forms of justification that are also sufficient. I am making the claim that one of these alternate means of justification is a hypothetical that brings the issue at hand clearly into focus. You disagree, and are arguing that unless there is a plain explanation without hypotheticals, then the claim is false. The claim we are considering here is whether the guy's pacifist views are absolute (i.e., no exceptions whatsoever) or not.
My problem is that the argument rubs me the wrong way. It feels like the mental equivalent (although more subtle) of aiming a gun at a guys head and saying "say I'm great, or I'll blow your brains out". Now, its entirely possible that I am wrong, and frankly I didn't get into this because of the pacifist/non-pacifist issues. I just really don't like an argument that seems (to me) to have artificial limits on its response.
But there are natural limits on possible responses, and this is what my hypothetical illustrates. Either the guy's pacifism is absolute, as he implies, or it is not. If it is absolute, then it would not be possible for me to come up with a scenario that would cause him to go against his beliefs. Conversely, if it is possible for me to come up with a scenario (any scenario at all, however unlikely, however contrived) that causes him to go against his beliefs, then his beliefs are not absolute. This follows necessarily from simple rules of logic and the definition of absolute pacifism (or the gloss that I gave it as 'without exception'). Anyway, perhaps you still disagree, and we can agree to disagree.
Re:Non-violence is immoral?!?! QWZX
on
Linus Is A Hero
·
· Score: 2
Such an argument would be a sufficient but not necessary condition. Look it up if you don't know what I'm talking about. What I've shown already is also sufficient, assuming that the original poster would answer my hypothetical in the way that you have.
I am tired of responding to you, since you don't ever directly address what I have said, but just insist on the same 6-year old standard of proof every time. Perhaps one day you'll go to college and take a critical thinking class, and then I'll happily continue the discussion.
Re:Non-violence is immoral?!?! QWZX
on
Linus Is A Hero
·
· Score: 2
theres a difference between thought experiements, and hypothetical situations with insanely strict rules to designed to force a person to go against their ideals.
My thought experiment was designed to test the conviction of the belief -- that is, are there limits, and if so, what are they? If you were a pacifist and you would not stick by your pacifism in the hypothetical situation, then we would have established that there is a limit to your pacifism (it isn't absolute). Perhaps there are other limits. The reason this came up in the first place is that the original poster implied that there were no limits at all to his pacifism. If that were really so, he would have to say, "I would die and let them die in that situation." Whether it's likely to occur or not is irrelevant. It is totally legitimate, even standard practice -- e.g., in thought experiments -- to come up with unusual, extremely unlikely scenarios, often for pedagogical purposes, but for other reasons too. They often illustrate a point much better than a more mundane scenario -- as in this case.
I'm sorry you have such an aversion to hypothetical situations. Whole worlds of thought are thus completely off-limits for you. I for one, though, am glad that writers, scientists, musicians, artists, and intellectuals of every kind don't share your distaste for the hypothetical.
Re:Non-violence is immoral?!?! QWZX
on
Linus Is A Hero
·
· Score: 1
Yes, what a moron Einstein was for contemplating the possible consequences of being able to travel at the speed of light. You are correct. Gedanken experiments, or thought experiments, are pointless exercises in futility. Nothing positive ever comes of them.
Thanks for your words of wisdom, now crawl back into your hole, troll!
Re:Just ignorance, nothing more
on
Linus Is A Hero
·
· Score: 1
Ummm, nobody says Berners-Lee invented the Internet (no Al Gore joke here, keep it moving). He invented the World Wide Web, meaning http and html and the first web browser, which was a browser/editor hybrid (the only way to access the WWW at first).
Btw, your link is broken.
Re:Non-violence is immoral?!?! QWZX
on
Linus Is A Hero
·
· Score: 1
I will not hurt another human being even if it means my own demise.... I refuse to categorize my loved ones any more worthy of life than the enemies you would be killing.
I really do admire your sentiment. I used to be a strident pacifist myself, but now I believe that there are cretin out there whose life isn't worth as much as those of decent person who contributes something to the world. I would like to give you a quiz and see how strong your conviction is, and I hope you'll play along.
Consider the following thought experiment:
Your wife and newborn baby girl are sleeping calmly in the next room. At the same time, you're hacking away on the computer in the study, when you see on the security cam that somebody is entering your house. You recognize the face immediately, because it's been on the news for days. It is a lunatic who has recently escaped from a maximum security psychiatric ward. You recall that this guy especially likes raping babies, after which he always kills his victims, but he's not averse to raping and killing women or men either. He has a gun. You have a gun. You try to call 911, but it is busy.
You know that you have to handle this situation yourself, so you surreptitiously come up behind him, telling him that you have a gun and not to move. He calmly tells you that if you leave the house before he turns around, you get to live, and he'll be satisfied with whoever else is in the house; if you stay, you must either shoot him, or he will shoot you.
When he turns around, he will shoot you, and then he will proceed to brutally rape and kill first your child and then your wife. You know this with certainty. You have 1 second to decide whether to kill him or die yourself, and have your family raped and slaughtered. What do you do?
There are no other outcomes than the two described. Can you honestly say that you would let your wife and child be raped and murdered, not to mention whoever else the guy will do the same to afterwards???
a nice set of breasts could be a woman's strongest weapon against 50% of the world's population. Do you know how many spies have been defeated by a nice set of breasts? Obviously they made it a beautiful woman for the ratings, but you could argue that it makes a better cyborg.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe because freedom is a noun and free is an adjective. They are not interchangeable. Freedom Software Foundation is very awkward English, and it has a totally different meaning than Free Software Foundation.
Everybody knows that Windows is a product of Microsoft. While many have heard of Linux, few have heard of Gnu, so I think there is a crucial difference.
should be as effective as slashdot's anti-troll measures... **ducks**
But he retracted in the very next email:
The ones *they see* could be unique if just one person from that mailing reports it to them. Also, they could be including the random text in every email, which actually does make it so that every spam is unique.
I wonder what the timecube guy has to say about multiverses?
It is understandable that Amazon sees most people using REST. They're mostly hobbyists and amateur programmers, and REST is easier and sufficient for the very simple things that you can do via the Amazon web services api, but if one were trying to submit more information -- say a long purchase order -- the limitations of REST would be more apparent. The RPC style of SOAP is often better with REST, but for the document-exchange style, REST is inadequate.
Dude, ninjas rock. You diss them now, but when you hear the electric guitars start wailing in the distance, you'll take back your words (hint: a ninja is about to flip out, and you'll probably lose your head).
Yes, but we are now close to destroying Goldstein and the forces of evil that support him. Victory shall be ours!
Wrong. Said person would try to change his country for the better, probably by trying to influence the opinions of others who hold the shameful attitutes.
So if I believe that gravity is a result of angels that live inside every atom and yearn to be close to their friends in other atoms, I'm not a complete moron somehow? I just don't get it. If you say that one can believe absolutely anything without being stupid, why should one try to be reasonable and actually find out the truth, rather than just accepting everything our priest or parent told us as a child? I'm sorry, but some things are stupid. I'm not passing judgment on any particular belief, except for the belief that one can believe anything without being stupid.
wtf is the value-add to all your whining, people ;-) ? Please, can we all just get back to value-adding to our core competencies and saving money in the bottom line?
No. Article I, section 8, of the Constituion states that Congress is empowered " To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries ." This is the source of copyright, and as you can see, public benefit, in the form of progress in science and the useful arts, is the purpose of copyright. Granting the exclusive right (which is subject to restrictions) is just a means to that end.
And on the meaning of 'is', of course. Don't forget Clinton's contribution.
He also knows "evildoer" and a bunch of slang for cocaine.
If you think I'm over-reacting, then I can only say that we are as Germany was in 1936. Sure, it could, possibly, turn out okay, but things are likely to get incredibly ugly from here on out. Pretend otherwise at your own peril....
Nice dictionary. That makes Buddhism a cult (I'm thinking Theravada Buddhism, to be precise).
To relate this back to my original remark, having a clear (correct) explanation that doesn't rely on hypotheticals is a sufficient condition for establishing the truth of the claim, but it is not necessary. To say that it isn't necessary is to say that there are other forms of justification that are also sufficient. I am making the claim that one of these alternate means of justification is a hypothetical that brings the issue at hand clearly into focus. You disagree, and are arguing that unless there is a plain explanation without hypotheticals, then the claim is false. The claim we are considering here is whether the guy's pacifist views are absolute (i.e., no exceptions whatsoever) or not.
My problem is that the argument rubs me the wrong way. It feels like the mental equivalent (although more subtle) of aiming a gun at a guys head and saying "say I'm great, or I'll blow your brains out". Now, its entirely possible that I am wrong, and frankly I didn't get into this because of the pacifist/non-pacifist issues. I just really don't like an argument that seems (to me) to have artificial limits on its response.
But there are natural limits on possible responses, and this is what my hypothetical illustrates. Either the guy's pacifism is absolute, as he implies, or it is not. If it is absolute, then it would not be possible for me to come up with a scenario that would cause him to go against his beliefs. Conversely, if it is possible for me to come up with a scenario (any scenario at all, however unlikely, however contrived) that causes him to go against his beliefs, then his beliefs are not absolute. This follows necessarily from simple rules of logic and the definition of absolute pacifism (or the gloss that I gave it as 'without exception'). Anyway, perhaps you still disagree, and we can agree to disagree.
I am tired of responding to you, since you don't ever directly address what I have said, but just insist on the same 6-year old standard of proof every time. Perhaps one day you'll go to college and take a critical thinking class, and then I'll happily continue the discussion.
My thought experiment was designed to test the conviction of the belief -- that is, are there limits, and if so, what are they? If you were a pacifist and you would not stick by your pacifism in the hypothetical situation, then we would have established that there is a limit to your pacifism (it isn't absolute). Perhaps there are other limits. The reason this came up in the first place is that the original poster implied that there were no limits at all to his pacifism. If that were really so, he would have to say, "I would die and let them die in that situation." Whether it's likely to occur or not is irrelevant. It is totally legitimate, even standard practice -- e.g., in thought experiments -- to come up with unusual, extremely unlikely scenarios, often for pedagogical purposes, but for other reasons too. They often illustrate a point much better than a more mundane scenario -- as in this case.
I'm sorry you have such an aversion to hypothetical situations. Whole worlds of thought are thus completely off-limits for you. I for one, though, am glad that writers, scientists, musicians, artists, and intellectuals of every kind don't share your distaste for the hypothetical.
Thanks for your words of wisdom, now crawl back into your hole, troll!
Ummm, nobody says Berners-Lee invented the Internet (no Al Gore joke here, keep it moving). He invented the World Wide Web, meaning http and html and the first web browser, which was a browser/editor hybrid (the only way to access the WWW at first). Btw, your link is broken.
I really do admire your sentiment. I used to be a strident pacifist myself, but now I believe that there are cretin out there whose life isn't worth as much as those of decent person who contributes something to the world. I would like to give you a quiz and see how strong your conviction is, and I hope you'll play along.
Consider the following thought experiment:
Your wife and newborn baby girl are sleeping calmly in the next room. At the same time, you're hacking away on the computer in the study, when you see on the security cam that somebody is entering your house. You recognize the face immediately, because it's been on the news for days. It is a lunatic who has recently escaped from a maximum security psychiatric ward. You recall that this guy especially likes raping babies, after which he always kills his victims, but he's not averse to raping and killing women or men either. He has a gun. You have a gun. You try to call 911, but it is busy.
You know that you have to handle this situation yourself, so you surreptitiously come up behind him, telling him that you have a gun and not to move. He calmly tells you that if you leave the house before he turns around, you get to live, and he'll be satisfied with whoever else is in the house; if you stay, you must either shoot him, or he will shoot you.
When he turns around, he will shoot you, and then he will proceed to brutally rape and kill first your child and then your wife. You know this with certainty. You have 1 second to decide whether to kill him or die yourself, and have your family raped and slaughtered. What do you do?
There are no other outcomes than the two described. Can you honestly say that you would let your wife and child be raped and murdered, not to mention whoever else the guy will do the same to afterwards???
Perhaps the machines appreciated the irony of the oppressed subjugating the oppressors.
a nice set of breasts could be a woman's strongest weapon against 50% of the world's population. Do you know how many spies have been defeated by a nice set of breasts? Obviously they made it a beautiful woman for the ratings, but you could argue that it makes a better cyborg.