Communism is an economic model, NOTHING to do with totalitarianism and dictatorships, which is the problem here. There are several communist/socialist states where the residents have MORE rights than us.
Wrong. If you believe in historical determinism, than, as a corollary of the end of history, you can accelerate the process by crushing the opposition, eliminating the burgoise, assasinating people, as Lenin and Stalin have done. They matter not, as they will disappear in the end ("Communism"). Read Karl Popper for more. Marx himself voiced the opinion that there should exist, temporarily, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (in a letter by Marx to Weydemeyer, published in Neue Zeit magazine, see Lenin's State and Revolution): (...) 2) That class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; 3) that this dictatorship is itself only a trasition (...)
And than Lenin goes on, in his analysis, to say: Only in Communist society, when the resistance of the capitalists has been completely broken, (...) when there are no classes (i.e., there is no difference netween the members of society in their relation to the social means of production), only then "the state ceases to exist", and "it becomes possible to speak of freedom." Only then a really full democracy, a democracy without any exceptions, will be possible and will be realised. And only then will deomcracy begin to wither away due to the simple fact that, freed from capitalist slavery, from the untold horrors, savagery, exploitation, absurdities and infamies of capitalist exploitation, people will become accustomed to the observation of the elementary rules of social life that have been known for centuries (...) they will become accustomed to observing them without force, without compulsion, without subordination, without the special apparatus fo compulsion which is called state."
Of course, we know where such experimentation lead to with Mao's Cultural Revolution. The worst possible example is Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge. The state did not disappear. In today's China, workers have the same rights as 18th century workers in England. OTOH, you're right on the spot when you comment about rights. As I've mentioned in another post, the Human Rights Charter is more than about just political rights (e.g. economic rights). People tell me there are outdoors, when you leave Havana (Cuba) on the way to the airport that says smth like: Tonight, in Latin America, 100,000 children will sleep on the streets, None of the are Cubans. That, to me, explains a lot as to why so many people in Latin America view Cuba with some simpathy. I, for one, am not sure the people of Cuba were better off when it was America's favorite little whorehouse/cassino. Of course, than the powerful US had to impose an embargo in that puny island...So, there are always 2 sides to a story... As we can see from the Katrina disaster, class boundaries exist in the US in a perverse manner. Living in the richest country in the world does not, for instance, garantee you economic rights that have been attained by social-democrats in Europe. And with reduction and violation of Human Rights (e.g., Guantanamo, handing prisioners to torture in Egypt, etc.) we can see that there's a whole lot the US falls short of.
Have you ever heard of people voicing their concerns regarding the path that has been taken by the current administration with regards to Human Rights in the USA? There are quite a few people concerned that freedom is giving way to a police state in the US.
IN FAITH WHEREOF the representatives of the Governments of the United Nations have signed the present Charter. DONE at the city of San Francisco the twenty-sixth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and forty-five.
Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Here's a little excerpt from the Stanford Encylopedia of the ideas behind the Charter:
1. The General Idea of Human Rights The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR; United Nations 1948b) sets out a list of over two dozen specific human rights that countries should respect and protect. We may group these specific rights into six or more families: security rights that protect people against crimes such as murder, massacre, torture, and rape; liberty rights that protect freedoms in areas such as belief, expression, association, assembly, and movement; political rights that protect the liberty to participate in politics through actions such as communicating, assembling, protesting, voting, and serving in public office; due process rights that protect against abuses of the legal system such as imprisonment without trial, secret trials, and excessive punishments; equality rights that guarantee equal citizenship, equality before the law, and nondiscrimination; and welfare rights (or "economic and social rights") that require provision of education to all children and protections against severe poverty and starvation. Another family that might be included is group rights. The UDHR does not include group rights, but subsequent treaties do. Group rights include protections of ethnic groups against genocide and the ownership by countries of their national territories and resources.
Reducing everything to local Chinese law is absurd. As we know, economic freedom goes better with political freedoms. Deng Xiaoping did nothing for the political rights of the Chinese. In fact, he sent 200,000 troops to crush the rebels of Tiananmen.
"We already knew that Yahoo! collaborates enthusiastically with the Chinese regime in questions of censorship, and now we know it is a Chinese police informant as well," Reporters Without Borders said in a statement.
I think it's up to people living in the Free World (defined as: your country has a Constitution that grants you political rights and freedoms) to pressure such companies so that, they, in turn, help pressure non-democratic governments for more freedom. Can't stockholders help ?
We remember the rebels of Tiananmen square!
There was a program that tried to use the language of Esperanto
Esperanto is a dreadful auxlang (auxiliary language). Look here: Learn Not to Speak Esperanto. The nice thing about it is that it's probably the only auxlang with a substantial community. They even have Radio: http://radioarkivo.org/. Interlingua is immediately comprehensible by a native speaker of one or more of: Spanish, French, Portuguese, Romanian, Italian, Catalan and some other I forgot.
Here's what they claim: Glosa is the most advanced one of the type that linguists call isolating. That means, that in Glosa there are no inflections. Words remain always in their original form, no matter what function they actually have in the sentence. A conventional grammar is missing.Although Glosa is a full language. Grammatical functions are taken over by some operator words and the word order (syntax). This disposition brings Glosa relationship with many languages around the world: east-Asiatic languages like Chinese, Creolean languages from Africa, pidgin languages and with reservation the most important natural language - English. (In my personal opinion this way is not only interesting, but also the best for an auxlang.)
A Glosa word represents an idea, but no part of speech. The same word can function as a verb, noun, adjective or preposition within reason. The Glosa words are taken from Latin and Greek. So they are known to many people by foreign words or by the Roman languages. A limitated vocabulary (Glosa 1000 or Centra Glosa), easy to learn for beginners, should satisfy for all day situations. For higher demands (science, art, poetry) an extension (Glosa 6000 or Mega Glosa) is available.
I've always thought you could at least achieve an aproximate translation by going Language1 -> Glosa -> Language2. At least vocabulary and some aproximation of grammatical tense would be achieved. Modality and aspects would be missed, but I imagine could be perfected by matching context to huge word lists in Language1 and Language2. In fact, verbal aspects are just enhancements - I wouldn't say they're essential. Apparently, the dominant languages (which is not the same as saying "90% of languages") - both from East and West seem to have the notion of past/present/future.
IMHO, Glosa is very well thought out. At one time I proposed that the Debian project used Glosa. Right now, I've got some Maxima docs (open source CAS) to translate to Portuguese and I keep thinking: if we at least used an auxlang like Interlingua, we would shorten the efforts for the translation temas of all latin languages, but people don't know Interlingua (but, in fact, they do, they just don't know they do.)
Here's a little Glosa traslation (from a website linked from glosa.org) - Walt Whitman ; O kapitana! Mi kapitana! O CAPTAIN! my Captain! Na fobo viagia nu-pa es ge-fini.
our fearful trip is done; (fobo-fear ge=particle indicating now, IIRC) U navi pa dura dia panto turba. The ship has weather'd every rack, U premi; na pa cerka, pa gene gania.
the prize we sought is won; (pa=past, cerka=seek, gania=win, pa gania=win in the past, won) Un asilu-lo nu es proxi. The port is near Mi audi plu kampani. the bells I hear (pretty obvious: "audi", "kampani" is obvious for any Italian/Portuguese/etc speaker) Panto homi voci lauda. the people all exulting (panto=pan, as in "pan-american" homi=men, voci=voice, lauda=praise ("laudamunus"))
Another sample of Glosa:
u feli A cat, the cat
plu feli; poli feli Cats; many cats
tri feli Three cats
u feli tri The third cat
u-ci feli; u-la feli
Windows Vista will be out sooner! But seriously, people. Who gives a rat's behind?
Anyone who gives a "rat's behind" to office integration software ought to think about how you simply can't use GPL software to drive Windows out of its position. This is because there are literally thousands of applications developed to integrate with Microsoft Office, and they do so seamlessly. To do it under the GPL, you would have to develop a gigantic stack of software free software hackers simply know nothing about, unless they work day jobs in big corporations and business running Microsoft software. If you develop under another license that can integrate with existing software without being viral, there's a chance of offering a cheaper alternative you can mix freely with a proprietary surrounding. However, there's also the risk your software will just get incorporated and they'll spit your bones out. The only chance is to develop free as in beer BSD code then take over.:-) Or wait 20+ years until free software hackers get their act right in OpenOffice, and GNOME, and KDE (and still you don't get the integration WinForms allows because those project to give a rat's ass about interoperability). Also, the free software doesn't usually hold in high praise someone who gets these issues or is vocal about them (eg, De Icaza)
This is very important, as the GPL may not be enforceable on various countries as it is today. I know that, eg, in Brazil, special legal measures had to be taken to allow for the GPL to override (if the license is chosen, of course) the current software law. Previously, there were legal precendents in Brazilian jurisprudence that ended up getting some people fcsked over when their code was stollen and incorporated.
What you are talking about is the *propogation* of "freedom", not the "preservation". The GPL *propogates* by requiring derivatives (with a ridiculously broad definition of "derivative", I might add) also be GPLed. The BSDL *preserves* by only applying to the code as it is originally released.
Depends on where your reference system is. For instance, if you're a developer joining an ongoing project previously released as GPL then you're liable to falling in the "GPL trap": the original authors can, provided they get you to file papers giving up on any copyright on your code, relicense your code under a proprietary license. you might consider that Freeedom. I consider it freedom to make other people richer, and you poorer, i.e., slavery.
For instance, Stallman never accepted the XEmacs fork, because they refused to send in the paperwork to the FSF. See XEmacs vs Emacs, where you can read a bewildering lesson on what constitues a GPLed software by Stallman:
XEmacs is GNU software because it's a modified version of a GNU program. And it is GNU software because the FSF is the copyright holder for most of it (...) This is why the term "GNU XEmacs" is legitimate.
(GNU XEmacs ?! Oh, like, GNU/Linux...) But in another sense it is not GNU software [my quote], because we can't use XEmacs in the GNU system (etc)
In the essay where the FSF argues on why they think you should not use the LGPL, they say: "At least one application program is free software today specifically because that was necessary for using Readline." The name of this software is CLISP, a Common Lisp implementation. I love the venerable CLISP, but admit it: not many use it. So much for that argument. Bruno Haible did not want to release his work under the GPL, but he has forced to ("The only thing CLISP will have to do with the readline library is that *THE USER* *MAY OPTIONALLY* link CLISP with the readline library. No judge will admit that this gives you the right to determine the copyright of CLISP." - but Stallman disagreed - historical exchange here.)
If, however, you're a developer working in a company, the BSD may *preserve* and *propagate* your freedom, because you can use code you developed while on another company on your new job, promoting true code re-use while not getting stopped by GPL hurdles for your new company, because you can mix the BSD code with proprietary code. As we know, except for hardware companies, a lot of them avoid the GPL.
However, any big corporation can just crush you if you develop open-source code, because they have big IT departments, so unless you really have an edge, they'll just hand your code over to them. How you develop that edge with OSS is the question.
It wasn't capable of autonomous flight. It doesn't stand for what we, today, define as airplanes. The merrit lies with Santos-Dumont for achieving autonomous flight. That feat, contrary to the Wright brothers' feat, has ample documentation to support it. The Wright brothers don't have anything but speculation, their own word, and chauvinism. It's like someone going to Thomas Edison or Sir Joseph Wilson Swan after they invented the light-bulb and claiming "no, I invented that 3 years earlier."
The Wright brothers invented the airplane, but were not able to turn it into a successful business venture, leaving plenty of room for others to come in and dominate the market. There are some arguments that can be made casting a large shadow of doubt on the Wright's allegations, whereas Santos-Dumont's flight fulfilled objective "heavier than air" aeronautical criteria by the French Aeroclub, and was witnessed by thousands. Defendants of the Wright brothers argue that, even today, you see airplanes that rely on being catapulted, like jet airplanes on airplanes navy carriers, which is hardly a fair comparison (last generation jet fighters?)
Santos-Dumont was the first to build an aircraft and fly one on its own means of propulsion. The first independent flight, without being catapulted, and without the help of frontal wind. Also, he flew his plane right smack in the middle of Paris, witnessed by thousands of people.
It was only in 1908 that the Wright brothers were able to rid themselves of all the additional "props" they needed for independent flight. Also, nobody witnessed the first Wright flights. In typical American style, it was "patented" and secretive. The 1903 Kitty Hawk flight had no credible witness. Even the Flyer II flight, touted as real evidence, is mentioned in a telegram by Orville as depending on strong wind. This is not an independent flight by any criteria. It's a glider.
In 1907 Scientific American American Aeroclub offered a prize, the Scientific American Trophy for anyone who proved capable of flying for a kilometer in a straight line with mechanized flight. Charles Munn, editor of Scientific American wrote to Orville Wright on June 4th asking if he was planning on attempting the feat. In another letter, dated June 25th he expressed his hopes that the Wright's machine could be modified on time for the competition, without the use of rail or the catapult, because without those modifications, they would not be qualified to compete. He also said he could postpone Glenn Curtiss attempt (he was from the Association od Aereal Experiments, working on the June Bug), but he changed his mind when he received the following letter from Orville (I'm sorry, I'm translating this from Portuguese):
"Dayton, June 30 1908
I've received your June 25th letter. I can't think of a way to modify our machine within the next month or 2. so that we could compete for the Trophy. All our machines were projected to take off on rails."
Additional facts: - Observed by 5 people - Nothing was filmed, or reported in the news - Years later, a photo was made available - The US had diplomatic representation in Paris, and yet they didn't compete for the "heavier than air" prize Santos-Dumont won. - It was a glider, with no wheels, that relied on a catapult - In 1904 they invited 4 reporters to witness a flight, but it didn't happen - The US army declined to buy it, because they didn't see anything fly (and, remember, the Wright brothers were hoping to make money out of it)
In December 17, 1951, The New York Times telegrafist Alpheus Drinkwater [1875 - 1962]. He worked right by where the Wright brothers experimented.He was there on December 17, 1903. He said to the interviewer that they just glided, and that the first real flight only happened in May 6th, 1908.
The Wright brothers were pioneers, that's for sure, but they're largely an American myth, perpetuated and told endless times. The Wright brothers were really good at marketing themselves. It's like Bill Clinton's definition of how you define sex. How you define an independent flying machine is that it's something that can get off the ground, by its own means, and sustain flight. If you doubt me, visit any airport today.
But we all remember what we saw on TV on the 100 year anniversary of the Wright brother's invention: the Kitty Hawk replica landed in th
It's a generic term that tries to define the reality that there's not a clear cut line - when you look at the methods and problems from a "basic research" (as opposed to "clinical research") perspective - between "biological" and "medical" phenomena. It also refers to that kind of research, as opposed to medical-only research (for instance, a clinical trial of a new drug for the heart).
It's true what you say about physicians. It is kind of strange...Then again, Einstein believed in God. There needs to be more of a Biological culture in the medical field. OTOH, in the end, Medicine is about treating patients, in the end (regardless if the physician only does research - even with computers).
Pathology is not irrelevant. For Biologists, it is sometimes as if organisms function at their prime, at all times, and that's a very theoretical and unrealistic viewpoint, that often leads to oversimplifications. In fact, the lack of study of Pathology in Biology leads to a lack of insight in the understanding of major phenomenons, like host-parasite interactions, aging, mutations, etc.
I guess inserting a few words that sound like your're a real genius, like "immunological system" will promote their anti-virus software, won't it? Even though it doesn't resemble it in the least.
Who are these guys kidding? They're part of the problem. They make obscene ammounts of money on a diseased platform (now there's a good biological metaphor).
If they were really up to it, they'd be working on cutting-edge stuff like capabilities. Even relatively simple measures like those taken by some UNIXes have succeeded more than that Windows PR BS. Of course, that would mean ditching Windows, and that's a real stupid choice for the money-makers/user-pimps.
Well, to defend the honour of the OpenSSH, let's get on with this off-topic thread...
To sum it up, the OP is a TROLL; I counted at least 12 reports where OpenSSH was not even mentioned, let alone OpenBSD; and in fact, most of them refered to OpenSSL, like you said (and I'm not going throught the TROLL's whole list).
Re:Kernel performance
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It's the oldest argument in the FreeBSD vs. Linux game: I like the consistency
Let me say a few words about consistency: Some software developers complain (I don't need to post URLs, you'll find it if you google) about GCC, glibc and library developers, even kernel hackers, who every now and again break existing software, or change interfaces on GNU/Linux. Just this week I saw a ML compiler that ceased to work properly under the new 2.6 kernel. I've read a presentation about kernel development by an IBM guy whose philosophy was: "submit code first, fix it later." This is just crazy. Even Linux vendors complain. If you want to build a business that lasts, you have to be able to rely on consistency. I keep having trouble on OpenBSD trying to compile software that "was written for Linux." I mean, what's up with that? Write for UNIX. On that note, about consistency being an important requirement for a solid business, this interview with Joel Spolsky has some nice thoughts about it. He mentions a firm from Canada, "incredibly profitable" - he says - whose specialty is supporting VAX! Now, it maybe that the Microsoft approach of breaking things to sell you a solution is a good way to make money. However, some industries just can't fucntion that way. I'm thinking here, e.g., banking, medical, aviation, etc. So consistency is a real problem and a big issue.
Re:Yes I read TFA, but
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
check out the reasons why GNU su doesn't restrict use to members of the wheel group some time
Oh, yeah! That makes for good reading fun! I remember that!:-)
Re:There's a lot to like
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
Now that there is a push to support binary updates, my last major complaint has been addressed.
The reality is Linux is more popular. Why? Who knows. But it is (an article on that would be nice).
Check out this interview with Bill Joy ("The Joy of UNIX") on Linux Magazine:
BSD is older. It doesn't need as much hacking. So if you're a new person learning how to hack, BSD was not as good a place to go. It didn't need as much work. Linux grew up with the Internet. By the time the Net came along, BSD didn't need the same level of work and wasn't as amenable to getting people interested in it.
When you already have several million lines of code, it's not as much fun to work on. Linux was a great thing because it allowed a lot of people to get involved in learning about operating systems by helping to finish this system. That process of creating something is the process of creating a community.
I remeber reading on openbsd@misc (or was it on FreeBSD's mailing list?) that they wouldn't even touch ReiserFS, because they consider the code a big mess.
Why did you leave out Debian's dpkg, which the GP mentioned? It's been doing everything you describe for at least 6 years.
Whenever you compare FreeBSD to Debian, there are interesting lessons to be learned. The facts speak for themsleves (their respective track-records.) You can't really claim dpkg is "perfect", because in order for apt-get to work as good as the competition you have to factor in the simple fact that the competition is always more up-to-date in release cycles and in delivering current relases than Debian. It got to be so pathetic that people went off and forked it, creating a company (Ubuntu). Intrinsic to Debian's package management is the software-engineering process that goes with it. It means reading that hideous documentation of theirs, along with prompting a legion of developers to get over their tendency to "commit bikesheds" and to package and test software within a reasonable date. Arguing that "they're volunteers" is no excuse, because on the BSD camp everybody's a volunteer, too. And yet they manage to deliver protocols (e.g. OpenSSH), kernel, and userland software, whereas "Linux" developers are strictly speaking, kernel hackers (with huge money pouring from the industry). So Debian has gone down in history as a lesson to be learned in free software projects: 1) _competent_ developer resources are not abundant; 2) automate as much as possible, do not rely on humans. The serious shortcomings from which they suffer - I think you'll not dispute that - is in the software engineering process. And that is a direct consequence of the package-management technology. Why? Because you rely on managing humans, instead of managing software> None of which you can fire, because they aren't on your payroll. Debian has gone from, IIRC: ~3000 packages (slink) ~8000 " (potato) ~12000 " (woody) The delay in releasing has gone up with the number of packages. I predict it'll continue to do so. It's already beyond the DPL's capability to coordinate releases. Or maybe not, but only because Ubuntu people are working on real jobs... When you write about "dependency tracking systems" you show you do not even understand UNIX makefiles. You might say FreeBSD's solution is worst, because it relies on source files. But in fact that's: 1) not entirely true, because bigger stuff is "packaged"; 2) source files - provided you take care to program according to POSIX standards, something some Linux programmers don't do - are highly portable among UNIXes. This ensures the wealth of software FreeBSD has, which is comparable to Debian's in sheer numbers. You post here assuming no one's used Debian, or that we're all clueless newbies.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I understand that, Mr. Genius. The whole point of my post is pointing out that, duh, it's a violation.
Communism is an economic model, NOTHING to do with totalitarianism and dictatorships, which is the problem here. There are several communist/socialist states where the residents have MORE rights than us.
Wrong. If you believe in historical determinism, than, as a corollary of the end of history, you can accelerate the process by crushing the opposition, eliminating the burgoise, assasinating people, as Lenin and Stalin have done. They matter not, as they will disappear in the end ("Communism"). Read Karl Popper for more.
Marx himself voiced the opinion that there should exist, temporarily, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (in a letter by Marx to Weydemeyer, published in Neue Zeit magazine, see Lenin's State and Revolution):
(...) 2) That class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; 3) that this dictatorship is itself only a trasition (...)
And than Lenin goes on, in his analysis, to say: Only in Communist society, when the resistance of the capitalists has been completely broken, (...) when there are no classes (i.e., there is no difference netween the members of society in their relation to the social means of production), only then "the state ceases to exist", and "it becomes possible to speak of freedom." Only then a really full democracy, a democracy without any exceptions, will be possible and will be realised. And only then will deomcracy begin to wither away due to the simple fact that, freed from capitalist slavery, from the untold horrors, savagery, exploitation, absurdities and infamies of capitalist exploitation, people will become accustomed to the observation of the elementary rules of social life that have been known for centuries (...) they will become accustomed to observing them without force, without compulsion, without subordination, without the special apparatus fo compulsion which is called state."
Of course, we know where such experimentation lead to with Mao's Cultural Revolution. The worst possible example is Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge. The state did not disappear. In today's China, workers have the same rights as 18th century workers in England.
OTOH, you're right on the spot when you comment about rights. As I've mentioned in another post, the Human Rights Charter is more than about just political rights (e.g. economic rights). People tell me there are outdoors, when you leave Havana (Cuba) on the way to the airport that says smth like: Tonight, in Latin America, 100,000 children will sleep on the streets, None of the are Cubans. That, to me, explains a lot as to why so many people in Latin America view Cuba with some simpathy. I, for one, am not sure the people of Cuba were better off when it was America's favorite little whorehouse/cassino. Of course, than the powerful US had to impose an embargo in that puny island...So, there are always 2 sides to a story...
As we can see from the Katrina disaster, class boundaries exist in the US in a perverse manner. Living in the richest country in the world does not, for instance, garantee you economic rights that have been attained by social-democrats in Europe.
And with reduction and violation of Human Rights (e.g., Guantanamo, handing prisioners to torture in Egypt, etc.) we can see that there's a whole lot the US falls short of.
Have you ever heard of people voicing their concerns regarding the path that has been taken by the current administration with regards to Human Rights in the USA?
There are quite a few people concerned that freedom is giving way to a police state in the US.
IN FAITH WHEREOF the representatives of the Governments of the United Nations have signed the present Charter. DONE at the city of San Francisco the twenty-sixth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and forty-five.
4 5e.html#ch19
http://www.arabhumanrights.org/charter/un-charter
Besides, even if a country does not sign it, we must accuse such country of beign a violator of Human Rights. Or so the argument goes...
Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
(From: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/)Here's a little excerpt from the Stanford Encylopedia of the ideas behind the Charter:
Reducing everything to local Chinese law is absurd. As we know, economic freedom goes better with political freedoms. Deng Xiaoping did nothing for the political rights of the Chinese. In fact, he sent 200,000 troops to crush the rebels of Tiananmen.
"We already knew that Yahoo! collaborates enthusiastically with the Chinese regime in questions of censorship, and now we know it is a Chinese police informant as well," Reporters Without Borders said in a statement. I think it's up to people living in the Free World (defined as: your country has a Constitution that grants you political rights and freedoms) to pressure such companies so that, they, in turn, help pressure non-democratic governments for more freedom. Can't stockholders help ?
We remember the rebels of Tiananmen square!
There was a program that tried to use the language of Esperanto
Esperanto is a dreadful auxlang (auxiliary language). Look here: Learn Not to Speak Esperanto. The nice thing about it is that it's probably the only auxlang with a substantial community. They even have Radio: http://radioarkivo.org/. Interlingua is immediately comprehensible by a native speaker of one or more of: Spanish, French, Portuguese, Romanian, Italian, Catalan and some other I forgot.
I always thought glosa would be ideal for what you proposed http://www.glosa.org/
Here's what they claim: Glosa is the most advanced one of the type that linguists call isolating. That means, that in Glosa there are no inflections. Words remain always in their original form, no matter what function they actually have in the sentence. A conventional grammar is missing.Although Glosa is a full language. Grammatical functions are taken over by some operator words and the word order (syntax). This disposition brings Glosa relationship with many languages around the world: east-Asiatic languages like Chinese, Creolean languages from Africa, pidgin languages and with reservation the most important natural language - English.
(In my personal opinion this way is not only interesting, but also the best for an auxlang.)
A Glosa word represents an idea, but no part of speech. The same word can function as a verb, noun, adjective or preposition within reason. The Glosa words are taken from Latin and Greek. So they are known to many people by foreign words or by the Roman languages. A limitated vocabulary (Glosa 1000 or Centra Glosa), easy to learn for beginners, should satisfy for all day situations. For higher demands (science, art, poetry) an extension (Glosa 6000 or Mega Glosa) is available.
I've always thought you could at least achieve an aproximate translation by going Language1 -> Glosa -> Language2. At least vocabulary and some aproximation of grammatical tense would be achieved. Modality and aspects would be missed, but I imagine could be perfected by matching context to huge word lists in Language1 and Language2. In fact, verbal aspects are just enhancements - I wouldn't say they're essential. Apparently, the dominant languages (which is not the same as saying "90% of languages") - both from East and West seem to have the notion of past/present/future.
IMHO, Glosa is very well thought out. At one time I proposed that the Debian project used Glosa. Right now, I've got some Maxima docs (open source CAS) to translate to Portuguese and I keep thinking: if we at least used an auxlang like Interlingua, we would shorten the efforts for the translation temas of all latin languages, but people don't know Interlingua (but, in fact, they do, they just don't know they do.)
Here's a little Glosa traslation (from a website linked from glosa.org) - Walt Whitman
;
O kapitana! Mi kapitana!
O CAPTAIN! my Captain!
Na fobo viagia nu-pa es ge-fini.
our fearful trip is done; (fobo-fear ge=particle indicating now, IIRC)
U navi pa dura dia panto turba.
The ship has weather'd every rack,
U premi; na pa cerka, pa gene gania.
the prize we sought is won; (pa=past, cerka=seek, gania=win, pa gania=win in the past, won)
Un asilu-lo nu es proxi.
The port is near
Mi audi plu kampani.
the bells I hear (pretty obvious: "audi", "kampani" is obvious for any Italian/Portuguese/etc speaker)
Panto homi voci lauda.
the people all exulting
(panto=pan, as in "pan-american" homi=men, voci=voice, lauda=praise ("laudamunus"))
Another sample of Glosa:
u feli A cat, the cat
plu feli; poli feli Cats; many cats
tri feli Three cats
u feli tri The third cat
u-ci feli; u-la feli
Macromedia has just gone out in a flash.
Flash is dead, zack.
Windows Vista will be out sooner!
:-) Or wait 20+ years until free software hackers get their act right in OpenOffice, and GNOME, and KDE (and still you don't get the integration WinForms allows because those project to give a rat's ass about interoperability). Also, the free software doesn't usually hold in high praise someone who gets these issues or is vocal about them (eg, De Icaza)
But seriously, people. Who gives a rat's behind?
Anyone who gives a "rat's behind" to office integration software ought to think about how you simply can't use GPL software to drive Windows out of its position. This is because there are literally thousands of applications developed to integrate with Microsoft Office, and they do so seamlessly.
To do it under the GPL, you would have to develop a gigantic stack of software free software hackers simply know nothing about, unless they work day jobs in big corporations and business running Microsoft software.
If you develop under another license that can integrate with existing software without being viral, there's a chance of offering a cheaper alternative you can mix freely with a proprietary surrounding. However, there's also the risk your software will just get incorporated and they'll spit your bones out.
The only chance is to develop free as in beer BSD code then take over.
they are trying to build a license that will not fail when subjected to the next ten years' worth of (currently) unknown attacks.
n d.html
From what I gathered reading
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/gpl3-backgrou
they seem greatly concerned with the adequacy of the license to international copyright law.
This is very important, as the GPL may not be enforceable on various countries as it is today. I know that, eg, in Brazil, special legal measures had to be taken to allow for the GPL to override (if the license is chosen, of course) the current software law. Previously, there were legal precendents in Brazilian jurisprudence that ended up getting some people fcsked over when their code was stollen and incorporated.
With luck, the GPL v3 will clear up the issue of fonts.
Apple owns the patents for grid-fitting the True Type fonts patent 1, patent 2, patent 3.
You don't like it, devise a new method.
Depends on where your reference system is. For instance, if you're a developer joining an ongoing project previously released as GPL then you're liable to falling in the "GPL trap": the original authors can, provided they get you to file papers giving up on any copyright on your code, relicense your code under a proprietary license. you might consider that Freeedom. I consider it freedom to make other people richer, and you poorer, i.e., slavery.
For instance, Stallman never accepted the XEmacs fork, because they refused to send in the paperwork to the FSF. See XEmacs vs Emacs, where you can read a bewildering lesson on what constitues a GPLed software by Stallman:
Ain't that a piece?
OpenOffice.org demmands that you snail-mail a ceding-copyright agreement form: Submit a filled-out copy of the Joint Copyright Assignment form (JCA)
In the essay where the FSF argues on why they think you should not use the LGPL, they say: "At least one application program is free software today specifically because that was necessary for using Readline." The name of this software is CLISP, a Common Lisp implementation. I love the venerable CLISP, but admit it: not many use it. So much for that argument. Bruno Haible did not want to release his work under the GPL, but he has forced to ("The only thing CLISP will have to do with the readline library is that *THE USER* *MAY OPTIONALLY* link CLISP with the readline library.
No judge will admit that this gives you the right to determine the copyright
of CLISP." - but Stallman disagreed - historical exchange here.)
If, however, you're a developer working in a company, the BSD may *preserve* and *propagate* your freedom, because you can use code you developed while on another company on your new job, promoting true code re-use while not getting stopped by GPL hurdles for your new company, because you can mix the BSD code with proprietary code. As we know, except for hardware companies, a lot of them avoid the GPL.
However, any big corporation can just crush you if you develop open-source code, because they have big IT departments, so unless you really have an edge, they'll just hand your code over to them. How you develop that edge with OSS is the question.
So it all depends on what your situation is.
It wasn't capable of autonomous flight.
It doesn't stand for what we, today, define as airplanes. The merrit lies with Santos-Dumont
for achieving autonomous flight. That feat, contrary to the Wright brothers' feat, has ample documentation to support it.
The Wright brothers don't have anything but speculation, their own word, and chauvinism.
It's like someone going to Thomas Edison or Sir Joseph Wilson Swan after they invented the light-bulb and claiming "no, I invented that 3 years earlier."
There are some arguments that can be made casting a large shadow of doubt on the Wright's allegations, whereas Santos-Dumont's flight fulfilled objective "heavier than air" aeronautical criteria by the French Aeroclub, and was witnessed by thousands. Defendants of the Wright brothers argue that, even today, you see airplanes that rely on being catapulted, like jet airplanes on airplanes navy carriers, which is hardly a fair comparison (last generation jet fighters?)
Santos-Dumont was the first to build an aircraft and fly one on its own means of propulsion. The first independent flight, without being catapulted, and without the help of frontal wind. Also, he flew his plane right smack in the middle of Paris, witnessed by thousands of people.
It was only in 1908 that the Wright brothers were able to rid themselves of all the additional "props" they needed for independent flight. Also, nobody witnessed the first Wright flights. In typical American style, it was "patented" and secretive. The 1903 Kitty Hawk flight had no credible witness. Even the Flyer II flight, touted as real evidence, is mentioned in a telegram by Orville as depending on strong wind. This is not an independent flight by any criteria. It's a glider.
In 1907 Scientific American American Aeroclub offered a prize, the Scientific American Trophy for anyone who proved capable of flying for a kilometer in a straight line with mechanized flight. Charles Munn, editor of Scientific American wrote to Orville Wright on June 4th asking if he was planning on attempting the feat. In another letter, dated June 25th he expressed his hopes that the Wright's machine could be modified on time for the competition, without the use of rail or the catapult, because without those modifications, they would not be qualified to compete. He also said he could postpone Glenn Curtiss attempt (he was from the Association od Aereal Experiments, working on the June Bug), but he changed his mind when he received the following letter from Orville (I'm sorry, I'm translating this from Portuguese):
Additional facts:
- Observed by 5 people
- Nothing was filmed, or reported in the news
- Years later, a photo was made available
- The US had diplomatic representation in Paris, and yet they didn't compete for the "heavier than air" prize Santos-Dumont won.
- It was a glider, with no wheels, that relied on a catapult
- In 1904 they invited 4 reporters to witness a flight, but it didn't happen
- The US army declined to buy it, because they didn't see anything fly (and, remember, the Wright brothers were hoping to make money out of it)
In December 17, 1951, The New York Times
telegrafist Alpheus Drinkwater [1875 - 1962]. He worked right by where the Wright brothers experimented.He was there on December 17, 1903. He said to the interviewer that they just glided, and that the first real flight only happened in May 6th, 1908.
The Wright brothers were pioneers, that's for sure, but they're largely an American myth, perpetuated and told endless times. The Wright brothers were really good at marketing themselves. It's like Bill Clinton's definition of how you define sex. How you define an independent flying machine is that it's something that can get off the ground, by its own means, and sustain flight. If you doubt me, visit any airport today.
But we all remember what we saw on TV on the 100 year anniversary of the Wright brother's invention: the Kitty Hawk replica landed in th
It's a generic term that tries to define the reality that there's not a clear cut line - when you look at the methods and problems from a "basic research" (as opposed to "clinical research") perspective - between "biological" and "medical" phenomena. It also refers to that kind of research, as opposed to medical-only research (for instance, a clinical trial of a new drug for the heart).
What a load of opinionated BS.
If you had done any readings in Mathematics as it applies to Biology, you wouldn't post such stuff.
It's true what you say about physicians. It is kind of strange...Then again, Einstein believed in God. There needs to be more of a Biological culture in the medical field. OTOH, in the end, Medicine is about treating patients, in the end (regardless if the physician only does research - even with computers).
Pathology is not irrelevant. For Biologists, it is sometimes as if organisms function at their prime, at all times, and that's a very theoretical and unrealistic viewpoint, that often leads to oversimplifications. In fact, the lack of study of Pathology in Biology leads to a lack of insight in the understanding of major phenomenons, like host-parasite interactions, aging, mutations, etc.
I guess inserting a few words that sound like your're a real genius, like "immunological system" will promote their anti-virus software, won't it? Even though it doesn't resemble it in the least.
Who are these guys kidding? They're part of the problem. They make obscene ammounts of money on a diseased platform (now there's a good biological metaphor).
If they were really up to it, they'd be working on cutting-edge stuff like capabilities. Even relatively simple measures like those taken by some UNIXes have succeeded more than that Windows PR BS. Of course, that would mean ditching Windows, and that's a real stupid choice for the money-makers/user-pimps.
Well, to defend the honour of the OpenSSH, let's get on with this off-topic thread...
To sum it up, the OP is a TROLL; I counted at least
12 reports where OpenSSH was not even mentioned, let alone OpenBSD; and in fact, most of them refered to OpenSSL, like you said (and I'm not going throught the TROLL's whole list).
It's the oldest argument in the FreeBSD vs. Linux game: I like the consistency
Let me say a few words about consistency:
Some software developers complain (I don't need to post URLs, you'll find it if you google) about GCC, glibc and library developers, even kernel hackers, who every now and again break existing software, or change interfaces on GNU/Linux. Just this week I saw a ML compiler that ceased to work properly under the new 2.6 kernel.
I've read a presentation about kernel development by an IBM guy whose philosophy was: "submit code first, fix it later."
This is just crazy. Even Linux vendors complain.
If you want to build a business that lasts, you have to be able to rely on consistency. I keep having trouble on OpenBSD trying to compile software that "was written for Linux." I mean, what's up with that? Write for UNIX. On that note, about consistency being an important requirement for a solid business, this interview with Joel Spolsky has some nice thoughts about it. He mentions a firm from Canada, "incredibly profitable" - he says - whose specialty is supporting VAX!
Now, it maybe that the Microsoft approach of breaking things to sell you a solution is a good way to make money. However, some industries just can't fucntion that way. I'm thinking here, e.g., banking, medical, aviation, etc. So consistency is a real problem and a big issue.
check out the reasons why GNU su doesn't restrict use to members of the wheel group some time
:-)
Oh, yeah! That makes for good reading fun! I remember that!
Now that there is a push to support binary updates, my last major complaint has been addressed.
:https://bsdupdates.com/>
You mean officially? Because binary updates are already available:
http://www.daemonology.net/freebsd-update/
Check out this interview with Bill Joy ("The Joy of UNIX") on Linux Magazine:
http://www.linux-mag.com/content/view/336/2260/
Which pretty much sums it up for that specific point you inquired about.
I remeber reading on openbsd@misc (or was it on FreeBSD's mailing list?) that they wouldn't even touch ReiserFS, because they consider the code a big mess.
Why did you leave out Debian's dpkg, which the GP mentioned? It's been doing everything you describe for at least 6 years.
Whenever you compare FreeBSD to Debian, there are interesting lessons to be learned. The facts speak for themsleves (their respective track-records.)
You can't really claim dpkg is "perfect", because in order for apt-get to work as good as the competition you have to factor in the simple fact that the competition is always more up-to-date in release cycles and in delivering current relases than Debian. It got to be so pathetic that people went off and forked it, creating a company (Ubuntu).
Intrinsic to Debian's package management is the software-engineering process that goes with it. It means reading that hideous documentation of theirs, along with prompting a legion of developers to get over their tendency to "commit bikesheds" and to package and test software within a reasonable date. Arguing that "they're volunteers" is no excuse, because on the BSD camp everybody's a volunteer, too. And yet they manage to deliver protocols (e.g. OpenSSH), kernel, and userland software, whereas "Linux" developers are strictly speaking, kernel hackers (with huge money pouring from the industry).
So Debian has gone down in history as a lesson to be learned in free software projects: 1) _competent_ developer resources are not abundant; 2) automate as much as possible, do not rely on humans. The serious shortcomings from which they suffer - I think you'll not dispute that - is in the software engineering process. And that is a direct consequence of the package-management technology. Why? Because you rely on managing humans, instead of managing software> None of which you can fire, because they aren't on your payroll.
Debian has gone from, IIRC:
~3000 packages (slink)
~8000 " (potato)
~12000 " (woody)
The delay in releasing has gone up with the number of packages. I predict it'll continue to do so. It's already beyond the DPL's capability to coordinate releases. Or maybe not, but only because Ubuntu people are working on real jobs...
When you write about "dependency tracking systems" you show you do not even understand UNIX makefiles.
You might say FreeBSD's solution is worst, because it relies on source files. But in fact that's: 1) not entirely true, because bigger stuff is "packaged"; 2) source files - provided you take care to program according to POSIX standards, something some Linux programmers don't do - are highly portable among UNIXes. This ensures the wealth of software FreeBSD has, which is comparable to Debian's in sheer numbers.
You post here assuming no one's used Debian, or that we're all clueless newbies.