Sorry, man, but there won't be more than a dozen readers who will get the allusion to Sirens of Titan (Vonnegut), and most of us won't have mod points today. Good one, though.
IANAL. This is probably an example of the "I've got more lawyers than you do" tactic. A disreputable tactic, when used by someone you disagree with; a fun one, when used by someone you agree with. While Canopy is trying to fight off the discovery requests, they'll get pummeled with more supoenas, say for affidavits for all the principles. And if the discovery requests stand, well, while Canopy's trying to collect all those documents, IBM might file for a gag order against McBride's "open letters," etc. Just keep flooding Canopy's lawyers until they cry uncle, or Canopy goes under, or SCO's stock falls far enough that canopy is forced to accept a pittance as IBM's takeover offer. (Or until MS buys them out, at which point WWIII: The Lawyer Edition begins).
If you found Star-Trek retarded, you probably found Homer's Odyssey retarded as well; they are both just adventure stories.
If you can place Star Trek - Star Trek! - and the Odyssey in this kind of a rhetorical structure, you obviously haven't read the Odyssey in the original. The Odyssey is to Star Trek what an X-15 is to a paper airplane.
And I'm saying this as someone who 1. still watches *Enterprise*, for god's sake, and 2. has read Homer in the original.
In other words, if you make up your own straw man with all the characteristics of a religion and call it by your own special name, it can be shown to be a religion. As I said to another posting in this thread, read Popper. Then you'll be in a better position to make this argument.
Science itself is qualitatively different from religion. Yes, some scientists make statements which violate the logic of scientific practice, but that does not make those statements "science."
I'd also suggest that you read up on the history and meaning of the word "fundamentalist." A fundamentalism requires a text canon which can be elevated to the position of absolute authority. Because science deals only with that which is falsifiable, it must reject the idea of an absolute authority, other than the authority of observation itself (if I see it happen, the I know it happened). Fundamentalisms tend to be definable in that their text canons are accepted even when they are at variance to observation.
Or as I have often put it, science is a religion. It attempts to explain our world and justify our actions based on that explanation. It's not pure empirical observation and recording, if it ever was (remember that most of the first true scientists in the Western world were monks)
I think Hippocrates and Aristotle would be quite astounded to hear you calling them monks.
Read some Popper and then get back to us. The limitations of individual studies cannot be generalized to the statement that "science is a religion." Scientific knowledge is about falsifiable statements, things that can be disproven. Religion is about non-falsifiable "knowledge" - things that cannot be proven or disproven, ever, but must be accepted or rejected on their own terms.
In one of his own introductions, or memoirs, or what have you, he wrote that the whole theocratic takeover thing was so depressing to him that he could never bring himself to write it, so he just left a huge hole in his Future History where it should have been.
You do remember that there's a lot in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" about group marriage? I just read past the group marrige/constant sex stuff; it's much better reading his take on religion, or politics (though I'm a lot further to the left than he was), or friendship.
I wouldn't describe hetairai that way (educated Greek "companions"). On the other hand, the "companions" in Firefly had almost exactly the social status that first hetairai did have - and the word translates literally as "companions."
Lucius Accius. Who was quoted by Caligula, not quoting Caligula: Accius died in 86 bc, while Emperor Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus "Caligula" was born in ad 12. Lucius is a praenomen - a first name. Calling someone "Lucius" would be like calling the president of the United States "George" - noone is likely to figure out which "George" you mean - Lucius Iulius Caesar, Lucius Cornelius Lentulus?
Now THAT'S a good argument. Only problem with this format is that it often takes three or four rounds of miscommunication to get to the meat of the issue.
Nope, doesn't work that way. Not only is it wrong to say that a
thread is over when Godwin's Law is invoked anyway (Usenet threads
virtually always outlive their usefulness), but long ago a corollary to
the Law was proposed and accepted by Taki "Quirk" Kogama (quirk@swcp.com):
Quirk's Exception: Intentional invocation of this so-called
"Nazi Clause" is ineffectual.
The hardware implementation is partially proprietary in that it is backed by patents which IBM and Moto enforce. The same is true of P4. However the specs and ISA are published standards.
"Proprietary" and "published" are not mutually exclusive.
XServe? Are you kidding? For our purposes it is a toy.
So you should be calling up Apple and telling them you'd like to buy a more robust server with OS X. Remember, APPLE IS A HARDWARE COMPANY. They do not make OS X just to make your experience with IBM servers more pleasant. OS X is the hook to get you to buy their hardware.
What I said was that there was more to the proprietary/closed nature of the platform than just the processor. This does not mean that the processor is proprietary - though by a strict definition, it is proprietary, to the PowerPC group of IBM, Moto, and Apple, though it may be available as a COTS part - if Intel tried to set up their own PPC fab plant, they'd be sued, no? What I was saying, though, is that the PLATFORM cannot be replicated using entirely Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) Parts, the way that the Intel platform can. As you said, you'd need to reverse engineer the boot code, and possibly also reserve engineer parts of the OS to get it to run on non-Apple hardware. For the Wintel platform, the reverse engineering work has already been done, and there are already COTS BIOSes.
Apple is a HARDWARE company. If you want the Apple experience, you need to buy a Mac. If you were able to write code to get OS X to run on a non-Apple PPC, you'd probably have hardware that you'd need to write new drivers for, etc., and would have to write that code to the same quality as the existing Apple/Apple Partners' code to get the Apple experience. An Apple computer is not a build-it-yourself job like an Intel is.
If you want the closest thing to an Apple you can get with COTS parts, you should probably try to get Darwin+OpenStep running on that PPC970 blade system. After all, you hardly need the Aqua GUI for a data center. Or you can always buy an XServe.
Not exactly comforting, if you ask me! I expect air traffic controllers to know their systems and how to use them.
Then obviously you haven't been following the news.
Remember the PATCO debacle? Guess what? We could be seeing another round of the who-needs-experienced-ATCs? game.
Who cares? Jury trials only take place at the first level. This will be dealt with in appellate court, and there ain't no juries in appellate court.
Of course, SCO won't survive that long. I'm looking forward to the day IBM's army of lawyers finally throws 3500 motions at SCO the same day and SCO's lawyers ask for the expense money up front. I really am.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, man, but there won't be more than a dozen readers who will get the allusion to Sirens of Titan (Vonnegut), and most of us won't have mod points today. Good one, though.
A nice big Kuiper object crossing the Roche limit and getting partially captured would probably do it, no?
IANAL. This is probably an example of the "I've got more lawyers than you do" tactic. A disreputable tactic, when used by someone you disagree with; a fun one, when used by someone you agree with. While Canopy is trying to fight off the discovery requests, they'll get pummeled with more supoenas, say for affidavits for all the principles. And if the discovery requests stand, well, while Canopy's trying to collect all those documents, IBM might file for a gag order against McBride's "open letters," etc. Just keep flooding Canopy's lawyers until they cry uncle, or Canopy goes under, or SCO's stock falls far enough that canopy is forced to accept a pittance as IBM's takeover offer. (Or until MS buys them out, at which point WWIII: The Lawyer Edition begins).
If you found Star-Trek retarded, you probably found Homer's Odyssey retarded as well; they are both just adventure stories.
If you can place Star Trek - Star Trek! - and the Odyssey in this kind of a rhetorical structure, you obviously haven't read the Odyssey in the original. The Odyssey is to Star Trek what an X-15 is to a paper airplane.
And I'm saying this as someone who 1. still watches *Enterprise*, for god's sake, and 2. has read Homer in the original.
In other words, if you make up your own straw man with all the characteristics of a religion and call it by your own special name, it can be shown to be a religion. As I said to another posting in this thread, read Popper. Then you'll be in a better position to make this argument.
Science itself is qualitatively different from religion. Yes, some scientists make statements which violate the logic of scientific practice, but that does not make those statements "science."
I'd also suggest that you read up on the history and meaning of the word "fundamentalist." A fundamentalism requires a text canon which can be elevated to the position of absolute authority. Because science deals only with that which is falsifiable, it must reject the idea of an absolute authority, other than the authority of observation itself (if I see it happen, the I know it happened). Fundamentalisms tend to be definable in that their text canons are accepted even when they are at variance to observation.
Or as I have often put it, science is a religion. It attempts to explain our world and justify our actions based on that explanation. It's not pure empirical observation and recording, if it ever was (remember that most of the first true scientists in the Western world were monks)
I think Hippocrates and Aristotle would be quite astounded to hear you calling them monks.
Read some Popper and then get back to us. The limitations of individual studies cannot be generalized to the statement that "science is a religion." Scientific knowledge is about falsifiable statements, things that can be disproven. Religion is about non-falsifiable "knowledge" - things that cannot be proven or disproven, ever, but must be accepted or rejected on their own terms.
In one of his own introductions, or memoirs, or what have you, he wrote that the whole theocratic takeover thing was so depressing to him that he could never bring himself to write it, so he just left a huge hole in his Future History where it should have been.
You do remember that there's a lot in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" about group marriage? I just read past the group marrige/constant sex stuff; it's much better reading his take on religion, or politics (though I'm a lot further to the left than he was), or friendship.
Umm, basically it was Cowboy Bebop with live action toys, good looking people, and Joss Whedon attitude.
I wouldn't describe hetairai that way (educated Greek "companions"). On the other hand, the "companions" in Firefly had almost exactly the social status that first hetairai did have - and the word translates literally as "companions."
And if nothing is wrong why can't I edit the Slashdot home page?
You haven't figured out the proper exploit yet.
Rutan's got a good reputation, and it seems like he's ahead of the other contestants. For the moment, anyway.
Lucius Accius. Who was quoted by Caligula, not quoting Caligula: Accius died in 86 bc, while Emperor Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus "Caligula" was born in ad 12. Lucius is a praenomen - a first name. Calling someone "Lucius" would be like calling the president of the United States "George" - noone is likely to figure out which "George" you mean - Lucius Iulius Caesar, Lucius Cornelius Lentulus?
I don't remember what it's called, but something to the effect of "unauthorized access of a protected computer system".
He's responding to #6822356. But yes, there's a degree of trollishness there.
Now THAT'S a good argument. Only problem with this format is that it often takes three or four rounds of miscommunication to get to the meat of the issue.
Nope. L is for Law. But here're the links.
Jargon File Listing for Godwin's Law, and How to post about Nazis and get away with it - the Godwin's Law FAQ (quoted below).
6. "Hitler!" Ha! The thread is over!
Nope, doesn't work that way. Not only is it wrong to say that a thread is over when Godwin's Law is invoked anyway (Usenet threads virtually always outlive their usefulness), but long ago a corollary to the Law was proposed and accepted by Taki "Quirk" Kogama (quirk@swcp.com):
Quirk's Exception: Intentional invocation of this so-called "Nazi Clause" is ineffectual.
Sorry, folks. Nice try, though.
The hardware implementation is partially proprietary in that it is backed by patents which IBM and Moto enforce. The same is true of P4. However the specs and ISA are published standards.
"Proprietary" and "published" are not mutually exclusive.
XServe? Are you kidding? For our purposes it is a toy.
So you should be calling up Apple and telling them you'd like to buy a more robust server with OS X. Remember, APPLE IS A HARDWARE COMPANY. They do not make OS X just to make your experience with IBM servers more pleasant. OS X is the hook to get you to buy their hardware.
Cannot self-invoke Godwin's Law. RTFL.
What I said was that there was more to the proprietary/closed nature of the platform than just the processor. This does not mean that the processor is proprietary - though by a strict definition, it is proprietary, to the PowerPC group of IBM, Moto, and Apple, though it may be available as a COTS part - if Intel tried to set up their own PPC fab plant, they'd be sued, no? What I was saying, though, is that the PLATFORM cannot be replicated using entirely Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) Parts, the way that the Intel platform can. As you said, you'd need to reverse engineer the boot code, and possibly also reserve engineer parts of the OS to get it to run on non-Apple hardware. For the Wintel platform, the reverse engineering work has already been done, and there are already COTS BIOSes.
Apple is a HARDWARE company. If you want the Apple experience, you need to buy a Mac. If you were able to write code to get OS X to run on a non-Apple PPC, you'd probably have hardware that you'd need to write new drivers for, etc., and would have to write that code to the same quality as the existing Apple/Apple Partners' code to get the Apple experience. An Apple computer is not a build-it-yourself job like an Intel is.
If you want the closest thing to an Apple you can get with COTS parts, you should probably try to get Darwin+OpenStep running on that PPC970 blade system. After all, you hardly need the Aqua GUI for a data center. Or you can always buy an XServe.
Not exactly comforting, if you ask me! I expect air traffic controllers to know their systems and how to use them.
Then obviously you haven't been following the news. Remember the PATCO debacle? Guess what? We could be seeing another round of the who-needs-experienced-ATCs? game.
That there's more to the "proprietary"/"closed" nature of the Mac platform than just the processor, right?
Who cares? Jury trials only take place at the first level. This will be dealt with in appellate court, and there ain't no juries in appellate court.
Of course, SCO won't survive that long. I'm looking forward to the day IBM's army of lawyers finally throws 3500 motions at SCO the same day and SCO's lawyers ask for the expense money up front. I really am.
IANAL.
http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/apple/x11for macosx.html
Sun is the main investor in time and money behind OpenOffice. They're going after the IA32 market, not the PowerPC market.