One example of fundamentalists who weren't necessarily religiously motivated were the Nazis. They were quite violence, and not really driven by religion. There's also many other situations. Slaves that were held by white americans, while, it may not have been so violent, was definitely a situation of people who thought they should control others, and that the others had no rights.
You must not be where I'm from. In Ottawa Canada, they show slideshow trivia and local ads up until the scheduled movie start time. At which point, they start with 20 minutes of live action commercials. This is followed by the start of the actual movie. The problem is, is that you could show up 20 minutes late, just for the start of the movie, but then you are stuck with really bad seats. Most of the time, you have to show up a half hour before the show, just to get goo seats, so you end up watching 50 minutes of advertisements and trivia.
I'm glad someone brought up the topic of commercials. When I was younger, they only showed movie previews. Now they're showing car commercials, as well as many other types of commercials. They also go on for about 20 minutes. They used to last about 5 minutes. So, the tickets cost more, the snacks cost more, and we have to sit through 20 minutes of commercials. At least at home 4 or more people can all see the movie for $2, and we don't have to watch commercials, or pay high prices for snacks.
I understand the third party implications with open sourcing it, but complexity? They've got to be kidding. There's office suites, entire operating systems, databases, and tons of other stuff that's probably way more complicated then their mail client. I think it's probably just that their code is so bad, that it's shameful for them to release it to the public.
I find that relying on computers to tell you the shortest route is generally a bad idea. The only good experience of this ive seen is our local bus system (OC Transpo) trip planner. It only works because it knows exactly where the busses are going, and how long it will take to get there. The graph is much less complicated. With the road system, you have to take into account speed limits, traffic lights, no left turn times, and a myriad of other factors. Most of the time, it's just easier to look at the map, and figure out your own route. Or talk to someone who's made the trip before.
I've had one too many webmail clients go bad on me to start using GMail. Sure they got a nice interface, and give you lots of free space, but do I really trust them. At some point, they will cut down on free features, and start charging for anything useful. It happend at yahoo, it happened at msn, it has happened at many other webmail sites i've had. What makes people think that google is any different. I'm just paying for hosting now, and i bought a domain name. I get webmail that way. At least that way, I'm pretty sure that I won't lose features, or have to change my email address ever again.
Everyone says Google maps is so good. Well the clicky interface is nice, but their maps have so much less detail than mapquest that it just really sucks. Anything less than the lowest zoom level, and you see about 3 street names, while, Mapquest show's tons of street names. Making it easy to tell where you are looking at. Google has these big fat roads. Maybe its just me, but I hate the way it looks.
Just about all the Pay-as-you-go phones come without a contract. That's why they're so popular with teens. Teens can't sign contracts, but they can get pay-as-you-go phones, because you buy the phone, and pay for the minutes as you use them. No contract necessary.
Windows, by and large, are not sold to you by hammer manufacturers. When it's easy (relatively speaking) to make a hammer that can cause physical damage to a window, it is not a case of the hammers being destructive in and of itself, but the hammer providing a means of damaging your window. Even more, the material possesions contained behind the window are even more valuable than the window.
But what about when they break into my car, and steal stuff out of it. Maybe important documents that allow them to assume my identity. I still have the car, but I'm at a great loss. Ford didn't tell me to put that stuff in my car. Are they responsible for it? Software usually doesn't damage hardware. Even in mallicious software. Making hardware that is designed to run software that allow that software to destroy it is probably a worse thing. It's like building cars with self destruct buttons. You're right, software could be less vulnerable. But it couldn't be invulnerable. As long as the possibility exists that the software could be exploited, should the software maker be responsible for all flaws found in the system? The fact that an operating system will run any program you tell it to means that no operating system could ever be released, because it could never be completely secure.
Yes, but very seldomly (Never??) do flaws in off the shelf software result in death. Security holes would be more like suing Honda because they didn't provide adequate locks, and someone broke into your car. Car door locks are easily broken, and alarms aren't standard. Even if you have an alarm, they are easily disabled. So, if Honda isn't responsible when your car gets broken into, than microsoft et al aren't responsible when your computer gets broken into.
Should I be able to sue Ford if my car gets stolen? obviously there are tons of security holes in cars, as they get stolen all the time. In fact, cars are so easy to steal, that there's a whole market built up around building alarms, and other gadgets associated with making your car harder to steal. Yet people still get their cars stolen. Even with alarms and clubs on the steering wheels. Seems like the same problem with software to me. You can't sue Ford because someone can steal your car, and run over you with it. You can't sue the builder of your house because someone can break in and steal all your possessions, you can't sue microsoft, because someone can break into your computer, and steal or destroy all your data. And before you start talking about taking necessary precautions, do you have any idea how easy it is to steal cars, break into houses, and take wallets out of back pockets? I think we could start a major class action lawsuit again Levi's.
But now we get to the question, is drawing something exactly as we see it, or copying other people's work actually art? Most people who could type could probably copy a program, having the source code available. It's the actual creative process that is what we call art. People who can draw disney cartoons are not artists, the people who originally came up with the characters are. In the same way, I've met a lot of people who know a fair bit about programming, but can't even come close to making something original with it. They have trouble programming something they've never programmed before. I guess all those saying that science works the same way are right. I did really good in university chemistry. I don't know if i'd have what it takes to come up with new compounds that did really cool things.
I don't think that they are trying to pigeonhole it just for the sake of it. I think what people want to know is, Can you teach someone to hack. Most things in science can be taught. Most things in art cannot. No matter how hard I try, I can't draw, No matter how much I practice, I'm still not as good as those who can draw. With science, if I study hard enough, I can achieve a good amount of knowledge, and become good at science related things. With programming, can you teach someone to be a good programmer, or is it something that requires an innate ability?
I don't think a lot of people here quite understand what the new version of GPL is all about. They aren't saying that if you use GPL'd stuff to host your website, then you must release all the code for your website. What they are saying is that if you modify GPL'd software, and make your website available to the public, then you must release the source code of whatever programs you have modified. If someone take a GPL'd office suite, modifies it so it runs in a web interface, and lets the public use it, then technically, they aren't releasing binaries. So, they are modifying the source code, the public is getting to use that source code, but they aren't releasing the binaries. Just because you GPL software, doesn't mean the code that you write that's interpreted by the GPL software must be released. Otherwise, everything compiled with GCC would have to be open source.
I've used 1.1 for a lot of things, and compared to the version of office that I was using at the time (2000 I think), it was vastly superior. You could actually type in everything. Word only allowed my to do symbols and brackets by clicking on Icons. OO.o also provided icons. Learning what to type to get it to display right can be a little hard at first, but once you learn, it's so much faster than clicking on icons. MS, by trying to make it easier to use, succeeded, by made it take forever to do simple equations. I haven't used the 2.0 equation editor, as I'm not in school anymore, but I imagine that its probably better than the old one.
I'm currently running linux on a P2, 266. While it is kind of slow, throw away kde, use a lighter desktop, and it runs fine. The only problem is that applications start a little slowly, but once they are up, they run fine. I'd rather not spend money on a new computer every year, just so everything can happen lightning fast.
The mass market appeal might actually make them cheaper to give to those in need. I'd pay $200 for a laptop if it meant that another one went to someone who could not afford it. 500 MHz is faster than my machine at home, give it a good chunk of ram, and it would probably make a fairly good laptop. It would be at least good enough for typing documents, and checking email.
The question is, if you give them a laptop, and they trade it for food, maybe you should have just given them food in the first place. There's a lot of people trying to deliver computers to the third world. While I understand their good intentions, I think they are going about it all wrong. Give people the schooling and food they need, and jobs to work at, and they will be much better off. in 1975, nobody had a computer at home, and yet, we all did fairly well, in developed nations. What makes these people think that third world countries need everyone to have computers, when only 30 years ago, nobody even would have dreamed of having one at home.
Last time I checked, a core install of windows would only play wmf,old avis, and maybe a couple other formats. Linux core installs usually place xvid, divx, omg, and about 52 other formats right out of the box. If your soundcard isn't installed correctly, that's not for the desktop to figure out, that should have been done when the os was installed. No matter which desktop you run under, if you soundcard doesn't work, then it won't work. Improving the desktop can't help that.
I like to experiment with software a lot. I end up installing lots and lots of software on my machine. I find that windows always ends up getting slower and slower with the amount of software that gets installed. The registry ends up getting really bloated when you start to install lots of applications, and is just about impossible to clean. Linux on the other hand, doesn't slow down that much from installing other apps. The config for each app is kept in its own space, and is easily removed. I can even install apps in my own user space, without affecting the core system whatsoever. There are a lot of linux apps that make it act weird, but they are a lot easier to get rid of than windows apps, which fill up the registry, and insist on putting files in system directories.
You really should read, "A Modest Proposal", but Jonathon Swift. On another note, why shouldn't we put dead bodies to good use, or at least make it an option which people can write into their will. I guess you could write it in, but would your family accept that? There was an article about a guy who made biodeisel from dead cats. I'm pretty sure we could use just about any organic matter to produce bio deisel. Do we already have enough dead stuff being produced to replace gasoline in our cars? Remember on WaterWorld, where the dead were used, instead of just being left to rot. I think that at some point, once we reach about 10 billion people, we will have to start to find a better use for human remains than filling holes in the ground.
The logical fallacy you seem to be missing is that humans are just a bunch of living cells. Mind you, we are quite a large bunch of living cells, that are able to perform some pretty good tricks. When you look at the lump of cells that has the potential to become a human, then you may as well be talking about a human. However, if the embryos are going to be thrown away, they will never become a human, and therefore it's probably better to use them in research.
How do you really reverse someone having to spend 20 years in an 8x10 cell. You obviously can't reverse death, but it would also be quite hard to give someone 20 years of their life back. The best you could do, is allow them to spend the rest of their life outside of jail. However, life after 20 years in jail tends to be a lot worse than life for those who haven't been in jail.
Slashdot Mirror
And to think, they are thinking of excommuncating politicians for passing anti-catholic laws such as gay marriage and abortion.
One example of fundamentalists who weren't necessarily religiously motivated were the Nazis. They were quite violence, and not really driven by religion. There's also many other situations. Slaves that were held by white americans, while, it may not have been so violent, was definitely a situation of people who thought they should control others, and that the others had no rights.
But do you still run into the problem that if you show up at the last moment, all the good seats are taken?
You must not be where I'm from. In Ottawa Canada, they show slideshow trivia and local ads up until the scheduled movie start time. At which point, they start with 20 minutes of live action commercials. This is followed by the start of the actual movie. The problem is, is that you could show up 20 minutes late, just for the start of the movie, but then you are stuck with really bad seats. Most of the time, you have to show up a half hour before the show, just to get goo seats, so you end up watching 50 minutes of advertisements and trivia.
I'm glad someone brought up the topic of commercials. When I was younger, they only showed movie previews. Now they're showing car commercials, as well as many other types of commercials. They also go on for about 20 minutes. They used to last about 5 minutes. So, the tickets cost more, the snacks cost more, and we have to sit through 20 minutes of commercials. At least at home 4 or more people can all see the movie for $2, and we don't have to watch commercials, or pay high prices for snacks.
I understand the third party implications with open sourcing it, but complexity? They've got to be kidding. There's office suites, entire operating systems, databases, and tons of other stuff that's probably way more complicated then their mail client. I think it's probably just that their code is so bad, that it's shameful for them to release it to the public.
I find that relying on computers to tell you the shortest route is generally a bad idea. The only good experience of this ive seen is our local bus system (OC Transpo) trip planner. It only works because it knows exactly where the busses are going, and how long it will take to get there. The graph is much less complicated. With the road system, you have to take into account speed limits, traffic lights, no left turn times, and a myriad of other factors. Most of the time, it's just easier to look at the map, and figure out your own route. Or talk to someone who's made the trip before.
I've had one too many webmail clients go bad on me to start using GMail. Sure they got a nice interface, and give you lots of free space, but do I really trust them. At some point, they will cut down on free features, and start charging for anything useful. It happend at yahoo, it happened at msn, it has happened at many other webmail sites i've had. What makes people think that google is any different. I'm just paying for hosting now, and i bought a domain name. I get webmail that way. At least that way, I'm pretty sure that I won't lose features, or have to change my email address ever again.
Everyone says Google maps is so good. Well the clicky interface is nice, but their maps have so much less detail than mapquest that it just really sucks. Anything less than the lowest zoom level, and you see about 3 street names, while, Mapquest show's tons of street names. Making it easy to tell where you are looking at. Google has these big fat roads. Maybe its just me, but I hate the way it looks.
Just about all the Pay-as-you-go phones come without a contract. That's why they're so popular with teens. Teens can't sign contracts, but they can get pay-as-you-go phones, because you buy the phone, and pay for the minutes as you use them. No contract necessary.
Windows, by and large, are not sold to you by hammer manufacturers. When it's easy (relatively speaking) to make a hammer that can cause physical damage to a window, it is not a case of the hammers being destructive in and of itself, but the hammer providing a means of damaging your window. Even more, the material possesions contained behind the window are even more valuable than the window.
Do you see what I did there?
But what about when they break into my car, and steal stuff out of it. Maybe important documents that allow them to assume my identity. I still have the car, but I'm at a great loss. Ford didn't tell me to put that stuff in my car. Are they responsible for it? Software usually doesn't damage hardware. Even in mallicious software. Making hardware that is designed to run software that allow that software to destroy it is probably a worse thing. It's like building cars with self destruct buttons. You're right, software could be less vulnerable. But it couldn't be invulnerable. As long as the possibility exists that the software could be exploited, should the software maker be responsible for all flaws found in the system? The fact that an operating system will run any program you tell it to means that no operating system could ever be released, because it could never be completely secure.
Yes, but very seldomly (Never??) do flaws in off the shelf software result in death. Security holes would be more like suing Honda because they didn't provide adequate locks, and someone broke into your car. Car door locks are easily broken, and alarms aren't standard. Even if you have an alarm, they are easily disabled. So, if Honda isn't responsible when your car gets broken into, than microsoft et al aren't responsible when your computer gets broken into.
Should I be able to sue Ford if my car gets stolen? obviously there are tons of security holes in cars, as they get stolen all the time. In fact, cars are so easy to steal, that there's a whole market built up around building alarms, and other gadgets associated with making your car harder to steal. Yet people still get their cars stolen. Even with alarms and clubs on the steering wheels. Seems like the same problem with software to me. You can't sue Ford because someone can steal your car, and run over you with it. You can't sue the builder of your house because someone can break in and steal all your possessions, you can't sue microsoft, because someone can break into your computer, and steal or destroy all your data. And before you start talking about taking necessary precautions, do you have any idea how easy it is to steal cars, break into houses, and take wallets out of back pockets? I think we could start a major class action lawsuit again Levi's.
But now we get to the question, is drawing something exactly as we see it, or copying other people's work actually art? Most people who could type could probably copy a program, having the source code available. It's the actual creative process that is what we call art. People who can draw disney cartoons are not artists, the people who originally came up with the characters are. In the same way, I've met a lot of people who know a fair bit about programming, but can't even come close to making something original with it. They have trouble programming something they've never programmed before. I guess all those saying that science works the same way are right. I did really good in university chemistry. I don't know if i'd have what it takes to come up with new compounds that did really cool things.
I don't think that they are trying to pigeonhole it just for the sake of it. I think what people want to know is, Can you teach someone to hack. Most things in science can be taught. Most things in art cannot. No matter how hard I try, I can't draw, No matter how much I practice, I'm still not as good as those who can draw. With science, if I study hard enough, I can achieve a good amount of knowledge, and become good at science related things. With programming, can you teach someone to be a good programmer, or is it something that requires an innate ability?
I don't think a lot of people here quite understand what the new version of GPL is all about. They aren't saying that if you use GPL'd stuff to host your website, then you must release all the code for your website. What they are saying is that if you modify GPL'd software, and make your website available to the public, then you must release the source code of whatever programs you have modified. If someone take a GPL'd office suite, modifies it so it runs in a web interface, and lets the public use it, then technically, they aren't releasing binaries. So, they are modifying the source code, the public is getting to use that source code, but they aren't releasing the binaries. Just because you GPL software, doesn't mean the code that you write that's interpreted by the GPL software must be released. Otherwise, everything compiled with GCC would have to be open source.
I've used 1.1 for a lot of things, and compared to the version of office that I was using at the time (2000 I think), it was vastly superior. You could actually type in everything. Word only allowed my to do symbols and brackets by clicking on Icons. OO.o also provided icons. Learning what to type to get it to display right can be a little hard at first, but once you learn, it's so much faster than clicking on icons. MS, by trying to make it easier to use, succeeded, by made it take forever to do simple equations. I haven't used the 2.0 equation editor, as I'm not in school anymore, but I imagine that its probably better than the old one.
I'm currently running linux on a P2, 266. While it is kind of slow, throw away kde, use a lighter desktop, and it runs fine. The only problem is that applications start a little slowly, but once they are up, they run fine. I'd rather not spend money on a new computer every year, just so everything can happen lightning fast.
The mass market appeal might actually make them cheaper to give to those in need. I'd pay $200 for a laptop if it meant that another one went to someone who could not afford it. 500 MHz is faster than my machine at home, give it a good chunk of ram, and it would probably make a fairly good laptop. It would be at least good enough for typing documents, and checking email.
The question is, if you give them a laptop, and they trade it for food, maybe you should have just given them food in the first place. There's a lot of people trying to deliver computers to the third world. While I understand their good intentions, I think they are going about it all wrong. Give people the schooling and food they need, and jobs to work at, and they will be much better off. in 1975, nobody had a computer at home, and yet, we all did fairly well, in developed nations. What makes these people think that third world countries need everyone to have computers, when only 30 years ago, nobody even would have dreamed of having one at home.
Last time I checked, a core install of windows would only play wmf,old avis, and maybe a couple other formats. Linux core installs usually place xvid, divx, omg, and about 52 other formats right out of the box. If your soundcard isn't installed correctly, that's not for the desktop to figure out, that should have been done when the os was installed. No matter which desktop you run under, if you soundcard doesn't work, then it won't work. Improving the desktop can't help that.
I like to experiment with software a lot. I end up installing lots and lots of software on my machine. I find that windows always ends up getting slower and slower with the amount of software that gets installed. The registry ends up getting really bloated when you start to install lots of applications, and is just about impossible to clean. Linux on the other hand, doesn't slow down that much from installing other apps. The config for each app is kept in its own space, and is easily removed. I can even install apps in my own user space, without affecting the core system whatsoever. There are a lot of linux apps that make it act weird, but they are a lot easier to get rid of than windows apps, which fill up the registry, and insist on putting files in system directories.
You really should read, "A Modest Proposal", but Jonathon Swift. On another note, why shouldn't we put dead bodies to good use, or at least make it an option which people can write into their will. I guess you could write it in, but would your family accept that? There was an article about a guy who made biodeisel from dead cats. I'm pretty sure we could use just about any organic matter to produce bio deisel. Do we already have enough dead stuff being produced to replace gasoline in our cars? Remember on WaterWorld, where the dead were used, instead of just being left to rot. I think that at some point, once we reach about 10 billion people, we will have to start to find a better use for human remains than filling holes in the ground.
The logical fallacy you seem to be missing is that humans are just a bunch of living cells. Mind you, we are quite a large bunch of living cells, that are able to perform some pretty good tricks. When you look at the lump of cells that has the potential to become a human, then you may as well be talking about a human. However, if the embryos are going to be thrown away, they will never become a human, and therefore it's probably better to use them in research.
How do you really reverse someone having to spend 20 years in an 8x10 cell. You obviously can't reverse death, but it would also be quite hard to give someone 20 years of their life back. The best you could do, is allow them to spend the rest of their life outside of jail. However, life after 20 years in jail tends to be a lot worse than life for those who haven't been in jail.