'The Matrix' portrays as heroes those who ignore law enforcement, especially with respect to computer crime. The owners should be thrilled that people are practising the Matrix ethos in real life, instead of getting all Agent Smith about it.
Re:ESR just couldn't resist...
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 1
If it didn't bother you then you wouldn't have complained about it.
I didn't. I just doubted whether it was helpful to shoehorn the debate into this legal submission. You were the one getting all emotional and defensive about it.
Re:ESR just couldn't resist...
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 1
I am aware that the popular usage of 'hacker' differs from its technical, historical usage. This bothers me about as much as people talking about pencil 'lead' instead of 'graphite-clay composite'.
ESR just couldn't resist...
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
[4] We use the term "hacker" in its correct and original sense here, as an enthusiast or artist of computer programming.
'Hacker' is pejorative for many concerned with law enforcement, who do not care about ESR's 'hacker/cracker' agenda. Why not just call them 'contributors' or 'authors'? I don't see references to 'Micro$oft' or even 'Unices' in the document.
Either way, if you can't tell, I don't feel like getting into a debate on specifics unless the person is willing to actually consider what I say. Some people argue because they think they are right. Others are almost positive they are right, but willing to concede they may misunderstand and be wrong. That's my position, and I only want to discuss with others of a similar mind.
Well let's test this claim to openmindedness:
If Jesus were to appear and perform a miracle in front of me, I would abandon atheism. What evidence would persuade you to abandon your position?
Straw Man and Ad Hominem arguments should always be avoided. That's all I was trying to illustrate.
Do you even know what a strawman argument is? Here is an example:
That article could have just as easily said,
"Believers in Atheism know that evolution has already been proven by science. Even those who search for an explanation other than evolution will, in fact, die and cease to exist and their attempts to find 'God' will be futile."
With reasoning like that, some evolutionists also find it easy to dismiss evidence.
No, your point is good. But as they say, it's the one who is making an extraordinary claim that needs extraordinary evidence.
Atheism makes no claims at all. It just rejects the various god-claims of others, due to lack of evidence.
Atheism is by far the minority the world over, so I consider the burden of proof with them.
You misunderstand how logical argument works. The person making the claim has to prove it. It may make you feel comfortable to believe what you think the majority believes, but this has no bearing on the truth or falsity of a proposition.
I've seen ample evidence to prove God exists. I'd have to go through all that with you step by step - and you'd have to demonstrate to me each one how that particular evidence is in fact no proof of God. An arduous task no doubt.
Extraordinary claim is that there is no God. Ordinary claim is that there is. This is all a matter of bias - everything you say can equally be reversed against your own position, so you should be careful what arguments you present.
So if I claim that Santa Claus exists, the burden of proof is on you to disprove it?
Let me guess - your god is special.
I'm more Christian than chemist, I'm afraid, but I'd thought that Miller's experiments were among the easier targets for creationists to dismiss
The conclusion of your linked article:
"Believers in Christ know that the Creator of life has already been revealed through the Bible. Even those who search for a creator other than God will, in fact, have the Creator of life revealed to them in the near future, for every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
With reasoning like this, creationists find it easy to dismiss any evidence.
The arms tearing off thing sounds pretty cool, but I'd be satisfied with finding out, say, just how fast a person could run 100m without interference from prudish doping officials.
I don't know about GM people, but an obvious solution to doping in the Olympics is to hold a parallel competition where contestants are allowed to use any drugs they like without censure.
The study pointed out that if a developer wanted to create free or open source software which he or she wanted to use in proprietary software without that proprietary software itself coming under the GPL, they could use the Library GPL, which was specifically designed for this purpose.
The developer, as the copyright holder, is free to release their code under whatever restrictive licences they like, even if it was previously released under GPL.
The book starts off with three chapters of sage advice about the tools and process of profiling/tuning. Before you spend any time profiling, you have to have a process and a goal. Without setting goals, the tuning process will never end and it will likely never be successful.
No, you have to profile first. Profiling will tell you whether there is even any point in tuning, and, if so, what goals are reasonable.
15 A new-expression that creates an object of type T initializes that object as follows:
If the new-initializer is omitted:
If T is a (possibly cv-qualified) non-POD class type (or array thereof), the object is default-initialized (8.5) If T is a const-qualified type, the underlying class type shall have a user-declared default constructor.
Otherwise, the object created has indeterminate value.
Slashdot Mirror
$>grep '(C) SCO' /usr/src/linux -r
grep: -r: No such file or directory
'The Matrix' portrays as heroes those who ignore law enforcement, especially with respect to computer crime. The owners should be thrilled that people are practising the Matrix ethos in real life, instead of getting all Agent Smith about it.
If it didn't bother you then you wouldn't have complained about it.
I didn't. I just doubted whether it was helpful to shoehorn the debate into this legal submission. You were the one getting all emotional and defensive about it.
I am aware that the popular usage of 'hacker' differs from its technical, historical usage. This bothers me about as much as people talking about pencil 'lead' instead of 'graphite-clay composite'.
[4] We use the term "hacker" in its correct and original sense here, as an enthusiast or artist of computer programming.
'Hacker' is pejorative for many concerned with law enforcement, who do not care about ESR's 'hacker/cracker' agenda. Why not just call them 'contributors' or 'authors'? I don't see references to 'Micro$oft' or even 'Unices' in the document.
Either way, if you can't tell, I don't feel like getting into a debate on specifics unless the person is willing to actually consider what I say. Some people argue because they think they are right. Others are almost positive they are right, but willing to concede they may misunderstand and be wrong. That's my position, and I only want to discuss with others of a similar mind.
Well let's test this claim to openmindedness:
If Jesus were to appear and perform a miracle in front of me, I would abandon atheism. What evidence would persuade you to abandon your position?
Straw Man and Ad Hominem arguments should always be avoided. That's all I was trying to illustrate.
Do you even know what a strawman argument is? Here is an example:
That article could have just as easily said,
"Believers in Atheism know that evolution has already been proven by science. Even those who search for an explanation other than evolution will, in fact, die and cease to exist and their attempts to find 'God' will be futile."
With reasoning like that, some evolutionists also find it easy to dismiss evidence.
Look familiar?
That article could have just as easily said,
But it didn't. Evolutionists don't argue like that. They don't need to, because they have evidence. That's the point.
No, your point is good. But as they say, it's the one who is making an extraordinary claim that needs extraordinary evidence.
Atheism makes no claims at all. It just rejects the various god-claims of others, due to lack of evidence.
Atheism is by far the minority the world over, so I consider the burden of proof with them.
You misunderstand how logical argument works. The person making the claim has to prove it. It may make you feel comfortable to believe what you think the majority believes, but this has no bearing on the truth or falsity of a proposition.
I've seen ample evidence to prove God exists. I'd have to go through all that with you step by step - and you'd have to demonstrate to me each one how that particular evidence is in fact no proof of God. An arduous task no doubt.
Post your single strongest piece of evidence.
As a student of Biological Anthropology
...you aren't qualified to debunk a chemistry experiment.
Extraordinary claim is that there is no God. Ordinary claim is that there is. This is all a matter of bias - everything you say can equally be reversed against your own position, so you should be careful what arguments you present.
So if I claim that Santa Claus exists, the burden of proof is on you to disprove it?
Let me guess - your god is special.
I'm more Christian than chemist, I'm afraid, but I'd thought that Miller's experiments were among the easier targets for creationists to dismiss
The conclusion of your linked article:
"Believers in Christ know that the Creator of life has already been revealed through the Bible. Even those who search for a creator other than God will, in fact, have the Creator of life revealed to them in the near future, for every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
With reasoning like this, creationists find it easy to dismiss any evidence.
Certainly, if you make up your own definitions, then atheism may be a religion.
Another christian who speaks for jesus
I know I can change this to eliminate the empty ';', but I choose not to, because I feel that the conditional reads better as a positive statement.
At the cost of failing to compile
Soyuz 1, burned up on reentry
Nitpick: Crashed due to parachute failure, but didn't burn up. (Still not great for the occupant).
One catastrophe involving loss of ground crew on an appalling scale (Nedelin)
This accident predates the Soyuz program by several years.
Worcestershire boasts Bell End. Note also 'Lickey End' on same map.
Satan was Jesus's father
Don't let the title foo you
I think you mean 'don't let the title bar you'No - I'm in the UK and cable/satellite-impaired.
The arms tearing off thing sounds pretty cool, but I'd be satisfied with finding out, say, just how fast a person could run 100m without interference from prudish doping officials.
I don't know about GM people, but an obvious solution to doping in the Olympics is to hold a parallel competition where contestants are allowed to use any drugs they like without censure.
The study pointed out that if a developer wanted to create free or open source software which he or she wanted to use in proprietary software without that proprietary software itself coming under the GPL, they could use the Library GPL, which was specifically designed for this purpose.
The developer, as the copyright holder, is free to release their code under whatever restrictive licences they like, even if it was previously released under GPL.
The book starts off with three chapters of sage advice about the tools and process of profiling/tuning. Before you spend any time profiling, you have to have a process and a goal. Without setting goals, the tuning process will never end and it will likely never be successful.
No, you have to profile first. Profiling will tell you whether there is even any point in tuning, and, if so, what goals are reasonable.
Could any of the 'not easy to install' posters please elaborate? Is a curses-style interface really so difficult?
To me, 'not easy to install' means something like a GUI where you can't navigate to the list of packages because your mouse is unsupported.
15 A new-expression that creates an object of type T initializes that object as follows:
If the new-initializer is omitted:
If T is a (possibly cv-qualified) non-POD class type (or array thereof), the object is default-initialized (8.5) If T is a const-qualified type, the underlying class type shall have a user-declared default constructor.
Otherwise, the object created has indeterminate value.
This is one of the 'otherwises'.