Yup, that's gonna hurt Microsoft alright. Good job!
How do you know that this guy doesn't hack SoftImage or Maya for a living?
It's not likely, I admit, but it makes you wonder. If some vendor whose software relied on OpenGL dumped Windows support, Microsoft might well take notice.
What you refer to as "the US" or "US forces" was a group of people, and it was not entirely homogeneous. Some had good motives, some had bad motives, and most (I think) had mixed motives.
Trying to put the priorities of an inhomogeneous group of people in some kind of order isn't necessarily helpful, even if it is accurate at some level of abstraction.
In that case, why not have it rewritten to say what it means?
Because it was written by managers, duh.
If you are intent on "making a difference" with respect to managerial communications, you are more than welcome to calendar an interface session with your supervisor with a view to enhancing the vital strategic employer-employee partnerships and evolving organisational synergy.
The whole idea behind design patterns is that if something keeps turning up in your software designs, you should give it a name and try to pin it down semi-formally so you can talk about that thing independently of any specific application.
This sort of thing happens in mathematics, too. Abstract algebra, for example, is built on the idea of abstracting away the differences between, say, different "rings", so that you can talk (and prove properties of) all of them without referring to any specific ring. (Category theory is even moreso, but a discussion of this is beyond the scope of this message.)
I also am in support of a woman's choice, though I'll say that I believe that programs to reduce the demand will ultimately be more successful than demonstrations, riots, murders, and ban attempts from the pro-lifers.
I agree with that wholeheartedly. Even those who are "pro-choice" would agree (or at least reluctantly concede) that abortion, while being safe and legal, should also be rare.
What is the point of amateur radio when the Internet has connected most of the globe?
I don't know about in the US, but here in Australia, the amateur radio operators become the communications infrastructure during a civil emergency, such at times when telephone cables or electricity lines don't work, or when two bodies without a common communications infrastructure need to work together. This sort of thing.
I'm a member of our local zoo, and they have a low-tech solution which is just as effective: Key the ticket to your name, and present photo id along with your card when you enter. Theoretically you could fake an id, but theoretically you could fake a fingerprint, too.
I'm actually about half-way through Death Sentence at the moment.
The book is a crack-up from start to finish. There are no chapters, and it reads like one long rant. You should read this book if only for its historical importance: this book will help bring the art of the rant to serious non-fiction books where it belongs, instead of being confined to Usenet posts and blog entries.
Thousands of years of human history would seem to contradict this.
Let's see that quote again...
I would suggest faithless (because no one could truthfully commit such acts in the name of any God)
The weasel word here is "truthfully". It's related to the "one true Scotsman" fallacy, but it's also quite correct when you understand it the right way.
No well-adjusted person commits an atrocity just because they feel like it. They need a "good reason" to cover for the fact that they're doing something wrong.
In a Milgram-like situation, for example, they might be following orders or trying to please someone. That's a "good reason". Religion has been used as a "good reason" for all sorts of things, but only because the relevant churces had too much political influence.
Nowadays, the usual excuse is "freedom". What could be better than freedom? What, you don't want public transport officials taking nude x-rays of you? You mustn't like freedom! Because that's why we're doing it. Freedom!
I am sorry if this sounds condescending but the majority of them will think whatever their mosque imam tells them to think.
That is condescending. It's much more likely that the vast majority of them will barely think about it at all, much like what the average American or Briton thinks about third world poverty.
OK, I see your point. Let me backpedal for a moment...
The contention was "religion stifles advancement"
My contention is: "Politics stifles advancement."
I don't think it's valid to count the number of times that certain religions were responsible for stifling scientific advancement and conclude that a certain religion is worse for science than some other religion. It's mostly an accident of history that during the times and in the places where the greatest potential for scientific advancement was possible (and actual), Christian organisations and people have been in political power. As a result, you're focussing on the "Christian" part and not the "political power" part.
The subtext appears to be that Christianity is somehow more anti-science than other religions, but I don't believe this to be a valid conclusion.
I believe that the confusion (between "Christian" and "political") is Christianity's own fault. This is why I strongly believe in the separation of church and state. If you have a healthy separation, the church doesn't get blamed for the actions of the state.
Fortunately Christianity in the developed world (apart from America) rarely has this characteristic anymore due to increasing secularisation.
Perhaps that's the reason for the misunderstanding. I'm not from or in the USA, so I don't see Christianity as any kind of threat.
But even so, wouldn't you agree that we're in a time of scientific advancement that's greater than at any point in history previously? Especially in the USA? Even though the Religious Right appears to be in power? Yes, they're against stem cell research et al, but research in biology seems to be going on unhindered.
Somehow the Muslims in power were more able to tolerate the advance of science than the Christians in power during the same period.
...and Christians were more able to tolerate it in the following period. I fail to see your point.
And it still goes on; eggs, sperm, zygotes, blastoclysts and embryos with less nerve tissue than a per rat are claimed to have equal rights to born humans by the Roman Catholic Church.
Interestingly, most Roman Catholic politicians in the US seem to disagree, or at least not let it interfere with their policy-making. Try fitting that into your theory.
Jehovah's Witnesses oppose the transfusion of blood.
Only for themselves. They won't stop you getting a transfusion.
[...] of course there are Muslims and Hindus capable of equivalent stupidity, plus stuff like Mormons, Scientologists, etc., but Christianity seem to win the contest as 'religion most likely to stifle scientific advancement'.
That's only because Christianity is the biggest religion in your neighbourhood.
Your problem is that you can't see Sturgeon's Law underneath all of this. Basically, most people suck. Christians happen to be the largest group of people that you can see, so you point to them and say "they suck more than everyone else".
Slashdot Mirror
I'd love to see that name translated into Arabic.
How do you know that this guy doesn't hack SoftImage or Maya for a living?
It's not likely, I admit, but it makes you wonder. If some vendor whose software relied on OpenGL dumped Windows support, Microsoft might well take notice.
What you refer to as "the US" or "US forces" was a group of people, and it was not entirely homogeneous. Some had good motives, some had bad motives, and most (I think) had mixed motives.
Trying to put the priorities of an inhomogeneous group of people in some kind of order isn't necessarily helpful, even if it is accurate at some level of abstraction.
I don't think that PJ has been nominated yet, for example. Can you think of a non-programmer who has done more for software freedom lately?
Possibly Michel Rocard, I suppose...
I think the Republican position on voluntary euthanasia is probably a better example.
Because it was written by managers, duh.
If you are intent on "making a difference" with respect to managerial communications, you are more than welcome to calendar an interface session with your supervisor with a view to enhancing the vital strategic employer-employee partnerships and evolving organisational synergy.
I live in Australia, you insensitive clod! Lots of things are closed on Sundays.
I live in the Southern Hemisphere, you insensitive clod! It's the middle of Winter.
It's because I have kids, you insensitive clod!
Exactly. I'm glad someone said this first.
The whole idea behind design patterns is that if something keeps turning up in your software designs, you should give it a name and try to pin it down semi-formally so you can talk about that thing independently of any specific application.
This sort of thing happens in mathematics, too. Abstract algebra, for example, is built on the idea of abstracting away the differences between, say, different "rings", so that you can talk (and prove properties of) all of them without referring to any specific ring. (Category theory is even moreso, but a discussion of this is beyond the scope of this message.)
I think you meant to say "The Christian Right", not "The Christian faith". Some liberal Protestant denominations are almost love-ins these days.
I agree with that wholeheartedly. Even those who are "pro-choice" would agree (or at least reluctantly concede) that abortion, while being safe and legal, should also be rare.
Most Christians don't vote on only one issue. This is why there are so many Roman Catholics in the Democratic party.
It's also human arrogance of the highest order to presume that if there is a God, s/he would be the slightest bit interested in party politics.
Try changing frequencies.
I don't know about in the US, but here in Australia, the amateur radio operators become the communications infrastructure during a civil emergency, such at times when telephone cables or electricity lines don't work, or when two bodies without a common communications infrastructure need to work together. This sort of thing.
I agree.
I'm a member of our local zoo, and they have a low-tech solution which is just as effective: Key the ticket to your name, and present photo id along with your card when you enter. Theoretically you could fake an id, but theoretically you could fake a fingerprint, too.
Because we all know how well the US legal system works when it comes to domain disputes.
I'm actually about half-way through Death Sentence at the moment.
The book is a crack-up from start to finish. There are no chapters, and it reads like one long rant. You should read this book if only for its historical importance: this book will help bring the art of the rant to serious non-fiction books where it belongs, instead of being confined to Usenet posts and blog entries.
Let's see that quote again...
The weasel word here is "truthfully". It's related to the "one true Scotsman" fallacy, but it's also quite correct when you understand it the right way.
No well-adjusted person commits an atrocity just because they feel like it. They need a "good reason" to cover for the fact that they're doing something wrong.
In a Milgram-like situation, for example, they might be following orders or trying to please someone. That's a "good reason". Religion has been used as a "good reason" for all sorts of things, but only because the relevant churces had too much political influence.
Nowadays, the usual excuse is "freedom". What could be better than freedom? What, you don't want public transport officials taking nude x-rays of you? You mustn't like freedom! Because that's why we're doing it. Freedom!
Did that help?
And a cute trick that someone pointed out to me:
asdf() { setxkbmap dvorak; }
aoeu() { setxkbmap en_US; }
(This is the bash version, obviously.)
That is condescending. It's much more likely that the vast majority of them will barely think about it at all, much like what the average American or Briton thinks about third world poverty.
Total population? Sure! So that'd be two in China, one in India, and... uhm... about none in the USA.
When I was a CS postgrad, everyone in the department, both students and staff, was one of three things:
Some were all three.
OK, I see your point. Let me backpedal for a moment...
My contention is: "Politics stifles advancement."
I don't think it's valid to count the number of times that certain religions were responsible for stifling scientific advancement and conclude that a certain religion is worse for science than some other religion. It's mostly an accident of history that during the times and in the places where the greatest potential for scientific advancement was possible (and actual), Christian organisations and people have been in political power. As a result, you're focussing on the "Christian" part and not the "political power" part.
The subtext appears to be that Christianity is somehow more anti-science than other religions, but I don't believe this to be a valid conclusion.
I believe that the confusion (between "Christian" and "political") is Christianity's own fault. This is why I strongly believe in the separation of church and state. If you have a healthy separation, the church doesn't get blamed for the actions of the state.
Perhaps that's the reason for the misunderstanding. I'm not from or in the USA, so I don't see Christianity as any kind of threat.
But even so, wouldn't you agree that we're in a time of scientific advancement that's greater than at any point in history previously? Especially in the USA? Even though the Religious Right appears to be in power? Yes, they're against stem cell research et al, but research in biology seems to be going on unhindered.
I have no idea, but if it helps, most don't.
...and Christians were more able to tolerate it in the following period. I fail to see your point.
Interestingly, most Roman Catholic politicians in the US seem to disagree, or at least not let it interfere with their policy-making. Try fitting that into your theory.
Only for themselves. They won't stop you getting a transfusion.
That's only because Christianity is the biggest religion in your neighbourhood.
Your problem is that you can't see Sturgeon's Law underneath all of this. Basically, most people suck. Christians happen to be the largest group of people that you can see, so you point to them and say "they suck more than everyone else".