Actually it does not grate on me at all. Most spelling errors are not the result of ignorance, they are the result of not proofreading. And most of us do not believe Slashdot postings rate up there with college and business papers.
Look, everyone has something that annoys them. Apparently spelling gets to you and so you've become a spelling troll. Perhaps you should be pushing Slashdot to add a spellcheck feature similar to that found on most major forum systems nowdays.
"There are plenty of scientists who think otherwise. As my original port tried to convey, though, that sort of discussion doesn't happen on/. It's straw man central here..."
Really? I've never heard of any. I have heard of scientists that argue that creation can not be discounted. Evolution is not incompatible with creation.
There is an important distinction here, ID is not creation. Creation is a theory of how the Universe was initially formed, this question is up in the air. Even if the Big Bang is proven true, it does not discount the possibility of an Intelligence setting it into motion. Evolution on the other hand is a theory that takes place later in the timeline.
No, this is teaching non-science to science students. ID is a fine hypothesis, but no more. Evolution is a theory with evidence supporting it.
Creationism is considered loony because the proponents have picked random myths and chosen to believe them with no evidence. Further, they have chosen to cling to those myths in the face of contrary evidence time and time again. Galileo on the other hand observed physical evidence and developed a theory based upon it. That was one of those cases where creationists chose to cling to myths in the face of contrary evidence.
" But for now, the establishment clause (which essentially holds that government cannot establish an official religion)"
And if the government were to support or favor any religion they would have established a de facto official religion. Therefore it is impossible to be compliant with that law without a seperation of church and state.
It is called logic. Some of us prefer logic and fact to a faith-based life. Go figure.
Intelligent Design is NOT a theory with real merits. It is a hypothesis with equal logical potential to what is presently the most likely theory.
The difference being that there is a great deal of real evidence supporting Evolution and NO evidence supporting ID. In the world of science that is a relatively important distinction. So important, that without evidence, you can not call it science at all.
This is not an English class. How about not correcting anyone if their meaning is clear (hint, if you know how to correct them, their meaning was clear)?
ok, let me try to put this into context for you one last time.
I was responding to someone claiming that open source only required you distribute the original source code if you used that code in a project or wrote a derivative. I corrected them and advised that the GPL required your modifications be released as well.
The technical requirements on how you go about providing those changes are entirely beside the point.
What does the average home user have to do with anything? Since when is an exploit that only impacts home users significant?
Whether or not it is a 0-day exploit has nothing to do with the impact to home users or the severity of the exploit. You do know what a 0-day exploit is, right?
"The problem everyone is complaining about now is that Apple is not mounting a massive documentation effort to underline every change to the KHTML they forked, as well as how those changes relate to the modern KHTML and how to achieve effects similar to theirs without relying on any of the other Apple tech that Safari has been reworked to use."
If you define 'everyone' as the Slashdot crowd then yes. But that discussion started under the false impression that the KHTML developer post was complaining about Apple rather than users.
Granted, I read his post to be using the complaint about user misunderstanding as an excuse to vent frustration about the situation with Apple. But that is what I read between the lines, NOT what he said.
"The problem everyone is complaining about now is that Apple is not mounting a massive documentation effort to underline every change to the KHTML they forked"
At this point a massive documentation project might be required. In the beginning they could have just submitted the work to the KHTML guys as it was written and in context. The patches released in response to this post were the first in the last 2yrs.
Basically, Apple releases their changes, but there is no interchange (easy or otherwise). The closest thing to interchange occuring is that the KHTML guys can download the official release tarballs and try to figure out what is different and then why. This is especially sad because there are projects like GCC where Apple actively cooperates.
The real concern is that the average workstation needs to survive for about 5yrs. P3's will hit their end of life expectancy before that and you will no longer be able to get new replacement parts.
P.S. The stupidity part is not cooperating. If Apple cooperates they CONTINUE to benefit from open source KHTML development with minimal replication. As it is they do not benefit from the open development and testing and have to reinvent every wheel.
No, actually they are not. They are not cooperating with the community at all. That is kind of the point here.
"I have yet to hear that forking is explicitly forbidden in these licenses..."
It's not, but the forking is not what the KHTML guys are complaining about. They are complaining about users having the same misconception you did about Apple cooperating with them.
How about submitting bug and issue specific patches AS THEY WRITE THEM? You know, when committing the patch to the VCS just fire off an email with the diff to KHTML. A 100 line patch is pretty easy to track, the author can spot check it fairly effortlessly for incriminating comments.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that it wouldn't be cheap, in the past sony has not opened up the entire platform. AND, it would never be taken seriously.
Actually it does not grate on me at all. Most spelling errors are not the result of ignorance, they are the result of not proofreading. And most of us do not believe Slashdot postings rate up there with college and business papers.
Look, everyone has something that annoys them. Apparently spelling gets to you and so you've become a spelling troll. Perhaps you should be pushing Slashdot to add a spellcheck feature similar to that found on most major forum systems nowdays.
"There are plenty of scientists who think otherwise. As my original port tried to convey, though, that sort of discussion doesn't happen on /. It's straw man central here..."
Really? I've never heard of any. I have heard of scientists that argue that creation can not be discounted. Evolution is not incompatible with creation.
There is an important distinction here, ID is not creation. Creation is a theory of how the Universe was initially formed, this question is up in the air. Even if the Big Bang is proven true, it does not discount the possibility of an Intelligence setting it into motion. Evolution on the other hand is a theory that takes place later in the timeline.
"Isn't this just promoting an open mind?"
No, this is teaching non-science to science students. ID is a fine hypothesis, but no more. Evolution is a theory with evidence supporting it.
Creationism is considered loony because the proponents have picked random myths and chosen to believe them with no evidence. Further, they have chosen to cling to those myths in the face of contrary evidence time and time again. Galileo on the other hand observed physical evidence and developed a theory based upon it. That was one of those cases where creationists chose to cling to myths in the face of contrary evidence.
ID is a hypothesis with no evidence to support it. Evolution has a great deal of evidence to support it, that is why we call it a 'theory'.
Teaching a random hypothesis with no scientific basis is as pseudoscientific as you can get.
" But for now, the establishment clause (which essentially holds that government cannot establish an official religion)"
And if the government were to support or favor any religion they would have established a de facto official religion. Therefore it is impossible to be compliant with that law without a seperation of church and state.
It is called logic. Some of us prefer logic and fact to a faith-based life. Go figure.
Intelligent Design is NOT a theory with real merits. It is a hypothesis with equal logical potential to what is presently the most likely theory.
The difference being that there is a great deal of real evidence supporting Evolution and NO evidence supporting ID. In the world of science that is a relatively important distinction. So important, that without evidence, you can not call it science at all.
"attack on the *people* who believe it"
The people are the ones trying to get other theories taught as flawed.
"*scientific* idea"
Scientific ideas are testable and based upon evidence. There is no evidence to support this hypothesis.
This is not an English class. How about not correcting anyone if their meaning is clear (hint, if you know how to correct them, their meaning was clear)?
ok, let me try to put this into context for you one last time.
I was responding to someone claiming that open source only required you distribute the original source code if you used that code in a project or wrote a derivative. I corrected them and advised that the GPL required your modifications be released as well.
The technical requirements on how you go about providing those changes are entirely beside the point.
Claiming that a security hole is not a security hole simply because other security holes exists sounds a bit braindead to me.
Yeah, the primary point being that if you distribute a derivative copy of GPL'd code you must always provide the modifications.
What does the average home user have to do with anything? Since when is an exploit that only impacts home users significant?
Whether or not it is a 0-day exploit has nothing to do with the impact to home users or the severity of the exploit. You do know what a 0-day exploit is, right?
Too bad I was not commenting on the parent topic but rather a misconception held by a specific person that was topic independant.
Would you like fries with that?
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/5125
"The problem everyone is complaining about now is that Apple is not mounting a massive documentation effort to underline every change to the KHTML they forked, as well as how those changes relate to the modern KHTML and how to achieve effects similar to theirs without relying on any of the other Apple tech that Safari has been reworked to use."
If you define 'everyone' as the Slashdot crowd then yes. But that discussion started under the false impression that the KHTML developer post was complaining about Apple rather than users.
Granted, I read his post to be using the complaint about user misunderstanding as an excuse to vent frustration about the situation with Apple. But that is what I read between the lines, NOT what he said.
"The problem everyone is complaining about now is that Apple is not mounting a massive documentation effort to underline every change to the KHTML they forked"
At this point a massive documentation project might be required. In the beginning they could have just submitted the work to the KHTML guys as it was written and in context. The patches released in response to this post were the first in the last 2yrs.
Basically, Apple releases their changes, but there is no interchange (easy or otherwise). The closest thing to interchange occuring is that the KHTML guys can download the official release tarballs and try to figure out what is different and then why. This is especially sad because there are projects like GCC where Apple actively cooperates.
I do not use caps for clarity, I use them for emphasis. I also post too much to bother with doing it in HTML.
"According to what I've read, they did release the modified source."
That is beside the point. You misunderstood what is required for compliance with the license, I was correcting that point.
That hasn't stopped corporations... most programming algorithms are really mathmatical facts and are protected under patents AND copyright.
Latex or geletin successfully fools almost all biometric security devices in use today.
http://www.security-focus.com/news/6717
According to an article I read not far back one gentleman did exactly that and it fooled 80% of the real biometric reader devices out there.
Except that in the world of powerlines there is already a single point of failure at some point in the system.
The real concern is that the average workstation needs to survive for about 5yrs. P3's will hit their end of life expectancy before that and you will no longer be able to get new replacement parts.
P.S. The stupidity part is not cooperating. If Apple cooperates they CONTINUE to benefit from open source KHTML development with minimal replication. As it is they do not benefit from the open development and testing and have to reinvent every wheel.
"and giving to results to the FOSS community."
No, actually they are not. They are not cooperating with the community at all. That is kind of the point here.
"I have yet to hear that forking is explicitly forbidden in these licenses..."
It's not, but the forking is not what the KHTML guys are complaining about. They are complaining about users having the same misconception you did about Apple cooperating with them.
How about submitting bug and issue specific patches AS THEY WRITE THEM? You know, when committing the patch to the VCS just fire off an email with the diff to KHTML. A 100 line patch is pretty easy to track, the author can spot check it fairly effortlessly for incriminating comments.