You have it backwards. This means software patents granted in other nations are NOT enforceable in India. It does not mean software developed in India can not be patented and enforced in nations where software patents are legal.
Yes but usage is not really under the juristiction of copyright, distribution does. So long as your copy was legally distributed (and it is) there is nothing illegal about using it in ways that do not fall under the jurisdiction of the limited privs granted by copyright law to content providers.
Do not mistake the terms in EULAs for laws. Copyright does not grant the content provider the right to the restrictions they require in EULAs, that is why they need you to sign them over in a contract. For it to be a legal contract they must give you something of value in turn (purchasing gave you the right to use the material however you please without a contract), Microsoft gives you $5 worth of data loss protection IF you can successfully sue them for it. Aren't they swell?
I don't know about you, but I loan out cards on a regular basis to trusted individuals. That is the entire reason for having a signiture line on the back. You do know that the signiture line indicates if you want ID to be required to use your card right?
They need to fix checks not Credit/Debit transactions. On every check is all the information needed to perform check-by-phone transactions. I have been scammed this way twice (both times by credit card companies who wanted to use my account to pay someone elses bill). I have called around and NO bank verifies these transactions at all. Sometimes a signiture file is included by those are not verified either.
When I say not verified I don't just mean there is no manual verification, I mean there is no verification at all, every check-by-phone transaction is automatically accepted. So the next time you are about to write a check, remember that you are giving the individual the ability to take any sum out of your account at any time with no security measures.
Yes, that is to state the obvious. What I am saying is that I would appreciate the xserver much more of the window managers SKIPPED the additional eyecandy bloat they could blow the newly gained speed increases on.
If it ever got here the OpenGL based xserver would be great because of the speed increase of offloading the desktop overhead the GPU. If you would be so kind, please keep the eyecandy and just let me keep the speed/responsiveness increases.
What I would really like would be an input device, not an X server. How about an EEG coupled with a neural net to send keypresses and mouse movements to the screen? This way applications do not have to be redesigned and our brain takes care of hotkeys automatically. Much in the same way an experienced typer no longer thinks a-n-d but rather just the word "and" the brain macros the keystrokes.
Re:How about doing something actually useful ?
on
Next Generation X11
·
· Score: 1
"Windows rarely does the right thing, and sometimes even has to be rebooted just to notice the change."
Yeah but that IS working great compared to X. Unless you get really lucky, rebooting does not fix your monitor in X either. The X server has to be reconfigured by a sys admin for every monitor plugged into it.
'"It's not very high considering what an EE goes through." "I don't even have a college degree".....seem like an odd comment to you?'
Without going into any other questions of merit or opinion in this thread; this comment is not odd at all. You're correcting a statement that needs no correction. It sounds like you're reading "It's not very high considering what an EE goes through" as "It's not very high considering what an EE goes through [to become an EE]" or "It's not very high considering what an EE goes through [to get a degree]". The parent probably means that 48k is poor compensation for the actual labor involved in doing the work.
I do disagree with him however, those who command greater than 40k salary usually do LESS actual work than lower paid laborers aka grunts. They are being compensated for knowledge and/or responsibility that justifies air conditioned office employees making more than the manual laborers that actually slave away each day.
Or claiming that a program is a derivative work because it links to a GPL'd library. All are examples that could only be considered even vaguely entertainable by the extremely anal.
If I run a GPL'd application on my computer it is likely that everything else running will be powered by derivative electrons. After all the compile and runtime counts right?
"The license wasn't yanked at random. It was yanked because it was violated. There was an agreement and someone wasn't abiding by the terms of it. I think your concern should be over entering into an agreement that you won't live up to. This good reason/bad reason arguement that you are trying to make rings hollow."
Actually the license was NOT violated and even if you somehow believe that Andy violated a license he was never bound under, you can not claim that I violated said license. Yet my client license has been revoked as well.
Either way that is not the point. I never made the hollow argument your trying to claim I made.
"I think your concern should be over entering into an agreement that you won't live up to."
My concern is that an agreement with a proprietary vendor was entered into AT ALL.
"This good reason/bad reason arguement that you are trying to make rings hollow."
Great, except that I never made the arguement you imply I made. I am NOT arguing the goodness or badness of the reason the licenses were withdrawn. I am agruing that getting into the agreement was a bad idea.
"Are you saying that if they were using a GPLed tool and decided to violate the GPL that their license could't be revoked? You need to think this through more completely."
Hardly. AS I ALREADY STATED, I am NOT arguing the merit of enforcing a license. However, I will state that the right to use GPL'd software can not be revoked by the author or anyone else for any reason. The GPL license only applies to distribution of the software. Usage is covered under copyright law. Since a free software product can be legally scrutinized it is impossible to get in a situation where you can not legally extract your data from the container format the software used.
"No, the vendor yanked the tool after he could not get Tridgell to desist on his reverse-engineering efforts. The disruption was triggered Tridgell trying to reverse-engineer the client. Tridgell had the "right" to reverse engineer the product, but he did not offer an alternative to the BK/BM product. He is partly to blame for the disruption."
What you seem to be ignoring is that it doesn't matter why he yanked the tool. The problem is that kernel development is at the mercy of a vendor deciding to yank a tool for ANY reason. It doesn't matter if it is a good reason or a bad reason. If they had been using an open solution then development could not have been interrupted by a vendor for ANY reason.
Gee, you sure make it clear that you aren't biased. The rest of your nonsense about RCS is of course opinion.
"His contributions can be found in the changlog entries. Liar."
Damn you got me. Linus wrote every line of code in the kernel. I must have been lying when I said that Linus is one of many who contribute code.
"And guess what? Linus's choice didn't stop them! So Linus is EVIL for not bending to the wishes of the herd about how THEY think Linus should do HIS work?"
Last time I checked. If I write code and contribute it to the kernel it is MY work, not Linus'.
"His contributions can be found in the changlog entries. Liar."
Ok, if you have to use the client to extract your data, and you have no legal right to use the client. Explain to me again how the hell you extract your data with the client you can't use again?
"I am not a proprietary crap zealot. I am not a supporter of McVoy. I merely recognise McVoy's RIGHT to choose the conditions upon which provides his proprietary software and his RIGHT to retract his offerings."
Wonderful. When someone contests McVoy's rights in the matter I will be happy to hear your input. In the meantime nobody is contesting that, we are contesting whether using McVoy's product in the first place was a stupid move because he had that right.
Before the gp has any need to argue the conspire point you have to establish that the license prohibits allowing others to sniff traffic on the network you are using it on. If that is the case then you can not use BK in most corporate environments either.
"Buttkeeper was designed to allow revision mergings between different developers (collaboratively) while keeping proper tracking of what merged with what, and what merge took precidence. That ends up in efficiency for Linus and likeminded developers. Why should Linus prefer an inferior or, in this case, non-existent tool?"
Are you really claiming there are no free software RCS? You need to get out more. Inferiority of course is subjective.
"And why shouldn't a developer chose which tool he prefers to use? Ah, because to use a tool that isn't GPL is the moral equivalent of oppression. Is that why the GPL zealots' feel justified to run a smear campaign on Linus because he DARED use a proprietary tool? After all, look at all the work Perens and Tridgell do for the kernel. They're justified to make decisions for developers that manage the project and do the work. They're justified to misrepresent and make half-baked rationalizations."
How about because HE is NOT the developer. He does perform some development but there are over 200 active developers working on the kernel who choose NOT to use this tool.
"Who CARES if the GPL meta-data is STORED a proprietary format? The source code can get dumped out by the client. The changeset information can get dump out by the client. What is being denied to the GPL zealot?"
That the vendor can withdraw the right to use at any random moment he feels the need. Perhaps you proprietary crap zealots need to learn that some people do NOT want to depend on the continued goodwill of a profit driven vendor.
"How DARE he decide what SCM he preferred to use! How dare he suggest the other developers can go use something else!"
He subjected the IP of those other developers to that proprietary format as well as subjecting them to the tool he wanted to use. Don't forget that very little (relative to the whole) of the code in the kernel belongs to Linus.
"I'm glad to see you're admitting it was Tridge's actions that precipitated the event."
Yes, Tridge doing something that was perfectly fine in a competative environment caused the proprietary vendor to finally rear its ugly head.
You are giving bulk purchasing a lot more credit than it is worth. On an item (lets say motherboard) you may be able to purchase it for $60-70/each in quantities of 10,000 units. In my experience if the part is OEM only the manufacturer will sell sample boards but charge more like $500/ea for them. The entire point is to charge a ridiculous price (but peanuts to anyone working on the next wheel) explicitly to bar people using social engineering to get samples. If the part costs $0.15 to manufacture it will likely cost $0.25/ea in a lot of 10,000 and $50/ea for a sample or $10/ea if samples come in lots of 5.
The numbers are guesstimates only and YMMV, but the point is that for the most part manufacturers have caught on to this trick already (especially in tech products) and intentionally make samples cost prohibitive for individual use.
Actually in my experience the "sample" components are ususally drastically more than regular retail.
Re:Not that bold, ask a creationist!
on
Mapping the Mind
·
· Score: 1
"Somewhere in there is presumably a subjective experience you're trying to alter. Whether you call that "focus" or "recognition of focus" or "recognition of recognition of focus" doesn't much matter. Though when most of us say "I'm focused on this" we're refering to our subjective mental state, not looking at EEG output, so I have to say your semantics are rather odd."
Ahh but focus is not the experience, focus is your ability to concentrate on the material that interests you while you are experiencing it. When you focus a lense you are tuning it to show what you wish to see so THAT subject is shown with the greatest clarity instead of an image blurred by other light.
Sticking with light and lenses, when you go to the eye doctor and he flips through lenses, with each he asks you which is "better". There is always an objective correct answer, objectively one focuses light in a closer to perfect manner for the desired vision. YOUR perception is NOT perfect however, your perception of that objective focus is sometimes wrong. Especially when you get to finer points of focus. In the most expersive eye clinics and some military installations they have machines that examine your eyes as you try to view an object through the lenses. This results in a more perfect result.
Your perception of whether your ability to experience is focused is subjective in the same manner as your perception of whether your vision is focused is subjective, while the literal focus of light is not. And as with the light, your mind actually being focused for the reception of experience is objective. The experiences themselves are subjective, just as what you see through a lens is but the focus of the lens to recieve those experiences is not subjective at all.
When the mind of an experienced zen practicioner is examined with an EEG they have a very well defined and clear overall brainwave pattern but it takes up to 20yrs to get there. With Neurofeedback you can get to a state of enlightenment in 1yr.
Perhaps you would consider that a party trick, personally I consider 25+ point IQ increases, and measurable rentention increase to be a little more than a party trick.
I do believe there is more to be gained from Zen than just "enlightenment" in the increased focus sense. The question I am raising is that if an aspect that is a part of our subjective mind, has in fact been proven to actually be an objective physical process... how can one be certain that the rest is not as well? Perhaps the only thing that allows us to accept subjectivity and believe in ourselves is our inability to see the objective individual pieces. Much as our ability to see our webbrowser and computer screen depends on our inability to see the individual red, green, and blue dots that compose the picture.
"Look around. There are numerious alternatives to your chosen package management system. Some would argue that RPM is badly broken. You're either a fool or a demagogue for claiming it is THE package management system."
I never claimed RPM was THE package management system so I will ignore your slander. You apparently aren't even reading my posts. You are advocating source management systems, I am advocating package management. RPM is a fine choice of container format (one that has come a long way since the ancient days of Redhat 5.0 and isn't even really a redhat thing anymore). RPM and glint are two seperate pieces of a puzzle so glint bugs really have nothing to do with RPM. RPM is not a graphical system and gui tools are a seperate issue. I am also not advocating RPM or Deb or any other specific container format. I'm advocating package management in general over source based systems.
Believe it or not you can distribute aged and trusted packages in rpm/deb containers just as easily as tarballs.
righto, indicating the view moves society as a whole backward. The pro-commons view moves us forward to a brighter future. The straight pipe view isn't moving at all.
"In no case have I found the need to use a system that depends on 'RPM' packages."
Nor will you. RPM makes life easier for anyone who uses it effectively. You could manually clear out stale temp files on your system periodically as well. I prefer to write a script that automates this. After all, I sacrifice no flexibility since I am the one writing the script.
"And when I want to make a NetBSD package from source, I often use the 'make package' command and it makes a binary tarball for me."
Whatever floats your boat. But there is only one case where that approach offers an advantage over RPM and even that advantage is lost if regular backups of the package database are maintained. There are numerous advantages to using RPM over the BSD system.
"You're throwing around the words 'stupid,' 'ignorant,' 'intelligent' rather freely."
Spending additional time on tasks and doing extra work with NO gain of any kind IS stupid by just about anyone's definition. Unless of course you are doing it all as a hobby and get some sort of glee out of doing the additional work. If that is the case, it is different and more power to you.
If it is NOT a hobby where you like to manage packages the hard way it changes things. Not using package management is like writing a novel with a an old non-electric typewriter when you already have a computer with a wordprocessing application sitting on your desk. However, at least it sounds like you are the type who recognized this in a fashion and moved to a system that was not mainstream rather than fighting those who believe in technological advancement.
Re:Not that bold, ask a creationist!
on
Mapping the Mind
·
· Score: 1
Ahhh I see where your going now. It is all a question of levels of abstraction. You are really speaking from the philosophical standpoint. The problem with Philosophy is that in the world of Philosophy you deal with truth rather than fact. Ultimately, honest and intelligent philosophical consideration leads to the realization that nothing exists and nothing matters, all efforts and endevours are ultimately futile because all things are cosmically equal.
Basically, the only real purpose served by philosophy is teach a concept that a trip on acid will reveal to anyone. The human perception of life and human understanding exists only as an abstaction. There are however many levels of abstraction. Any effort, gesture, event, etc is meaningful at some levels of abstraction but not others. Once you accept and wrap your mind around that, and understand that there are levels of abstraction on which our conciousness is not only meaningless but does not exist it becomes easier to move beyond philosophy to practical reality.
Multiple levels of abstraction may or may not be the cosmic "truth" but it is readily apparent that it is how humans percieve and comprehend reality. The fact is that our intelligence is limited, we can not comprehend reality without labeling and creating simpler abstract layers. Reductionism is really the process for "discovering", labeling, abstracting new layers to work with. After discovering them we create abstractions and models that effectively manipulate as many other "layers" as possible.
Having recognized that our conciousness is part of a cosmic sea of ever smaller (and larger) abstractions we can move on and continue catering futilely to that conciousness. After all we have nothing better to do right?
At the levels of abstraction where it is meaningful, focus is not subjective. Focus IS a chemical state. They do not co-relate in a cause and effect sense. Focus is a chemical state. Your realization is also a series of chemical reactions. Both are objective on that level of abstraction. Your recongition of your chemical focus state is seperate from the state itself. The recognition you can only manipulate subjectively with our current knowledge. The focus state itself you can manipulate objectively, it is measurable on multiple levels of abstraction (chemical, electrical, and through good old IQ examinations). You can continue to try to alter the objective state we call focus and test your success with a subjective recognition of yourself. I will continue to alter that objective state with objective methods and measure my success with objective means.
Slashdot Mirror
You have it backwards. This means software patents granted in other nations are NOT enforceable in India. It does not mean software developed in India can not be patented and enforced in nations where software patents are legal.
Yes but usage is not really under the juristiction of copyright, distribution does. So long as your copy was legally distributed (and it is) there is nothing illegal about using it in ways that do not fall under the jurisdiction of the limited privs granted by copyright law to content providers.
Do not mistake the terms in EULAs for laws. Copyright does not grant the content provider the right to the restrictions they require in EULAs, that is why they need you to sign them over in a contract. For it to be a legal contract they must give you something of value in turn (purchasing gave you the right to use the material however you please without a contract), Microsoft gives you $5 worth of data loss protection IF you can successfully sue them for it. Aren't they swell?
I don't know about you, but I loan out cards on a regular basis to trusted individuals. That is the entire reason for having a signiture line on the back. You do know that the signiture line indicates if you want ID to be required to use your card right?
They need to fix checks not Credit/Debit transactions. On every check is all the information needed to perform check-by-phone transactions. I have been scammed this way twice (both times by credit card companies who wanted to use my account to pay someone elses bill). I have called around and NO bank verifies these transactions at all. Sometimes a signiture file is included by those are not verified either.
When I say not verified I don't just mean there is no manual verification, I mean there is no verification at all, every check-by-phone transaction is automatically accepted. So the next time you are about to write a check, remember that you are giving the individual the ability to take any sum out of your account at any time with no security measures.
Yes, that is to state the obvious. What I am saying is that I would appreciate the xserver much more of the window managers SKIPPED the additional eyecandy bloat they could blow the newly gained speed increases on.
damn and here I thought the OS was almost entirely borrowed from BSD and then apple slapped a GUI on top of it.
If it ever got here the OpenGL based xserver would be great because of the speed increase of offloading the desktop overhead the GPU. If you would be so kind, please keep the eyecandy and just let me keep the speed/responsiveness increases.
What I would really like would be an input device, not an X server. How about an EEG coupled with a neural net to send keypresses and mouse movements to the screen? This way applications do not have to be redesigned and our brain takes care of hotkeys automatically. Much in the same way an experienced typer no longer thinks a-n-d but rather just the word "and" the brain macros the keystrokes.
"Windows rarely does the right thing, and sometimes even has to be rebooted just to notice the change."
Yeah but that IS working great compared to X. Unless you get really lucky, rebooting does not fix your monitor in X either. The X server has to be reconfigured by a sys admin for every monitor plugged into it.
Right, cuz you know IRIX has a serious chunk of the desktop market.
'"It's not very high considering what an EE goes through." .....seem like an odd comment to you?'
"I don't even have a college degree"
Without going into any other questions of merit or opinion in this thread; this comment is not odd at all. You're correcting a statement that needs no correction. It sounds like you're reading "It's not very high considering what an EE goes through" as "It's not very high considering what an EE goes through [to become an EE]" or "It's not very high considering what an EE goes through [to get a degree]". The parent probably means that 48k is poor compensation for the actual labor involved in doing the work.
I do disagree with him however, those who command greater than 40k salary usually do LESS actual work than lower paid laborers aka grunts. They are being compensated for knowledge and/or responsibility that justifies air conditioned office employees making more than the manual laborers that actually slave away each day.
Or claiming that a program is a derivative work because it links to a GPL'd library. All are examples that could only be considered even vaguely entertainable by the extremely anal.
If I run a GPL'd application on my computer it is likely that everything else running will be powered by derivative electrons. After all the compile and runtime counts right?
code monkey is what you normally call the guys who write the glue code that involves no creativity and innovation whatsoever.
"The license wasn't yanked at random. It was yanked because it was violated. There was an agreement and someone wasn't abiding by the terms of it. I think your concern should be over entering into an agreement that you won't live up to. This good reason/bad reason arguement that you are trying to make rings hollow."
Actually the license was NOT violated and even if you somehow believe that Andy violated a license he was never bound under, you can not claim that I violated said license. Yet my client license has been revoked as well.
Either way that is not the point. I never made the hollow argument your trying to claim I made.
"I think your concern should be over entering into an agreement that you won't live up to."
My concern is that an agreement with a proprietary vendor was entered into AT ALL.
"This good reason/bad reason arguement that you are trying to make rings hollow."
Great, except that I never made the arguement you imply I made. I am NOT arguing the goodness or badness of the reason the licenses were withdrawn. I am agruing that getting into the agreement was a bad idea.
"Are you saying that if they were using a GPLed tool and decided to violate the GPL that their license could't be revoked? You need to think this through more completely."
Hardly. AS I ALREADY STATED, I am NOT arguing the merit of enforcing a license. However, I will state that the right to use GPL'd software can not be revoked by the author or anyone else for any reason. The GPL license only applies to distribution of the software. Usage is covered under copyright law. Since a free software product can be legally scrutinized it is impossible to get in a situation where you can not legally extract your data from the container format the software used.
"No, the vendor yanked the tool after he could not get Tridgell to desist on his reverse-engineering efforts. The disruption was triggered Tridgell trying to reverse-engineer the client. Tridgell had the "right" to reverse engineer the product, but he did not offer an alternative to the BK/BM product. He is partly to blame for the disruption."
What you seem to be ignoring is that it doesn't matter why he yanked the tool. The problem is that kernel development is at the mercy of a vendor deciding to yank a tool for ANY reason. It doesn't matter if it is a good reason or a bad reason. If they had been using an open solution then development could not have been interrupted by a vendor for ANY reason.
"Many zealots"
Gee, you sure make it clear that you aren't biased. The rest of your nonsense about RCS is of course opinion.
"His contributions can be found in the changlog entries. Liar."
Damn you got me. Linus wrote every line of code in the kernel. I must have been lying when I said that Linus is one of many who contribute code.
"And guess what? Linus's choice didn't stop them! So Linus is EVIL for not bending to the wishes of the herd about how THEY think Linus should do HIS work?"
Last time I checked. If I write code and contribute it to the kernel it is MY work, not Linus'.
"His contributions can be found in the changlog entries. Liar."
Ok, if you have to use the client to extract your data, and you have no legal right to use the client. Explain to me again how the hell you extract your data with the client you can't use again?
"I am not a proprietary crap zealot. I am not a supporter of McVoy. I merely recognise McVoy's RIGHT to choose the conditions upon which provides his proprietary software and his RIGHT to retract his offerings."
Wonderful. When someone contests McVoy's rights in the matter I will be happy to hear your input. In the meantime nobody is contesting that, we are contesting whether using McVoy's product in the first place was a stupid move because he had that right.
"or to enable anyone else to do so."
Before the gp has any need to argue the conspire point you have to establish that the license prohibits allowing others to sniff traffic on the network you are using it on. If that is the case then you can not use BK in most corporate environments either.
"Buttkeeper was designed to allow revision mergings between different developers (collaboratively) while keeping proper tracking of what merged with what, and what merge took precidence. That ends up in efficiency for Linus and likeminded developers. Why should Linus prefer an inferior or, in this case, non-existent tool?"
Are you really claiming there are no free software RCS? You need to get out more. Inferiority of course is subjective.
"And why shouldn't a developer chose which tool he prefers to use? Ah, because to use a tool that isn't GPL is the moral equivalent of oppression. Is that why the GPL zealots' feel justified to run a smear campaign on Linus because he DARED use a proprietary tool? After all, look at all the work Perens and Tridgell do for the kernel. They're justified to make decisions for developers that manage the project and do the work. They're justified to misrepresent and make half-baked rationalizations."
How about because HE is NOT the developer. He does perform some development but there are over 200 active developers working on the kernel who choose NOT to use this tool.
"Who CARES if the GPL meta-data is STORED a proprietary format? The source code can get dumped out by the client. The changeset information can get dump out by the client. What is being denied to the GPL zealot?"
That the vendor can withdraw the right to use at any random moment he feels the need. Perhaps you proprietary crap zealots need to learn that some people do NOT want to depend on the continued goodwill of a profit driven vendor.
"How DARE he decide what SCM he preferred to use! How dare he suggest the other developers can go use something else!"
He subjected the IP of those other developers to that proprietary format as well as subjecting them to the tool he wanted to use. Don't forget that very little (relative to the whole) of the code in the kernel belongs to Linus.
"I'm glad to see you're admitting it was Tridge's actions that precipitated the event."
Yes, Tridge doing something that was perfectly fine in a competative environment caused the proprietary vendor to finally rear its ugly head.
You are giving bulk purchasing a lot more credit than it is worth. On an item (lets say motherboard) you may be able to purchase it for $60-70/each in quantities of 10,000 units. In my experience if the part is OEM only the manufacturer will sell sample boards but charge more like $500/ea for them. The entire point is to charge a ridiculous price (but peanuts to anyone working on the next wheel) explicitly to bar people using social engineering to get samples. If the part costs $0.15 to manufacture it will likely cost $0.25/ea in a lot of 10,000 and $50/ea for a sample or $10/ea if samples come in lots of 5.
The numbers are guesstimates only and YMMV, but the point is that for the most part manufacturers have caught on to this trick already (especially in tech products) and intentionally make samples cost prohibitive for individual use.
Actually in my experience the "sample" components are ususally drastically more than regular retail.
"Somewhere in there is presumably a subjective experience you're trying to alter. Whether you call that "focus" or "recognition of focus" or "recognition of recognition of focus" doesn't much matter. Though when most of us say "I'm focused on this" we're refering to our subjective mental state, not looking at EEG output, so I have to say your semantics are rather odd."
Ahh but focus is not the experience, focus is your ability to concentrate on the material that interests you while you are experiencing it. When you focus a lense you are tuning it to show what you wish to see so THAT subject is shown with the greatest clarity instead of an image blurred by other light.
Sticking with light and lenses, when you go to the eye doctor and he flips through lenses, with each he asks you which is "better". There is always an objective correct answer, objectively one focuses light in a closer to perfect manner for the desired vision. YOUR perception is NOT perfect however, your perception of that objective focus is sometimes wrong. Especially when you get to finer points of focus. In the most expersive eye clinics and some military installations they have machines that examine your eyes as you try to view an object through the lenses. This results in a more perfect result.
Your perception of whether your ability to experience is focused is subjective in the same manner as your perception of whether your vision is focused is subjective, while the literal focus of light is not. And as with the light, your mind actually being focused for the reception of experience is objective. The experiences themselves are subjective, just as what you see through a lens is but the focus of the lens to recieve those experiences is not subjective at all.
When the mind of an experienced zen practicioner is examined with an EEG they have a very well defined and clear overall brainwave pattern but it takes up to 20yrs to get there. With Neurofeedback you can get to a state of enlightenment in 1yr.
Perhaps you would consider that a party trick, personally I consider 25+ point IQ increases, and measurable rentention increase to be a little more than a party trick.
I do believe there is more to be gained from Zen than just "enlightenment" in the increased focus sense. The question I am raising is that if an aspect that is a part of our subjective mind, has in fact been proven to actually be an objective physical process... how can one be certain that the rest is not as well? Perhaps the only thing that allows us to accept subjectivity and believe in ourselves is our inability to see the objective individual pieces. Much as our ability to see our webbrowser and computer screen depends on our inability to see the individual red, green, and blue dots that compose the picture.
"Look around. There are numerious alternatives to your chosen package management system. Some would argue that RPM is badly broken. You're either a fool or a demagogue for claiming it is THE package management system."
I never claimed RPM was THE package management system so I will ignore your slander. You apparently aren't even reading my posts. You are advocating source management systems, I am advocating package management. RPM is a fine choice of container format (one that has come a long way since the ancient days of Redhat 5.0 and isn't even really a redhat thing anymore). RPM and glint are two seperate pieces of a puzzle so glint bugs really have nothing to do with RPM. RPM is not a graphical system and gui tools are a seperate issue. I am also not advocating RPM or Deb or any other specific container format. I'm advocating package management in general over source based systems.
Believe it or not you can distribute aged and trusted packages in rpm/deb containers just as easily as tarballs.
righto, indicating the view moves society as a whole backward. The pro-commons view moves us forward to a brighter future. The straight pipe view isn't moving at all.
"In no case have I found the need to use a system that depends on 'RPM' packages."
Nor will you. RPM makes life easier for anyone who uses it effectively. You could manually clear out stale temp files on your system periodically as well. I prefer to write a script that automates this. After all, I sacrifice no flexibility since I am the one writing the script.
"And when I want to make a NetBSD package from source, I often use the 'make package' command and it makes a binary tarball for me."
Whatever floats your boat. But there is only one case where that approach offers an advantage over RPM and even that advantage is lost if regular backups of the package database are maintained. There are numerous advantages to using RPM over the BSD system.
"You're throwing around the words 'stupid,' 'ignorant,' 'intelligent' rather freely."
Spending additional time on tasks and doing extra work with NO gain of any kind IS stupid by just about anyone's definition. Unless of course you are doing it all as a hobby and get some sort of glee out of doing the additional work. If that is the case, it is different and more power to you.
If it is NOT a hobby where you like to manage packages the hard way it changes things. Not using package management is like writing a novel with a an old non-electric typewriter when you already have a computer with a wordprocessing application sitting on your desk. However, at least it sounds like you are the type who recognized this in a fashion and moved to a system that was not mainstream rather than fighting those who believe in technological advancement.
Ahhh I see where your going now. It is all a question of levels of abstraction. You are really speaking from the philosophical standpoint. The problem with Philosophy is that in the world of Philosophy you deal with truth rather than fact. Ultimately, honest and intelligent philosophical consideration leads to the realization that nothing exists and nothing matters, all efforts and endevours are ultimately futile because all things are cosmically equal.
Basically, the only real purpose served by philosophy is teach a concept that a trip on acid will reveal to anyone. The human perception of life and human understanding exists only as an abstaction. There are however many levels of abstraction. Any effort, gesture, event, etc is meaningful at some levels of abstraction but not others. Once you accept and wrap your mind around that, and understand that there are levels of abstraction on which our conciousness is not only meaningless but does not exist it becomes easier to move beyond philosophy to practical reality.
Multiple levels of abstraction may or may not be the cosmic "truth" but it is readily apparent that it is how humans percieve and comprehend reality. The fact is that our intelligence is limited, we can not comprehend reality without labeling and creating simpler abstract layers. Reductionism is really the process for "discovering", labeling, abstracting new layers to work with. After discovering them we create abstractions and models that effectively manipulate as many other "layers" as possible.
Having recognized that our conciousness is part of a cosmic sea of ever smaller (and larger) abstractions we can move on and continue catering futilely to that conciousness. After all we have nothing better to do right?
At the levels of abstraction where it is meaningful, focus is not subjective. Focus IS a chemical state. They do not co-relate in a cause and effect sense. Focus is a chemical state. Your realization is also a series of chemical reactions. Both are objective on that level of abstraction. Your recongition of your chemical focus state is seperate from the state itself. The recognition you can only manipulate subjectively with our current knowledge. The focus state itself you can manipulate objectively, it is measurable on multiple levels of abstraction (chemical, electrical, and through good old IQ examinations). You can continue to try to alter the objective state we call focus and test your success with a subjective recognition of yourself. I will continue to alter that objective state with objective methods and measure my success with objective means.
He IS wrong if he is speaking English.
yes but this is a US-based English only website. :) Brasil is simply misspelled here.