Natural selection tries to weed out a huge % of the population, but medical science overrides it. Nature determines that weak and premature infants should die, yet they are kept alive and become adults. Nature determines that some adults should not be breeding, yet fertility drugs override this. Nature determines that various people should die by heart failure etc, but drugs keep them alive.
Sure, these are all good from the emotional point of view of keeping people alive and making childless couples happy etc, but does it really help the human gene pool? Perhaps Mother Nature had a good reason to kill off a weak child or prevent that infertile couple from breeding. The long term impacts can only be known in a few generations.
Well, if you look at how we're doing as a species I would dare to say it's actually part of our evolution to be able to override some of the diseases that affect us, and that it's a good thing too.
It may sound as a paradox, but maybe it's better to be weak and have the intellect and the tools to survive diseases and dangerous conditions, rather than to be strong and be stupid and not have the tools to survive a cold winter.
I disagree with the idea that our evolution is somewhat "artificial". Are we not part of nature? Intellect is nothing more than another trait our evolution has strengthened over time. And we're using it to our best advantage as a species, which is exactly what evolution is about.
Image IS business, it's everything for a company... forget the lawsuits and anti piracy schemes. They have been long proven useless.br>
And no, Microsoft doesn't care enough about its image.
Has anyone wondered whats going to happen to all the DRM-encumbered music you've already bought if they suddenly go DRM-less?
Are you going to have to buy it all over again? Will they give you new copies of what you purchased? Will all the new DRM-free players also be able to handle any media with any outmoded DRM to allow backwards compatibility of things I've already bought?
Has anyone thought that perhaps the 180 degree change of opinion from Apple's side might find you paying twice for your "Best of The Rolling Stones" album?
Actually, from a technical point of view maintaining compatibility with DRMed files is not a problem if Apple started selling their music unencumbered. One would only need to differentiate between the DRMed format and the plain format. I wonder if you realize, in any case, that this problem wouldn't exist at all if DRM was never introduced in the first place.
What I do think will be a problem is if they suddenly have to change DRM scheme due to some sort of security breach. Would they still allow you to play music encrypted with the old keys? Would they be bound by contract to remove backwards compatibility? And what about 10 years from now: will we still be able to play our current DRMed music? Will someone still be able to read and decrypt our files?
You're seeing the problem upside down. The real issue comes from having DRM, not because of the lack of it.
"Certainly you're not one of the brave hackers that didn't stop developing linux in the early days despite of the severe lack of drivers.
These days you can boot linux anywhere. But you know, there was a time (not that far ago) when Linux (and BSDs) didn't support almost anything. Those people really believed in open source, and they didn't mind spending many hours of their life reverse-engineering obscure hardware. They also didn't mind selling their incompatible hardware and buying linux-compatible hardware in order to run their wonderful open source OS.
And you plan to to switch windows if the linux developers plan to ban proprietary modules. You aren't switching your graphics card and buying a linux-compatible one (something you can fix with money). You just plan to switch windows.
We're lucky that the early open source hackers weren't like you - if they had switched to windows every time they found a barrier we wouldn't have open source operative systems today. Linux has got big without the help of proprietary drivers and despite of the ridiculous hardware support and the one way of getting even bigger is following the same path. We don't need proprietary drivers, fuck them."
You accusation that being anything less than those "brave" hackers is bad, is nothing more than pride and stubbornness from someone who can't see beyond his personal beliefs. Instead of listening to what he has to say about his view on the matter, and instead of understanding that this would pose a real issue for a lot of nVidia card owners, you attack him for not adapting to your personal moral model.
Please fall back to earth for a second and remember that people may not care enough about Linux as to spend extra money because of political decisions like this one. There is nothing inherently wrong with binary drivers that would make them inappropriate for working together with Linux. And more importantly: there is nothing wrong with people not wanting to switch video cards over their OS. Step back from your closed mindset, and start thinking about what people really wants. That's the only way in which people will start feeling attracted towards Linux.
If someone released a GPL program in one download, and the documentation instructed that you also need to download a DLL separately for the program to run, would the DLL be subject to the GPL?
Actually it does. Or can you merge GPL code and non-GPL code in a single codebase? This is a restriction of how you can use the code you obtained through the GPL license.
So... Scientists can't explain how the universe works, without appealing to a mysterious phenomenon they can't observe and whose nature they cannot describe except in terms of its supposed secondary effects?
There is no difference in that both are theories. However there is a big difference in the fact that one is just a theory, while the other is a scientific theory, and the difference between the two, is that one can be tested and has a chance of eventually being proven wrong. I'll let you figure out which one I am talking about.
In any case you should remember that religion is all about faith, which means believing in something you know you can't prove or disprove. Looking at religion using the glasses of science will not lead you anywhere. You should instead understand that science and religion, are not mutually exclusive, and that the tools to be used are different. You can't expect to experiment on the existance of God, just as science isn't about having faith.
The intents of the GPL v.2 and the intents of the FSF are exactly the same. The trouble is that the letter of the GPL v.2 fails to reflect that, which is why the FSF is coming out with the GPL v.3. It doesn't change the intent; it just fixes some bugs.
The intents of the GPLv2 are only those stated by the license. I am not saying that they go against the interests of the FSF, just that they slightly differ from what the FSF would want to promote today (which is the GPLv3).
For this simple reason you can see that there's people out there who might have opted for the GPLv2 once upon a time (eg: Linus), but that did so for different reasons than those of the FSF. It's not surprising to see some of them not agree with the GPLv3.
The reason they have to do this is because people like to ignore the GPL while using GPL software.
Technically speaking they are not ignoring the GPL.
The purpose of the GPLv2 was never to force all hardware to run your custom software, it was to force other developers to publish their own changes to your code (please note that I am talking about the intents of the GPLv2, not the intents of the FSF). In other words: feel free to modify the software... just don't expect it to run in my hardware. And Linus simply chose the GPLv2 to distribute the kernel based on its intents, and not on the FSF's agenda (ie: the "quid pro quo" argument made by Linus demonstrates this point).
I realize that there's a lot of people here that think this is wrong, and I respect that choice. But why can't Linus make his own choice? Isn't him in his full right to do so?
Maybe there's more behind Steve's choice to put other people on stage than just lack of news. Whoever Jobs successor will be, he will certainly need to be charismatic. And what better way to see that, than to leave the stage to the candidates.
No, it's just that in the real world, there is a limited amount of time for developing a piece of software. Every minute I spend on worrying about memory allocation or tracking down a pointer bug is a minute I can't spend on putting in a more efficient data structure or profiling my code.
If you're a good C/C++ programmer you don't spend "minutes" allocating memory and tracking pointer bugs. On top of that, being able to allocate and free memory when you want is part of the power of C/C++ meaning that it let's you work on the application's optimization process at a level that you simply can't control in Java.
And to put it into a different perspective... I have yet to find a Java application built for performance tasks that can compare to a C/C++ natively compiled counterpart. Java is a hell of a language, just don't mistake the tools. C/C++ is for performance and scalability, not Java.
Typically, professional programmers have a limited time to develop software in, and languages that produce results faster leave room for implementing better algorithms, which can have a marked effect on the performance of a system. That said, there are limits; if you want cutting edge graphics, native code (at least for the engine itself) is pretty much a necessity. For most other systems, where performance is not the priority, native languages are less useful.
That was basically my point as well. I totally agree that each tool can be better or worse for different tasks. I tend to write processor intensive applications mostly, so I tend to notice that difference in what I do... however this different is surely becoming smaller and smaller on other kind of applications.
However I am not quite sure that interpreted languages will be the ultimate solution. In my humble opinion at some point we will see some sort of standarization in APIs and better native languages that incorporate part of the concepts of Java, and other similar languages.
I personally see interpreted languages as a sort of non-solution for the lack of standarization across platforms. Something like Apple's Universal Binaries using a standard API would be much nicer IMO. This is just my personal view of the issue though.
In general, when experienced programmers use languages like Python or Ruby with native code plug-ins, or when they use languages like Java or C#, they produce code with better performance and fewer bugs than straight C/C++, simply because they end up having more time implementing good data structures and focussing their efforts where it counts.
No offense, but if you are getting faster Java code than C/C++ code then you are a terrible C/C++ programmer.
Java certainly has its strengths, but it can't compare to C/C++ performance-wise. Not when the code is written by an experienced programmer.
As an example of what I mean, how many successful processor intensive games written in Java do you know?
The right tool for the right job. If you want performance don't use Java.
"I've had people get pissed at me when I don't respond to their email. Reason I didn't respond is that it was sitting in a queue somewhere and I hadn't gotten it yet. Plenty of other examples I can think of but that'll do for now.
What we need is a locked out system. Something that doesn't interact with SMTP at all. True, people using that system could only email people in that system, but that wouldn't be a problem once it caught on. If you could guarantee delivery and zero spam, people would flock to it. Google could adapt Gmail to be that system inside of a half a year if they wanted to."
I disagree. Telling people that with the new system they can't message people using the older system isn't practical. Especially if you want to be using the same address format that we are using nowadays (name@server.whatever).
I know people would initially say "No way! How will I communicate with everyone I normally have to email?" Well...it'd be like when my friends discovered ICQ back in the late 90's. Everyone said "Hey...download ICQ and we can talk in real time." And eventually I did. And for a few years, I didn't do email at all (until ICQ died from bloat anyways). This new email system would be adopted just like that. "Hey, I know a messaging system that'll give you something like email, but zero spam and a guaranteed delivery time. Just download the client and make an account. It's great.""
I really don't know that much people that stopped using e-mail because of ICQ. IM is not, and was never meant, to replace e-mail (given their different nature).
"Wouldn't be hard to make, either. Just fix things so that you have to log in to send a message, and put something in your TOS that you cannot spam people. Also have an active admin system. Someone does something against the TOS, you yank their account. Maybe have a "report abuse" function built in to the client, or some such. Maybe something like Slashdot Karma. Enough complaints and your account gets locked for admin review."
Admins actively controlling the system? And who's gonna pay for those? Most importantly, how will they get chosen? How will you ensure that they won't abuse their status? In other words: how many new problems would that bring and how much would that fix?
"And ditch relays - they're too hackable. Make each server isolated. We don't need to do the relay thing anymore. It was important "way back then" when you could only send email by queueing them up to transmit at 3am when the grad students finally get off the mainframe, but it's not like that anymore. Make the new system isolated. If you want to send email to someone@someserver.com, you have to have an account on someserver.com. And if you spam someone@someserver.com, they report you and you get locked out."
Hmmm... I would rather not register at a hundred different servers just to send mail. I prefer spam to that.
"You could implement all sorts of good ideas into a system like this. Don't allow people to send more than 1 email every minute or two."
Right. And what if you're in a hurry and you need to send lots of mail messages? Also, what about sending one single mail to multiple recipients? Would you have to apply for some special permission to do that too?
"Don't let people automatically get an account you the system - let them apply and then wait for verification to stop bots from making accounts."
To send a mail message? Too much hassle...
"It'd take more thinking and planning than what I've got here, but the point is that something more safe and secure could easily be made. I'd love to see it.
I am not too sure that it could "easily" be made. Spam is not something that you can eradicate just by adding administrators and bureaucracy. The filters can be a good start.
Deca
Ok. I just started. While you are waiting, please call the GNU/Linux system by it's real name, thre GNU system with the Linux Kernel. Like the OS/X System, with the mach kernel, or the Windows XP System, with kernel32
Heh real name. Linux distros have been around for a few years (since 1991) before Stallman even though of the term GNU/Linux (mid 1990s).
Call it as you want, just don't bother those who think differently. Calling the distros by their name (Redhat Linux and so on) is IMO the best choice.
"But since you want to go BSD or MIT, why not just make it public domain anyway? All the BSD and MIT do is keep attribution, are you really that arrogant? If you don't care about the code's continued freedom, I can't see why you'd care if your name was attached to it."
I made it, I want the credits. I don't care if you think that's arrogance, the license you choose doesn't make the credits any more or less necessary.
"Nope. If it were found that apes and humans were unrelated, we could then say that humans evolved from something else---it's just a matter of finding what. It doesn't matter what they are or are not related to.
The problem is you cannot define a "wrong state". That is what makes something disprovable. You must be able to say that "if this happens, then evolution cannot be true". Except, this cannot be done: if one path proves false, we can pick another tenable path that fits the facts.
For instance: Say, for the sake of argument, we do prove that humans (H) did not descend from apes. (This in itself assumes a lot, namely, that such a thing can be shown.) We can then say, as above, "well, they descended from something else." We have two outcomes: we can find another sufficiently direct ancestor species (S0) to continue the existing theory unmodified (S0 -> H), or we find a less direct species (S1) such that S1->S0->H. In the latter case, we can modify our theory and say that ancestor S0 didn't survive long enough, or conditions weren't sufficient to leave a fossil record.
The problem is we can extend this indefinitely. Even if we can't find an S1, we can continue back and find an Sn, and just assume we can't find S(n-1) to S(0). At what point do we draw the line? The theory is a conceivably sound one---the stated events could possibly have happened---but you can't disprove it.
The same problem arises when we try and factor out traits. Species X inherited trait Y for such-and-such a plausible reason. But if they hadn't, we could find an equally plausible reason. There is no way to disprove either one. Even for traits that appear unlikely---take one's appendix, or something similar---we can simply say "well, it's a leftover" or "well, it's just a mutation that survived but didn't have a detrimental impact on reproducibility" or similar. There is always an excuse. Thus it is nondisprovable."
Once again, science is not about truth. If you think about science from that perspective then it makes no sense to have this discussion.
Science is about the best bet we can make as to what reality is. Under this perspective, you always keep in mind that current theories may be, and probably are flawed. But each single theory always requires at least some kind of proof to back it up. It requires the ability to find further proof that it may be flawed as well.
The point if that no statement can be disproved in the way you explain. Not a single one. But if we were to take every single statement as science, then science would have no place or meaning in this world.
"It should be pointed out that natural evolution is also a nondisprovable theory."
Says who? It would just take new evidence that the genetic coincidence between humans and apes is meaningless, or that we didn't all come from the sea, and evolution would go out of the window. If each species was found not to evolve in any way, then evolution would be proven wrong.
"In this universe, we OBEY THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS especially the second one."
Nature does not obey science. We don't obey the laws of thermodynamics. Quite the contrary. Science exists to try to descrive and explain nature. Science tries it's best to try and prove that it's laws are wrong (through scientific experiments) and even when it fails to do so, it realizes that it may still be wrong. It never claims to know about absolute truths.
That's the difference between science and philosophy. Science can be tested and it can eventually be falsified.
"Actually, merely wearing a t-shirt that says "Osama Rules" would not get you arrested for being a terrorist. It certainly wouldn't get you convicted for anything. And before you throw out the name Jose Padilla or anybody like that, I'd like to point out that there's a huge difference between wearing a t-shirt (arguably free speech) and planning a dirty bomb attack. Not that I wouldn't agree with you that he is being unfairly held without trial.
Wearing such a t-shirt at ground zero would likely paint a giant bull's-eye on your back and get the shit beaten out of you. In fact wearing such a t-shirt anywhere in New York City would probably ensure that you got an ass-whooping. But that's just fine -- free speech doesn't mean you get to escape the consequences of your speech. It only means that you get to say it in the first place. And I rather suspect if I wore a Nazi armband to certain places in Europe that I would get the shit beaten out of me too"
I completely disagree with your concept that being beaten to death does not take away your freedom of speech. In fact I can't think of a worse punishment than that for something you might say. Hell, if freedom of speech means getting a chance to say what you want to say then you always have that.
If you fear for your safety simply because of what you're saying or what you want to say, then sorry my friend, but you don't have freedom of speech on that topic.
"Passing out the recruitment leaflets could be another matter. That would probably be considered supporting a terrorist organization. But you were passing out leaflets telling Al Qaida's side of the story (infidels in the Holy Land, Israel, etc, etc) you wouldn't be breaking any laws. Think I can pass out leaflets in some European countries telling Hitler's side of the story?"
Wearing a t-shirt that says "Osama rocks!" can be seen as exactly the same thing. After all you are supporting Osama by doing that.
"I disagree. I think I've made my point in the paragraphs above:)"
Only if you agree first that being killed is not a way to restrict your freedom of speech. I think otherwise because I definately would refrain from saying those things if my life was at risk.
Because if you give them an easy-to-use OS you're taking from them their freedom to tinker with their system and eventually turn it into a virtual dishwasher or something like that. Linux is about freedom. How can you be free if you can't read some source code?
In fact they should even go further and deliver all the necessary parts and tools instead of the assembled laptop, so that the kids can learn the joys of assembling their own computer from scratch. No instructions should be included, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if you look at how we're doing as a species I would dare to say it's actually part of our evolution to be able to override some of the diseases that affect us, and that it's a good thing too.
It may sound as a paradox, but maybe it's better to be weak and have the intellect and the tools to survive diseases and dangerous conditions, rather than to be strong and be stupid and not have the tools to survive a cold winter.
I disagree with the idea that our evolution is somewhat "artificial". Are we not part of nature? Intellect is nothing more than another trait our evolution has strengthened over time. And we're using it to our best advantage as a species, which is exactly what evolution is about.
And no, Microsoft doesn't care enough about its image.
What I do think will be a problem is if they suddenly have to change DRM scheme due to some sort of security breach. Would they still allow you to play music encrypted with the old keys? Would they be bound by contract to remove backwards compatibility? And what about 10 years from now: will we still be able to play our current DRMed music? Will someone still be able to read and decrypt our files?
You're seeing the problem upside down. The real issue comes from having DRM, not because of the lack of it.
Please fall back to earth for a second and remember that people may not care enough about Linux as to spend extra money because of political decisions like this one. There is nothing inherently wrong with binary drivers that would make them inappropriate for working together with Linux. And more importantly: there is nothing wrong with people not wanting to switch video cards over their OS. Step back from your closed mindset, and start thinking about what people really wants. That's the only way in which people will start feeling attracted towards Linux.
Diego ----- Want to visit argentina? http://www.jcguesthouse.com.ar/
If someone released a GPL program in one download, and the documentation instructed that you also need to download a DLL separately for the program to run, would the DLL be subject to the GPL?
Actually it does. Or can you merge GPL code and non-GPL code in a single codebase? This is a restriction of how you can use the code you obtained through the GPL license.
In any case you should remember that religion is all about faith, which means believing in something you know you can't prove or disprove. Looking at religion using the glasses of science will not lead you anywhere. You should instead understand that science and religion, are not mutually exclusive, and that the tools to be used are different. You can't expect to experiment on the existance of God, just as science isn't about having faith.
The intents of the GPLv2 are only those stated by the license. I am not saying that they go against the interests of the FSF, just that they slightly differ from what the FSF would want to promote today (which is the GPLv3).
For this simple reason you can see that there's people out there who might have opted for the GPLv2 once upon a time (eg: Linus), but that did so for different reasons than those of the FSF. It's not surprising to see some of them not agree with the GPLv3.
Technically speaking they are not ignoring the GPL.
The purpose of the GPLv2 was never to force all hardware to run your custom software, it was to force other developers to publish their own changes to your code (please note that I am talking about the intents of the GPLv2, not the intents of the FSF). In other words: feel free to modify the software... just don't expect it to run in my hardware. And Linus simply chose the GPLv2 to distribute the kernel based on its intents, and not on the FSF's agenda (ie: the "quid pro quo" argument made by Linus demonstrates this point).
I realize that there's a lot of people here that think this is wrong, and I respect that choice. But why can't Linus make his own choice? Isn't him in his full right to do so?
Maybe there's more behind Steve's choice to put other people on stage than just lack of news. Whoever Jobs successor will be, he will certainly need to be charismatic. And what better way to see that, than to leave the stage to the candidates.
Wow, they managed to predict the present.
If you're a good C/C++ programmer you don't spend "minutes" allocating memory and tracking pointer bugs. On top of that, being able to allocate and free memory when you want is part of the power of C/C++ meaning that it let's you work on the application's optimization process at a level that you simply can't control in Java.
And to put it into a different perspective... I have yet to find a Java application built for performance tasks that can compare to a C/C++ natively compiled counterpart. Java is a hell of a language, just don't mistake the tools. C/C++ is for performance and scalability, not Java.
That was basically my point as well. I totally agree that each tool can be better or worse for different tasks. I tend to write processor intensive applications mostly, so I tend to notice that difference in what I do... however this different is surely becoming smaller and smaller on other kind of applications.
However I am not quite sure that interpreted languages will be the ultimate solution. In my humble opinion at some point we will see some sort of standarization in APIs and better native languages that incorporate part of the concepts of Java, and other similar languages.
I personally see interpreted languages as a sort of non-solution for the lack of standarization across platforms. Something like Apple's Universal Binaries using a standard API would be much nicer IMO. This is just my personal view of the issue though.
Java certainly has its strengths, but it can't compare to C/C++ performance-wise. Not when the code is written by an experienced programmer.
As an example of what I mean, how many successful processor intensive games written in Java do you know?
The right tool for the right job. If you want performance don't use Java.
Diego
That's just the tip of the iceberg, it seems.
i ng+to+put+this+CD+on+the+Internet+right+away.%22&h l=es&lr=&safe=off&filter=0
http://www.google.com.ar/search?q=%22Dude,+I'm+go
Heh real name. Linux distros have been around for a few years (since 1991) before Stallman even though of the term GNU/Linux (mid 1990s).
Call it as you want, just don't bother those who think differently. Calling the distros by their name (Redhat Linux and so on) is IMO the best choice.
I made it, I want the credits. I don't care if you think that's arrogance, the license you choose doesn't make the credits any more or less necessary.
Once again, science is not about truth. If you think about science from that perspective then it makes no sense to have this discussion.
Science is about the best bet we can make as to what reality is. Under this perspective, you always keep in mind that current theories may be, and probably are flawed. But each single theory always requires at least some kind of proof to back it up. It requires the ability to find further proof that it may be flawed as well.
The point if that no statement can be disproved in the way you explain. Not a single one. But if we were to take every single statement as science, then science would have no place or meaning in this world.
Says who? It would just take new evidence that the genetic coincidence between humans and apes is meaningless, or that we didn't all come from the sea, and evolution would go out of the window. If each species was found not to evolve in any way, then evolution would be proven wrong.
It is certainly disprovable.
Nothing as long as you don't try to disguise it as science. Scientific theories can be tested. Intelligent design can't.
I might as well tell you that elephants can fly. The fact you can't prove me wrong doesn't make my "theory" science.
Remember, "science" is not a synonim of "truth". In fact, no-one is saying ID can't be true. Simply that it's not science.
Nature does not obey science. We don't obey the laws of thermodynamics. Quite the contrary. Science exists to try to descrive and explain nature. Science tries it's best to try and prove that it's laws are wrong (through scientific experiments) and even when it fails to do so, it realizes that it may still be wrong. It never claims to know about absolute truths.
That's the difference between science and philosophy. Science can be tested and it can eventually be falsified.
Do you have any source at all to back that up?
In any case, that would be no good reason to commit fraud.
I completely disagree with your concept that being beaten to death does not take away your freedom of speech. In fact I can't think of a worse punishment than that for something you might say. Hell, if freedom of speech means getting a chance to say what you want to say then you always have that.
If you fear for your safety simply because of what you're saying or what you want to say, then sorry my friend, but you don't have freedom of speech on that topic.
Wearing a t-shirt that says "Osama rocks!" can be seen as exactly the same thing. After all you are supporting Osama by doing that.
Only if you agree first that being killed is not a way to restrict your freedom of speech. I think otherwise because I definately would refrain from saying those things if my life was at risk.
Because if you give them an easy-to-use OS you're taking from them their freedom to tinker with their system and eventually turn it into a virtual dishwasher or something like that. Linux is about freedom. How can you be free if you can't read some source code?
In fact they should even go further and deliver all the necessary parts and tools instead of the assembled laptop, so that the kids can learn the joys of assembling their own computer from scratch. No instructions should be included, of course.