Kernel devs focusing on one distro would not force anyone to use it, nor would it prevent competition or niches, since it is all still open source (unlike Windows). It is a preference, not an ultimatum.
What it would do is go a long way toward establishing standards and increasing flexibility which are sorely lacking. Making that one distro (or meta-distro) more flexible (to accomodate derived distros) and standards based is far better than having thousands of rigid and incompatible options.
The community can, of course, still evolve new standards through competition. They just won't have to do it in parallel for each major distro (or desktop).
Freddie and Fannie may not have cut the subprime loans but they did guarantee or hold 1/3 of all subprime loans and 2/3 of all Alt-A loans, significantly increasing the market for such loans, in part due to their affordable housing requirements.
I just wanted to add my vote of confidence to your posts here. I hope Linux will evolve to have more stable interfaces / contracts (in addition to any new rapidly developed ones), which would actually encourage modular design and decentralized development of those modules, and not require constant centralized monitoring and integration by each distro.
Sadly, it often seems that this evolution is hindered by those who refuse to see its faults.
You're right: the problem isn't usually with packages. The problem lies with those applications that are not centrally packaged and maintained for your specific distro version and which are not simple for the average user to adapt.
Currently, modular interface design (in the generic contract sense) at the distro level is decentralized, which forces the distros themselves to each establish their own incompatible contracts / interfaces. By standardizing stable interfaces, greater decentralization of design and implementation of modules can be achieved.
The answer seems to be for some major authority (such as Linus? LSB?) to define much more than just the kernel or file system. IMHO, this is perhaps the sole advantage of Microsoft.
I agree: a religion describes some morality and therefore learning that religion can shape someone's morality. My point, though, was that they are tightly coupled, thus, a statement such as "religious radicals are a menace" is almost meaningless since the religion (or morality) is not specified (TiggertheMad was seemingly generalizing to all religion).
to help people understand the world, or to come to terms with an understanding of a "higher being"... That's where religion originally comes from.
We don't know where religion originally comes from, in part because it's such a vague and encompassing concept. We can look at specific cases, such as Judaism, where the "religion" was, essentially, the source of law (e.g. Torah means law).
However, I think, in part, you are right: religion (like philosophy) is an attempt to better understand and control our reality. But I think, in a sense, morality is at the heart of that goal because it defines what is "good" and "bad" to do. If you want rain, pray to the rain god; that is "good". Most people today think that is "bad", or perhaps irrelevant -- which is a place between "good" and "bad".
Perhaps as "religions" came to peacefully coexist, certain common morals were factored out and made into "secular" law.
Whether they are moral or not depends on the underlying morals of the religion they follow...
Here you demonstrate the fundamental dilemma: we judge the morality of others relative to our own morality.
and/or what code of morals they have chosen for themselves.
Can the code of morals they have chosen for themselves constitute a personal religion?
I'm guessing that they would similarly feel distasteful about pushing their beliefs on other people
It seems like you might be equating evangelism with fundamentalism, though I'm not entirely sure what would constitute "pushing" in your mind. I don't know much about the Amish either, but google is our friend. You are somewhat correct.
"The Amish have no religious opposition to evangelism but rather it has been forgotten and never revived. This was not always so."
Also:
"However, missionary zeal experienced a strong rebirth around the beginning of this century in Mennonite circles and more recently among the Church Amish. As a result of this rebirth of evangelism, Mennonites today number more than one million people in over 60 countries around the world and speak 78 different languages."
the fundamentalist believes first and foremost that their beliefs are the only true ones, and feel threatened unless those beliefs are reflected in the society at large that they live in. Thus, they are in a cultural war with secularism and all of the "wrong" religions.
In attempting to generalize from particular examples of historical "Fundamentalism", I think you have essentially described most political movements. I think everyone is in a "culture war", inasmuch as we must interact and we each have our own idea of how that should proceed.
Let's take abortion for example: if you have a strong opinion that your beliefs should become law and thus imposed upon society, are you a "fundamentalist"?
When I look up Fundamentalism, reference is made to specific Christian and Muslim historical movements, but if we try to generalize it, I'm not sure what is really left except the "rigid adherence to fundamental or basic principles", which has no moral significance until you actually define those principles and their specific application.
I'm more moderately religious, so I have a kind of "live and let live" attitude towards everyone else's beliefs. So long as another person has no desire to control what I can think, do, or say, they can believe whatever they want.
I tend to agree with your "live and let live" attitude, but I think it is a bit simplisti
I have been to China, but you're right that I only have a basic understanding of the various Eastern religions. Keep in mind that there is a vast array, of which you may have observed but a few overt variants.
I'm certainly not an expert, but I do not define all of Islam merely by the acts of Muslim terrorists, nor do I merely look to the Pope to define Christianity. Even specific religions often have a multitude of vague definitions.
But, you apparently want to debate the definition of "god" as it applies to religion, which is good.
The question is, if "gods" are accepted to be ordinary human beings who have simply learned something or achieved something which others praise and wish to emulate, then where is the objective line which, once crossed, transforms a teacher or paragon into a god, and thus some philosophy into a religion?
I don't think this line is well defined. I'm not even sure that it can be defined. From my Concise Columbia Encyclopedia:
religion: a system of thought, feeling, and action shared by a group that gives members an object of devotion; a code of ethics governing personal and social conduct; and a frame of reference relating individuals to their group and the universe. Usually, religion concerns itself with what transcends the known, the natural, or the expected; it is an acknowledgment of the extraordinary, the mysterious, and the supernatural....
My point is that religion is such a broad and subjective concept that, beyond being defined by some morality and practices, there is little we can objectively say about it in the general sense.
Oops. Sorry. After writing my last reply, I noticed that ELF does standardize a SONAME for linking which includes some versioning information, and which can be different from the actual filename it resolves to.
Of course, I suppose it could be argued that the SONAME resolution is not part of Linux since it is up to each executable to implement it. However, since most execs implement it by linking to the standard ld.so, I'm not sure the distinction is that significant.
So if versioning conflicts are not the problem with Linux, why are there still so many incompatibilities and why are packages often restricted to a single version of a single distro?
What information does ELF hold that PE doesn't? Note that Windows uses PE and not the old COFF, and that (IIRC) both PE and ELF are based upon COFF. You can certainly store version information in PE. If you're ever in Windows, take a look at the Version tab in the Properties of a modern.exe or.dll.
However, AFAIK, that version information is not used when dynamically linking, in either Linux or Windows (other than dotNET) -- they both link solely based upon the filename.
i.e. shared library (.so) resolution in the host program only depends upon the.so filename and not any supplementary version or capability information provided by the host.
The package manager is (sadly) independent of this resolution mechanism. I think this is part of why relatively "closed" systems of packages are required by Linux distributions.
The primary advantage that Linux has is that symlinks can be used rather than duplicating files -- i.e. the version is embedded in the filename, but that filename can be resolved to link to a more advanced, but compatible, version. However, this system requires symlink maintenance by someone to determine compatibility and fix it if necessary, which is provided redundantly by each distro and package manager.
There is nothing inherent in Windows that prevents solving DLL hell. The problem is the same as with Linux: finding compatible capabilities independent of filename or version. DotNET, for example, provides a vastly improved system for dynamically managing versions.
I have spent much time on Windows and DLL hell has become rare because programmers avoid it by linking to DLLs with the version in the filename. Sometimes they even keep all the necessary DLLs in their program's directory, so the application is basically self-contained. This often destroys the principle of reuse, but stability is much more important, and a lot of the libraries that are important to share are standardized by Microsoft and backwards compatible.
The problem is that package management in Linux is so fragmented, as you illustrated. It's not "Linux" (the kernel), it's the distributions -- each creating their own, relatively closed, world of incompatible packages. Of course, if Linus did provide a standard system in the kernel for package management and versioning, it would probably go a long way toward standardizing across all distributions.
Amazingly, in Windows, the world is open: MS doesn't need to maintain a repository of all the properly crafted applications for each version of their distro. Their binary and source APIs are much more stable than Linux, and they tend to maintain backwards compatibility.
I love the idea and heart of Linux, but it seems that a BDFL is required at the distribution level to declare some standards. Installation should be as easy as copying a directory (back to the DOS days). This is the way MS is headed with dotNET. This is why I'm also interested in somewhat similar projects for Linux, such as zero-install. There are some flaws, but even if it were perfect, if it is not widely accepted, it becomes largely meaningless.
I believe that "non-theistic religion" is a contradiction in terms and that you meant philosophy. Could you explain?
Good question. At the time, I was thinking of some Eastern religions such as Confucianism. I think Buddhism and Taoism might also be good examples which may have some elements of the "supernatural", but (IIRC) there aren't any deities (though I suppose we can also discuss the definition of "deity" or "god"). These could be called philosophies, but I think they are also often called religions.
I think we can view philosophy as addressing the same question as religion ("ultimate reality" and our relation to it). Philosophy does seem to exclude "deities", but, by my examples above, I don't think religion requires them.
As such, I think there is strong overlap between philosophy ("ethics") and religion because both describe some morality, both attempt to draw conclusions based upon insufficient empirical evidence, and, as such, neither need be provable. This is because, ostensibly, empirical justice does not exist, and so morality appears to be subjective.
In essence, I think the "supernatural" (as is often used to characterize religion) can be virtually indistinguishable from the "natural that we do not yet know" (philosophy).
I agree. Your interpretation was my intent. Actually, I'm not sure how it is otherwise being interpreted, since there are obviously multiple distict religions and multiple distinct moralities (hence the need for laws). Everyone has their own sense of morality.
Regarding names, you are correct. I can call myself a frog, but that doesn't make me one. The necessity of matching a name with a shared definition is not limited to religions.
My original intent was simply to suggest to TiggertheMad (and others) that generalizing "fundy religion" or "religious radicals" as a "menace" is non-sensical, because the generalization abstracts away which particular morals they are "fundamental" or "radical" about.
Hmmm... "backwards" would be: "morality is an expression of religion," but then you proceed to argue that morality is not derived from religion, which was exactly my point to TiggertheMad: "religion" is simply an expression of someone's morality (my original statement).
I made no qualification about whether I judged a particular person's or religion's morals as "moral" by my standards (note the subjectivity and the subtle variations of the definition of "moral").
I was simply questioning TiggertheMad's assertion that the problem and menace is "any sort of fundy religion" and "religious radicals", without defining the particular religion or morals. Is religion bad? Is fundamentalism bad? Shall we call the Amish "fundamentalism" a menace? What exactly are we talking about?
In general, I think it is difficult for anyone to have a strong set of (what modern US society would consider) "good" morals; hence the rise of religions and laws. Note that even your "practical" motivation has lead to many accepted religions, including non-theistic ones.
crusade 1. Often Crusade. Any of the military expeditions undertaken by European Christians in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Moslems. 2. A holy war undertaken with papal sanction. 3. A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse. See synonyms at CAMPAIGN. [French croisade and Spanish cruzada, both ultimately from Latin crux, cruc-, cross.]
Start at the beginning. The Crusades were in response to something.
Inasmuch as a book cannot be moral, you are correct; the question is our interpretation and application. There is a lot of grey area on both sides, but there are differences.
Essentially, I think you are both arguing for the same idea: ease of use.
Currently, manufacturers are inclined to create fairly proprietary systems, encouraging the purchase of all components made by the same manufacturer.
Likewise, the content providers want to be able to keep the content DRM encrypted right up to the TV, ideally so that you cannot get an unencrypted stream by any other means.
If it were not illegal, I'm confident the free market would naturally make it easier to work with digital content. cf. DVD: CSS, Region codes, UOPs, Macrovision, etc.
I'm sure you've been reading slashdot for a while, so I'm wondering why you are equivocating "copyright infringement" and "stealing"? Theft requires depriving someone of something. Hence, "copyright infringement" could be theft, but it is not necessarily theft. Most importantly, beyond this possible aspect of "theft", I do not currently see how "copyright infringement" has any remaining immoral aspect. Perhaps you could explain it to me if you disagree.
The reason why many people's attitude toward the GPL is different from their attitude toward commercial licenses, while both rely upon copyright for their foundation, is because of the original intent of "copyright". Say it with me, "to promote the progress of science and useful arts". This is often viewed as the "public domain" -- i.e. the sum of knowledge that can be used and shared openly and freely by all. Logically, what other reason could there be for creating copyright than benefiting all of society?
While the GPL does restrict sharing in that it requires that the source accompany all binary code, its obvious and encompassing purpose is to enforce a freely shareable quasi-"public domain", which is becoming more and more necessary in this day and age where copyrights do not expire and legally enforceable restrictions upon modification are commonplace. Hence, in a very real sense, the GPL builds and protects the public domain (the intent of copyright), while commercial licenses starve the public domain (allowed by current copyright law).
i.e. the GPL is helping to account for the failure of the modern copyright system to feed the public domain, ironically, by using that very same copyright system. Hence, copyleft to balance copyright.
e.g. If software copyrights expired after several years and, as a result, the source code was added to the public domain, I don't think there would be as much use for the GPL (except to effectively eliminate usage in commercial software).
Copyright can be very useful, but it is important not to lose sight of the fact that it is an artificial construct which restricts everyone's freedoms for a purpose. If that purpose is not being met, perhaps "copyright" should be reconsidered?
Though you can lose your legs, or perhaps even your tongue in some freak accident. It's all statistical anyway. Hey, wait... are you invalid?
When Gattaca was first released, as part of a marketing campaign there were adverts for people to call up and have their children genetically engineered. Thousands of people called, wanting to have their offspring genetically engineered.
Vincent: They used to say that a child conceived in love has a greater chance of happiness. They don't say that anymore.
whereas all brass instruments have their sound originate in a brass or otherwise metallic mouthpeice.
I can see how the sound originates from the vibrating "wooden" reed in woodwinds, but I thought that the sound of brass (excepting flutes) actually originates from the vibrating lips of the human?
A carnival performer whose show consists of bizarre acts, such as biting the head off a live chicken.
The page also provides some insight about the other influences of the circus, which appears to parallel the modern "geek". In particular, the geek's seemingly bizarre behaviour and the "why would he spend all his time doing that?" attitude of onlookers seems to be maintained across both old and new definitions, and is perhaps the primary common thread defining a geek... not to mention his frequent interest in comics (anime, fantasy, scifi).
Our Living Language Our word geek is now chiefly associated with student and computer slang; one probably thinks first of a computer geek. In origin, however, it is one of the words American English borrowed from the vocabulary of the circus, which was a much more significant source of entertainment in the United States in the 19th and early 20th century than it is now. Large numbers of traveling circuses left a cultural legacy in various and sometimes unexpected ways. For example, Superman and other comic book superheroes owe much of their look to circus acrobats, who were similarly costumed in capes and tights. The circus sideshow is the source of the word geek, "a performer who engaged in bizarre acts, such as biting the head off a live chicken."
We also owe the word ballyhoo to the circus; its ultimate origin is unknown, but in the late 1800s it referred to a flamboyant free musical performance conducted outside a circus with the goal of luring customers to buy tickets to the inside shows. Other words and expressions with circus origins include bandwagon (coined by P.T. Barnum in 1855) and Siamese twin.
At its best, the circus embodied everything mysterious and fantastical. Modern circuses (e.g. Cirque Du Soleil) still hold that amazement at their core. Dis the circus-folk at your own peril.:)
I'm amazed BitTorrent receives so much attention compared to other existing decentralized protocols like ed2k or overnet which are more mature and require no special seeding to share.
As more low bandwidth users become involved in BitTorrent (especially seeding), I suspect its propagation rate will deteriorate as well.
Protecting root is important in the "root = god" security paradigm, but even in the best case (perfect implementation and no local root exploits), that only protects the bulk operating system and none of the user's programs or files. Worms can still propagate. Viruses can still copy or destroy all the user's precious data.
Using a separate user account for all internet usage and app testing would help, and in fact, taken to an extreme leads to SELinux and its kin which provide for complex access controls based upon combinations of programs, users, and resources. Fedora seems to be going in that direction and, as a result, might become my default OS if it makes managing applications hassle-free -- by pre-determining the proper ACLs for common applications, securely distributing them, and by providing tools for quick context-sensitive ACL management.
For a while, Microsoft was investigating similar security measures such as Argus Pitbull, but alas, it appears that they make more money with insecure systems.
That's an excellent brief summary of Chaos Theory. It is certainly a useful model type in many cases, but I wonder if it is truly defining of our reality.
As you imply, the illusion of non-determinism can exist in a deterministic system, which makes me curious as to whether non-determinism actually exists in our Universe?
If it does exist, then the grandparent could be right and non-determinism could exist throughout all of reality, which, when analyzing, we could simply write off as variations in measurement.
On a grander scale, many people are content to believe that a kernel of non-determinism lies at the heart of human "free will". Modern society does not blame fate for human actions, but rather the humans themselves. In keeping with this ideology, the paradox of "free will" versus a deterministic universe arises.
It seems that non-determinism vs determinism is a dilemma which cannot be objectively solved because absolute prediction about the future is impossible since we cannot effectively gather sufficient information (Heisenberg).
Some may say that this paradox is irrelevant since there is effectively no objective difference between non-determinism and uncertainty, but belief in non-determinism ("free will") has certainly influenced our society, and very arguably for the better... though, obviously, such an argument is recursive since it assumes the "free will" to choose.:)
Maybe I'm missing something. Any insight for me? In any case, thanks for prompting my muse.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks!
What is the difference between a reasoner and a rule engine?
Kernel devs focusing on one distro would not force anyone to use it, nor would it prevent competition or niches, since it is all still open source (unlike Windows). It is a preference, not an ultimatum.
What it would do is go a long way toward establishing standards and increasing flexibility which are sorely lacking. Making that one distro (or meta-distro) more flexible (to accomodate derived distros) and standards based is far better than having thousands of rigid and incompatible options.
The community can, of course, still evolve new standards through competition. They just won't have to do it in parallel for each major distro (or desktop).
Freddie and Fannie may not have cut the subprime loans but they did guarantee or hold 1/3 of all subprime loans and 2/3 of all Alt-A loans, significantly increasing the market for such loans, in part due to their affordable housing requirements.
I just wanted to add my vote of confidence to your posts here. I hope Linux will evolve to have more stable interfaces / contracts (in addition to any new rapidly developed ones), which would actually encourage modular design and decentralized development of those modules, and not require constant centralized monitoring and integration by each distro.
Sadly, it often seems that this evolution is hindered by those who refuse to see its faults.
You're right: the problem isn't usually with packages. The problem lies with those applications that are not centrally packaged and maintained for your specific distro version and which are not simple for the average user to adapt.
Currently, modular interface design (in the generic contract sense) at the distro level is decentralized, which forces the distros themselves to each establish their own incompatible contracts / interfaces. By standardizing stable interfaces, greater decentralization of design and implementation of modules can be achieved.
The answer seems to be for some major authority (such as Linus? LSB?) to define much more than just the kernel or file system. IMHO, this is perhaps the sole advantage of Microsoft.
to help people understand the world, or to come to terms with an understanding of a "higher being"... That's where religion originally comes from.
We don't know where religion originally comes from, in part because it's such a vague and encompassing concept. We can look at specific cases, such as Judaism, where the "religion" was, essentially, the source of law (e.g. Torah means law).
However, I think, in part, you are right: religion (like philosophy) is an attempt to better understand and control our reality. But I think, in a sense, morality is at the heart of that goal because it defines what is "good" and "bad" to do. If you want rain, pray to the rain god; that is "good". Most people today think that is "bad", or perhaps irrelevant -- which is a place between "good" and "bad".
Perhaps as "religions" came to peacefully coexist, certain common morals were factored out and made into "secular" law.
Whether they are moral or not depends on the underlying morals of the religion they follow...
Here you demonstrate the fundamental dilemma: we judge the morality of others relative to our own morality.
and/or what code of morals they have chosen for themselves.
Can the code of morals they have chosen for themselves constitute a personal religion?
I'm guessing that they would similarly feel distasteful about pushing their beliefs on other people
It seems like you might be equating evangelism with fundamentalism, though I'm not entirely sure what would constitute "pushing" in your mind. I don't know much about the Amish either, but google is our friend. You are somewhat correct.
Also:
the fundamentalist believes first and foremost that their beliefs are the only true ones, and feel threatened unless those beliefs are reflected in the society at large that they live in. Thus, they are in a cultural war with secularism and all of the "wrong" religions.
In attempting to generalize from particular examples of historical "Fundamentalism", I think you have essentially described most political movements. I think everyone is in a "culture war", inasmuch as we must interact and we each have our own idea of how that should proceed.
Let's take abortion for example: if you have a strong opinion that your beliefs should become law and thus imposed upon society, are you a "fundamentalist"?
When I look up Fundamentalism, reference is made to specific Christian and Muslim historical movements, but if we try to generalize it, I'm not sure what is really left except the "rigid adherence to fundamental or basic principles", which has no moral significance until you actually define those principles and their specific application.
I'm more moderately religious, so I have a kind of "live and let live" attitude towards everyone else's beliefs. So long as another person has no desire to control what I can think, do, or say, they can believe whatever they want.
I tend to agree with your "live and let live" attitude, but I think it is a bit simplisti
I'm certainly not an expert, but I do not define all of Islam merely by the acts of Muslim terrorists, nor do I merely look to the Pope to define Christianity. Even specific religions often have a multitude of vague definitions.
But, you apparently want to debate the definition of "god" as it applies to religion, which is good.
The question is, if "gods" are accepted to be ordinary human beings who have simply learned something or achieved something which others praise and wish to emulate, then where is the objective line which, once crossed, transforms a teacher or paragon into a god, and thus some philosophy into a religion?
I don't think this line is well defined. I'm not even sure that it can be defined. From my Concise Columbia Encyclopedia:My point is that religion is such a broad and subjective concept that, beyond being defined by some morality and practices, there is little we can objectively say about it in the general sense.
Oops. Sorry. After writing my last reply, I noticed that ELF does standardize a SONAME for linking which includes some versioning information, and which can be different from the actual filename it resolves to.
Of course, I suppose it could be argued that the SONAME resolution is not part of Linux since it is up to each executable to implement it. However, since most execs implement it by linking to the standard ld.so, I'm not sure the distinction is that significant.
So if versioning conflicts are not the problem with Linux, why are there still so many incompatibilities and why are packages often restricted to a single version of a single distro?
What information does ELF hold that PE doesn't? Note that Windows uses PE and not the old COFF, and that (IIRC) both PE and ELF are based upon COFF. You can certainly store version information in PE. If you're ever in Windows, take a look at the Version tab in the Properties of a modern .exe or .dll.
.so filename and not any supplementary version or capability information provided by the host.
However, AFAIK, that version information is not used when dynamically linking, in either Linux or Windows (other than dotNET) -- they both link solely based upon the filename.
i.e. shared library (.so) resolution in the host program only depends upon the
The package manager is (sadly) independent of this resolution mechanism. I think this is part of why relatively "closed" systems of packages are required by Linux distributions.
The primary advantage that Linux has is that symlinks can be used rather than duplicating files -- i.e. the version is embedded in the filename, but that filename can be resolved to link to a more advanced, but compatible, version. However, this system requires symlink maintenance by someone to determine compatibility and fix it if necessary, which is provided redundantly by each distro and package manager.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
There is nothing inherent in Windows that prevents solving DLL hell. The problem is the same as with Linux: finding compatible capabilities independent of filename or version. DotNET, for example, provides a vastly improved system for dynamically managing versions.
I have spent much time on Windows and DLL hell has become rare because programmers avoid it by linking to DLLs with the version in the filename. Sometimes they even keep all the necessary DLLs in their program's directory, so the application is basically self-contained. This often destroys the principle of reuse, but stability is much more important, and a lot of the libraries that are important to share are standardized by Microsoft and backwards compatible.
The problem is that package management in Linux is so fragmented, as you illustrated. It's not "Linux" (the kernel), it's the distributions -- each creating their own, relatively closed, world of incompatible packages. Of course, if Linus did provide a standard system in the kernel for package management and versioning, it would probably go a long way toward standardizing across all distributions.
Amazingly, in Windows, the world is open: MS doesn't need to maintain a repository of all the properly crafted applications for each version of their distro. Their binary and source APIs are much more stable than Linux, and they tend to maintain backwards compatibility.
I love the idea and heart of Linux, but it seems that a BDFL is required at the distribution level to declare some standards. Installation should be as easy as copying a directory (back to the DOS days). This is the way MS is headed with dotNET. This is why I'm also interested in somewhat similar projects for Linux, such as zero-install. There are some flaws, but even if it were perfect, if it is not widely accepted, it becomes largely meaningless.
I believe that "non-theistic religion" is a contradiction in terms and that you meant philosophy. Could you explain?
Good question. At the time, I was thinking of some Eastern religions such as Confucianism. I think Buddhism and Taoism might also be good examples which may have some elements of the "supernatural", but (IIRC) there aren't any deities (though I suppose we can also discuss the definition of "deity" or "god"). These could be called philosophies, but I think they are also often called religions.
I think we can view philosophy as addressing the same question as religion ("ultimate reality" and our relation to it). Philosophy does seem to exclude "deities", but, by my examples above, I don't think religion requires them.
As such, I think there is strong overlap between philosophy ("ethics") and religion because both describe some morality, both attempt to draw conclusions based upon insufficient empirical evidence, and, as such, neither need be provable. This is because, ostensibly, empirical justice does not exist, and so morality appears to be subjective.
In essence, I think the "supernatural" (as is often used to characterize religion) can be virtually indistinguishable from the "natural that we do not yet know" (philosophy).
Hi there, HiThere.
:)
Ah, it was all a subterfuge, huh? I can accept that as a possible contribution to their motivation, but I suspect there were more reasons.
I agree. Your interpretation was my intent. Actually, I'm not sure how it is otherwise being interpreted, since there are obviously multiple distict religions and multiple distinct moralities (hence the need for laws). Everyone has their own sense of morality.
Regarding names, you are correct. I can call myself a frog, but that doesn't make me one. The necessity of matching a name with a shared definition is not limited to religions.
My original intent was simply to suggest to TiggertheMad (and others) that generalizing "fundy religion" or "religious radicals" as a "menace" is non-sensical, because the generalization abstracts away which particular morals they are "fundamental" or "radical" about.
Hmmm... "backwards" would be: "morality is an expression of religion," but then you proceed to argue that morality is not derived from religion, which was exactly my point to TiggertheMad: "religion" is simply an expression of someone's morality (my original statement).
I made no qualification about whether I judged a particular person's or religion's morals as "moral" by my standards (note the subjectivity and the subtle variations of the definition of "moral").
I was simply questioning TiggertheMad's assertion that the problem and menace is "any sort of fundy religion" and "religious radicals", without defining the particular religion or morals. Is religion bad? Is fundamentalism bad? Shall we call the Amish "fundamentalism" a menace? What exactly are we talking about?
In general, I think it is difficult for anyone to have a strong set of (what modern US society would consider) "good" morals; hence the rise of religions and laws. Note that even your "practical" motivation has lead to many accepted religions, including non-theistic ones.
I don't agree with the grandparent, but...
crusade
1. Often Crusade. Any of the military expeditions undertaken by European Christians in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Moslems.
2. A holy war undertaken with papal sanction.
3. A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse. See synonyms at CAMPAIGN.
[French croisade and Spanish cruzada, both ultimately from Latin crux, cruc-, cross.]
Start at the beginning. The Crusades were in response to something.
Inasmuch as a book cannot be moral, you are correct; the question is our interpretation and application. There is a lot of grey area on both sides, but there are differences.
As opposed to secular radicals who are a menace to no one? Religion is an expression of morality.
Essentially, I think you are both arguing for the same idea: ease of use.
Currently, manufacturers are inclined to create fairly proprietary systems, encouraging the purchase of all components made by the same manufacturer.
Likewise, the content providers want to be able to keep the content DRM encrypted right up to the TV, ideally so that you cannot get an unencrypted stream by any other means.
If it were not illegal, I'm confident the free market would naturally make it easier to work with digital content. cf. DVD: CSS, Region codes, UOPs, Macrovision, etc.
Dear bonch,
I'm sure you've been reading slashdot for a while, so I'm wondering why you are equivocating "copyright infringement" and "stealing"? Theft requires depriving someone of something. Hence, "copyright infringement" could be theft, but it is not necessarily theft. Most importantly, beyond this possible aspect of "theft", I do not currently see how "copyright infringement" has any remaining immoral aspect. Perhaps you could explain it to me if you disagree.
The reason why many people's attitude toward the GPL is different from their attitude toward commercial licenses, while both rely upon copyright for their foundation, is because of the original intent of "copyright". Say it with me, "to promote the progress of science and useful arts". This is often viewed as the "public domain" -- i.e. the sum of knowledge that can be used and shared openly and freely by all. Logically, what other reason could there be for creating copyright than benefiting all of society?
While the GPL does restrict sharing in that it requires that the source accompany all binary code, its obvious and encompassing purpose is to enforce a freely shareable quasi-"public domain", which is becoming more and more necessary in this day and age where copyrights do not expire and legally enforceable restrictions upon modification are commonplace. Hence, in a very real sense, the GPL builds and protects the public domain (the intent of copyright), while commercial licenses starve the public domain (allowed by current copyright law).
i.e. the GPL is helping to account for the failure of the modern copyright system to feed the public domain, ironically, by using that very same copyright system. Hence, copyleft to balance copyright.
e.g. If software copyrights expired after several years and, as a result, the source code was added to the public domain, I don't think there would be as much use for the GPL (except to effectively eliminate usage in commercial software).
Copyright can be very useful, but it is important not to lose sight of the fact that it is an artificial construct which restricts everyone's freedoms for a purpose. If that purpose is not being met, perhaps "copyright" should be reconsidered?
Though you can lose your legs, or perhaps even your tongue in some freak accident. It's all statistical anyway. Hey, wait... are you invalid?
When Gattaca was first released, as part of a marketing campaign there were adverts for people to call up and have their children genetically engineered. Thousands of people called, wanting to have their offspring genetically engineered.
Vincent: They used to say that a child conceived in love has a greater chance of happiness. They don't say that anymore.
Guanine, Adenine, Thymine, Thymine, Adenine,Cytosine, Adenine.
"guanine" etymologically derives from "guano", in which it is found.
whereas all brass instruments have their sound originate in a brass or otherwise metallic mouthpeice.
:)
I can see how the sound originates from the vibrating "wooden" reed in woodwinds, but I thought that the sound of brass (excepting flutes) actually originates from the vibrating lips of the human?
Brass = Lipswind?
I'm amazed BitTorrent receives so much attention compared to other existing decentralized protocols like ed2k or overnet which are more mature and require no special seeding to share.
As more low bandwidth users become involved in BitTorrent (especially seeding), I suspect its propagation rate will deteriorate as well.
Anybody have an explanation or comparison?
Protecting root is important in the "root = god" security paradigm, but even in the best case (perfect implementation and no local root exploits), that only protects the bulk operating system and none of the user's programs or files. Worms can still propagate. Viruses can still copy or destroy all the user's precious data.
Using a separate user account for all internet usage and app testing would help, and in fact, taken to an extreme leads to SELinux and its kin which provide for complex access controls based upon combinations of programs, users, and resources. Fedora seems to be going in that direction and, as a result, might become my default OS if it makes managing applications hassle-free -- by pre-determining the proper ACLs for common applications, securely distributing them, and by providing tools for quick context-sensitive ACL management.
For a while, Microsoft was investigating similar security measures such as Argus Pitbull, but alas, it appears that they make more money with insecure systems.
That's an excellent brief summary of Chaos Theory. It is certainly a useful model type in many cases, but I wonder if it is truly defining of our reality.
:)
As you imply, the illusion of non-determinism can exist in a deterministic system, which makes me curious as to whether non-determinism actually exists in our Universe?
If it does exist, then the grandparent could be right and non-determinism could exist throughout all of reality, which, when analyzing, we could simply write off as variations in measurement.
On a grander scale, many people are content to believe that a kernel of non-determinism lies at the heart of human "free will". Modern society does not blame fate for human actions, but rather the humans themselves. In keeping with this ideology, the paradox of "free will" versus a deterministic universe arises.
It seems that non-determinism vs determinism is a dilemma which cannot be objectively solved because absolute prediction about the future is impossible since we cannot effectively gather sufficient information (Heisenberg).
Some may say that this paradox is irrelevant since there is effectively no objective difference between non-determinism and uncertainty, but belief in non-determinism ("free will") has certainly influenced our society, and very arguably for the better... though, obviously, such an argument is recursive since it assumes the "free will" to choose.
Maybe I'm missing something. Any insight for me? In any case, thanks for prompting my muse.