I don't know about unique to your area but one of the things you forget is religious prejudice. Even in relatively enlightened countries and areas you find a lot of people who use their religion as an excuse to be prejudiced, largely against homosexuals
"An atheist is someone who does not believe in the possibility of a god. Not someone who does not have a religion. By not ruling out the possibility of a god, the person is not an atheist."
That's your definition, not anyone else's. Not any atheist I've ever met, not any atheist I've ever heard described. Short answer -
FAIL.
A-theist - without theism. Without religion or faith, usually because they are also a-gnostic, that is to say that they have been shown absolutely no supporting evidence for any of it.
Yep, and that bit I highlighted in bold is what makes me an agnostic rather than an Atheist
It makes you both. They are not the incompatible positions that you claim they are.
You have no knowledge - you are a-gnostic. So therefore you have no actual belief - you are a-theist.
Do you honestly think all the millions of people across the world that describe themselves as atheist have decided that even if there was evidence of a deity found they wouldn't believe it? That they've decided that they *know* and have confirmation that there is no god? That it's not the simple lack of any evidence that allows them to discard the myriad of religions and their fantastic claims?
You're further up your own superior butthole than I thought.
"The difference between an Agnostic and an Atheist is that the Agnostic remains open to new ideas"
Way to talk yourself up there agnostic guy! Atheists are all closed minded bigots! Unlike us agnostics!
You're an atheist. You don't have any religion, you don't actually believe in god, you just don't rule one out. Welcom,e to the club, you're an atheist, now lose the conceited attitude.
"As long as you provide the source code on demand, it doesn't matter if the binary only works for Windows or even if you are charged $1000 to get a copy."
I'm pretty sure there's some provision for the source to be made available for a reasonable fee - i.e. media, shipping and time. You can charge what you like for the software, but when you've given them the binaries the source must be made available at reasonable cost of reproduction.
"This is why open source still isn't taken seriously by businesses"
Twat.
Of course business doesn't take FOSS seriously, I mean, that explains perfectly why Oracle, the biggest name in databases, has it's own linux distribution.
And why IBM builds its software for RedHat and SuSE/Novell on the mainframe.
And why Google runs its search engine on a custome linux version.
It's not really the Americans fault. It's twisted that the fact we've allowed them to become such widespread captives is the only thing to save them.
Keeping captive tigers in vast numbers in private hands seems wrong. I don't think for a second that 10% of the captive tigers in the US are there for conservation, they're there to show off the wealth of the owner.
Tigers aren't going extinct, they're becoming a captive species.
The largest population of tigers in the world is in the USA. Hell, there are more tigers in Texas than there are in the wild.
It's weird, sick and sad in equal measure. Poor bastards. This international symbol of power and grace is being wiped out in the wild by fear, ignorance and superstition and becomes little more than a colourful pet for rich, fat americans.
And perhaps you ought to try to understand what a monopoly is and how making blanket statements about what apple are entitled to do with their stuff is stupid.
They are able to o this precisely until they are found to be a monopoly in either market, at which point locking hardware (iPod is definitely at monopoly stage) and software (iTunes must have over half the music download market) is abusive behaviour.
Specifically killing interop with other products is verging on illegal behavious and certainly makes them arseholes.
Only game in town when it comes to mp3 *players*, I realise that there are other music download services. They're not anywhere near as big as iTunes though.
Until such time as it's shown that they have a monopoly in online music distribution, at which point courts in various places will start to look seriously at why interoperativity isn't there.
And if/when they see behaviour like this, specifically designed to limit it, they'll likely make rulings about it.
I see the motivation for Apple - they are basically the only game in town when it comes to mp3, unless you're a geek - and they could see this as diluting their hold on the market.
Doesn't make them any less dickish for doing it though.
1. Microsoft put the work in, why should anyone else be able to run software on windows?
2. Meh, I don't own anything apple or palm, and I do prefer jsut using files. I just dislike idiocy (your post).
Re:Software Projects vs. Traditional Projects
on
Why New Systems Fail
·
· Score: 1
"Software Engineers" are one of the few types of engineers that are not liable for the failure of the systems they create."
How so? How are they liable?
Not every engineering projecgt outside of software involves protecting people's lives. Not evey software engineering project does not.
Seriously, you think the engineer (and yes he's an engineer) that designed a lightswitch that fails after a few uses is *personally* liable for replacing them?
And you think the company that sells network management software to the US government is not liable to be sued if it doesn't perform to contract?
So screw you all, I'm a Software Engineer. And a filthy hacker. Depending on what's appropriate at the time.
Re:Software Projects vs. Traditional Projects
on
Why New Systems Fail
·
· Score: 1
""Software Engineers" are one of the few types of engineers that are not liable for the failure of the systems they create."
Annnnnd... FAIL.
You think electronic engineers are personally liable for incorrect or buggy circuit design?
You think companies that sell software under contract are *not* liable when it doesn't perform?
Umm, no. Intel GFX chips are in general well supported with new, FOSS drivers. nVidia have modern closed drivers. ATI have some of both. Any of those would be better.
If you put work into GPL'd code you know that anyone that ports it or modifies it and distributes it then must give out their changes. It puts conditions on coders, sure, that they have to reciprocate if they want to use it.
If that says "less free" to you, that's fine. To me it says "this way free stuff gets better".
"This is how surveillance societies like Britain tend to do it now. "
Citation needed.
Really, the UK has billions of cameras, but few people watching them and I'd be very, very surprised if they had anything approaching the level of sophistication you're talking about.
Why would eradicate the script kids? They wouldn't have as ready a source of info to make their scripts with, but I don't get the feeling they'd be the ones making the scripts anyway. Their scripts come from black hats that have skills.
Frankly all this would do is mean that companies *cough* MS *cough* could get away with not patching stuff for longer, leaving things even more vulnerable. It's lunacy what they're asking for.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about unique to your area but one of the things you forget is religious prejudice. Even in relatively enlightened countries and areas you find a lot of people who use their religion as an excuse to be prejudiced, largely against homosexuals
"An atheist is someone who does not believe in the possibility of a god. Not someone who does not have a religion. By not ruling out the possibility of a god, the person is not an atheist."
That's your definition, not anyone else's. Not any atheist I've ever met, not any atheist I've ever heard described. Short answer -
FAIL.
A-theist - without theism. Without religion or faith, usually because they are also a-gnostic, that is to say that they have been shown absolutely no supporting evidence for any of it.
Yep, and that bit I highlighted in bold is what makes me an agnostic rather than an Atheist
It makes you both. They are not the incompatible positions that you claim they are.
You have no knowledge - you are a-gnostic.
So therefore you have no actual belief - you are a-theist.
Do you honestly think all the millions of people across the world that describe themselves as atheist have decided that even if there was evidence of a deity found they wouldn't believe it? That they've decided that they *know* and have confirmation that there is no god? That it's not the simple lack of any evidence that allows them to discard the myriad of religions and their fantastic claims?
You're further up your own superior butthole than I thought.
How much does whatever you're smoking cost by the gram?
I'd kill (ok, not really) to live in a place where mystical, irrational thinking didn't affect my life.
"The difference between an Agnostic and an Atheist is that the Agnostic remains open to new ideas"
Way to talk yourself up there agnostic guy! Atheists are all closed minded bigots! Unlike us agnostics!
You're an atheist. You don't have any religion, you don't actually believe in god, you just don't rule one out. Welcom,e to the club, you're an atheist, now lose the conceited attitude.
The two are in no way incompatible.
I don't have evidence, therefore I am agnostic.
As a result I don't have belief in a deity and I don't follow a religion, I am atheist.
So I call on you, stop pretending you occupy some hallowed, reasonable middle ground that nobody else occupies: admit you ARE an atheist.
Yes, because we don't have enough people making their lives miserable in loveless marriages or even abusive ones!
Balderdash. Divorce frees people. We westerners should just admit that marriage is a temporary (though indefinite) arrangement and move on.
"As long as you provide the source code on demand, it doesn't matter if the binary only works for Windows or even if you are charged $1000 to get a copy."
I'm pretty sure there's some provision for the source to be made available for a reasonable fee - i.e. media, shipping and time. You can charge what you like for the software, but when you've given them the binaries the source must be made available at reasonable cost of reproduction.
"This is why open source still isn't taken seriously by businesses"
Twat.
Of course business doesn't take FOSS seriously, I mean, that explains perfectly why Oracle, the biggest name in databases, has it's own linux distribution.
And why IBM builds its software for RedHat and SuSE/Novell on the mainframe.
And why Google runs its search engine on a custome linux version.
Think before you speak, moron.
Right, so to save tigers we have to breed them to be shot at by rich, fat assholes.
Fuck that.
It's not really the Americans fault. It's twisted that the fact we've allowed them to become such widespread captives is the only thing to save them.
Keeping captive tigers in vast numbers in private hands seems wrong. I don't think for a second that 10% of the captive tigers in the US are there for conservation, they're there to show off the wealth of the owner.
Tigers aren't going extinct, they're becoming a captive species.
The largest population of tigers in the world is in the USA. Hell, there are more tigers in Texas than there are in the wild.
It's weird, sick and sad in equal measure. Poor bastards. This international symbol of power and grace is being wiped out in the wild by fear, ignorance and superstition and becomes little more than a colourful pet for rich, fat americans.
Why does it need to be any more complex than artist->album?
I've never understood the need for genre's (especially seeing as they're pretty vague and meaningless). Why the hell would I care about years?
And perhaps you ought to try to understand what a monopoly is and how making blanket statements about what apple are entitled to do with their stuff is stupid.
They are able to o this precisely until they are found to be a monopoly in either market, at which point locking hardware (iPod is definitely at monopoly stage) and software (iTunes must have over half the music download market) is abusive behaviour.
Specifically killing interop with other products is verging on illegal behavious and certainly makes them arseholes.
Only game in town when it comes to mp3 *players*, I realise that there are other music download services. They're not anywhere near as big as iTunes though.
Until such time as it's shown that they have a monopoly in online music distribution, at which point courts in various places will start to look seriously at why interoperativity isn't there.
And if/when they see behaviour like this, specifically designed to limit it, they'll likely make rulings about it.
I see the motivation for Apple - they are basically the only game in town when it comes to mp3, unless you're a geek - and they could see this as diluting their hold on the market.
Doesn't make them any less dickish for doing it though.
1. Microsoft put the work in, why should anyone else be able to run software on windows?
2. Meh, I don't own anything apple or palm, and I do prefer jsut using files. I just dislike idiocy (your post).
"Software Engineers" are one of the few types of engineers that are not liable for the failure of the systems they create."
How so? How are they liable?
Not every engineering projecgt outside of software involves protecting people's lives. Not evey software engineering project does not.
Seriously, you think the engineer (and yes he's an engineer) that designed a lightswitch that fails after a few uses is *personally* liable for replacing them?
And you think the company that sells network management software to the US government is not liable to be sued if it doesn't perform to contract?
So screw you all, I'm a Software Engineer. And a filthy hacker. Depending on what's appropriate at the time.
""Software Engineers" are one of the few types of engineers that are not liable for the failure of the systems they create."
Annnnnd... FAIL.
You think electronic engineers are personally liable for incorrect or buggy circuit design?
You think companies that sell software under contract are *not* liable when it doesn't perform?
What a load of shit.
Umm, no. Intel GFX chips are in general well supported with new, FOSS drivers. nVidia have modern closed drivers. ATI have some of both. Any of those would be better.
That is specifically what the GPL disallows. BSD gives you more freedom to close your derivatives of someone else's work.
As a FOSS writer (not that I do much, but hypothetically) I don't see why I would want that.
GPL protects your investment.
If you put work into GPL'd code you know that anyone that ports it or modifies it and distributes it then must give out their changes. It puts conditions on coders, sure, that they have to reciprocate if they want to use it.
If that says "less free" to you, that's fine. To me it says "this way free stuff gets better".
"This is how surveillance societies like Britain tend to do it now. "
Citation needed.
Really, the UK has billions of cameras, but few people watching them and I'd be very, very surprised if they had anything approaching the level of sophistication you're talking about.
1. How do you know?
2. *These* black hats. unlike all the other black hats that already provide the tools. Right.
Why would eradicate the script kids?
They wouldn't have as ready a source of info to make their scripts with, but I don't get the feeling they'd be the ones making the scripts anyway. Their scripts come from black hats that have skills.
Frankly all this would do is mean that companies *cough* MS *cough* could get away with not patching stuff for longer, leaving things even more vulnerable. It's lunacy what they're asking for.