An index is only marginally useful in Ogg for the complexity added; it adds no new functionality and seldom improves performance noticeably. Why add extra complexity if it gets you nothing?
You can do seeking without an index:
A binary search is discussed in the spec for ease of comprehension; implementation documents suggest an interpolated bisection search. So far, this is the same as Matroska and NUT.
The only difference being, Matroska implementers tend to be lazy about implementing the indexless seeking properly, and people tend to use indexes, thus propagating this myth even more.
The Vorbis source distribution includes an example program called 'seeking_example' that does a stress-test of 5000 seeks of different kinds within an Ogg file. Testing here with SVN r17178, 5000 seeks within a 10GB Ogg file constructed by concatenating 22 short Ogg videos of varying bitrates together results in 17459 actual seek system calls. This yields a result of just under 3.5 real seeks per Ogg seek request when doing exact positioning within an Ogg file. Most actual seeking within an Ogg file would be more appropriately implemented by scrubbing with a single physical seek.
And there you go. I don't know WTF is wrong with your players, but really, how can a total of four seeks bring your system to a crawl?
Mapping is a term I coined for the process of formally documenting how a codec will be placed into a container. Every container involves details beyond 'plop raw compressed frames into the container and you're done.' Some details include specifying codec magic (eg, the "FOURCC" in AVI, the 'Magic' in Ogg), choosing an appropriate timebase (or how to convert to the container's timebase), how one indicates keyframes/sync points, how this data is submitted to the container, and so on. Mappings also allow a given codec to take targeted advantage of the features offered by a particular container. One example is mp3 in Matroska, where the mapping specifies that the mp3 header is to be treated as duplicated/compressed data. Mappings need only be specified once and they're done.
By definition, mapping must be done for any codec into any container, even if the mapping is relatively trivial. This is true of MP4/MOV, Matroska, Ogg, NUT, AVI, and every other container. Some containers, like Ogg and Matroska[5], explicitly describe and document mapping, as well as the codec mappings themselves. Other containers document mappings but have no explicit name for it. A few remainders like AVI neither institutionalize the process of mapping, nor reliably document how codec data is contained, leading to an 'anything goes' situation of widespread ambiguity and compatibility conflicts[6].
In short, every container has codec mappings whether they are explicit or implicit or even well-formed. The Ogg project has a name for the process. It is disingenuous to claim that Ogg is inferior to some other container that requires these same decisions, but has no name for the process, or worse, no process at all.
So I have to ask: Have you done significant work with both OGG and other formats?
What? No they won't. They'll have to remember not to ever click the IE icon, which can be handled by removing said icon and forcing them to use Firefox.
IETab can easily be configured to automatically apply to certain URLs, so it would be trivial to have the corporate intranet run on IETab, and the rest of the world run on a real browser.
That's what IETab is for. Have them use a modern browser (like Firefox), and have the specific apps that break in Firefox run using the IE6 renderer in a tab.
I can easily see the pictures of my cousins / old college friends / other relatives, and they can see mine -- without following a lot of random Flickr or Photobucket links.
Same is true of any decent blogging platform. Worst-case, host it on something like flickr and hotlink it in, or use some sort of widget -- same as you'd do with YouTube.
One, I'm on Linux, for reasons which have nothing to do with money. Until there's a native Photoshop for Linux, that's a point in favor of any native editing app -- The Gimp, Krita, anything.
Two, is it actually better? I agree that the full version of Photoshop is better, but that's the baby version of photoshop, and from what I've seen, The Gimp is at least as good, if not better.
Suppose Apple did ban OSX applications that don't have a good interface. Certainly at least one developer would be willing to write graphics program for OSX that has a good UI because that would give them a market with less competition.
That only works if you're only considering broad categories of application, like "graphics program" -- it means that some little one-man projects would likely be gone.
And, as delinear points out, it would very likely drive people to less restrictive platforms. Think about it -- why would you bother developing for OS X, where you have to do that much extra work to develop a "good UI" which Apple may reject anyway, to get less marketshare than you'd have on Windows, which is going to be far easier to develop for?
Then instead of having to choose between a crappy UI or nothing you would have a good UI.
Well, then you'd have no choice beyond that good UI, whether or not the app itself is good.
Maybe this will help: Right now, Photoshop would fail such a test. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your perspective), Apple has shown that they're willing to make exceptions when it suits them, and I suspect they'd allow Photoshop. But suppose they applied the rule consistently -- you'd now have no Photoshop and no Gimp, probably no Inkscape...
Yes, someone would write a crappy little Paint clone with a beautiful OS X UI. Thanks to Apple, you would now have no choice -- you'd have a good UI and a sucky app, instead of a sucky UI and a good app.
Don't you think, that the reason iPhones are close to perfect, is because of the super-tight approval process...
Nope, not really.
Not only in the App Store,
They don't allow third-party app stores, so it's not just the app store, but the entire device that they're asserting that control over.
You give up nothing by using an open phone -- you can still stick with Google's App Store if you really want, or you can use a third-party app store, or install apps yourself, or...
also in the build and design of it.
That would be where it really shines, and where Steve Jobs' style may work really well. Unfortunately, it also has the effect that if there's any element of that design you don't like, you're SOL.
Some people want physical keyboards -- with Android, you can find phones with them and phones without them. With iPhone, Jobs says no keyboards, you don't get a keyboard.
The touch screen has to work perfectly,
And how hard is that to get right?
and the Apps that are available for it, better not let the whole experience down....
Because clearly, that's what's holding OS X back on the desktop. Riight.
I mean, people always bitch about some random OS X app not having a native-like interface, but you know what? If my choice is between The Gimp and nothing, I'll take The Gimp, ugly X interface and all, every time. It's not like one app is going to ruin my entire experience, and if it did, I'd know exactly where to place the blame.
Of course, you and I both know this is bullshit. Apple didn't censor "sexy" apps to make sure the experience was seamless. They didn't block tethering apps to make everything that much more perfect. They didn't block Google Voice because they just knew it was exactly what the customer wanted. No, they do all that and more for purely business reasons, when it isn't just someone fucking up or making an arbitrary spur-of-the-moment decision.
I also must ask, WHICH Muslim culture? It's not like they all know each other or share common backgrounds.
They do have the Quran in common, and most have more than that.
It also seems to me (though I have only anecdotal evidence for this) that the more moderate Muslims are strangely silent about their more extreme brothers. Even those who disagree about violence now, when I talk to them for any length of time, they will try to justify Sharia law, and they will try to blame the victim in cases like this.
In more secular cultures, we use imaginary WMDs nobody has ever seen instead, but the result is the same.
Perhaps, but it's worth considering that the people who pushed these imaginary WMDs did believe they were doing God's work. There were Bible verses on military briefings, and they were pretty fucking scary verses.
WMDs may have been the outward justification, but I'm not convinced it was the real motive.
Other symbols people have united under for the purpose of killing include flags and monarchs. When leaders get bloodthirsty, they'll FIND some symbol or another that they can get people to care about.
All of which tends to involve non-critical thinking, blindly following, demonizing and dehumanizing an enemy while promoting the "good" side's cause to something very like a religion.
Organized religion trains the mind to think in exactly this way. Follow the leader, don't question. Do as you're told, and there will be a reward at the end. Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong, misguided at best, but likely the enemy, and not worth listening to in any case.
I don't know that religion is the only source of problems like this, but it seems any solution will not be kind to religion.
I'm not blaming all the Christians or all the Muslims, though I suspect that mainstream Muslim culture tends to be more violent and less in favor of individual freedoms than mainstream Christian culture.
No, my issue is with the religions themselves, with what's actually in the holy books, what's being taught, and what forms the foundation of their ideology. Some of it is actually fairly innocuous -- for example, the idea of an immortal soul would tend to lead to a devaluing of the one life we know we have. Some of it is downright sinister.
No one is ever killed in the name of atheism, or rationalism, or science. People are killed in the name of one god or another, and it seems every god who's been called a god has their share of holy wars in their name.
Only if you've got the wrong ports open, or you've otherwise left a vulnerability -- and if that's the case, the password is probably irrelevant.
But you've also demonstrated my point neatly -- you've trusted me with very little, if that is indeed the correct password. And that is how security works.
...though I do see the point. It would be nice if there was a one-stop solution that actually incorporated all of the above, without the obscene lock-in. (Also without the data-mining, though it doesn't really matter so much at that point -- if you can migrate to another host and take your network of friends with you, I'd hope competition would make these networks care a bit more about privacy.)
If you must microblog, Twitter is fine, or find something else. Most of them can publish to other accounts, and all of them worth considering will have at least an RSS feed, if not SMS.
Otherwise, pick any free blog hosting site, or run it yourself. Blogs already provide the basics of what "social networks" do, especially if you use XFN, but even without that, what do you really do on Facebook? Announce your status, post what you're doing, reply to other people's posts ("write on their wall"), organize events (iCal works, and Google Calendar supports it), link to people you like, follow what people are doing (RSS)......it's possible I'm missing what social networking is about, as I don't use Twitter or Facebook, but I also don't get what it adds above the Web itself as a medium. About the only thing I can think of is automatically suggesting certain people you might know, friends-of-friends and such, but I'm guessing anything that could provide that would also provide the exact same privacy concerns.
I'm just pointing out, from an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense. Some people might randomly decide to trust everyone once in awhile, but if you actually build any sort of society out of it -- arguably, there were hippie communes which fit this model -- it only takes one person to abuse that trust and end your little civilization, and you're going to get that one person, sooner or later.
Plenty of Islams seem to disagree with that interpretation, but it's actually irrelevant. I don't think it's any better to be killing Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, or anyone else simply because they don't believe in the same god you do.
The entire purpose of security is based around an entirely different definition of trust -- "trust" in the security mindset is the ability of a person or entity to do something. If I give you root access to my machine, that means I'm not only trusting you not to do something evil, I'm also trusting you not to do something stupid, like type 'rm -rf/' without understanding what it means. There's no reason to trust you or anyone else with that.
A society based on distrust will eventually destroy itself, due to accumulation of power.
Please explain how a society based on trust would function differently.
We must have an open-source society.
Erm, what do mean by that?
We're headed in exactly the wrong direction right now, except for OSS.
Open source people use encryption, too.
Unless you were being sarcastic, put your money where your mouth is and paste a root password and an IP into this forum. Show us how much trust you have.
I never said I wanted to live without them. I said I don't think they need to be in charge. When marketing people are put in charge, who don't understand the technology, we end up with bullshit like this.
i was a big linux fan and still i am from an engineering perspective - but the tux as a commodity it is done. the capitalist society dynamics kicked its ass
Erm, what? By what measure is Linux not successful? Seems there are plenty of very capitalist companies which rely on it daily, and contribute to it daily.
M$ was extremely smart in the last decade leaving the tux/OS grow and make waves...
So wait, doing nothing is considered "smart"?
I suppose it would have been smarter than what they actually did. Remember SCO?
has helped them loose the image of the unique Master Of Evil - now, they share the title together with Google, Oracle, IBM
Please explain how Linux helped this happen.
Well, actually, don't. I'm not sure how much more of your rambling I can take. At least learn to spell and use paragraphs.
hasta la vista tux - without being happy about it, but really sad; the core ppl attitude did the damage...
Again, what damage? Linux desktop usage is growing, though tiny as ever. Linux server usage is massive, and it's also huge in supercomputing, embedded systems, etc.
I mean, are you astroturfing, or do you just have no clue what you're talking about?
just waiting for benevolent idealist contributors will not last long
...which is why they haven't. Most of the current Linux development is commercial.
Please explain what context it makes sense for a rape victim to be stoned for the "crime" of being raped -- or in what context that passage means something other than what it says.
The "context" argument is bullshit. Much as the god-of-the-gaps continues to shrink, the amount of "context" that's required for it to make sense keeps expanding, until eventually, it's claimed that I must read the entire book, cover-to-cover, in order to appreciate what any one passage means.
you take them literally. At no time in history has the entirety of Torah been taken literally in matters of law. It has always been interpreted.
Well, no, there are actually people who interpret it literally, apparently including myself, so that claim is false on its face.
The Torah never punishes victims. Rape is not punished by death for either party.
And where does the Torah say this? From the quote I cited, it certainly looks like the opposite is true.
The Torah never claims that there will be some point in the future when no non-Jews exist,
No, it just tells you what to do when you find a non-Jew in your midst.
So given all of this...
You know almost nothing.
What I know, I've actually cited. The most compelling argument you've made is to call me a name. If I really am that clueless, show me. Otherwise, it's my quotes against your opinions.
Slashdot Mirror
And that's exactly what TFA was refuting. Why is Matroska better?
From TFA:
An index is only marginally useful in Ogg for the complexity added; it adds no new functionality and seldom improves performance noticeably. Why add extra complexity if it gets you nothing?
You can do seeking without an index:
A binary search is discussed in the spec for ease of comprehension; implementation documents suggest an interpolated bisection search. So far, this is the same as Matroska and NUT.
The only difference being, Matroska implementers tend to be lazy about implementing the indexless seeking properly, and people tend to use indexes, thus propagating this myth even more.
The Vorbis source distribution includes an example program called 'seeking_example' that does a stress-test of 5000 seeks of different kinds within an Ogg file. Testing here with SVN r17178, 5000 seeks within a 10GB Ogg file constructed by concatenating 22 short Ogg videos of varying bitrates together results in 17459 actual seek system calls. This yields a result of just under 3.5 real seeks per Ogg seek request when doing exact positioning within an Ogg file. Most actual seeking within an Ogg file would be more appropriately implemented by scrubbing with a single physical seek.
And there you go. I don't know WTF is wrong with your players, but really, how can a total of four seeks bring your system to a crawl?
From TFA:
Mapping is a term I coined for the process of formally documenting how a codec will be placed into a container. Every container involves details beyond 'plop raw compressed frames into the container and you're done.' Some details include specifying codec magic (eg, the "FOURCC" in AVI, the 'Magic' in Ogg), choosing an appropriate timebase (or how to convert to the container's timebase), how one indicates keyframes/sync points, how this data is submitted to the container, and so on. Mappings also allow a given codec to take targeted advantage of the features offered by a particular container. One example is mp3 in Matroska, where the mapping specifies that the mp3 header is to be treated as duplicated/compressed data. Mappings need only be specified once and they're done.
By definition, mapping must be done for any codec into any container, even if the mapping is relatively trivial. This is true of MP4/MOV, Matroska, Ogg, NUT, AVI, and every other container. Some containers, like Ogg and Matroska[5], explicitly describe and document mapping, as well as the codec mappings themselves. Other containers document mappings but have no explicit name for it. A few remainders like AVI neither institutionalize the process of mapping, nor reliably document how codec data is contained, leading to an 'anything goes' situation of widespread ambiguity and compatibility conflicts[6].
In short, every container has codec mappings whether they are explicit or implicit or even well-formed. The Ogg project has a name for the process. It is disingenuous to claim that Ogg is inferior to some other container that requires these same decisions, but has no name for the process, or worse, no process at all.
So I have to ask: Have you done significant work with both OGG and other formats?
What? No they won't. They'll have to remember not to ever click the IE icon, which can be handled by removing said icon and forcing them to use Firefox.
IETab can easily be configured to automatically apply to certain URLs, so it would be trivial to have the corporate intranet run on IETab, and the rest of the world run on a real browser.
...but thanks to that warning, I'm not reading this one.
Fuck interstitials.
That's what IETab is for. Have them use a modern browser (like Firefox), and have the specific apps that break in Firefox run using the IE6 renderer in a tab.
I can easily see the pictures of my cousins / old college friends / other relatives, and they can see mine -- without following a lot of random Flickr or Photobucket links.
Same is true of any decent blogging platform. Worst-case, host it on something like flickr and hotlink it in, or use some sort of widget -- same as you'd do with YouTube.
Two problems with that version:
One, I'm on Linux, for reasons which have nothing to do with money. Until there's a native Photoshop for Linux, that's a point in favor of any native editing app -- The Gimp, Krita, anything.
Two, is it actually better? I agree that the full version of Photoshop is better, but that's the baby version of photoshop, and from what I've seen, The Gimp is at least as good, if not better.
Suppose Apple did ban OSX applications that don't have a good interface. Certainly at least one developer would be willing to write graphics program for OSX that has a good UI because that would give them a market with less competition.
That only works if you're only considering broad categories of application, like "graphics program" -- it means that some little one-man projects would likely be gone.
And, as delinear points out, it would very likely drive people to less restrictive platforms. Think about it -- why would you bother developing for OS X, where you have to do that much extra work to develop a "good UI" which Apple may reject anyway, to get less marketshare than you'd have on Windows, which is going to be far easier to develop for?
Then instead of having to choose between a crappy UI or nothing you would have a good UI.
Well, then you'd have no choice beyond that good UI, whether or not the app itself is good.
Maybe this will help: Right now, Photoshop would fail such a test. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your perspective), Apple has shown that they're willing to make exceptions when it suits them, and I suspect they'd allow Photoshop. But suppose they applied the rule consistently -- you'd now have no Photoshop and no Gimp, probably no Inkscape...
Yes, someone would write a crappy little Paint clone with a beautiful OS X UI. Thanks to Apple, you would now have no choice -- you'd have a good UI and a sucky app, instead of a sucky UI and a good app.
I agree with many of your points, but Apple did not block tethering. That was a carrier decision.
Which Apple enforced.
Consider also that the iPhone is likely now powerful enough to make such decisions -- "Allow tethering or we go to Verizon."
Gimp vs nothing? False choice.
Which is why I prefixed it with "if" -- I would agree Photoshop is better, but it also costs money.
Photoshop also has a bad half-native UI on OSX, so your entire rationalization is wrong.
Well, maybe my example was wrong, but even a half-native Photoshop UI is likely seen as better than a not-at-all-native Gimp UI.
Don't you think, that the reason iPhones are close to perfect, is because of the super-tight approval process...
Nope, not really.
Not only in the App Store,
They don't allow third-party app stores, so it's not just the app store, but the entire device that they're asserting that control over.
You give up nothing by using an open phone -- you can still stick with Google's App Store if you really want, or you can use a third-party app store, or install apps yourself, or...
also in the build and design of it.
That would be where it really shines, and where Steve Jobs' style may work really well. Unfortunately, it also has the effect that if there's any element of that design you don't like, you're SOL.
Some people want physical keyboards -- with Android, you can find phones with them and phones without them. With iPhone, Jobs says no keyboards, you don't get a keyboard.
The touch screen has to work perfectly,
And how hard is that to get right?
and the Apps that are available for it, better not let the whole experience down....
Because clearly, that's what's holding OS X back on the desktop. Riight.
I mean, people always bitch about some random OS X app not having a native-like interface, but you know what? If my choice is between The Gimp and nothing, I'll take The Gimp, ugly X interface and all, every time. It's not like one app is going to ruin my entire experience, and if it did, I'd know exactly where to place the blame.
Of course, you and I both know this is bullshit. Apple didn't censor "sexy" apps to make sure the experience was seamless. They didn't block tethering apps to make everything that much more perfect. They didn't block Google Voice because they just knew it was exactly what the customer wanted. No, they do all that and more for purely business reasons, when it isn't just someone fucking up or making an arbitrary spur-of-the-moment decision.
I also must ask, WHICH Muslim culture? It's not like they all know each other or share common backgrounds.
They do have the Quran in common, and most have more than that.
It also seems to me (though I have only anecdotal evidence for this) that the more moderate Muslims are strangely silent about their more extreme brothers. Even those who disagree about violence now, when I talk to them for any length of time, they will try to justify Sharia law, and they will try to blame the victim in cases like this.
In more secular cultures, we use imaginary WMDs nobody has ever seen instead, but the result is the same.
Perhaps, but it's worth considering that the people who pushed these imaginary WMDs did believe they were doing God's work. There were Bible verses on military briefings, and they were pretty fucking scary verses.
WMDs may have been the outward justification, but I'm not convinced it was the real motive.
Other symbols people have united under for the purpose of killing include flags and monarchs. When leaders get bloodthirsty, they'll FIND some symbol or another that they can get people to care about.
All of which tends to involve non-critical thinking, blindly following, demonizing and dehumanizing an enemy while promoting the "good" side's cause to something very like a religion.
Organized religion trains the mind to think in exactly this way. Follow the leader, don't question. Do as you're told, and there will be a reward at the end. Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong, misguided at best, but likely the enemy, and not worth listening to in any case.
I don't know that religion is the only source of problems like this, but it seems any solution will not be kind to religion.
I'm not blaming all the Christians or all the Muslims, though I suspect that mainstream Muslim culture tends to be more violent and less in favor of individual freedoms than mainstream Christian culture.
No, my issue is with the religions themselves, with what's actually in the holy books, what's being taught, and what forms the foundation of their ideology. Some of it is actually fairly innocuous -- for example, the idea of an immortal soul would tend to lead to a devaluing of the one life we know we have. Some of it is downright sinister.
No one is ever killed in the name of atheism, or rationalism, or science. People are killed in the name of one god or another, and it seems every god who's been called a god has their share of holy wars in their name.
Only if you've got the wrong ports open, or you've otherwise left a vulnerability -- and if that's the case, the password is probably irrelevant.
But you've also demonstrated my point neatly -- you've trusted me with very little, if that is indeed the correct password. And that is how security works.
So does Blogger, so I'm still not seeing it...
...though I do see the point. It would be nice if there was a one-stop solution that actually incorporated all of the above, without the obscene lock-in. (Also without the data-mining, though it doesn't really matter so much at that point -- if you can migrate to another host and take your network of friends with you, I'd hope competition would make these networks care a bit more about privacy.)
Ideally, it'd work something like this:
If you must microblog, Twitter is fine, or find something else. Most of them can publish to other accounts, and all of them worth considering will have at least an RSS feed, if not SMS.
Otherwise, pick any free blog hosting site, or run it yourself. Blogs already provide the basics of what "social networks" do, especially if you use XFN, but even without that, what do you really do on Facebook? Announce your status, post what you're doing, reply to other people's posts ("write on their wall"), organize events (iCal works, and Google Calendar supports it), link to people you like, follow what people are doing (RSS)... ...it's possible I'm missing what social networking is about, as I don't use Twitter or Facebook, but I also don't get what it adds above the Web itself as a medium. About the only thing I can think of is automatically suggesting certain people you might know, friends-of-friends and such, but I'm guessing anything that could provide that would also provide the exact same privacy concerns.
I'm just pointing out, from an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense. Some people might randomly decide to trust everyone once in awhile, but if you actually build any sort of society out of it -- arguably, there were hippie communes which fit this model -- it only takes one person to abuse that trust and end your little civilization, and you're going to get that one person, sooner or later.
Slashcode? Interesting.
SSH port isn't open, and neither is telnet, so that's not really a show of trust, is it?
Oh, I'm not doubting that such a society has ever existed, I just doubt it would've existed for very long.
Plenty of Islams seem to disagree with that interpretation, but it's actually irrelevant. I don't think it's any better to be killing Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, or anyone else simply because they don't believe in the same god you do.
the entire purpose of security is distrust.
What? No, you fail security.
The entire purpose of security is based around an entirely different definition of trust -- "trust" in the security mindset is the ability of a person or entity to do something. If I give you root access to my machine, that means I'm not only trusting you not to do something evil, I'm also trusting you not to do something stupid, like type 'rm -rf /' without understanding what it means. There's no reason to trust you or anyone else with that.
A society based on distrust will eventually destroy itself, due to accumulation of power.
Please explain how a society based on trust would function differently.
We must have an open-source society.
Erm, what do mean by that?
We're headed in exactly the wrong direction right now, except for OSS.
Open source people use encryption, too.
Unless you were being sarcastic, put your money where your mouth is and paste a root password and an IP into this forum. Show us how much trust you have.
see how can u make-it without the sell guys
I never said I wanted to live without them. I said I don't think they need to be in charge. When marketing people are put in charge, who don't understand the technology, we end up with bullshit like this.
i was a big linux fan and still i am from an engineering perspective - but the tux as a commodity it is done. the capitalist society dynamics kicked its ass
Erm, what? By what measure is Linux not successful? Seems there are plenty of very capitalist companies which rely on it daily, and contribute to it daily.
M$ was extremely smart in the last decade leaving the tux/OS grow and make waves...
So wait, doing nothing is considered "smart"?
I suppose it would have been smarter than what they actually did. Remember SCO?
has helped them loose the image of the unique Master Of Evil - now, they share the title together with Google, Oracle, IBM
Please explain how Linux helped this happen.
Well, actually, don't. I'm not sure how much more of your rambling I can take. At least learn to spell and use paragraphs.
hasta la vista tux - without being happy about it, but really sad; the core ppl attitude did the damage...
Again, what damage? Linux desktop usage is growing, though tiny as ever. Linux server usage is massive, and it's also huge in supercomputing, embedded systems, etc.
I mean, are you astroturfing, or do you just have no clue what you're talking about?
just waiting for benevolent idealist contributors will not last long
...which is why they haven't. Most of the current Linux development is commercial.
You take quotes out of context
Please explain what context it makes sense for a rape victim to be stoned for the "crime" of being raped -- or in what context that passage means something other than what it says.
The "context" argument is bullshit. Much as the god-of-the-gaps continues to shrink, the amount of "context" that's required for it to make sense keeps expanding, until eventually, it's claimed that I must read the entire book, cover-to-cover, in order to appreciate what any one passage means.
you take them literally. At no time in history has the entirety of Torah been taken literally in matters of law. It has always been interpreted.
Well, no, there are actually people who interpret it literally, apparently including myself, so that claim is false on its face.
The Torah never punishes victims. Rape is not punished by death for either party.
And where does the Torah say this? From the quote I cited, it certainly looks like the opposite is true.
The Torah never claims that there will be some point in the future when no non-Jews exist,
No, it just tells you what to do when you find a non-Jew in your midst.
So given all of this...
You know almost nothing.
What I know, I've actually cited. The most compelling argument you've made is to call me a name. If I really am that clueless, show me. Otherwise, it's my quotes against your opinions.
Sounds like the evaluation of someone who hasn't read either very thoroughly.
Please explain how anything in the Book of Judges advocates peace.