The crucial difference between you and me is that I would rather have a society that gives everyone equal resources and let individuals pursue their own goals unhampered by biased social institutions. You on the other hand want to social engineer certain outcomes because you believe they would be better. As if you had any idea what a better society would compose of and who should be more rewarded than others.
Claiming intelligence should be rewarded more than athletic ability is the same flawed argument as believing athletic ability should be rewarded more than intelligence.
We need to figure out which ones are going to succeed and invest in them.
How about we equally invest in everyone and try to encourage a balanced system. There really isn't a test to determine who is going to succeed and who is not. Perhaps some sort of genetic model based on statistics but that would just be another human created institution that would favor a certain class of people.
Let's just try to build a fair society where everyone has an equal chance to succeed.
You seriously misunderstand the concepts at hand. Social contract is not something you sign. Also "inalienable" mean's to be inherent.
The philosophical question at hand is how do human rights come about? Are they a human construct and codified in a social contract or are they intrinsic to a human being? If you believe they are instrinsic to a human being, these rights take on a metaphysical origin. They are deemed inherent by some creator or God. Perhaps in a rationalist sense these rights are a priori, which is another way of bringing God into the debate.
Children have a certain right to privacy and parents should understand this. If parents monitor IM, kids will just figure out a way to circumvent it, or use another method of communication. It would be better if we try to equip our kids with some tools to solve their own problems. Parents have a responsibility to do this but so do our schools. If we teach our children to think for themselves, a lot of children-development issues could be resolved. And also make them better adults.
My point being is that "rights" are a human construct; they do no exist outside of human experience. God is only brought into the debate when someone like yourself declares that "rights" are independent of human reality. How do you solve this paradox, that rights are "inalienable" without a God?
Also for a long time we lived in a world where the "strongest" (not strong by some sort of evolution criteria but rather strong because of human institutions) preyed over the "weak". We didn't like it and we formed Constitutional governments. By the way the Constitution is a social contract.
What denotes what are rights and what are privileges? Either God or a group of people who agree on what "rights" are not to be infringed. (They tend to cite God as the judge of such rights). We call this social contract a government.
Without a government enforcing a social contract, there are no universal "rights". But just what you may think is your so called "right". However your neighbor may think it's in his "right" to take your property. Who will be the arbitrator of such a conflict, the person who is the strongest? Is that the kind of world we want to live in? The strongest have the rights and the weak have none?
Why not pass a law that all online gambling companies wanting to do business in the US must have a headquarters located within US borders and therefore taxable?
If it was just about taxes they wouldn't be banning all online gambling, just the kind they can't tax.
The worst episode of outright election fraud in American history was in 1876. Both parties took part and the Republicans traded ending Reconstruction in the South for a Presidential win from Democrats. In the process seriously damaging civil rights for African-Americans in the South until the 1960s.
We can argue all day about who's to fault for 911 but honestly there is so much blame to go around, CIA, FBI, Clinton, Bush, etc. There is no one person or event that directly caused 911. The best thing is move forward and put in place security measures that will prevent another 911 (which is not being done btw).
Second Iraq has the potential to be so much worse than 911. The causalities already outnumber 911, but the damage done to America's world image has been catastrophic. After 911 we had the majority of the world with us, as well as the American public. We really had an opportunity to put in place a new foreign policy coupled with domestic initiatives that could have transformed American politics for the better. Yet all this energy was misplaced towards Iraq. Who's responsible for that?
I think it's important to note that a lot of these issues concern the distribution of binaries. If it was a source based distribution like Gentoo I don't think any of this would be an issue. The very nature of the GPL allows anyone to modify the source however they see fit. The key being that the source is modified by the user and the user does not publish the binaries. This is essentially what happens with Gentoo, Mozilla approved source code is distributed but Gentoo patches are applied by the user. If Gentoo were to package their modified source code as a binary, then it would face the same problems as Debian.
Even with the logo, if you just distribute the source code along with the logo approved by Mozilla, there is nothing stopping a person from changing the default logo at compile time.
It depends if you mean String Theory the theory or String Theory the community. If you mean String Theory the theory then "String Theory doesn't make testable predictions" and "there are no testable [String Theory] predictions as of today" are not testable predictions. There is no way of knowing that String Theory in its current or future state is unable to make testable predictions.
If you mean String Theory the community then both "String Theory doesn't make testable predictions" and "there are no testable [String Theory] predictions as of today" mean the same as "As far as I know no one has produced testable predictions using String Theory (the theory)".
Maybe what you specifically meant is "As far as I know no one has produced testable predictions using String Theory and therefore String Theory is not a science". But that is pretty much a useless statement which was the point of my comment; meta-science is a worthless endeavor.
Meta-science is not a science either. Claiming "string theory doesn't make testable predictions" is not a testable prediction. I'm not sure how you could prove in the affirmative how a theory is unable to ever make a testable prediction. You could say something like "there are no testable predictions as of today" but that does not rule out some time in the future.
The common held philosophy by those in power believes civil rights are a State given privilege. Compare it to the founding fathers who believed that civil rights are "inalienable". However it should be noted that they only thought this was true for white males who owned property. This is more along the lines with the common view held today; privilege denotes which rights a person has.
Those is power are not too concerned with the rights of those who are not in power. If you are in a privileged position your rights are guaranteed. However if you are poor or a minority or just an average person your rights are a gift by those in power. And of course this gift of certain rights in only applicable when those in power say so.
Not to get off-topic but it's very similar to the position Linus holds on developer vs. users' rights. A developer is more important because they are privileged and therefore developer rights are more important. The user comes second and whatever rights entitled to the user should only be denoted by the developers.
Up until a certain age, we (society) pretty much assume that anytime a kid screws up it is the parents' fault. An being oblivious/ignorant does not give the parents a free pass for their kid's behavior.
Which translates to, until a child is able to determine social norms independently, society blames the person who is responsible for instructing a child on how to act within society when the child does not conform to social norms.
Seriously. As a general rule, engineers and programmers would rather be engineering and programming. They don't care so much about marketing. They don't care so much about the political undercurrents of the organization. They just want to do their job well.
The danger is if they don't get involved with politics they will become irrelevant. And soon their job is no longer "engineering and programming" but doing what they are told.
Actually the only President who tried to do anything about our dependence on foreign oil was Jimmy Carter. But of course everyone hates Jimmy Carter.
What I have to say to you now about energy is simple and vitally important.
Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 -- never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980s, for I am tonight setting the further goal of cutting our dependence on foreign oil by one-half by the end of the next decade -- a saving of over 4-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day.
Point two: To ensure that we meet these targets, I will use my presidential authority to set import quotas. I'm announcing tonight that for 1979 and 1980, I will forbid the entry into this country of one drop of foreign oil more than these goals allow. These quotas will ensure a reduction in imports even below the ambitious levels we set at the recent Tokyo summit.
Point three: To give us energy security, I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation's history to develop America's own alternative sources of fuel -- from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the sun....
Point four: I'm asking Congress to mandate, to require as a matter of law, that our nation's utility companies cut their massive use of oil by 50 percent within the next decade and switch to other fuels, especially coal, our most abundant energy source.
Point five: To make absolutely certain that nothing stands in the way of achieving these goals, I will urge Congress to create an energy mobilization board which, like the War Production Board in World War II, will have the responsibility and authority to cut through the red tape, the delays, and the endless roadblocks to completing key energy projects.
We will protect our environment. But when this nation critically needs a refinery or a pipeline, we will build it.
Point six: I'm proposing a bold conservation program to involve every state, county, and city and every average American in our energy battle. This effort will permit you to build conservation into your homes and your lives at a cost you can afford.
--- Jimmy Carter, from his televised speech on July 15, 1979.
This is not even close to true. The entire mathematical community accepts that Perelman made the important breakthroughs and actually proved the Poincare Conjecture. No new original work was done by Yau, Cao, Zhu, Morgan and Tian. Also as others have noted it was Perelman who received the fields medal related to this work. Yau received a fields medal some 20 years ago.
We have referred to those notes countless times as we came to grips with Perelman's ideas. In late August and early September of 2004, Kleiner, Lott and the two of us ran a workshop at Princeton University, supported by the Clay Math Institute, going through Perelman's second paper (the one of Ricci flow with surgery) in detail. This workshop played a significant role in convincing us that Perelman's arguments were complete and correct and also in convincing us to write this book.
- Morgan, John W., Gang Tian (25 July 2006). "Ricci Flow and the Poincaré Conjecture". arXiv:math.DG/0607607
Perl is like being molested by your uncle. There's something off about him, but everyone regards him very highly, so you trust him, and then on a family camping trip out at Montauk Point he takes advantage of you. Years later, you accept and acknowledge what happened, but you still refuse to believe that he's scarred you, because that would put him in control, not you, and the last thing you want is a molester in control of your life -- but your denial doesn't make it the truth. You want to believe that deep down inside, Perl is a good person, and you see that Perl has very redeeming qualities, but you sit down to try and program Perl and all you can think of is that camel's hard, throbbing cock.
Yes, I use Gentoo. So? I don't see any problem. I embraced my Gentoo distro long ago and I am happy together with my workstation (that is a stage 1 box!). I have a fucking lot of ebuilds in and outside of portage and my CFLAGS are pretty optimized and solid.
But thanks anyway asshole. Go and use your stupid Debian while I EMERGE new ebuilds.
We've reached the point where all-volunteer, non-commercial unix-style Operating Systems are drowning in personality conflicts; and the only technical strides and achievements are coming largely from private companies (Sun, Redhat).
It should be noted that the majority of people working for RedHat/Novell/Intel on OSS projects were OSS developers first and then did good work which got them noticed by the corporate structure. They were then hired to do what they were already doing, of course now they have managers to deal with.
Also I think it's a little preemptive to conclude OSS has failed just because some Gentoo devs got into a cock-size contest. It happens in the corporate world too, but behind closed doors.
I think I encountered this bug awhile ago and did the same thing which I figured out myself. Also having built my system from ~arch I think I removed further problems. But you are right it should have been fixed.
Slashdot Mirror
The crucial difference between you and me is that I would rather have a society that gives everyone equal resources and let individuals pursue their own goals unhampered by biased social institutions. You on the other hand want to social engineer certain outcomes because you believe they would be better. As if you had any idea what a better society would compose of and who should be more rewarded than others.
Claiming intelligence should be rewarded more than athletic ability is the same flawed argument as believing athletic ability should be rewarded more than intelligence.
We need to figure out which ones are going to succeed and invest in them.
How about we equally invest in everyone and try to encourage a balanced system. There really isn't a test to determine who is going to succeed and who is not. Perhaps some sort of genetic model based on statistics but that would just be another human created institution that would favor a certain class of people.
Let's just try to build a fair society where everyone has an equal chance to succeed.
You seriously misunderstand the concepts at hand. Social contract is not something you sign. Also "inalienable" mean's to be inherent.
The philosophical question at hand is how do human rights come about? Are they a human construct and codified in a social contract or are they intrinsic to a human being? If you believe they are instrinsic to a human being, these rights take on a metaphysical origin. They are deemed inherent by some creator or God. Perhaps in a rationalist sense these rights are a priori, which is another way of bringing God into the debate.
Children have a certain right to privacy and parents should understand this. If parents monitor IM, kids will just figure out a way to circumvent it, or use another method of communication. It would be better if we try to equip our kids with some tools to solve their own problems. Parents have a responsibility to do this but so do our schools. If we teach our children to think for themselves, a lot of children-development issues could be resolved. And also make them better adults.
My point being is that "rights" are a human construct; they do no exist outside of human experience. God is only brought into the debate when someone like yourself declares that "rights" are independent of human reality. How do you solve this paradox, that rights are "inalienable" without a God?
Also for a long time we lived in a world where the "strongest" (not strong by some sort of evolution criteria but rather strong because of human institutions) preyed over the "weak". We didn't like it and we formed Constitutional governments. By the way the Constitution is a social contract.
What denotes what are rights and what are privileges? Either God or a group of people who agree on what "rights" are not to be infringed. (They tend to cite God as the judge of such rights). We call this social contract a government.
Without a government enforcing a social contract, there are no universal "rights". But just what you may think is your so called "right". However your neighbor may think it's in his "right" to take your property. Who will be the arbitrator of such a conflict, the person who is the strongest? Is that the kind of world we want to live in? The strongest have the rights and the weak have none?
Why not pass a law that all online gambling companies wanting to do business in the US must have a headquarters located within US borders and therefore taxable?
If it was just about taxes they wouldn't be banning all online gambling, just the kind they can't tax.
Because everyone knows that reality has a well-known liberal bias. (Colbert)
The worst episode of outright election fraud in American history was in 1876. Both parties took part and the Republicans traded ending Reconstruction in the South for a Presidential win from Democrats. In the process seriously damaging civil rights for African-Americans in the South until the 1960s.
We can argue all day about who's to fault for 911 but honestly there is so much blame to go around, CIA, FBI, Clinton, Bush, etc. There is no one person or event that directly caused 911. The best thing is move forward and put in place security measures that will prevent another 911 (which is not being done btw).
Second Iraq has the potential to be so much worse than 911. The causalities already outnumber 911, but the damage done to America's world image has been catastrophic. After 911 we had the majority of the world with us, as well as the American public. We really had an opportunity to put in place a new foreign policy coupled with domestic initiatives that could have transformed American politics for the better. Yet all this energy was misplaced towards Iraq. Who's responsible for that?
I think it's important to note that a lot of these issues concern the distribution of binaries. If it was a source based distribution like Gentoo I don't think any of this would be an issue. The very nature of the GPL allows anyone to modify the source however they see fit. The key being that the source is modified by the user and the user does not publish the binaries. This is essentially what happens with Gentoo, Mozilla approved source code is distributed but Gentoo patches are applied by the user. If Gentoo were to package their modified source code as a binary, then it would face the same problems as Debian.
Even with the logo, if you just distribute the source code along with the logo approved by Mozilla, there is nothing stopping a person from changing the default logo at compile time.
It depends if you mean String Theory the theory or String Theory the community. If you mean String Theory the theory then "String Theory doesn't make testable predictions" and "there are no testable [String Theory] predictions as of today" are not testable predictions. There is no way of knowing that String Theory in its current or future state is unable to make testable predictions.
If you mean String Theory the community then both "String Theory doesn't make testable predictions" and "there are no testable [String Theory] predictions as of today" mean the same as "As far as I know no one has produced testable predictions using String Theory (the theory)".
Maybe what you specifically meant is "As far as I know no one has produced testable predictions using String Theory and therefore String Theory is not a science". But that is pretty much a useless statement which was the point of my comment; meta-science is a worthless endeavor.
But I do agree English is a pain in the ass.
Meta-science is not a science either. Claiming "string theory doesn't make testable predictions" is not a testable prediction. I'm not sure how you could prove in the affirmative how a theory is unable to ever make a testable prediction. You could say something like "there are no testable predictions as of today" but that does not rule out some time in the future.
The common held philosophy by those in power believes civil rights are a State given privilege. Compare it to the founding fathers who believed that civil rights are "inalienable". However it should be noted that they only thought this was true for white males who owned property. This is more along the lines with the common view held today; privilege denotes which rights a person has.
Those is power are not too concerned with the rights of those who are not in power. If you are in a privileged position your rights are guaranteed. However if you are poor or a minority or just an average person your rights are a gift by those in power. And of course this gift of certain rights in only applicable when those in power say so.
Not to get off-topic but it's very similar to the position Linus holds on developer vs. users' rights. A developer is more important because they are privileged and therefore developer rights are more important. The user comes second and whatever rights entitled to the user should only be denoted by the developers.
Don't forget the role society plays as well.
Up until a certain age, we (society) pretty much assume that anytime a kid screws up it is the parents' fault. An being oblivious/ignorant does not give the parents a free pass for their kid's behavior.
Which translates to, until a child is able to determine social norms independently, society blames the person who is responsible for instructing a child on how to act within society when the child does not conform to social norms.
Seriously. As a general rule, engineers and programmers would rather be engineering and programming. They don't care so much about marketing. They don't care so much about the political undercurrents of the organization. They just want to do their job well.
The danger is if they don't get involved with politics they will become irrelevant. And soon their job is no longer "engineering and programming" but doing what they are told.
--- Jimmy Carter, from his televised speech on July 15, 1979.
- Morgan, John W., Gang Tian (25 July 2006). "Ricci Flow and the Poincaré Conjecture". arXiv:math.DG/0607607
YHBT YHL HAND
Just in case you like Perl too...
Perl is like being molested by your uncle. There's something off about him, but everyone regards him very highly, so you trust him, and then on a family camping trip out at Montauk Point he takes advantage of you. Years later, you accept and acknowledge what happened, but you still refuse to believe that he's scarred you, because that would put him in control, not you, and the last thing you want is a molester in control of your life -- but your denial doesn't make it the truth. You want to believe that deep down inside, Perl is a good person, and you see that Perl has very redeeming qualities, but you sit down to try and program Perl and all you can think of is that camel's hard, throbbing cock.
Yes, I use Gentoo. So? I don't see any problem. I embraced my Gentoo distro long ago and I am happy together with my workstation (that is a stage 1 box!). I have a fucking lot of ebuilds in and outside of portage and my CFLAGS are pretty optimized and solid.
But thanks anyway asshole. Go and use your stupid Debian while I EMERGE new ebuilds.
more like...
WHY I CAN'T USE GENTOO -- reason #662 -- I don't know what libtool is.
Gentoo never portrayed itself as a noob distro. If you are willing to learn some things then try out Gentoo. If not stick with Ubuntu or whatever.
did you do a revdep-rebuild? It's not really Gentoo's fault if after you recompile libraries their dependencies start to fail.
We've reached the point where all-volunteer, non-commercial unix-style Operating Systems are drowning in personality conflicts; and the only technical strides and achievements are coming largely from private companies (Sun, Redhat).
It should be noted that the majority of people working for RedHat/Novell/Intel on OSS projects were OSS developers first and then did good work which got them noticed by the corporate structure. They were then hired to do what they were already doing, of course now they have managers to deal with.
Also I think it's a little preemptive to conclude OSS has failed just because some Gentoo devs got into a cock-size contest. It happens in the corporate world too, but behind closed doors.
Apparently the fix is emerge -C pam-login && emerge -u shadow. You should probably do a revdep-rebuild to be safe.
I think I encountered this bug awhile ago and did the same thing which I figured out myself. Also having built my system from ~arch I think I removed further problems. But you are right it should have been fixed.
Who has a gentoo system that works perfectly fine? Plus my system is entirely from the unstable branch.