It says nothing about why he did this or what the purpose was, which, I suppose, would make a difference.
It also doesn't mention that the monkeys are unconscious during the procedure, and that the grids are surgically attached to the retina for the study of certain sight-brain behaviors to various stimuli. Having the procedures be painful would, I'm sure, distort the results considerably.
See, that's my big issue. The ALF doesn't even look into the scientific details behind what's going on. They just take a few scant details that make it look horrible so they can rile up their violent, emotional base. This shoot-first, ask-later mentality is quite animal-like, don't you think?
The likely reason for not detailing the projects is that they don't want to incite further violence from people who will misinterpret their scientific projects or decide for themselves that they are immoral or illegal. From what I understand, this particular neuroscientist would humanely put primates into unconsciousness to study mind-sight behavior.
If George Bush was truly serious about stopping terrorism and if his end goal were not a POLICE STATE
Give me a fucking break. You don't live in a "police state," and you don't know what it's like to live in one. You remind me of people who throw out the word "fascist" without realizing what it actually means, having never experienced an actual fascist government. Talk to a Holocaust survivor sometime.
What is unclean about NeXTStep? NeXTStep was so clean and modular that it was called OpenStep and designed to run on ANY operating system--essentially an abstract operating system for any platform. Before OS X came out, Apple was going to release Yellow Box and allow Mac applications to run on Windows. Apple chose Mach and BSD for the foundation of OS X, but the frameworks on top of it aren't necessarily dependent at all. That Apple was able to complete a microprocessor transition six months ahead of schedule is a testament to the cross-platform modularity of OS X's technology.
Arguably Mac OS 9 has a cleaner, more modular design than Mac OS X.
This has to be one of the more insane statements I've read on Slashdot, ever.
Yes, I would say I'm several times more productive than I was back then. Office, I can vouch for not changing very much since the late 90s, but overall, operating systems and applications do more today.
You just proved my point for me. Again, I never said Stallman wanted the government to ban it. He wants to get rid of it himself, as you can even see in Quote #2. Clearly, you're too chicken to even debate me using your name because you know I'll own you (again).
Stallman speaks & writes alot. He's not exactly what you'd call ashamed of his opinions. Surely if he wants to 'ban' proprietary software, you'd be able to find him saying that somewhere?
For the umpteenth time, I've already posted that proof. Next.
*snort* - why don't you provide us all with an actual Stallman quote where he says he's wants to 'ban' proprietary software.
Already did. Stop snorting and read. Next.
Oh? Because you can't? I'm afraid that its fast becoming 'common knowledge' that you're wrong. Stallman wants proprietary software gone
CONGRATULATIONS! You finally caught up!
- but he's not advocating 'banning' it
He wants to get rid of all proprietary software because it is evil. What else would you call that?
- just creating a better alternative (one os x relies on).
OS X uses BSD.
I can't believe you can't understand the difference!
I'll wait for you to gain some reading comprehension skills so you can get back to me with an actual counterargument. Until then, it's 100% clear I owned your ass in this debate. It stung you so bad that you had to put me in your sig to make yourself feel better. I love it.
While there are a few more boot-time optimizations, it still takes about the same amount of time to boot XP as it does 2000, the difference in perception coming from the fact Microsoft made XP display the desktop sooner in the configuration process, before all services are initialized. It's kind of cheating, as you can't do much without networking and other services, and you can even hear your hard drive grinding away, still booting, even though you have control of the mouse.
People harken to the days of lean word processors and operating systems, but have you actually gone back and used an old version of Word on Windows 3.11? Operating systems in particular have grown because they do so much more, provide much better memory management, include more system services, and have much more advanced frameworks. To use OS X as an example, you would have never had things like Expose (which needs Quartz), or Core Data, or even a global spell checker for every text input field (and a global grammar checker coming in Leopard, from what I hear).
Seriously, go use an old version of MacOS or Windows. Use the apps that came out back then. They suck compared to the features we're used to today. This idea that things are "bloated" doesn't really fly. It's just that we've created more abstract frameworks and more advanced internal architectures to stabilize the platforms.
Not a strawman - just demonstrating that saying something 'common knowledge' (the fallacy argumentum ad populum) does not back up your statement in any way, shape or form.
It's not my fault you wish to ignore the interview I posted or the countless others in a simple Google search result.
You have subtley changed your argument there - before it was "Stallman wants to ban proprietary software", now its "get rid of proprietary software" (by providing a better alternative thats precisely what he's doing).
I haven't changed my argument at all (you just made that up to have something to attack). Stallman wants to ban proprietary software. He believes it is "evil."
Right - but you did say people like RMS actually believe that you should not be allowed to use proprietary software
Which is 100% true. They are opposed to the use of proprietary software on their ideological grounds and don't believe you should get to use it.
Whoops! Did you mean to write that?
I'm overjoyed that you're so obsessed with me that I'm now mentioned in your sig. Yes, I already proved long ago that Stallman thinks proprietary software is evil. Perhaps you're a Stallman fanboy, I don't know. What I do know is, you're apparently in complete denial about the man's very well-known position on proprietary software.
Calm down. Wanting to overclock the CPU isn't "elitism" or "xenophobia." It's people wanting even more options for those who are buying these machines.
Also, the Windows_Key doesnt eject you from full-screen games anymore (since Win98 days).
This is not true, and modern games are still affected when you press the completely useless Windows key.
All you could list was one system shortcut. That's a valid justification for adding a brand logo key to the keyboard? One shortcut? Windows + R is like the only shortcut anybody uses, and that's only because the Start menu sucks as a launcher.
I'm well aware of the seven or so combinations people know about, but that's it, and nobody uses them (the fact you could only list seven is extremely telling). It's a totally useless key that bound to system shortcuts and not usable for application shortcuts. It was just Microsoft trying to brand your PC with the Windows logo and rip Apple off in the process.
Nobody uses the Windows key to access their Start menu. The only thing I've ever used it for is Windows + R for the Run dialog, and that's because the Start menu totally sucks as an app launcher.
You'd still be able to tinker and repair the laptop, as well as write kernel changes. Darwin is open source. Despite that, this magical hypothetical idea in every Slashdotter's mind that kids are all programmers who want to write kernel code is a load of crap. They would have been better off with OS X and its fantastic frameworks, because most kids would rather use that given a choice. Linux is, frankly, a desktop disaster.
There is much more information available through some of the interfaces on Linux (/dev and such, for example) than I can find on my Mac.
XCode ships with professionally written documentation for all its APIs and technologies, much better than the web-searching you'd have to do for Linux.
Worst of all, Steve Jobs offered OS X for this laptop TOTALLY FREE OF CHARGE. They rejected it and went with Red Hat, who just so happened to be a sponsor.
So we could have had a $100--er, $140--MacBook. Imagine the cool stuff people would have churned out with XCode and Cocoa...sigh.
Uh oh - you're a I'm in a hole, I'd better keep digging kinda guy huh?
Maybe I should wait for you to get back to me when you learn to write proper English so I can understand you.
It's 'common knowledge' that goldfish have three second memories, but that's incorrect too.
Your strawman argument notwithstanding, it's still completely common knowledge that Stallman's goal is to get rid of proprietary software and have everyone using Open Source, because he considers proprietary software to be evil.
I'm actually ignoring you because you're incorrect. I honestly can't believe that you're so stupid that you can't see the difference between someone saying "I don't like cabbage" and "I think the government should ban cabbage".
I never said Stallman wanted the government to "ban" proprietary software.
Beyond stupid - you've decimated my position by stating something is common knowledge?
Absolutely. I'm glad you're finally catching up.
This thread is going to form the basis of my new sig! This thread is a spectacular example of someone who can't back up what they say, but are too stubborn (stupid?) to admit they're wrong.
I've backed up Stallman's position countless times and could continue to do so indefinitely. I've given you an interview and could give you more. Everybody knows Stallman doesn't believe in proprietary software and wants to do away with it. You're obviously in denial. I'd love to be in your sig. It will serve as a constant reminder to you that I completely owned your ass in this debate long ago, to the point that you're now actually arguing that you never had a position in the first place. Please.
That said, the Zune does look quite wicked, besides the non-wheel wheel.
If by wicked, you mean a brick that plays music. It reminds me of the third-generation iPod from a few years ago, but with a false "wheel." So it's a falsely advertising brick.
As for Microsoft hardware, I'd like to direct your attention to the most useless key ever invented in the history of computing--the Windows key. Bane to full-screen gamers the world over, failed abortion of the Apple key, never-used in any applications...the Windows key stands alone in uselessness, my friends.
Except if you're using it on a Mac mini, of course. Then it becomes the Apple key again and actually gets used.
Intel is already on 65nm. The last I read about AMD's move to 65nm on the tech sites was that it was next year, by the time Intel will already be moving to 45nm. AMD is officially a generation behind in that department.
He harmed the folks who worked on the software and weren't paid. This guy made enough money to buy a Lamborghini and other cars, and multiple airplanes, for crying out loud. That's millions. Frankly, the sentence seems kind of low considering how much money he made that should have gone to the software developers who actually did the work.
Slashdot Mirror
It also doesn't mention that the monkeys are unconscious during the procedure, and that the grids are surgically attached to the retina for the study of certain sight-brain behaviors to various stimuli. Having the procedures be painful would, I'm sure, distort the results considerably.
See, that's my big issue. The ALF doesn't even look into the scientific details behind what's going on. They just take a few scant details that make it look horrible so they can rile up their violent, emotional base. This shoot-first, ask-later mentality is quite animal-like, don't you think?
Yeah, uh, the problem with your statement being that he wasn't torturing monkeys.
The likely reason for not detailing the projects is that they don't want to incite further violence from people who will misinterpret their scientific projects or decide for themselves that they are immoral or illegal. From what I understand, this particular neuroscientist would humanely put primates into unconsciousness to study mind-sight behavior.
Give me a fucking break. You don't live in a "police state," and you don't know what it's like to live in one. You remind me of people who throw out the word "fascist" without realizing what it actually means, having never experienced an actual fascist government. Talk to a Holocaust survivor sometime.
Yeah, down with artists having rights to their own works!
Not to mention that the GPL relies on the idea of copyright.
I don't supposed it matters that these animal-rights extremists probably were Kerry voters.
This has to be one of the more insane statements I've read on Slashdot, ever.
Yeah, desktop Linux needs yet another layer.
Yes, I would say I'm several times more productive than I was back then. Office, I can vouch for not changing very much since the late 90s, but overall, operating systems and applications do more today.
You just proved my point for me. Again, I never said Stallman wanted the government to ban it. He wants to get rid of it himself, as you can even see in Quote #2. Clearly, you're too chicken to even debate me using your name because you know I'll own you (again).
"nowhere there?" Learn to write properly.
Next.
For the umpteenth time, I've already posted that proof. Next.
Already did. Stop snorting and read. Next.
CONGRATULATIONS! You finally caught up!
He wants to get rid of all proprietary software because it is evil. What else would you call that?
OS X uses BSD.
I'll wait for you to gain some reading comprehension skills so you can get back to me with an actual counterargument. Until then, it's 100% clear I owned your ass in this debate. It stung you so bad that you had to put me in your sig to make yourself feel better. I love it.
Next.
While there are a few more boot-time optimizations, it still takes about the same amount of time to boot XP as it does 2000, the difference in perception coming from the fact Microsoft made XP display the desktop sooner in the configuration process, before all services are initialized. It's kind of cheating, as you can't do much without networking and other services, and you can even hear your hard drive grinding away, still booting, even though you have control of the mouse.
People harken to the days of lean word processors and operating systems, but have you actually gone back and used an old version of Word on Windows 3.11? Operating systems in particular have grown because they do so much more, provide much better memory management, include more system services, and have much more advanced frameworks. To use OS X as an example, you would have never had things like Expose (which needs Quartz), or Core Data, or even a global spell checker for every text input field (and a global grammar checker coming in Leopard, from what I hear).
Seriously, go use an old version of MacOS or Windows. Use the apps that came out back then. They suck compared to the features we're used to today. This idea that things are "bloated" doesn't really fly. It's just that we've created more abstract frameworks and more advanced internal architectures to stabilize the platforms.
It's not my fault you wish to ignore the interview I posted or the countless others in a simple Google search result.
I haven't changed my argument at all (you just made that up to have something to attack). Stallman wants to ban proprietary software. He believes it is "evil."
Which is 100% true. They are opposed to the use of proprietary software on their ideological grounds and don't believe you should get to use it.
I'm overjoyed that you're so obsessed with me that I'm now mentioned in your sig. Yes, I already proved long ago that Stallman thinks proprietary software is evil. Perhaps you're a Stallman fanboy, I don't know. What I do know is, you're apparently in complete denial about the man's very well-known position on proprietary software.
Next.
Intel OS X would definitely run on it. But hey, we'll never see Apple make it work, will we?
Calm down. Wanting to overclock the CPU isn't "elitism" or "xenophobia." It's people wanting even more options for those who are buying these machines.
This is not true, and modern games are still affected when you press the completely useless Windows key.
All you could list was one system shortcut. That's a valid justification for adding a brand logo key to the keyboard? One shortcut? Windows + R is like the only shortcut anybody uses, and that's only because the Start menu sucks as a launcher.
I'm well aware of the seven or so combinations people know about, but that's it, and nobody uses them (the fact you could only list seven is extremely telling). It's a totally useless key that bound to system shortcuts and not usable for application shortcuts. It was just Microsoft trying to brand your PC with the Windows logo and rip Apple off in the process.
Nobody uses the Windows key to access their Start menu. The only thing I've ever used it for is Windows + R for the Run dialog, and that's because the Start menu totally sucks as an app launcher.
XCode ships with professionally written documentation for all its APIs and technologies, much better than the web-searching you'd have to do for Linux.
Quartz has supported resolution-independence since the beginning, and OS X Tiger does scaling through Quartz Debug.
Worst of all, Steve Jobs offered OS X for this laptop TOTALLY FREE OF CHARGE. They rejected it and went with Red Hat, who just so happened to be a sponsor.
So we could have had a $100--er, $140--MacBook. Imagine the cool stuff people would have churned out with XCode and Cocoa...sigh.
Maybe I should wait for you to get back to me when you learn to write proper English so I can understand you.
Your strawman argument notwithstanding, it's still completely common knowledge that Stallman's goal is to get rid of proprietary software and have everyone using Open Source, because he considers proprietary software to be evil.
I never said Stallman wanted the government to "ban" proprietary software.
Absolutely. I'm glad you're finally catching up.
I've backed up Stallman's position countless times and could continue to do so indefinitely. I've given you an interview and could give you more. Everybody knows Stallman doesn't believe in proprietary software and wants to do away with it. You're obviously in denial. I'd love to be in your sig. It will serve as a constant reminder to you that I completely owned your ass in this debate long ago, to the point that you're now actually arguing that you never had a position in the first place. Please.
Next.
If by wicked, you mean a brick that plays music. It reminds me of the third-generation iPod from a few years ago, but with a false "wheel." So it's a falsely advertising brick.
As for Microsoft hardware, I'd like to direct your attention to the most useless key ever invented in the history of computing--the Windows key. Bane to full-screen gamers the world over, failed abortion of the Apple key, never-used in any applications...the Windows key stands alone in uselessness, my friends.
Except if you're using it on a Mac mini, of course. Then it becomes the Apple key again and actually gets used.
Intel is already on 65nm. The last I read about AMD's move to 65nm on the tech sites was that it was next year, by the time Intel will already be moving to 45nm. AMD is officially a generation behind in that department.
He harmed the folks who worked on the software and weren't paid. This guy made enough money to buy a Lamborghini and other cars, and multiple airplanes, for crying out loud. That's millions. Frankly, the sentence seems kind of low considering how much money he made that should have gone to the software developers who actually did the work.