You should then review what the usual definition of the term "open source" is, for the availability of the source is quite not enough, under that definition, for something to be "open source".
if they're planning on writing the textbooks with LaTeX (I'm told that this is common in publishing), then the open source label would most definitely apply.
This is claiming exactly the following:
if the textbook is written using LaTeX, then it is open source.
This claim is patently false.
Are you serious? In what state are your reading skills?
I write LaTeX every single day of my life... I did not need the reminder.
The point you and the poster I was replying seem to miss entirely is that the fact that there is a source file, which is easy to reproduce and modify, in *absolutely* no way makes the text open source.
gconf-editor is not even installed by default in most distros, being a more-or-less very auxiliary tool. Evaluating gnome through gconf-editor is just absurd.
Okay, maybe this is a good thing, because maybe it just means that a default Ubuntu does a very good job of including enough apps that the average user can do everything they need to do. Or maybe it just means that most people, unlike me, don't enjoy playing with software.
You are now discovering that most people not only do not enjoy playing with software but actual hate it, and prefer to do the things they want to do instead?...
One thing that has routinely annoyed me is when some of the Gnome devs do stuff and their reasoning consists of nothing more than "that is what Windows does". COM, the awfulness of gconf (*actually* modeled on the Windows registry), and so on.
In what way is gconf "modeled" on the Windows registry apart from the hierarchical organization of the keys? Have you *used* gconf as a developer?
Lucasfilm once had some of the best films under its belt until it started churning out Star Wars "prequel" crap..
Your claim that Lucasfilm once had some of the best films under its belt only proves emphatically that there is immense opportunity for you to expand your film horizon...
Why would the model need to support a band which decides to stop working for its income?
Or, in other words, can we get my activity also set up so that I can stop working some time in the future and be able to still make a living out of it for ever?
As stated, what you wrote is quite obviously false. It is true, though, that a rather small minority of the people who have bad grades realise that grades matter little, and go for knowledge.
The problem with that is that the gray area is simply as wide as the range of all possibilities.
Pretending that you can do that classification *objectively* is absurd.
No, they were not. The immense majority of currently living Germans were not even planned at the time of the Nazis. Guilt is not inherited, you know...
If you prefer: no one has ever found evidence in a communicable way. I would be laughed at if I came up with the notion that I had a hyper-personal revelation on the existence of the Higgs boson that I cannot even describe because of its intrinsic spiritual nature---and I fail to see why different standards should be applied to such an immensely more important point, and of such vast consequences, as the existence of a God.
My evidence has to do with there being extremely good people in this world that risk everything to help the most helpless people [International Justice Mission plug here [ijm.org]] But, you cannot say that no one has ever found evidence.
The existence of extremely good people is irrelevant as a proof of the existence of a god: there is *absolutely* no logical connection between the two. Like most other attempts at an argumentation supporting that existence, it evinces little more than somewhat disheartening lack of imagination! For example, in order to turn it into a serious argument one would need to establish soundly, at the very least,
how does one define goodness, exactly?
how does one measure goodness in order to establish comparisons of degree of goodness between people?
what is the maximum level of goodness that would possibly be found on people if there were no gods, and come up with an explanation for that natural bound on human goodness,
and, finally, to exhibit explicit examples of people whose level of goodness, established according to the methods chosen in step 2 positively exceeds the maximum level of goodness compatible with non-existence of gods.
Also, even in the case that you were actually able to do all this, and you eventually establish the claim that there is a god because otherwise there could not exist such extremely good people as the ones you've managed to exhibit, there is a lot more of really, really hard work to be done before you can connect that with any one of the many, many other things that are attributed to god. I cannot even begin to imagine what logical connection can be established between the existence of a god as deduced from the existence of extremely good people and, say, the need of eating kosher (just an example: there are millions more, involving all other theistic religions)
But in the same way, there is a difference between my hoping the Higgs doesn't exist, and your hoping God doesn't exist.)
I do not hope that there is no god or gods. I regard the point in pretty much the same light as I regard the existence of invisible pink unicorns.
The sudy of the history of religions is a field based on evidence, the study of the different views about religion is based on evidence, and so on... But theology itself is not based on religion, for no one has ever found not even a tiny shred of evidence that its object of study, god or (depending on the flavour) gods, even exist.
And this lack of evidence is different from not having found a Higgs boson, by the way.
Slashdot Mirror
You should then review what the usual definition of the term "open source" is, for the availability of the source is quite not enough, under that definition, for something to be "open source".
I replied to this text:
if they're planning on writing the textbooks with LaTeX (I'm told that this is common in publishing), then the open source label would most definitely apply.
This is claiming exactly the following:
if the textbook is written using LaTeX, then it is open source.
This claim is patently false.
Are you serious? In what state are your reading skills?
I write LaTeX every single day of my life... I did not need the reminder.
The point you and the poster I was replying seem to miss entirely is that the fact that there is a source file, which is easy to reproduce and modify, in *absolutely* no way makes the text open source.
You say that:
According to you, then, we can conclude that the open source label most definitely applies to most textbooks out there...
Since you will most certainly not agree with this consequence of your claim, you'll agree that your claim is patently false.
We could even use the infrastructure that is already in place to register people who do public technical support for Windows users...
gconf-editor is not even installed by default in most distros, being a more-or-less very auxiliary tool. Evaluating gnome through gconf-editor is just absurd.
Okay, maybe this is a good thing, because maybe it just means that a default Ubuntu does a very good job of including enough apps that the average user can do everything they need to do. Or maybe it just means that most people, unlike me, don't enjoy playing with software.
You are now discovering that most people not only do not enjoy playing with software but actual hate it, and prefer to do the things they want to do instead?...
One thing that has routinely annoyed me is when some of the Gnome devs do stuff and their reasoning consists of nothing more than "that is what Windows does". COM, the awfulness of gconf (*actually* modeled on the Windows registry), and so on.
In what way is gconf "modeled" on the Windows registry apart from the hierarchical organization of the keys? Have you *used* gconf as a developer?
Hmm. Have you been criogenically conserved for the last 10 years?
Out of two sentences you got only one right... Really bad technique.
Nor do advocates mention that each version of Linux has a different driver API/ABI (this is a deliberate decision done by kernel devs [kroah.com])
It is simply false that every version has a different driver API/ABI.
Providing a link is almost denigratory, you know...
Why is a penis obnoxious? Inwhat way does it make it not PG-13? Does it work like nipples?
Maybe the rating system is broken? Or viewers are idiots?
Lucasfilm once had some of the best films under its belt until it started churning out Star Wars "prequel" crap..
Your claim that Lucasfilm once had some of the best films under its belt only proves emphatically that there is immense opportunity for you to expand your film horizon...
Why would the model need to support a band which decides to stop working for its income? Or, in other words, can we get my activity also set up so that I can stop working some time in the future and be able to still make a living out of it for ever?
What a dumb signature...
Another /. signature addresses your first silly point: atheism is a religion in the same way as not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Look up 'errata' in a dictionary.
As stated, what you wrote is quite obviously false. It is true, though, that a rather small minority of the people who have bad grades realise that grades matter little, and go for knowledge.
The problem with that is that the gray area is simply as wide as the range of all possibilities. Pretending that you can do that classification *objectively* is absurd.
You cannot objectively decide if something is porn or not. Pretending otherwise will only bring more problems.
For appropriate values of "everyone" and "innocent", of course...
So they have ships at sea and they are being taken over by pirates? Why would you bring out the "piracy" word otherwise?
No, they were not. The immense majority of currently living Germans were not even planned at the time of the Nazis. Guilt is not inherited, you know...
If you prefer: no one has ever found evidence in a communicable way. I would be laughed at if I came up with the notion that I had a hyper-personal revelation on the existence of the Higgs boson that I cannot even describe because of its intrinsic spiritual nature---and I fail to see why different standards should be applied to such an immensely more important point, and of such vast consequences, as the existence of a God.
My evidence has to do with there being extremely good people in this world that risk everything to help the most helpless people [International Justice Mission plug here [ijm.org]] But, you cannot say that no one has ever found evidence.
The existence of extremely good people is irrelevant as a proof of the existence of a god: there is *absolutely* no logical connection between the two. Like most other attempts at an argumentation supporting that existence, it evinces little more than somewhat disheartening lack of imagination! For example, in order to turn it into a serious argument one would need to establish soundly, at the very least,
Also, even in the case that you were actually able to do all this, and you eventually establish the claim that there is a god because otherwise there could not exist such extremely good people as the ones you've managed to exhibit, there is a lot more of really, really hard work to be done before you can connect that with any one of the many, many other things that are attributed to god. I cannot even begin to imagine what logical connection can be established between the existence of a god as deduced from the existence of extremely good people and, say, the need of eating kosher (just an example: there are millions more, involving all other theistic religions)
But in the same way, there is a difference between my hoping the Higgs doesn't exist, and your hoping God doesn't exist.)
I do not hope that there is no god or gods. I regard the point in pretty much the same light as I regard the existence of invisible pink unicorns.
The sudy of the history of religions is a field based on evidence, the study of the different views about religion is based on evidence, and so on... But theology itself is not based on religion, for no one has ever found not even a tiny shred of evidence that its object of study, god or (depending on the flavour) gods, even exist.
And this lack of evidence is different from not having found a Higgs boson, by the way.