I have the opposite perception, many slashdotters are too nice towards win7, and keep whining about the linux desktop and the too many distributions, while I never boot into win7 even on laptops who have it preinstalled, since performance wise it sucks, workflow wise it sucks even more, and have less problems distro hopping between deb based and sabayon than dealing with expiring AV and the driver and "the right office license" hunt on win.
You should be entitled to software SECURITY updates for life though. Bugs are defects in something they sold you.
Free software OTOH is not itself sold (paying the distributor a fee has no impact on bug discovery) so it should be a burden on the user to patch the thing if nobody else does.
You rise a good point. Not for the faithful followers of religions whose leader never forced anybody to believe, though. The unfaithful followers, instead, use religion as others use flags or ideologies, no matter the content.
The simulated creature proclaimed: "I am only assuming that the particles in the simulation influence the simulation (true, if the rules say so), existence is pretty meaningless otherwise". "You can't even begin to realize how wrong you are", thought the creator, and went to the fridge for a cold beer.
If existence is defined as belonging to the universe, which is my preferred definition, "god does not exist" is true. It has also the same futility of the statement "pink is not salty". An atheist that says "god does not exist", improperly uses the term "does", "not", "exist". Ditto for those who say it exists. But a religious man that says "A pink unicorn appeared to me and said he was god" uses all the terms properly, the pink unicorn is talking about his plane of existence where [the equivalent concept of ] "being" is defined.
Let's prove you incorrect. A counterexample first, then static analysis of your idea.
Take a media player and a listener who has no control over it. The player plays song A, then song B, then A, then B of a two songs playlist. Is it playing sequential or random (with the added restriction of not repeating the same song twice)? Undecidable from the point of view of the listener. Irrelevant until we add a third song, but the listener can't.
Your theorem says: the assertion "the player is in random mode" cannot possibly have any consequence in song playing. Obviously false, it's the mode which determines all playing, no matter if random or sequential. True, from listening alone you don't get the mode, so what? that's not what your thesis proclaim. You may choose to ignore the concept of random play but it's a choice.
Also, remember the parent post with the guy running the simulated universe with sentient creatures? Note that that if you are atheist, you must necessarily believe that given a sufficient amount of computing power there exists at least one set of rules from which a simulated universe ends up with creatures that are sentient like us. You can't depend on anything external. While a religious man might treat the essence of conscience as a simple design choice, an atheist must ascribe it to the universe itself necessarily.
Your idea would translate to: "the guy is external and undetectable from the POV of the simulation, so he cannot influence it in any way" WHAT? he's gonna play Crysis, dude, game over for the simulation.
Static analysis: "the truth value of an assertion" in the context of a god is two level above the level of human logic, since the domain of a hypothetic god is one level above and the truth regarding a system is meta to the system.
So my atheist reasoning compiler returns with ERROR LINE 1. "CANNOT" IS UNDEFINED IN THIS CONTEXT. and I spared you the warnings.
I think about a melody, ok? the domain of melodies is entirely abstract and I am totally extraneous to it. Yet I caused every aspect of the melody. In fact if I ceased to exist, the melody I am thinking would cease to exist too, unless I write it down AND THERE IS ANOTHER MIND to look it up. Else the melody is lost and all we have is something written down. More influence than this, I cannot imagine.
LOL you just replayed the galileo story with reversed roles.
There is no reason to ignore what doesn't fit a system, it's a choice. The guy running the simulation in my post could try flipping bits in the simulation to get himself noticed, or send the creatures a clear message. The creatures have no theoretical or practical mean to know if the message comes from above or from some other creature who hacked the simulation itself. So it becomes a matter of... belief.
How do you reconcile science (the "how") with theology (the "who")? Answer, you don't. They are orthogonal. Sure, religions in practice,are not only theology but also culture, so things clashe with what science teaches. But it's like discussing details. If [at least one] creator exists, the rules that caused creation are totally arbitrary, as chosen by him. If there is no creator, the rules that caused creation are totally arbitrary too, as chosen by nobody. Science studies the rules. Quite a good idea, but irrelevant to religions' ideas about gods.
Lets imagine all breakthroughs in science have happened. So science knows all interactions between matter, can predict them (mechanically, not probabilistically), and all past interactions have been mapped. Also, the logic system that keeps all the theories up and running has determined that the only possible state of the universe is the initial one as discovered by science and no interaction outside the rules has occurred any time in past and future.
That's mission accomplished for science, no?
But philosophically speaking, entities in a reality got to prove that the rule system *whose validity is derived from the observation of that reality* is necessary and sufficient to describe it. Well that's... obvious. Circular reasoning. You could fire up a very successful simulation, where the entities inside somehow become conscious, they'd discover all the rules and say "we know everything". Which is true (they know everything they can know for certain), yet, you're out there all the same, shut the thing down and play crysis 23.
The simplest explanation is that Apple and Amazon are patenting the idea of dealing with used copies so that nobody can sell used stuff anymore.
The slightly more difficult explanation, if you don't consider copyright holder in the same boat as app store (a sale is a sale for both, most of the time) is that they want to use the used stuff card to cheat copyright holders on the real amount of digital stuff sold.
all distros can take a statically compiled package that don't rely on any assumption about the filesystem, I guess. They'd depend on kernel and installed modules only.
Start shipping those and see if people like it.
If not, try arch, which has the most lightweight wrappers.
Personally I think packaging the original source plus the diff (like.deb format does) is the best thing when your distro gets big. Arch begs to differ, but Arch is a german word for "didn't work with PCs long enough to really appreciate debian":D
E.g. for me the closest thing to a tool that "just work" is web2py. The api stays compatible, very maintainable apps get out of that. Guess what, it's free and open.
"Good riddance" are the first two words that come to my mind, too. But the only reason for me is that he decided mono was a good idea. That fake pragmatic thinking is harmful in the long term, as many slashdot old stories have documented.
It is better for him to sit comfortably in the OSX camp, it is more adherent to his philosophy, everybody gains.
You should remember that there is also debian testing, which currently is debian wheezy. As stable becomes too old, testing become more of a viable alternative. I ran into more problems with kubuntu than sid, and testing is way better than sid for normal users, because upgrades are less radical.
I also had a smooth experience with debian stable, if you want to run newer software too you could make a chroot with sid or testing, or consider the LD_LIBRARY_PATH option: at home I am running wheezy, plus the fglrx-legacy driver from experimental, using a closed source client with libraries gotten from ubuntu, and the resulting frankenstein has not had one hiccup.
Oh so I would be HELPING by keeping a dev into his own distortion bubble? and I would HELP the company by introducing it to a distortion bubble? We are not discussing a switch to openbsd. I'd help the dev if he wanted that. We are discussing a switch to a single vendor system from a commodity system. Introducing a dependency. And you dare bringing the good of the company to the table...
This is not a matter of preference as in: dev likes yellow cars, I like green cars, we get green cars. It's a matter of preference as in: dev likes wankel engine, I like diesel engine, dev can't repair the engine if it malfunctions, the kind of job is suited for diesel engines and in the future dev will likely have to drive diesel anyway.
No, I rather keep a monolithic kernel for performance. Then I'll enable some security hooks... and run server and sensitive stuff in a VM... hoping that the bare metal which I use for games won't get compromised... hmm...
You are implying in a strong way that all the stuff about democracy and freedom is pure fluff put above a power system like all others.
That's what the elite wants, of course. But even if you think that all you've been fed is propaganda, trying to uphold it is a good exercise for personal freedom. Use "their" weapons against "them".
No spare batteries? no no-downtime replacement if the battery dies? No easy extraction of data if the phone breaks? I'm willing to sacrifice A LOT of thickness/weight to get these features.
>The real arrogance is of course that he expects nothing more than being market leader.
>This alone is unrealistic.
You mean, getting late to market with a "me too", unpolished product?
That's exactly what happened with windows.
MS is the company who sold an operating system to IBM! Of course they believe they can pull anything off. And in fact they can, nowadays. They just need to find some equally clueless managers on the other side of the market.
Not holding my breath, considering that Nokia had a real linux smartphone and failed to market/properly develop it, all before the deadly embrace with MS (Ok it might not be deadly but most microsoft partners ended up screwed at one point, yes?).
The app store has lots of apps but lots of overlap, and what about integration? What about the next phase in app ecosystems, which will resemble the proprietary software scene 20 years ago? Big app makers will slowly prevail, small app makers won't keep up with the cartel of big apps, hardware producers, and OS releases.
You have an aptitude (dist-)upgrade on OSX android or Windows? No? then app markets are not package managers. I am familiar only with the play store, and it seems labirynthine compared to an apt-cache search.
If you want to jail stuff you can play with chroot, auroot, LD_LIBRARY_PATH tomoyo... but newbies are better off multibooting and booting from usb or running a VM.
And finally for your suggestion of self contained programs+libs, that's the approach gobolinux took a while ago, and crunchbang people had expressed interest in gobolinux rootless.
Slashdot Mirror
I have the opposite perception, many slashdotters are too nice towards win7, and keep whining about the linux desktop and the too many distributions, while I never boot into win7 even on laptops who have it preinstalled, since performance wise it sucks, workflow wise it sucks even more, and have less problems distro hopping between deb based and sabayon than dealing with expiring AV and the driver and "the right office license" hunt on win.
You should be entitled to software SECURITY updates for life though. Bugs are defects in something they sold you.
Free software OTOH is not itself sold (paying the distributor a fee has no impact on bug discovery) so it should be a burden on the user to patch the thing if nobody else does.
You rise a good point. Not for the faithful followers of religions whose leader never forced anybody to believe, though. The unfaithful followers, instead, use religion as others use flags or ideologies, no matter the content.
The simulated creature proclaimed: "I am only assuming that the particles in the simulation influence the simulation (true, if the rules say so), existence is pretty meaningless otherwise".
"You can't even begin to realize how wrong you are", thought the creator, and went to the fridge for a cold beer.
If existence is defined as belonging to the universe, which is my preferred definition, "god does not exist" is true. It has also the same futility of the statement "pink is not salty".
An atheist that says "god does not exist", improperly uses the term "does", "not", "exist". Ditto for those who say it exists. But a religious man that says "A pink unicorn appeared to me and said he was god" uses all the terms properly, the pink unicorn is talking about his plane of existence where [the equivalent concept of ] "being" is defined.
Let's prove you incorrect. A counterexample first, then static analysis of your idea.
Take a media player and a listener who has no control over it. The player plays song A, then song B, then A, then B of a two songs playlist. Is it playing sequential or random (with the added restriction of not repeating the same song twice)? Undecidable from the point of view of the listener. Irrelevant until we add a third song, but the listener can't.
Your theorem says: the assertion "the player is in random mode" cannot possibly have any consequence in song playing.
Obviously false, it's the mode which determines all playing, no matter if random or sequential. True, from listening alone you don't get the mode, so what? that's not what your thesis proclaim. You may choose to ignore the concept of random play but it's a choice.
Also, remember the parent post with the guy running the simulated universe with sentient creatures? Note that that if you are atheist, you must necessarily believe that given a sufficient amount of computing power there exists at least one set of rules from which a simulated universe ends up with creatures that are sentient like us. You can't depend on anything external. While a religious man might treat the essence of conscience as a simple design choice, an atheist must ascribe it to the universe itself necessarily.
Your idea would translate to: "the guy is external and undetectable from the POV of the simulation, so he cannot influence it in any way" WHAT? he's gonna play Crysis, dude, game over for the simulation.
Static analysis: "the truth value of an assertion" in the context of a god is two level above the level of human logic, since the domain of a hypothetic god is one level above and the truth regarding a system is meta to the system.
So my atheist reasoning compiler returns with ERROR LINE 1. "CANNOT" IS UNDEFINED IN THIS CONTEXT. and I spared you the warnings.
I think about a melody, ok? the domain of melodies is entirely abstract and I am totally extraneous to it. Yet I caused every aspect of the melody. In fact if I ceased to exist, the melody I am thinking would cease to exist too, unless I write it down AND THERE IS ANOTHER MIND to look it up. Else the melody is lost and all we have is something written down. More influence than this, I cannot imagine.
LOL you just replayed the galileo story with reversed roles.
There is no reason to ignore what doesn't fit a system, it's a choice. The guy running the simulation in my post could try flipping bits in the simulation to get himself noticed, or send the creatures a clear message. The creatures have no theoretical or practical mean to know if the message comes from above or from some other creature who hacked the simulation itself. So it becomes a matter of... belief.
How do you reconcile science (the "how") with theology (the "who")?
Answer, you don't. They are orthogonal.
Sure, religions in practice,are not only theology but also culture, so things clashe with what science teaches. But it's like discussing details. If [at least one] creator exists, the rules that caused creation are totally arbitrary, as chosen by him. If there is no creator, the rules that caused creation are totally arbitrary too, as chosen by nobody. Science studies the rules. Quite a good idea, but irrelevant to religions' ideas about gods.
Lets imagine all breakthroughs in science have happened. So science knows all interactions between matter, can predict them (mechanically, not probabilistically), and all past interactions have been mapped. Also, the logic system that keeps all the theories up and running has determined that the only possible state of the universe is the initial one as discovered by science and no interaction outside the rules has occurred any time in past and future.
That's mission accomplished for science, no?
But philosophically speaking, entities in a reality got to prove that the rule system *whose validity is derived from the observation of that reality* is necessary and sufficient to describe it. Well that's... obvious. Circular reasoning. You could fire up a very successful simulation, where the entities inside somehow become conscious, they'd discover all the rules and say "we know everything". Which is true (they know everything they can know for certain), yet, you're out there all the same, shut the thing down and play crysis 23.
Agreed 100%
I am a bit doubtful about calling this a hack, this is reverse engineering.
A hack would have been: ... there you are, darling!
- Daddy but I want to be the hero!!!
- Ok! wait a sec... *puts fake mustache on girl*
The simplest explanation is that Apple and Amazon are patenting the idea of dealing with used copies so that nobody can sell used stuff anymore.
The slightly more difficult explanation, if you don't consider copyright holder in the same boat as app store (a sale is a sale for both, most of the time) is that they want to use the used stuff card to cheat copyright holders on the real amount of digital stuff sold.
Other interpretations seem too far fetched :)
all distros can take a statically compiled package that don't rely on any assumption about the filesystem, I guess. They'd depend on kernel and installed modules only.
Start shipping those and see if people like it.
If not, try arch, which has the most lightweight wrappers.
Personally I think packaging the original source plus the diff (like .deb format does) is the best thing when your distro gets big. Arch begs to differ, but Arch is a german word for "didn't work with PCs long enough to really appreciate debian" :D
Both are irrelevant.
What we could discuss instead is the viability of North Korea as a server hosting country.
Given that one of Korean family names is "Ping", I'd say they are pretty well positioned.
I see no big changes in MS conduct from Gates to Ballmer. The difference in effects is huge but you should thank GNU, Linux, and mac users for that.
Last time I thought it was an OK company, I was using applesoft basic...
Let's play the "name the f*ing tools" game?
E.g. for me the closest thing to a tool that "just work" is web2py. The api stays compatible, very maintainable apps get out of that. Guess what, it's free and open.
"Good riddance" are the first two words that come to my mind, too.
But the only reason for me is that he decided mono was a good idea. That fake pragmatic thinking is harmful in the long term, as many slashdot old stories have documented.
It is better for him to sit comfortably in the OSX camp, it is more adherent to his philosophy, everybody gains.
You should remember that there is also debian testing, which currently is debian wheezy. As stable becomes too old, testing become more of a viable alternative. I ran into more problems with kubuntu than sid, and testing is way better than sid for normal users, because upgrades are less radical.
I also had a smooth experience with debian stable, if you want to run newer software too you could make a chroot with sid or testing, or consider the LD_LIBRARY_PATH option: at home I am running wheezy, plus the fglrx-legacy driver from experimental, using a closed source client with libraries gotten from ubuntu, and the resulting frankenstein has not had one hiccup.
That's a long winded way to say you play a lot of solitaire at Microsoft.
There, fixed that for you.
Oh so I would be HELPING by keeping a dev into his own distortion bubble? and I would HELP the company by introducing it to a distortion bubble?
We are not discussing a switch to openbsd. I'd help the dev if he wanted that. We are discussing a switch to a single vendor system from a commodity system. Introducing a dependency. And you dare bringing the good of the company to the table...
This is not a matter of preference as in: dev likes yellow cars, I like green cars, we get green cars.
It's a matter of preference as in: dev likes wankel engine, I like diesel engine, dev can't repair the engine if it malfunctions, the kind of job is suited for diesel engines and in the future dev will likely have to drive diesel anyway.
Ignoring the dev is the right thing to do.
No, I rather keep a monolithic kernel for performance. Then I'll enable some security hooks... and run server and sensitive stuff in a VM... hoping that the bare metal which I use for games won't get compromised... hmm...
OK, TANENBAUM WAS RIGHT.
You are implying in a strong way that all the stuff about democracy and freedom is pure fluff put above a power system like all others.
That's what the elite wants, of course. But even if you think that all you've been fed is propaganda, trying to uphold it is a good exercise for personal freedom. Use "their" weapons against "them".
No spare batteries? no no-downtime replacement if the battery dies? No easy extraction of data if the phone breaks? I'm willing to sacrifice A LOT of thickness/weight to get these features.
>The real arrogance is of course that he expects nothing more than being market leader.
>This alone is unrealistic.
You mean, getting late to market with a "me too", unpolished product?
That's exactly what happened with windows.
MS is the company who sold an operating system to IBM!
Of course they believe they can pull anything off. And in fact they can, nowadays. They just need to find some equally clueless managers on the other side of the market.
> how do you think they know where to frack for natural gas or dig sideways for the hard to reach oil?
Rhabdomancy!
*ducks*
Not holding my breath, considering that Nokia had a real linux smartphone and failed to market/properly develop it, all before the deadly embrace with MS (Ok it might not be deadly but most microsoft partners ended up screwed at one point, yes?).
The app store has lots of apps but lots of overlap, and what about integration? What about the next phase in app ecosystems, which will resemble the proprietary software scene 20 years ago? Big app makers will slowly prevail, small app makers won't keep up with the cartel of big apps, hardware producers, and OS releases.
You have an aptitude (dist-)upgrade on OSX android or Windows? No? then app markets are not package managers. I am familiar only with the play store, and it seems labirynthine compared to an apt-cache search.
If you want to jail stuff you can play with chroot, auroot, LD_LIBRARY_PATH tomoyo... but newbies are better off multibooting and booting from usb or running a VM.
And finally for your suggestion of self contained programs+libs, that's the approach gobolinux took a while ago, and crunchbang people had expressed interest in gobolinux rootless.