That's true, but we all know the world domination is the purpose of any guy like Steve Jobs... why do you think he works for $1/year? For money? Bwhahaha!
I call bullshit on that, people don't switch to Linux not because they are confused what to choose KDE or GNOME (or that either of those is no "user-friendly) but because: 1. can't run their applications (when their needs go further than Firefox and a text editor) 2. can't use their hardware (in some cases)
If people would be able to use their applications on their hardware they would not have any problems to switch, learning to click once instead of twice is not that hard...
Linux users are less likely to steal software, mostly because the software they get though repos is legal and free, why would they steal software?
Actually many Linux users use Linux _exactly_ because they don't want to steal software. For example, I built a computer, I don't want to pay $299 for Vista, and I don't want to steal it, therefore I use Linux
(I wouldn't pay $10 for Vista, they would have to pay me to use it, but that's another discussion)
Ready for masses, easy to use... these are red herrings, the only things that matter for people are: 1. will it run the applications that I need to run 2. will it run on my (obscure) piece of hardware
I think Linux starts to win the point 2, there are still problems with point 1, with all the advancement of Wine we are still far from being sure that specific software run without issues on it.
And why red herrings, KDE and GNOME are just as easy to use a Windows, if not easier... and things that are different can be learned in no more than couple of hours.
I see here people replying that free will means lack of determination, not being pre-ordained, but there's an actual word for that, it's "random", why avoid it? It's pretty obvious that the thinking process is a combination of deterministic things (no system that has a purpose can be completely random -- unless randomness is the purpose of such system) and random elements (that cannot be avoided since at quantum level everything is pretty random as far as I understand). I can't pretend to know how much is the influence of random elements, but that's not the point, the point is that I don't see any third way... it's either deterministic process, determined by brain structure (hardware + some burnt in software), education (software), disposition (variables) and some random processes, I don't see any place for something else there, do you? As I said "free will" has a specific religious meaning that I can understand, if we take God out of the picture it doesn't make sense as concept, free from what? From outside influence? From inside (hardware+software) constraints?
I'm saying this because to make a case for or against something you need to understand what that is, and for bringing scientific argument for or against, the hypothesis should exist in the first place (and be falsifiable). I don't think there's a falsifiable definition of free-will or at least I haven't seen one.
"If he had free will then he could have NOT killed someone. If he doesn't, then he was going to kill someone no matter what."
The murder is either determined by something (brain, education, disposition) or random, or a combination of these two things, I don't see any separate third way. I would personally think that a person is responsible if what he did was determined by his brain and education rather then being a random event. It means that the person is flawed and needs correction or medical help (in case the "hardware" AKA brain is damaged) also this is how the punishment works as deterrent too, possibility of being caught and punished is a part of input, the assumption is that it modifies the output (behavior). If we'd think that people thoughts are independent of inputs then we wouldn't think of punishing somebody in order to deter somebody else, right?
I see here people replying that free will means lack of determination, not being pre-ordained, but there's an actual word for that, it's "random", why avoid it? It's pretty obvious that the thinking process is a combination of deterministic things (no system that has a purpose can be completely random -- unless randomness is the purpose of such system) and random elements (that cannot be avoided since at quantum level everything is pretty random as far as I understand). I can't pretend to know how much is the influence of random elements, but that's not the point, the point is that I don't see any third way... it's either deterministic process, determined by brain structure (hardware + some burnt in software), education (software), disposition (variables) and some random processes, I don't see any place for something else there. As I said "free will" has a specific religious meaning that I can understand, if we take God out of the picture it doesn't make sense as concept, free from what? From outside influence? From inside hardware+software constraints?
I'm saying this because to make a case for or against something you need to understand what that is, and to bring scientific argument the hypothesis should exist in the first place (and be falsifiable) I don't think there's a falsifiable definition of free-will or at least I haven't seen one.
Free will is a religious concept, it means that God doesn't interfere in the process of personal decision, but if we take God out of equation (scientists do that anyway, right?) what remains? What is it free from? I really don't understand this...
I don't know about you I've been using Microsoft products since DOS 5 and Windows since 3.0 (or 3.1) including professionally, I started learning Linux as a hobby and in about half of year I learned more about its details and I know to configure and administer it better than I know Windows, is that coincidence?
I have no Idea why people say Open Source Software is hard to use.
I have no idea either, open source is a just way to develop programs, I see no connection between this and the complexity of programs or their user-friendliness, I bet there are many tic-tac-toe programs that are open sourced... I can write a shitty program with close source or open source alike. If it's open source at least there's a chance that somebody else can fix it.
I'm tired of this American crap when people who have a drop of black blood they are considered black, he's half black and half white. But that's irrelevant, he's grey... whatever... what about judging him for what he does and what he says not for his color?
Slashdot Mirror
That's true, but we all know the world domination is the purpose of any guy like Steve Jobs... why do you think he works for $1/year? For money? Bwhahaha!
Exherbo is Latin for weeding jackasses out. It's good that these people left Gentoo...
more "first post!" posts in the "uncensored" forum.
That's nothing, I'm pretty sure that I've seen Wile E. Coyote using such a product designed by Acme long time ago...
Project Gutenberg has more (good) free books that I will ever be able to read....
I call bullshit on that, people don't switch to Linux not because they are confused what to choose KDE or GNOME (or that either of those is no "user-friendly) but because:
1. can't run their applications (when their needs go further than Firefox and a text editor)
2. can't use their hardware (in some cases)
If people would be able to use their applications on their hardware they would not have any problems to switch, learning to click once instead of twice is not that hard...
It's better to teach somebody to fish instead of giving them the fish, but the person might die of hunger during the lesson....
Strange, I use Linux and I am able to browse the site...
Linux users are less likely to steal software, mostly because the software they get though repos is legal and free, why would they steal software?
Actually many Linux users use Linux _exactly_ because they don't want to steal software. For example, I built a computer, I don't want to pay $299 for Vista, and I don't want to steal it, therefore I use Linux
(I wouldn't pay $10 for Vista, they would have to pay me to use it, but that's another discussion)
There are many OSes without GUI, read in any Computer Science book the definition of OS.
If the definition of OS is "has to run C programs" then you are right.
When you've written something as powerful and stable as Windows Vista, come back and tell us about it :)
Oh, so you are one of those "just a kernel" type of guys. Lately I started to see them just like the "just a theory" people...
A kernel can be an OS. If you use Linux on your cell isn't that the OS? What do you think the OS is, the GUI on top of the kernel?
Ready for masses, easy to use... these are red herrings, the only things that matter for people are:
1. will it run the applications that I need to run
2. will it run on my (obscure) piece of hardware
I think Linux starts to win the point 2, there are still problems with point 1, with all the advancement of Wine we are still far from being sure that specific software run without issues on it.
And why red herrings, KDE and GNOME are just as easy to use a Windows, if not easier... and things that are different can be learned in no more than couple of hours.
I'm waiting for the announcement of somebody forking the code... if not there's always PostgreSQL.
Every year when Linux gains more users is the "year of Linux"
I see here people replying that free will means lack of determination, not being pre-ordained, but there's an actual word for that, it's "random", why avoid it? It's pretty obvious that the thinking process is a combination of deterministic things (no system that has a purpose can be completely random -- unless randomness is the purpose of such system) and random elements (that cannot be avoided since at quantum level everything is pretty random as far as I understand). I can't pretend to know how much is the influence of random elements, but that's not the point, the point is that I don't see any third way... it's either deterministic process, determined by brain structure (hardware + some burnt in software), education (software), disposition (variables) and some random processes, I don't see any place for something else there, do you? As I said "free will" has a specific religious meaning that I can understand, if we take God out of the picture it doesn't make sense as concept, free from what? From outside influence? From inside (hardware+software) constraints?
I'm saying this because to make a case for or against something you need to understand what that is, and for bringing scientific argument for or against, the hypothesis should exist in the first place (and be falsifiable). I don't think there's a falsifiable definition of free-will or at least I haven't seen one.
"If he had free will then he could have NOT killed someone. If he doesn't, then he was going to kill someone no matter what."
The murder is either determined by something (brain, education, disposition) or random, or a combination of these two things, I don't see any separate third way. I would personally think that a person is responsible if what he did was determined by his brain and education rather then being a random event. It means that the person is flawed and needs correction or medical help (in case the "hardware" AKA brain is damaged) also this is how the punishment works as deterrent too, possibility of being caught and punished is a part of input, the assumption is that it modifies the output (behavior). If we'd think that people thoughts are independent of inputs then we wouldn't think of punishing somebody in order to deter somebody else, right?
I see here people replying that free will means lack of determination, not being pre-ordained, but there's an actual word for that, it's "random", why avoid it? It's pretty obvious that the thinking process is a combination of deterministic things (no system that has a purpose can be completely random -- unless randomness is the purpose of such system) and random elements (that cannot be avoided since at quantum level everything is pretty random as far as I understand). I can't pretend to know how much is the influence of random elements, but that's not the point, the point is that I don't see any third way... it's either deterministic process, determined by brain structure (hardware + some burnt in software), education (software), disposition (variables) and some random processes, I don't see any place for something else there. As I said "free will" has a specific religious meaning that I can understand, if we take God out of the picture it doesn't make sense as concept, free from what? From outside influence? From inside hardware+software constraints?
I'm saying this because to make a case for or against something you need to understand what that is, and to bring scientific argument the hypothesis should exist in the first place (and be falsifiable) I don't think there's a falsifiable definition of free-will or at least I haven't seen one.
I would not accept having a brain surgery by somebody trained on Encyclopedia Britannica either....
Free will is a religious concept, it means that God doesn't interfere in the process of personal decision, but if we take God out of equation (scientists do that anyway, right?) what remains? What is it free from? I really don't understand this...
I don't know about you I've been using Microsoft products since DOS 5 and Windows since 3.0 (or 3.1) including professionally, I started learning Linux as a hobby and in about half of year I learned more about its details and I know to configure and administer it better than I know Windows, is that coincidence?
I have no Idea why people say Open Source Software is hard to use.
I have no idea either, open source is a just way to develop programs, I see no connection between this and the complexity of programs or their user-friendliness, I bet there are many tic-tac-toe programs that are open sourced... I can write a shitty program with close source or open source alike. If it's open source at least there's a chance that somebody else can fix it.
Funny, cause if you used it for so long time you'd know that you should actually use site:example.com not site:www.example.com
I'm tired of this American crap when people who have a drop of black blood they are considered black, he's half black and half white. But that's irrelevant, he's grey... whatever... what about judging him for what he does and what he says not for his color?
With all these qualifications it's interesting that his daughter helps him with the math for the project.