Icculus wrote the book and it is Errand Wolfe who now has the Helping Friendly Book and good luck getting it from him as he's captured the Famous Mockingbird and is ruling Gamedhendge with an iron fist.
"The word you're defining is either "lie" or "err", depending on if the person knew they were wrong. Irony is not just stating a falsehood. Though perhaps it was ironic that you jumped all over this guy for his misuse of the word."
Actually, the definition I was giving was (one of) the definitions for irony. Lie and error can play a part in irony as can sarcasm. Someone stating an error may not be attempting to make a sarcastic or ironic comment, but often it can be seen as ironic that they make such a statement.
And I didn't jump all over that guy. He used the word irony, someone else made a wise-crack about his use of the word, he defended his usage and at that point I made my comment. I didn't disparage him or make any comments on his ability. If anything, I sympathased knowing-all-too-well that it is an easy word to misuse. So I don't see the irony you suggest. I do see the irony in his original defense of the word (which prompted my comment) and now, in you characterizing my comment as ironic.
"Irony - when something happens that is the opposite of what is expected."
That's not irony, but it is an ironic statement. Irony is the statement of one thing when another thing (typically the opposite) was intended. It would be ironic if someone said that it was easy to build Gnome when the truth is that it is not. It is not ironic that it is easier to use gnome than it is to build it.
Never-the-less, your original premise could have been considered ironic if it actually followed that easy to use somehow implied easy to package (it is ironic to suggest that there is a linkage where clearly they are two different things).
Another example: it was ironic that Bush claimed WMD in Iraq as the reason for invasion when in reality none had been found (thereby refuting the credance given for invasion).
Don't worry, with such a confusing word and the popularity of idiom, everyone gets it wrong at some point including all the budinskys who have nothing better to do than give little corrections to show how smart they are. Me included.
What bothers me, perhaps the most, is that this is just one of the many examples where mathematics is applied to make an existing idea that much more compelling. The idea that concepts from mathematics can be ingrained into someone's private money-making scheme seems both non-sensical on the one-hand and a complete affront to science on the other. How can we as a society allow a mathematical transformation (which is a provable FACT) to become someone's private property?
We live in a day where the very nebulous concept of property rules every aspect of everyone's lives for the very limited benefit of those who purport to own said property. When this was limited to tangible goods it was still a regrettable but at least tolerable practice. The rather recent "inventions" of patent and copyright have completely destroyed the merit of the conception of property, particularly in the context of the information age.
bah. Its like the singer said, "Don't worry -- if there's a hell below, we're all going to go."
"Until the courts decide that student P2P activity is permitted we will continue to block this activity on our network"
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? If the courts haven't decided that it is illegal, who is he to decide that it is otherwise? I really dislike it when people spend that much time covering their pathetic fat-asses.
Of course, it is their network. Surely you can get your own phone/cable line and then you can have your own private internet connection.
Actually, I had it wrong after all. He actually wrote: "I often annoyed professors by asking them about real-world applications..."
So he didn't actually ever say anything annoyed him about math--he just noted that he's was a wise-ass. Never-the-less, he neither said he actually completed his PhD, so perhaps in the end he came to the same conclusion that you did. Ha, a rather intuitive induction on your part considering the lack of provided facts.
I agree that PostgreSQL is far more feature rich than than MySQL. It is also a better development environment. Still, I don't think that implies it is the best choice for every application. It is very hard to argue against the applicability of MySQL -- what it does do, it does very well. If you are migrating an application that doesn't require the additional features of a more robust database, it is a worthy candidate. Particularly since if you do plan to need advanced features you actually have much less reason to port to another environment to begin with.
Perhaps a more important point is to consider the OS environment one is likely to find MS SQL users running -- windows. While PostgreSQL has just very recently began fully supporting windows, MySQL has been there for a long time. In many ways, its a much softer sell for that reason.
I haven't been arguing for MySQL over PostgreSQL because I see them as different tools suitable for different jobs. For the same reason, there are many cases where it would be more appropriate to stay with a MS SQL (or Oracle) solution.
What I like about the article is that it is another signpost. The more that any of the leading FOSS rdms's get into the corporate space, the better it is for all FOSS rdms's to prove their case and improve their chance of acceptance and adoption. Its really hard to break the stranglehold of Oracle and MS SQL in the corporate environment so even baby steps are important at this time.
I wouldn't doubt that a lot of databases sitting on MS SQL can just as comfortably run on MySQL. Of course MS SQL is far more capable and has more features but that doesn't mean that they are needed for all databases and applications that a company may deploy.
Does application logic belong on the database server? In a lot of cases, absolutely! In those cases MySQL is obviously not going to be a candidate. Then again, a lot of applications only use the database server as a storage backend; in those cases, porting to MySQL is not particularly unreasonable.
Your boss is being unreasonable. 4 weeks is plenty generous on your part. Explain to him that he had 2 1/2 years to remedy the situation and that 2 more weeks isn't going to make a difference. Explain to him that if he wants support, it will have to be on your terms and at your rates and on the condition that it does not interefere with new contracts/jobs. Be professional about it, but partly that means presenting yourself as your own entity and not his personal minion. He needn't take you up on your proposal, but that is his choice.
He has never "owned you" and I am assuming that over the time you were employed there that you acted responsibility and did what was asked (ie. you earned your paychecks). He has no right to demand more from you, particularly once you are no longer an employee.
It is difficult when you are the go-to-guy in a small outfit where you likely have a very personal relationship with your boss. Your leaving may very well jeopordize his business so he can take it personally, but then again, his business is his responsibility, not yours. Don't be surprised if you are suddenly offered down-the-road equity or other future incentives. You may decide that such offers are in your benefit, but beware and think carefully. They can also be more of the string-you-along type of offers and if you are already in a business relationship where you have the weak hand then it is very difficult to change that.
Consider what would happen if the company suddenly went bust -- likely you would get shown the door, any outstanding owed wages and accumulated vacation pay and that's it.
I know its tough because it involves a personal relationship but there comes a time when you have to think of yourself first. Your boss is obviously doing that on his part, you must do it on yours.
Hi. I really don't have much interest in belabouring this but one last bit of pendantics can't hurt much.
1) my attitude is not "PC" (again, a labelling used to somehow try to diminish my position). PC is associated with the re-labelling of common, established terms to try and remove pretense. If you recall, I was actually advocating the usage of the more common and established "Fundamentatlist" not "Complex Adverse" or some such thing. The view I was then espousing is what is known as humanist. For someone who is arguing over a caste system based on intelligence you really better re-evaluate your position lest you end up on the wrong side of your own prison.
2)I wasn't suggesting that you "respect" the *view point* (which you believe is wrong, though empirically it is often difficult to decide). I'm suggesting you need to respect the *person* making the point even if they are spouting absolute bullshit. For example, I respect you as a person though I truly disagree with the comments you are making.
3) Your views have a terrible "holier than thou" tone. From what privledged view point do you stand thinking you are above others? Empiricism? Did you know that empiricism requires direct observation whereas most modern science (lets consider subatomic physics) is actually based on indirect measurement of hypothetical entities? Would knowing that actually make you better than someone else? You speak of the ignorance of others and yet you talk like a child. Personally, my compassion for a creature is not based on my estimation of its intelligence. I pity you for thinking otherwise.
I think you may have read me wrong -- I did cooperate but that didn't make me feel better. Neither did the fact that they told me that the chance of finding the perpertrators was virtually nil. Perhaps if it happened to you, your appreciation of it would be different.
Yeah, its an old problem. My apartment was robbed. I wasn't going to report it but friends said it was the right thing to do. The police showed and decided that the perpetrators came through the bedroom window. They lifted fingerprints. The only other person to use that window? *ME* So before they left, the police took my fingerprints.
Nice day, I get robbed and then I get fingerprinted for it. I have nothing to hide, but that day I felt doubly violated.
In my experience, managers have a very hard time qualifying and quantifying the development process. I suspect your students will want/need the following:
1) basic understanding of computer/os architecture 2) basic understanding of programming logic 3) basic understanding of storage (eg: filesystems, sql) 4) enough skill to be able to solve one-off problems that *they* may have (as opposed to developing a system for someone else) 5) understanding of differing development methodologies. 6) security concerns and where they come into play 7) estimating time and scale of a project
The main concern, I think, is to get them to understand how to evaluate the scope of a problem and the types of resources that are required to solve it. I know a lot of managers that, given an IT requirement, would have to rely entirely on the IT staff to estimate the time and resources required to complete the task. They would have no way estimating it on their own nor could they predict or foresee problem areas that may lead to delays or product failures.
If you can make them think like programmers/designers or even just appreciate how developers think that is probably enough. It might even be instructive to take apart a large project (don't have them write it, have them dissect it and understand the basic pieces) so that they can get a feel for the types of challenges that developers face. Lets face facts, there is no point in teaching SQL or PHP to someone who has no immediate need for it. They won't remember it and the arcane details they pick-up won't actually help them when they attain the types of positions they truly want. If you can distill into them even some comprehension of the real work of developers you stand to help both developers and managers.
"It appears likely that the only form of trade possible across interstellar distances is a trade in information, so sending out everything you know is like giving away all your assets to complete strangers. There aren't many humans who would do that, and I don't see why it should be different with aliens."
On the one hand, he talks about how the current SETI efforts are anthropomorphic and thus unsuitable but then he uses the above reasoning to justify his own solution? Worse, he gets it wrong. How does he explain the free software movement under this analogy?
His idea is not only anthropomorphic, it is decidedly old world thinking and representative of an early age of development. There is just as much reason to believe that any alien society capable of such communication feats would be beyond the bounds of limited resources and hence property.
Again, you demonstrate complete misunderstanding. Respect does not imply that I must agree with you nor you with me. Indeed, the highest form of respect is paid when it is given despite disagreement.
So please, do tell: how have I shown a closed mind? At every turn I have shown how indefensible your arguments are -- is that what you think makes me closed minded? I think the only thing that is being shown is your preference for bias and name calling.
No wonder you resort to being an Anonymous Coward.
Its funny that you should keep speaking of what I know or not. You fail to understand my premise: if you can't respect the underlying humanity of others, no matter how deplorable you find their position, how can you ever expect others to recognize and respect yours?
Your attitude is no more worthy than the ones you seek to deride.
I think that the word "fundamentalists" (which is the proper plural) is equally descriptive and benefits from not attatching any additional connotations. Some people may be inflexible in their opinions but it occurs to me that that alone does not justify the use of colorful slang to refer to them. I suspect that when people choose to use "fundies" they are really implying something more than just "fundamentalists". Besides, not all fundamentalists are activists (eg: Amish) yet "fundies" applies the same brush to all.
Those of us who know better really oughtn't sink to that level but rather should stick to *our* principles of reasoned debate supported by evidence, yes? This is the proper way to engage the imagination and appeal to even the most hardened and cynical of people. If we use name calling, then "they" have all the more reason to close their minds and discount anything that we may preseent out of hand. I really don't see how that can benefit anyone in the end.
Sorry, none of those folks are "scientists", at least in the context you mention. There is no such thing as "(insert religion) science". "Science" has its own cathedral, built on reputation, publication, grants and hieracrchies of their own making. None-the-less, it also happens to have at its root a most powerful of decision guides, the scientific-method which tends to continually lead to better theories and explanations of observations. Even the conventional scientific cathedral yields to it over time.
We know that science does not produce "facts" as theories can and are supplanted as we discover more about the universe on all scales. If there is an underlying truth to the universe, at best, science will only ever be able to model it. Still, it provides the means to evaluate evidence and make predictions. Of all accounts of the universe, at any scale, it appears that "science" is the most telling and the most reliable. Actually, this is fairly much indisputable.
There is plenty of room left for faith in our personal affairs if one sees fit to model their lives that way. Yet there is no place for faith in science based on the scientific method. The first thing we must abandon when approaching any matter with a scientific mind are the preconceived notions we carry of what we think ought to be. No, we must not have faith of the outcome but instead accept it as it is and find the best explanations we currently can to try to comprehend our observations.
That said, why do people use the term "fundies"? I'm not even sure I know what it means, but I do know that it is used as an insulting and degrading moniker. Using such labeling really shows which side of the ignoranant / enlightened fence that a person sits on.
"Ah, why provide multiple CDs when you can provide multiple distros?"
Funny, yes, true, not quite. Kubuntu uses the same repositories as Ubuntu. The difference between the two is the default desktop.
As it happens, my favourite way of installing Ubuntu is to do a server install (which is a minimal install with no desktop and no X) and then apt-get the desktop of my choice if I need one on that machine. The point is that I can choose either Gnome or KDE from the official Ubuntu repositories. Of course, I'm fortunate enough to have a high-speed internet connection which makes such a choice reasonable.
I don't really see the need for the two names which I think causes confusion; however, considering that Ubuntu is "officially" a Gnome desktop distro and the fact that the KDE community has an affinity for putting K in front of everything I do see the logic in it.
It is nice to learn that Kubuntu is actually a "real" word (somewhere) and that it means essentially the same thing as Ubuntu. Humanity towards others. What a delightful concept!
In retrospect, you and I are merely having a diversion of talk when we likely see things in a very similar way.
I was making up numbers just as you were. I could have easily said 100%. The point is that you take verbatim what is said and use that as fact. We are talking about someone posing a hypothetical on Slashdot. As I said a few posts ago--consider the context. So please don't say that I admited anything concerning free support when I clearly did not. What I have been trying to show is that you must take the meaning of the licenses to base your assertions on not the current or supposed levels of take-up that occurred. You can not extrapolate on the percentages simply because up until very recently "users" really were developers.
As far as taking the emacs example--you were the one that continually pushed it and also introduced it into the conversation. We both know it was a red herring but I had to underline that since it seemed you were trying to subterfuge it.
So we are at an impasse. You feel that you got your points across and I feel the same. I'm just disappointed that you made all of your points from an AC account.
Surely you know that support via mailing lists, etc is not the same thing as someone actively developing a project? Surely you understand that asides from answering user problems and fixing little bugs we are also talking about continued development of the project?
Besides your support figures being made up, even if they were true it is completely besides the point. In one case you have absolutely no avenue of support. In the other case, you can get support. As I already argued, its not about the money. Its about the ability. Perhaps today 1% of the people pay for FOSS support, perhaps 10% perhaps 0%. That doesn't imply that people can't pay for support or that FOSS somehow implies free (as in beer) support for every project at all times.
Besides, you really ougtn't knit pick about the use of the word "demand" when you are carefree about the use of the word "support". I mean, with FOSS its a given that "motivated demand" is what "demand" is supposed to mean, isn't it? You are picking the wrong over an issue that doesn't exist and moreso over a statement that despite your claims, was not fanatical or propagandist. At worst, it was a poor use of language but it hardly seemed intentiallal. Compare that to the recent "Agility Alliance" bullshit that came down the pipe and you tell me who is spouting FUD and propaganda. No scratch that, I already know you will say.
Emacs is at 21.4. I'm sure there are bugs still in 0.3. You won't mention which, but either they have been corrected in a more recent version or they can be. By can be, I mean either a developer is looking at it or a "motivated user" is looking at it or someone is willing to foot the bill to get someone to look at it.
"support" does not imply in any way "at no cost". That you should say that shows that it is you who are either missing the subtleties of the notion of FOSS or again, simply wish to troll. Read the GPL. It specifically states that the freedom gauranteed is *not* 0$ software. This is the distintion you are trying very hard to obscure. Your subterfuge is less than convincing.
You also seem to fail to recognize the difference between purchasing support to continue a product and buying a corporation so as to direct its development efforts. They are two different things and typically have very different cost structures. I could reasonably hire a team of developers to work on supporting a project the size of VB6 but I could not reasonably get controlling interest in Microsoft. Stop being ridiculous.
You are also misconstruing the idea of what FOSS means in terms of being ABLE to provide support. Perhaps the grandparent used verbage that is too loose. The point though, is that anyone can pick up and support a FOSS project as long as they wish. It is their right and they have all the technical resources (ie. sourcecode) required to do so. This can NOT be said about proprietary, close-source software. You know this.
Please don't bring up grandma. The article was concerned about the VB6 COMMUNITY (a large (several million developers) community that is presumably populated by professionals with money) and the fact that MS was uninterested in heading their calls for additional support. The point being made was simply that had VB6 been a FOSS project, no such concern could have developed. Interested parties (emphasis on the plural since it was stated from the begining that this was not a single person's issue) could fork the project and continue its development. With that many users (not to mention all of the corporate interest in supporting existing applications written in VB) it is more than likely that the ball would be carried forward. Indeed, this is a case where it is really gauranteed.
I know you understand this. The idea is that your rights are gauranteed (including your right to support). This is what FOSS provides -- the conditions so that your wishes can be fulfilled. Nowhere does it gaurantee that someone will do it unless you provide the impetous. Nowhere does it gaurantee that someone necesarilly will do it out of the generousity of their heart and for 0$. BUT, it allows you to provide the impetous and it allows you to provide the dollars should the be necessary.
Of course, remaining an AC, it is easy to say anything you want, yes?
No AC, you are still wrong. If you have found a bug, then you are assured of the fact that it *can* be corrected. How it gets corrected is another matter. The most obvious choice would be to do it yourself. What you REALLY seem to be caught up on is the fact that it might cost you some money to get the fix done. The point, though, is that at least money *CAN* be used to get it fixed. FOSS DOESN'T IMPLY FREE AS IN BEER. The point is that despite any money you might offer, Microsoft isn't willing to support the product. Get it? Do you see the difference?
Besides, whatever bug you have found in Emacs 0.3 *HAS* surely been corrected by the community is subsequent versions.
Therefore your assertions are false. And you are an AC Troll.
Slashdot Mirror
How can a license for Windows 98 be $5?
You can't get it for that price even at ebay. Something is not quite right about this one...
The Man Who Stepped into Yesterday
"The word you're defining is either "lie" or "err", depending on if the person knew they were wrong. Irony is not just stating a falsehood. Though perhaps it was ironic that you jumped all over this guy for his misuse of the word."
Actually, the definition I was giving was (one of) the definitions for irony. Lie and error can play a part in irony as can sarcasm. Someone stating an error may not be attempting to make a sarcastic or ironic comment, but often it can be seen as ironic that they make such a statement.
And I didn't jump all over that guy. He used the word irony, someone else made a wise-crack about his use of the word, he defended his usage and at that point I made my comment. I didn't disparage him or make any comments on his ability. If anything, I sympathased knowing-all-too-well that it is an easy word to misuse. So I don't see the irony you suggest. I do see the irony in his original defense of the word (which prompted my comment) and now, in you characterizing my comment as ironic.
Its just so.... what's the word I'm looking for?
"Irony - when something happens that is the opposite of what is expected."
That's not irony, but it is an ironic statement. Irony is the statement of one thing when another thing (typically the opposite) was intended. It would be ironic if someone said that it was easy to build Gnome when the truth is that it is not. It is not ironic that it is easier to use gnome than it is to build it.
Never-the-less, your original premise could have been considered ironic if it actually followed that easy to use somehow implied easy to package (it is ironic to suggest that there is a linkage where clearly they are two different things).
Another example: it was ironic that Bush claimed WMD in Iraq as the reason for invasion when in reality none had been found (thereby refuting the credance given for invasion).
Don't worry, with such a confusing word and the popularity of idiom, everyone gets it wrong at some point including all the budinskys who have nothing better to do than give little corrections to show how smart they are. Me included.
What bothers me, perhaps the most, is that this is just one of the many examples where mathematics is applied to make an existing idea that much more compelling. The idea that concepts from mathematics can be ingrained into someone's private money-making scheme seems both non-sensical on the one-hand and a complete affront to science on the other. How can we as a society allow a mathematical transformation (which is a provable FACT) to become someone's private property?
We live in a day where the very nebulous concept of property rules every aspect of everyone's lives for the very limited benefit of those who purport to own said property. When this was limited to tangible goods it was still a regrettable but at least tolerable practice. The rather recent
"inventions" of patent and copyright have completely destroyed the merit of the conception of property, particularly in the context of the information age.
bah. Its like the singer said, "Don't worry -- if there's a hell below, we're all going to go."
"Until the courts decide that student P2P activity is permitted we will continue to block this activity on our network"
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? If the courts haven't decided that it is illegal, who is he to decide that it is otherwise? I really dislike it when people spend that much time covering their pathetic fat-asses.
Of course, it is their network. Surely you can get your own phone/cable line and then you can have your own private internet connection.
Actually, I had it wrong after all. He actually wrote: "I often annoyed professors by asking them about real-world applications..."
So he didn't actually ever say anything annoyed him about math--he just noted that he's was a wise-ass. Never-the-less, he neither said he actually completed his PhD, so perhaps in the end he came to the same conclusion that you did. Ha, a rather intuitive induction on your part considering the lack of provided facts.
I agree that PostgreSQL is far more feature rich than than MySQL. It is also a better development environment. Still, I don't think that implies it is the best choice for every application. It is very hard to argue against the applicability of MySQL -- what it does do, it does very well. If you are migrating an application that doesn't require the additional features of a more robust database, it is a worthy candidate. Particularly since if you do plan to need advanced features you actually have much less reason to port to another environment to begin with.
Perhaps a more important point is to consider the OS environment one is likely to find MS SQL users running -- windows. While PostgreSQL has just very recently began fully supporting windows, MySQL has been there for a long time. In many ways, its a much softer sell for that reason.
I haven't been arguing for MySQL over PostgreSQL because I see them as different tools suitable for different jobs. For the same reason, there are many cases where it would be more appropriate to stay with a MS SQL (or Oracle) solution.
What I like about the article is that it is another signpost. The more that any of the leading FOSS rdms's get into the corporate space, the better it is for all FOSS rdms's to prove their case and improve their chance of acceptance and adoption. Its really hard to break the stranglehold of Oracle and MS SQL in the corporate environment so even baby steps are important at this time.
Best Regards.
"How does someone who doesn't like math end up as a PhD math student?"
He didn't say he didn't like math. He said he got annoyed when his professors couldn't point to real world uses for the math he was learning.
I wouldn't doubt that a lot of databases sitting on MS SQL can just as comfortably run on MySQL. Of course MS SQL is far more capable and has more features but that doesn't mean that they are needed for all databases and applications that a company may deploy.
Does application logic belong on the database server? In a lot of cases, absolutely! In those cases MySQL is obviously not going to be a candidate. Then again, a lot of applications only use the database server as a storage backend; in those cases, porting to MySQL is not particularly unreasonable.
Your boss is being unreasonable. 4 weeks is plenty generous on your part. Explain to him that he had 2 1/2 years to remedy the situation and that 2 more weeks isn't going to make a difference. Explain to him that if he wants support, it will have to be on your terms and at your rates and on the condition that it does not interefere with new contracts/jobs. Be professional about it, but partly that means presenting yourself as your own entity and not his personal minion. He needn't take you up on your proposal, but that is his choice.
He has never "owned you" and I am assuming that over the time you were employed there that you acted responsibility and did what was asked (ie. you earned your paychecks). He has no right to demand more from you, particularly once you are no longer an employee.
It is difficult when you are the go-to-guy in a small outfit where you likely have a very personal relationship with your boss. Your leaving may very well jeopordize his business so he can take it personally, but then again, his business is his responsibility, not yours. Don't be surprised if you are suddenly offered down-the-road equity or other future incentives. You may decide that such offers are in your benefit, but beware and think carefully. They can also be more of the string-you-along type of offers and if you are already in a business relationship where you have the weak hand then it is very difficult to change that.
Consider what would happen if the company suddenly went bust -- likely you would get shown the door, any outstanding owed wages and accumulated vacation pay and that's it.
I know its tough because it involves a personal relationship but there comes a time when you have to think of yourself first. Your boss is obviously doing that on his part, you must do it on yours.
Good luck!
Hi. I really don't have much interest in belabouring this but one last bit of pendantics can't hurt much.
1) my attitude is not "PC" (again, a labelling used to somehow try to diminish my position). PC is associated with the re-labelling of common, established terms to try and remove pretense. If you recall, I was actually advocating the usage of the more common and established "Fundamentatlist" not "Complex Adverse" or some such thing. The view I was then espousing is what is known as humanist. For someone who is arguing over a caste system based on intelligence you really better re-evaluate your position lest you end up on the wrong side of your own prison.
2)I wasn't suggesting that you "respect" the *view point* (which you believe is wrong, though empirically it is often difficult to decide). I'm suggesting you need to respect the *person* making the point even if they are spouting absolute bullshit. For example, I respect you as a person though I truly disagree with the comments you are making.
3) Your views have a terrible "holier than thou" tone. From what privledged view point do you stand thinking you are above others? Empiricism? Did you know that empiricism requires direct observation whereas most modern science (lets consider subatomic physics) is actually based on indirect measurement of hypothetical entities? Would knowing that actually make you better than someone else? You speak of the ignorance of others and yet you talk like a child. Personally, my compassion for a creature is not based on my estimation of its intelligence. I pity you for thinking otherwise.
I think you may have read me wrong -- I did cooperate but that didn't make me feel better. Neither did the fact that they told me that the chance of finding the perpertrators was virtually nil. Perhaps if it happened to you, your appreciation of it would be different.
Yeah, its an old problem. My apartment was robbed. I wasn't going to report it but friends said it was the right thing to do. The police showed and decided that the perpetrators came through the bedroom window. They lifted fingerprints. The only other person to use that window? *ME* So before they left, the police took my fingerprints.
Nice day, I get robbed and then I get fingerprinted for it. I have nothing to hide, but that day I felt doubly violated.
In my experience, managers have a very hard time qualifying and quantifying the development process. I suspect your students will want/need the following:
1) basic understanding of computer/os architecture
2) basic understanding of programming logic
3) basic understanding of storage (eg: filesystems, sql)
4) enough skill to be able to solve one-off problems that *they* may have (as opposed to developing a system for someone else)
5) understanding of differing development methodologies.
6) security concerns and where they come into play
7) estimating time and scale of a project
The main concern, I think, is to get them to understand how to evaluate the scope of a problem and the types of resources that are required to solve it. I know a lot of managers that, given an IT requirement, would have to rely entirely on the IT staff to estimate the time and resources required to complete the task. They would have no way estimating it on their own nor could they predict or foresee problem areas that may lead to delays or product failures.
If you can make them think like programmers/designers or even just appreciate how developers think that is probably enough. It might even be instructive to take apart a large project (don't have them write it, have them dissect it and understand the basic pieces) so that they can get a feel for the types of challenges that developers face. Lets face facts, there is no point in teaching SQL or PHP to someone who has no immediate need for it. They won't remember it and the arcane details they pick-up won't actually help them when they attain the types of positions they truly want. If you can distill into them even some comprehension of the real work of developers you stand to help both developers and managers.
"It appears likely that the only form of trade possible across interstellar distances is a trade in information, so sending out everything you know is like giving away all your assets to complete strangers. There aren't many humans who would do that, and I don't see why it should be different with aliens."
On the one hand, he talks about how the current SETI efforts are anthropomorphic and thus unsuitable but then he uses the above reasoning to justify his own solution? Worse, he gets it wrong. How does he explain the free software movement under this analogy?
His idea is not only anthropomorphic, it is decidedly old world thinking and representative of an early age of development. There is just as much reason to believe that any alien society capable of such communication feats would be beyond the bounds of limited resources and hence property.
Again, you demonstrate complete misunderstanding. Respect does not imply that I must agree with you nor you with me. Indeed, the highest form of respect is paid when it is given despite disagreement.
So please, do tell: how have I shown a closed mind? At every turn I have shown how indefensible your arguments are -- is that what you think makes me closed minded? I think the only thing that is being shown is your preference for bias and name calling.
No wonder you resort to being an Anonymous Coward.
Its funny that you should keep speaking of what I know or not. You fail to understand my premise: if you can't respect the underlying humanity of others, no matter how deplorable you find their position, how can you ever expect others to recognize and respect yours?
Your attitude is no more worthy than the ones you seek to deride.
I think that the word "fundamentalists" (which is the proper plural) is equally descriptive and benefits from not attatching any additional connotations. Some people may be inflexible in their opinions but it occurs to me that that alone does not justify the use of colorful slang to refer to them. I suspect that when people choose to use "fundies" they are really implying something more than just "fundamentalists". Besides, not all fundamentalists are activists (eg: Amish) yet "fundies" applies the same brush to all.
Those of us who know better really oughtn't sink to that level but rather should stick to *our* principles of reasoned debate supported by evidence, yes? This is the proper way to engage the imagination and appeal to even the most hardened and cynical of people. If we use name calling, then "they" have all the more reason to close their minds and discount anything that we may preseent out of hand. I really don't see how that can benefit anyone in the end.
Sorry, none of those folks are "scientists", at least in the context you mention. There is no such thing as "(insert religion) science". "Science" has its own cathedral, built on reputation, publication, grants and hieracrchies of their own making. None-the-less, it also happens to have at its root a most powerful of decision guides, the scientific-method which tends to continually lead to better theories and explanations of observations. Even the conventional scientific cathedral yields to it over time.
We know that science does not produce "facts" as theories can and are supplanted as we discover more about the universe on all scales. If there is an underlying truth to the universe, at best, science will only ever be able to model it. Still, it provides the means to evaluate evidence and make predictions. Of all accounts of the universe, at any scale, it appears that "science" is the most telling and the most reliable. Actually, this is fairly much indisputable.
There is plenty of room left for faith in our personal affairs if one sees fit to model their lives that way. Yet there is no place for faith in science based on the scientific method. The first thing we must abandon when approaching any matter with a scientific mind are the preconceived notions we carry of what we think ought to be. No, we must not have faith of the outcome but instead accept it as it is and find the best explanations we currently can to try to comprehend our observations.
That said, why do people use the term "fundies"? I'm not even sure I know what it means, but I do know that it is used as an insulting and degrading moniker. Using such labeling really shows which side of the ignoranant / enlightened fence that a person sits on.
"Ah, why provide multiple CDs when you can provide multiple distros?"
Funny, yes, true, not quite. Kubuntu uses the same repositories as Ubuntu. The difference between the two is the default desktop.
As it happens, my favourite way of installing Ubuntu is to do a server install (which is a minimal install with no desktop and no X) and then apt-get the desktop of my choice if I need one on that machine. The point is that I can choose either Gnome or KDE from the official Ubuntu repositories. Of course, I'm fortunate enough to have a high-speed internet connection which makes such a choice reasonable.
I don't really see the need for the two names which I think causes confusion; however, considering that Ubuntu is "officially" a Gnome desktop distro and the fact that the KDE community has an affinity for putting K in front of everything I do see the logic in it.
It is nice to learn that Kubuntu is actually a "real" word (somewhere) and that it means essentially the same thing as Ubuntu. Humanity towards others. What a delightful concept!
In retrospect, you and I are merely having a diversion of talk when we likely see things in a very similar way.
I was making up numbers just as you were. I could have easily said 100%. The point is that you take verbatim what is said and use that as fact. We are talking about someone posing a hypothetical on Slashdot. As I said a few posts ago--consider the context. So please don't say that I admited anything concerning free support when I clearly did not. What I have been trying to show is that you must take the meaning of the licenses to base your assertions on not the current or supposed levels of take-up that occurred. You can not extrapolate on the percentages simply because up until very recently "users" really were developers.
As far as taking the emacs example--you were the one that continually pushed it and also introduced it into the conversation. We both know it was a red herring but I had to underline that since it seemed you were trying to subterfuge it.
So we are at an impasse. You feel that you got your points across and I feel the same. I'm just disappointed that you made all of your points from an AC account.
Bye and good luck.
Surely you know that support via mailing lists, etc is not the same thing as someone actively developing a project? Surely you understand that asides from answering user problems and fixing little bugs we are also talking about continued development of the project?
Besides your support figures being made up, even if they were true it is completely besides the point. In one case you have absolutely no avenue of support. In the other case, you can get support. As I already argued, its not about the money. Its about the ability. Perhaps today 1% of the people pay for FOSS support, perhaps 10% perhaps 0%. That doesn't imply that people can't pay for support or that FOSS somehow implies free (as in beer) support for every project at all times.
Besides, you really ougtn't knit pick about the use of the word "demand" when you are carefree about the use of the word "support". I mean, with FOSS its a given that "motivated demand" is what "demand" is supposed to mean, isn't it? You are picking the wrong over an issue that doesn't exist and moreso over a statement that despite your claims, was not fanatical or propagandist. At worst, it was a poor use of language but it hardly seemed intentiallal. Compare that to the recent "Agility Alliance" bullshit that came down the pipe and you tell me who is spouting FUD and propaganda. No scratch that, I already know you will say.
Emacs is at 21.4. I'm sure there are bugs still in 0.3. You won't mention which, but either they have been corrected in a more recent version or they can be. By can be, I mean either a developer is looking at it or a "motivated user" is looking at it or someone is willing to foot the bill to get someone to look at it.
Basically, you don't have a leg to stand on.
No, you can't have your cake and eat it.
"support" does not imply in any way "at no cost". That you should say that shows that it is you who are either missing the subtleties of the notion of FOSS or again, simply wish to troll. Read the GPL. It specifically states that the freedom gauranteed is *not* 0$ software. This is the distintion you are trying very hard to obscure. Your subterfuge is less than convincing.
You also seem to fail to recognize the difference between purchasing support to continue a product and buying a corporation so as to direct its development efforts. They are two different things and typically have very different cost structures. I could reasonably hire a team of developers to work on supporting a project the size of VB6 but I could not reasonably get controlling interest in Microsoft. Stop being ridiculous.
You are also misconstruing the idea of what FOSS means in terms of being ABLE to provide support. Perhaps the grandparent used verbage that is too loose. The point though, is that anyone can pick up and support a FOSS project as long as they wish. It is their right and they have all the technical resources (ie. sourcecode) required to do so. This can NOT be said about proprietary, close-source software. You know this.
Please don't bring up grandma. The article was concerned about the VB6 COMMUNITY (a large (several million developers) community that is presumably populated by professionals with money) and the fact that MS was uninterested in heading their calls for additional support. The point being made was simply that had VB6 been a FOSS project, no such concern could have developed. Interested parties (emphasis on the plural since it was stated from the begining that this was not a single person's issue) could fork the project and continue its development. With that many users (not to mention all of the corporate interest in supporting existing applications written in VB) it is more than likely that the ball would be carried forward. Indeed, this is a case where it is really gauranteed.
I know you understand this. The idea is that your rights are gauranteed (including your right to support). This is what FOSS provides -- the conditions so that your wishes can be fulfilled. Nowhere does it gaurantee that someone will do it unless you provide the impetous. Nowhere does it gaurantee that someone necesarilly will do it out of the generousity of their heart and for 0$. BUT, it allows you to provide the impetous and it allows you to provide the dollars should the be necessary.
Of course, remaining an AC, it is easy to say anything you want, yes?
No AC, you are still wrong. If you have found a bug, then you are assured of the fact that it *can* be corrected. How it gets corrected is another matter. The most obvious choice would be to do it yourself. What you REALLY seem to be caught up on is the fact that it might cost you some money to get the fix done. The point, though, is that at least money *CAN* be used to get it fixed. FOSS DOESN'T IMPLY FREE AS IN BEER. The point is that despite any money you might offer, Microsoft isn't willing to support the product. Get it? Do you see the difference?
Besides, whatever bug you have found in Emacs 0.3 *HAS* surely been corrected by the community is subsequent versions.
Therefore your assertions are false. And you are an AC Troll.