Ah, but here... here, they're intruding on my religion. My god is the scientific method.
My intellectual filters are rejecting this. I wouldn't doubt that some Christians feel threatened by hearing something like this and are willing to try to adjust commonly accepted reasoning to correct what they feel is wrong with it. They certainly wouldn't want you teaching a class trying to convince kids that just the existence of the scientific method is a substitute for God as they know him.
God is usually designed to explain our existence. Maybe you are not meaning that the method is God but that through the method you can know God (or why we're here, or the nature of everything). You might believe that but I certainly wouldn't want you to teach it to my kids.
So far it looks like ID is religion invading science. It would not be as obvious if science was invading religion. Going to church is optional. Being taught science is not. If the scientific method was taught as obsoleting religion (like it seems you're suggesting) There certainly would be a backlash from religion to try to correct science. Maybe there are some in Kansas that are teaching that science can explain it all and ID is a backlash.
I see 2 things that could seriously improve this article.
First the graph of the price performance is not real informative. They had all the data they just needed to add it to the graph. It really needs to be a scatter plot of performance and price/performance. That way you may be able to target a region of the graph based on your application.
The other thing is that when I buy a cpu I may actually spend 20% more on the cpu for a 10% cpu boost. The reason is that the faster cpu can actually utilize the gpu 10% more, and the memory, and the motherboard, and every other component in the machine. Bottlenecks will of course reduce overall % gain but paying an extra $30 on a $150 cpu is actually cheaper in the long run if you can get a 5% gain on $800 in parts. The way they present the numbers it looks like you need a %10 gain in performance to justify a %10 gain in price.
...knowledge passed down to an elite class of society that are revered by the rest as demigods...
From my point of view this is the exact opposite of what reality does. The one that can do everything always has a place but they are almost never the best at any given thing. It is foolish and easy to underestimate their pool of experience they develop, but the people that really get worshipped are the people that do one thing (or a smaller set of things) exceptionally well.
Perhaps this article is looking at it backwards. Perhaps instead of being afraid of the "Young Blood" not being able to understand these complex systems maybe this is a sign that we managed to design systems that don't require them to know everything about those systems. I'm sure there's a class of problems yet that require a deep understanding to come to the solutions but maybe the articles observation mean that this class of problems has been shrinking. That would be a good thing.
The problem with standards is they end up forcing users to use the "standard" for a project where an alternative technology would be a better choice. Sometimes this decision is so blind it doesn't even notice that the standard doesn't provide any advantage in that situation. I don't see Open standards helping this at all.
I'm guessing these businesses and countries already have official standards for much of what they do. The article wasn't about the benefit of using standards. The focus of the article seemed to be on the benefits of being open.
Wishing a company sued into oblivion for being unorganized is alittle harsh don't you think?
Interesting story though because I've had a similar experience looking for work. I drove 3.5 hrs to interview for a job. When I got there I interviewed with a couple people but they apologized because they forgot the guy I would work for was out for the day. They said he could do a phone interview Wed. Meanwhile I interviewed with another company. I called the first company Wed and they said he would call me Friday. I said OK. The second company made me an offer that was detailed and in the form of an offer letter which I can't say I've seen before. I was impressed. Yet, I wanted to give the other company a chance to play so I told them I would get back to them Monday. Friday came and Monday I accepted the second job. The first company called a couple days later to offer me a job and I told them I already accepted one.
I guess the point is, until they offer me a job there's no way for them to screw with me because I'm not waitin around for them to get organized.
Just like selling a house. You don't take your house off the market because someone promises to make an offer. You only take it off once you've accepted their offer.
I totally agree with you. I believe a flat rate on gas is one of the most fair taxes I can think of.
However, You and I probably think that setting the tax based on the effects of using the gas and side effects of creating such demand for it are more important than who uses the tax and why they're using it.
I think there is a reasonable argument somewhere in between those points of view.
There can easily be arguments against flat gas tax. The business districts in my city (minneapolis, MN) tend to be very clustered and the housing and land within 10 miles of those areas tends to be quite expensive. This may force lower paid workers to drive further because they can't afford a house closer to work.
To make things worse, a light rail train was put in recently and the neighborhoods it passes through have blocked any building of low income apartments near it for fear of lowering property values in those areas. So far the blocking has been pretty successful.
If these things are true it begs for some analysis to make sure that these things are not being abused. I believe abuse like this is vague and hard to prove so liberal thinking leads you to believe it's just easier to not tax the poor, just to be safe, than actually come up with proof that it's bad.
I know those layer fees can be quite unbelievable. But what really bothers me about class action suits is that they often require little proof that a given consumer even qualifies. This encourages people to lie about their battery usage being under 5 hours just to get in on $50 measly bucks.
It makes me sad to think some peoples integrity is worth so little.
they all come down to this: this particular waveform is a 0 and this other one is a 1. 0 and 1 are names for the wave form in exactly the same way that red is the name for a particular EM wavelength.
Let's try to be even more abstract. Let's say a given set of analog information has infinite data. (for our purposes) The digital representation of that data is a reduction to a finite set of data. The lost data is used to ensure the integrity of the saved portion.
Guess you didn't bother following the linky-linky that roman_mir linked to, (or you missed this):
Why would I refer to the section about using software when roman_mir was specifically upset about the part about writing software?
Richard Stallman: I would quit that job. Would you participate in something anti-social just because somebody pays you to?
Here Stallman is stating that he would consider it antisocial behaviour to use non-free software.
I would say it is not antisocial but would enable it. You are right about his statement. I do infer that using is actually participating in something antisocial. I'm not sure I see how because, his participation may enable it, but, it doesn't become antisocial by association.
The topic of this thread was USING non-free software - in this case Bitkeeper.
roman_mir started this thread with Stallman talking about people writing software. I can't find anywhere in the thread where someone said using software was antisocial until you brought it up.
At Dictionary.com antisocial: 1. Shunning the society of others; not sociable.
Also, Shunning: To avoid deliberately; keep away from.
Now if noone is interested in seeing the code then I wouldn't label it deliberately avoiding. However, releasing in non-Free manner would preclude the interest so might still be considered deliberate avoidance. In a society that that uses code to express some ideas to the point the code is considered Free Speech, I absolutely think this definition fits with releasing a program but keeping the code to yourself. I'm not saying it's destructive behavior but it does fit the definition.
Note: For this definition you don't have to be bucking a social norm to be antisocial.
Even writing software for yourself that you will never release to anyone else ever is not antisocial.
Certainly, just keeping something to yourself is not antisocial. But if all you did is code and kept it all to yourself would that be antisocial? That might get you "marked for behavior deviating sharply from the social norms" (from webster.com). That might be a different definition of antisocial but the word still applies. I don't care about this definition because it will just devolve into a debate about what the "social norm" is. For the definition I refer to it's not required.
tomhudson: [deciding to use Image Composer (ie non-free software)] doesn't make me antisocial, any more than using open-source makes me a smelly hippy.
Did you mean to compare USING software to WRITING software? You're right about choosing to USE non-Free software doesn't make you antisocial. I agree.
Try limiting your thoughts to writing software. If you think of the code written as an expression of the programmer, I can interact with Free software to a degree that can't be matched with non-Free software. In this case antisocial would mean the actions of one programmer are prevented from interacting with another programmer.
Yours is a straw man reply, of course. So you are saying that I am saying that any political idea can be made better by adding profanity? Laughable!
How could it be a straw man argument? To do that I would have to present an argument. I just asked a question trying to understand when you would need profanity to get your point across. Also, for my question to be true you would need a single idea that needs profanity. Wouldn't that support your original point? For your question to be true all political ideas would have to better with profanity. Or were you trying to point out how stupid a straw man argument is?
No, instead I am saying that profanity is an integral part of True Speech, of Real Speech.
Hmm, this is obviously where we differ. I believe profanity only affects the form of speech not the function. By definition it's abusive language. I believe it can only be used to demean an idea and can't be constructive. I would admit my position is easy to come up with examples while it would be much harder to come up with a counter. It's even harder for me to do it because I'm already biased.
Not ALL True Speech contains profanity, nor should it. But True Speech requires profanity SOMETIMES. When needed. So by removing profanity from the mass media (the main channel of political communication), True Speech rarely occurs in Ameican politics. Ross Perot came out of nowhere because he managed to use some True Speech by not using the standard political diction and vocabulary.
I must claim ignorance here. I watch a modest amount of politics so maybe I'm just not well versed enough but I did watch several of Perot's debates and numerous others and I have no idea what you mean by "standard political diction" and what Perot did different. I think you might be distracting me but thought I'd ask anyway: I don't remember Perot using profanity so how does Perot's words help you with the point in your previous post? (Warning: if it doesn't have to do with profanity in politics I will be lost)
This is a complicated subject, more deserving of an entire book, than of a slashdot post. I just do my best to communicate my ideas as best I can in the limited time I have to devote to them....
I want to make sure you realize that i am interested in understanding your point because I believe censoring should be taken seriously everywhere it's used.
Unless the argument is that swear words and breasts on TV are more damaging than a nuclear accident
No but there's already quite a bit of incentive for the nuclear plant to prevent an incident whereas there may have actually been incentive for the super bowl to show a breast. (more viewers gained than lost? even a more predictible viewer base would mean more advertising dollars.)
The thing is, what public wants this? Public opinion?
Personally I believe that if you took a public vote of whether or not the list of banned words should be allowed on broadcast tv, and everyone voted, it would come out by far against it. Is that hard to believe when in the last election even the hispanic vote shifted to 50% bush because they lean conservative on social issues?
It strikes me as absurd that we would punish something that some people find vaguely "offensive" at anywhere near the level we would punish an objectively damage-causing act (It actually baffles me that we would punish the former category at all, but that gets into an entirely different topic).
No post I've read on this so far said that some things need more regulation than others. But I would suggest that a bigger portion of the nuclear industry is self regulating than the super bowl.
A power company produces enemies, bad will, downtime and maybe other financial impacts when they have a mishap. There is no upside there. The super bowl on the other hand may lose some viewers that are mad their kids happened to be watching when the boob pops out but there may be potential for getting more new pervert viewers than lost christians. It could become a business decision to purposely break indecency laws.
He has the power to forgive all of us and accept us all into Heaven, but He doesn't. He only accepts those who acknowledge Him and ask for forgivness. The rest He sends (or allows to go) to hell. If I saw a person drowning in a lake and knew (in some omnipotent way) that my help was the only way they would survive I wouldn't be waiting for them to ask for it, even if they're oblivious and don't think they need help. A god that acts this way is not a god I want to worship, thanks very much.
You make it sound like those drug commercials where a kid falls in the road and gets stuck in his bike. His friend sees the semi coming down the road and just steps out of the way. I don't see God as the kid standing on the side of the road just watching the kid get stuck in the road and die. The bible is full of stories of God warning someone that if they ride their bike in the road they will fall and get stuck. Then once in the road God tells the kid the only way to make it to the side of the road, and avoid the semi, is to help God free him from the bike. Some of the kids do nothing but watch God work on the bike until they die. Others even resist and insult God for trying.
It works this way because God has given us free will. Without the consequence of sin and righteousness Free Will would mean nothing.
If we worked it by popular vote, only fewer than 10 states would be needed to win the election. That is not very representative either.
And how is that any different than the situation right now? Instead of the 10 most populous states, they run around to the 5 or 6 'swing' states.
There's a very important difference. It's much easier to suddenly become a swing state than it is to become one of the most populated. Minnesota and Ohio are good examples this year.
As for "copying large amounts of company data", what ever happened to employee trust? i.e. You should only hire someone you can trust to do job you put them in, because there's no getting around giving them access to sensitive information.
Good point! But now there is a way of limiting their access to the sensitive information. So now less trust is required to do the same job which makes it easier to find someone to do it.
It sounds like you're against it but from your post I can only figure why this is a good thing.
As usual, Microsoft continues to push the blame elsewhere instead of fixing their damn OS!
I thought this was a change to their OS? You wouldn't call this a fix then?
That's what Roger Luethi said and that might be the only angle I view swap. For a server it might be good practice to always degrade gracefully (meaning to always have a swap file) But whenever I notice my workstation start to swap I usually end up killing whatever was causing it disgusted the whole time because the system is responding so slowly it takes several minutes just to kill the process causing the slowdown and knowing that every second it spends swapping stuff out is another second I will have to wait for stuff to swap back in after this process dies.
Makes me wanna go out and buy more ram just thinking about it.
Slashdot Mirror
My intellectual filters are rejecting this. I wouldn't doubt that some Christians feel threatened by hearing something like this and are willing to try to adjust commonly accepted reasoning to correct what they feel is wrong with it. They certainly wouldn't want you teaching a class trying to convince kids that just the existence of the scientific method is a substitute for God as they know him.
God is usually designed to explain our existence. Maybe you are not meaning that the method is God but that through the method you can know God (or why we're here, or the nature of everything). You might believe that but I certainly wouldn't want you to teach it to my kids.
So far it looks like ID is religion invading science. It would not be as obvious if science was invading religion. Going to church is optional. Being taught science is not. If the scientific method was taught as obsoleting religion (like it seems you're suggesting) There certainly would be a backlash from religion to try to correct science. Maybe there are some in Kansas that are teaching that science can explain it all and ID is a backlash.
I see 2 things that could seriously improve this article.
First the graph of the price performance is not real informative. They had all the data they just needed to add it to the graph. It really needs to be a scatter plot of performance and price/performance. That way you may be able to target a region of the graph based on your application.
The other thing is that when I buy a cpu I may actually spend 20% more on the cpu for a 10% cpu boost. The reason is that the faster cpu can actually utilize the gpu 10% more, and the memory, and the motherboard, and every other component in the machine. Bottlenecks will of course reduce overall % gain but paying an extra $30 on a $150 cpu is actually cheaper in the long run if you can get a 5% gain on $800 in parts. The way they present the numbers it looks like you need a %10 gain in performance to justify a %10 gain in price.
From my point of view this is the exact opposite of what reality does. The one that can do everything always has a place but they are almost never the best at any given thing. It is foolish and easy to underestimate their pool of experience they develop, but the people that really get worshipped are the people that do one thing (or a smaller set of things) exceptionally well.
Perhaps this article is looking at it backwards. Perhaps instead of being afraid of the "Young Blood" not being able to understand these complex systems maybe this is a sign that we managed to design systems that don't require them to know everything about those systems. I'm sure there's a class of problems yet that require a deep understanding to come to the solutions but maybe the articles observation mean that this class of problems has been shrinking. That would be a good thing.
Why just sponsor them when you can sell the hurricane name itself?
"Computer Complex Rendered Useless in Wake of Hurricane Microsoft"
"Hurricane RIAA Interrupts Internet to Thousands of Computers"
The problem with standards is they end up forcing users to use the "standard" for a project where an alternative technology would be a better choice. Sometimes this decision is so blind it doesn't even notice that the standard doesn't provide any advantage in that situation. I don't see Open standards helping this at all. I'm guessing these businesses and countries already have official standards for much of what they do. The article wasn't about the benefit of using standards. The focus of the article seemed to be on the benefits of being open.
Win many arguments disagreeing with facts?
Wishing a company sued into oblivion for being unorganized is alittle harsh don't you think?
Interesting story though because I've had a similar experience looking for work. I drove 3.5 hrs to interview for a job. When I got there I interviewed with a couple people but they apologized because they forgot the guy I would work for was out for the day. They said he could do a phone interview Wed. Meanwhile I interviewed with another company. I called the first company Wed and they said he would call me Friday. I said OK. The second company made me an offer that was detailed and in the form of an offer letter which I can't say I've seen before. I was impressed. Yet, I wanted to give the other company a chance to play so I told them I would get back to them Monday. Friday came and Monday I accepted the second job. The first company called a couple days later to offer me a job and I told them I already accepted one.
I guess the point is, until they offer me a job there's no way for them to screw with me because I'm not waitin around for them to get organized.
Just like selling a house. You don't take your house off the market because someone promises to make an offer. You only take it off once you've accepted their offer.
However, You and I probably think that setting the tax based on the effects of using the gas and side effects of creating such demand for it are more important than who uses the tax and why they're using it.
I think there is a reasonable argument somewhere in between those points of view.
There can easily be arguments against flat gas tax. The business districts in my city (minneapolis, MN) tend to be very clustered and the housing and land within 10 miles of those areas tends to be quite expensive. This may force lower paid workers to drive further because they can't afford a house closer to work.
To make things worse, a light rail train was put in recently and the neighborhoods it passes through have blocked any building of low income apartments near it for fear of lowering property values in those areas. So far the blocking has been pretty successful.
If these things are true it begs for some analysis to make sure that these things are not being abused. I believe abuse like this is vague and hard to prove so liberal thinking leads you to believe it's just easier to not tax the poor, just to be safe, than actually come up with proof that it's bad.
It makes me sad to think some peoples integrity is worth so little.
Let's try to be even more abstract. Let's say a given set of analog information has infinite data. (for our purposes) The digital representation of that data is a reduction to a finite set of data. The lost data is used to ensure the integrity of the saved portion.
What do you think?
Why would I refer to the section about using software when roman_mir was specifically upset about the part about writing software?
Here Stallman is stating that he would consider it antisocial behaviour to use non-free software.
I would say it is not antisocial but would enable it. You are right about his statement. I do infer that using is actually participating in something antisocial. I'm not sure I see how because, his participation may enable it, but, it doesn't become antisocial by association.
roman_mir started this thread with Stallman talking about people writing software. I can't find anywhere in the thread where someone said using software was antisocial until you brought it up.
At Dictionary.com antisocial: 1. Shunning the society of others; not sociable.
Also, Shunning: To avoid deliberately; keep away from.
Now if noone is interested in seeing the code then I wouldn't label it deliberately avoiding. However, releasing in non-Free manner would preclude the interest so might still be considered deliberate avoidance. In a society that that uses code to express some ideas to the point the code is considered Free Speech, I absolutely think this definition fits with releasing a program but keeping the code to yourself. I'm not saying it's destructive behavior but it does fit the definition.
Note: For this definition you don't have to be bucking a social norm to be antisocial.
Even writing software for yourself that you will never release to anyone else ever is not antisocial.
Certainly, just keeping something to yourself is not antisocial. But if all you did is code and kept it all to yourself would that be antisocial? That might get you "marked for behavior deviating sharply from the social norms" (from webster.com). That might be a different definition of antisocial but the word still applies. I don't care about this definition because it will just devolve into a debate about what the "social norm" is. For the definition I refer to it's not required.
tomhudson: [deciding to use Image Composer (ie non-free software)] doesn't make me antisocial, any more than using open-source makes me a smelly hippy.
Did you mean to compare USING software to WRITING software? You're right about choosing to USE non-Free software doesn't make you antisocial. I agree.
Try limiting your thoughts to writing software. If you think of the code written as an expression of the programmer, I can interact with Free software to a degree that can't be matched with non-Free software. In this case antisocial would mean the actions of one programmer are prevented from interacting with another programmer.
They're not scared, they've had Fast Find for years.
How could it be a straw man argument? To do that I would have to present an argument. I just asked a question trying to understand when you would need profanity to get your point across. Also, for my question to be true you would need a single idea that needs profanity. Wouldn't that support your original point? For your question to be true all political ideas would have to better with profanity. Or were you trying to point out how stupid a straw man argument is?
No, instead I am saying that profanity is an integral part of True Speech, of Real Speech.
Hmm, this is obviously where we differ. I believe profanity only affects the form of speech not the function. By definition it's abusive language. I believe it can only be used to demean an idea and can't be constructive. I would admit my position is easy to come up with examples while it would be much harder to come up with a counter. It's even harder for me to do it because I'm already biased.
Not ALL True Speech contains profanity, nor should it. But True Speech requires profanity SOMETIMES. When needed. So by removing profanity from the mass media (the main channel of political communication), True Speech rarely occurs in Ameican politics. Ross Perot came out of nowhere because he managed to use some True Speech by not using the standard political diction and vocabulary.
I must claim ignorance here. I watch a modest amount of politics so maybe I'm just not well versed enough but I did watch several of Perot's debates and numerous others and I have no idea what you mean by "standard political diction" and what Perot did different. I think you might be distracting me but thought I'd ask anyway: I don't remember Perot using profanity so how does Perot's words help you with the point in your previous post? (Warning: if it doesn't have to do with profanity in politics I will be lost)
This is a complicated subject, more deserving of an entire book, than of a slashdot post. I just do my best to communicate my ideas as best I can in the limited time I have to devote to them....
I want to make sure you realize that i am interested in understanding your point because I believe censoring should be taken seriously everywhere it's used.
So your argument is that the content of an idea can be better communicated by adding profanity to it? I'd like to see a good example of that.
No but there's already quite a bit of incentive for the nuclear plant to prevent an incident whereas there may have actually been incentive for the super bowl to show a breast. (more viewers gained than lost? even a more predictible viewer base would mean more advertising dollars.)
Personally I believe that if you took a public vote of whether or not the list of banned words should be allowed on broadcast tv, and everyone voted, it would come out by far against it. Is that hard to believe when in the last election even the hispanic vote shifted to 50% bush because they lean conservative on social issues?
No post I've read on this so far said that some things need more regulation than others. But I would suggest that a bigger portion of the nuclear industry is self regulating than the super bowl.
A power company produces enemies, bad will, downtime and maybe other financial impacts when they have a mishap. There is no upside there. The super bowl on the other hand may lose some viewers that are mad their kids happened to be watching when the boob pops out but there may be potential for getting more new pervert viewers than lost christians. It could become a business decision to purposely break indecency laws.
You make it sound like those drug commercials where a kid falls in the road and gets stuck in his bike. His friend sees the semi coming down the road and just steps out of the way. I don't see God as the kid standing on the side of the road just watching the kid get stuck in the road and die. The bible is full of stories of God warning someone that if they ride their bike in the road they will fall and get stuck. Then once in the road God tells the kid the only way to make it to the side of the road, and avoid the semi, is to help God free him from the bike. Some of the kids do nothing but watch God work on the bike until they die. Others even resist and insult God for trying.
It works this way because God has given us free will. Without the consequence of sin and righteousness Free Will would mean nothing.
It's about time Linux reaches the maturity level BSD reached years ago.
Good point! But now there is a way of limiting their access to the sensitive information. So now less trust is required to do the same job which makes it easier to find someone to do it.
It sounds like you're against it but from your post I can only figure why this is a good thing.
As usual, Microsoft continues to push the blame elsewhere instead of fixing their damn OS!
I thought this was a change to their OS? You wouldn't call this a fix then?
Makes me wanna go out and buy more ram just thinking about it.