Microsoft LOVES BSD, they can take code from it and never contribute anything back. But it is Linux that got popular not BSD.
BSD has its supporters, like MS, who don't actually do anything to support it. Linux has supporters, like IBM, who do massive contributions.
The GPL has won, the only ones who hate is who want stuff totally free and not contribute anything back. Well, for those people there is BSD. Enjoy.
The fact that Linux is on its way to become the biggest OS, the most used and the most installs (thanks to Android) says enough that the GPL works a LOT better then BSD in encouraging industry AND consumer adoption.
And still kiddies who never will amount to anything claim that all the Linux users and contributors are wrong. OPEN YOUR EYES!
Well done. You're wrong in exactly the opposite direction to the people you claim to be wrong. To be more charitable, you're working from a pretty odd definition of "popular".
For the sake of argument, let's say that Linux (mainly through Android and various appliances) has the largest installed base? Does that make Linux popular? Undoubtably, yes! Does that make BSD licensed code unpopular? No.
Is Android Linux? Sure, in the pure sense of the word "Linux". i.e. the Kernel. What about the predominantly Apache licensed userland? Is that Linux? In common parlance it is a Linux distro - albeit not your father's Linux. How about Mac OS X, with its various BSD and MIT licensed guts. Pretty popular, even if it's in a minority on desktop and mobile. What about OpenSSH?
The GPL hasn't won over BSD, you numpty. At best, the GPL for certain projects is doing what its users wanted. Same is true for BSD licensed projects. It's about what the authors want! This is entirely a competition in the diseased minds of zealots who claim victory where there really is no competition. It's like fucking 100 women in order to claim victory over a guy who's happily married and not interested in sticking his cock in anything with compatible genitals.
I'm fucking sick of this BSD/GPL/Apache/MIT/Billy Bob's Friend's Cousin's 3rd Public License v2.3 fanboy war. Just use what's best for you, and license under whatever best suits your goals. Just don't be a fucking moron and use a license that requires x, and whine when y doesn't come. Don't go claiming victory just because you have to pack your balls in ice. That's just not what everyone wants, and if the married guy wants to fuck Belize hookers, he's a moron.
Nothing wrong with taking notes, if that's all you're doing. My experience of meetings is that most people are doing anything but taking notes. I prefer to nominate a scribe and have everyone else close their lids unless they're
So, what does it say when the Google CEO who reportedly tied all Googlers' bonuses to social networking apparently finds it too dangerous to permit the head of Google+ to participate in social networking?"
1) Because he's in a Senior VP! What he says can influence the stock price, among other things.
I'd bargain with him by offering to tell him the ending of the Bible, so he can screw up the entire plan by just staying in bed come armageddon.
Seems he never got around to reading that far, or he's a bit dumb. If the latter, I'll hold a gun to my head and tell him to back off or the cracker gets it.
Yes, it is often confusingly lumped in to atheism. It doesn't matter if some people, identifying as atheists, then tack-on additional things - such as world views.
Atheism itself is pretty clearly defined and doesn't necessarily lead to any worldview beyond not believing in gods.
O'Hair, known for being a bit of an "interesting" character, was demonstrably wrong. How exactly does disbelief in gods translate in to what she's describing? Do all atheists eschew supernatural junk in favour of rationalism? Hell no. I'd guess that most atheists in Western Europe don't even give this much thought.
What O'Hair describes seems closer to secular humanism than atheism per se. This misnomer is why we've seen movements like "Atheism+" springing up. People in atheist groups quite rightly wonder why the group is getting involved in activities that have no direct origin in atheism? It's reasonable to expect that an atheist group would not espouse belief in God, but anything beyond that is outside the scope of the word.
Consider ichthyophobia. At it's core level it's a phobia of fish. Okay, now how about if a bunch of people form American Ichthyophobia, and say that their goal is to eliminate fish from the menus of all restaurants and ensure the government doesn't support the fishing industry. Are those goals a necessary part of ichthyophobia, or built on top of ichthyophobia? Same thing with atheism. This is why I'd imagine we would agree that precision makes way more sense, and to attach single word descriptions to complex things is not a great idea.
What you're describing is antitheism. It's something that builds on top of atheism (or even deism). To describe that position as atheism is about as correct and useful as saying that theism is synonymous with Catholicism, or that pets are dogs.
This whole discussion is why I strongly dislike single-word labels for such complex positions.
I'd ask how they gauge productivity - particularly if you are an odd one out in a team. I'm in a similar situation where I do many things outside of my job role, and without my skills, so many projects and other tasks would have taken way longer if they happened at all. The difficulty though is in justifying my time further up the chain. That's why my manager worked with me to ensure she knows what I'm doing and why, and I know the kind of information she needs from me in order to explain how three days of my tinkering around leads to two weeks of time saved each quarter.
Bring examples of how your previous manager did things well - have the discuss these approaches. You want to be certain this person keeps you on your toes and will be your advocate to higher management.
Unlikely. Best Korea is a serious problem for China, and I doubt they'd want to be riling them up. While maintaining a nice bulwark between China and the American influenced South Korea, it's a powder key right on their doorstep.
China does not need the consequences of a collapse or military intervention. Imagine China and NK at college, doing whacky things and getting drunk every night. Fast forward to a China that now holds down a steady job, stuck with his college buddy who still thinks that shitting on the toilet lid is funny. China will sometimes giggle, but not when his girlfriend is due any minute.
And that's my well sourced geopolitical analysis. Any think tanks looking to hire me to get paid for pulling stuff out of my arse?
When looked at that way, you're right. The problem us that the definitions are not correct. For example; belief (theism) and knowledge (agnosticism) are not mutually exclusive. It is quite possible for a theist to not assert definitive knowledge of their god or its properties.
What you say works only with faulty definitions. You're not even wrong!
To add some perspective, alot of that 10% goes to perpetuating the organization itself, not to charitable works. There are charitable works, but not nearly 10% of the income goes to them.
In fairness there are plenty of charities, secular and religious, that spend way to much on overhead. The reason why charity funnelled through religious groups is bad is because of the lesser requirement to make public their figures. I'd be happier to see the religious tax exemptions completely removed in favour of schemes that are open to all groups based on a demonstration of public good. By public good, I'd equate giving people a place to worship as being no different to a group of gamers offering Sunday morning gaming sessions to the public.
I'd also worry that the ethos of a religion may lead to less than ideal solutions. i.e. what's a Catholic run family planning centre going to say about abortion? I'm fine with charities run by religious people, so long as it's charity for the sake of charity - not an exercise in preaching. I suppose the moral of the story is to only support groups that are transparent in their book keeping, and have clearly stated practices that are policed to ensure money is being used as donors expect.
You have correctly understood one definition of agnosticism, and similarly you have understood one definition of atheism. The bone of contention here is that you came out rather strongly asserting your definitions as the ones we should use. With atheism, your stance appears to be that it's all about active disbelief. That's simply not true, as you'd find from looking at dictionaries and literature on the subject from the past couple of thousand years. When looking at dictionaries, look at all definitions included. How about your reference to Merriam Webster. It supports both of our positions:
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something political agnostic
In fact the classical definition, which I use because it's consistent with both the origin of the word from "gnosis" and Huxley's writings, is in the first part of the first definition! Doesn't mean it's the only definition, or more accurate in common usage than your take. Similarly with atheism, your understanding of it is not the One True Usage. Read dictionaries (all of the definitions), literature on the subject, and just talk to atheists and ask them to define their position. The majority (at least the smart ones), will acknowledge that they are agnostic when it comes to the existence of gods in general! How can we confirm or deny the existence of these maleable paranormal beings, and why would would a non-believer willingly accept the impossible burden of disproving the existence of Magbor the non-corporeal Dragon? Technically there is such a thing as an agnostic theist - one who does not assert knowledge of the existence of a God, yet believes.
I think we hold the some basic position here. I'd identify as an agnostic atheist (for the sake of clarification), because I don't believe in gods and I don't assert knowledge of their non-existence. It's definitions that trip us up, which is why debaters have to agree on definitions if they don't want to end-up talking past one another. To give another example, it's absolutely pointless to engage in theological discourse with someone when all one would know is that they are a Christian. What kind of Christianity? Do they walk lock-step with their particular denomination, or do they differ from the general definition (i.e. Catholics who think that the Vicar of Christ is wrong on key doctrinal matters - such as contraception and gay marriage).
I find it difficult to believe that you've not encountered any of the following:
1) At least one major dictionary supporting my definition 2) Literature over thousands of years in which the definition, obviously in various languages, has been disputed. Somehow I don't think you're resolving that debate in a pseudonymous Slashdot post
On agnosticism, read Huxley's own words. Failing that, research gnosis to understand the word from which Huxley derived agnosticism. One thing I will say on agnosticism is that in modern times it is indeed being readily confused with a statement of belief. Agnosticism implies a lack of belief, as it seems odd to believe in something not known to exist. I would positively disbelieve the existence of Yahweh as described by the Bible, but I would not say that this god doesn't exist in some shape or form. I think that view is reasonably common because it makes no sense to assume the burden of proof when a god can be a very poorly defined thing.
And a hair in the form of a moustache behaves as a top-lip warmer. That makes just as much sense as what you wrote.
It doesn't follow that hair alone, with no further addition or clarification, will tickle your nose when you scrunch up your lips. A moustache is also not a necessary progression from hair any more than Marxism is a necessary result of atheism.
It'd be wrong to say that the Soviet Union, i.e. all of its people, was atheistic. It'd be entirely accurate to say that the ideology of the party was thoroughly atheistic, even if it had some tolerance of religious practice and belief. Realistically they couldn't get rid of it any more than Christianity in Europe could erase all the pagan traditions that later got wound-up in to Christianity - various aspects of Christmas being a pretty topical example of this.
A very good post. I think humanism (or the atheism+ thing) should more closely associated with charitable works. The problem with atheism as a label is that it says very little about a person. In a way I find the label "Christian" to be almost as meaningless.
On the subject of charity, I prefer to take this angle:
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods (or active disbelief), and that implies nothing in terms of charity. Christianity, by any mainstream understanding, is very much about charity. Accepting that Christians, as a group, give proportionately more to charity than non-believers, then why don't they give more? Why do many Christians in the western world live in a luxury that Jesus and his apostles could not have imagined. Why does my Christian friend (and he is one of the nicest guys I know) have two houses, two cars and a pretty comfortable standard of living? Like I said, he's a great guy, yet why does he spend so much on these luxuries when there are so many people in this world suffering? Why is it that the Catholic Church has so much cash, while elderly followers continue to tip money in to the tray? I'm reminded of a saying that goes something like "a priest with more than two pairs of shoes is a fraud". That money those worshippers put in the tray didn't just go to the steeple fund. I've heard from older generations of bishops here having pretty fine digs and a ready supply of fine wines. Some bought, and some donated to men who were more like local barons than true ministers of Christ.
Answer those questions and we'll also know why so many Christians have sex outside of marriage, divorce and disregard so many other teachings of Jesus and his apostles. I'm thinking it's cognitive dissonance among other things. I know a lot of good Christians and atheists. My girlfriend is a Christian, and aside from the occasional quibble, we're pretty much in agreement as to how to lead a decent life. The main difference is in terms of judgement: My actions are judged by myself and other people. Her actions are judged by God. Either way, we're good people who, without a doubt should do more, but certainly aren't doing nothing in terms of charity and trying to bring some happiness in to this world.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft LOVES BSD, they can take code from it and never contribute anything back. But it is Linux that got popular not BSD.
BSD has its supporters, like MS, who don't actually do anything to support it. Linux has supporters, like IBM, who do massive contributions.
The GPL has won, the only ones who hate is who want stuff totally free and not contribute anything back. Well, for those people there is BSD. Enjoy.
The fact that Linux is on its way to become the biggest OS, the most used and the most installs (thanks to Android) says enough that the GPL works a LOT better then BSD in encouraging industry AND consumer adoption.
And still kiddies who never will amount to anything claim that all the Linux users and contributors are wrong. OPEN YOUR EYES!
Well done. You're wrong in exactly the opposite direction to the people you claim to be wrong. To be more charitable, you're working from a pretty odd definition of "popular".
For the sake of argument, let's say that Linux (mainly through Android and various appliances) has the largest installed base? Does that make Linux popular? Undoubtably, yes! Does that make BSD licensed code unpopular? No.
Is Android Linux? Sure, in the pure sense of the word "Linux". i.e. the Kernel. What about the predominantly Apache licensed userland? Is that Linux? In common parlance it is a Linux distro - albeit not your father's Linux. How about Mac OS X, with its various BSD and MIT licensed guts. Pretty popular, even if it's in a minority on desktop and mobile. What about OpenSSH?
The GPL hasn't won over BSD, you numpty. At best, the GPL for certain projects is doing what its users wanted. Same is true for BSD licensed projects. It's about what the authors want! This is entirely a competition in the diseased minds of zealots who claim victory where there really is no competition. It's like fucking 100 women in order to claim victory over a guy who's happily married and not interested in sticking his cock in anything with compatible genitals.
I'm fucking sick of this BSD/GPL/Apache/MIT/Billy Bob's Friend's Cousin's 3rd Public License v2.3 fanboy war. Just use what's best for you, and license under whatever best suits your goals. Just don't be a fucking moron and use a license that requires x, and whine when y doesn't come. Don't go claiming victory just because you have to pack your balls in ice. That's just not what everyone wants, and if the married guy wants to fuck Belize hookers, he's a moron.
No one wants to create a gravity tax
At least not until the next Irish budget.
You should at least build some awareness of the company and its customers. Buy a Happy Meal and stop to chat a while with your prospective colleagues.
Global temperatures have not risen - they have risen more slowly than predicted. Well, that's me convinced!
Go easy on the guy. A few months ago he was probably dressed as giant hotdog, busy handing out leaflets in a mall.
Nothing wrong with taking notes, if that's all you're doing. My experience of meetings is that most people are doing anything but taking notes. I prefer to nominate a scribe and have everyone else close their lids unless they're
If Slashdot were broadcast news, this article would be the "dog bites man" story, except no-one was bitten, and it's a cat.
Yes, that's the second time you've mentioned Google's Facebook presence. What's your point?
So, what does it say when the Google CEO who reportedly tied all Googlers' bonuses to social networking apparently finds it too dangerous to permit the head of Google+ to participate in social networking?"
1) Because he's in a Senior VP! What he says can influence the stock price, among other things.
2) Twitter and Facebook are the competition.
That was very complicated, wasn't it?
I'd bargain with him by offering to tell him the ending of the Bible, so he can screw up the entire plan by just staying in bed come armageddon.
Seems he never got around to reading that far, or he's a bit dumb. If the latter, I'll hold a gun to my head and tell him to back off or the cracker gets it.
with her plaid skirt, sailor shirt, bobby socks, and five o'clock shadow
Sounds good. Where shall I send the airfare so you can visit me?
That the hell did I just watch?
More importantly, why did I watch three other videos of this Gangnam thing before I realised what I was doing? I need to go lie down.
Yes, it is often confusingly lumped in to atheism. It doesn't matter if some people, identifying as atheists, then tack-on additional things - such as world views.
Atheism itself is pretty clearly defined and doesn't necessarily lead to any worldview beyond not believing in gods.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html
O'Hair, known for being a bit of an "interesting" character, was demonstrably wrong. How exactly does disbelief in gods translate in to what she's describing? Do all atheists eschew supernatural junk in favour of rationalism? Hell no. I'd guess that most atheists in Western Europe don't even give this much thought.
What O'Hair describes seems closer to secular humanism than atheism per se. This misnomer is why we've seen movements like "Atheism+" springing up. People in atheist groups quite rightly wonder why the group is getting involved in activities that have no direct origin in atheism? It's reasonable to expect that an atheist group would not espouse belief in God, but anything beyond that is outside the scope of the word.
Consider ichthyophobia. At it's core level it's a phobia of fish. Okay, now how about if a bunch of people form American Ichthyophobia, and say that their goal is to eliminate fish from the menus of all restaurants and ensure the government doesn't support the fishing industry. Are those goals a necessary part of ichthyophobia, or built on top of ichthyophobia? Same thing with atheism. This is why I'd imagine we would agree that precision makes way more sense, and to attach single word descriptions to complex things is not a great idea.
What you're describing is antitheism. It's something that builds on top of atheism (or even deism). To describe that position as atheism is about as correct and useful as saying that theism is synonymous with Catholicism, or that pets are dogs.
This whole discussion is why I strongly dislike single-word labels for such complex positions.
You're right - I got my sentence the wrong way around. Thanks for spotting that.
I bow to your knowledge of plum gumming!
I'd ask how they gauge productivity - particularly if you are an odd one out in a team. I'm in a similar situation where I do many things outside of my job role, and without my skills, so many projects and other tasks would have taken way longer if they happened at all. The difficulty though is in justifying my time further up the chain. That's why my manager worked with me to ensure she knows what I'm doing and why, and I know the kind of information she needs from me in order to explain how three days of my tinkering around leads to two weeks of time saved each quarter.
Bring examples of how your previous manager did things well - have the discuss these approaches. You want to be certain this person keeps you on your toes and will be your advocate to higher management.
Unlikely. Best Korea is a serious problem for China, and I doubt they'd want to be riling them up. While maintaining a nice bulwark between China and the American influenced South Korea, it's a powder key right on their doorstep.
China does not need the consequences of a collapse or military intervention. Imagine China and NK at college, doing whacky things and getting drunk every night. Fast forward to a China that now holds down a steady job, stuck with his college buddy who still thinks that shitting on the toilet lid is funny. China will sometimes giggle, but not when his girlfriend is due any minute.
And that's my well sourced geopolitical analysis. Any think tanks looking to hire me to get paid for pulling stuff out of my arse?
When looked at that way, you're right. The problem us that the definitions are not correct. For example; belief (theism) and knowledge (agnosticism) are not mutually exclusive. It is quite possible for a theist to not assert definitive knowledge of their god or its properties.
What you say works only with faulty definitions. You're not even wrong!
To add some perspective, alot of that 10% goes to perpetuating the organization itself, not to charitable works. There are charitable works, but not nearly 10% of the income goes to them.
In fairness there are plenty of charities, secular and religious, that spend way to much on overhead. The reason why charity funnelled through religious groups is bad is because of the lesser requirement to make public their figures. I'd be happier to see the religious tax exemptions completely removed in favour of schemes that are open to all groups based on a demonstration of public good. By public good, I'd equate giving people a place to worship as being no different to a group of gamers offering Sunday morning gaming sessions to the public.
I'd also worry that the ethos of a religion may lead to less than ideal solutions. i.e. what's a Catholic run family planning centre going to say about abortion? I'm fine with charities run by religious people, so long as it's charity for the sake of charity - not an exercise in preaching. I suppose the moral of the story is to only support groups that are transparent in their book keeping, and have clearly stated practices that are policed to ensure money is being used as donors expect.
You have correctly understood one definition of agnosticism, and similarly you have understood one definition of atheism. The bone of contention here is that you came out rather strongly asserting your definitions as the ones we should use. With atheism, your stance appears to be that it's all about active disbelief. That's simply not true, as you'd find from looking at dictionaries and literature on the subject from the past couple of thousand years. When looking at dictionaries, look at all definitions included. How about your reference to Merriam Webster. It supports both of our positions:
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable;
broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something political agnostic
In fact the classical definition, which I use because it's consistent with both the origin of the word from "gnosis" and Huxley's writings, is in the first part of the first definition! Doesn't mean it's the only definition, or more accurate in common usage than your take. Similarly with atheism, your understanding of it is not the One True Usage. Read dictionaries (all of the definitions), literature on the subject, and just talk to atheists and ask them to define their position. The majority (at least the smart ones), will acknowledge that they are agnostic when it comes to the existence of gods in general! How can we confirm or deny the existence of these maleable paranormal beings, and why would would a non-believer willingly accept the impossible burden of disproving the existence of Magbor the non-corporeal Dragon? Technically there is such a thing as an agnostic theist - one who does not assert knowledge of the existence of a God, yet believes.
I think we hold the some basic position here. I'd identify as an agnostic atheist (for the sake of clarification), because I don't believe in gods and I don't assert knowledge of their non-existence. It's definitions that trip us up, which is why debaters have to agree on definitions if they don't want to end-up talking past one another. To give another example, it's absolutely pointless to engage in theological discourse with someone when all one would know is that they are a Christian. What kind of Christianity? Do they walk lock-step with their particular denomination, or do they differ from the general definition (i.e. Catholics who think that the Vicar of Christ is wrong on key doctrinal matters - such as contraception and gay marriage).
I find it difficult to believe that you've not encountered any of the following:
1) At least one major dictionary supporting my definition
2) Literature over thousands of years in which the definition, obviously in various languages, has been disputed. Somehow I don't think you're resolving that debate in a pseudonymous Slashdot post
On agnosticism, read Huxley's own words. Failing that, research gnosis to understand the word from which Huxley derived agnosticism. One thing I will say on agnosticism is that in modern times it is indeed being readily confused with a statement of belief. Agnosticism implies a lack of belief, as it seems odd to believe in something not known to exist. I would positively disbelieve the existence of Yahweh as described by the Bible, but I would not say that this god doesn't exist in some shape or form. I think that view is reasonably common because it makes no sense to assume the burden of proof when a god can be a very poorly defined thing.
And ideally not in the form of a Richard Littlejohn quote.
And a hair in the form of a moustache behaves as a top-lip warmer. That makes just as much sense as what you wrote.
It doesn't follow that hair alone, with no further addition or clarification, will tickle your nose when you scrunch up your lips. A moustache is also not a necessary progression from hair any more than Marxism is a necessary result of atheism.
It'd be wrong to say that the Soviet Union, i.e. all of its people, was atheistic. It'd be entirely accurate to say that the ideology of the party was thoroughly atheistic, even if it had some tolerance of religious practice and belief. Realistically they couldn't get rid of it any more than Christianity in Europe could erase all the pagan traditions that later got wound-up in to Christianity - various aspects of Christmas being a pretty topical example of this.
A very good post. I think humanism (or the atheism+ thing) should more closely associated with charitable works. The problem with atheism as a label is that it says very little about a person. In a way I find the label "Christian" to be almost as meaningless.
On the subject of charity, I prefer to take this angle:
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods (or active disbelief), and that implies nothing in terms of charity. Christianity, by any mainstream understanding, is very much about charity. Accepting that Christians, as a group, give proportionately more to charity than non-believers, then why don't they give more? Why do many Christians in the western world live in a luxury that Jesus and his apostles could not have imagined. Why does my Christian friend (and he is one of the nicest guys I know) have two houses, two cars and a pretty comfortable standard of living? Like I said, he's a great guy, yet why does he spend so much on these luxuries when there are so many people in this world suffering? Why is it that the Catholic Church has so much cash, while elderly followers continue to tip money in to the tray? I'm reminded of a saying that goes something like "a priest with more than two pairs of shoes is a fraud". That money those worshippers put in the tray didn't just go to the steeple fund. I've heard from older generations of bishops here having pretty fine digs and a ready supply of fine wines. Some bought, and some donated to men who were more like local barons than true ministers of Christ.
Answer those questions and we'll also know why so many Christians have sex outside of marriage, divorce and disregard so many other teachings of Jesus and his apostles. I'm thinking it's cognitive dissonance among other things. I know a lot of good Christians and atheists. My girlfriend is a Christian, and aside from the occasional quibble, we're pretty much in agreement as to how to lead a decent life. The main difference is in terms of judgement: My actions are judged by myself and other people. Her actions are judged by God. Either way, we're good people who, without a doubt should do more, but certainly aren't doing nothing in terms of charity and trying to bring some happiness in to this world.