As being a slut and trailer-trash aren't genetical predispositions (neither is being a scientist), that's not what's going on.
You're over simplifying. Urge to have sex is definitely genetic in origin. Being discriminating in choice of sexual partners is definitely genetic in origin. Social factors certainly influence both, but the basics of seeking suitable mates and then having sex with them is genetic. Unless I've misunderstood what you mean by a "slut" then genetics play a major role in this and there can be evolutionary factors towards more or less "slutiness".
"Being a scientist" is more of a stretch but a general desire to investigate the environment again has genetic origins - without at least a basic element of this we wouldn't learn anything so it can't be a pure learned response. Once you accept that it is genetic at its most basic level, I don't see how you could deny that genetics can push someone more or less strongly in that direction. Granted, there isn't an actual "physicist" gene which determines your career:)
it seems to me if you don't want linux (or freebsd) to benefit from solaris code why did you open source it in the first place.
There's lots of benefits to having code available. People can look at it and decide whether they trust it, for one thing. Even if you don't want to do it yourself, just knowing that the code's out there for experts to look at and comment on gives you added comfort that there's nothing too monstrous underneath.
The answer is probably something like "because we want people to code for solaris without getting paid".
Good point, yes some people like to have the option to fix / change things themselves when they're not to their liking. I think that's what you meant here.
Also, I doubt Sun would like to put it this way but no company is immortal. You have more flexibility for support options, whatever happens to Sun, if the code is open sourced.
Bottom line, I think from a buyer's perspective, availability of source code and permission to change it around gives plenty of pluses. So hopefully it'll help them sell more hardware/services/whatever.
The MPL is nice, in that it is propagative but not viral. That is, if you distribute a modified binary you have to distribute the source for your modifications, but you can use MPL-licensed code in a larger project without any effect at all on the license of the larger project.
I don't understand what you mean by this. The GPL doesn't prevent you ditributing GPL-licensed code alongside non-GPL-licensed code as long as they're not linked together.
Do you mean it's more like the LGPL i.e. you can convert the MP-licensed code into a library and make calls from your non-MPL-licensed code, or do you mean something else?
There's will soon be new GPL in town. Depending on how it's written, we might find that in the end, Sun's license is compatible with the GPL. I don't have the patience right now to pick through this stuff, but if the only hang up is that Sun's license places additional restrictions on patent holders, and the new GPL supports such clauses, then the incompatibility will disappear.
Any Covered Software that You distribute or otherwise make available in Executable form must also be made available in Source Code form and that Source Code form must be distributed only under the terms of this License. You must include a copy of this License with every copy of the Source Code form of the Covered Software You distribute or otherwise make available. You must inform recipients of any such Covered Software in Executable form as to how they can obtain such Covered Software in Source Code form in a reasonable manner on or through a medium customarily used for software exchange.
That is incompatible with the GPL. I'm not saying that the incompatibility is good, bad or indifferent. Copyleft licenses tend to be incompatible with one another; this is a typical example of that.
They also certainly want to eliminate the possibility that features that distinguish Sun's OS, like their new filesystem, don't end up in Linux. Could they be enticing the BSD kernels to absorb them?
If their license was compatible with the BSDL then it would be compatible with the GPL too.
The implication here is that there's something bad about them not wanting to GPL their source.
Is there? Claire Giordano of Sun's CDDL team said , in the submission, that it was of particular note that the license is not expected to be compatible with the GPL, and you think she meant to imply there was something wrong with that? Doesn't seem too likely. If she thinks it's noteworthy then is it really unreasonable for other to comment on it too?
I'm assuming it won't allow anyone to resell the code.
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
If their license doesn't even meet the first characteristic of the open source definition then it'd be a bit silly to submit it to the OSI for approval, now wouldn't it?
For 2 (3?) administrations he ran the largest and most sophisticated intelligence agency in the world.
How did you measure the sophistication of the various intelligence agencies around the world? I can't even work out how you calculated the sizes (ignoring the utterly stupid like "added up official allocations in dollars"). What is the size of the largest Chinese intelligence agency in comparison to the size of the CIA?
People might think that the parent post is just mindlessly repeating a cliche, but in fact I've been to Korea many times and I have never seen anyone beloe the age of 50 decentralizing BitTorrent.
Hopefully they wont be as slow when they start doing the linux support we pay them for
When they start? I'm already getting the full service.
As a completely unbiased and disinterested observer, I bought a SCO license to see what the fuss was about. Since then NOBODY has sued me for anything, least of all for violating any code SCO might possibly have in the Linux kernel (including any Linux kernels in alternate universes). You can't argue with service like that. I'd recommend it to anyone.
That was my point for the very beginning. By our intelligence, and ability to change our environment, we've "evolved" past the ability of natural selection to affect us, which was the parent post's point.
Okay, it's of no importance to me whether you call it "natural" selection or not. Selective pressures apply to humans just like they do to everyone else. The environment they're adapting to is one that includes a whole bunch of people doing stuff, but of course the same can be said of any number of other creatures. Evolution doesn't stop just because the dangers are of being hit by an "unnatural" car or the benefits arise from applying "unnatural" medicines.
Those creatures that are best suited to breeding in an environment with cars, atmospheric pollution, innoculation against diseaeses, birth control etc etc will be those that do most succesfully breed.
If a particular genetic trait isn't a disadvantage in this environment (because it's "fixed" by doctors) then it isn't a disadvantage in this environment. That doesn't mean that selection doesn't apply, it just means that that isn't a trait that's being selected against.
I'm not sure whether we're actually at odds here or not, beyond your distaste for the word "natural" when applied to selection in this context.
How can one argue with you? According to you everything would be natural. Because whatever we do is the result of us doing our naturally evolved natures.
How can one argue with you? According to you nothing humans do would be natural because... well, just because.
Selective pressures apply to humans as much as they do to anything else. If you want to consider that to be non-natural selection because the environment is heavily influenced by the existence of humans then the word "natural" isn't important to me. Selction applies, just like always. Humans continue to evolve to suit their environment, which happens to be an environment that contains a whole mass of humans doing stuff. Lots of other animals are busy evolving to suit an environment with a bunch of humans doing stuff too.
Things do have purpose. Life is not as random as you think.
Things have purposes. Selection does not. If you have a species, some members of which produce offspring and some don't then those that are best suited to produce offspring in the environment they are in will, in general, be the ones that do in fact produce offspring. This isn't in order to achieve anything, it's inevitable. What's the alternative?
It's like the way those rocks that are best suited to surviving having water flow over them are the ones that survive water constantly flowing over them. The weaker more soluble material gets washed away. There isn't a "purpose" of this to create stronger rocks. It just is. Same with selection, the weaker members die off BECAUSE they're weaker. The ones best suited to breeding breed BECAUSE they're the best suited to breeding. No purpose, it's just what is.
The main purpose of natural selection is to let the strongest, the most likely to survive and propagate a species breed.
Completely, utterly, wrong. Natural selection does not have a purpose. It just is.
A viable but weak offspring will be selected for termination. In fact, you argued why we have interferred in natural selection. You cited birth control. That is artificial.
It's just creatures doing stuff according to their naturally evolved natures. Humans doing birth control is no less natural than birds building nests.
We, human, interferred with that. In the old days when people died of influenza, only those who survived breed and as the result, we are not as likely to die from influenza.
Sure, and in the days before birds built nests, only those that could survive without nests bred, and as a result birds became hardier. Birds also evolved startegies to deal with the harsh conditions: nests. Humans evolved too, they got bright enough to develop drugs. Both removed or reduced selective pressures. That's what evolving does for you.
Taking antibiotics is not. by definition, if it's found in nature, it's natural.
I assume that for purposes of this discussion you're treating human society as definitively not part of nature? In that case yes, whatever we do we can never be subjected to "natural" selection in the sense that you use the word "natural". Well done.
Show me a cancer clinic run by and for sparrows.
So again, a nest is "natural" but a house would be "unnatural" because one the latter is built by humans and the former isn't, correct?
Birds don't have medical treatments for diseases and afflictions that would kill before the age of reproduction, etc. Thus, we are artificially helping defective genes survive.
But they treat other afflictions. Are you saying that feeding their young is 'natural' whereas treating illness is 'artificial' or do you feel that both are artificial but that the treatment for disease is more so than the feeding of young?
I didn't say the behavious of birds didn't arise from evolution, only that it doesn't effect evolution.
OF COURSE it affects evolution. It's part of the environment that the chicks are born into.
Scenario as outlined so far: Birds lay eggs. Eggs hatch. Parents feed offspring. Parents eject less viable offspring, enhancing the food and other resources devoted to the more viable offspring, and thus enhancing their chances of survival.
How does can you say that this doesn't affect evolution? By your standards the parent birds are interfering in the process.
Natural selection occurs when an individual dies before breeding or otherwise fails to breed, thus not handing on their genes.
Pretty much right, to refine it slightly more, rather than "fails to breed" you mean "fails to produce viable offspring". Might as well drop the bit about the individual dying first, it adds nothing.
Among humans pretty much everyone lives long enough to breed, and thus genetics that do not select for survival are passed on.
I'm not sure what proportion of the population fails to breed. I'm not convinced it's as insignificant as you think, especially once you factor in birth control and cuckolding. Do you have statistics? Given a hiugh survival rate, factors like ability to judge the fidelity of a spouse become major evolutionary factors. With birth control a desire to have children becomes more significant than a desire to have sex as well. Evolutionary factors still apply.
Birds do indeed feed their young but if the parents believe that the young are incapable of surviving adequately they are thrown out of the nest to die in a lot of cases. People thriving because of hospitals is not natural selection, it's artificial - a kind of eugenics.
Explain to me your theory under which the behaviour of the birds in your example arises from natural selection and the behaviour of the humans doesn't.
The human species has not had real natural selection for a long time because we do not die from genetic problems as often.
Nonsense. You might as well claim that birds don't face natural selection because their parents feed them as babies instead of letting them starve or that that they don't face natural selection because their nests help keep them warm.
A bunch of people helping each other to survive is a product of natural selection, not its absence.
Part of our environment is now the existence of hospitals and scientists. Some people thrive in that environment who would die childless in other environments. Again, this is natural selction at work.
As for corporate proprietary software, you either choose to accept their terms and pay them, or you choose not to.
Try to stay awake. Your side of the argument is "you pay them, accept their terms". You're arguing AGAINST the theory that terms should be agreed (and therefore known) up front.
I don't own it but I seem to remember others saying that such a stipulation is printed on the box. I could be wrong, however.
No, you are perfectly correct. Others have said that, in the messages above. They were lying (I have the box in front of me). I can't even guess at why they lie about this but they do.
did you even read the parent post? the writer said that they loved the GIMP interface. the complaint was that the windows version seems different in some important ways.
No it didn't say anything like that, for which reason I strongly suspect that you're the one who didn't read it.
I suspect that you have your settings to only read posts scored above a certain threshold. Alternatively you may have some weird threading options set up or you may just have trouble following threads.
Whatever your problem was, before telling anyone what the parent post to theirs said, click the "parent" tag so that you can find out. This goes for the moderators who considered your post "insightful" too.
Does he?. He said the problem with swipe cards was that they get lost, traded, broken etc. and he implied that RFID tags magically fix that. He doesn't explain how. Even if we assume an implant, there's nobody on the planet stupid enough to think we've come up with a technology that can't go wrong. After a few years of use we might be able to say that they don't go wrong often, but that's about it.
but the majority of responses to this come from people who are long out of school, don't have kids in one, but still think they should be able to dictate how schools are run.
Does the fact that despite all that I still have to PAY for them give me any voice at all in your world?
Slashdot Mirror
As being a slut and trailer-trash aren't genetical predispositions (neither is being a scientist), that's not what's going on.
:)
You're over simplifying. Urge to have sex is definitely genetic in origin. Being discriminating in choice of sexual partners is definitely genetic in origin. Social factors certainly influence both, but the basics of seeking suitable mates and then having sex with them is genetic. Unless I've misunderstood what you mean by a "slut" then genetics play a major role in this and there can be evolutionary factors towards more or less "slutiness".
"Being a scientist" is more of a stretch but a general desire to investigate the environment again has genetic origins - without at least a basic element of this we wouldn't learn anything so it can't be a pure learned response. Once you accept that it is genetic at its most basic level, I don't see how you could deny that genetics can push someone more or less strongly in that direction. Granted, there isn't an actual "physicist" gene which determines your career
it seems to me if you don't want linux (or freebsd) to benefit from solaris code why did you open source it in the first place.
There's lots of benefits to having code available. People can look at it and decide whether they trust it, for one thing. Even if you don't want to do it yourself, just knowing that the code's out there for experts to look at and comment on gives you added comfort that there's nothing too monstrous underneath.
The answer is probably something like "because we want people to code for solaris without getting paid".
Good point, yes some people like to have the option to fix / change things themselves when they're not to their liking. I think that's what you meant here.
Also, I doubt Sun would like to put it this way but no company is immortal. You have more flexibility for support options, whatever happens to Sun, if the code is open sourced.
Bottom line, I think from a buyer's perspective, availability of source code and permission to change it around gives plenty of pluses. So hopefully it'll help them sell more hardware/services/whatever.
The MPL is nice, in that it is propagative but not viral. That is, if you distribute a modified binary you have to distribute the source for your modifications, but you can use MPL-licensed code in a larger project without any effect at all on the license of the larger project.
I don't understand what you mean by this. The GPL doesn't prevent you ditributing GPL-licensed code alongside non-GPL-licensed code as long as they're not linked together.
Do you mean it's more like the LGPL i.e. you can convert the MP-licensed code into a library and make calls from your non-MPL-licensed code, or do you mean something else?
From the CDDL:
That is incompatible with the GPL. I'm not saying that the incompatibility is good, bad or indifferent. Copyleft licenses tend to be incompatible with one another; this is a typical example of that.
They also certainly want to eliminate the possibility that features that distinguish Sun's OS, like their new filesystem, don't end up in Linux. Could they be enticing the BSD kernels to absorb them?
If their license was compatible with the BSDL then it would be compatible with the GPL too.
I mangles the quote from Sun's submission a bit:
"The CDDL is not expected to be compatible with the GPL, since it contains requirements that are not in the GPL"
The point remains, they think it's worth commenting on. Why shouldn't others?
Is there? Claire Giordano of Sun's CDDL team said , in the submission, that it was of particular note that the license is not expected to be compatible with the GPL, and you think she meant to imply there was something wrong with that? Doesn't seem too likely. If she thinks it's noteworthy then is it really unreasonable for other to comment on it too?
I'm assuming it won't allow anyone to resell the code.
From the open source definition:
If their license doesn't even meet the first characteristic of the open source definition then it'd be a bit silly to submit it to the OSI for approval, now wouldn't it?
For 2 (3?) administrations he ran the largest and most sophisticated intelligence agency in the world.
How did you measure the sophistication of the various intelligence agencies around the world? I can't even work out how you calculated the sizes (ignoring the utterly stupid like "added up official allocations in dollars"). What is the size of the largest Chinese intelligence agency in comparison to the size of the CIA?
People might think that the parent post is just mindlessly repeating a cliche, but in fact I've been to Korea many times and I have never seen anyone beloe the age of 50 decentralizing BitTorrent.
Hopefully they wont be as slow when they start doing the linux support we pay them for
When they start? I'm already getting the full service.
As a completely unbiased and disinterested observer, I bought a SCO license to see what the fuss was about. Since then NOBODY has sued me for anything, least of all for violating any code SCO might possibly have in the Linux kernel (including any Linux kernels in alternate universes). You can't argue with service like that. I'd recommend it to anyone.
Hunger is not a disease.
No, it's not a disease, it is an affliction.
That was my point for the very beginning. By our intelligence, and ability to change our environment, we've "evolved" past the ability of natural selection to affect us, which was the parent post's point.
Okay, it's of no importance to me whether you call it "natural" selection or not. Selective pressures apply to humans just like they do to everyone else. The environment they're adapting to is one that includes a whole bunch of people doing stuff, but of course the same can be said of any number of other creatures. Evolution doesn't stop just because the dangers are of being hit by an "unnatural" car or the benefits arise from applying "unnatural" medicines.
Those creatures that are best suited to breeding in an environment with cars, atmospheric pollution, innoculation against diseaeses, birth control etc etc will be those that do most succesfully breed.
If a particular genetic trait isn't a disadvantage in this environment (because it's "fixed" by doctors) then it isn't a disadvantage in this environment. That doesn't mean that selection doesn't apply, it just means that that isn't a trait that's being selected against.
I'm not sure whether we're actually at odds here or not, beyond your distaste for the word "natural" when applied to selection in this context.
How can one argue with you? According to you everything would be natural. Because whatever we do is the result of us doing our naturally evolved natures.
How can one argue with you? According to you nothing humans do would be natural because... well, just because.
Selective pressures apply to humans as much as they do to anything else. If you want to consider that to be non-natural selection because the environment is heavily influenced by the existence of humans then the word "natural" isn't important to me. Selction applies, just like always. Humans continue to evolve to suit their environment, which happens to be an environment that contains a whole mass of humans doing stuff. Lots of other animals are busy evolving to suit an environment with a bunch of humans doing stuff too.
Things do have purpose. Life is not as random as you think.
Things have purposes. Selection does not. If you have a species, some members of which produce offspring and some don't then those that are best suited to produce offspring in the environment they are in will, in general, be the ones that do in fact produce offspring. This isn't in order to achieve anything, it's inevitable. What's the alternative?
It's like the way those rocks that are best suited to surviving having water flow over them are the ones that survive water constantly flowing over them. The weaker more soluble material gets washed away. There isn't a "purpose" of this to create stronger rocks. It just is. Same with selection, the weaker members die off BECAUSE they're weaker. The ones best suited to breeding breed BECAUSE they're the best suited to breeding. No purpose, it's just what is.
The main purpose of natural selection is to let the strongest, the most likely to survive and propagate a species breed.
Completely, utterly, wrong. Natural selection does not have a purpose. It just is.
A viable but weak offspring will be selected for termination. In fact, you argued why we have interferred in natural selection. You cited birth control. That is artificial.
It's just creatures doing stuff according to their naturally evolved natures. Humans doing birth control is no less natural than birds building nests.
We, human, interferred with that. In the old days when people died of influenza, only those who survived breed and as the result, we are not as likely to die from influenza.
Sure, and in the days before birds built nests, only those that could survive without nests bred, and as a result birds became hardier. Birds also evolved startegies to deal with the harsh conditions: nests. Humans evolved too, they got bright enough to develop drugs. Both removed or reduced selective pressures. That's what evolving does for you.
What afflictions do birds treat?
Hunger. I thought that was pretty much spelt out.
Taking antibiotics is not. by definition, if it's found in nature, it's natural.
I assume that for purposes of this discussion you're treating human society as definitively not part of nature? In that case yes, whatever we do we can never be subjected to "natural" selection in the sense that you use the word "natural". Well done.
Show me a cancer clinic run by and for sparrows.
So again, a nest is "natural" but a house would be "unnatural" because one the latter is built by humans and the former isn't, correct?
This is not silly. This is Sun trying to subvert the term 'open source' for their own PR purposes.
Would you like to explain why that is different to the MPAA trying to subvert the term "theft" for their own PR purposes?
Birds don't have medical treatments for diseases and afflictions that would kill before the age of reproduction, etc. Thus, we are artificially helping defective genes survive.
But they treat other afflictions. Are you saying that feeding their young is 'natural' whereas treating illness is 'artificial' or do you feel that both are artificial but that the treatment for disease is more so than the feeding of young?
I didn't say the behavious of birds didn't arise from evolution, only that it doesn't effect evolution.
OF COURSE it affects evolution. It's part of the environment that the chicks are born into.
Scenario as outlined so far: Birds lay eggs. Eggs hatch. Parents feed offspring. Parents eject less viable offspring, enhancing the food and other resources devoted to the more viable offspring, and thus enhancing their chances of survival.
How does can you say that this doesn't affect evolution? By your standards the parent birds are interfering in the process.
Natural selection occurs when an individual dies before breeding or otherwise fails to breed, thus not handing on their genes.
Pretty much right, to refine it slightly more, rather than "fails to breed" you mean "fails to produce viable offspring". Might as well drop the bit about the individual dying first, it adds nothing.
Among humans pretty much everyone lives long enough to breed, and thus genetics that do not select for survival are passed on.
I'm not sure what proportion of the population fails to breed. I'm not convinced it's as insignificant as you think, especially once you factor in birth control and cuckolding. Do you have statistics? Given a hiugh survival rate, factors like ability to judge the fidelity of a spouse become major evolutionary factors. With birth control a desire to have children becomes more significant than a desire to have sex as well. Evolutionary factors still apply.
Birds do indeed feed their young but if the parents believe that the young are incapable of surviving adequately they are thrown out of the nest to die in a lot of cases. People thriving because of hospitals is not natural selection, it's artificial - a kind of eugenics.
Explain to me your theory under which the behaviour of the birds in your example arises from natural selection and the behaviour of the humans doesn't.
The human species has not had real natural selection for a long time because we do not die from genetic problems as often.
Nonsense. You might as well claim that birds don't face natural selection because their parents feed them as babies instead of letting them starve or that that they don't face natural selection because their nests help keep them warm.
A bunch of people helping each other to survive is a product of natural selection, not its absence.
Part of our environment is now the existence of hospitals and scientists. Some people thrive in that environment who would die childless in other environments. Again, this is natural selction at work.
The box says nothing about Steam, nothing about having to agree to some set of conditions, nothing about having to sign on to some service.
It does, in the system requirements which are on the back of the box on the lower left hand side, say that you need to have an internet connection.
As for corporate proprietary software, you either choose to accept their terms and pay them, or you choose not to.
Try to stay awake. Your side of the argument is "you pay them, accept their terms". You're arguing AGAINST the theory that terms should be agreed (and therefore known) up front.
I don't own it but I seem to remember others saying that such a stipulation is printed on the box. I could be wrong, however.
No, you are perfectly correct. Others have said that, in the messages above. They were lying (I have the box in front of me). I can't even guess at why they lie about this but they do.
did you even read the parent post? the writer said that they loved the GIMP interface. the complaint was that the windows version seems different in some important ways.
No it didn't say anything like that, for which reason I strongly suspect that you're the one who didn't read it.
I suspect that you have your settings to only read posts scored above a certain threshold. Alternatively you may have some weird threading options set up or you may just have trouble following threads.
Whatever your problem was, before telling anyone what the parent post to theirs said, click the "parent" tag so that you can find out. This goes for the moderators who considered your post "insightful" too.
You do get all those advantages
Does he?. He said the problem with swipe cards was that they get lost, traded, broken etc. and he implied that RFID tags magically fix that. He doesn't explain how. Even if we assume an implant, there's nobody on the planet stupid enough to think we've come up with a technology that can't go wrong. After a few years of use we might be able to say that they don't go wrong often, but that's about it.
but the majority of responses to this come from people who are long out of school, don't have kids in one, but still think they should be able to dictate how schools are run.
Does the fact that despite all that I still have to PAY for them give me any voice at all in your world?