The switch to using GPL v3 is the best thing that could have happened to closed source because it will blow the OSS community apart into incompatibly licenced pieces.
A sad day indeed.
Unlikely, in my humble opinion. Let's go for worst case... about half of the software projects out there currently under GPLv2 gets relicensed to GPLv3, and likewise for LGPL. Then there are 2 potential problems:
Program A wants to use library B, but program A is (L)GPLv2 (but not later) and the library is GPLv3, or program A is (L)GPLv3 but the library is GPLv2 (but not later). In the former case, the only solution is to upgrade program A to GPLv3, and in the latter to downgrade to GPLv2 or latter. However, GPL'ed libraries are not very common, they tend to be LGPL.
Programmer Margit wants to copy&paste some source code between a (L)GPLv3 program to a (L)GPLv2 or the other way around. Tough, she'll have to rewrite it, though she could use the code as inspiration. In practical terms, this is a small matter as copy+paste source code is seldom feasible.
At least that's my analysis. Personally, I think a little change is good, keeps the spirit alive:)
Another scenario is one of the million forks, but I think that would quickly settle down. So it doesn't worry me much.
Looking at the GPLv3, I'm thinking... that license looks good for me. Even if Stallman's reputation as a human being is what it is, the license looks solid, and that has to be the important thing.
[..]Can you image a young child of 8 misspelling disney getting graphic pictures of sexual acts,[...]?
Indeed I can. He'd go "eewwwkkk! yuck! See how big that one is? And with a donkey? Awsome!
I hate to tell you this, but that won't be the first porn that 8-year old have seen. And anyway, there is little evidence that porn is really more damaging for kids than e.g. the Bratz dolls. (Forgive me if that fad has already passed away, feel free to replace with the new equivalent:) )
Do you see? I have a definition of God that is shared by millions of other people. It is, in my opinion, the correct definition of God. And furthermore, I can prove that my God physically exists!
This is just sematics. It annoys me when people hijack words, but for the sake of the argument.... define your God then, and let's be done with this. From reading below, I should ask you to define miracle too, which I guess you use in other meaning than "divine intervention by a god in the universe by which the ordinary course and operation of Nature is overruled, suspended, or modified" to quote wikipedia. For now, I will assume the usual definition.
I originally said, "every professed atheist I ever met refused to entertain the idea that God might be different than the precise definition of God he or she refused to believe in." You said you are different, but now you are rejecting my definition of God because it doesn't match yours.
I am not rejecting the idea that we might consider other concepts, but you are just hijacking a word. But as I said, it matters little, let's have a definition. You are still only talking sematics, and no substance.
Most atheists are primarily anti-Christian and anti-occult. They cannot be said to have an "absence of religion" because they have a faith-based definition of God that is dictated by holy scriptures or divine revelations of some sort. They are often not even aware of the existence of science-based religions like Pantheism (or Panentheism, which is a bit different), even though there are literally many millions of us all over the world.
Generally, we lump all the superstitious in one clump. I am not anti-Christian as such, am I anti-superstitious. The more carefully of us puts the truly "we-define-gods-as-the-wonderfull-ness-in-life-and -say-we-believe-in-this-whatever-that-is-suppose-t o-mean" (e.g, Dawkins carefully does this), but as I said, the sematic game bores me.
Anyway, your stated definition was: "God is a term for 1) being that 2) listen to prayers 3) does miracles. If you want to discuss something else, give it another name, please." That's not my definition, but in fact my God (who again is the God of millions of other people, including a great many Buddhists, Hindus and Unitarian Universalists) does those things.
Lol, first you spend ages talking sematics, and then you agree to my definition? I don't care how many deluded people there are, they are still deluded:)
Every word that is spoken is heard by God, so all prayers are heard (the written prayers that are hidden deep inside Tibetan prayer wheels where no human can see them are known to God too). Every day miracles happen and all of them proceed from God because nothing that happens is not a part of God. Life itself is a miraculous anti-entropic force, taking unorganized materials and organizing them into incredibly, miraculously complex structures; love is a miracle too. The greatest miracle of all is that you and I can have this discussion - that God is so vast and complex that individual pieces of God can argue with each other over the nature of reality!
Life is not a miracle, it is well within the law of physics. Life is not anti-entropic, it just moves order, creating more disorder in the process.Much like smelting metals, e.g. Love is hardly a miracle, just a bunch of chemicals and what-have-you --- wonderful as it is, it is hard physics-defying. The last bit is just non-sense, as is the first bit. What exacty do you mean when you say "heard"? Is there a ear and a brain somewhere? A computer and a microphone?
I agree with the Christians that "you cannot petition the Lord with prayer" - praying for something won't change physics, nor will God change his plans because you prayed for something. Prayer just makes you feel better. That's one of
Atheism is not a religion, it is the absence of religion.
Every professed atheist I ever met refused to entertain the idea that God might be different than the precise definition of God he or she refused to believe in. Well, congratulations, you have just met one who doesn't believe in any fairy, God or other made-up beings. I don't believe in Thor, Odin, Ra, Jehova or even the flying spaghetti monster. Hmmm... which is kind of what I was referring to. God isn't a made-up being; God is physically in the room with you right now and everything you touch is physically part of God.
Unless you redefine God to mean something other than most people, this is just a figment of your imagination. If God can do miracles (violate physical laws), then God does not exist. The rest is just semantics, you can redefine sugar to chlorine and claim it is good for bleaching, but sugar is still sugar.
All those other things you mention don't really have anything to do with God... Freud would say they are just transference of childish father-worship to an imaginary super-father figure.
God is a term for 1) being that 2) listen to prayers 3) does miracles. If you want to discuss something else, give it another name, please.
Einstein was also a pantheist, incidentally; but since he was a Spinoza-school pantheist he didn't think God has a personality in the sense that you and I supposedly do.
Ah, I see you too like the "let's redefine famous people to our cause" way of doing things. Please don't be offended, but I'm really not interested. The man is dead, let us remember him for the great things he did and wrote.
Kneeland's a little more agnostic on that subject, but he certainly did not expect God to be anything like a giant bearded human in the sky.
I am sorry to hear his fate is grim, but religion (and other religion-like thought systems) causes so much anguish and unhappiness that it is hard to focus on one particular thing. I count myself very lucky to be living in a country where the atheist, and their political and philosophical counterparts, stands comparatively strong.
So being agnostic about whether there is life in the universe is probably wise. Being agnostic about the e.g. protestantic three-in-one superstition is silly, in my humble opinion. But, if you want to believe that, and I am not physically threatened for making fun of that, I am not forcing anyone.
You seem very sensible to me. I think the trinity was just something St. Augustine came up with for political reasons, myself.
I concur.
Have a nice friday:D
Thanks, I did! Sorry about the excessive blockquoting above... I couldn't figure out a better way.
You can use the quote bottom below, and then interupt the quotes with </quote>reply..<quote>. But in the end, it is much like blockquoting, except you have to type a bit less. A nice day to you:) It is pleasent to have a reasonable person to converse with on./, for once:)
Not trying to be condescending here, but maybe you really should read up a little to know what you are talking about. That way is how stuff the HTTP work, and DNS and other core internet protocols. Remember, X isn't limited to a local display.
My complaint: You can't paste a copied image once you've closed the app you copied it from.
Your response: X works over a network.
Wha-huh?! Think you can explain what the hell the response has anything to do with the complaint? Maybe you should be condescending, you might make a little bit more sense.
You cleverly cut your own complaint, but you were actually complaining about the algorithm. To quote: " And yet, even with that experience, I can easily see how horribly flawed the Linux way of handling the clipboard is."
I cut out the whining, I can't stand the hypocritical nonsense anymore. I tried to help, and I am sorry I did.
That page does not mention the scientific advances in that period, but does mention the cultural advances I also mentioned. Perhaps because there wasn't any to speak of?
I said I'm a terrible programmer. I wrote a few applications for Mac OS 7 & 8, and since then it's been nothing but Javascript and a tad of VisualBasic and RealBasic. I don't think that counts as "being a programmer." And yet, even with that experience, I can easily see how horribly flawed the Linux way of handling the clipboard is. Whoever designed that part of Linux seemed unclear on the concept of programs "exiting."
Heh. Not trying to be condescending here, but maybe you really should read up a little to know what you are talking about. That way is how stuff the HTTP work, and DNS and other core internet protocols. Remember, X isn't limited to a local display.
Why didn't you report it?
Because I've used Linux for less than a week, and the week I used it I didn't have any internet access because Linux developers won't bother to fix the *basics* of the OS (like networking) and instead add "type-ahead" clipboards.
For one thing, because I am not a networking engineer, so I wouldn't be much help. But I have installed linux countless of times, and never had I had problems with networking. Hardware can be a strange beast, though, so you might just have been unlucky. E.g, I can't install windows XP on this computer... surely, working with harddisks are even more basic?
All I want is things to work. If I was a Linux user, and somebody pointed out to me that a feature that Macintosh and Windows has had since the mid-90s *still doesn't work* in Linux, I'd be ashamed. Why aren't you? When Linux joins the 20th century, much less the 21st century, give me a call and maybe I'll give it another try. If networking works then.
If you want it to "just work", buy a computer with the OS preinstalled:) Every first installation, whatever the OS, is a risk if you yourself have put together the components or using hardware not tested with a particular OS. Linux has had networking from it's very beginning, of course, but that doesn't stop it failing in obscure cornercase... like it does on any OS. Setting a network up in the 90's on windows was not easy, as I recall:)
I wish people would stop propagating the myth of the "dark ages."
From what I've read, for a 1000 years almost all scientific progress, and all improvements in living standards, were brought nearly to a standstill while Religion (Christinity) strangled the great minds of Europe, while most other regions were even worse off. So I like the term, "dark ages". May nothing like that ever occur:)
To be fair, great strides were taken on the arts&litterature side of things, but I know which I would prefer any day.
Yeah, I got curious too and went looking, but I couldn't find a number for the whole EU.:/ Thanks, I was genuinely curious.:)
Searching the web takes luck as well as skill:*)
On Srebrenica: Give me some credit for European unity!;) Member states in the EU, afaik, haven't done anything nasty in years (at least, not as far as something that might affect the murder rate), and I was reaching for something to make the point that everything's not fine and dandy in Europe. I thought Germany had a Christian Democratic Party or something that had 1/3 representation in Parliament?
Sounds about right. I have no idea whether they are actually very christian or if it is just something in their name, but I'd guess the latter. (Ask a German or wikipedia if you really want to know:) ).
Anyway, my point in another post somewhere in this thread is actually supported by the murder rate numbers you've got.
I'm sure, but forgive me for not finding the appropriate post:)
But that's if these are the only facts considered. Do you happen to have numbers for the last 200 years? (I found such numbers for parts of the US going back to 1797)
EU was founded in the 1992. It's predecessor was founded in 1957. Even the 2001 numbers are odd, because the union has grown since then. EU is a very young union compared to US, though it's memberstates are curiously enough much older. But no, I have no data going back 200 years... I'm sure it is out there, but there is no obvious aggregation so far back.
My point is made if you have numbers that show a much higher murder rate for the EU states, particularly the ones that participated in WW2 (since most of the WW1 states were dismantled) before the relevant conflicts, and it gets stronger if you can show comparable murder rates before WWI, and a lower murder rate around 1800, or some other year that's inarguably before the rise of nationalism.
The differences in murder rates are most likely correlated to US having a big poor population and easily available weaponry, but I am no expert.
And yeah, until the guy said he was in Canada, my impression was that he was European. The only people I've encountered that get that vitriolic about the US have been europeans.
Individual states in the US compare favorably to nations in Europe, or neutrally. And how do you correlate this data vs for example the Srebrenica massacre?
Srebrenica is in Bosnia, which has not been and is not a member of EU.
Just to clarify, there is nothing to prevent companies to make single-player games served over the internet. Civ5 could easily be made as a server-client based game.
Woops, sorry, my bad. I thought you said you were a programmer, blame my ever-faulty memory.
The only part I understand is that copying and pasting images in Linux doesn't work if you close the application you copied from. Everybody here on Slashdot who posts "copy and paste doesn't work in Linux" is barraged by a avalanche of comments reading, "yes it does! yes it does!" and none of those replies are willing to admit that it works... in ONE circumstance with ONE type of data. That's like saying (to use another crappy car analogy) that a car works because the brakes are good, and ignoring that the starter motor is shot.
Obviously, they think copy and paste an image (non-text really) from a closed application is an unimportant corner case, while you don't. This is probably related to differences in how you use the desktop compared to other people. Since there isn't a bug report about this (as I recall), I'd say the way you work is rare.
The feature (if you can even call it a feature, it's so basic!) has existed in every other OS since the mid-90s.
Heh, the above is not really true, but it has been in at least 2 OS. I could probably code it in an afternoon or so... but I think other items are more important to do. Like my garden, e.g.:) I think that your complaint is like the people who complains that windows/mac doesn't support focus-follows-mouse (another old feature, loved by a few, unused by most).
(What's the point of adding all kinds of features to "Klipper" before it even supports the most basic operations everybody expects to work? Crazy.
Obviously, someone thought them useful. E.g, the typeahead search I added? I use it every day. Every single day. While opening a graphics program happens maybe once a week for me, and copy+paste images even rarer.
The fact that there are no feature requests for it only shows that Linux is just a self-selecting group of geeks who want to maintain the "high priesthood of technology" and don't give even the slightest crap whether normal people can use software or not. Not a community I want to be a part of.)
What was the point of that flame? Why didn't you report it? I do carep about "normal" people, thank you very much, or I wouldn't be explaining this to you. That doesn't mean I run to do the bidding of every complainer out there.
The games industry is adapting to mass piracy by abandoing the open platform that is the PC, in favour of online games and consoles. For the singleplayer RPG or flight sim fan, the way piracy has forced a 're-evaluation of the business model' is just to wipe out the entire industry. Not exactly the optimal solution for consumers. BS. I can copy a console game easily. The game industry is moving to consoles because with dedicated hardware you can get performance on a $500 console that you need a $3,000 dollar computer to replicate.
The game makers avoid the PC because the profit margins are too low. Not because the consoles have better hardware. Or so my friends in that business tells me.
Piracy is surely keeping the prices down, but the fix is obvious: Move much of the content online. Games where big parts are served over the net are much, much harder to pirate in the big scale.
So as an exercise, try to work out how an application started together with X could emulate the mac/windows way perfectly. Then explain why the opposite is not possible via. the clipboard in mac.
Huh? That's entirely beside the point.
No it's exactly the point. The X way supports full copy&paste... it's the application that choose not to support it.
The point is, in Mac OS and Windows, it WORKS and in Linux it DOES NOT WORK.
If Linux was really "emulating" the Mac/Windows way of doing something, it'd work just as well... right? Isn't that what "emulate" means? Your argument seems to basically boil down to: "It could theoretically work in Linux, but it doesn't." Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.
I said that Linux could emulate the windows behaviour. Not that it does.
BTW, KDE provides a program that does emulate the windows way (and does a lot more).
Does a lot more? Two posts ago, you typed (and I quote):
An application (like Klipper) could and does intercept this and store the clipboard data "in the last minute", but as outlined below this has it's drawback. It currently works for text only, but if you feel brave, you can enable the code I wrote to have limited support for images.
True, it is text only. On the other hand, Klipper support a long history , history/clipboard persistence, actions on selected/copied, type-ahead seach and selection synchronisation, none of which is available in windows (though a limited history is available as 3rd-party add-ons, I believe).
So you just admitted a few posts ago that an app in KDE specifically designed to address this shortcoming doesn't even work correctly with *images!* much less any other type of data. And now you're trying to convince me that not even working correctly with images somehow "does a lot more" than the clipboard in OS X and Windows do?
Sigh. Copy anmd paste with images does work... maybe you should try it? What Klipper attempted to do was provide an attempt at a image history. This failed because a lot of applications frivilously provided images on the clipboard... e.g., OO does this every time you select a frame. As win/mac doesn't support selection, and doesn't support history, this is not entirely relevant for them. As a sideeffect, copy image + close app + paste doesn't work. Of course, this should be fixed sometime, but e.g. Klipper doesn't even have 1 bug report about this as I recall, so I don't believe this is something that is missed hugely.
I took your last post as an honest admission of the limitations of the copy and paste system in Linux, but now I see you're doing the same old "everything in Linux is perfect!" BS you see so often around here. Frankly, I'm disappointed for two reasons:
1) That you've dropped the honesty for zealotism in only a few hours
Oh for crying out loud. I just try to correct your misinterpretations. I'm a technical guy, I really don't care which is better.
2) You think I'm so stupid that you can convince me that a clipboard that doesn't even work with images does "a lot more" than the clipboard in OS X and Windows. How short do you think my memory is?!
By better I meant "supports more scenarios at the protocol level"... which I rather thought we were discussing at the time. I stand by this. I don't think you are stupid, but I'm beginning to be inclined to believe that you should read a bit slower:) Perhaps a summary will help.
The X protocol that supports copy&paste is an application to application protocol.
This protocol support all minetypes and minetype negotiations for which mimetype to use.
As a special case, images are supported, including e.g. SVG and other new formats, and conversion between applications that does not support SVG.
While I understand the point of the negotiation copy and paste process in Linux, the drawbacks seem to greatly over weigh the benefits to me. I'm going to keep a bookmark of your post for the next time some Linux zealot tries to tell me that copy and paste works in Linux. Thank you for being honest about the drawbacks.
Eh, if that is your understanding, you did not read it my text very well. So as an exercise, try to work out how an application started together with X could emulate the mac/windows way perfectly. Then explain why the opposite is not possible via. the clipboard in mac.
The reason why cut&paste outside text is so limited in practice in linux is that the application writers and to some degree the toolkit writers have shown little or no interest in this. It is certainly possible within the framework. BTW, KDE provides a program that does emulate the windows way (and does a lot more).
I had to shorten it down quite a bit to get it within sig limits. It was supposed to be something like
Atheism is a religion in the same way as not collecting stamps is a hobby.
I stand by that. As you say, strictly speaking you could be an atheist and superstitious (like believing in reincarnation), but most atheist are non-superstitious as well. Personally, I see no difference between monotheism or any other superstition.
First things first... my sig was supposed to be a joke. At least I found it funny:)
Atheism is not a religion, it is the absence of religion.
Every professed atheist I ever met refused to entertain the idea that God might be different than the precise definition of God he or she refused to believe in.
Well, congratulations, you have just met one who doesn't believe in any fairy, God or other made-up beings. I don't believe in Thor, Odin, Ra, Jehova or even the flying spaghetti monster.
This (non)belief was a core article of faith, and not available for reasoned discourse. Atheists quite often will insist noted pantheists (such as Abner Kneeland) are in fact atheists, and will not accept any proof to the contrary. If that's not religion, it's certainly got the features of a bad one, such as fanaticism and denial of reality.
I am not familiar with Abner Kneeland. I do agree that that atheists trying to make a convince for "this-and-this guy was really an atheist, though he never said so" is silly. Who cares? They are invariable dead anyway. Only the realllly silly claims to religion (like saying that Einstein was Christian... which he explicitly said he was not) can be a good thing to get out of the way:)
Agnosticism is the absence of decisiveness.
Which is not necessarily a bad thing... no decision might be less harmful than a bad decision, eh?
Of course. So being agnostic about whether there is life in the universe is probably wise. Being agnostic about the e.g. protestantic three-in-one superstition is silly, in my humble opinion. But, if you want to believe that, and I am not physically threatened for making fun of that, I am not forcing anyone.
It's said that thief thinks everyone steals. I have a very hard time being convinced by someone who calls his opposition "fanatic". After reading the GPLv3, it seems quite reasonable to me; certainly not fanatic. But all the responses seems to be about grudges towards FSF rather than any real problem with the GPLv3 vs. the GPLv2. Congratulations for helping FSF convincing me that GPLv3 is a good license.
This isn't true, X supports any mine types, and support negotiation between apps. Goes like this, if I recall correctly
1. App A gets the clipboard owner (app B)
2. App A request from app B which mine types it can provide the clipboard contents in
3. App A chooses one, and request the data
4. App B sends the data
Not very many apps supports much of this, and a lot does it in very crazy manners. But KDE is hardly to blame for that:)
This makes no sense. I mean, I'm a crummy-ass computer programmer, and I can see tons of problems with it just from that outline.
Fair enough, let me elucidate you then:)
What if I copy the cells from OO.net Calc, then close Calc, then paste into GIMP? Does the OS actually boot up a new copy of Calc specifically to ask it how to paste the data in? What about if the file that was opened in Calc was on a network drive that's no longer available? What about if I copied the cells, then deleted Calc from my HD?
If the application closes, the clipboard data is gone, thus the some-parent-upwards complaint about this. An application (like Klipper) could and does intercept this and store the clipboard data "in the last minute", but as outlined below this has it's drawback. It currently works for text only, but if you feel brave, you can enable the code I wrote to have limited support for images. But beware that L. Lunak disabled my code for a reason: X application are not used to having this feature, and does really, really silly things with especially the selection clipboard.
Whoever designed that part of X didn't think it through very well. OS X and Windows work in all these cases, as far as I can determine.
On the other hand, this lets applications make data available in many formats. So even if application A only understands a limited number of formats, application B can let the data be available in many formats without wasting a ton of memory and bandwidth. A good example is images... a given application might offer the selected (or copied) image in GIF, PNG, SVG, RAW, BMP, JPG, TIFF, MMG and maybe a custom one meant for internal copying with some extra, application specific data. If this was to work without application B being online, the clipboard would have to store all these formats, or only offer limited conversions. Personally, I think the design is fair enough, but it is too cumbersome to use without a good toolkit doing the hard lifting. QT provides this, but not all application were written in QT. (no idea about GTK and friends).
I don't know how this works in Windows or OSX, but I'm sure someone else can tell you:)
In any event, the willingness to damage one of the major corporate-supported Linux distros [SUSE] merely to "punish" Novell clearly shows the fanaticism of the FSF and Stallman in particular.
Last I read it, the FSF are asking the community whether that clause will apply to deals entered into before a specific date or not. That doesn't sound fanatic to me, and it's a good question whether letting that clause apply to everyone or everyone from this day on is the best thing to do in the long run. I'm undecided myself.
Besides, when SuSE entered that deal, they knew very well that GPLv3 would get them into trouble, so my sympathy is limited.
So, the answer to my question is... that the reason to fork GPLv3-to-be project is merely a dislike of FSF? Not the license? Seems... very unpragmatic to me.
I could nitpick technical issues like how they use C++ and how compiled object oriented languages totally destroy CPU branch prediction
Nothing to do with C++, indirect calling does that... which you have to explicitly state if you want it in C++ (the virtual keyword). And C++'s killer feature, templates, makes thing go faster in some cases... qsort is only half the speed of std::sort for this reason.
That was a long rant. Anyway, you might want to check out Klipper, which fixes all that except the network thing and vim integration... the latter being a vim problem, I'd say, xemacs works as expected. You have to configure it correctly to get the behaviour you want... Wild guess would be synchronize, keep 200 items in your case, prevent empty clipboard. If the popup on links etc annoys you, you might want to disable action.
Problem solved:)
PS: You are wrong about the Gnome keyboard, that is an X feature. It is called PRIMARY clipboard, if I recall correctly. (The other one is SELECTION, I think).
P.P.S: Those that really want it like windows might want to disable sync, hit "ignore selection", set the history to 1, hit "prevent empty clipboard" and disable actions.
It doesn't really matter, because if Linus wanted to, he could start releasing changes to the Linux kernel under GPLv3 (and it specifically said GPLv3) -- so the old code would be under GPLv2 (or really, whatever version of the GPL you preferred, because unless you specifically say what version of the GPL applies, people can pick whichever version of the GPL they want. Read section 9 from the GPL for more on that) and the new Linus provided code would be GPLv3, with all the baggage that entails.
Not really, because the kernel is explicitly states it is licensed under version 2. To quote the COPYING file:
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
Slashdot Mirror
A sad day indeed.
Unlikely, in my humble opinion. Let's go for worst case... about half of the software projects out there currently under GPLv2 gets relicensed to GPLv3, and likewise for LGPL. Then there are 2 potential problems:
At least that's my analysis. Personally, I think a little change is good, keeps the spirit alive :)
Another scenario is one of the million forks, but I think that would quickly settle down. So it doesn't worry me much.
Looking at the GPLv3, I'm thinking... that license looks good for me. Even if Stallman's reputation as a human being is what it is, the license looks solid, and that has to be the important thing.
Indeed I can. He'd go "eewwwkkk! yuck! See how big that one is? And with a donkey? Awsome!
I hate to tell you this, but that won't be the first porn that 8-year old have seen. And anyway, there is little evidence that porn is really more damaging for kids than e.g. the Bratz dolls. (Forgive me if that fad has already passed away, feel free to replace with the new equivalent :) )
Do you see? I have a definition of God that is shared by millions of other people. It is, in my opinion, the correct definition of God. And furthermore, I can prove that my God physically exists!
This is just sematics. It annoys me when people hijack words, but for the sake of the argument.... define your God then, and let's be done with this. From reading below, I should ask you to define miracle too, which I guess you use in other meaning than "divine intervention by a god in the universe by which the ordinary course and operation of Nature is overruled, suspended, or modified" to quote wikipedia. For now, I will assume the usual definition.
I originally said, "every professed atheist I ever met refused to entertain the idea that God might be different than the precise definition of God he or she refused to believe in." You said you are different, but now you are rejecting my definition of God because it doesn't match yours.
I am not rejecting the idea that we might consider other concepts, but you are just hijacking a word. But as I said, it matters little, let's have a definition. You are still only talking sematics, and no substance.
Most atheists are primarily anti-Christian and anti-occult. They cannot be said to have an "absence of religion" because they have a faith-based definition of God that is dictated by holy scriptures or divine revelations of some sort. They are often not even aware of the existence of science-based religions like Pantheism (or Panentheism, which is a bit different), even though there are literally many millions of us all over the world.
Generally, we lump all the superstitious in one clump. I am not anti-Christian as such, am I anti-superstitious. The more carefully of us puts the truly "we-define-gods-as-the-wonderfull-ness-in-life-and -say-we-believe-in-this-whatever-that-is-suppose-t o-mean" (e.g, Dawkins carefully does this), but as I said, the sematic game bores me.
Anyway, your stated definition was: "God is a term for 1) being that 2) listen to prayers 3) does miracles. If you want to discuss something else, give it another name, please." That's not my definition, but in fact my God (who again is the God of millions of other people, including a great many Buddhists, Hindus and Unitarian Universalists) does those things.
Lol, first you spend ages talking sematics, and then you agree to my definition? I don't care how many deluded people there are, they are still deluded :)
Every word that is spoken is heard by God, so all prayers are heard (the written prayers that are hidden deep inside Tibetan prayer wheels where no human can see them are known to God too). Every day miracles happen and all of them proceed from God because nothing that happens is not a part of God. Life itself is a miraculous anti-entropic force, taking unorganized materials and organizing them into incredibly, miraculously complex structures; love is a miracle too. The greatest miracle of all is that you and I can have this discussion - that God is so vast and complex that individual pieces of God can argue with each other over the nature of reality!
Life is not a miracle, it is well within the law of physics. Life is not anti-entropic, it just moves order, creating more disorder in the process.Much like smelting metals, e.g. Love is hardly a miracle, just a bunch of chemicals and what-have-you --- wonderful as it is, it is hard physics-defying. The last bit is just non-sense, as is the first bit. What exacty do you mean when you say "heard"? Is there a ear and a brain somewhere? A computer and a microphone?
I agree with the Christians that "you cannot petition the Lord with prayer" - praying for something won't change physics, nor will God change his plans because you prayed for something. Prayer just makes you feel better. That's one of
Unless you redefine God to mean something other than most people, this is just a figment of your imagination. If God can do miracles (violate physical laws), then God does not exist. The rest is just semantics, you can redefine sugar to chlorine and claim it is good for bleaching, but sugar is still sugar.
All those other things you mention don't really have anything to do with God... Freud would say they are just transference of childish father-worship to an imaginary super-father figure.God is a term for 1) being that 2) listen to prayers 3) does miracles. If you want to discuss something else, give it another name, please.
Einstein was also a pantheist, incidentally; but since he was a Spinoza-school pantheist he didn't think God has a personality in the sense that you and I supposedly do.Ah, I see you too like the "let's redefine famous people to our cause" way of doing things. Please don't be offended, but I'm really not interested. The man is dead, let us remember him for the great things he did and wrote.
Kneeland's a little more agnostic on that subject, but he certainly did not expect God to be anything like a giant bearded human in the sky.I am sorry to hear his fate is grim, but religion (and other religion-like thought systems) causes so much anguish and unhappiness that it is hard to focus on one particular thing. I count myself very lucky to be living in a country where the atheist, and their political and philosophical counterparts, stands comparatively strong.
You seem very sensible to me. I think the trinity was just something St. Augustine came up with for political reasons, myself.I concur.
Thanks, I did! Sorry about the excessive blockquoting above... I couldn't figure out a better way.You can use the quote bottom below, and then interupt the quotes with </quote>reply..<quote>. But in the end, it is much like blockquoting, except you have to type a bit less. A nice day to you :) It is pleasent to have a reasonable person to converse with on ./, for once :)
My complaint: You can't paste a copied image once you've closed the app you copied it from.
Your response: X works over a network.
Wha-huh?! Think you can explain what the hell the response has anything to do with the complaint? Maybe you should be condescending, you might make a little bit more sense.
You cleverly cut your own complaint, but you were actually complaining about the algorithm. To quote: " And yet, even with that experience, I can easily see how horribly flawed the Linux way of handling the clipboard is."
I cut out the whining, I can't stand the hypocritical nonsense anymore. I tried to help, and I am sorry I did.
That page does not mention the scientific advances in that period, but does mention the cultural advances I also mentioned. Perhaps because there wasn't any to speak of?
Heh. Not trying to be condescending here, but maybe you really should read up a little to know what you are talking about. That way is how stuff the HTTP work, and DNS and other core internet protocols. Remember, X isn't limited to a local display.
Why didn't you report it?Because I've used Linux for less than a week, and the week I used it I didn't have any internet access because Linux developers won't bother to fix the *basics* of the OS (like networking) and instead add "type-ahead" clipboards.
For one thing, because I am not a networking engineer, so I wouldn't be much help. But I have installed linux countless of times, and never had I had problems with networking. Hardware can be a strange beast, though, so you might just have been unlucky. E.g, I can't install windows XP on this computer... surely, working with harddisks are even more basic?
All I want is things to work. If I was a Linux user, and somebody pointed out to me that a feature that Macintosh and Windows has had since the mid-90s *still doesn't work* in Linux, I'd be ashamed. Why aren't you? When Linux joins the 20th century, much less the 21st century, give me a call and maybe I'll give it another try. If networking works then.If you want it to "just work", buy a computer with the OS preinstalled :) Every first installation, whatever the OS, is a risk if you yourself have put together the components or using hardware not tested with a particular OS. Linux has had networking from it's very beginning, of course, but that doesn't stop it failing in obscure cornercase... like it does on any OS. Setting a network up in the 90's on windows was not easy, as I recall :)
From what I've read, for a 1000 years almost all scientific progress, and all improvements in living standards, were brought nearly to a standstill while Religion (Christinity) strangled the great minds of Europe, while most other regions were even worse off. So I like the term, "dark ages". May nothing like that ever occur :)
To be fair, great strides were taken on the arts&litterature side of things, but I know which I would prefer any day.
Yeah, I got curious too and went looking, but I couldn't find a number for the whole EU. :/ Thanks, I was genuinely curious. :)
Searching the web takes luck as well as skill :*)
On Srebrenica: Give me some credit for European unity! ;) Member states in the EU, afaik, haven't done anything nasty in years (at least, not as far as something that might affect the murder rate), and I was reaching for something to make the point that everything's not fine and dandy in Europe. I thought Germany had a Christian Democratic Party or something that had 1/3 representation in Parliament?
Sounds about right. I have no idea whether they are actually very christian or if it is just something in their name, but I'd guess the latter. (Ask a German or wikipedia if you really want to know :) ).
Anyway, my point in another post somewhere in this thread is actually supported by the murder rate numbers you've got.
I'm sure, but forgive me for not finding the appropriate post :)
But that's if these are the only facts considered. Do you happen to have numbers for the last 200 years? (I found such numbers for parts of the US going back to 1797)EU was founded in the 1992. It's predecessor was founded in 1957. Even the 2001 numbers are odd, because the union has grown since then. EU is a very young union compared to US, though it's memberstates are curiously enough much older. But no, I have no data going back 200 years... I'm sure it is out there, but there is no obvious aggregation so far back.
My point is made if you have numbers that show a much higher murder rate for the EU states, particularly the ones that participated in WW2 (since most of the WW1 states were dismantled) before the relevant conflicts, and it gets stronger if you can show comparable murder rates before WWI, and a lower murder rate around 1800, or some other year that's inarguably before the rise of nationalism.The differences in murder rates are most likely correlated to US having a big poor population and easily available weaponry, but I am no expert.
And yeah, until the guy said he was in Canada, my impression was that he was European. The only people I've encountered that get that vitriolic about the US have been europeans.
I was curious about the murder rates, so I looked it up with google.
First, are you in one of those countries that has a major political party with the word "Christian" in the name?
Yes, but they didn't make the low limit (4%) last election, for the 2nd time in a row, I think. (Sorry couldn't resist)
Highest murder rates: Has such a study been done on the aggregate of the EU?
From around 2000, US seems to be about 6 per 100000, EU about 1.6 per 100000.
Individual states in the US compare favorably to nations in Europe, or neutrally. And how do you correlate this data vs for example the Srebrenica massacre?Srebrenica is in Bosnia, which has not been and is not a member of EU.
Just to clarify, there is nothing to prevent companies to make single-player games served over the internet. Civ5 could easily be made as a server-client based game.
Woops, sorry, my bad. I thought you said you were a programmer, blame my ever-faulty memory.
The only part I understand is that copying and pasting images in Linux doesn't work if you close the application you copied from. Everybody here on Slashdot who posts "copy and paste doesn't work in Linux" is barraged by a avalanche of comments reading, "yes it does! yes it does!" and none of those replies are willing to admit that it works... in ONE circumstance with ONE type of data. That's like saying (to use another crappy car analogy) that a car works because the brakes are good, and ignoring that the starter motor is shot.Obviously, they think copy and paste an image (non-text really) from a closed application is an unimportant corner case, while you don't. This is probably related to differences in how you use the desktop compared to other people. Since there isn't a bug report about this (as I recall), I'd say the way you work is rare.
The feature (if you can even call it a feature, it's so basic!) has existed in every other OS since the mid-90s.Heh, the above is not really true, but it has been in at least 2 OS. I could probably code it in an afternoon or so... but I think other items are more important to do. Like my garden, e.g. :) I think that your complaint is like the people who complains that windows/mac doesn't support focus-follows-mouse (another old feature, loved by a few, unused by most).
(What's the point of adding all kinds of features to "Klipper" before it even supports the most basic operations everybody expects to work? Crazy.Obviously, someone thought them useful. E.g, the typeahead search I added? I use it every day. Every single day. While opening a graphics program happens maybe once a week for me, and copy+paste images even rarer.
The fact that there are no feature requests for it only shows that Linux is just a self-selecting group of geeks who want to maintain the "high priesthood of technology" and don't give even the slightest crap whether normal people can use software or not. Not a community I want to be a part of.)What was the point of that flame? Why didn't you report it? I do carep about "normal" people, thank you very much, or I wouldn't be explaining this to you. That doesn't mean I run to do the bidding of every complainer out there.
The game makers avoid the PC because the profit margins are too low. Not because the consoles have better hardware. Or so my friends in that business tells me.
Piracy is surely keeping the prices down, but the fix is obvious: Move much of the content online. Games where big parts are served over the net are much, much harder to pirate in the big scale.
So as an exercise, try to work out how an application started together with X could emulate the mac/windows way perfectly. Then explain why the opposite is not possible via. the clipboard in mac.
Huh? That's entirely beside the point.
No it's exactly the point. The X way supports full copy&paste... it's the application that choose not to support it.
The point is, in Mac OS and Windows, it WORKS and in Linux it DOES NOT WORK.
If Linux was really "emulating" the Mac/Windows way of doing something, it'd work just as well... right? Isn't that what "emulate" means? Your argument seems to basically boil down to: "It could theoretically work in Linux, but it doesn't." Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.
I said that Linux could emulate the windows behaviour. Not that it does.
BTW, KDE provides a program that does emulate the windows way (and does a lot more).
Does a lot more? Two posts ago, you typed (and I quote):
An application (like Klipper) could and does intercept this and store the clipboard data "in the last minute", but as outlined below this has it's drawback. It currently works for text only, but if you feel brave, you can enable the code I wrote to have limited support for images.
True, it is text only. On the other hand, Klipper support a long history , history/clipboard persistence, actions on selected/copied, type-ahead seach and selection synchronisation, none of which is available in windows (though a limited history is available as 3rd-party add-ons, I believe).
So you just admitted a few posts ago that an app in KDE specifically designed to address this shortcoming doesn't even work correctly with *images!* much less any other type of data. And now you're trying to convince me that not even working correctly with images somehow "does a lot more" than the clipboard in OS X and Windows do?
Sigh. Copy anmd paste with images does work... maybe you should try it? What Klipper attempted to do was provide an attempt at a image history. This failed because a lot of applications frivilously provided images on the clipboard... e.g., OO does this every time you select a frame. As win/mac doesn't support selection, and doesn't support history, this is not entirely relevant for them. As a sideeffect, copy image + close app + paste doesn't work. Of course, this should be fixed sometime, but e.g. Klipper doesn't even have 1 bug report about this as I recall, so I don't believe this is something that is missed hugely.
I took your last post as an honest admission of the limitations of the copy and paste system in Linux, but now I see you're doing the same old "everything in Linux is perfect!" BS you see so often around here. Frankly, I'm disappointed for two reasons:
1) That you've dropped the honesty for zealotism in only a few hours
Oh for crying out loud. I just try to correct your misinterpretations. I'm a technical guy, I really don't care which is better.
2) You think I'm so stupid that you can convince me that a clipboard that doesn't even work with images does "a lot more" than the clipboard in OS X and Windows. How short do you think my memory is?!
By better I meant "supports more scenarios at the protocol level"... which I rather thought we were discussing at the time. I stand by this. I don't think you are stupid, but I'm beginning to be inclined to believe that you should read a bit slower :) Perhaps a summary will help.
Whether you define them to be or not the integers are homeomorphic to a subset of the reals, which is basically the same thing.
Eh, if that is your understanding, you did not read it my text very well. So as an exercise, try to work out how an application started together with X could emulate the mac/windows way perfectly. Then explain why the opposite is not possible via. the clipboard in mac.
The reason why cut&paste outside text is so limited in practice in linux is that the application writers and to some degree the toolkit writers have shown little or no interest in this. It is certainly possible within the framework. BTW, KDE provides a program that does emulate the windows way (and does a lot more).
I had to shorten it down quite a bit to get it within sig limits. It was supposed to be something like
Atheism is a religion in the same way as not collecting stamps is a hobby.I stand by that. As you say, strictly speaking you could be an atheist and superstitious (like believing in reincarnation), but most atheist are non-superstitious as well. Personally, I see no difference between monotheism or any other superstition.
First things first... my sig was supposed to be a joke. At least I found it funny :)
Every professed atheist I ever met refused to entertain the idea that God might be different than the precise definition of God he or she refused to believe in.Well, congratulations, you have just met one who doesn't believe in any fairy, God or other made-up beings. I don't believe in Thor, Odin, Ra, Jehova or even the flying spaghetti monster.
This (non)belief was a core article of faith, and not available for reasoned discourse. Atheists quite often will insist noted pantheists (such as Abner Kneeland) are in fact atheists, and will not accept any proof to the contrary. If that's not religion, it's certainly got the features of a bad one, such as fanaticism and denial of reality.I am not familiar with Abner Kneeland. I do agree that that atheists trying to make a convince for "this-and-this guy was really an atheist, though he never said so" is silly. Who cares? They are invariable dead anyway. Only the realllly silly claims to religion (like saying that Einstein was Christian... which he explicitly said he was not) can be a good thing to get out of the way :)
Which is not necessarily a bad thing... no decision might be less harmful than a bad decision, eh?Of course. So being agnostic about whether there is life in the universe is probably wise. Being agnostic about the e.g. protestantic three-in-one superstition is silly, in my humble opinion. But, if you want to believe that, and I am not physically threatened for making fun of that, I am not forcing anyone.
Have a nice friday :D
It's said that thief thinks everyone steals. I have a very hard time being convinced by someone who calls his opposition "fanatic". After reading the GPLv3, it seems quite reasonable to me; certainly not fanatic. But all the responses seems to be about grudges towards FSF rather than any real problem with the GPLv3 vs. the GPLv2. Congratulations for helping FSF convincing me that GPLv3 is a good license.
1. App A gets the clipboard owner (app B)
2. App A request from app B which mine types it can provide the clipboard contents in
3. App A chooses one, and request the data
4. App B sends the data
Not very many apps supports much of this, and a lot does it in very crazy manners. But KDE is hardly to blame for that
This makes no sense. I mean, I'm a crummy-ass computer programmer, and I can see tons of problems with it just from that outline.
Fair enough, let me elucidate you then :)
What if I copy the cells from OO.net Calc, then close Calc, then paste into GIMP? Does the OS actually boot up a new copy of Calc specifically to ask it how to paste the data in? What about if the file that was opened in Calc was on a network drive that's no longer available? What about if I copied the cells, then deleted Calc from my HD?
If the application closes, the clipboard data is gone, thus the some-parent-upwards complaint about this. An application (like Klipper) could and does intercept this and store the clipboard data "in the last minute", but as outlined below this has it's drawback. It currently works for text only, but if you feel brave, you can enable the code I wrote to have limited support for images. But beware that L. Lunak disabled my code for a reason: X application are not used to having this feature, and does really, really silly things with especially the selection clipboard.
Whoever designed that part of X didn't think it through very well. OS X and Windows work in all these cases, as far as I can determine.On the other hand, this lets applications make data available in many formats. So even if application A only understands a limited number of formats, application B can let the data be available in many formats without wasting a ton of memory and bandwidth. A good example is images... a given application might offer the selected (or copied) image in GIF, PNG, SVG, RAW, BMP, JPG, TIFF, MMG and maybe a custom one meant for internal copying with some extra, application specific data. If this was to work without application B being online, the clipboard would have to store all these formats, or only offer limited conversions. Personally, I think the design is fair enough, but it is too cumbersome to use without a good toolkit doing the hard lifting. QT provides this, but not all application were written in QT. (no idea about GTK and friends).
I don't know how this works in Windows or OSX, but I'm sure someone else can tell you :)
Last I read it, the FSF are asking the community whether that clause will apply to deals entered into before a specific date or not. That doesn't sound fanatic to me, and it's a good question whether letting that clause apply to everyone or everyone from this day on is the best thing to do in the long run. I'm undecided myself.
Besides, when SuSE entered that deal, they knew very well that GPLv3 would get them into trouble, so my sympathy is limited.
So, the answer to my question is... that the reason to fork GPLv3-to-be project is merely a dislike of FSF? Not the license? Seems... very unpragmatic to me.
Nothing to do with C++, indirect calling does that... which you have to explicitly state if you want it in C++ (the virtual keyword). And C++'s killer feature, templates, makes thing go faster in some cases... qsort is only half the speed of std::sort for this reason.
This isn't true, X supports any mine types, and support negotiation between apps. Goes like this, if I recall correctly
Not very many apps supports much of this, and a lot does it in very crazy manners. But KDE is hardly to blame for that :)
That was a long rant. Anyway, you might want to check out Klipper, which fixes all that except the network thing and vim integration... the latter being a vim problem, I'd say, xemacs works as expected. You have to configure it correctly to get the behaviour you want... Wild guess would be synchronize, keep 200 items in your case, prevent empty clipboard. If the popup on links etc annoys you, you might want to disable action.
Problem solved :)
PS: You are wrong about the Gnome keyboard, that is an X feature. It is called PRIMARY clipboard, if I recall correctly. (The other one is SELECTION, I think).
P.P.S: Those that really want it like windows might want to disable sync, hit "ignore selection", set the history to 1, hit "prevent empty clipboard" and disable actions.
Not really, because the kernel is explicitly states it is licensed under version 2. To quote the COPYING file:
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.Bits and pieces are GPLv2 or later, though