Which reminds me, wasn't there a story here on/. about some company taking photos of everyone's house then selling that info to banks and insurance companies?
I don't know where this nonsense that science and religion doesn't collide has its roots in.
Religions, christianity in particular, makes loads of factual claims. About the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of human civilization, the age of human civilization (even for old earth creationists, the age of actual *human* civilization still happens before domestication of the dog) the origin of language (and cultural) diversity, the origin of illness (demons) the origin of natural catastrophes (God's wraith) and utilitarian measures to prevent them (don't raise the God's wraith), practical advise to bring miracles (praying) a whole lot of historical narration, and many other things.
True, those who want to think that science and christianity aren't in conflict are constantly *reinterpreting* the bible and admit their belief were wrong (not the bible itself, only their interpretation of it). "But! These other things are true" they insist, it starts all over again, always in constant opposition.
Summarily, religion is in harmony with science in the same way copyright lasts for limited times only.
What really irritates me is that they still use religious elaborations in their arguments. Example:
Senator: I'm not legalizing gay marriage, it's immoral. Atheist: Says who? Senator: God, in the bible. Atheist: There is no God. Senator: Nonsense! Of course there is a God, who created the world then? Atheist: Evolution explains life, physics and chemistry explain the rest, the big bang explains the shape of the universe. Senator: But those are theories you invented, do you have any reason to believe this? Atheist: As a matter of fact I do *hands down a mountain of evidence the size of the Everest* Senator: Wow that's pretty heavy evidence! Atheist: Y'see? Everything is explained by a limited amount of rules and cosmological constants. Senator: But who invented these rules and constants? Atheist: We don't know. We don't even know if the question makes sense. Senator: Aha! God invented them! That's my theory! Atheist: Okay... what would it imply? Senator: That I'm still not legalizing Gay Marriage
Yes, and shouldn't there be a difference in use or intent also? 120 years and I can't make a mix cd for my father because we'll all be dead, 5 years and Sony et all will start giving ad-paid free music away. The rights for personal use, commercial use, international use, derivative use, educative use, corporate use, individual use, non-profits use, etc can't be the same, that's insane.
And there of course is the case that different media may have different optimal copyright spans.
Of the top of my head, this isn't an exhaustive list:
Kioslaves, does away with the differences between where a file is and how can you get it or what can you do with it. Also kioslaves encoding of music using virtual folders. Video preview in kde's file dialog. Gimp's machine vision for extracting objects from the background, probably the first use of machine vision on desktops outside of OCR Gnome's integration of evolution and the clock applet (before windows any way, another OS may have prior art) Gnome's fast user switching applet (prior art any?) KDE's and Gnome's categorized (and fully localized) application menus. Yeah sure they didn't invent the start menu but anyone that has used these menus can see how superior they are to the vendor based ones. Live CD. I don't think MS nor Apple are even going to attempt this. QNX had it befroe but QNX is far from a general use desktop OS. Special mention to puppy, which is capable of writing back changes to the CD even in non RW discs Sabayon, WYSIWYG kiosk configuration. The WikiWikiWeb. Wikipedia being the poster child. Tomboy, wiki based stickers. Thunderbird's bayesian filtering of spam (prior art?) Lots of little but addictive details, like the the screen color capture tool in the color pickers in Gnome and KDE applications, KDE's even include multiple palettes.
And there are of course a lot of backend stuff that the author will choose to ignore including his CMS, Plone as others have pointed before. And let's not forget about all the closed source applications that depend on open source tools to innovate like youtube which despite being closed source is still a triumph of open source software *use*.
Has 1984 been...: a) Not read by... b) A great source of inspiration to......most politicians?
We have been calling things Orwelian for so long that it doesn't pack quite as much punch than before, which is ironic since things are getting more and Big Brother-ish than ever. What escapes me is...
Shouldn't politicians be afraid of passing laws* resembling a dystopian future in a novel about absolute fascism?
* or in this specific case, provide budget for technology...
I don't know how to express it in math and i don't really know what I'm talking about, i read this somewhere, but it may be tangentially useful for you. It gos like this:
Quartz clocks in spaceships have been found to be consistently delayed upon return to Earth, suggesting that Quartz decays faster inside a gravity well than in space. The time measures taken by these clocks have however been repeated on Earth and found correct, suggesting all physical phenomena occurs faster inside a gravity well than in space. In other words time "happens" faster here than on high orbit, and apparently according to this study time happens faster in the outer galaxies than here. So we aren't anymore moving at the same speed than the rest of the universe.
Know how would you describe in math that? Is a differential in time differentials per space differentials or something like that. IANAAP.
Because the field is completely dominated by huge corporations with great influence in Washington, free markets are incapable of demolishing, and in fact work in favor of monopolies, people are too apathetic to learn, let alone do anything about it, too scared of offending the corpogoverment and worst of all, too resentful of each other to believe they can work together for their mutual benefit.
Surely I'm safe the FBI is know for its great sense of humor.
Maybe a trap, but it may send a message
on
Will Privacy Sell?
·
· Score: 1
Like they say, if using this tool marks you as a torren^H^H^H^H^Herrorist, it is useless, but if enough people used this service it could send a message to Google/Yahoo.
Sure compared to KDE gnome is minimalist but that is a feature!!
Some, a lot, of us choosed GNOME on our own. Stop saying GNOME users only use it because it is the default desktop or because we want to disagree.
Saying that I have to mention that lately GNOME has been pulling features from under my feet, If they weren't adding features to compensate I would become very pissed about it.
I'm so used to GNOME, and find it so much more comfortable than KDE that it is probable that i'll stick with it for a long time.
And there are some indies that actually give their music for free, I just picked up this ( http://www.freakmod.ca/ ) url from another/. user's sig last week, great coding music.
I also hear a lot of OCRemix music and that is free as in beer (but not as speach).
I actually have some doubts about some company's seb site I mean these:
Fandango
College Humor
(RED)
STA Travel
TripAdvisor
Travel Ticker These ones im not sure are correct:
expotv.com
kiva.org It's weird seen a.org in that list. There should be a web service that coordinated this boycotts
Your views are mostly correct but fatally outdated, the US is no longer a nation of "freedom at all costs" and the people that originally built and ran the Internet are no longer the ones shaping its future.
The world can certainly make their own Internet but splitting the net in two will be to the detriment of everybody, the US included. Relaxing or sharing control over domain allocation can be preferable to forcing every American website to register an extra domain at WorldNet to do business overseas.
In other words, shut up, it can still play in your favor.
I'd guess everything has been said about this subject so i'll just rant. I think there is something really wrong with a wikipedia that insist on needing citations is highly aware and preventive of copywright violations and plagiarism AND has a ban on original research.
What I find really wrong of "citation vandalism" as it has been called, is that it goes against the "massive parallel knowledge" that wikipedia used to be. It used to be that if you said rubbish things they got deleted but if you said right things it stayed up there. Now been right is not enough, you have to use somebody's website, even a random website for your addition to be preserved. It puts more faith in little personal pages that collective knowledge.
Think again, this guy survives on donations, if you donate $50 to his cause, would you prefer him to spend it on food, shelter or a bus ticket to a conference, or in a suit?
It's about priorities.
And if you say that he should buy the suit because it helps get the message across... well honestly anybody who can't get over his dress code in less than 10 seconds is too shallow to pay attention to his words. The suit would be a waste anyway.
Never i said it was more than a fight between Open Source vs Closed Source.
Open Source means source is accessible to read and modify by the users. It includes both the GPL and BSD camp, this is an inclusive AND, not an OR.
>> Or to sum it up: GPL is of value for a certain group of people, BSD is of value for everyone.
That would be correct, if you define "certain group of people" as Open Source Developers (again both GPL *and* BSD camps) and everyone as Software Developers (which are still a small group of people in the larger picture).
The point is that in theory, and according to the definition of open source, GPL'd code should be good for *every* open source developer, and yet the BSD camp claims it is not good for them. why? What is wrong with GPL'd code except its inability to be taken into closed source works?
Therefore the BSD exists for the purpose of getting code into closed source projects (or, "just because").
So we only have to find why they want so, the reasons I (1) can come up with are:
a) An attempt to get cooperation with closed source developers for some purpose that is either greater than users'(2) freedoms or actually promoting it.
b) An undisclosed intent to go closed source (legal but deceiving).
c) Just because. Irresponsible apathy, a lack of interest in promoting open source software over proprietary software, which translates into a lack of interest to protect users' freedom.(3)
Neither 'b' nor 'c' care for the continued freedom of users.
If you say you choose BSD because of 'a' then I want to know *how* does this promotes the continued protection of users' freedoms...
OR
Why this particular feature is more important than the continued protection of users' freedoms.
OR
Admit you don't care about the continued protection of users' freedoms.
Any of these is a valid answer but you cannot chose "d) Because the BSD is so much more free than the GPL", *that* is bull shit.
Notes:
1) I mean "I", if you can come up with another reason to choose BSD over GPL that is not a cosmetical make up of any of the above i want to know.
2) AFAIK, plural possessives end in " s' ", oh and this is not a correction of something you said.
3) Unless you don't think the proliferation of proprietary software affect the users' freedoms, in which case you have more serious problems to solve first.
If you disagree with any of my premises say which ones and why, other wise you are just wasting characters in teh intarwebs. Oh forget it your lack of real arguments has got you +5 congratulations.
Slashdot Mirror
Which reminds me, wasn't there a story here on /. about some company taking photos of everyone's house then selling that info to banks and insurance companies?
Am I the only one who thinks they are researching this just to figure out the best spots to install
these babies.
I don't know where this nonsense that science and religion doesn't collide has its roots in.
Religions, christianity in particular, makes loads of factual claims. About the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of human civilization, the age of human civilization (even for old earth creationists, the age of actual *human* civilization still happens before domestication of the dog) the origin of language (and cultural) diversity, the origin of illness (demons) the origin of natural catastrophes (God's wraith) and utilitarian measures to prevent them (don't raise the God's wraith), practical advise to bring miracles (praying) a whole lot of historical narration, and many other things.
True, those who want to think that science and christianity aren't in conflict are constantly *reinterpreting* the bible and admit their belief were wrong (not the bible itself, only their interpretation of it). "But! These other things are true" they insist, it starts all over again, always in constant opposition.
Summarily, religion is in harmony with science in the same way copyright lasts for limited times only.
What really irritates me is that they still use religious elaborations in their arguments. Example:
Senator: I'm not legalizing gay marriage, it's immoral.
Atheist: Says who?
Senator: God, in the bible.
Atheist: There is no God.
Senator: Nonsense! Of course there is a God, who created the world then?
Atheist: Evolution explains life, physics and chemistry explain the rest, the big bang explains the shape of the universe.
Senator: But those are theories you invented, do you have any reason to believe this?
Atheist: As a matter of fact I do *hands down a mountain of evidence the size of the Everest*
Senator: Wow that's pretty heavy evidence!
Atheist: Y'see? Everything is explained by a limited amount of rules and cosmological constants.
Senator: But who invented these rules and constants?
Atheist: We don't know. We don't even know if the question makes sense.
Senator: Aha! God invented them! That's my theory!
Atheist: Okay... what would it imply?
Senator: That I'm still not legalizing Gay Marriage
Yes, and shouldn't there be a difference in use or intent also? 120 years and I can't make a mix cd for my father because we'll all be dead, 5 years and Sony et all will start giving ad-paid free music away. The rights for personal use, commercial use, international use, derivative use, educative use, corporate use, individual use, non-profits use, etc can't be the same, that's insane.
And there of course is the case that different media may have different optimal copyright spans.
For the good of all of us.
Except the ones who are dead.
Of the top of my head, this isn't an exhaustive list:
Kioslaves, does away with the differences between where a file is and how can you get it or what can you do with it.
Also kioslaves encoding of music using virtual folders.
Video preview in kde's file dialog.
Gimp's machine vision for extracting objects from the background, probably the first use of machine vision on desktops outside of OCR
Gnome's integration of evolution and the clock applet (before windows any way, another OS may have prior art)
Gnome's fast user switching applet (prior art any?)
KDE's and Gnome's categorized (and fully localized) application menus. Yeah sure they didn't invent the start menu but anyone that has used these menus can see how superior they are to the vendor based ones.
Live CD. I don't think MS nor Apple are even going to attempt this. QNX had it befroe but QNX is far from a general use desktop OS. Special mention to puppy, which is capable of writing back changes to the CD even in non RW discs
Sabayon, WYSIWYG kiosk configuration.
The WikiWikiWeb. Wikipedia being the poster child.
Tomboy, wiki based stickers.
Thunderbird's bayesian filtering of spam (prior art?)
Lots of little but addictive details, like the the screen color capture tool in the color pickers in Gnome and KDE applications, KDE's even include multiple palettes.
And there are of course a lot of backend stuff that the author will choose to ignore including his CMS, Plone as others have pointed before. And let's not forget about all the closed source applications that depend on open source tools to innovate like youtube which despite being closed source is still a triumph of open source software *use*.
Has 1984 been...: ...most politicians?
a) Not read by...
b) A great source of inspiration to...
We have been calling things Orwelian for so long that it doesn't pack quite as much punch than before, which is ironic since things are getting more and Big Brother-ish than ever. What escapes me is...
Shouldn't politicians be afraid of passing laws* resembling a dystopian future in a novel about absolute fascism?
* or in this specific case, provide budget for technology...
brilliant
I don't know how to express it in math and i don't really know what I'm talking about, i read this somewhere, but it may be tangentially useful for you. It gos like this:
Quartz clocks in spaceships have been found to be consistently delayed upon return to Earth, suggesting that Quartz decays faster inside a gravity well than in space. The time measures taken by these clocks have however been repeated on Earth and found correct, suggesting all physical phenomena occurs faster inside a gravity well than in space. In other words time "happens" faster here than on high orbit, and apparently according to this study time happens faster in the outer galaxies than here. So we aren't anymore moving at the same speed than the rest of the universe.
Know how would you describe in math that? Is a differential in time differentials per space differentials or something like that. IANAAP.
Because the field is completely dominated by huge corporations with great influence in Washington, free markets are incapable of demolishing, and in fact work in favor of monopolies, people are too apathetic to learn, let alone do anything about it, too scared of offending the corpogoverment and worst of all, too resentful of each other to believe they can work together for their mutual benefit.
obligatory penny arcade reference then http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/01/25
Surely I'm safe the FBI is know for its great sense of humor.
Like they say, if using this tool marks you as a torren^H^H^H^H^Herrorist, it is useless, but if enough people used this service it could send a message to Google/Yahoo.
Stil tor is the only real option.
For your information, I've got the address of the worst offender of them all:
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington DC
Feel free to take justice with your hands.
Sure compared to KDE gnome is minimalist but that is a feature!!
Some, a lot, of us choosed GNOME on our own. Stop saying GNOME users only use it because it is the default desktop or because we want to disagree.
Saying that I have to mention that lately GNOME has been pulling features from under my feet, If they weren't adding features to compensate I would become very pissed about it.
I'm so used to GNOME, and find it so much more comfortable than KDE that it is probable that i'll stick with it for a long time.
On the other hand, KDE 4 is coming...
And there are some indies that actually give their music for free, I just picked up this ( http://www.freakmod.ca/ ) url from another /. user's sig last week, great coding music.
I also hear a lot of OCRemix music and that is free as in beer (but not as speach).
import it: I actually have some doubts about some company's seb site
I mean these:
Fandango
College Humor
(RED)
STA Travel
TripAdvisor
Travel Ticker
These ones im not sure are correct:
expotv.com
kiva.org
It's weird seen a
It just looks like an scorpion claw in the dark, if you take it to the light you will see it is actually a bat wing...
Your views are mostly correct but fatally outdated, the US is no longer a nation of "freedom at all costs" and the people that originally built and ran the Internet are no longer the ones shaping its future.
The world can certainly make their own Internet but splitting the net in two will be to the detriment of everybody, the US included. Relaxing or sharing control over domain allocation can be preferable to forcing every American website to register an extra domain at WorldNet to do business overseas.
In other words, shut up, it can still play in your favor.
you will love you some oroboros
http://www.armorgames.com/games/oroboros.html
I'd guess everything has been said about this subject so i'll just rant. I think there is something really wrong with a wikipedia that insist on needing citations is highly aware and preventive of copywright violations and plagiarism AND has a ban on original research.
What I find really wrong of "citation vandalism" as it has been called, is that it goes against the "massive parallel knowledge" that wikipedia used to be. It used to be that if you said rubbish things they got deleted but if you said right things it stayed up there. Now been right is not enough, you have to use somebody's website, even a random website for your addition to be preserved. It puts more faith in little personal pages that collective knowledge.
Ok who's the first to write a nasty virus for these os?
Think again, this guy survives on donations, if you donate $50 to his cause, would you prefer him to spend it on food, shelter or a bus ticket to a conference, or in a suit?
It's about priorities.
And if you say that he should buy the suit because it helps get the message across... well honestly anybody who can't get over his dress code in less than 10 seconds is too shallow to pay attention to his words. The suit would be a waste anyway.
Never i said it was more than a fight between Open Source vs Closed Source.
Open Source means source is accessible to read and modify by the users. It includes both the GPL and BSD camp, this is an inclusive AND, not an OR.
>> Or to sum it up: GPL is of value for a certain group of people, BSD is of value for everyone.
That would be correct, if you define "certain group of people" as Open Source Developers (again both GPL *and* BSD camps) and everyone as Software Developers (which are still a small group of people in the larger picture).
The point is that in theory, and according to the definition of open source, GPL'd code should be good for *every* open source developer, and yet the BSD camp claims it is not good for them. why? What is wrong with GPL'd code except its inability to be taken into closed source works?
Therefore the BSD exists for the purpose of getting code into closed source projects (or, "just because").
So we only have to find why they want so, the reasons I (1) can come up with are:
a) An attempt to get cooperation with closed source developers for some purpose that is either greater than users'(2) freedoms or actually promoting it.
b) An undisclosed intent to go closed source (legal but deceiving).
c) Just because. Irresponsible apathy, a lack of interest in promoting open source software over proprietary software, which translates into a lack of interest to protect users' freedom.(3)
Neither 'b' nor 'c' care for the continued freedom of users.
If you say you choose BSD because of 'a' then I want to know *how* does this promotes the continued protection of users' freedoms...
OR
Why this particular feature is more important than the continued protection of users' freedoms.
OR
Admit you don't care about the continued protection of users' freedoms.
Any of these is a valid answer but you cannot chose "d) Because the BSD is so much more free than the GPL", *that* is bull shit.
Notes:
1) I mean "I", if you can come up with another reason to choose BSD over GPL that is not a cosmetical make up of any of the above i want to know.
2) AFAIK, plural possessives end in " s' ", oh and this is not a correction of something you said.
3) Unless you don't think the proliferation of proprietary software affect the users' freedoms, in which case you have more serious problems to solve first.
If you disagree with any of my premises say which ones and why, other wise you are just wasting characters in teh intarwebs. Oh forget it your lack of real arguments has got you +5 congratulations.
./ has turned into astroturf land.
I fear