ID can take the complexity of life and the structure of the universe itself and explain it in terms anybody who has ever been to church can understand.
It am not surprised it was Italian doctors. Thanks to the pressure of Vatican, almost any kind of medical research is now forbidden in Italy, including pre-implant diagnosis. Diagnosing the mummy must have been the only thing left allowed.
Though instinctively I am led to dissent with Google's move, rationally I can't help thinking that it is not their job to oppose the Chinese regime. It is the Chinese people's job.
if the GPL instantly cuts DRM out then the OSS community maybe limiting it's growth in the business world.
I sense a big misunderstanding here. When we talk about the GPL3 "cutting out DRM", what do we mean exactly? Do we mean that a software which enforces DRM cannot be licensed as GPL3? Or that a software that is protected by DRM cannot be licensed as GPL3? The difference is crucial.
I believe the Linux kernel will be able to enforce DRM and still be licensed as GPL3. What won't be possible is to attach a DRM protection to the Linux kernel itself.
The myth here is that science never ever said there _couldn't have been_ an Intelligent Designer. All science is saying is, "look, we can explain these things without resorting to a designer - whether there has been one or not, we dont _need_ him."
The way I see it, science says more than "a designer is not needed": it says that we have no designer.
If we are designed by natural selection (of which there is overwhelming evidence), then we are not designed by an intelligent being.
Of course, it may still be that an intelligent being designed the laws of physics, but this does not mean he designed us. If I bear a son and then he discovers electricity, it is not that I discovered electricity: my son did.
if we accept this, are we not morally compelled to stop predators killing prey in the wild?
No, I don't think we are. Because then we'd (presumably) cause the predator to starve to death. So your analogy does not hold.
But if we could do that without causing the predator or anyone else to suffer, yes. And it happens, by the way. That's what people do when they choose not to eat meat, or when they raise their dogs without feeding them meat. (not everyone knows dogs are omnivorous, unlike wolves. It is an adaptation due to the proximity with man)
My bad, I hadn't read that part about them being anesthesized.
Actually I fail to see how anesthesia can ease the pain that derives from not being able to breathe. Unless it is total anesthesia, which does not seem to be the case. But whatever.
Sorry pal, but your analogy does not hold: simply, the uncle bob who
is killed could be me (or someone I love), but the mouse that
is killed could never be me (or someone I love).
Anesthetizing and killing you uncle Bill is not wrong because it is a
cruelty to Bill: it is not. Bill does not feel pain/fear. Is is wrong
for different reasons: because 1. someone else might suffer
for his death, and 2. because that would mean anyone of us could be
killed that way. But for the mice, neither condition applies.
In other words, whereas for killing animals I would only require
* that they do not suffer or be afraid (neither during nor before the
killing);
* that no one else suffers their loss,
for killing humans I would require an ulterior condition: that they be
not in a state which I could tomorrow reach, and from which I can
hope to get out.
Note how this protects
* animals which are not anestethized (because they suffer);
* animals which are owned (because someone else suffers);
* your uncle bill (because he is in a state anyone could reach)
but it does not protect:
* human embrios, because they do are not sentient and they are in a
state which anyone could reach;
* persons in an irreversible vegetative states, because they are in a
state that I may reach but one from which I can never get out.
Therefore it can hardly be called a cruel position. Don't you agree?
Okay here's one for you: explain the eye. It either works or it doesn't. There is no evolutionary intermediate form that would function
That claim (it either works or it doesn't) is false. And the reasoning has been disproved many times, e.g. in "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins. There he explains how 1% of an eye can be useful in many ways, other than the obvious one (giving 1% sight).
Read the book, give it a try. You have clearly been exposed to sources of informations that are not impartial.
Would preventing anonymous contributions solve the problem? What is the benefit of allowing anonymity in this particular context? (just asking, don't flame:-) )
The parent made a very important point: anything has to do with the desktop, because the desktop must provide an interface for it. So, the filesystem has to do with the desktop. The font system has to do with the desktop. And so on.
If someone has time to spare, please consider addressing this user interface request. There are dozens of duplicates but no one seems to have time to implement it.
And what about text highlighting in PDFs? When I am studying a paper, I need to highlight the most important text... Maybe even adda nnotations. Does anyone know of a way to do that with GNU/linux?
SuSE is currently available for free via FTP download. It takes a while to get a system installed and up nd running, but IMHO, SuSE 9.3 is definitely worth it.
BTW, the "eval" in the filename is misleading, because this is not a crippled version of the commercial release: it contains the non-free software (acrobat reader, realplayer, etc.).
I was a former ubuntu hoary user but I switched to SUSE as the free dvd came out. To me, SUSE is one year ahead of the other distros, due to YAST.
Slashdot Mirror
It am not surprised it was Italian doctors. Thanks to the pressure of Vatican, almost any kind of medical research is now forbidden in Italy, including pre-implant diagnosis. Diagnosing the mummy must have been the only thing left allowed.
Though instinctively I am led to dissent with Google's move, rationally I can't help thinking that it is not their job to oppose the Chinese regime. It is the Chinese people's job.
I sense a big misunderstanding here. When we talk about the GPL3 "cutting out DRM", what do we mean exactly? Do we mean that a software which enforces DRM cannot be licensed as GPL3? Or that a software that is protected by DRM cannot be licensed as GPL3? The difference is crucial.
I believe the Linux kernel will be able to enforce DRM and still be licensed as GPL3. What won't be possible is to attach a DRM protection to the Linux kernel itself.
The way I see it, science says more than "a designer is not needed": it says that we have no designer.
If we are designed by natural selection (of which there is overwhelming evidence), then we are not designed by an intelligent being.
Of course, it may still be that an intelligent being designed the laws of physics, but this does not mean he designed us. If I bear a son and then he discovers electricity, it is not that I discovered electricity: my son did.
Reductio ad absurdum: "I am dying, give me a medicine". "No medicine. Death by disease is part of our nature."
Also, I don't believe the parent's post to be a good point. The predator analogy was fallacious (see my reply to the parent).
No, I don't think we are. Because then we'd (presumably) cause the predator to starve to death. So your analogy does not hold.
But if we could do that without causing the predator or anyone else to suffer, yes. And it happens, by the way. That's what people do when they choose not to eat meat, or when they raise their dogs without feeding them meat. (not everyone knows dogs are omnivorous, unlike wolves. It is an adaptation due to the proximity with man)
Actually I fail to see how anesthesia can ease the pain that derives from not being able to breathe. Unless it is total anesthesia, which does not seem to be the case. But whatever.
Sorry pal, but your analogy does not hold: simply, the uncle bob who is killed could be me (or someone I love), but the mouse that is killed could never be me (or someone I love). Anesthetizing and killing you uncle Bill is not wrong because it is a cruelty to Bill: it is not. Bill does not feel pain/fear. Is is wrong for different reasons: because 1. someone else might suffer for his death, and 2. because that would mean anyone of us could be killed that way. But for the mice, neither condition applies. In other words, whereas for killing animals I would only require * that they do not suffer or be afraid (neither during nor before the killing); * that no one else suffers their loss, for killing humans I would require an ulterior condition: that they be not in a state which I could tomorrow reach, and from which I can hope to get out. Note how this protects * animals which are not anestethized (because they suffer); * animals which are owned (because someone else suffers); * your uncle bill (because he is in a state anyone could reach) but it does not protect: * human embrios, because they do are not sentient and they are in a state which anyone could reach; * persons in an irreversible vegetative states, because they are in a state that I may reach but one from which I can never get out. Therefore it can hardly be called a cruel position. Don't you agree?
Personally I am against the killing of animals in a way that causes pain and/or fear. Even for scientific purposes.
That claim (it either works or it doesn't) is false. And the reasoning has been disproved many times, e.g. in "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins. There he explains how 1% of an eye can be useful in many ways, other than the obvious one (giving 1% sight).
Read the book, give it a try. You have clearly been exposed to sources of informations that are not impartial.
Would preventing anonymous contributions solve the problem? What is the benefit of allowing anonymity in this particular context? (just asking, don't flame :-) )
> Guidelines for GPLv3 Process Released Yes, but under what license are they?
Here is a guide for adding sources to Yast and installing proprietary applications (java, realplayer, codecs, dvd capabilities, acrobat reader...) : http://www.thejemreport.com/mambo/content/view/178 /42/
The parent made a very important point: anything has to do with the desktop, because the desktop must provide an interface for it. So, the filesystem has to do with the desktop. The font system has to do with the desktop. And so on.
becomes just
The advantage is obvious. That was C++ code, but it should be easy to find similar examples for C#.If someone has time to spare, please consider addressing this user interface request. There are dozens of duplicates but no one seems to have time to implement it.
Try the "text size toolbar" extension. You'll be delighted.
And what about text highlighting in PDFs? When I am studying a paper, I need to highlight the most important text... Maybe even adda nnotations. Does anyone know of a way to do that with GNU/linux?
Every once in a while someone comes up who says so. Later it turns up he has misunderstood the theory of evolution, or was just spreading FUD.
So, what exacly are you referring to?
Yes, but it's the opposite, i.e. the absence of intelligent design, that has been proved.
PS: I suggest reading the books "Darwin's dangerous idea" and "The selfish gene".
I downloaded the DVD image here: ftp://ftp-stud.fht-esslingen.de/pub/Mirrors/ftp.su se.com/pub/suse/i386/9.3/iso/SUSE-9.3-Eval-DVD.iso
BTW, the "eval" in the filename is misleading, because this is not a crippled version of the commercial release: it contains the non-free software (acrobat reader, realplayer, etc.).
I was a former ubuntu hoary user but I switched to SUSE as the free dvd came out. To me, SUSE is one year ahead of the other distros, due to YAST.