Nope, the mechanism for evolution involves differential reproductive success ("survival of the fittest"), but there is absolutely no "moral principle." The Theory of Evolution doesn't say whether it's good or bad or whocares to survive and reproduce.
You are mostly correct. The mechanism for evolution also involves the subsequent survival of the species whereas the offspring needs to live long enough to reproduce. While there is no such thing as "moral principle of evolution" the mechanics involved probably produced what we perceive as morality in order for our species to succeed. The unmoral ones were probably killed, killed others, weren't appealing enough to successfully breed, or didn't have offspring that lived long enough to breed. This may anger some of the spiritual folks reading this, but I remember a paper that hypothesized that religious disposition is instinctual and a product of evolution since the population that believed in a higher being were more successful than the population with no such beliefs (Google "Evolutionary psychology of religion").
The irony being that a corollary of the theory is that atheists act against evolutionary forces and are actually a detriment to society.;)
I agree atheism can signify a quantity or quality of religion similar to the way black is considered a color despite the absence of light and zero is considered a number despite signifying a null value. However most atheist activists consider being lumped into a religion of their own an insult since they strive to be the anti-religion free from the qualities of religion which can be disruptive in society (e.g. terrorist attacks, wars, bigotry).
Of course the problem is not necessary religion but human nature. It is human nature to find a justification for one's actions and use those justifications to act in unison with others with similar beliefs. It is also human nature to solicit the company of others with similar beliefs. This association doesn't have to be religious in nature. It can be political. The dogma that unite Republicans, Democrats, PACs, Boy Scouts, Home Owners associations, and even a group of atheists can be the catalyst for good or bad actions.
Probably the same reason atheists label all people of faith as "worshippers", "fanatics", or whatever. The overwhelming majority of atheists and spiritual individuals are laid back and don't advertise their disposition. However the ones that do make their beliefs (or lack thereof) known usually earn the label 'raging', 'cynic', 'fanatic', 'extremist', etc. and stigmatize the remaining likeminded population.
Personally, I think if they do not respond, then the site should try to contact them - if they still do not respond (after a suitably lengthy time) then it should re-assign you as the new owner.
The length of time to wait is much longer than you want. The original author of the project still owns the copyright and the rights to the name of the project. The best option is to fork the project and start fresh.
it is a problem that is unique to open source, but the part that is unique is that it's not a problem in open source. Because the source is open, "legacy" and "discontinued" software can still be maintained and used by however small a community of users wish to keep it alive.
This is not necessarily true. Poor documentation seems to be the norm for the smaller (and some larger) FOSS projects hosted on Sourceforge and Github. If the project is dead (as in no activity) don't expect to be able to dust it off and start anew. Support is practically non-existant and you would probably be better off searching for an alternative. There is usually a good reason for the project's demise like a better alternative replaced it, it was ill-conceived from the start, or the program was useful for a very small number of people.
Being open source isn't enough to keep a project going nor is it a guarantee of longevity.
The summary make BitTorrent equivalent to Pirate Bay. Sure the movie executives believes this but nothing can be farther than the truth. Of course, their logic sounds quite similar to the one used in the gun control debate.
They believe that if they get rid of BitTorrent then it would make piracy less convenient. Little do they realize that the hard core infringers will just move on to the next tool to use.
Why is it that a Slashdot community filled with raging atheists...
If it makes you feel better the article points out that the raging atheists have a disadvantage against people who are upbeat due to a spiritual belief. So take solace in knowing that like a scorpion that stung the frog, raging atheists do it because it is their nature.
Having it included in the kernel would make it production ready on a wider range of distributions but it doesn't prevent it from being "Production Ready". It can be "Production Ready" for RHEL 6 and derivatives. It just requires a little more work from the administrator. This is not as big an issue as you make it out to be since other things outside of the kernel must be considered anytime an update needs to be made within a production environment.
I wouldn't purchase a lock that charged me every time I locked or unlocked my door.
I'm more concerned about patent laws designed to limit free market options than I am about the existence of DRM. In other words, I rather have the ability to purchase a traditional lock than worry about someone else choosing to have your subscription based lock. More so since we are really talking about media (e.g. music, movies, or books) that I can do without.
Yes we all know that like locks on doors, DRM keep honest people honest. However the existence burglars doesn't justify the elimination of locking doors. Some people would take this to the next logical step of securing the windows.
My point being that DRMs apparent inability to eliminate piracy isn't justification enough to eliminate DRM.
I just looked it up on iFixit. You are correct this is practically a disposable phone. I'm pretty sure any repair involves getting a refurbished unit in exchange.
So you prefer buying a new phone instead of a second battery...
I'll bet there will soon be a battery replacement kit for the HTC One that the mechanically and electronically inclined individuals can purchase.
Besides, while your mileage may vary, I'm still using my original user-replaceable battery on my four year old Android phone. It's not like they are the unreliable Ni-Cad batteries of the previous decade.
Google's own Nexus 4 doesn't have an SD slot, which leads me to believe that even Google would rather deprecate SD card support. I have an Android phone with an SD slot and as far as the Apps I use are concerned I might as well not have it. Besides I don't really need to carry more than 64 GB of data anyway and I doubt the majority of the users need to either.
I've heard the same thing. However, a corporate level T-Mobile representative informed me that they would eventually enable LTE features on the Nexus 4. I have very serious doubts about the accuracy of that claim and believe that is where the rumor of a disabled only LTE modem originated.
Re:But CS is not IT and people who do academic pap
on
The Eternal Mainframe
·
· Score: 1
I'm not so sure that is entirely true. I do not believe data centers (at least the good ones) are complete void of CS people. IT people who maintain an infrastructure do not work inside a vacuum. They are either influenced directly by CS people within their organization, or indirectly by the computing appliances or applications that they maintain.
I'm afraid a lot of low level techs become scape goats for high level techs that should have known better. I thought we already have tech schools that train low level IT workers. The ones at my place of work have trained at these institutions and are continuously trained through vendor provided seminars and in-house training. I don't think the shortage is entirely from the lack of talent or pre-occupational training. I think a lot of problems can be attributed by the lack of continuing training while employed. I know of several companies which hired techs to do nothing but keep the network up. They don't provide training and their requirement to run a legacy network running a custom built application several years old are satisfied. However when compared to their colleagues that work elsewhere they begin to look like IT lay people who are ill-equipped to handle modern applications or security requirements.
Most these businesses keep their in-house IT far way from the internet except for the email that is provided by an off-site service. Then one day a middle manager will go to a retreat, learn how they can improve their business by integrating with social media and whatever other buzzwords are offered, returns and tells their "sheltered" IT department to make it so. This is where the news making blunders are made...
I may have to be more explicit by stating that the computing unit size of small computing platforms is such that allows scalability in power from the end-user up. This scalability is accessible to more people and therefore encourages a change in the field of computing.
The unit size of large computing platforms (i.e. mainframes) do not encourage such scalability. Multiple mainframes in a data center may increase data processing power at that central location but doesn't encourage a shift of computing power downwards and looks basically the same to most of the people making use of the extra power.
Slashdot Mirror
I was replying to epyT-R's comment which began with "Why is it that worshipers label all atheists as 'raging'..."
It was not my intent to blanket that assertion to all atheists. I would have said "Probably the same reason all atheists label all..." which I didn't.
You are mostly correct. The mechanism for evolution also involves the subsequent survival of the species whereas the offspring needs to live long enough to reproduce. While there is no such thing as "moral principle of evolution" the mechanics involved probably produced what we perceive as morality in order for our species to succeed. The unmoral ones were probably killed, killed others, weren't appealing enough to successfully breed, or didn't have offspring that lived long enough to breed. This may anger some of the spiritual folks reading this, but I remember a paper that hypothesized that religious disposition is instinctual and a product of evolution since the population that believed in a higher being were more successful than the population with no such beliefs (Google "Evolutionary psychology of religion").
The irony being that a corollary of the theory is that atheists act against evolutionary forces and are actually a detriment to society. ;)
I agree atheism can signify a quantity or quality of religion similar to the way black is considered a color despite the absence of light and zero is considered a number despite signifying a null value. However most atheist activists consider being lumped into a religion of their own an insult since they strive to be the anti-religion free from the qualities of religion which can be disruptive in society (e.g. terrorist attacks, wars, bigotry).
Of course the problem is not necessary religion but human nature. It is human nature to find a justification for one's actions and use those justifications to act in unison with others with similar beliefs. It is also human nature to solicit the company of others with similar beliefs. This association doesn't have to be religious in nature. It can be political. The dogma that unite Republicans, Democrats, PACs, Boy Scouts, Home Owners associations, and even a group of atheists can be the catalyst for good or bad actions.
Probably the same reason atheists label all people of faith as "worshippers", "fanatics", or whatever. The overwhelming majority of atheists and spiritual individuals are laid back and don't advertise their disposition. However the ones that do make their beliefs (or lack thereof) known usually earn the label 'raging', 'cynic', 'fanatic', 'extremist', etc. and stigmatize the remaining likeminded population.
The length of time to wait is much longer than you want. The original author of the project still owns the copyright and the rights to the name of the project. The best option is to fork the project and start fresh.
This is not necessarily true. Poor documentation seems to be the norm for the smaller (and some larger) FOSS projects hosted on Sourceforge and Github. If the project is dead (as in no activity) don't expect to be able to dust it off and start anew. Support is practically non-existant and you would probably be better off searching for an alternative. There is usually a good reason for the project's demise like a better alternative replaced it, it was ill-conceived from the start, or the program was useful for a very small number of people.
Being open source isn't enough to keep a project going nor is it a guarantee of longevity.
The summary make BitTorrent equivalent to Pirate Bay. Sure the movie executives believes this but nothing can be farther than the truth. Of course, their logic sounds quite similar to the one used in the gun control debate.
They believe that if they get rid of BitTorrent then it would make piracy less convenient. Little do they realize that the hard core infringers will just move on to the next tool to use.
If it makes you feel better the article points out that the raging atheists have a disadvantage against people who are upbeat due to a spiritual belief. So take solace in knowing that like a scorpion that stung the frog, raging atheists do it because it is their nature.
(BTW this is tongue-in-cheek)
I would like to add that having the file system included in the kernel does give it more weight when deciding which file system to use.
Having it included in the kernel would make it production ready on a wider range of distributions but it doesn't prevent it from being "Production Ready". It can be "Production Ready" for RHEL 6 and derivatives. It just requires a little more work from the administrator. This is not as big an issue as you make it out to be since other things outside of the kernel must be considered anytime an update needs to be made within a production environment.
Incompatible license prevents ZFS inclusion with the kernel. This is why Btrfs exists and explains Oracle's involvement with both.
Again the determination of thieves alone isn't justification enough to eliminate locks.
I wouldn't purchase a lock that charged me every time I locked or unlocked my door.
I'm more concerned about patent laws designed to limit free market options than I am about the existence of DRM. In other words, I rather have the ability to purchase a traditional lock than worry about someone else choosing to have your subscription based lock. More so since we are really talking about media (e.g. music, movies, or books) that I can do without.
Do you honestly think they are going to change it for the better? What did the media corporation's political donation check bounced?
Which is exactly my point. They already done enough damage. There isn't any need to make things worse.
Yes we all know that like locks on doors, DRM keep honest people honest. However the existence burglars doesn't justify the elimination of locking doors. Some people would take this to the next logical step of securing the windows.
My point being that DRMs apparent inability to eliminate piracy isn't justification enough to eliminate DRM.
We need to do the copyright law what we did for patents. What is wrong with enforcing the laws we have?
I just looked it up on iFixit. You are correct this is practically a disposable phone. I'm pretty sure any repair involves getting a refurbished unit in exchange.
I agree that it will either be a Nexus 4+ or a Nexus 4 with a different model number (T-Mobile specific).
I'll bet there will soon be a battery replacement kit for the HTC One that the mechanically and electronically inclined individuals can purchase.
Besides, while your mileage may vary, I'm still using my original user-replaceable battery on my four year old Android phone. It's not like they are the unreliable Ni-Cad batteries of the previous decade.
Google's own Nexus 4 doesn't have an SD slot, which leads me to believe that even Google would rather deprecate SD card support. I have an Android phone with an SD slot and as far as the Apps I use are concerned I might as well not have it. Besides I don't really need to carry more than 64 GB of data anyway and I doubt the majority of the users need to either.
I've heard the same thing. However, a corporate level T-Mobile representative informed me that they would eventually enable LTE features on the Nexus 4. I have very serious doubts about the accuracy of that claim and believe that is where the rumor of a disabled only LTE modem originated.
Schwit1 is sending traffic to the verge.
I'm not so sure that is entirely true. I do not believe data centers (at least the good ones) are complete void of CS people. IT people who maintain an infrastructure do not work inside a vacuum. They are either influenced directly by CS people within their organization, or indirectly by the computing appliances or applications that they maintain.
I'm afraid a lot of low level techs become scape goats for high level techs that should have known better. I thought we already have tech schools that train low level IT workers. The ones at my place of work have trained at these institutions and are continuously trained through vendor provided seminars and in-house training. I don't think the shortage is entirely from the lack of talent or pre-occupational training. I think a lot of problems can be attributed by the lack of continuing training while employed. I know of several companies which hired techs to do nothing but keep the network up. They don't provide training and their requirement to run a legacy network running a custom built application several years old are satisfied. However when compared to their colleagues that work elsewhere they begin to look like IT lay people who are ill-equipped to handle modern applications or security requirements.
Most these businesses keep their in-house IT far way from the internet except for the email that is provided by an off-site service. Then one day a middle manager will go to a retreat, learn how they can improve their business by integrating with social media and whatever other buzzwords are offered, returns and tells their "sheltered" IT department to make it so. This is where the news making blunders are made...
I may have to be more explicit by stating that the computing unit size of small computing platforms is such that allows scalability in power from the end-user up. This scalability is accessible to more people and therefore encourages a change in the field of computing.
The unit size of large computing platforms (i.e. mainframes) do not encourage such scalability. Multiple mainframes in a data center may increase data processing power at that central location but doesn't encourage a shift of computing power downwards and looks basically the same to most of the people making use of the extra power.