I personally look forward to helping bring Cocoa to OpenJDK and hope I'm not alone.
The BSD-port of OpenJDK already run on OS X. I don't know if they support using Cocoa yet but their mailing list would probably be a nice place to start looking for others that are interested in working on Cocoa support in OpenJDK.
even better just bribe the politicians to make what they are doing not illegal.
It's not always smart to make what you are doing legal. In many areas that would really destroy your profits. Just imagine what would happen to the market for illegal drugs if everyone could manufacture and import drugs legally.
It's erroneous to use these newer translations as evidence of bias against homosexuality in the Bible. Since the word "homosexual" was inserted INTO these passages sometime after the mid-19th century, and since the word took on a negative connotation rather quickly (it was looked at as a medical ailment), it is obvious that churches as the time were trying to retrofit the Bible to their current beliefs, not the other way around.
The Bible was not written in English. It is translated to it. English is a living language. Sometimes a new word, like "homosexual", appear in English. That new word can make translating the Bible easier. In the original Greek you have the term "arsenokoites". It comes from the terms "arrhen" and "koite" that, according to Strongs dictionary, has the meaning "male (as stronger for lifting):--male, man" and "a couch; by extension, cohabitation; by implication, the male sperm:--bed, chambering, X conceive". Strong explains "arsenokoites" as "a sodomite:--abuser of (that defile) self with mankind." The 1611 King James Bible translate "arsenokoites" in 1. Tim 1:10 as "them that defile themselves with mankind". In current English the more precise term "homosexual" exist. So a translation to modern English should use it.
In that case I'm sure you could explain to me why it would be wrong if I killed random people on the street with a flamethrower. That is: explain it without using religious arguments, including implicitly religious arguments. As long as you don't I hope you will forgive my doubts about the truthfulness of your statement.
Hitler was Catholic after all.
I'm not a Catholic so I can't speak for them. However I would guess that Hitlers behavior, not to mention his complains about Christianity, somehow would disqualify him. (Catholics believe in Matthew 7:20, right?) To quote Hitler: "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?" What a politician claim to be in public aren't always the same as what they really are.
(Godwin's law as well)
Your point is? The fact that the nazis did the experiments have no relevance for my argument. They would have been just as cruel had they been done by someone else. Stopping the research would still have helped the victims.
Ya. I mean all those people who didn't want penicillin, modern plumbing, flight, electricity, smallpox vaccines, the internet you're typing this on, etc. are doing so well.
The claim I was responding to was that distrust of intellectualism was blocking the advancement of society on a wide variety of fronts. That statement could include more then just harmless technological progress. One example of where someone may want to "advance" society is towards the tyranny of the "intellectuals" over the commoners (in the name of helping since commoners would make the "wrong" decision if they could choose). Another example is towards cannibalistic cures where you kill one human to treat others. Alternatively it could be towards something positive (like the Internet). So I asked towards what goal the advancement would be and pointed out that there are "advancements" many don't want. (Don't pretend that you would want all possible advancements of society. I'm quite sure that you wouldn't want advancements towards, lets say, more biblical ideas in society)
The extreme distrust of intellectualism throughout the US in particular is a major block in the advancement of society on a wide variety of fronts, and most often that distrust is manufactured as a form of religious views attacking scientific foundations and research.
Advancement towards what exactly? Have you ever considered that not everyone want to go in the direction you want to "advance" them?
Unfortunately the government kept the hand of the Free market away. Read Curing Cancer: A Patent Impossibility (written in 2007) for the details. Here is an excerpt:
The bad news is that it is a simple, inexpensive chemical long used in medicine, and is not patentable. Thus there is no mechanism for getting the chemical (dichloroacetate, DCA) past the billion-dollar barrier of FDA approval.
I agree with Albert Pierrepoint who after hanging around 400 people (including a friend) came to the conclusion that capital punishment is not justice, it's formalised revenge.
Just to be clear: Are you saying that it isn't just to formally revenge the victim? (Of course given that the real murderer is executed, that he got a fair trial, that the murder wasn't an accident etc) If you are saying that: what do you believe is just in a murder case?
I mean, how DARE they provide better health care for less money than we do and make our capitalist health care system look bad?
European here. I've been waiting almost a year now in a line to get an operation for a painful condition that I was told by the doctors could become permanent unless treated fast. So if "you will get treated fast" is in your definition of better I'm afraid I have to disappoint you.
I thought the whole point of HTML5 video was to have it work in every standards-compliant browser...
It was. It was specified that browsers playing HTML 5 video should support Ogg Theora, the codec that Firefox 3.5 among others uses. But it was removed after pressure from Apple and Nokia.
On the bright side Ogg Theora is supported by Firefox 3.5, Opera say they will support it, Google Chrome is on board, Safari can be made to support it by installing Theora codecs for QiuctTime and there are ways to make other browsers support it as well. So the problem is solved on the publisher side: publish in Ogg Theora. Hopefully this will put enough content coded in Ogg Theora out there to make it a de facto standard that solves the problem on the viewer side as well by pressuring webpages like Youtube to offer it and Safari and IE to implement it.
All I get is a Youtube page with all the thumbnails and videos empty/black (FF3.5).
Unfortunately Youtube currently uses H.264, a codec that don't work with Firefox 3.5. H.264 probably won't work in Firefox until the patent situation around it changes.
You forgot to mention that the subsidies mostly go to newspapers that our old overlords like. They even admit it them self: Ottar Grepstad, the leader of Kulturrådet, said to the extreme left newspaper Kalssekampen that he is happy to be called "highest editor"* (article in Norwegian) when he removed the subsidies for papers he didn't like**. One of the newspapers loosing the subsidies, the Christian Right newspaper Norge IDAG*** said it quite well: (my translation) "It's not that we believe the state has a duty to give us subsidies. But when there are subsidies for some newspapers there should be subsidies for all."
* is there a better way I can translate "overredaktør"?
** "Make a better paper!" Grepstad (my translation from an article from the press conference were it was announced)
*** that probably lost their subsidies for being (as far as I know) the only Christian Right newspaper in Norway. So much for the argument that subsidies are here to ensure diverse political views.
That isn't enough. The driver still needs to be able to talk to the hardware, so it can basically do anything. Lock up the PCI bus. DMA stuff to the wrong memory address.
Not if the computer uses an IOMMU. And even if it don't you will block one way the driver can corrupt memory by putting it in user space. Assuming the driver is not malicious that will reduce the chance for the driver corrupting memory significantly.
Like, there's only one Linux kernel, only one C compiler, only one bash shell.. only one Perl, only one Java...
You are correct that there are only one Linux kernel, but there are other freeUNIX kernels you could use instead. When it comes to compilers both LLVM and GCC are widely used. (LLVM is used in Gallum3D, the new acceleration architecture for X, and in Shark, a CPU agnostic JIT for OpenJDK. A C frontend not based on GCC is in development) There are many shells. Ubuntu, a quite popular Linux distro, actually uses dash as default/bin/sh. While it's true that only OpenJDK (if I recall correctly) passes the TCK for Java you also have competing implementations like Harmony, what Google uses on Android. You have more competition on the parts of the Java stack that takes lesstime to implement.
That and I really dont want "normal people" trying to find codecs on google--most of the hits for "$AWESOME_CODEC" are usually just spyware installers.
Firefox 3.5 won't have support for other codecs than those that are built in (various Xiph codecs (Vorbis, Theora) and Wav). Since it won't be possible to install extra codecs for use in Firefox Firefox won't contribute to "normal people" installing random codecs from the net. If/when support forsystemcodecs land (probably after 3.5) you may get the problem you describe.
I think you misunderstand what Coreboot is. Coreboot initializes the hardware that needs to be initialized and then give the control to a payload. That payload can be the Linux kernel, SeaBIOS (that implements a legacy BIOS so you can boot systems like Windows), OpenFirmware or, if somebody did the work to make it happend, an EFI implementation like GNUFI. So what you want (an EFI loader) would just be a payload, not a part of CoreBoot. I think the reason why people are giving priority to a BIOS implementation (SeaBIOS) over EFI is how much code you can get running by adding BIOS support compared to how much you can get by adding EFI.
Actually, Coreboot is faster. The record from power on to Linux login is, according to their FAQ, 3 seconds. Writing it in C speeds up development compared to writing it in assembly and allows compilers to optimize it.
But once in a while the manufacturer suggests installing another BIOS, which is available only as an executable. This, clearly, is installing a non-free program--it is just as bad as installing Microsoft Windows, or Adobe Photoshop. As the unethical practice of installing another BIOS executable becomes common, the version delivered inside the computer starts to raise an ethical problem issue as well.
Reyk Floeter, an OpenBSD developer, explains his position like this:
there is a major difference between binary blobs and firmware images; the blobs are loaded as code into the OS kernel, but
the firmware runs directly on the device on crappy embedded micro CPUs. asking the vendors for releasing their firmware source code is
just ridiculous or a nightmare since I don't even want to see this code
I believe that the OP referred to that OpenBSD have been quite strong in their opposition to blobs in the OS. On the other hand they don't seem to mind unfree firmware.
How does the process that creates the.NET spec compare to the Java Community Process that create the Java spec? (The spec that Sun's Java is an implementation of) Is.NET only MS deciding what.NET is or is ECMA involved? Just wondering since you said that the.NET platform is as propitiatory as ever.
Are the mayor really allowed to do this? Last time New Orleans had an evacuation there where looting of the abandoned properties. Should it not be up to the owners to them self decide if staying behind to defend it is worth the risk or not?
Disclaimer: I am European. I don't think the government would have any problem doing it here. But are not Americans more concerned about their liberty (for example to risk drowning and looters) then we are?
Linux distros are a huge pissing contest between egoistical morons who instead of contributing to one distribution fork and rob distros of the already scarce resource - the free developer.
How can they rob the distros of something they don't own? If they can I think you right now are robbing me of the $10 000 you could have given me.
Nobody is going to ship proprietary commercial bits using apt or whatever crappy management software is out there.
That is not a problem unless you want "proprietary commercial bits". If you want it please don't believe you have a right to force those that don't to make it easier to get it. (But feel free to do it yourself or motivate in a positive way others to do it)
Slashdot Mirror
The BSD-port of OpenJDK already run on OS X. I don't know if they support using Cocoa yet but their mailing list would probably be a nice place to start looking for others that are interested in working on Cocoa support in OpenJDK.
even better just bribe the politicians to make what they are doing not illegal.
It's not always smart to make what you are doing legal. In many areas that would really destroy your profits. Just imagine what would happen to the market for illegal drugs if everyone could manufacture and import drugs legally.
It's erroneous to use these newer translations as evidence of bias against homosexuality in the Bible. Since the word "homosexual" was inserted INTO these passages sometime after the mid-19th century, and since the word took on a negative connotation rather quickly (it was looked at as a medical ailment), it is obvious that churches as the time were trying to retrofit the Bible to their current beliefs, not the other way around.
The Bible was not written in English. It is translated to it. English is a living language. Sometimes a new word, like "homosexual", appear in English. That new word can make translating the Bible easier. In the original Greek you have the term "arsenokoites". It comes from the terms "arrhen" and "koite" that, according to Strongs dictionary, has the meaning "male (as stronger for lifting):--male, man" and "a couch; by extension, cohabitation; by implication, the male sperm:--bed, chambering, X conceive". Strong explains "arsenokoites" as "a sodomite:--abuser of (that defile) self with mankind." The 1611 King James Bible translate "arsenokoites" in 1. Tim 1:10 as "them that defile themselves with mankind". In current English the more precise term "homosexual" exist. So a translation to modern English should use it.
Religion != morality.
In that case I'm sure you could explain to me why it would be wrong if I killed random people on the street with a flamethrower. That is: explain it without using religious arguments, including implicitly religious arguments. As long as you don't I hope you will forgive my doubts about the truthfulness of your statement.
Hitler was Catholic after all.
I'm not a Catholic so I can't speak for them. However I would guess that Hitlers behavior, not to mention his complains about Christianity, somehow would disqualify him. (Catholics believe in Matthew 7:20, right?) To quote Hitler: "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?" What a politician claim to be in public aren't always the same as what they really are.
(Godwin's law as well)
Your point is? The fact that the nazis did the experiments have no relevance for my argument. They would have been just as cruel had they been done by someone else. Stopping the research would still have helped the victims.
Throwing religious rhetoric around to stifle scientific advancement helps no one.
In some cases it would (had my rhetoric been enough to stop them).
The claim I was responding to was that distrust of intellectualism was blocking the advancement of society on a wide variety of fronts. That statement could include more then just harmless technological progress. One example of where someone may want to "advance" society is towards the tyranny of the "intellectuals" over the commoners (in the name of helping since commoners would make the "wrong" decision if they could choose). Another example is towards cannibalistic cures where you kill one human to treat others. Alternatively it could be towards something positive (like the Internet). So I asked towards what goal the advancement would be and pointed out that there are "advancements" many don't want. (Don't pretend that you would want all possible advancements of society. I'm quite sure that you wouldn't want advancements towards, lets say, more biblical ideas in society)
Advancement towards what exactly? Have you ever considered that not everyone want to go in the direction you want to "advance" them?
Unfortunately the government kept the hand of the Free market away. Read Curing Cancer: A Patent Impossibility (written in 2007) for the details. Here is an excerpt:
I agree with Albert Pierrepoint who after hanging around 400 people (including a friend) came to the conclusion that capital punishment is not justice, it's formalised revenge.
Just to be clear: Are you saying that it isn't just to formally revenge the victim? (Of course given that the real murderer is executed, that he got a fair trial, that the murder wasn't an accident etc) If you are saying that: what do you believe is just in a murder case?
European here. I've been waiting almost a year now in a line to get an operation for a painful condition that I was told by the doctors could become permanent unless treated fast. So if "you will get treated fast" is in your definition of better I'm afraid I have to disappoint you.
It was. It was specified that browsers playing HTML 5 video should support Ogg Theora, the codec that Firefox 3.5 among others uses. But it was removed after pressure from Apple and Nokia.
On the bright side Ogg Theora is supported by Firefox 3.5, Opera say they will support it, Google Chrome is on board, Safari can be made to support it by installing Theora codecs for QiuctTime and there are ways to make other browsers support it as well. So the problem is solved on the publisher side: publish in Ogg Theora. Hopefully this will put enough content coded in Ogg Theora out there to make it a de facto standard that solves the problem on the viewer side as well by pressuring webpages like Youtube to offer it and Safari and IE to implement it.
Unfortunately Youtube currently uses H.264, a codec that don't work with Firefox 3.5. H.264 probably won't work in Firefox until the patent situation around it changes.
You forgot to mention that the subsidies mostly go to newspapers that our old overlords like. They even admit it them self: Ottar Grepstad, the leader of Kulturrådet, said to the extreme left newspaper Kalssekampen that he is happy to be called "highest editor"* (article in Norwegian) when he removed the subsidies for papers he didn't like**. One of the newspapers loosing the subsidies, the Christian Right newspaper Norge IDAG*** said it quite well: (my translation) "It's not that we believe the state has a duty to give us subsidies. But when there are subsidies for some newspapers there should be subsidies for all."
* is there a better way I can translate "overredaktør"?
** "Make a better paper!" Grepstad (my translation from an article from the press conference were it was announced)
*** that probably lost their subsidies for being (as far as I know) the only Christian Right newspaper in Norway. So much for the argument that subsidies are here to ensure diverse political views.
Not if the computer uses an IOMMU. And even if it don't you will block one way the driver can corrupt memory by putting it in user space. Assuming the driver is not malicious that will reduce the chance for the driver corrupting memory significantly.
It's true.
You are correct that there are only one Linux kernel, but there are other free UNIX kernels you could use instead. When it comes to compilers both LLVM and GCC are widely used. (LLVM is used in Gallum3D, the new acceleration architecture for X, and in Shark, a CPU agnostic JIT for OpenJDK. A C frontend not based on GCC is in development) There are many shells. Ubuntu, a quite popular Linux distro, actually uses dash as default /bin/sh. While it's true that only OpenJDK (if I recall correctly) passes the TCK for Java you also have competing implementations like Harmony, what Google uses on Android. You have more competition on the parts of the Java stack that takes less time to implement.
I'm running python right now on my really open (except the firmware on the GSM-modem) Neo Freerunner.
Firefox 3.5 won't have support for other codecs than those that are built in (various Xiph codecs (Vorbis, Theora) and Wav). Since it won't be possible to install extra codecs for use in Firefox Firefox won't contribute to "normal people" installing random codecs from the net. If/when support for system codecs land (probably after 3.5) you may get the problem you describe.
I think you misunderstand what Coreboot is. Coreboot initializes the hardware that needs to be initialized and then give the control to a payload. That payload can be the Linux kernel, SeaBIOS (that implements a legacy BIOS so you can boot systems like Windows), OpenFirmware or, if somebody did the work to make it happend, an EFI implementation like GNUFI. So what you want (an EFI loader) would just be a payload, not a part of CoreBoot. I think the reason why people are giving priority to a BIOS implementation (SeaBIOS) over EFI is how much code you can get running by adding BIOS support compared to how much you can get by adding EFI.
Actually, Coreboot is faster. The record from power on to Linux login is, according to their FAQ, 3 seconds. Writing it in C speeds up development compared to writing it in assembly and allows compilers to optimize it.
Reyk Floeter, an OpenBSD developer, explains his position like this:
I believe that the OP referred to that OpenBSD have been quite strong in their opposition to blobs in the OS. On the other hand they don't seem to mind unfree firmware.
How does the process that creates the .NET spec compare to the Java Community Process that create the Java spec? (The spec that Sun's Java is an implementation of) Is .NET only MS deciding what .NET is or is ECMA involved? Just wondering since you said that the .NET platform is as propitiatory as ever.
Are the mayor really allowed to do this? Last time New Orleans had an evacuation there where looting of the abandoned properties. Should it not be up to the owners to them self decide if staying behind to defend it is worth the risk or not?
Disclaimer: I am European. I don't think the government would have any problem doing it here. But are not Americans more concerned about their liberty (for example to risk drowning and looters) then we are?
How can they rob the distros of something they don't own? If they can I think you right now are robbing me of the $10 000 you could have given me.
That is not a problem unless you want "proprietary commercial bits". If you want it please don't believe you have a right to force those that don't to make it easier to get it. (But feel free to do it yourself or motivate in a positive way others to do it)