When I go home at night having sat in front of servers all day, the last thing I want to do is sit there trying to get my laptop to suspend when I close the lid.
You're right that the biggest obstacle to the adoption of Linux is that it does not come pre-installed, and configured for exactly the hardware that ships with a machine. When Dell ships machines pre-configured with Linux and every piece of hardware working, Linux adoption will skyrocket.
That said I completely agree that in 99% of the cases apt-get kicks ass over any other installer.
I am glad that you agree (esp. since we were discussing installing software packages, not hardware drivers). When it comes to software package installation, apt-get is 'it' and Win32 and OSX are teh suck.
I have to say, by far the easiest operating system I've ever installed anything on is OS X. Just open the disc image and basically drag the file onto your desktop or wherever and boom! It (usually) works! After that, I feel that Windows is the next easiest (that might have to do with the fact that Windows programs are so ubiquitous and therefore easy to find... and you usually have all the DLLs and such from previous installs that actually shipped with them. Then again, this leads to "DLL-Hell"...) followed by Linux as being the most difficult to install things on, on average.
I don't think that you have used any of the Debian-based distros. The Debian apt-get is fantastic (the RPM-based apt-gets are still inferior). You need to know the name of the program that you want to install. After that, it is: apt-get install mozilla-firefox . And apt-get resolves all DLL-Hell-ish dependencies for you (recursively).
If you prefer GUIs, 'synaptic' shows you lists of all known applications, you click the apps that you want, and synaptic runs apt-get for you.
With OSX and Win32, you must go out on the Internet and find the packages that you want to install, download them, download any other packages to satisfy dependencies, and then use the 'easy' install procedures (in the correct dependency-driven order). Apt-get wins hands-down.
Because some systems that we interact with on a daily basis are very simple to purchase and use (TV, appliances) and other systems (computers, cell phone plans/companies, frequent-flyer miles) involve difficult purchasing decisions, often resulting in confusion, frustration, and sub-optimal results. For the last 20+ years, there was only one dominant differentiator for TVs: size (minor factors: stereo, PIP, etc. were very much secondary).
The uncertainty surrounding this change-over threatens to move TV from the simple category to the complex category. Once the change-over is mostly complete, and there is an installed base of at least 8 million DTV sets, we can expect standards and products to stabilize. I have no desire to be an early adopter on this one.
Morally, you are correct. However, corporations are amoral entities. In the USA (at least), a corporation has a legal obligation to maximize shareholder value. They are not permitted to pass-up profits out of moral qualms (though they are not required to break the law to maximize profit).
If a tobacco company proudly offers tips on quitting smoking, you can bet that there is a memo (with backing evidence) from the CEO in a drawer that says that this program will create more profit from goodwill than it will lose by actually helping customers quit.
The same holds true for every donation, endowment, and charitable act. The CEO has to be able to tell the shareholders that the 'charitable' act somehow can net the company more money than the act cost. Call it free advertising, lawsuit avoidance or buying goodwill from regulators.
That irony isn't original, since in 'The Corporation' Michael Moore talks about the multinational corps that distribute his films. He acknowledges that corps only care about money. They won't censor him as long as he makes them money.
No, Dvorak is actually supposed to be less stressful to use. Since more of the most commonly used keys are on the home row, the up/down motion of the wrists is reduced.
Show me one example of a beneficial mutation that has ever been observed (or even the fossil record of a partially mutated species).
Researchers have directly observed beneficial mutations. There are many strains of bacteria that have mutated to become resistant to antibiotics. There are coca plants in South America that have become resistant to 'Roundup' pesticides that our government is using to try to eradicate cocaine. These are examples of mutations that are beneficial to the organism, by increasing its liklihood of survival.
Once you recognize that beneficial mutations happen, unless you provide a mechanism that prevents more than one beneficial mutation from happening to a species over time, then you must admit that multiple beneficial mutations can happen over generations. From there, it would be ludicrous to argue that a million beneficial mutations in a single species could not have a significant impact on morphology, and could not result in a creature that can no longer produce offspring by mating with its pre-mutation cousins. Therefor, speciation (macro-evolution) is a definite possibility. In fact, it is virtually certain that at least one instance of speciation will occur, given enough generations of enough different species.
In fact, let's go way, way back and try to figure out how life would have "mutated" from a few amino acids to a single celled organism. Explain how our early atmosphere, which is assumed to have no oxygen, would allow the formation of amino acids.
That is a totally different argument from evolution. Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life. In fact, I don't know of any scientific theory that does explain the origin of life, only conjecture (ok, maybe as high as hypothesis, but no theory). Until we can re-create life from inanimate elements, any honest scientist will have to tell you "we don't know".
Many christians believe that God created life, but evolution is the mechanism by which simple life turned into what we see today. This is standard practice in Catholic schools (I don't know if this is official church doctrine).
Unless you are the stripe of Fundamentalist who believes that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, why even attack evolution? A very young Earth is about the only thing that could prevent macro-evolution. If life is more than a few million years old, then macro-evolution is practically certain, even if a supernatural being did create 95% of the species that existed at that time. Aside from (possibly) a few living fossils, all of the species that exist today are genetically quite different from the versions of those species that existed five million years ago. How could there not have been natural selection for physical traits, as environments changed and the mixes of predator, prey, and parasite changed from season to season?
Forget where "Life" came from (both kinds), the game is a system of elements and rules, just as physics and chemistry contain elements and rules. And ignoring where the game came from is kosher, because evolution does not purport to explain the origin of life, only the changes from simple to complex organisms.
However, the mutations that you refer to are not adding information at the DNA level.
This is not correct. Many mutations result in the duplication and translocation of pieces of DNA (think XYY and XXY individuals having an extra chromosome, look-up trisomy-21 or the term Aneuploidy). By this mechanism, the absolute volume of the DNA in an individual does increase. Especially beneficial if you want an increased rate of change: the copies may have errors themselves, in addition to being targets for further mutation.
Micro evolution occurs, but macro evolution does not.
The fact that micro evolution occurs pretty much prevents us from ruling-out macro evolution. A thousand baby steps has the same effect as a huge leap. Ask a biologist, they will tell you that we are discussing billions of individual mutations that make up macro-evolutionary changes. When I say that we can't rule-out macro evolution, this does not prove that macro evolution led to the creation of humans; but to say that it is a mathematical impossibility is just not true.
The bottom line is that an intricate, complex design cannot happen without an outside influence.
If by outside influence you mean an input of energy (e.g. Solar radiation), then you are correct. If you think that an intelligence is required, then you are not correct. For an interesting example of complex behavior arising from very simple rules (much simpler than the rules of physics/chemistry) and very simple initial conditions, check out the ancient UNIX game called 'Life'. Try a thousand different combinations at random. Try it on graph paper (yes, the rules are that simple) to make sure that the computer isn't injecting complexity behind the scenes. You ought to be surprised.
Mathematically, it is an impossibility.
Not even close. That evolution happens on a small scale is an almost unavoidable conclusion if you accept the following:
Mutations happen (DNA-level)
Those mutations will be inherited, if offspring happen (using single-celled organisms as a testbed gives us direct inheritance, sexual reproduction gives us usually percentage-chance of inheritance depending on which chromosome holds the mutation)
Some (tiny percentage) mutations will make an organism slightly more likely to survive long enough to produce offspring (BTW, the fact that most mutations are immediately fatal or vastly reduce the likelihood of offspring is not a problem)
If you accept those statements, then you have accepted the mechanism by which natural selection increases the complexity and improved adaptation of an organism to its environment. You have not necessarily accepted that this is how humans came to be, or even macro-evolution (speciation), but your earlier statements about 'Mathematical...impossibility' should look silly.
"Evolution vs Intelligent Design", it seems to me that the two aren't mutually exclusive.
Actually, I-D does preclude evolution (at least macro evolution). I-D proponents claim that complex structures (they love to pick on the eye and protozoan flagella) must have been designed, and could not have evolved. Many try to bastardize the concept of entropy, and claim that complexity arising out of less complex structure violates the laws of Physics. If you try to posit complex structures coming into existence through evolution, then you remove their entire argument for I-D (watch needs a watchmaker).
There are many people who believe that a god created the Universe, and created life, but then that life evolved into the diversity that exists today. This is not I-D.
It's like trying to draw Michaelangelo's "The Adoration of the Magi" with only a green crayon, it might look something like what you're trying to simulate, but in all essential aspects it's completely and obviously fake.
Rather than disagree with your analogy, let's add a time-condition. It's like finding a drawing of Michaelangelo's "The Adoration of the Magi", done in green crayon that was executed on a cave wall sometime in the paleolithic. Now that's impressive. Our scientific cosmology is still in its infancy. I'm sure that in 100 years we will have more knowledge/understanding and better models. Until then this is a step in the right direction.
They are already bogged down trying to teach multi-ethnic understanding, the extremes of bipolar(atleast politically) secularism
That would be an argument for teaching more SF. SF has long been a force for social change, usually in a liberal, multi-ethnic, secular* direction. If the schools were the subversive influence that you claim, SF would be required reading.
* secular not necessarily meaning anti-religion, but the bronze-age religions (Zoroastrianism, Athenian mythology, Hinduism, Judaism and its decendents: Christianity and Islam, etc.) rarely get favorable treatment.
You're right, my phrasing was clumsy (and wrong.) What I meant was that you cannot build upon the changes (unless they are also released Open Source).
I'm dubious whether the BSD ever fosters a lack of progress; I know the GPL does.
Personally, I like to think that my work contributes to an ever expanding 'progress'. Perhaps I would hesitate to use GPL code if I thought that I could create a product and make a lot of money with it.
Irony: since I know that I as an individual cannot hope compete against (or coexist with) M$ in the software econosystem, I am not worried about preserving the profit potential of the software that I create. M$ (by extinguishing hope) is the driving force behind OSS.
The Programmer may fear the "tragedy of the commons" is not offset enough by his sharing alone.
The "tragedy of the commons" has already been shown to not apply to Open Source software (because the use of the resource does not diminish the resource). Rather think of it on a small, personal scale: I am willing to donate my time and effort to help someone who is 'nice'. My definition of 'nice' only includes people who want to help others and share, and especially only those people who are willing to re-share things that have been shared with them. I am not willing to donate my time and effort to help dicks; especially those who would take my donation and refuse to share it with others.
The BSD liscense has the right idea. The people that can actually use the code (programmers/developers) are the ones with the most freedoms.
The first programmer to modify BSD'd code has more freedoms than if the code had been GPL'd. However, he is free to re-release the code, with his changes, under a M$ style EULA, and thus the second generation of programmers who want to build on what was built-on, are screwed. This scenario shows how the BSD license can foster a lack of 'progress' as improvements are not required to be contributed back to the community. That lack of progress hurts end users who are not even programmers, and cannot read source code.
1) History shows that someone who tries it - whether the code is GPLed or not - invariably shoots themselves in the ass, and 2) your work cannot ever be taken closed-source without your consent. You always retain the rights to it.
Your first point is somewhat valid, though Microsoft and others have incorporated the BSD TCP stack in their OSes, and made changes that have not been contributed back to the community. In fact, I can take the BSD stack, add a printf statement that prints "pong" whenever a packet arrives, release it under an all rights reserved license, and sue anyone (including a prolific BSD developer) if they 'share' my 'improved' version. They contribute 10,000 lines of code, including all of the tricky debugging, but I get to sue them for 'stealing' my improved version. No thanks; I would rather release any code that I feel like sharing under a GPL-style license.
You second point can be interpreted two ways: yes I will retain the right to use it, but that doesn't mean that another company won't take my code, add a "pong" printf, and start selling it under a closed source license. I do all of the work; they get all of the profit. They have taken a copy of my code closed-source.
Agreed. I like ESR's work, but he's dead wrong on this one. The guarantee to developers that their work cannot be hijacked and taken closed-source is critical.
You seem to be saying that 'waking up' is going to free them from their chains. Do you think that the PTB (Powers That Be) will have to change their crooked ways, just because the unwashed masses are wise to the game? I think that the PTB will do anything to maintain the status quo, including direct and forceful subversion of democracy. Remember the Golden Rule.
Would it be a good thing for people to wake up and realize how short their end of the stick is? Will they be happier? Can they effect change? Even Neo was given the choice to take the blue pill; you just want to pull the plug.
Grab any unpowered handtools you like. Build a wooden boat big enough to house 2 of every land mammal for 40 days (incl. their food). Start building, I'll give you 60 days.
Slashdot Mirror
5.) A printer which can print $20 dollar bills (my personal favorite).
If you get #5, you can drop the 'cheap' requirement from #4
You're right that the biggest obstacle to the adoption of Linux is that it does not come pre-installed, and configured for exactly the hardware that ships with a machine. When Dell ships machines pre-configured with Linux and every piece of hardware working, Linux adoption will skyrocket.
That said I completely agree that in 99% of the cases apt-get kicks ass over any other installer.
I am glad that you agree (esp. since we were discussing installing software packages, not hardware drivers). When it comes to software package installation, apt-get is 'it' and Win32 and OSX are teh suck.
I don't think that you have used any of the Debian-based distros. The Debian apt-get is fantastic (the RPM-based apt-gets are still inferior). You need to know the name of the program that you want to install. After that, it is: apt-get install mozilla-firefox . And apt-get resolves all DLL-Hell-ish dependencies for you (recursively).
If you prefer GUIs, 'synaptic' shows you lists of all known applications, you click the apps that you want, and synaptic runs apt-get for you.
With OSX and Win32, you must go out on the Internet and find the packages that you want to install, download them, download any other packages to satisfy dependencies, and then use the 'easy' install procedures (in the correct dependency-driven order). Apt-get wins hands-down.
Because some systems that we interact with on a daily basis are very simple to purchase and use (TV, appliances) and other systems (computers, cell phone plans/companies, frequent-flyer miles) involve difficult purchasing decisions, often resulting in confusion, frustration, and sub-optimal results. For the last 20+ years, there was only one dominant differentiator for TVs: size (minor factors: stereo, PIP, etc. were very much secondary).
The uncertainty surrounding this change-over threatens to move TV from the simple category to the complex category. Once the change-over is mostly complete, and there is an installed base of at least 8 million DTV sets, we can expect standards and products to stabilize. I have no desire to be an early adopter on this one.
If a tobacco company proudly offers tips on quitting smoking, you can bet that there is a memo (with backing evidence) from the CEO in a drawer that says that this program will create more profit from goodwill than it will lose by actually helping customers quit.
The same holds true for every donation, endowment, and charitable act. The CEO has to be able to tell the shareholders that the 'charitable' act somehow can net the company more money than the act cost. Call it free advertising, lawsuit avoidance or buying goodwill from regulators.
BTW IANAL
That irony isn't original, since in 'The Corporation' Michael Moore talks about the multinational corps that distribute his films. He acknowledges that corps only care about money. They won't censor him as long as he makes them money.
No, Dvorak is actually supposed to be less stressful to use. Since more of the most commonly used keys are on the home row, the up/down motion of the wrists is reduced.
Researchers have directly observed beneficial mutations. There are many strains of bacteria that have mutated to become resistant to antibiotics. There are coca plants in South America that have become resistant to 'Roundup' pesticides that our government is using to try to eradicate cocaine. These are examples of mutations that are beneficial to the organism, by increasing its liklihood of survival.
Once you recognize that beneficial mutations happen, unless you provide a mechanism that prevents more than one beneficial mutation from happening to a species over time, then you must admit that multiple beneficial mutations can happen over generations. From there, it would be ludicrous to argue that a million beneficial mutations in a single species could not have a significant impact on morphology, and could not result in a creature that can no longer produce offspring by mating with its pre-mutation cousins. Therefor, speciation (macro-evolution) is a definite possibility. In fact, it is virtually certain that at least one instance of speciation will occur, given enough generations of enough different species.
In fact, let's go way, way back and try to figure out how life would have "mutated" from a few amino acids to a single celled organism. Explain how our early atmosphere, which is assumed to have no oxygen, would allow the formation of amino acids.
That is a totally different argument from evolution. Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life. In fact, I don't know of any scientific theory that does explain the origin of life, only conjecture (ok, maybe as high as hypothesis, but no theory). Until we can re-create life from inanimate elements, any honest scientist will have to tell you "we don't know".
Many christians believe that God created life, but evolution is the mechanism by which simple life turned into what we see today. This is standard practice in Catholic schools (I don't know if this is official church doctrine).
Unless you are the stripe of Fundamentalist who believes that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, why even attack evolution? A very young Earth is about the only thing that could prevent macro-evolution. If life is more than a few million years old, then macro-evolution is practically certain, even if a supernatural being did create 95% of the species that existed at that time. Aside from (possibly) a few living fossils, all of the species that exist today are genetically quite different from the versions of those species that existed five million years ago. How could there not have been natural selection for physical traits, as environments changed and the mixes of predator, prey, and parasite changed from season to season?
Forget where "Life" came from (both kinds), the game is a system of elements and rules, just as physics and chemistry contain elements and rules. And ignoring where the game came from is kosher, because evolution does not purport to explain the origin of life, only the changes from simple to complex organisms.
However, the mutations that you refer to are not adding information at the DNA level.
This is not correct. Many mutations result in the duplication and translocation of pieces of DNA (think XYY and XXY individuals having an extra chromosome, look-up trisomy-21 or the term Aneuploidy). By this mechanism, the absolute volume of the DNA in an individual does increase. Especially beneficial if you want an increased rate of change: the copies may have errors themselves, in addition to being targets for further mutation.
Micro evolution occurs, but macro evolution does not.
The fact that micro evolution occurs pretty much prevents us from ruling-out macro evolution. A thousand baby steps has the same effect as a huge leap. Ask a biologist, they will tell you that we are discussing billions of individual mutations that make up macro-evolutionary changes. When I say that we can't rule-out macro evolution, this does not prove that macro evolution led to the creation of humans; but to say that it is a mathematical impossibility is just not true.
If by outside influence you mean an input of energy (e.g. Solar radiation), then you are correct. If you think that an intelligence is required, then you are not correct. For an interesting example of complex behavior arising from very simple rules (much simpler than the rules of physics/chemistry) and very simple initial conditions, check out the ancient UNIX game called 'Life'. Try a thousand different combinations at random. Try it on graph paper (yes, the rules are that simple) to make sure that the computer isn't injecting complexity behind the scenes. You ought to be surprised.
Mathematically, it is an impossibility.
Not even close. That evolution happens on a small scale is an almost unavoidable conclusion if you accept the following:
If you accept those statements, then you have accepted the mechanism by which natural selection increases the complexity and improved adaptation of an organism to its environment. You have not necessarily accepted that this is how humans came to be, or even macro-evolution (speciation), but your earlier statements about 'Mathematical...impossibility' should look silly.
Also gives a whole new meaning to 'ThumbDrive'
LIT-I-GATE. LIT-I-GATE.
Actually, I-D does preclude evolution (at least macro evolution). I-D proponents claim that complex structures (they love to pick on the eye and protozoan flagella) must have been designed, and could not have evolved. Many try to bastardize the concept of entropy, and claim that complexity arising out of less complex structure violates the laws of Physics. If you try to posit complex structures coming into existence through evolution, then you remove their entire argument for I-D (watch needs a watchmaker).
There are many people who believe that a god created the Universe, and created life, but then that life evolved into the diversity that exists today. This is not I-D.
Amazon didn't get a single patent on Einstein's watch. That alone should get him a B+.
Yes, I'm replying to a .sig; mod me like I endorsed a M$ product.
Rather than disagree with your analogy, let's add a time-condition. It's like finding a drawing of Michaelangelo's "The Adoration of the Magi", done in green crayon that was executed on a cave wall sometime in the paleolithic. Now that's impressive. Our scientific cosmology is still in its infancy. I'm sure that in 100 years we will have more knowledge/understanding and better models. Until then this is a step in the right direction.
That would be an argument for teaching more SF. SF has long been a force for social change, usually in a liberal, multi-ethnic, secular* direction. If the schools were the subversive influence that you claim, SF would be required reading.
* secular not necessarily meaning anti-religion, but the bronze-age religions (Zoroastrianism, Athenian mythology, Hinduism, Judaism and its decendents: Christianity and Islam, etc.) rarely get favorable treatment.
You're right, my phrasing was clumsy (and wrong.) What I meant was that you cannot build upon the changes (unless they are also released Open Source).
I'm dubious whether the BSD ever fosters a lack of progress; I know the GPL does.
Personally, I like to think that my work contributes to an ever expanding 'progress'. Perhaps I would hesitate to use GPL code if I thought that I could create a product and make a lot of money with it.
Irony: since I know that I as an individual cannot hope compete against (or coexist with) M$ in the software econosystem, I am not worried about preserving the profit potential of the software that I create. M$ (by extinguishing hope) is the driving force behind OSS.
The "tragedy of the commons" has already been shown to not apply to Open Source software (because the use of the resource does not diminish the resource). Rather think of it on a small, personal scale: I am willing to donate my time and effort to help someone who is 'nice'. My definition of 'nice' only includes people who want to help others and share, and especially only those people who are willing to re-share things that have been shared with them. I am not willing to donate my time and effort to help dicks; especially those who would take my donation and refuse to share it with others.
The first programmer to modify BSD'd code has more freedoms than if the code had been GPL'd. However, he is free to re-release the code, with his changes, under a M$ style EULA, and thus the second generation of programmers who want to build on what was built-on, are screwed. This scenario shows how the BSD license can foster a lack of 'progress' as improvements are not required to be contributed back to the community. That lack of progress hurts end users who are not even programmers, and cannot read source code.
Your first point is somewhat valid, though Microsoft and others have incorporated the BSD TCP stack in their OSes, and made changes that have not been contributed back to the community. In fact, I can take the BSD stack, add a printf statement that prints "pong" whenever a packet arrives, release it under an all rights reserved license, and sue anyone (including a prolific BSD developer) if they 'share' my 'improved' version. They contribute 10,000 lines of code, including all of the tricky debugging, but I get to sue them for 'stealing' my improved version. No thanks; I would rather release any code that I feel like sharing under a GPL-style license.
You second point can be interpreted two ways: yes I will retain the right to use it, but that doesn't mean that another company won't take my code, add a "pong" printf, and start selling it under a closed source license. I do all of the work; they get all of the profit. They have taken a copy of my code closed-source.
Agreed. I like ESR's work, but he's dead wrong on this one. The guarantee to developers that their work cannot be hijacked and taken closed-source is critical.
Why yes, I do have 20+ years of experience with Tolkien Ring.
You seem to be saying that 'waking up' is going to free them from their chains. Do you think that the PTB (Powers That Be) will have to change their crooked ways, just because the unwashed masses are wise to the game? I think that the PTB will do anything to maintain the status quo, including direct and forceful subversion of democracy. Remember the Golden Rule.
Would it be a good thing for people to wake up and realize how short their end of the stick is? Will they be happier? Can they effect change? Even Neo was given the choice to take the blue pill; you just want to pull the plug.
Pre-destined Dupe?
Dork!