Basically, I did not read it wrong. My interpretation of Christianity is just a bit looser than yours. I am allowed that interpretation and you should be thankful for it. That's my point. Christianity as I understand it, is descended from Catholicism, as Catholicism is descended from Judaism. The original point (actually it was the defense of a joke http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1501554&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=30684756), was that religion leads to some illogical beliefs. Accept that, be a man, don't argue that your beliefs are better than all others, it's ridiculous. Whether you believe in transubstantiation is irrelevant, it does not detract from the original joke. If you really wanted to defend religious freedom you would have made the point that Catholics, should be allowed their faith without facing outright mockery in a public forum, rather than trying to distance yourself from them. Coward.
Your stance on communion, is just your religion making shit up. Doesn't matter if it's slightly more logical, you gain absolutely no logical credibility.
No. Absolutely not. Atheists simply demand the same respect as the rest of you fucking nut jobs. It's your right to call Catholics and Atheists nuts. Just like it's my right to say all Christians are nuts. You fucking shitnut freaks are perfectly will to side with an atheist that rants against Islam and then get all fucked up when the atheist turns in your direction.
Now to reiterate the point at which you called me a moron and still have not addressed.
So, there's a Christianity that didn't break away from the Catholic Church?
You really must answer this if you are going to assert that I do not understand the situation, or assert that 1/6th of the earth's population is not Catholic. But, no, your tact is to continue to berate me for being ignorant of your completely irrelevant bullshit. Your argument comes from insult at being grouped with Catholics, I say that association stands particularly well in this case.
What the hell makes you think I should give your version of Christianity more consideration than that of Catholicism? For 1/6th of the earth's population Catholic Transubstantiation is official church doctrine. The Catholic qualifier offers little except to stand up and point out that your craziness is better than the Catholics'. Your point, that I should know why your version of Christianity is better than all the others is self-defeating, my obligation to your religious rights precludes my ability to value your beliefs over another. It's not antitheism as much as it is an offense at the notion that *I* or any other atheist should consider theism at all. It is quite frankly about an atheists right to make a valid point without getting wrapped up in some religious "US vs Them" bullshit.
As an example. The Koran is a lot like the bible, many similar stories. I have no obligation whatsoever to make the distinction when pointing out kooky biblical stories. For you to make that distinction and side with me against Muslims is ridiculous.
The reaction was that this particular craziness belonged to the Catholics and not your version of Christianity (which for the record, still doesn't matter for the purposes of our discussion). My position is that one religious person pointing out the craziness in another religion and siding with an atheist to illustrate the point, is untenable. It always will be, because your position offends the atheist.
So, there's a Christianity that didn't break away from the Catholic Church?
If I considered the religious beliefs of others to be important, I would be very put out. Hence, my obligation to remain indifferent, until some jackass goes telling me I'm going to hell, or that imaginary bullshit should be passed into law, or fanatical religious terrorists go blowing shit up.
Which, brings me to my final point. The general little nuances between one religion and the next are fuck all worthless unless you are trying to convert someone or start a war. You can deal with people that don't understand these details with a great deal more humility as far as I'm concerned. Your beliefs mean NOTHING, to me. Your right to believe them means quite a bit, but my obligation to your religious views ends abruptly after political and academic considerations. Do NOT make the assumption that I am obligated to understand your convoluted fairy tale, I AM NOT, and any such assertion is seen as a direct political and philosophical attack.
And I cannot state this strongly enough. I do not mean to disrespect you're personal views in any way, but I don't see how I should understand your religion any more than the fundamentals of Islamic terrorism or Scientology. As far as I'm concerned you are all equally deranged, sorry, but that's the truth.
FWIW the original post sufficiently qualified their statement with "1/6th" rather than directly stating the religious viewpoint, demanding more than that is a level of respect you do not deserve - case in point, every religious war in history.
Try heathens. Godless infidels. Whatever, don't use my lack of interest in your fantasies to insult my intelligence. Most religious beliefs come from the same old shit that's been repackaged over and over again. I don't care if you disagree with the pretend game the Catholic church is playing and decided to make up your own rules. It's unimportant.
I'm generally pretty critical of a lot of stuff. That said, hands down the IT industry is not incredibly impressive as a whole. I think Theo De Raadt is practically the only developer I've heard of that deserves the right. I think he's the only one in the lime-light that has remained loyal to his professional obligation to not produce shit. Cisco, Linux, Microsoft, Apple, the whole fucking cellular industry all suck ass. Apple gets close, but ultimately fails. I mean seriously, it's hard to believe some of the shit companies peddle. Example, Sony was/is a tech industry leader and has such crap as rootkits on their record. It's fucking embarrassing.
That's called regression. You're just moving from your current failed state to a previous failed state. That's not a solution at all. It's also a formal fallacy, a simple solution to a complicated problem. You're right that sometimes less is more, but your blanket statement is cavalier. If a technical problem has a non-technical solution then it *probably* wasn't a technical problem in the first place. Your example is just moving from one technical problem to another.
Personally, after getting into IT I was fairly surprised at what a piece of shit our product is. It's important and super cool futurismo when tech works, but the fact is that the shit falls down every time you look at it wrong. Compounding this problem is the core of any activity has been consolidated around the super efficient desktops, servers, and networks that fail catastrophically on a somewhat regular basis. I really blame software, the whole market is a huge mess, I really like the car analogy that all software is like a used car, it might have an air conditioning knob, but that doesn't mean you have AC. The amount of time regular IT folks spend battling drm and licensing restrictions for valid uses alone is staggering. The whole damn mess is just one patch and kludge on top of the next. You can rail about best industry standards all day, but really every single little device we use deserves it's very own little disaster recovery plan and at that point you hit diminishing returns and a workload that quickly approaches the infinite.
The only things in IT that are even remotely robust and reliable require a lot of work and a very focused business case (banking, website, etc). And even at this level one failure is worthy of the front page of the local newspaper (lost SSNs, credit card #s). Then there's the pay and the outsourcing, also incompetence is practically indistinguishable from competence unless you really assess the situation. Simple problems are often overly complicated and vice versa.
you're a fucking idiot. If this had been impressive we wouldn't have heard about it. Furthermore, if this was blind why the hell was the plane allowed to leave after explosives had been found. This was a total fuck up. The whole goddamn thing just sounds like bravado masquerading as competence, with explosives. Hell, I think everyone that gets off a plane from slovakia should be suspect now, after all, we KNOW they will let the planes go after explosives are found.
Nurture is considered to be the most influential. There was a study regarding inner city children where the children were provided vastly superior resources compared to their peers and their IQs were shown to be above average. Several years after the program the children were tested again and they showed a great deal of normalization with their peers.
Natural ability is a big problem though and is only subjectively measured, so we have emotional intelligence, spatial intelligence, verbal intelligence etc.
Vocabulary is considered to be the primary indicator of intelligence, which suggests to me that the whole thing only represents an ability to communicate. Awkward though that many ESL students score higher than their English speaking peers, possibly it's the work put in?
"Second, there is the known fact that in humans, men has larger brains than women, which means this subject is a no go zone; any serious scientist that suggest it is quickly discredited."
I don't remember where I got this, but my understanding was that men occupy both the top and bottom ~2%. This gives both sexes the impression that the opposite is dumber.
I'm sorry but this reads like bias and little else. I think what Bruce is getting at is that these lawsuits generate FUD amongst his clients. It's not about destroying the FSF or whatever you're going on about, it's about protecting the marketability of software Mr. Perens authored and now supports.
You know from the outside it may very well look like MS says people get sued for using FOSS, advocates scream to no end about FUD, and then the FOSS developers come out and start suing people.
"If you're going to stop watching a channel over this as the sole reason, then with a standard so tight you probably will end up not watching TV at all."
The HORROR!
No seriously, I don't understand why the fuck people watch TV so much. I find the commercials so offensive I can't stand it. Why pay to have someone brainwash my kid into NEEDING a my little pony. Fuck that. People give too much away for their precious 300 channels of duplicate crap and reruns 80% of which is basically infomercial shite.
Which to me is a beautiful thing. Honestly, the copyright structure used for MySQL was/is brilliant and allows for this "sale". Really sucks if Oracle were to decide to smash the company, but even then the GPL version is out there. I'm surprised he isn't watching from the sidelines with great interest. If he hadn't done this, he could have claimed a victory regardless of the direction Oracle took.
I agree, but it's not just an ethical position, but a pragmatic one also, if he expects to sell much software in the future or have any influence on MySQL's current direction.
It seems he is refusing to take responsibility for his own actions.
That's funny. I was actually kind of implying that the system works more or less. I like technology and I'm a big fan of science. I like the methodology, it's like a courtroom without the drama, but I'm a plebe. I'm just a book man that works on computers, I can sound convincing, sometimes I'm even right, but people really shouldn't take what I'm saying seriously unless they are a professional and think it's worth sorting out. It's the same reason I wouldn't represent myself in court. I'm just not the man for that job. My opinion counts along with those that I disagree with, the media and politicians make sure of that. But, we're asking a lot of the wrong questions, for example: let's say the climatologists opinion was not up for debate, let's say it's a matter of fact that pollution is destroying the earth (slowly whatever). The argument for liberals is regulation/compensation/responsibility. The argument for conservatives is capitalism/freedom of ingenuity/taxation or lack of. Now how many of the things around you are pollutants that you don't need. That's the question that seems to be hanging people up. How many of us need our cars versus those that don't? How would extra regulation affect YOUR industry? How much can we regulate and test things before it becomes cost prohibitive? What do you do with a thriving business that becomes branded a threat to the environment?
These are big questions that affect everyone. Heavy stuff, but instead we are bickering over the validity of consensus in a group that should be considered expert witness and given the benefit of the doubt. And what if they are wrong and it is a huge conspiracy? Who cares? Is it really that horrible to think that people ought to keep their areas clean? I can't let my desk at work get out of control, my house either, I'm not allowed to leave my fast food bags at the park either, so why should anyone else get to make a mess?
I'm still lost on the point where your opinion even means a fucking thing. Not to say that you are not important and that your interests don't matter, because you are and they do. I'm lost at the point where I'm concerned with YOUR official stance on weather change exists, is caused by man, is a natural occurrence or isn't even happening. Why? I'm not a climatologist, you're not a climatologist. We're not going to change the world of climatology by mindlessly banging out sound bytes on the Internet. So why? Why do you have an opinion?
Slashdot Mirror
Why?
Basically, I did not read it wrong. My interpretation of Christianity is just a bit looser than yours. I am allowed that interpretation and you should be thankful for it. That's my point. Christianity as I understand it, is descended from Catholicism, as Catholicism is descended from Judaism. The original point (actually it was the defense of a joke http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1501554&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=30684756), was that religion leads to some illogical beliefs. Accept that, be a man, don't argue that your beliefs are better than all others, it's ridiculous. Whether you believe in transubstantiation is irrelevant, it does not detract from the original joke. If you really wanted to defend religious freedom you would have made the point that Catholics, should be allowed their faith without facing outright mockery in a public forum, rather than trying to distance yourself from them. Coward.
Your stance on communion, is just your religion making shit up. Doesn't matter if it's slightly more logical, you gain absolutely no logical credibility.
No. Absolutely not. Atheists simply demand the same respect as the rest of you fucking nut jobs. It's your right to call Catholics and Atheists nuts. Just like it's my right to say all Christians are nuts. You fucking shitnut freaks are perfectly will to side with an atheist that rants against Islam and then get all fucked up when the atheist turns in your direction.
Now to reiterate the point at which you called me a moron and still have not addressed.
So, there's a Christianity that didn't break away from the Catholic Church?
You really must answer this if you are going to assert that I do not understand the situation, or assert that 1/6th of the earth's population is not Catholic. But, no, your tact is to continue to berate me for being ignorant of your completely irrelevant bullshit. Your argument comes from insult at being grouped with Catholics, I say that association stands particularly well in this case.
What the hell makes you think I should give your version of Christianity more consideration than that of Catholicism? For 1/6th of the earth's population Catholic Transubstantiation is official church doctrine. The Catholic qualifier offers little except to stand up and point out that your craziness is better than the Catholics'. Your point, that I should know why your version of Christianity is better than all the others is self-defeating, my obligation to your religious rights precludes my ability to value your beliefs over another. It's not antitheism as much as it is an offense at the notion that *I* or any other atheist should consider theism at all. It is quite frankly about an atheists right to make a valid point without getting wrapped up in some religious "US vs Them" bullshit.
As an example. The Koran is a lot like the bible, many similar stories. I have no obligation whatsoever to make the distinction when pointing out kooky biblical stories. For you to make that distinction and side with me against Muslims is ridiculous.
The reaction was that this particular craziness belonged to the Catholics and not your version of Christianity (which for the record, still doesn't matter for the purposes of our discussion). My position is that one religious person pointing out the craziness in another religion and siding with an atheist to illustrate the point, is untenable. It always will be, because your position offends the atheist.
So, there's a Christianity that didn't break away from the Catholic Church?
If I considered the religious beliefs of others to be important, I would be very put out. Hence, my obligation to remain indifferent, until some jackass goes telling me I'm going to hell, or that imaginary bullshit should be passed into law, or fanatical religious terrorists go blowing shit up.
Which, brings me to my final point. The general little nuances between one religion and the next are fuck all worthless unless you are trying to convert someone or start a war. You can deal with people that don't understand these details with a great deal more humility as far as I'm concerned. Your beliefs mean NOTHING, to me. Your right to believe them means quite a bit, but my obligation to your religious views ends abruptly after political and academic considerations. Do NOT make the assumption that I am obligated to understand your convoluted fairy tale, I AM NOT, and any such assertion is seen as a direct political and philosophical attack.
And I cannot state this strongly enough. I do not mean to disrespect you're personal views in any way, but I don't see how I should understand your religion any more than the fundamentals of Islamic terrorism or Scientology. As far as I'm concerned you are all equally deranged, sorry, but that's the truth.
FWIW the original post sufficiently qualified their statement with "1/6th" rather than directly stating the religious viewpoint, demanding more than that is a level of respect you do not deserve - case in point, every religious war in history.
Try heathens. Godless infidels. Whatever, don't use my lack of interest in your fantasies to insult my intelligence. Most religious beliefs come from the same old shit that's been repackaged over and over again. I don't care if you disagree with the pretend game the Catholic church is playing and decided to make up your own rules. It's unimportant.
I'm generally pretty critical of a lot of stuff. That said, hands down the IT industry is not incredibly impressive as a whole. I think Theo De Raadt is practically the only developer I've heard of that deserves the right. I think he's the only one in the lime-light that has remained loyal to his professional obligation to not produce shit. Cisco, Linux, Microsoft, Apple, the whole fucking cellular industry all suck ass. Apple gets close, but ultimately fails. I mean seriously, it's hard to believe some of the shit companies peddle. Example, Sony was/is a tech industry leader and has such crap as rootkits on their record. It's fucking embarrassing.
Except you're all Catholics.
That's called regression. You're just moving from your current failed state to a previous failed state. That's not a solution at all. It's also a formal fallacy, a simple solution to a complicated problem. You're right that sometimes less is more, but your blanket statement is cavalier. If a technical problem has a non-technical solution then it *probably* wasn't a technical problem in the first place. Your example is just moving from one technical problem to another.
Personally, after getting into IT I was fairly surprised at what a piece of shit our product is. It's important and super cool futurismo when tech works, but the fact is that the shit falls down every time you look at it wrong. Compounding this problem is the core of any activity has been consolidated around the super efficient desktops, servers, and networks that fail catastrophically on a somewhat regular basis. I really blame software, the whole market is a huge mess, I really like the car analogy that all software is like a used car, it might have an air conditioning knob, but that doesn't mean you have AC. The amount of time regular IT folks spend battling drm and licensing restrictions for valid uses alone is staggering. The whole damn mess is just one patch and kludge on top of the next. You can rail about best industry standards all day, but really every single little device we use deserves it's very own little disaster recovery plan and at that point you hit diminishing returns and a workload that quickly approaches the infinite.
The only things in IT that are even remotely robust and reliable require a lot of work and a very focused business case (banking, website, etc). And even at this level one failure is worthy of the front page of the local newspaper (lost SSNs, credit card #s). Then there's the pay and the outsourcing, also incompetence is practically indistinguishable from competence unless you really assess the situation. Simple problems are often overly complicated and vice versa.
"You *would have to* buy a new player annually for five years and spend less than a PS3."
FTFY
you're a fucking idiot. If this had been impressive we wouldn't have heard about it. Furthermore, if this was blind why the hell was the plane allowed to leave after explosives had been found. This was a total fuck up. The whole goddamn thing just sounds like bravado masquerading as competence, with explosives. Hell, I think everyone that gets off a plane from slovakia should be suspect now, after all, we KNOW they will let the planes go after explosives are found.
Nurture is considered to be the most influential. There was a study regarding inner city children where the children were provided vastly superior resources compared to their peers and their IQs were shown to be above average. Several years after the program the children were tested again and they showed a great deal of normalization with their peers.
Natural ability is a big problem though and is only subjectively measured, so we have emotional intelligence, spatial intelligence, verbal intelligence etc.
Vocabulary is considered to be the primary indicator of intelligence, which suggests to me that the whole thing only represents an ability to communicate. Awkward though that many ESL students score higher than their English speaking peers, possibly it's the work put in?
*I am not a psychiatrist
"Second, there is the known fact that in humans, men has larger brains than women, which means this subject is a no go zone; any serious scientist that suggest it is quickly discredited."
I don't remember where I got this, but my understanding was that men occupy both the top and bottom ~2%. This gives both sexes the impression that the opposite is dumber.
This is a neat idea. You could even schedule the things so they are the most convenient. Like inducing labor!
Ninjas... hijacked... my mother.
Apple juice!
I'm sorry but this reads like bias and little else. I think what Bruce is getting at is that these lawsuits generate FUD amongst his clients. It's not about destroying the FSF or whatever you're going on about, it's about protecting the marketability of software Mr. Perens authored and now supports.
You know from the outside it may very well look like MS says people get sued for using FOSS, advocates scream to no end about FUD, and then the FOSS developers come out and start suing people.
I think he wants to work as a consultant without being inundated by calls from his clients. Possibly, one of his clients is a defendant in the case?
"If you're going to stop watching a channel over this as the sole reason, then with a standard so tight you probably will end up not watching TV at all."
The HORROR!
No seriously, I don't understand why the fuck people watch TV so much. I find the commercials so offensive I can't stand it. Why pay to have someone brainwash my kid into NEEDING a my little pony. Fuck that. People give too much away for their precious 300 channels of duplicate crap and reruns 80% of which is basically infomercial shite.
TO HELL WITH THAT!
I watch DVDs.
Which to me is a beautiful thing. Honestly, the copyright structure used for MySQL was/is brilliant and allows for this "sale". Really sucks if Oracle were to decide to smash the company, but even then the GPL version is out there. I'm surprised he isn't watching from the sidelines with great interest. If he hadn't done this, he could have claimed a victory regardless of the direction Oracle took.
I agree, but it's not just an ethical position, but a pragmatic one also, if he expects to sell much software in the future or have any influence on MySQL's current direction.
It seems he is refusing to take responsibility for his own actions.
That's funny. I was actually kind of implying that the system works more or less. I like technology and I'm a big fan of science. I like the methodology, it's like a courtroom without the drama, but I'm a plebe. I'm just a book man that works on computers, I can sound convincing, sometimes I'm even right, but people really shouldn't take what I'm saying seriously unless they are a professional and think it's worth sorting out. It's the same reason I wouldn't represent myself in court. I'm just not the man for that job. My opinion counts along with those that I disagree with, the media and politicians make sure of that. But, we're asking a lot of the wrong questions, for example: let's say the climatologists opinion was not up for debate, let's say it's a matter of fact that pollution is destroying the earth (slowly whatever). The argument for liberals is regulation/compensation/responsibility. The argument for conservatives is capitalism/freedom of ingenuity/taxation or lack of. Now how many of the things around you are pollutants that you don't need. That's the question that seems to be hanging people up. How many of us need our cars versus those that don't? How would extra regulation affect YOUR industry? How much can we regulate and test things before it becomes cost prohibitive? What do you do with a thriving business that becomes branded a threat to the environment?
These are big questions that affect everyone. Heavy stuff, but instead we are bickering over the validity of consensus in a group that should be considered expert witness and given the benefit of the doubt. And what if they are wrong and it is a huge conspiracy? Who cares? Is it really that horrible to think that people ought to keep their areas clean? I can't let my desk at work get out of control, my house either, I'm not allowed to leave my fast food bags at the park either, so why should anyone else get to make a mess?
I'm still lost on the point where your opinion even means a fucking thing. Not to say that you are not important and that your interests don't matter, because you are and they do. I'm lost at the point where I'm concerned with YOUR official stance on weather change exists, is caused by man, is a natural occurrence or isn't even happening. Why? I'm not a climatologist, you're not a climatologist. We're not going to change the world of climatology by mindlessly banging out sound bytes on the Internet. So why? Why do you have an opinion?