I'd like someone at linux.com to explain the rationale behind publishing one brief clip per day over the course of the week, instead of just publishing the interview. I'm not saying its a horrible thing to do.. just can't figure out why.
I listen to rms interviews and talks all the time. He's an *excellent communicator. He doesn't bullshit, he doesn't dangle vague terms around and speculate about this and that. He insists on precise words with actual meanings (e.g. "Linux" for the kernel, GNU/Linux for systems that use the kernel and the GNU applications).
My theory is that most people who think he is overly radical, that he "starts throwing his toys out of the pram because someone said "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux" get their info from the press, which operates by taking the most inflammatory or sensational bits out of an interview and quoting that.
"If you're a Catholic and feel that Nazism, killing Jews and buggering young boys is wrong you owe it upon yourself to leave and denounce the Catholic church. Nothing less is moral for you to do."
Hm.. I'm also a male and feel that those things are wrong. Do I need to get an operation?
If I weren't already catholic I'd probably steer clear, based on those things you said. Most of them were false, but I imagine you know that.
The only one I'll address is "their teachings are not Christian and aren't considered so by anyone other than themselves".
Everyone in the world, except for a few Protestant sects, considers the Roman Catholic Church to be Christian. By that I mean literally about 97% of the world.
"So I should be down with anything I agree with(this is a reasonable interpretation of both 'verifiable' historical statements and 'ring true with human experience)?"
That is one way of interpreting it. But I'd caution you about something you seem to imply by phrasing it this way, namely: that by 'human experience' I just mean *yours. Alas humans report different things. Cf. the blind men all touching different parts of an elephant. Pluralism, and a moral theory of tolerance, means coming up with the elephant-sized explanations of the aggregate experiences.
I should have said "to mainstream christian thought". Surely there were always people who took those 6 days literally, but IIRC most "official" medieval biblical scholarship did not.
The wik says "the majority of the early Church Fathers including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine, Eusebius, and Basil did not believe the Genesis account depicted ordinary solar days."
I disagree that the acquisition of authority by the bible, or any text, can be simplified as a "gift" by mankind. Now, the most pernicious abuses of the bible were in cases where it was the authority of the sword (convert or die) that was spreading its... "adoption" as an authority.
To get more particular, one must divide up the question: whence its authority *to *speak *on __________ ?
On scientific issues, it acquires authority insofar as its statements are intersubjectively confirmable, falsifiable, and corroborated by other disinterested stories. e.g. there are plenty of historical statements that are verifiable through other means. But the Young Earth hypothesis doesn't really pass this test (the Young Earth hypothesis, btw, is a relatively recent addition to christian thought).
On moral issues, I think it acquires authority insofar as its statements ring true with human experience. The golden Rule has got legs and is mirrored in almost every moral tradition. The stuff about sequestering women as "unclean" during their menstrual emmissions, not so much...
Your post was funny, but it's not a "compromise" position. Some christians believe that the bible contains the truths necessary for salvation, but a theory of the origin of biological diversity is not among those.
"The other catastrophe, in the museum's view, is of more recent vintage: the abandonment of the Bible by church figures who began to treat the story of creation as if it were merely metaphorical, and by Enlightenment philosophers, who chipped away at biblical authority"
As a poet, I'm offended by the phrase "merely" metaphorical.
The Ubuntu machines are promoted on the front page. Dell.com A popular domain, that Dell is going to think there's no pleasing the FOSS crowd if you keep nitpicking
an organization whose mission is to "strengthen the copyright [or any other] law" is not "strongly free market. The PFF and this Alliance are more correctly called "propertarians" b/c they think everything should be owned.
Yeah, but a big problem with getting schadenfreude from MS is that they're *very likely to keep making money hand over fist for quite awhile. A big part of the fun of watching SCO implode was seeing them burn through their "investors" cash while sales plummeted and their stock got delisted.
I wish *one exec from the "content industry" would come by just for a day. In case that happens, here's a message for himher, right up a the top:
Fair use means *copying of your "content" that we are *legally entitled to do. *Without asking for *permission. We do not have to sit down with you and work on the problem, try and strike a balance that pleases everyone, come to an acceptable price. We get to just do it.
Hardly. I believe it was Valenti who said the way you get a backup of The Lion King is, you buy two copies of the Lion King.
No, they're saying "please use the item you've purchased from us only in the ways we approve."
This comes after attempts 1) to restrict the kinds of technology you can buy ('trusted' computing, broadcast flags); 2) to restrict what you can do with your hardware (anti-circumvention laws) and 3) to redefine "purchase" so that it actually just means "rental" of their 'content', and they retain the right to dictate how the property your renting may be used.
This kind of thing comes from the misguided view that tolerance means all beliefs have close to the same value. That is simply not true. Tolerance means leaving people alone as long as their beliefs are not hurting others. It's an essentially libertarian principle.
Ignoring the scientifically-confirmable, historical reality of the holocaust hurts others. Lots of others. I don't think it's going too far to say that a pedagogical approach like this is *catastrophic to any society that implements it. You could end up with an entire generation that doesn't know where fascism tends, and what the real human cost of demagoguery is.
Besides the things you mention, I feel the wiimote is the best by far because it has the potential to change the gaming demographic, perhaps radically.
Every female member of my extended family played the atari 2600 for a couple hours in the 80s and that was pretty much the last gaming they did. Every one of them is now addicted to the family wii -- and all we have is the Sports disc.
This guy had a deadline to fill up a few column inches, and said the first 6 or 7 incoherent things that came to mind ("open source reminds me of communism/religion/Woodstock/whatever"). This is the worst article I've seen linked from/. in a long time.
Slashdot Mirror
Wireless. Same size as a sofa table. Lame.
I don't have much spare time to offer, but I'll give you a cooler name:
Call it "Y'know, Web 1.0 was, overall, working pretty well for me, thanks."
Or YW1.0WOWPWFMT, for short
I'd like someone at linux.com to explain the rationale behind publishing one brief clip per day over the course of the week, instead of just publishing the interview. I'm not saying its a horrible thing to do.. just can't figure out why.
I listen to rms interviews and talks all the time. He's an *excellent communicator. He doesn't bullshit, he doesn't dangle vague terms around and speculate about this and that. He insists on precise words with actual meanings (e.g. "Linux" for the kernel, GNU/Linux for systems that use the kernel and the GNU applications).
My theory is that most people who think he is overly radical, that he "starts throwing his toys out of the pram because someone said "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux" get their info from the press, which operates by taking the most inflammatory or sensational bits out of an interview and quoting that.
no text
"If you're a Catholic and feel that Nazism, killing Jews and buggering young boys is wrong you owe it upon yourself to leave and denounce the Catholic church. Nothing less is moral for you to do."
Hm.. I'm also a male and feel that those things are wrong. Do I need to get an operation?
If I weren't already catholic I'd probably steer clear, based on those things you said. Most of them were false, but I imagine you know that.
The only one I'll address is "their teachings are not Christian and aren't considered so by anyone other than themselves".
Everyone in the world, except for a few Protestant sects, considers the Roman Catholic Church to be Christian. By that I mean literally about 97% of the world.
"So I should be down with anything I agree with(this is a reasonable interpretation of both 'verifiable' historical statements and 'ring true with human experience)?"
That is one way of interpreting it. But I'd caution you about something you seem to imply by phrasing it this way, namely: that by 'human experience' I just mean *yours. Alas humans report different things. Cf. the blind men all touching different parts of an elephant. Pluralism, and a moral theory of tolerance, means coming up with the elephant-sized explanations of the aggregate experiences.
I should have said "to mainstream christian thought". Surely there were always people who took those 6 days literally, but IIRC most "official" medieval biblical scholarship did not.
The wik says "the majority of the early Church Fathers including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine, Eusebius, and Basil did not believe the Genesis account depicted ordinary solar days."
I disagree that the acquisition of authority by the bible, or any text, can be simplified as a "gift" by mankind. Now, the most pernicious abuses of the bible were in cases where it was the authority of the sword (convert or die) that was spreading its ... "adoption" as an authority.
To get more particular, one must divide up the question: whence its authority *to *speak *on __________ ?
On scientific issues, it acquires authority insofar as its statements are intersubjectively confirmable, falsifiable, and corroborated by other disinterested stories. e.g. there are plenty of historical statements that are verifiable through other means. But the Young Earth hypothesis doesn't really pass this test (the Young Earth hypothesis, btw, is a relatively recent addition to christian thought).
On moral issues, I think it acquires authority insofar as its statements ring true with human experience. The golden Rule has got legs and is mirrored in almost every moral tradition. The stuff about sequestering women as "unclean" during their menstrual emmissions, not so much...
Your post was funny, but it's not a "compromise" position. Some christians believe that the bible contains the truths necessary for salvation, but a theory of the origin of biological diversity is not among those.
Agreed
"The other catastrophe, in the museum's view, is of more recent vintage: the abandonment of the Bible by church figures who began to treat the story of creation as if it were merely metaphorical, and by Enlightenment philosophers, who chipped away at biblical authority"
As a poet, I'm offended by the phrase "merely" metaphorical.
The Ubuntu machines are promoted on the front page. Dell.com
A popular domain, that
Dell is going to think there's no pleasing the FOSS crowd if you keep nitpicking
an organization whose mission is to "strengthen the copyright [or any other] law" is not "strongly free market. The PFF and this Alliance are more correctly called "propertarians" b/c they think everything should be owned.
Gates: We want you to be locked in to proprietary Microsoft products
Jobs: We want you to be locked in to proprietary Apple products
Would that be east-west poles, 'cause they seem pretty close together...
Yeah, but a big problem with getting schadenfreude from MS is that they're *very likely to keep making money hand over fist for quite awhile. A big part of the fun of watching SCO implode was seeing them burn through their "investors" cash while sales plummeted and their stock got delisted.
I wish *one exec from the "content industry" would come by just for a day. In case that happens, here's a message for himher, right up a the top:
Fair use means *copying of your "content" that we are *legally entitled to do. *Without asking for *permission. We do not have to sit down with you and work on the problem, try and strike a balance that pleases everyone, come to an acceptable price. We get to just do it.
Hardly. I believe it was Valenti who said the way you get a backup of The Lion King is, you buy two copies of the Lion King.
No, they're saying "please use the item you've purchased from us only in the ways we approve."
This comes after attempts 1) to restrict the kinds of technology you can buy ('trusted' computing, broadcast flags); 2) to restrict what you can do with your hardware (anti-circumvention laws) and 3) to redefine "purchase" so that it actually just means "rental" of their 'content', and they retain the right to dictate how the property your renting may be used.
This kind of thing comes from the misguided view that tolerance means all beliefs have close to the same value. That is simply not true. Tolerance means leaving people alone as long as their beliefs are not hurting others. It's an essentially libertarian principle.
Ignoring the scientifically-confirmable, historical reality of the holocaust hurts others. Lots of others. I don't think it's going too far to say that a pedagogical approach like this is *catastrophic to any society that implements it. You could end up with an entire generation that doesn't know where fascism tends, and what the real human cost of demagoguery is.
In other news, this "coming soon image"u buntu?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/
used to be kinda different. And I made fun of it over here.
http://a4fs.net/img/lol.htm
Besides the things you mention, I feel the wiimote is the best by far because it has the potential to change the gaming demographic, perhaps radically.
Every female member of my extended family played the atari 2600 for a couple hours in the 80s and that was pretty much the last gaming they did. Every one of them is now addicted to the family wii -- and all we have is the Sports disc.
What UK schools?!! There aren't any UK Schools!
hehe. no text
If this were a civil offense and not a criminal, wouldn't they have to prove damages?
This guy had a deadline to fill up a few column inches, and said the first 6 or 7 incoherent things that came to mind ("open source reminds me of communism/religion/Woodstock/whatever"). This is the worst article I've seen linked from /. in a long time.