Anyway, is there a reason why you ignored the part about an independend film and on top of that a documentary about "boring smelly animal[s]" becoming one of the biggest hits in US cinemas this summer? Why isn't this newsworthy in your humble oppinion?
You see, once they cripple OpenGL to a point where it runs 50% slower, is stuck at 1.4 and not extensible, Direct 3d will probably shine in all areas in comparison.
"Yes, the practice of ex-political officials entering industry and using their contacts for lobbying purposes is common. However just because it is a common thing does not make it a good thing.
Here we can perhaps agree. But it's only natural, and frankly, to me anyway, expected, for very skilled and effective managers and leaders to be picked up from government by industry and vice versa."
I think the parent didn't try to make the point that it's wrong for them to enter the industry because they are experts, but that it's questionable to say the least if they enter the industry to help lobbying efforts with their old political contacts.
While I agree in general, I don't think blaming the end user is really fair.
After all, wifi and computers nowadays get sold as something easy to use and setup. Just plug it in and it works.
Unfortunately, the reality doesn't really live up to the promises. That is, even if the just works part is true (which of course everyone who has been the resident computer geek for friends and family knows isn't always the case, to put it mildly), in many cases the default setup is simply unbelievably insecure.
To sum it up, people are told things about computers and wifi that simply aren't true. As most people are not interested in computers and shouldn't be just to be able to use them, it's really unfair to blame them for believing the hype.
Thank god someone finally noticed, I was really getting worried here.
But it was probably my fault. In a world where articles like the one discussed here get published for real, it's really hard to tell if someone is joking.
"Okay, if you insist: FTA: It is about time we stopped being hypocritical and appreciated a job really well done. But it isn't. Popular or not, most of their products are mediocre hack-jobs that thrive despite their quality, not because of it."
You don't get it, do you? After all it: "is such a joy when it comes to simply connecting a device and watching the pretty little bubble detecting it and saying "its installed and ready for use" makes the slightly high price absolutely worth it. In Linux, you have to recompile a kernel if you want to so much as change your modem!"
And then you have the nerve to claim he doesn't provide arguments...
Terrible doesn't even begin to describe this kind of shit.
It's just unbelievable that someone would acutually write something like this, though it is even harder to believe that someone will actually publish it (or post a story about it on/. for that matter).
Wow, it's not often that you see somebody so desperate to start a flamewar.
Are you bored?
Btw., this issue has been discussed to death on/. already. Just yesterday there even was a somewhat stupid story about this issue. If you are interested, go read the discussion there, no need to start it here again.
And while you are reading the mentioned discussion, you might even find out what the sentence you seem to despice so much originally meant and most importantly, what sentence followed it.
So if you are really so bored as it seems, sift through the comments on the other story and lo and behold, a/. first here, you might actually learn something.
"Wondering about why and how we're here, and how our existence came to be, certainly has a place in a philosophical discussion."
Oh, it does, certainly. But I still don't see why debating it should involve intelligent design in any way. What philosophical insights does intelligent design add to the debate?
After reading your post again you don't seem to talk about intelligent design so much, which I would indeed qualify as a fixed ideology and a social movement, but about debating god, his existence and his influence on the questions you post in philosophy class.
That's of course something that should be debated there, but it doesn't really have anything to do with intelligent design, you can simply draw from the thousands of philosophers who debated these questions throughout the centuries.
"But if you can't admit it might have a place in a philosophical discussion (NOT a scientific discussion), we have nothing further to say."
Even if you do have nothing further to say to the other poster, maybe you'll do me the favor of explaining why it should have a place in a philosophy class. I'm European, so excuse my ignorance, but I really don't see why it should, from what I can tell it doesn't have any philosophical bearing. Or what is the philosophy that should be discussed in class?
If anything I'd say it falls in the department of sociology to discuss how something like the intelligent design movement could evolve.
"And saying it was created by Creationists is a red herring. It doesn't matter who "created" it. The concept is what it is."
I think you misunderstood the parent, he's not just saying it was created by creationists, which wouldn't really mean much, you are right, but that it was created by Creationists with the purpose of having some theory in place to attack science. So it hasn't evolved on its own as some scientific, or at least pseudoscientific theory, but was consciously created to fit a political agenda.
Well, if you are afraid of flame wars there isn't much left to be posted on/., is there?
New KDE or Gnome release. A no go. An Apple story. Nope. Maybe something about Windows. Ah, please don't go there.
Yes, there are a lot of discussions on/. that serve no purpose, so what. If that was the criterion for posting a story there wouldn't be much to post here.
Seriously, do we really need further discussions of this topic?
So Apple released a mouse that imho looks pretty stylish and tries to introduce some new concepts.
Fine and interesting, but I really fail to see why no 24 hours after a story about the new mouse, that generated more than 1400 comments (for a mouse people...), we need the next story about this very mouse.
Well, if anything this shows that a) a lot of us here should really get a life if we get all worked up about a mouse b) Apple really are marketing geniuses.
Even though there are a lot of things I don't like about Apple, they sure know how to make hardware that looks stylish.
Anyway, I'm really looking forward to the posts by our resident Apple fans who used to explain us in every discussion that having a one button mouse is the only sensible thing to have when it comes to usability, on exactly why now having five buttons is the only way to go.
But as they have already mastered the switch to Intel and the introduction of DRM so well I'm confident they will succeed again.
Well, I don't have Suse installed right now, so I don't have a way to verify this, but afaik they really changed their update mechanism in the newest version (9.3 I think) and now use deltarpms, which are essentially binary diffs.
While you do have a point, you really went to great pains to misunderstand what the author wanted to say.
Free software is still uncharted territory for many companies and they have no point of reference to see if some free software fits their needs or not, or even simply if it is ready for production use.
This can make the adoption of free software more confusing than staying with your propietary software, which probably is the reason why some people thought up the project the article is about.
I really fail to see what should be FUD about this.
As long as they make the right choices and rate vi, ehr, I mean emacs, no, I mean Gnome, wait no, KDE, oh, what I mean is xine, wait, no, I was talking about mplayer to be the best application, everything will be fine.
In order for/. mods to understand sarcasm, you'll have to clearly mark your comments as being sarcastic.
That way, at least some of them will understand what you are trying to say.
So please, the next time around, put [sarcasm] tags around your post, followed by a short disclaimer that your post is indeed intended to be sarcastic and maybe add a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm for good measure.
Wow, how did I know that I'd be treated to a post like the parents after reading the article...
First off, he did in no way compare the US and China. All he did was state the obvious (from his point of view anyway), that a technology like freenet can protect free speech wherever necessary.
Now I think we would all agree that it is necessary in China, but how saying that it would also protect free speech in the US, when and if necessary can be constructed to mean US==China is beyond me. You'll probably have to be a neocon ideologue getting your worldview from far right wing websites like the one the parent link to, to "misunderstand" the quoted sentence in this way.
And btw., maybe you should read up on some US history. A google search for McCarthy or J. Edgar Hoover might provide you with some clues.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the info...
Anyway, is there a reason why you ignored the part about an independend film and on top of that a documentary about "boring smelly animal[s]" becoming one of the biggest hits in US cinemas this summer? Why isn't this newsworthy in your humble oppinion?
http://www.abisource.org/
No, they are not.
You see, once they cripple OpenGL to a point where it runs 50% slower, is stuck at 1.4 and not extensible, Direct 3d will probably shine in all areas in comparison.
"Yes, the practice of ex-political officials entering industry and using their contacts for lobbying purposes is common. However just because it is a common thing does not make it a good thing.
Here we can perhaps agree. But it's only natural, and frankly, to me anyway, expected, for very skilled and effective managers and leaders to be picked up from government by industry and vice versa."
I think the parent didn't try to make the point that it's wrong for them to enter the industry because they are experts, but that it's questionable to say the least if they enter the industry to help lobbying efforts with their old political contacts.
Any further questions?
While I agree in general, I don't think blaming the end user is really fair.
After all, wifi and computers nowadays get sold as something easy to use and setup. Just plug it in and it works.
Unfortunately, the reality doesn't really live up to the promises.
That is, even if the just works part is true (which of course everyone who has been the resident computer geek for friends and family knows isn't always the case, to put it mildly), in many cases the default setup is simply unbelievably insecure.
To sum it up, people are told things about computers and wifi that simply aren't true. As most people are not interested in computers and shouldn't be just to be able to use them, it's really unfair to blame them for believing the hype.
"I know you're jokin around, but just to add .."
Thank god someone finally noticed, I was really getting worried here.
But it was probably my fault. In a world where articles like the one discussed here get published for real, it's really hard to tell if someone is joking.
"Okay, if you insist:
FTA: It is about time we stopped being hypocritical and appreciated a job really well done.
But it isn't. Popular or not, most of their products are mediocre hack-jobs that thrive despite their quality, not because of it."
You don't get it, do you?
After all it:
"is such a joy when it comes to simply connecting a device and watching the pretty little bubble detecting it and saying "its installed and ready for use" makes the slightly high price absolutely worth it. In Linux, you have to recompile a kernel if you want to so much as change your modem!"
And then you have the nerve to claim he doesn't provide arguments...
Terrible doesn't even begin to describe this kind of shit.
/. for that matter).
It's just unbelievable that someone would acutually write something like this, though it is even harder to believe that someone will actually publish it (or post a story about it on
Me German.
Me no speak English good.
Me soo sorry.
Wow, it's not often that you see somebody so desperate to start a flamewar.
/. already. Just yesterday there even was a somewhat stupid story about this issue. If you are interested, go read the discussion there, no need to start it here again.
/. first here, you might actually learn something.
Are you bored?
Btw., this issue has been discussed to death on
And while you are reading the mentioned discussion, you might even find out what the sentence you seem to despice so much originally meant and most importantly, what sentence followed it.
So if you are really so bored as it seems, sift through the comments on the other story and lo and behold, a
Ah, if it's only a mistake than it's no problem.
After all, everybody makes mistakes from time to time...
"Wondering about why and how we're here, and how our existence came to be, certainly has a place in a philosophical discussion."
Oh, it does, certainly. But I still don't see why debating it should involve intelligent design in any way. What philosophical insights does intelligent design add to the debate?
After reading your post again you don't seem to talk about intelligent design so much, which I would indeed qualify as a fixed ideology and a social movement, but about debating god, his existence and his influence on the questions you post in philosophy class.
That's of course something that should be debated there, but it doesn't really have anything to do with intelligent design, you can simply draw from the thousands of philosophers who debated these questions throughout the centuries.
"But if you can't admit it might have a place in a philosophical discussion (NOT a scientific discussion), we have nothing further to say."
Even if you do have nothing further to say to the other poster, maybe you'll do me the favor of explaining why it should have a place in a philosophy class.
I'm European, so excuse my ignorance, but I really don't see why it should, from what I can tell it doesn't have any philosophical bearing. Or what is the philosophy that should be discussed in class?
If anything I'd say it falls in the department of sociology to discuss how something like the intelligent design movement could evolve.
"And saying it was created by Creationists is a red herring. It doesn't matter who "created" it. The concept is what it is."
I think you misunderstood the parent, he's not just saying it was created by creationists, which wouldn't really mean much, you are right, but that it was created by Creationists with the purpose of having some theory in place to attack science. So it hasn't evolved on its own as some scientific, or at least pseudoscientific theory, but was consciously created to fit a political agenda.
Thanks in advance for your answer.
Well, if you are afraid of flame wars there isn't much left to be posted on /., is there?
/. that serve no purpose, so what. If that was the criterion for posting a story there wouldn't be much to post here.
New KDE or Gnome release. A no go.
An Apple story. Nope.
Maybe something about Windows. Ah, please don't go there.
Yes, there are a lot of discussions on
Really? The US president endorsing something like intelligent design isn't even newsworthy in your opinion?
That's scary.
Rest assured, for someone from Europe like me this whole debate looks really surreal and scary, but it's definately newsworthy.
Seriously, do we really need further discussions of this topic?
So Apple released a mouse that imho looks pretty stylish and tries to introduce some new concepts.
Fine and interesting, but I really fail to see why no 24 hours after a story about the new mouse, that generated more than 1400 comments (for a mouse people...), we need the next story about this very mouse.
Well, if anything this shows that
a) a lot of us here should really get a life if we get all worked up about a mouse
b) Apple really are marketing geniuses.
Btw., this really reminds me off:
http://blog.thomasnesges.de/uploads/iProduct.png
Even though there are a lot of things I don't like about Apple, they sure know how to make hardware that looks stylish.
Anyway, I'm really looking forward to the posts by our resident Apple fans who used to explain us in every discussion that having a one button mouse is the only sensible thing to have when it comes to usability, on exactly why now having five buttons is the only way to go.
But as they have already mastered the switch to Intel and the introduction of DRM so well I'm confident they will succeed again.
"what you suggest requires the source tree for every app to reside on the user's computer and then download and apply source patches."
Nope, you also can patch binaries using, gasp, binary patches.
And btw., I'm not sure, but I think MS also uses patches.
Well, I don't have Suse installed right now, so I don't have a way to verify this, but afaik they really changed their update mechanism in the newest version (9.3 I think) and now use deltarpms, which are essentially binary diffs.
e ssional/deltarpm.html
http://www.novell.com/products/linuxpackages/prof
IIRC the latest Suse already uses binary diffs for updating. So the technology seems to be ready, now we just need more distributions using it.
On an other note, maybe it would be a good idea if the freedomtoaster stations would also offer security update CDs once a month.
Really, cut the paranoia.
While you do have a point, you really went to great pains to misunderstand what the author wanted to say.
Free software is still uncharted territory for many companies and they have no point of reference to see if some free software fits their needs or not, or even simply if it is ready for production use.
This can make the adoption of free software more confusing than staying with your propietary software, which probably is the reason why some people thought up the project the article is about.
I really fail to see what should be FUD about this.
As long as they make the right choices and rate vi, ehr, I mean emacs, no, I mean Gnome, wait no, KDE, oh, what I mean is xine, wait, no, I was talking about mplayer to be the best application, everything will be fine.
Didn't you learn anything here?
/. mods to understand sarcasm, you'll have to clearly mark your comments as being sarcastic.
In order for
That way, at least some of them will understand what you are trying to say.
So please, the next time around, put [sarcasm] tags around your post, followed by a short disclaimer that your post is indeed intended to be sarcastic and maybe add a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm for good measure.
Hope this helps.
Wow, how did I know that I'd be treated to a post like the parents after reading the article...
First off, he did in no way compare the US and China. All he did was state the obvious (from his point of view anyway), that a technology like freenet can protect free speech wherever necessary.
Now I think we would all agree that it is necessary in China, but how saying that it would also protect free speech in the US, when and if necessary can be constructed to mean US==China is beyond me.
You'll probably have to be a neocon ideologue getting your worldview from far right wing websites like the one the parent link to, to "misunderstand" the quoted sentence in this way.
And btw., maybe you should read up on some US history. A google search for McCarthy or J. Edgar Hoover might provide you with some clues.