Major flamebait. Google hiring too many people too fast, has nothing to do with difficulties it might(or might not) be having finding qualified candidates for certain positions.
Considering that a lot of the GPLv3 was designed to specifically target the actions of companies like MS, is it so surprising that MS would be avoiding them?
Yes I know MS is claiming those sections don't apply to them, but that really hasn't been proven in court yet. For now its still a bit nebulous. I'm not saying that MS is in the right about those sections. All I'm saying is that MS's lawyers think they might be able to convince the courts that they are right. FSF lawyers say it does apply to MS. Until a few court cases settle the issue, it only makes sense for MS to avoid GPLv3 code if at all possible.
I noticed most of the blogs and news sites have been focusing on this class divide between Facebook and MySpace. I really think they are making to big a deal about nothing. Facebook until recently was promoted mainly towards college students. It whole focus was concentrated in a small niche area of the social networking market. Now that it has gone mainstream, I have noticed a much wider diversity in it's audience. I expect that to continue, and grow. Which should offset the current "class" divisions that are left over from the previous niche audience. In fact, I really think that if MySpace wants to keep it's current position as the top social networking site, it is going to have to make a lot of changes.
You have your beliefs and I have mine. I respect your belief. I believe your position to be wrong, but I completely respect your right to have that belief, and I don't belittle you or put you down for it. I don't pity you or accuse you of having a disorder or being delusional simply because your belief contradicts mine. I can't prove that God exists, but you can't prove he doesn't. You think my position is wrong. Fine, I respect that. Why can't you respect me and my beliefs the same way I respect you and your beliefs? Respect doesn't require you to compromise your beliefs or agree with me any more than it requires me to compromise mine.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough when I said they were not separate. I agree with your basic point of view. Some things like the existence or absence of God will never be proven by science. And you're right in saying that they are separate in terms of methodology used to decide on truth, but I don't agree that they can't compliment each other.
I believe in God. The god I believe in is not the mystical aloof and incomprehensible God that was used to keep people in line during the middle ages. The God I believe in is the rational orderly God that the protestant reformers believed in. If you believe that an orderly rational God created the universe, then it follows that the universe is also an orderly rational place. if that is the case, then humans, possessing reason and intelect, can discover and utilize the orderly rules and processes by which the universe functions. The belief that the universe is an orderly rational place is the concept that propelled western science ahead of most of the rest of the world. If you read some of the writings of the scientists of that time, like Newton, you will see a recurring theme thought their work, that the natural world was understandable because God created it to follow orderly and rational rules.
The difference between the scientists of that time, like Newton, and the ones of this time, is that neither side was afraid of what science would prove. As I said before, scientists on the secular side today don't want to prove anything that might validate a claim by the religious side. And scientists on the religious side don't want to prove anything that might invalidate a religious belief.
Of course, who am I kidding? There were scientists and religious leaders then who did the same thing that people are doing today. There are probably scientists today on both sides that aren't afraid to prove some of the points of the other side if it is the truth. Sadly, those scientists aren't the most vocal. The most vocal are the blatantly anti-religious and the blatantly anti-secular scientists. So both sides come off looking biased and irrational.
"faith and reason need be seperate"
Why? I'm not one of those people who say that we should ignore science if it doesn't agree with religion, but that doesn't mean that science can't prove something that you believe through faith. If what you believe is true, then science should be able to back it up. Maybe not now, but possibly in the future with better technology. A lot of the scientific advances made during the renaissance were made by people who had a belief about how the world was organized based on their religion and set about trying to prove it using science.
I personally think that is the problem with both camps today. The religious side wants to hobble science because it might contradict their faith. The secular side often discards or ignores certain avenues of science because it might validate something the religious side believes and give credence to other beliefs that may be more irrational. Both sides are censoring science in the name of truth.
I agree, this whole thing has been more of a witch hunt against Microsoft than anything else. Why should Microsoft have to play under different rules than any one else. Just because they control most of the market, doesn't mean they have no rights to their own proprietary software and protocols. I don't think it is fair to treat them differently based entirely on how much of the market they control.
I think it is horrible that reporters where attacked, but why are you blaming the US for this? In all the articles I've read about this, it has been clear that the US had no say in where the summit was held. The UN decided to have the summit in Tunisia for its own reasons. The reporters that were assaulted/harrased/arrested where not even reporting on anything that the US cared about. So it makes no sense to say that the US had anything to do with the attacks and the banning. The reporters were all reporting on the human rights abuses of the Tunisian government. Which the US government is not happy with. So there is certainly no reason to blame the US for the problems reporters had in Tunisia. It's not like Tunisia is an extension of the US.
I totally agree. The language is no longer as important as the IDE. I program using Visual Studio, and the hardest thing for me is not learning new languages, or writing apps in those laguages. The hardest thing is getting comfortable in a new IDE. personally I like Java as a language, but I don't do much progamming in it since I am not very comfortable with any of the Java IDEs out there. I really don't care what language(within reason, not all languages are appropriate for what I do) I'm using, but if I am not comfortable with the IDE then programming is a chore. Most of the time I just want to get it done. Doing it in an environment that I am not comfortable in slows me down.
That said, I really should try to get comfortable with Eclipse. Even though Visual Studio is a great IDE, it isn't free or portable. One of these days I'll put the time into it.
Slashdot Mirror
Major flamebait. Google hiring too many people too fast, has nothing to do with difficulties it might(or might not) be having finding qualified candidates for certain positions.
Considering that a lot of the GPLv3 was designed to specifically target the actions of companies like MS, is it so surprising that MS would be avoiding them? Yes I know MS is claiming those sections don't apply to them, but that really hasn't been proven in court yet. For now its still a bit nebulous. I'm not saying that MS is in the right about those sections. All I'm saying is that MS's lawyers think they might be able to convince the courts that they are right. FSF lawyers say it does apply to MS. Until a few court cases settle the issue, it only makes sense for MS to avoid GPLv3 code if at all possible.
I noticed most of the blogs and news sites have been focusing on this class divide between Facebook and MySpace. I really think they are making to big a deal about nothing. Facebook until recently was promoted mainly towards college students. It whole focus was concentrated in a small niche area of the social networking market. Now that it has gone mainstream, I have noticed a much wider diversity in it's audience. I expect that to continue, and grow. Which should offset the current "class" divisions that are left over from the previous niche audience. In fact, I really think that if MySpace wants to keep it's current position as the top social networking site, it is going to have to make a lot of changes.
You have your beliefs and I have mine. I respect your belief. I believe your position to be wrong, but I completely respect your right to have that belief, and I don't belittle you or put you down for it. I don't pity you or accuse you of having a disorder or being delusional simply because your belief contradicts mine. I can't prove that God exists, but you can't prove he doesn't. You think my position is wrong. Fine, I respect that. Why can't you respect me and my beliefs the same way I respect you and your beliefs? Respect doesn't require you to compromise your beliefs or agree with me any more than it requires me to compromise mine.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough when I said they were not separate. I agree with your basic point of view. Some things like the existence or absence of God will never be proven by science. And you're right in saying that they are separate in terms of methodology used to decide on truth, but I don't agree that they can't compliment each other. I believe in God. The god I believe in is not the mystical aloof and incomprehensible God that was used to keep people in line during the middle ages. The God I believe in is the rational orderly God that the protestant reformers believed in. If you believe that an orderly rational God created the universe, then it follows that the universe is also an orderly rational place. if that is the case, then humans, possessing reason and intelect, can discover and utilize the orderly rules and processes by which the universe functions. The belief that the universe is an orderly rational place is the concept that propelled western science ahead of most of the rest of the world. If you read some of the writings of the scientists of that time, like Newton, you will see a recurring theme thought their work, that the natural world was understandable because God created it to follow orderly and rational rules. The difference between the scientists of that time, like Newton, and the ones of this time, is that neither side was afraid of what science would prove. As I said before, scientists on the secular side today don't want to prove anything that might validate a claim by the religious side. And scientists on the religious side don't want to prove anything that might invalidate a religious belief. Of course, who am I kidding? There were scientists and religious leaders then who did the same thing that people are doing today. There are probably scientists today on both sides that aren't afraid to prove some of the points of the other side if it is the truth. Sadly, those scientists aren't the most vocal. The most vocal are the blatantly anti-religious and the blatantly anti-secular scientists. So both sides come off looking biased and irrational.
"faith and reason need be seperate" Why? I'm not one of those people who say that we should ignore science if it doesn't agree with religion, but that doesn't mean that science can't prove something that you believe through faith. If what you believe is true, then science should be able to back it up. Maybe not now, but possibly in the future with better technology. A lot of the scientific advances made during the renaissance were made by people who had a belief about how the world was organized based on their religion and set about trying to prove it using science. I personally think that is the problem with both camps today. The religious side wants to hobble science because it might contradict their faith. The secular side often discards or ignores certain avenues of science because it might validate something the religious side believes and give credence to other beliefs that may be more irrational. Both sides are censoring science in the name of truth.
I agree, this whole thing has been more of a witch hunt against Microsoft than anything else. Why should Microsoft have to play under different rules than any one else. Just because they control most of the market, doesn't mean they have no rights to their own proprietary software and protocols. I don't think it is fair to treat them differently based entirely on how much of the market they control.
I think it is horrible that reporters where attacked, but why are you blaming the US for this? In all the articles I've read about this, it has been clear that the US had no say in where the summit was held. The UN decided to have the summit in Tunisia for its own reasons. The reporters that were assaulted/harrased/arrested where not even reporting on anything that the US cared about. So it makes no sense to say that the US had anything to do with the attacks and the banning. The reporters were all reporting on the human rights abuses of the Tunisian government. Which the US government is not happy with. So there is certainly no reason to blame the US for the problems reporters had in Tunisia. It's not like Tunisia is an extension of the US.
I totally agree. The language is no longer as important as the IDE. I program using Visual Studio, and the hardest thing for me is not learning new languages, or writing apps in those laguages. The hardest thing is getting comfortable in a new IDE. personally I like Java as a language, but I don't do much progamming in it since I am not very comfortable with any of the Java IDEs out there. I really don't care what language(within reason, not all languages are appropriate for what I do) I'm using, but if I am not comfortable with the IDE then programming is a chore. Most of the time I just want to get it done. Doing it in an environment that I am not comfortable in slows me down. That said, I really should try to get comfortable with Eclipse. Even though Visual Studio is a great IDE, it isn't free or portable. One of these days I'll put the time into it.