It's a very deeply hostile situation there. You think it's coïncidence that the wars stopped when both sides got nukes? That doesn't mean there can't be another war between them, of course, but I don't think any serious observer of that situation doubts that the fact that both sides have nukes is a serious stabiliser. Neither side wants to commit suicide, and with both of them having nukes, that's essentially what it would be.
Iran has plenty of faults, but in comparison to their neighbors they actually look pretty good. Unstable? By what standard?
Why would it surprise anyone that the elected President (yes, unlike our "allies" in the region, Iran is a functioning republic) would voice the widely held sentiment of his countrymen that Israel should be wiped from the map? Why is that even considered worth mentioning? Who in the region, except Israel, *doesn't* agree with that?
The Israelis have tons of nukes, the Iranians are, at best, many years away from having one. The argument could be made that an Iran with nukes would actually make the region more stable. It's certainly done that in every similar case.
And finally, who says it's up to the US to decide who will be allowed to have nukes? That's exactly the kind of heavy-handed presumption, and bald-faced disregard for law, that makes the US so unpopular in most of the world already, and down that path lies only madness.
Not only are you completely off-base on the Dhimmi issue, the fact is that muslims already have nukes. Ever heard of Pakistan? The Indian and Pakistani nukes are doing a wonderful job of deterrence, and are probably the only thing that's kept those two countries from all out war on many occasions.
Actually, several classical sources mention that Macedonians did not, typically, understand Greek. Sure, the upper crust did - it was the language of culture commerce and art. But the rank and file Macedonians, such as those that made up Alexanders personal bodyguard unit, required translators.
There isn't enough of the Macedonian language preserved in extant sources to say for sure what sort of language it was, but it clearly was not Greek, whatever else may or may not have been true of it. And no classical author considered Macedonians to be Greek - while many explicitly classified them as barbarians.
(Most) Christians (or any other member of the Judeo-Christian community, for that matter)
I really don't think that's accurate. Biblical literalists are a pretty small (though annoyingly loud) minority of those who call themselves Christian. They're an even tinier minority in Judaïsm. They might well be a majority in Islam, but even that I'm not sure of.
Actually, Sam Harris' argument only makes sense if you first define most religion out of the picture.
His argument, specifically, pretends that fundamentalist-literalist theology is the sum of all religion. In fact it's not, it's a minority.
The interesting thing is, there are two groups that like to pretend that this fundamentalist-literalist theology is the only form of valid religion - the fundamentalists themselves, for obvious reasons, and the doctrinaire atheists - because that form of religion is so very easy to criticise. It's utter nonsense, and can be quickly and conclusively shown to be utter nonsense to anyone not already commited to it. But it's far from the only form of religion.
It's perfectly possible for non-literalists to have faith in G_d without that contradicting scientific knowledge of evolution in any way.
Well, unless someone keeps a GTK1 fork alive, I personally won't be using or distributing it.
Not that that's any big loss - not like I've been contributing code to the project, after all. But it's a datapoint, and I know I'm not the only one. GTK2s forced windowsisms are definately NOT universally appreciated, or tolerated.
I think you're mostly on the right track here, but the implication that the intel chips are necessary for linux is totally wrong. Linux has been running on PPC for ages, and running quite well. Platform-independence is one of the key advantages of Linux, let's try not to forget that.
"Rich people" both pay the most taxes, and are paid the most out of taxes.
In order to think clearly about it, you have to divide this homogenous bunch of "rich people" up a bit more. There are, at minimum, two groups of 'the rich' - those that are terminally and incurably rich by virtue of government redistribution and economic meddling, and those that simply have high incomes as a result of hard work, talent, etc.
Slashing taxes and spending back to constitutional levels would, in a sense, favour the latter group, but in no sense would it favour the former.
And frankly, if getting rich means working hard to satisfy the desires of other people, supplying goods or services that are valuable, rather than sitting around collecting government contracts, patent royalties, and the like, then I have no problem with it. It's proper economic activity that enriches everyone, and it should be rewarded.
I'm sorry, but in order for the market to work and content to move into the digital age and away from physical media, there has to be DRM.
All that's required for the market to work is for it to be allowed to work. DRM is just another flailing attempt by those addicted to monopoly rents to prevent the market from working.
Linus doesn't want to use it, fine. I think he's an idiot for not getting it
He's not an idiot. I do agree that he's not getting it here, but he's far from an idiot. I hope he does get it, sooner than later - and on the other side, I think some of his criticisms indicate areas where the current text is less clear than it should be, and the FSF should find it helpful for that.
Appeal to popularity is a fallacy. MSIE is better described as a trojan horse than as a browser. The problems you describe are real, for certain, but they're problems we've reached as a result of exactly the kind of thinking you're demonstrating here, and the cowardice of supposed IT professionals who are afraid to call a spade a spade - afraid of the financial consequences of honesty.
Is that a 'real' objection or a spurious attempt to change the subject?
You see, the word 'real' has a number of different meanings in colloquial English.
Obviously I'm not implying that MicroSoft's OSs are imaginary, but rather that they are 'toys', not serious systems suitable for serious users who need 'real computers.' And that's just the obvious truth of the matter.
Unfortunately, it does nothing to prevent the problem from reoccuring.
Obviously, putting a real operating system on is advisable.
If, for whatever reason, you can't follow that advice, you can still take less effective steps. If you don't require the newer versions of windows (and many don't) you can use 98lite to install windows 98 or ME (98 is better, obviously) without most of the infection vectors used today.
If you must use XP, you may be able to run as a non-privileged user (although a depressingly high number of applications will refuse to work if you do this, which limits the usefulness of the techique.)
Even if you can't remove IE from your system entirely, you can reduce the risk from it by using a real browser, Firefox or Opera being obvious choices.
Darwinian evolution could certainly be falsified, and in a sense has been, in some details. This is the reason why we now speak of 'neo-darwinian evolution' as the theory has had to be changed quite a bit to conform with facts discovered since Darwins day. It's far from inconceivable that it could have been falsified in the larger sense as well, were the facts of the matter different. It's considered a solid scientific theory because it's been tested constantly for many years and that's never happened.
On the other hand, by the standard you suggest, we might well argue that ID *has* been falsified already, on several occasions. The irreduceable complexity argument is riddled with holes, both logical and factual. See http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.htm l for a decent review of the argument.
I don't agree. The way those restrictions are worded they shouldn't affect legitimate uses of the technology. They just prohibit pulling a Tivo - and Tivo, by the way, is proof this is necessary. They've done exactly what this will prohibit - they've stayed within the boundaries of GPL v.2 technically, while violating the intent completely. Their users can get the source, but they are prevented from using it in any meaningful way. The DRM section of v.3a, as I read it, is rather narrowly aimed at preventing that.
What does bother me in the drafts I've seen so far is the forgiveness clause, however. It looks like it could easily be abused by chronic violators, and I certainly hope that's given some more thought before the final version.
Look at the recent court filings. If they only have your IP from the tracker, that's not sufficient to even file a complaint - they have to allege an actual infringment or their case is open to immediate dismissal.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a very deeply hostile situation there. You think it's coïncidence that the wars stopped when both sides got nukes? That doesn't mean there can't be another war between them, of course, but I don't think any serious observer of that situation doubts that the fact that both sides have nukes is a serious stabiliser. Neither side wants to commit suicide, and with both of them having nukes, that's essentially what it would be.
Iran has plenty of faults, but in comparison to their neighbors they actually look pretty good. Unstable? By what standard?
Why would it surprise anyone that the elected President (yes, unlike our "allies" in the region, Iran is a functioning republic) would voice the widely held sentiment of his countrymen that Israel should be wiped from the map? Why is that even considered worth mentioning? Who in the region, except Israel, *doesn't* agree with that?
The Israelis have tons of nukes, the Iranians are, at best, many years away from having one. The argument could be made that an Iran with nukes would actually make the region more stable. It's certainly done that in every similar case.
And finally, who says it's up to the US to decide who will be allowed to have nukes? That's exactly the kind of heavy-handed presumption, and bald-faced disregard for law, that makes the US so unpopular in most of the world already, and down that path lies only madness.
I'd have to say you just reïnforced my point.
There is absolutely no way a rational cost/benefit analysis would ever lead anyone to choose windows. Seriously.
Not only are you completely off-base on the Dhimmi issue, the fact is that muslims already have nukes. Ever heard of Pakistan? The Indian and Pakistani nukes are doing a wonderful job of deterrence, and are probably the only thing that's kept those two countries from all out war on many occasions.
Actually, several classical sources mention that Macedonians did not, typically, understand Greek. Sure, the upper crust did - it was the language of culture commerce and art. But the rank and file Macedonians, such as those that made up Alexanders personal bodyguard unit, required translators.
There isn't enough of the Macedonian language preserved in extant sources to say for sure what sort of language it was, but it clearly was not Greek, whatever else may or may not have been true of it. And no classical author considered Macedonians to be Greek - while many explicitly classified them as barbarians.
I really don't think that's accurate. Biblical literalists are a pretty small (though annoyingly loud) minority of those who call themselves Christian. They're an even tinier minority in Judaïsm. They might well be a majority in Islam, but even that I'm not sure of.
You find it alarming that his understanding of the bible is consistent with science and archæology? Why?
Actually, Sam Harris' argument only makes sense if you first define most religion out of the picture.
His argument, specifically, pretends that fundamentalist-literalist theology is the sum of all religion. In fact it's not, it's a minority.
The interesting thing is, there are two groups that like to pretend that this fundamentalist-literalist theology is the only form of valid religion - the fundamentalists themselves, for obvious reasons, and the doctrinaire atheists - because that form of religion is so very easy to criticise. It's utter nonsense, and can be quickly and conclusively shown to be utter nonsense to anyone not already commited to it. But it's far from the only form of religion.
It's perfectly possible for non-literalists to have faith in G_d without that contradicting scientific knowledge of evolution in any way.
When you don't have any rational arguments, thinly-veiled threats can still make you feel superior, eh?
Well, unless someone keeps a GTK1 fork alive, I personally won't be using or distributing it. Not that that's any big loss - not like I've been contributing code to the project, after all. But it's a datapoint, and I know I'm not the only one. GTK2s forced windowsisms are definately NOT universally appreciated, or tolerated.
Exactly!
I think you're mostly on the right track here, but the implication that the intel chips are necessary for linux is totally wrong. Linux has been running on PPC for ages, and running quite well. Platform-independence is one of the key advantages of Linux, let's try not to forget that.
"Rich people" both pay the most taxes, and are paid the most out of taxes.
In order to think clearly about it, you have to divide this homogenous bunch of "rich people" up a bit more. There are, at minimum, two groups of 'the rich' - those that are terminally and incurably rich by virtue of government redistribution and economic meddling, and those that simply have high incomes as a result of hard work, talent, etc.
Slashing taxes and spending back to constitutional levels would, in a sense, favour the latter group, but in no sense would it favour the former.
And frankly, if getting rich means working hard to satisfy the desires of other people, supplying goods or services that are valuable, rather than sitting around collecting government contracts, patent royalties, and the like, then I have no problem with it. It's proper economic activity that enriches everyone, and it should be rewarded.
All that's required for the market to work is for it to be allowed to work. DRM is just another flailing attempt by those addicted to monopoly rents to prevent the market from working.
He's not an idiot. I do agree that he's not getting it here, but he's far from an idiot. I hope he does get it, sooner than later - and on the other side, I think some of his criticisms indicate areas where the current text is less clear than it should be, and the FSF should find it helpful for that.
Appeal to popularity is a fallacy. MSIE is better described as a trojan horse than as a browser. The problems you describe are real, for certain, but they're problems we've reached as a result of exactly the kind of thinking you're demonstrating here, and the cowardice of supposed IT professionals who are afraid to call a spade a spade - afraid of the financial consequences of honesty.
Is that a 'real' objection or a spurious attempt to change the subject?
You see, the word 'real' has a number of different meanings in colloquial English.
Obviously I'm not implying that MicroSoft's OSs are imaginary, but rather that they are 'toys', not serious systems suitable for serious users who need 'real computers.' And that's just the obvious truth of the matter.
Unfortunately, it does nothing to prevent the problem from reoccuring.
Obviously, putting a real operating system on is advisable.
If, for whatever reason, you can't follow that advice, you can still take less effective steps. If you don't require the newer versions of windows (and many don't) you can use 98lite to install windows 98 or ME (98 is better, obviously) without most of the infection vectors used today.
If you must use XP, you may be able to run as a non-privileged user (although a depressingly high number of applications will refuse to work if you do this, which limits the usefulness of the techique.)
Even if you can't remove IE from your system entirely, you can reduce the risk from it by using a real browser, Firefox or Opera being obvious choices.
Reboot from a freedos or linux boot floppy.
Sounds very much like my experience with Everquest. Sounds like SOE hasn't learned a thing in the roughly 4 years since I last played...
Umm, no. Actually it's not.
You're very confused.
m l for a decent review of the argument.
Darwinian evolution could certainly be falsified, and in a sense has been, in some details. This is the reason why we now speak of 'neo-darwinian evolution' as the theory has had to be changed quite a bit to conform with facts discovered since Darwins day. It's far from inconceivable that it could have been falsified in the larger sense as well, were the facts of the matter different. It's considered a solid scientific theory because it's been tested constantly for many years and that's never happened.
On the other hand, by the standard you suggest, we might well argue that ID *has* been falsified already, on several occasions. The irreduceable complexity argument is riddled with holes, both logical and factual. See http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.ht
I don't agree. The way those restrictions are worded they shouldn't affect legitimate uses of the technology. They just prohibit pulling a Tivo - and Tivo, by the way, is proof this is necessary. They've done exactly what this will prohibit - they've stayed within the boundaries of GPL v.2 technically, while violating the intent completely. Their users can get the source, but they are prevented from using it in any meaningful way. The DRM section of v.3a, as I read it, is rather narrowly aimed at preventing that.
What does bother me in the drafts I've seen so far is the forgiveness clause, however. It looks like it could easily be abused by chronic violators, and I certainly hope that's given some more thought before the final version.
Sadly it's not free or even open.
Happily Azureus works quite well.
Look at the recent court filings. If they only have your IP from the tracker, that's not sufficient to even file a complaint - they have to allege an actual infringment or their case is open to immediate dismissal.