I would argue that the ordinary person has turned away from Science in particular and Reason in general and allow for Faith to fill in where Reason once ruled. Therefore science is not of interest. At all.
It worked so well for Newton, Descartes, and Kant, for example?
The remains that Browser X is taking less memory from Windows's pool of resources.
I don't know how the Windows memory manager works, but the Linux kernel and glibc allow processes to map more memory than they actually use, and that's fine.
I did, especially the part where you said people who expect you to follow the license are "annoying" and where you asked "who cares" if you follow the license. I realize that was a rhetorical question, but the answer is still "the original author". It doesn't matter if the King of England or the Empress of France thinks that downloading unmodified source code from someone else's FTP site is okay. You're violating the license, and that's copyright infringement, and that's not okay.
Which part of that is difficult for you to understand?
I guess by that reasoning, a womb is a useless setting for a human embryo to develop. After all, the embryo gets no experience at all with such real-world tasks as breathing, walking, or eating.
False dilemma.
I said that academic studies of software development rarely include the difficult issues which real-world programmers face regularly. That doesn't make academic studies bad.
Unfortunately, a lot of employers seem to think that computer science graduates make decent programmers, and a lot of schools do nothing to discourage that wrongheaded idea. Ideally, they'd stop. Until then, I wish they taught practical matters of programming as well.
Why should we pay as much, or near to the full price of a dead tree product for a digital copy?
You can do so much more with an unfettered electronic copy than you can with a physical product. What is the value of device shifting, or full text search?
Re:Anything else out there?
on
The State of X.Org
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I do know a few things--and one of those things is that on some projects, even if you have thousands of man-hours dedicated to the current codebase, a fresh start is needed.
If the X.org developers don't have the resources to maintain the current code base (and it's easy to make that argument, based on what's happened), how is splitting their developer efforts and likely spending several years adding back the features the current code supports going to make them go faster? Magic unicorn wish-land candy-flavored fairy glitter?
If you don't like the fact that I express my opinion...
Irrelevant; express away. I only care if someone else takes your idea seriously without considering the drawbacks. I have no illusion that the X.org developers care about either of our opinions on what they should do.
Re:Anything else out there?
on
The State of X.Org
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Oh, so by "X needs to fork", you meant "I have a brilliant idea that the experienced software developers working on X.org have surely not thought of, and all I need is to convince someone else to do it, and I'm going to respond to any criticism of my brilliant ideas with the insinuation that other people should do this work for me."
I have other projects to refactor, thank you. I'll leave the X.org developers to decide how best to approach their code.
Re:Anything else out there?
on
The State of X.Org
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Why is it one or the other? I prefer to avoid false dilemmas couched in inappropriate analogies to physical constructs; there's a whole field of research and practice in software development dedicated to improving the design of working code without changing its behavior.
Removing him from office will keep future presidents from claiming that the office has those same powers.
That theory didn't work very well with Nixon. (If you don't remember Nixon, would you like to discuss Clinton's use of executive privilege? No, not Bill -- Hillary.)
But seriously, the gov't spends a LOT of time and money making no fly lists. Some of those people on that list are people that you and I don't want to be on a plane with. This is not imaginary, this is fact. See 9-11-01 for an example.
Yes, I'm sure you can think of 19 people you don't want as passengers on your plane, and good job to the TSA for identifying them almost seven years later, and despite the fact that they're unlikely to be passengers on your plane right now.
That's more to Java being stupidly typed rather than securely typed. The standard library and JCP are overfull of "The last API you will ever need, and so you can't change it!"
They can certainly make incremental improvements to some subsystems (and they do, and give those changes back to the OSS community.) From a business-wide standpoint, they have no reason to. They sell a shrinkwrapped product.
They seem to have a decent business selling upgrades. I don't have any particular numbers regarding upgrades from 10.4 to 10.5, but anecdotal evidence suggests that a fair number of Mac users purchased the upgrade.
"True" open source vendors sell either integration and development services or custom hardware.
That sounds a little bit like the No True Scotsman fallacy because...
OSX is runs on commodity x86 hardware.
... Apple doesn't support Mac OS X on commodity hardware, only on custom Apple hardware they've integrated into systems themselves.
You seriously underestimate the impact 10 very public executions a year will have to compel a populace to conform to the religious views of those in power.
Is this the same populace which considered public executions high entertainment?
You would think Protestant Christians would...
You can finish that sentence with a lot of hasty generalizations. Why limit it to just one?
The Spanish inquisition sucked and it is a logical outcome of letting religious bias permeate government.
Are you talking about the same Spanish Inquisition set up by the Spanish monarchy, which lasted for over 150 years and ultimately led to around 2000 deaths? Please don't get me wrong -- I'm not in favor of inquisitions or torture, and it's tragic that some 13 or 14 people died per year (on very rough average) -- but if you're going to rail about injustice and such, keep in mind that malnutrition killed more people every year in Spain than the Inquisition did in its entirety.
Slashdot Mirror
It worked so well for Newton, Descartes, and Kant, for example?
Blame television instead.
I don't know how the Windows memory manager works, but the Linux kernel and glibc allow processes to map more memory than they actually use, and that's fine.
I did, especially the part where you said people who expect you to follow the license are "annoying" and where you asked "who cares" if you follow the license. I realize that was a rhetorical question, but the answer is still "the original author". It doesn't matter if the King of England or the Empress of France thinks that downloading unmodified source code from someone else's FTP site is okay. You're violating the license, and that's copyright infringement, and that's not okay.
Which part of that is difficult for you to understand?
False dilemma.
I said that academic studies of software development rarely include the difficult issues which real-world programmers face regularly. That doesn't make academic studies bad.
I agree.
Unfortunately, a lot of employers seem to think that computer science graduates make decent programmers, and a lot of schools do nothing to discourage that wrongheaded idea. Ideally, they'd stop. Until then, I wish they taught practical matters of programming as well.
How many computer science or software development courses include anything resembling:
To my knowledge, only a handful.
I invite you to read Can I put the binaries on my Internet server and put the source on a different Internet site?, from the GPL FAQ. If you were redistributing my code under the GPL and tried to pull that stunt, I would consider your actions to violate the license.
You are not a lawyer, but you are perfectly capable of reading the GPL and the GPL FAQ. Both disagree with your opinion.
The copyright holder, who licensed the software under the terms of the GPL.
You can do so much more with an unfettered electronic copy than you can with a physical product. What is the value of device shifting, or full text search?
Only if we're really talking about software!
If the X.org developers don't have the resources to maintain the current code base (and it's easy to make that argument, based on what's happened), how is splitting their developer efforts and likely spending several years adding back the features the current code supports going to make them go faster? Magic unicorn wish-land candy-flavored fairy glitter?
Irrelevant; express away. I only care if someone else takes your idea seriously without considering the drawbacks. I have no illusion that the X.org developers care about either of our opinions on what they should do.
Oh, so by "X needs to fork", you meant "I have a brilliant idea that the experienced software developers working on X.org have surely not thought of, and all I need is to convince someone else to do it, and I'm going to respond to any criticism of my brilliant ideas with the insinuation that other people should do this work for me."
I have other projects to refactor, thank you. I'll leave the X.org developers to decide how best to approach their code.
Why is it one or the other? I prefer to avoid false dilemmas couched in inappropriate analogies to physical constructs; there's a whole field of research and practice in software development dedicated to improving the design of working code without changing its behavior.
Try a lot.
Which "fundamental shortcomings" of X.org do you want to fix?
Which "modern concepts" does it not have?
Which platforms and applications and devices will you stop supporting?
If anything, that would slow the pace of development further.
That theory didn't work very well with Nixon. (If you don't remember Nixon, would you like to discuss Clinton's use of executive privilege? No, not Bill -- Hillary.)
Wouldn't the defense have to prove that, if torture did occur, the only people tortured were indeed unlawful enemy combatants?
So does distributing proprietary software. The artificial scarcity reflected in the cost of proprietary software is the cost of duplication.
Yes, I'm sure you can think of 19 people you don't want as passengers on your plane, and good job to the TSA for identifying them almost seven years later, and despite the fact that they're unlikely to be passengers on your plane right now.
That's more to Java being stupidly typed rather than securely typed. The standard library and JCP are overfull of "The last API you will ever need, and so you can't change it!"
It's also not their responsibility to spend twelve to eighteen months running for president, but recent events indicate otherwise.
(Don't like the imperial presidency? Tell your congresscritter to start doing his or her job.)
They seem to have a decent business selling upgrades. I don't have any particular numbers regarding upgrades from 10.4 to 10.5, but anecdotal evidence suggests that a fair number of Mac users purchased the upgrade.
That sounds a little bit like the No True Scotsman fallacy because...
... Apple doesn't support Mac OS X on commodity hardware, only on custom Apple hardware they've integrated into systems themselves.
Is this the same populace which considered public executions high entertainment?
You can finish that sentence with a lot of hasty generalizations. Why limit it to just one?
Are you talking about the same Spanish Inquisition set up by the Spanish monarchy, which lasted for over 150 years and ultimately led to around 2000 deaths? Please don't get me wrong -- I'm not in favor of inquisitions or torture, and it's tragic that some 13 or 14 people died per year (on very rough average) -- but if you're going to rail about injustice and such, keep in mind that malnutrition killed more people every year in Spain than the Inquisition did in its entirety.