No... it's not appropriate. It completely misrepresents the origins of LInux as having anything to do with the GNU project.
I thought it was petty on Stallman's part to try and call it GNU/Linux, but without the GNU tools there is no Linux. I can see why it bothered Stallman that all the glory and name recognition of Linux went to Linus and his kernel.
That's because, if you look at your Google+ settings, it has a feature that lets you share your location with your circles and contacts. Whether your location is shared or not, and with who, is under your control, but Maps needs to read your contact list to know who's in it so it knows who's eligible to see your location since it's the app on the phone that handles monitoring and updating your location.
Ideally that feature would just be disabled if you didn't enable that permission instead of having to grant it to install the application. Even more ideally, there would be a standard contact picker separate from the application that would only send the contacts you requested to the application when you needed to, not at install time. This is the principle of least authority/privelege.
Agnostics are smart enough to know how much they do not know.
But either not smart enough or willing enough to apply what they do know.
Atheists choose to believe that millions of educated people around the world believe in a fairy tale, commit their money and their lives voluntarily, simply because all of those people didn't ask enough questions?
Yes, absolutely. People believe in all kinds of foolishness. There are millions of Mormons, and that religion was started by a conman who claimed he was given a set of golden plates on which he based the Book of Mormon.
Based on your above comment, there should likewise be huge numbers of people around the world that believe in vampires, fairies, or Zeus...yet there are not.
Some myths and old gods have fallen by the wayside. But there's crap huge numbers still do believe in, like astrology, psychic healing, crystals, etc, and countless whacky religions.
Do you have any idea how screwed up your views have to be to take somebody whom you have every ounce of admiration for and immediately think them foolish for not sharing a view point?
I respect my immediate family. They're intelligent people, yet none of them are atheists. I accept that otherwise smart people can believe in stupid things, especially when it comes to religion. It fills a need. "You've got to believe in something," is a common phrase.
When you read it, you gain a completely different perspective on it. You understand who wrote what, when, writing styles of the different authors, variances in the old and new testaments.
Yes, it's a human document mixed from many sources, contradictory in parts, selected by human committee, with further variances introduced through translations, scribe errors, and in some cases insertions of text at a later time. The New Testament isn't even written in the language of Christ.
There is a reason that many people used to just hand out copies of the New Testament. As a Christian, that's really the only part you should care about. The entire old testament is basically Jewish history. That's how I read it at least, but I'm not a biblical scholar.
Yeah, there's a lot of history, but there's also plenty of non-history parts there, including laws. Now you'd think a divine being like "God" would want to make it clear what laws should be followed, but of course there is confusion and disagreement. Which prophet do you want to believe? Even if you accept Jesus, there's still this:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
Christianity, when you really break it down is pretty simple: love.
Sure, it's mostly hippie philosophy combined with religious dogma, minus the sexual liberation of the 1960s.
When you realize that, you start to realize just how grossly misrepresented Christianity has to be for people to react so negatively to it.
So when are you going to give away all of your savings to the poor? If somebody attacks you, will you not defend yourself? Are you going to love somebody that rapes and murders your wife? Those are all things a good Christian should be willing to do, if they actually believed their soul depended on it.
Agnostics deal in facts. Atheists deal in beliefs. Christians deal in beliefs. It's one of the cruel irony's of the world. An agnostic takes no issue with faith by his very nature.
Funny how we don't talk about agnostics when it comes to vampires, fairies, Zeus, or any number of other things, but when it comes to "God", all of a sudden if you hold the belief that "God" doesn't exist and is instead mythology like all the other crap you don't believe in, you aren't dealing in facts.
The facts are the evidence doesn't support a lot of the bullshit you find in the Bible. The facts are that there are a lot of religions around the world, with conflicting beliefs based on similar crap evidence. If the "God" of the Bible really wanted to make himself known, to be worshiped, to have certain rules followed, etc, then masquerading as man-made mythology is a really stupid plan.
I have every ounce of respect for Agnostics. Atheists in most cases are people with self-esteem issues.
So you respect people who are either too afraid or naive to take the same step they do for all other kinds of mythology and superstition, but think it's just a lack of self-esteem that leads to atheism. Right.
It's just a suggestion for someone who is upset about science not matching exactly with a story that was obviously an analogy at best simplified for people who didn't know how to count.
Even as an analogy, the Biblical story of Genesis when compared to evolution is a complete failure. The Holy Bible, which is supposed to be the inerrant word of God, ends up looking more and more like the mythology atheists take it to be.
Small bands use subscriptions (crowdfunding) precisely because they're highly unlikely to get rich, so none of the labels is going to offer them an advance or a loan.
But the potential is always there. Big things usually start out small. Besides, it doesn't cost a lot of money to make a few copies, sell what you make for a profit, and then make more. Besides all that, the need for physical copies in the digital age makes this a moot example.
If you could offset the upfront costs against subscriptions, you could get the book/magazine to market and make a profit over time from sales.
I'm against even this, as I wouldn't put up money to a for-profit business just to get a promised product. If you want to get rich with my help, give me a slice of the action.
Plenty of Kickstarter projects work this way -- the purest example would be bands seeking money for studio time and disc pressing -- [..] I'm happy to pay for material costs, even including travel costs for the right project. I'm not so keen on paying for time.
I don't have a problem paying a reasonable amount for time if it's going to fund something that doesn't involve the worker making a bunch of copies and becoming potentially rich. An even older example, before there was copyright, was funding for unique pieces (such as a statue). A good example of something I'd be willing to fund in modern times would be a science experiment.
Well, I see programmer after programmer eliminating all personal risk by writing themselves a nice middle-class paycheck at the backers' expense, but at the end of the project, the developer's the one that's going to be getting royalties on future sales. This seems like a bit of a cheat to me; having your cake and eating it.
I agree 100%, which is why I'd never fund a kickstarter. I don't understand why they are so popular, or don't at least offer profit sharing. I would actually be ashamed to even make such a pitch.
With Bioshock: Infinite (Latest, but there have been many others) showing how well that type of platform can tell a story, I can not see why he chose 2d turn based gaming.
Are you serious? Do you know how much money it cost to make Infinite? 2D turn-based games are cheap to make and can be done by 1 or 2 people.
did you see what May and Layton said? skip to their interviews if you didn't.
Quotes or times, otherwise I'm not going to skim through it searching for it. The two common themes seemed to be that the current system is good (the establishment), or that the system is entrenched (fringe parties).
Too bad the production is so juvenile (sound effects, jokes, etc). I do respect the message and the impressive list of people he managed to interview. Still, it's just a Canadian-focused rehash of similar works, such as "Money As Debt" and "The Money Masters".
A free market would see workers refusing to work with non-union workers, and unions regularly campaigning for higher wages until there was a more equitable distribution of wealth. But the laws in many states/countries have made this illegal or practically impossible.
Lots of idealized bullshit here. Not all workers like unions, and even if they did, in a free market there are replacement workers who will take the job because they need one. You need a critical mass of already working people to unionize.
Slashdot Mirror
No... it's not appropriate. It completely misrepresents the origins of LInux as having anything to do with the GNU project.
I thought it was petty on Stallman's part to try and call it GNU/Linux, but without the GNU tools there is no Linux. I can see why it bothered Stallman that all the glory and name recognition of Linux went to Linus and his kernel.
I think it's pretty obvious he meant 8GB.
That's because, if you look at your Google+ settings, it has a feature that lets you share your location with your circles and contacts. Whether your location is shared or not, and with who, is under your control, but Maps needs to read your contact list to know who's in it so it knows who's eligible to see your location since it's the app on the phone that handles monitoring and updating your location.
Ideally that feature would just be disabled if you didn't enable that permission instead of having to grant it to install the application. Even more ideally, there would be a standard contact picker separate from the application that would only send the contacts you requested to the application when you needed to, not at install time. This is the principle of least authority/privelege.
You have to understand the reason that I kick started these games in the first place is that their ideas appeal to me.
Oh, I know, it's just that even with that there's often a disconnect between fanciful speculation and realization. I'm glad it worked out for you.
I'm impressed. I figured they would be virtual dust collectors.
Agnostics are smart enough to know how much they do not know.
But either not smart enough or willing enough to apply what they do know.
Atheists choose to believe that millions of educated people around the world believe in a fairy tale, commit their money and their lives voluntarily, simply because all of those people didn't ask enough questions?
Yes, absolutely. People believe in all kinds of foolishness. There are millions of Mormons, and that religion was started by a conman who claimed he was given a set of golden plates on which he based the Book of Mormon.
Based on your above comment, there should likewise be huge numbers of people around the world that believe in vampires, fairies, or Zeus...yet there are not.
Some myths and old gods have fallen by the wayside. But there's crap huge numbers still do believe in, like astrology, psychic healing, crystals, etc, and countless whacky religions.
Do you have any idea how screwed up your views have to be to take somebody whom you have every ounce of admiration for and immediately think them foolish for not sharing a view point?
I respect my immediate family. They're intelligent people, yet none of them are atheists. I accept that otherwise smart people can believe in stupid things, especially when it comes to religion. It fills a need. "You've got to believe in something," is a common phrase.
When you read it, you gain a completely different perspective on it. You understand who wrote what, when, writing styles of the different authors, variances in the old and new testaments.
Yes, it's a human document mixed from many sources, contradictory in parts, selected by human committee, with further variances introduced through translations, scribe errors, and in some cases insertions of text at a later time. The New Testament isn't even written in the language of Christ.
There is a reason that many people used to just hand out copies of the New Testament. As a Christian, that's really the only part you should care about. The entire old testament is basically Jewish history. That's how I read it at least, but I'm not a biblical scholar.
Yeah, there's a lot of history, but there's also plenty of non-history parts there, including laws. Now you'd think a divine being like "God" would want to make it clear what laws should be followed, but of course there is confusion and disagreement. Which prophet do you want to believe? Even if you accept Jesus, there's still this:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
Christianity, when you really break it down is pretty simple: love.
Sure, it's mostly hippie philosophy combined with religious dogma, minus the sexual liberation of the 1960s.
When you realize that, you start to realize just how grossly misrepresented Christianity has to be for people to react so negatively to it.
So when are you going to give away all of your savings to the poor? If somebody attacks you, will you not defend yourself? Are you going to love somebody that rapes and murders your wife? Those are all things a good Christian should be willing to do, if they actually believed their soul depended on it.
Moo?
Most libraries have free Internet.
I love Kickstarter, I've backed 10 videogames on it so far, but it is something I'm realistic about. Currently of those 3 have delivered as promised
About how long did you play those 3 games for, in total?
Unfortunately people love this stuff and won't stop giving money. A victimless crime, I suppose.
It's a crime that I haven't been given this money. Give it to meeeee!
Agnostics deal in facts. Atheists deal in beliefs. Christians deal in beliefs. It's one of the cruel irony's of the world. An agnostic takes no issue with faith by his very nature.
Funny how we don't talk about agnostics when it comes to vampires, fairies, Zeus, or any number of other things, but when it comes to "God", all of a sudden if you hold the belief that "God" doesn't exist and is instead mythology like all the other crap you don't believe in, you aren't dealing in facts.
The facts are the evidence doesn't support a lot of the bullshit you find in the Bible. The facts are that there are a lot of religions around the world, with conflicting beliefs based on similar crap evidence. If the "God" of the Bible really wanted to make himself known, to be worshiped, to have certain rules followed, etc, then masquerading as man-made mythology is a really stupid plan.
I have every ounce of respect for Agnostics. Atheists in most cases are people with self-esteem issues.
So you respect people who are either too afraid or naive to take the same step they do for all other kinds of mythology and superstition, but think it's just a lack of self-esteem that leads to atheism. Right.
It's just a suggestion for someone who is upset about science not matching exactly with a story that was obviously an analogy at best simplified for people who didn't know how to count.
Even as an analogy, the Biblical story of Genesis when compared to evolution is a complete failure. The Holy Bible, which is supposed to be the inerrant word of God, ends up looking more and more like the mythology atheists take it to be.
Guy points out solar works in Germany, which is cloudier than America.
Solar "works" in Germany only as a supplement to other, traditional plants.
Small bands use subscriptions (crowdfunding) precisely because they're highly unlikely to get rich, so none of the labels is going to offer them an advance or a loan.
But the potential is always there. Big things usually start out small. Besides, it doesn't cost a lot of money to make a few copies, sell what you make for a profit, and then make more. Besides all that, the need for physical copies in the digital age makes this a moot example.
If you could offset the upfront costs against subscriptions, you could get the book/magazine to market and make a profit over time from sales.
I'm against even this, as I wouldn't put up money to a for-profit business just to get a promised product. If you want to get rich with my help, give me a slice of the action.
Plenty of Kickstarter projects work this way -- the purest example would be bands seeking money for studio time and disc pressing -- [..] I'm happy to pay for material costs, even including travel costs for the right project. I'm not so keen on paying for time.
I don't have a problem paying a reasonable amount for time if it's going to fund something that doesn't involve the worker making a bunch of copies and becoming potentially rich. An even older example, before there was copyright, was funding for unique pieces (such as a statue). A good example of something I'd be willing to fund in modern times would be a science experiment.
Well, I see programmer after programmer eliminating all personal risk by writing themselves a nice middle-class paycheck at the backers' expense, but at the end of the project, the developer's the one that's going to be getting royalties on future sales. This seems like a bit of a cheat to me; having your cake and eating it.
I agree 100%, which is why I'd never fund a kickstarter. I don't understand why they are so popular, or don't at least offer profit sharing. I would actually be ashamed to even make such a pitch.
With Bioshock: Infinite (Latest, but there have been many others) showing how well that type of platform can tell a story, I can not see why he chose 2d turn based gaming.
Are you serious? Do you know how much money it cost to make Infinite? 2D turn-based games are cheap to make and can be done by 1 or 2 people.
All those jokes and I didn't see the one I heard as a kid in school the next day:
Q: "What was the last thing to go through Christa McAuliffe's mind?"
A: The control panel.
What a bunch of crap. Modded up because you played the karma whore card, "Time to kiss my karma goodbye".
Can I be liable simply for waiving at someone from the sidewalk?
Waived for what?
Put your app whoring into a proper signature.
did you see what May and Layton said? skip to their interviews if you didn't.
Quotes or times, otherwise I'm not going to skim through it searching for it. The two common themes seemed to be that the current system is good (the establishment), or that the system is entrenched (fringe parties).
http://www.ohcanadamovie.com/
Too bad the production is so juvenile (sound effects, jokes, etc). I do respect the message and the impressive list of people he managed to interview. Still, it's just a Canadian-focused rehash of similar works, such as "Money As Debt" and "The Money Masters".
A free market would see workers refusing to work with non-union workers, and unions regularly campaigning for higher wages until there was a more equitable distribution of wealth. But the laws in many states/countries have made this illegal or practically impossible.
Lots of idealized bullshit here. Not all workers like unions, and even if they did, in a free market there are replacement workers who will take the job because they need one. You need a critical mass of already working people to unionize.
What's so difficult about, "java foo.Server"?