The things people 'think' about the GPL pretty much means an ensured open enviornment of code, which encourages lots of collaboration among corporations and individuals alike. What's 'kept in the dark' is what the GPL intends to accomplish, and what it actually does accomplish as written. That is all.
I love your comment, but there's one difficulty: China has one of the youngest cultures on the Earth: its cultural inheritors are not the mainland communist Chinese, who's founders pushed all to destroy their own culture. Furthermore, there is not a 'Chinese' culture, there are hundreds of separate peoples and cultures in China.
That said, never underestimate the power of nationalistic myth-making, and its potent obliteration of facts. Furthermore, never underestimate it for the U.S. either: the U.S. was the target(and continuees to be) of Marxist thought and politicking; the West has its own long and venerable culture--more continuitous and thoughtful, in fact, than any Asian country could ever dream of: even before the communists, the ancient "Chinese" cultures long ago actually ceased to exist. Asia never removed itself from a, or subjugated its, superstitious mindset: where Asia today is starting to thrive is where it has taken-up Western development and institutions (brought by Westerners before the revolutions); where the West is declining is where its own venerable institutions are either faltering, or are supplanted by counterfeits making pretense of being in its tradition: like it or not, we're all Western now; and like it or not, we're all under the same ideological threats--the same 'terrorism' of the mind by zealots of modernist and reductionist philosophical bents.
And I'm not trying to be dramatic, or over-serious, or alarmist: I try to appreciate these things for their qualities, strengths and weaknesses, opinions, etc., but make no bones about the necessity of human maintenance--intervention--of its treasured developments: they don't endure on their own due to intrinsic value, because they're human, not above human.
The above comment, I submit is evidence that PMF is a troll who just doesn't get it; seems he can't distinguish 'we shouldn't' from 'that's a stupid statement, its' already been done, so you can't say 'we shouldn't''; perhaps the username 'Profane MuthaFucka (574406)' is also good evidence.
Remember one of the utmost of important rules: DON'T FEED THE TROLLS.
Remember another one appropriate to/.: mod them down into obscurity.
And p.s., in the event Japan were not already re-armed, whether re-arming them would be a stupid idea or not is all a matter of perspective when considering the world situation.
The FSF's explanation is 'you can sell GPL, so it can be commerical!', that's likely not what TomTom is referring to, which I could explain it to you hermeneutically (of the GPL), but it's a dirty little secret that those who like the collaboration to continue want to keep dark: so carry on, wonder nothing, just accept what you believe, carry on...
That totally depends...there are ways to make distinctions: there are registers of the language, etc.. Anyone speaking common doesn't necessarily know this, though. As for 'gender', don't confuse 'gender' with 'status': grammatical gender in language is just that, grammatical, not status; there are languages where gender information isn't grammatical. For instance, there are plenty of texts in certain languages, or forms of their writing, or periods of their history, where a word like 'man', which is a 'grammatical masculine' nowadays who's meaning is dependent on context can be either masculine or neutral, cannot be neutral; 'hysteria' and 'hysterical', originally, in English, were words descriptive of certain reactions that occur more often with females, and their meaning is totally dependent upon gendered behavior even still. English is not, however, the only language that doesn't differentiate status/gender in the ways you must be referring to (if you're writing accurately); and for proprietary sake you would not speak exactly to a doctor or child, but have respect regardig who and what they are, but that's not necessarily reflecting in the grammar itself, nor is it observed merely through acknowledging titles.
Have to take issue with your guns comment. You see, Tuberculosis functions precisely in a fashion that's deadly: taking-up residence and wreaking havoc; from the human perspective that's all it is good for (though nowadays we've also put it to use fighting cancer in certain places--but it is totally unnatural to Tuberculosis). Something similar can be said of cancer: the cancer itself is the malfunction that is bringing disaster and eventual death (had cancer, by the way, but no treatment with Tuberculosis).
Meanwhile, guns are a combination of different technologies, each of which in itself is useful for other ends, and the gun itself useful for other ends (hunting, etc.); it is not intrinsically people-designated, though it can so be put to use. Whereas from our view Tuberculosis and cancer are like automatons that will 'do their thing' whether or not we like it, guns are not: they are inert. They must be assembled by hand, loaded, and pointed: and pointing needn't be at a person.
Those who use that phrase, even when people think 'ignorant rednecks' or other, aren't be overly literal, but making this exact point: and it's sad how many people, even cultured, educated ones, show either how ignorant and insensitive they are to understanding that point, or willfully ignoring the intent of the expression, in the case of the gun, that the person, not the gun, is responsible, whereas with Tuberculosis or cancer, the cellular organisms (and cancers pretty much are their own beasts too, not 'you' anymore) the person is not responsible: could people be responsible? Yes: they could willfully or negligently cause the illnesses, but then we wouldn't say 'Tuberculosis' or 'Cancer' 'killed him', we would lay the responsibility on the person who caused the condition in the other person, perhaps qualifying 'He used Tuberculosis/cancer to kill him', whereas with guns it's 'He used a gun/guns to kill him'. Get it?
Stupid example, and awful reasoning: I hate how hyperliteral, or better put, 'verbal', people can be--especially the kind who'll trawl/., programmers (though more than I once thought are actually better than I was once prejudiced to think), etc.: oh yeah, and don't forget the liberals. (Also not a jab--I'm not a liberal, but have many liberal preferences, and respect quite a few dearly, though the classical as opposed to the freakishly extreme modernist/'progressive' sort, in most cases.)
I would propose--and perhaps there's an old-school epistemologist who remains in this tradition, that the kind of thinking you've presented just now is a good example of reductionism: that powerful tool which scientifism has elevated to true knowledge, rather than a simple tool not to be believed--because it denies aspects. To give an example, modern day thinking goes 'logic is math', but prior to that sensational knee-jerk trajectory, a few good epistemologists (and logicians) left made a better case to the contrary, that this is inconsiderate of aspects, and that though math is logical, logic is not math. There's a reason philosophers, not mathematicians, still tend to be those at universities teaching formal (classical) logic. The computer-types just get logic embedded in math through their education, and come to reduce the two into one category.
I find this type of thinking in modernity shallow, disturbing, and dangerous--not just to society, but science itself: it creates contradictions internal to the 'philosophy of science', the episteme upon which, and within which, it is built and framed: but most modern thinkers, whether Joe Bloe or Sam Scientist, no longer either know, or if they do, respect or care about consistency: pragmatism rules, and "I know...though I deny 'truth'" ('truth' in the sense that once held in philosophy, epistemology, etc., as the real as opposed to unreal, the genuine as opposed to ingenuine or mistaken, etc.).
Thanks for reading my rant. : )
You know how to checkmate an argument? Logically undermine its lynchpin:
'I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand.' --Freeman Dyson
--signed, a bionerd with lots of interest in climate data.
I don't know if you understand just how poorly the GPL2 is written: definitely not by (the necessarily anal) lawyers, self-contradicting, and equating copyright law with an elucidation that is not from copyright law; that's why GPL3 had a lot of review by lawyers, but as a license it is so far overreaching that guys like Linus (rightly and intelligently) refused to move to it, at least overreaching in the sense that they couldn't possible have thought (could they? Sadly I think they could) that the major GPL2 code would move to v.3; the non-move was pragmatic since (this is why their thinking was so jacked) likely none of the big developers (these companies) would have agreed to the patent clauses in v.3. Anyway, merely utilizing copyrighted code doesn't mean one has waved patent rights--except if someone else has taken the code you've utilized as the start of, or a source for, their work, in which case an argument may be made that the IP has been licensed, by the propagation-requirement (for code) interpretation of the GPL (it really isn't sure or clear, people just avoid that area), because in the propagation interpretation a license has been granted to use the code, which embodies that IP: that's not entirely sure, either, but it is, I believe, reasoning a judge would find firm and necessary consequence. The thing is, though, SCO could claim to be suing for a past infringement, under any number of theories, rather than a current one; they could still utilize GPL'd code and not shoot their case through unless claiming that the current code in Linux--from which their distro was derived--is what infringes.
Lawyers feel free to correct or add to my reasoning.
[quote]I fail to see how some "researcher" no doubt with a worthless degree in "Ancient Medievil History" or the like is more qualified that some who's, gasp, actually been in the field? [/quote]
Large battles have been won by officer who know that kind of history, because of that history, even from accounts recorded in the Hebrew Bible. I wouldn't be so brash as to discount battle history: often much is very applicable; oftentimes such knowledge is a harbor of tactics which, if recalled, are redeployable even in modern arenas.
I don't want to say this too many times, but sleep=repair, repair, repair; lots of genetic checks to do, and protein synthesis to undertake--which takes a long time in eukaryotes, and an unusually long time in human beings (we've got a lot going on and a lot of complexity to sort and manage).
Bioguy here: decided to blog some superficial thoughts about this here, http://ascienceguy.blogspot.com/2009/08/little-sleep.html
Sleep is really complicated, and compounding the difficulty of one subject we don't understand (nearly at all: information is not understanding when we speak of sleep) with another (genetics aren't really that understood--good for guys like me who want a good career possibilities to remain open) isn't too helpful, except comparative study will likely open up our understanding more by taking little bits we understand to decode more pieces of the puzzle.:D
A little deviation: despite that nerds hate FrontPage, 'commoner' folk still love it: even when using older versions of it. I hate the output, personally, but regular Joe likes to be able to type-in and position stuff, and it just to look right-enough to him.
Guys like/.ers like standards: MS wants to know 'how's Joe-Bloe going to handle it?' Whereas others want interoperability, MS wants operability for regular users (at least with Windows). That's a lot of the disconnect in assessing and communicating-with MS comes from.
Sure, they screw-up: a lot. But then again, they're not really too worried about very many Open Source projects (minus the linux OS itself, MAYBE, since it can be used as a platform, or leveraged by those wiser-than-the-enthusiasts: you know, like Google is doing), especially with regards integrated developer tools. That's what people keep missing. Just above someone mentioned 'when Windows is gone they'll still be selling useful development tools', but that totally misses the MS strategy that all they've done and keep doing is integrating all that with their platform;.NET will run on Mono, etc., (well, when it's brought up to snuff with whatever the version a program is made for), and MS's tools could eventually be made platform-independent, but it's their integration, organization (or, at least, extensive documentation), and disciplien that makes MS a force to reckon with.
While everyone else, for instance, was getting giddy over HTML 5, it was Gates, I think, who mentioned that the concept of 'browser' has become useless, and that MS's focus will be making their own 'browser' more and more tightly integrated.
MS tries to make it easier for you; they may screw-up, but it's difficult in some ways; for instance, the dev tools they sell are also those they themselves use; then, on top of it all, it's all within a tight ecosystem; and on top of it, if you're important they'll even work hard to ensure your wares keep working on that platform, whether through hacks, or through requesting your install scripts.
The MS approach can be put something like this: 'an idiot, let's condescend to, and work to empower, him'; vs. Linux, 'an idiot, let's belittle him or design our wares like he's a baby [ahem, Gnome]; oh, we made usability progress, but an incomplete and retardedly immature replacement is available in X? Sure, let's drop that useful and highly-necessary tool that was a working work-around in the hopes the immature feature will bear fruit in a couple years'.
I'll pass-on the lesson, the 'wisdom', passed on to me when I once wished I could re-edit a post here on/., "Slashdot is forever". There, your question=answered.
It's worth noting that the bailouts for banks became necessary due to the government (ahem, the current ruling party in fact, ahem) ordering them through legislation to give high risk loans for houses; those kinds of loans are meant for enterprise, i.e. starting businesses, not for buying personal houses; they decided to examine loan records and from it they 'felt' there was a disproportionately small representation of loans to certain demographics, particularly minorities (i.e. potential voters), and forced a percentage of loans to be so made, as well as set-up quasiprivate (federal) lending-control institutions that conveniently fed money back into their own campaign covers; the catastrophe arising from 'bank' mismanagement was congresses fault, particularly the firggin' dems who decided force loans to be made to those who's financial data demonstrated they couldn't afford the loans, and the institutions they set-up to route more money to that cause. The global 'crisis' was set-off by the fact that the mortgages that were in those (rather BRILLIANT) packages, each consisting of potentially thousands to millions of little slices of mortgages to probabilistically reduce risk, were of this sub-prime type; to top it off they all (both parties) decided to over-relax lending regulations to encourage this market even more, such that an entire industry just to carry out their wishes (and make a lot of dough) popped-up. The traditional banks aren't typically into this sort of thing, yet they had no choice about it: they had a gun to their heads. There was one bank, strangely, that's now rather notable because of this, that somehow did resist, did not get murdered by the fairness-police pretending to play government for it, and they're now in a perky and grand situation. I've forgotten the name, incidentally, and if anybody here recognizes it (or that of a similar institution similar), let me know.
Americans are just conditioned to be politically angry: they're like trained monkeys, throw-in 'corporation' and they become a ravenous mob--probably too glib to realize that any non-individual entity recognized by the government is basically a corporation: corporations are not evil, they can be evil, or they can be otherwise: but nuspeak has conditioned so many to associate them with being so. AIG was living-up to legal obligations: they could have done that, or gotten sued and payed even more: and it was the very top ordering-down to put the dang 'loophole' (i.e. it wasn't a loophole) in there in the first place. But one can expect Americans to be outraged: it's like they know they have a part to play in a giant, pretensious, stage in a giant, fake, show. And they are fake.
Signed,
An American.
To add to what you've said, I'm a university student who has participated in more than a few studies, starting when I was in a basic psych course, and then more after that. I and most of the class came to insult even the psychologists: the only 'science' where its practitioners have to repeat over and over and over and over and over 'it's science' and 'why it's science'; we also came to the point of openly exhibiting our disgust with them right in class, dissecting their reasonings, explanations, investigating then demonstrating misunderstandings and misapplications of scientific method: they insist, for instance, that because they make some show of supposedly quantifying what they do, that it's science, and that wasn't one that took long for a lot of people to rip to shreds (e.g. science needs objective, not subjective, measurements that are using the same metrics and material, reproducible, etc.); I don't know if we just got lucky that the professors and/or department didn't try to blacklist or destroy us, but they weren't very happy about it: they weren't very happy, for instance, for me arguing one of the professors about portions of psychology being outdated and wrong on the basis of new discoveries about the brain, its plasticity, etc., almost as if he were religious about insisting the truth of those things: I could bring that department the journals and results and lay it out, and they'd refuse it, I think because the things undermindined form or substantiate various PC dogmas found in academe. Needless to say I neither like the thought police and their censures, and prefer the hard[er] sciences, chem (though technically it's not objective, but still inferential), physics, biology, etc..
In the studies I've participated in (and I still do) I found the questions, etc., use are not only vague or overly vague, but that psychologists in general don't even appreciate how that can affect outcomes of those tests, or necessarily care; on top of it I've been a pain in the arse about figuring-out exactly what they're for just by the nature and content of the tests done in these studies (they don't often want you to know at least till it's over) and realizing much of it is just inappropriate to what they're investigating, and as one comment points-out above, it is a 'science' that likes to start with a conclusion then set-out to prove it: more than a few of us noticed this with regards to the humanism imbued into certain portions of pscyhological 'science': for which 'pre-scientific psychology' like Freud's is sometimes more corroborated by evidence (not all of it, only pieces of it) when more rigorous approaches are utilized.
One of my favorite writers on the social 'sciences' was that 'old conservative' (not the 'conservatives' that the extreme fringe of the liberals ostracized that began to call themselves conservatives, i.e. guys like Charles Murray, the Republican party as someone mentioned above, much of the the American 'right', etc.) of Columbia U., Robert Nisbet. Harvard asked him to write a Philosophical Dictionary after the pattern of Voltaire (which is humorously commented upon its preface), and I recommend it, it's good reading, titled "Prejudices: A Philosophical Dictionary". Speaking of Charles Murray, I recently saw a meeting of 'Conservatives' who were listening to him about subjects he'd written books on and all that data those books delve into, and they asked him when he'd become conservative, to which his reply was that he hadn't budged from the left for all these years, the left moved further to the left.
As you can probably tell, I much prefer the traditional left, and traditional right, than the majority/visible modern representatives, something like having preferences of classical liberalism while retaining Burkean Conservatism (interestingly named since Burke was liberal for his day, supporting America's revolution, while observing and critiquing the one that occurred in France). Interestingly, what Nisbet writes on abortion would leave the modern right gnashing teeth (though s
U.S. political history, especially from the Constitutionalists that made the Constitution, is all warninsg against ANY liberty, period, no matter how big or small, because giving the government an inch, as big as it gets, it just keeps taking more inches until you're incarcerated for strong dislike (hate); Bush, as much as people hated him, actually blocked legislation like this from Democrats (when they'd taken over Congress) because it is unconstitutional, and these laws are already being flagrantly abused wherever they've been implemented. Hate isn't illegal, neither is expression--those who don't want to hear things, even if they're facts, can say anything is incitement.
In my state, at least, driving too slow in the pass (left) lane will get you a ticket: it's not always legal to drive too slow; the same for freeways in general; it's illegal here to hold-up traffic, unless they're just driving too fast and you're driving in the right lane/s at the limit, the left lane still being the exception. In fact, I just Googled state traffic laws: it seems these and similar laws are pretty consistent and present in many states.
And dude, that projects we're talking about aren't "for no money"; they're funded, and they have goals--nobody was talking about chiding those who're totally volunteers, and nobody sensible involved with FOSS that I know of does. Sheesh.
But that's missing the point--they already are, and it seems all the big projects intend to keep at it; thus it's invalid to try to claim that they're just developing for developers already, so anybody that's not a dev should just shove it down their gullet.
It's also kind of fun: open source has not natural competition: not even within itself most of the time-people do their thing period; with the competition to attempt commercial space, it gives some pressure to do better: one usually finds people do better work under pressure.
I'm also surprised you made your comment at all: Ubuntu is already supposed to be "Linux for Human Beings" (i.e. consumers), remember? It exists and is so darn good because it's aiming at commercial space; and the hand that sustains it, Shuttlesworth, gives &*^% if it only has 1-2%, he's pumping tens of millions into that project hoping that with a large enough userbase, his Canonical will have enough money from support contracts to continue development: essentially he's ignoring the zealot-dump senseless nerds, giving devs (of various FOSS communities) money so they can eat and keep at it, and is gunning to create one of the first major self-sustaining FOSS business models, not of the kind like Red Hat which only gives you crumbs by using you as a testbed, but where everything is fully functional (it IS the end product), getting better, sensible, sustainable, and widely used enough to continue that way: that's really something--and it's only possible by seeking to create a commercial desktop: Red Hat and others missed the message that workers like simple too (hence Microsoft's popularity--better to stop diverting attention by blaming them, even if they are to blame for things, and work around and outcompete them).
Most importantly, though, DEVS care if it's only 1-2 percent market share (think man, think): without more they're not going to be able to target the desktop profitably: they need TO EAT TOO. (see that video I pointed at). That they're even taking time, pains, and thought to do what they are, in the hopes more might come out of it, really is something; but don't forget there's big money funding all this much of the time, or decent enough money; it's not about you users--to them it's about eating too.
And that's why people avoid FOSS heads: I'm familiar with CEOs who's companies try to avoid people associated with FOSS or OSS.
Thing is, nobody is saying it's "supposed" to be (so cool off hot head); thing is, a lot of people have decided to make it a goal--the simple explanation is it's fun/a goal. Lots of people are aiming for "the year of the Linux Desktop", often vainly mind you, but let them have at it, and enjoy it, and tinker, and try.
If RedHat, IBM, etc. hadn't jumped on board, however, much of this stuff would never have been funded. Here's a bunch of devs who're more sensible that got together to discuss all things Linux desktop, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoYL4R3Te2s&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcmpstuff.blogspot.com%2F&feature=player_embedded
It is a problem when the developers are trying to make a consumer desktop, however; last I checked, many big Linux-related projects (including both Gnome and KDE) are gunning just for that; so no, your statements are not valid here.
There are, of course, exceptions: but none of those are what this is talking about.
I hate courses with assignments; we're not in grade school, so stop trying to treat everyone like children: let them keep-up or fail and learn how to control themselves; I've found that often classes with assignments are such the assignments won't necessarily be important in the grand scheme of things, but they're just important enough they can screw you even if in the end you learn the materials exceptionally well (and can demonstrate it on a test).:*( Now, if there are assignments optional and recitations to get help (which I've found typically aren't there to help you with current, but past crap, er...) then great!
You can't embed a GPL; you could embed an LGPL library or program dynamically, but not statically; LGPL programs are a bit rare, however, which is bad: what if some entity which might otherwise support Linux needs to call that GPL Media Player that comes with the desktop? Er...
Yeah, because some people live in reality; communism was never about people: expired. Communism was, and continues to be, in many forms, a pre-eminent destabilizing force, always in the name of the people, but always bringing them harm, unfortunately. We intervened in South America back then because Russia wanted nuclear and military launch sites against us; we intervened in Africa and Asia because they wanted direct operational and governmental control for resources to come against us; Africa was key because it was a major source for nuclear fissional material for weapons); Marxism was, and continues to be, more a dogmatic religiosity than a mere realistic or tenable political outlook.
And of course American military ventures are often about business: if the U.S. gave China the finger about paying back debt it has incurred, they'd attack (eventually, which will likely happen with Taiwan anyways, since it's a U.S. territory: they're already claiming land and sea space that belongs to other nations throughout their area, peering over the Himalayas at parts of India and the Middle East); Kuwait wasn't just business, though: the U.S. is in bed with the Saudis and have agreements to live-up to: NEVER, if you can, break trust with Muslim nations: that's what happened in the first gulf war when our troops were pulled back after we'd promised Iraqis who rebelled we'd remove Saddam: it was a moral disaster.
Neither were the actions fighting communism so much about business as national survival--the issue of that day, and is even now--just as other issues are issues of today.
Why does every country get to protect its interests, but the U.S. does so and gets a rap? Oh yeah, because it's the current visible power; when it has passed, another country will be; God help you all if the U.S. falls and China has to be pleaded with to help some poor people getting massacred in this or that part of the world, uphold human rights, etc. (already difficult to get enough support to help people as it is). Heck, they're likely to begin invading more than Tibet once they feel secure enough that they aren't dependent upon the west. Why are you against a country doing what it sees as in its own interests? Why do you write like ideas aren't dangerous? Ever been around cults? Do you know the Nazi party and the atmosphere they created was basically a cult around certain ideas? Just like Marxism, just like Islam: in Islam, for instance, and I mean the Reform variety--Reform is returning the wellspring or fount in a religion--all is "submission" to Allah through Muhammed, the highest and greatest exemplar of ideals for every human to emulate (he was a pedophile and charlatanical raider); I don't say that lightly: some of my best friends have been Afghani, in fact; I spent years speaking with Saudi exchange students on personal terms, too, and got all their views without the gloss, and I have great respect for much about them. However, if that form of Islam spread (more than it already has throughout the middle east, Africa, South Asia, and the Indonesian island systems), we'd all be in a sore spot (if we aren't all already: some guy not long ago thought because certain Muslim nations had "democratic" and "constitutional" in official government docs that they respected rights--idiot); how about the dangerous ideas of statism where any dissent is to be quashed with imprisonment (or a bullet): should we all be relativists and let that burgeon too? The U.S. even has a first amendment and yet it is already having an increasing frequency of such silencings, and various cult-like political philosophies love it so. Don't get all righteous on me: I'm all for one country putting a bullet in the head of those who'd terrorize others, one way or another, who'd claim those who stop them are being imperialistic, hegemonic, or whatever: and I'm not all for hegemonies, etc., but we all want to breathe, eat, talk, and go about our business: and I'm all for one group of people defending the defenseless other group (and actually finishing what they've
Slashdot Mirror
The things people 'think' about the GPL pretty much means an ensured open enviornment of code, which encourages lots of collaboration among corporations and individuals alike. What's 'kept in the dark' is what the GPL intends to accomplish, and what it actually does accomplish as written. That is all.
I love your comment, but there's one difficulty: China has one of the youngest cultures on the Earth: its cultural inheritors are not the mainland communist Chinese, who's founders pushed all to destroy their own culture. Furthermore, there is not a 'Chinese' culture, there are hundreds of separate peoples and cultures in China.
That said, never underestimate the power of nationalistic myth-making, and its potent obliteration of facts. Furthermore, never underestimate it for the U.S. either: the U.S. was the target(and continuees to be) of Marxist thought and politicking; the West has its own long and venerable culture--more continuitous and thoughtful, in fact, than any Asian country could ever dream of: even before the communists, the ancient "Chinese" cultures long ago actually ceased to exist. Asia never removed itself from a, or subjugated its, superstitious mindset: where Asia today is starting to thrive is where it has taken-up Western development and institutions (brought by Westerners before the revolutions); where the West is declining is where its own venerable institutions are either faltering, or are supplanted by counterfeits making pretense of being in its tradition: like it or not, we're all Western now; and like it or not, we're all under the same ideological threats--the same 'terrorism' of the mind by zealots of modernist and reductionist philosophical bents.
And I'm not trying to be dramatic, or over-serious, or alarmist: I try to appreciate these things for their qualities, strengths and weaknesses, opinions, etc., but make no bones about the necessity of human maintenance--intervention--of its treasured developments: they don't endure on their own due to intrinsic value, because they're human, not above human.
The above comment, I submit is evidence that PMF is a troll who just doesn't get it; seems he can't distinguish 'we shouldn't' from 'that's a stupid statement, its' already been done, so you can't say 'we shouldn't''; perhaps the username 'Profane MuthaFucka (574406)' is also good evidence.
/.: mod them down into obscurity.
Remember one of the utmost of important rules: DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. Remember another one appropriate to
And p.s., in the event Japan were not already re-armed, whether re-arming them would be a stupid idea or not is all a matter of perspective when considering the world situation.
Moving on...
The FSF's explanation is 'you can sell GPL, so it can be commerical!', that's likely not what TomTom is referring to, which I could explain it to you hermeneutically (of the GPL), but it's a dirty little secret that those who like the collaboration to continue want to keep dark: so carry on, wonder nothing, just accept what you believe, carry on...
That totally depends...there are ways to make distinctions: there are registers of the language, etc.. Anyone speaking common doesn't necessarily know this, though. As for 'gender', don't confuse 'gender' with 'status': grammatical gender in language is just that, grammatical, not status; there are languages where gender information isn't grammatical. For instance, there are plenty of texts in certain languages, or forms of their writing, or periods of their history, where a word like 'man', which is a 'grammatical masculine' nowadays who's meaning is dependent on context can be either masculine or neutral, cannot be neutral; 'hysteria' and 'hysterical', originally, in English, were words descriptive of certain reactions that occur more often with females, and their meaning is totally dependent upon gendered behavior even still. English is not, however, the only language that doesn't differentiate status/gender in the ways you must be referring to (if you're writing accurately); and for proprietary sake you would not speak exactly to a doctor or child, but have respect regardig who and what they are, but that's not necessarily reflecting in the grammar itself, nor is it observed merely through acknowledging titles.
Have to take issue with your guns comment. You see, Tuberculosis functions precisely in a fashion that's deadly: taking-up residence and wreaking havoc; from the human perspective that's all it is good for (though nowadays we've also put it to use fighting cancer in certain places--but it is totally unnatural to Tuberculosis). Something similar can be said of cancer: the cancer itself is the malfunction that is bringing disaster and eventual death (had cancer, by the way, but no treatment with Tuberculosis). Meanwhile, guns are a combination of different technologies, each of which in itself is useful for other ends, and the gun itself useful for other ends (hunting, etc.); it is not intrinsically people-designated, though it can so be put to use. Whereas from our view Tuberculosis and cancer are like automatons that will 'do their thing' whether or not we like it, guns are not: they are inert. They must be assembled by hand, loaded, and pointed: and pointing needn't be at a person. Those who use that phrase, even when people think 'ignorant rednecks' or other, aren't be overly literal, but making this exact point: and it's sad how many people, even cultured, educated ones, show either how ignorant and insensitive they are to understanding that point, or willfully ignoring the intent of the expression, in the case of the gun, that the person, not the gun, is responsible, whereas with Tuberculosis or cancer, the cellular organisms (and cancers pretty much are their own beasts too, not 'you' anymore) the person is not responsible: could people be responsible? Yes: they could willfully or negligently cause the illnesses, but then we wouldn't say 'Tuberculosis' or 'Cancer' 'killed him', we would lay the responsibility on the person who caused the condition in the other person, perhaps qualifying 'He used Tuberculosis/cancer to kill him', whereas with guns it's 'He used a gun/guns to kill him'. Get it? Stupid example, and awful reasoning: I hate how hyperliteral, or better put, 'verbal', people can be--especially the kind who'll trawl /., programmers (though more than I once thought are actually better than I was once prejudiced to think), etc.: oh yeah, and don't forget the liberals. (Also not a jab--I'm not a liberal, but have many liberal preferences, and respect quite a few dearly, though the classical as opposed to the freakishly extreme modernist/'progressive' sort, in most cases.)
I would propose--and perhaps there's an old-school epistemologist who remains in this tradition, that the kind of thinking you've presented just now is a good example of reductionism: that powerful tool which scientifism has elevated to true knowledge, rather than a simple tool not to be believed--because it denies aspects. To give an example, modern day thinking goes 'logic is math', but prior to that sensational knee-jerk trajectory, a few good epistemologists (and logicians) left made a better case to the contrary, that this is inconsiderate of aspects, and that though math is logical, logic is not math. There's a reason philosophers, not mathematicians, still tend to be those at universities teaching formal (classical) logic. The computer-types just get logic embedded in math through their education, and come to reduce the two into one category.
I find this type of thinking in modernity shallow, disturbing, and dangerous--not just to society, but science itself: it creates contradictions internal to the 'philosophy of science', the episteme upon which, and within which, it is built and framed: but most modern thinkers, whether Joe Bloe or Sam Scientist, no longer either know, or if they do, respect or care about consistency: pragmatism rules, and "I know...though I deny 'truth'" ('truth' in the sense that once held in philosophy, epistemology, etc., as the real as opposed to unreal, the genuine as opposed to ingenuine or mistaken, etc.).
Thanks for reading my rant. : )
You know how to checkmate an argument? Logically undermine its lynchpin: 'I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand.' --Freeman Dyson --signed, a bionerd with lots of interest in climate data.
I don't know if you understand just how poorly the GPL2 is written: definitely not by (the necessarily anal) lawyers, self-contradicting, and equating copyright law with an elucidation that is not from copyright law; that's why GPL3 had a lot of review by lawyers, but as a license it is so far overreaching that guys like Linus (rightly and intelligently) refused to move to it, at least overreaching in the sense that they couldn't possible have thought (could they? Sadly I think they could) that the major GPL2 code would move to v.3; the non-move was pragmatic since (this is why their thinking was so jacked) likely none of the big developers (these companies) would have agreed to the patent clauses in v.3. Anyway, merely utilizing copyrighted code doesn't mean one has waved patent rights--except if someone else has taken the code you've utilized as the start of, or a source for, their work, in which case an argument may be made that the IP has been licensed, by the propagation-requirement (for code) interpretation of the GPL (it really isn't sure or clear, people just avoid that area), because in the propagation interpretation a license has been granted to use the code, which embodies that IP: that's not entirely sure, either, but it is, I believe, reasoning a judge would find firm and necessary consequence. The thing is, though, SCO could claim to be suing for a past infringement, under any number of theories, rather than a current one; they could still utilize GPL'd code and not shoot their case through unless claiming that the current code in Linux--from which their distro was derived--is what infringes.
Lawyers feel free to correct or add to my reasoning.
[quote]I fail to see how some "researcher" no doubt with a worthless degree in "Ancient Medievil History" or the like is more qualified that some who's, gasp, actually been in the field? [/quote] Large battles have been won by officer who know that kind of history, because of that history, even from accounts recorded in the Hebrew Bible. I wouldn't be so brash as to discount battle history: often much is very applicable; oftentimes such knowledge is a harbor of tactics which, if recalled, are redeployable even in modern arenas.
I don't want to say this too many times, but sleep=repair, repair, repair; lots of genetic checks to do, and protein synthesis to undertake--which takes a long time in eukaryotes, and an unusually long time in human beings (we've got a lot going on and a lot of complexity to sort and manage).
Bioguy here: decided to blog some superficial thoughts about this here, http://ascienceguy.blogspot.com/2009/08/little-sleep.html Sleep is really complicated, and compounding the difficulty of one subject we don't understand (nearly at all: information is not understanding when we speak of sleep) with another (genetics aren't really that understood--good for guys like me who want a good career possibilities to remain open) isn't too helpful, except comparative study will likely open up our understanding more by taking little bits we understand to decode more pieces of the puzzle. :D
A little deviation: despite that nerds hate FrontPage, 'commoner' folk still love it: even when using older versions of it. I hate the output, personally, but regular Joe likes to be able to type-in and position stuff, and it just to look right-enough to him.
Guys like /.ers like standards: MS wants to know 'how's Joe-Bloe going to handle it?' Whereas others want interoperability, MS wants operability for regular users (at least with Windows). That's a lot of the disconnect in assessing and communicating-with MS comes from.
Sure, they screw-up: a lot. But then again, they're not really too worried about very many Open Source projects (minus the linux OS itself, MAYBE, since it can be used as a platform, or leveraged by those wiser-than-the-enthusiasts: you know, like Google is doing), especially with regards integrated developer tools. That's what people keep missing. Just above someone mentioned 'when Windows is gone they'll still be selling useful development tools', but that totally misses the MS strategy that all they've done and keep doing is integrating all that with their platform; .NET will run on Mono, etc., (well, when it's brought up to snuff with whatever the version a program is made for), and MS's tools could eventually be made platform-independent, but it's their integration, organization (or, at least, extensive documentation), and disciplien that makes MS a force to reckon with.
While everyone else, for instance, was getting giddy over HTML 5, it was Gates, I think, who mentioned that the concept of 'browser' has become useless, and that MS's focus will be making their own 'browser' more and more tightly integrated.
MS tries to make it easier for you; they may screw-up, but it's difficult in some ways; for instance, the dev tools they sell are also those they themselves use; then, on top of it all, it's all within a tight ecosystem; and on top of it, if you're important they'll even work hard to ensure your wares keep working on that platform, whether through hacks, or through requesting your install scripts.
The MS approach can be put something like this: 'an idiot, let's condescend to, and work to empower, him'; vs. Linux, 'an idiot, let's belittle him or design our wares like he's a baby [ahem, Gnome]; oh, we made usability progress, but an incomplete and retardedly immature replacement is available in X? Sure, let's drop that useful and highly-necessary tool that was a working work-around in the hopes the immature feature will bear fruit in a couple years'.
I'll pass-on the lesson, the 'wisdom', passed on to me when I once wished I could re-edit a post here on /., "Slashdot is forever". There, your question=answered.
It's worth noting that the bailouts for banks became necessary due to the government (ahem, the current ruling party in fact, ahem) ordering them through legislation to give high risk loans for houses; those kinds of loans are meant for enterprise, i.e. starting businesses, not for buying personal houses; they decided to examine loan records and from it they 'felt' there was a disproportionately small representation of loans to certain demographics, particularly minorities (i.e. potential voters), and forced a percentage of loans to be so made, as well as set-up quasiprivate (federal) lending-control institutions that conveniently fed money back into their own campaign covers; the catastrophe arising from 'bank' mismanagement was congresses fault, particularly the firggin' dems who decided force loans to be made to those who's financial data demonstrated they couldn't afford the loans, and the institutions they set-up to route more money to that cause. The global 'crisis' was set-off by the fact that the mortgages that were in those (rather BRILLIANT) packages, each consisting of potentially thousands to millions of little slices of mortgages to probabilistically reduce risk, were of this sub-prime type; to top it off they all (both parties) decided to over-relax lending regulations to encourage this market even more, such that an entire industry just to carry out their wishes (and make a lot of dough) popped-up. The traditional banks aren't typically into this sort of thing, yet they had no choice about it: they had a gun to their heads. There was one bank, strangely, that's now rather notable because of this, that somehow did resist, did not get murdered by the fairness-police pretending to play government for it, and they're now in a perky and grand situation. I've forgotten the name, incidentally, and if anybody here recognizes it (or that of a similar institution similar), let me know.
Americans are just conditioned to be politically angry: they're like trained monkeys, throw-in 'corporation' and they become a ravenous mob--probably too glib to realize that any non-individual entity recognized by the government is basically a corporation: corporations are not evil, they can be evil, or they can be otherwise: but nuspeak has conditioned so many to associate them with being so. AIG was living-up to legal obligations: they could have done that, or gotten sued and payed even more: and it was the very top ordering-down to put the dang 'loophole' (i.e. it wasn't a loophole) in there in the first place. But one can expect Americans to be outraged: it's like they know they have a part to play in a giant, pretensious, stage in a giant, fake, show. And they are fake. Signed, An American.
To add to what you've said, I'm a university student who has participated in more than a few studies, starting when I was in a basic psych course, and then more after that. I and most of the class came to insult even the psychologists: the only 'science' where its practitioners have to repeat over and over and over and over and over 'it's science' and 'why it's science'; we also came to the point of openly exhibiting our disgust with them right in class, dissecting their reasonings, explanations, investigating then demonstrating misunderstandings and misapplications of scientific method: they insist, for instance, that because they make some show of supposedly quantifying what they do, that it's science, and that wasn't one that took long for a lot of people to rip to shreds (e.g. science needs objective, not subjective, measurements that are using the same metrics and material, reproducible, etc.); I don't know if we just got lucky that the professors and/or department didn't try to blacklist or destroy us, but they weren't very happy about it: they weren't very happy, for instance, for me arguing one of the professors about portions of psychology being outdated and wrong on the basis of new discoveries about the brain, its plasticity, etc., almost as if he were religious about insisting the truth of those things: I could bring that department the journals and results and lay it out, and they'd refuse it, I think because the things undermindined form or substantiate various PC dogmas found in academe. Needless to say I neither like the thought police and their censures, and prefer the hard[er] sciences, chem (though technically it's not objective, but still inferential), physics, biology, etc..
In the studies I've participated in (and I still do) I found the questions, etc., use are not only vague or overly vague, but that psychologists in general don't even appreciate how that can affect outcomes of those tests, or necessarily care; on top of it I've been a pain in the arse about figuring-out exactly what they're for just by the nature and content of the tests done in these studies (they don't often want you to know at least till it's over) and realizing much of it is just inappropriate to what they're investigating, and as one comment points-out above, it is a 'science' that likes to start with a conclusion then set-out to prove it: more than a few of us noticed this with regards to the humanism imbued into certain portions of pscyhological 'science': for which 'pre-scientific psychology' like Freud's is sometimes more corroborated by evidence (not all of it, only pieces of it) when more rigorous approaches are utilized.
One of my favorite writers on the social 'sciences' was that 'old conservative' (not the 'conservatives' that the extreme fringe of the liberals ostracized that began to call themselves conservatives, i.e. guys like Charles Murray, the Republican party as someone mentioned above, much of the the American 'right', etc.) of Columbia U., Robert Nisbet. Harvard asked him to write a Philosophical Dictionary after the pattern of Voltaire (which is humorously commented upon its preface), and I recommend it, it's good reading, titled "Prejudices: A Philosophical Dictionary". Speaking of Charles Murray, I recently saw a meeting of 'Conservatives' who were listening to him about subjects he'd written books on and all that data those books delve into, and they asked him when he'd become conservative, to which his reply was that he hadn't budged from the left for all these years, the left moved further to the left.
As you can probably tell, I much prefer the traditional left, and traditional right, than the majority/visible modern representatives, something like having preferences of classical liberalism while retaining Burkean Conservatism (interestingly named since Burke was liberal for his day, supporting America's revolution, while observing and critiquing the one that occurred in France). Interestingly, what Nisbet writes on abortion would leave the modern right gnashing teeth (though s
U.S. political history, especially from the Constitutionalists that made the Constitution, is all warninsg against ANY liberty, period, no matter how big or small, because giving the government an inch, as big as it gets, it just keeps taking more inches until you're incarcerated for strong dislike (hate); Bush, as much as people hated him, actually blocked legislation like this from Democrats (when they'd taken over Congress) because it is unconstitutional, and these laws are already being flagrantly abused wherever they've been implemented. Hate isn't illegal, neither is expression--those who don't want to hear things, even if they're facts, can say anything is incitement.
In my state, at least, driving too slow in the pass (left) lane will get you a ticket: it's not always legal to drive too slow; the same for freeways in general; it's illegal here to hold-up traffic, unless they're just driving too fast and you're driving in the right lane/s at the limit, the left lane still being the exception. In fact, I just Googled state traffic laws: it seems these and similar laws are pretty consistent and present in many states.
And dude, that projects we're talking about aren't "for no money"; they're funded, and they have goals--nobody was talking about chiding those who're totally volunteers, and nobody sensible involved with FOSS that I know of does. Sheesh.
But that's missing the point--they already are, and it seems all the big projects intend to keep at it; thus it's invalid to try to claim that they're just developing for developers already, so anybody that's not a dev should just shove it down their gullet.
It's also kind of fun: open source has not natural competition: not even within itself most of the time-people do their thing period; with the competition to attempt commercial space, it gives some pressure to do better: one usually finds people do better work under pressure.
I'm also surprised you made your comment at all: Ubuntu is already supposed to be "Linux for Human Beings" (i.e. consumers), remember? It exists and is so darn good because it's aiming at commercial space; and the hand that sustains it, Shuttlesworth, gives &*^% if it only has 1-2%, he's pumping tens of millions into that project hoping that with a large enough userbase, his Canonical will have enough money from support contracts to continue development: essentially he's ignoring the zealot-dump senseless nerds, giving devs (of various FOSS communities) money so they can eat and keep at it, and is gunning to create one of the first major self-sustaining FOSS business models, not of the kind like Red Hat which only gives you crumbs by using you as a testbed, but where everything is fully functional (it IS the end product), getting better, sensible, sustainable, and widely used enough to continue that way: that's really something--and it's only possible by seeking to create a commercial desktop: Red Hat and others missed the message that workers like simple too (hence Microsoft's popularity--better to stop diverting attention by blaming them, even if they are to blame for things, and work around and outcompete them).
Most importantly, though, DEVS care if it's only 1-2 percent market share (think man, think): without more they're not going to be able to target the desktop profitably: they need TO EAT TOO. (see that video I pointed at). That they're even taking time, pains, and thought to do what they are, in the hopes more might come out of it, really is something; but don't forget there's big money funding all this much of the time, or decent enough money; it's not about you users--to them it's about eating too.
And that's why people avoid FOSS heads: I'm familiar with CEOs who's companies try to avoid people associated with FOSS or OSS. Thing is, nobody is saying it's "supposed" to be (so cool off hot head); thing is, a lot of people have decided to make it a goal--the simple explanation is it's fun/a goal. Lots of people are aiming for "the year of the Linux Desktop", often vainly mind you, but let them have at it, and enjoy it, and tinker, and try. If RedHat, IBM, etc. hadn't jumped on board, however, much of this stuff would never have been funded. Here's a bunch of devs who're more sensible that got together to discuss all things Linux desktop, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoYL4R3Te2s&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcmpstuff.blogspot.com%2F&feature=player_embedded
It is a problem when the developers are trying to make a consumer desktop, however; last I checked, many big Linux-related projects (including both Gnome and KDE) are gunning just for that; so no, your statements are not valid here.
There are, of course, exceptions: but none of those are what this is talking about.
I hate courses with assignments; we're not in grade school, so stop trying to treat everyone like children: let them keep-up or fail and learn how to control themselves; I've found that often classes with assignments are such the assignments won't necessarily be important in the grand scheme of things, but they're just important enough they can screw you even if in the end you learn the materials exceptionally well (and can demonstrate it on a test). :*( Now, if there are assignments optional and recitations to get help (which I've found typically aren't there to help you with current, but past crap, er...) then great!
You can't embed a GPL; you could embed an LGPL library or program dynamically, but not statically; LGPL programs are a bit rare, however, which is bad: what if some entity which might otherwise support Linux needs to call that GPL Media Player that comes with the desktop? Er...
Yeah, because some people live in reality; communism was never about people: expired. Communism was, and continues to be, in many forms, a pre-eminent destabilizing force, always in the name of the people, but always bringing them harm, unfortunately. We intervened in South America back then because Russia wanted nuclear and military launch sites against us; we intervened in Africa and Asia because they wanted direct operational and governmental control for resources to come against us; Africa was key because it was a major source for nuclear fissional material for weapons); Marxism was, and continues to be, more a dogmatic religiosity than a mere realistic or tenable political outlook.
And of course American military ventures are often about business: if the U.S. gave China the finger about paying back debt it has incurred, they'd attack (eventually, which will likely happen with Taiwan anyways, since it's a U.S. territory: they're already claiming land and sea space that belongs to other nations throughout their area, peering over the Himalayas at parts of India and the Middle East); Kuwait wasn't just business, though: the U.S. is in bed with the Saudis and have agreements to live-up to: NEVER, if you can, break trust with Muslim nations: that's what happened in the first gulf war when our troops were pulled back after we'd promised Iraqis who rebelled we'd remove Saddam: it was a moral disaster.
Neither were the actions fighting communism so much about business as national survival--the issue of that day, and is even now--just as other issues are issues of today.
Why does every country get to protect its interests, but the U.S. does so and gets a rap? Oh yeah, because it's the current visible power; when it has passed, another country will be; God help you all if the U.S. falls and China has to be pleaded with to help some poor people getting massacred in this or that part of the world, uphold human rights, etc. (already difficult to get enough support to help people as it is). Heck, they're likely to begin invading more than Tibet once they feel secure enough that they aren't dependent upon the west. Why are you against a country doing what it sees as in its own interests? Why do you write like ideas aren't dangerous? Ever been around cults? Do you know the Nazi party and the atmosphere they created was basically a cult around certain ideas? Just like Marxism, just like Islam: in Islam, for instance, and I mean the Reform variety--Reform is returning the wellspring or fount in a religion--all is "submission" to Allah through Muhammed, the highest and greatest exemplar of ideals for every human to emulate (he was a pedophile and charlatanical raider); I don't say that lightly: some of my best friends have been Afghani, in fact; I spent years speaking with Saudi exchange students on personal terms, too, and got all their views without the gloss, and I have great respect for much about them. However, if that form of Islam spread (more than it already has throughout the middle east, Africa, South Asia, and the Indonesian island systems), we'd all be in a sore spot (if we aren't all already: some guy not long ago thought because certain Muslim nations had "democratic" and "constitutional" in official government docs that they respected rights--idiot); how about the dangerous ideas of statism where any dissent is to be quashed with imprisonment (or a bullet): should we all be relativists and let that burgeon too? The U.S. even has a first amendment and yet it is already having an increasing frequency of such silencings, and various cult-like political philosophies love it so. Don't get all righteous on me: I'm all for one country putting a bullet in the head of those who'd terrorize others, one way or another, who'd claim those who stop them are being imperialistic, hegemonic, or whatever: and I'm not all for hegemonies, etc., but we all want to breathe, eat, talk, and go about our business: and I'm all for one group of people defending the defenseless other group (and actually finishing what they've