"UNLESS you sign or otherwsie accept a contract saying you will not do so"...except that clause is probably not valid in Norway. Most countries in the EU explicitly permit reverse-engineering for compatibility purposes. So if it's illegal in Norway than somebody just needs to re-reverse-engineer it somewhere else.
Could you describe your work life at VA Linux. What are your pet projects? How many hours each day do spend at work? Do you work from home? What other noteworthies do you interact with on a daily basis? What's your work space like? (Number of Linux computers, number of computers without a case, number of Windows machines (and why), number of monitors, etc).
Could you explain your rational for moving from the Tru64 UNIX group at Compaq to VA Linux? Was it a financial decision? Do you like Linux technology better? Was it ideological (Open Source)? Do you just like the location better? Was it just for a change? Etc.
Yes, there is a secret message, and this is it: Transmeta's policy has been to remain silent about its plans until it had something to demonstrate to the world. On January 19th, 2000, Transmeta is going to announce and demonstrate what Crusoe processors can do. Simultaneously, all of the details will go up on this Web site for everyone on the Internet to see. Crusoe will be cool hardware and software for mobile applications. Crusoe will be unconventional, which is why we wanted to let you know in advance to come look at the entire Web site in January, so that you can get the full story and have access to all of the real details as soon as they are available.
I've been an avid reader of Slashdot for a while now (during the time when there were only a couple thousand readers.
Now I'm embarrased by all the childish remarks being posted about this issue.
So let's have some balance:
First of all a large majority of the world's population does not believe in Atheism (i.e. they believe in (a) supreme being(s) of some sort. Don't call them ignorant of science. If you feel like doing that then perhaps you need to look in a mirror and realize that you're ignorant of religion. Just because a person is convinced that evolution is false doesn't make it false AND just because YOU don't believe in a religious belief doesn't make it false either. About now you're going to say "..but the evidence!". Obviously you haven't talked to many people in foreign countries. I lived in Papua New Guinea for many years to them there is lots of personal evidence to support their religious beliefs. It really all boils down to your worldview/religious convictions. If you don't think God exists then you will see evidence for your view point, if you do think God exists you will interpret evidence in a different way.
Atheism is a religious conviction/belief. If you're an Atheist then you probably disagree. Well, the majority of Americans (and the World) would disagree with you. Again it boils down to your worldview. If you still don't agree with me then how about this argument: if you don't classify Atheism as a religious conviction then most of the First Ammendment protections don't apply to you (and that would be ludicrous).
American society was founded on the belief that you shouldn't condemn a person for having a certain worldview/culture/religion. This applies to schools also. When schools teach biological macro-evolution (the Kansas ruling didn't change the cirriculum status of micro-evolution) as the only valid scientific worldview the general teach it in a way the excludes or even denies the possibility of a deity. This is religious discrimination.
Biological macro-evolution is a theory. This is easily shown by the recent change from Darwin's gradual evolution to the "Punctuated Equilibrium" method of macro-evolution. The theory is not just prone to micro adjustments and fine tuning but to large changes in the excepted processes and method.
The Kansas ruling is probably not good in the short-term but a good thing in the long term. Unlike what most of you are assuming the ruling does not ban the teaching of evolution (that's an MSNBC mistake/bias). Check out CNN for a more accurate article. They are simply dropping evolution from the cirruculm. That is bad in the short term because kids should be taught evolution. It's a predominant theory and important for kids to learn. However, other view points should be presented and taught.
The "Big Bang" theory is a very creationistic theory. Einstein's theory of relativity strongly supported the "Big Bang" theory and since he realized this support a creation point for the universe he made his "biggest blunder" when for many years he attempted to put a fudge factor in his theory that would allow the Universe to be static and eternal.
Creationism's most outspoken proponents argue that the earth and universe are about 10,000 years old. The Big Bang argues for a CREATED universe that is about 13-16 billion years old. Steven Hawking can say that the universe just popped into existance 15 billion years ago but to me that takes just as much on pure faith as saying the God created us 5 minutes ago with memories and scars and such.
For those of you who say that banning evolution would set our elementary and high school educations back 100 years, maybe you should do some research into what education was like 100 years ago. It was a helava-lot more stringent and academic than it is now. Just because we have amazing technical advances in our day and age doesn't mean education is better, it just means that we are standing on the shoulders or some pretty brilliant people. And in addition, many other countries do not teach evolution in school and their eductional level is certainly not any worse than the US. In those countries that do have poor education it is definitely not because of what's in the science cirriculum, but for other factors like poverty and lack of good facilities and teachers.
Sorry about the rambling. Just a hot topic for me that I've done a lot of research on.
Oh ya, the reason that the ruling will be good in the long run is that it will cause people to thing about the issues and possibly recreate school cirriculums that are more balanced.
All I get now is: Logon failure: user not allowed to log on to this computer. Guess that's a hidden message. Whooo Hoooo. At least I get the same in Netscape (no broken Javascript).
Slashdot Mirror
"UNLESS you sign or otherwsie accept a contract saying you will not do so" ...except that clause is probably not valid in Norway. Most countries in the EU explicitly permit reverse-engineering for compatibility purposes. So if it's illegal in Norway than somebody just needs to re-reverse-engineer it somewhere else.
Could you describe your work life at VA Linux.
What are your pet projects?
How many hours each day do spend at work?
Do you work from home?
What other noteworthies do you interact with on a daily basis?
What's your work space like? (Number of Linux computers, number of computers without a case, number of Windows machines (and why), number of monitors, etc).
What are you predictions for the next two years in relation to technology, Linux, Compaq, VA Linux, Microsoft, Open Source, etc.
Could you explain your rational for moving from the Tru64 UNIX group at Compaq to VA Linux? Was it a financial decision? Do you like Linux technology better? Was it ideological (Open Source)? Do you just like the location better? Was it just for a change? Etc.
Yes, there is a secret message, and this is it:
Transmeta's policy has been to remain silent about its plans
until it had something to demonstrate to the world.
On January 19th, 2000, Transmeta is going to announce and demonstrate
what Crusoe processors can do.
Simultaneously, all of the details will go up on this Web site
for everyone on the Internet to see.
Crusoe will be cool hardware and software for mobile applications.
Crusoe will be unconventional, which is why we wanted
to let you know in advance to come look at the entire Web site
in January, so that you can get the full story and have access to all
of the real details as soon as they are available.
I've been an avid reader of Slashdot for a while now (during the time when there were only a couple thousand readers.
Now I'm embarrased by all the childish remarks being posted about this issue.
So let's have some balance:
First of all a large majority of the world's population does not believe in Atheism (i.e. they believe in (a) supreme being(s) of some sort. Don't call them ignorant of science. If you feel like doing that then perhaps you need to look in a mirror and realize that you're ignorant of religion. Just because a person is convinced that evolution is false doesn't make it false AND just because YOU don't believe in a religious belief doesn't make it false either. About now you're going to say "..but the evidence!". Obviously you haven't talked to many people in foreign countries. I lived in Papua New Guinea for many years to them there is lots of personal evidence to support their religious beliefs. It really all boils down to your worldview/religious convictions. If you don't think God exists then you will see evidence for your view point, if you do think God exists you will interpret evidence in a different way.
Atheism is a religious conviction/belief. If you're an Atheist then you probably disagree. Well, the majority of Americans (and the World) would disagree with you. Again it boils down to your worldview. If you still don't agree with me then how about this argument: if you don't classify Atheism as a religious conviction then most of the First Ammendment protections don't apply to you (and that would be ludicrous).
American society was founded on the belief that you shouldn't condemn a person for having a certain worldview/culture/religion. This applies to schools also. When schools teach biological macro-evolution (the Kansas ruling didn't change the cirriculum status of micro-evolution) as the only valid scientific worldview the general teach it in a way the excludes or even denies the possibility of a deity. This is religious discrimination.
Biological macro-evolution is a theory. This is easily shown by the recent change from Darwin's gradual evolution to the "Punctuated Equilibrium" method of macro-evolution. The theory is not just prone to micro adjustments and fine tuning but to large changes in the excepted processes and method.
The Kansas ruling is probably not good in the short-term but a good thing in the long term. Unlike what most of you are assuming the ruling does not ban the teaching of evolution (that's an MSNBC mistake/bias). Check out CNN for a more accurate article. They are simply dropping evolution from the cirruculm. That is bad in the short term because kids should be taught evolution. It's a predominant theory and important for kids to learn. However, other view points should be presented and taught.
The "Big Bang" theory is a very creationistic theory. Einstein's theory of relativity strongly supported the "Big Bang" theory and since he realized this support a creation point for the universe he made his "biggest blunder" when for many years he attempted to put a fudge factor in his theory that would allow the Universe to be static and eternal.
Creationism's most outspoken proponents argue that the earth and universe are about 10,000 years old. The Big Bang argues for a CREATED universe that is about 13-16 billion years old. Steven Hawking can say that the universe just popped into existance 15 billion years ago but to me that takes just as much on pure faith as saying the God created us 5 minutes ago with memories and scars and such.
For those of you who say that banning evolution would set our elementary and high school educations back 100 years, maybe you should do some research into what education was like 100 years ago. It was a helava-lot more stringent and academic than it is now. Just because we have amazing technical advances in our day and age doesn't mean education is better, it just means that we are standing on the shoulders or some pretty brilliant people. And in addition, many other countries do not teach evolution in school and their eductional level is certainly not any worse than the US. In those countries that do have poor education it is definitely not because of what's in the science cirriculum, but for other factors like poverty and lack of good facilities and teachers.
Sorry about the rambling. Just a hot topic for me that I've done a lot of research on.
Oh ya, the reason that the ruling will be good in the long run is that it will cause people to thing about the issues and possibly recreate school cirriculums that are more balanced.
All I get now is: Logon failure: user not allowed to log on to this computer. Guess that's a hidden message. Whooo Hoooo. At least I get the same in Netscape (no broken Javascript).
All I get now is: Logon failure: user not allowed to log on to this computer. Guess that's a hidden message. Whooo Hoooo.