Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Fuck Canonical (Score 1) 103

Quoting define:google just for clarity:

derivative: something which is based on another source.

If it's a modified Ubuntu, it's a derivative. You can still make modified Ubuntu distributions. You just can't re-use the TRADEMARK when advertising your derivative. That is, you can use the source code exactly how you want. You cannot use the Ubuntu name to advertise your resulting distro, unless you meet minimum guidelines.

Also, Debian does have protection around the use of it's name in things: https://www.debian.org/tradema...

Specifically:

You cannot use Debian trademarks in any way that suggests an affiliation with or endorsement by the Debian project or community, if the same is not true.

To summarise: You can still create modified distributions of Ubuntu... you just can't call them "Allo's Ubuntu"

Comment Re:Fuck Canonical (Score 1) 103

Mozilla does the same and gets the same criticism. Debian doesn't prevent people from make "debian derivatives".

You keep repeating "prevent people from make [...] derivatives", but that is explicitly NOT what's going on here.

You can make as many derivatives as you want... you just can't call them "Allo's Ubuntu", unless you pass Canonical's criteria for using the trademark.

Comment Re:Fuck Canonical (Score 1) 103

They're not preventing people from making derivatives. They're preventing the derivatives from mentioning the Ubuntu system underpinning it, because Canonical believes (with a decent amount of proof) that this is tarnishing the Ubuntu brand name.

Canonical is not the first, nor will they be the last, to do this. Mozilla, Debian, RedHat... all these major distros enforce the same rules.

Again, the cloud providers *can* make their own versions/distros based on Ubuntu... they just can't advertise this fact unless the quality of their VM image meets a certain bar.

Comment Re:Fuck Canonical (Score 1) 103

Uhhh... I'm not entirely clear where your logic follows from.

Canonical isn't saying "don't modify and use Ubuntu"... they're saying "don't break Ubuntu in stupid ways, but then still plaster the Ubuntu trademark all over your sales material". This seems like a perfectly reasonable request to me.

Let's say you made a brand of beer, let's call it allo's ale, and you start giving this away to local pubs to serve to customers. Then, one local pub decides to mix your beer with their leftover coffee dregs (hipsters, I tell ya'), but still under the name allo's ale. Don't you see the problem? You (allo) didn't make this beer, it's now been completely corrupted beyond recognition, yet, this pub is still claiming it's your beer. These patrons who buy your ale from the coffee-dregs-place will now tell all their friends your beer sucks, and before you know it, everyone now just assumes you made the crappy tasting beer.

This is the same problem Canonical are fighting against here. The cloud provider(s) have modified Ubuntu in such a way as to fundamentally break the security and functionality of the system. If they don't put a stop to this, people who use these corrupted images will assume *Canonical* and *Ubuntu* are responsible for their bad experiences... not the cloud provider who seems to be mixing the coffee dregs into the VM image they serve.

Comment Re:Somebody ask the judge, please (Score 1) 527

One of the genuine beliefs of pastafarians is that religious belief should not get special privileges. One might argue that they believe this "religiously". It is indeed satire, so I think the judge is correct there. I think where the judge is wrong is arbitrarily deciding that any form of satire is necessarily disqualified as a religion.

We're in agreement that satire doesn't necessarily disqualify something from being a religion. But, holding an idea "religiously" does not make that idea the basis for a religion.

*In general*, I agree religions are hard to pin down. For concrete instances though, it's less gray than people generally wish to believe as you really can take into account your best understanding of the proponent's intent.

Again, to restate... the question here isn't whether religions are special or deserve any special treatment. The question here is whether FSM and it's proponents are doing anything other than trying to cynically game the system. The judge seems believe that the answer is a resounding no. If it was a different religion, the outcome would also likely have been different too.

This is analogous to how members of other religions may not believe in every literal claim their religion makes. Some christians don't even believe that Jesus was anything more than a normal human being with some good ideas.

I struggle to agree with this, because FSM deliberately and consciously espouses things they ALL don't believe in. This seems blatantly different to the situation where there's internal debate within a religion (e.g., your Jesus example is a good one). Find me a FSM practitioner who actually believes their stories, and I'll happily reconsider :-)

Either way... I've enjoyed the discussion with you!

Comment Re:Somebody ask the judge, please (Score 1) 527

That's not true. One of the core beliefs of Pastafarians is the power of mocking other people. And their traditional way of doing this is through outfits and worship.

And this is a religious activity? I mean, that sounds like something people do when discussing football, or politics, or work colleagues. In effect, you're proving precisely the judge's point though. It's an arbitrary set of actions, made up by an arbitrary group and branded as religion as a point of satire.

A satire-of-a-religion is *not* a religion, and should not be treated as such. Any attempts reframe it as a *genuine* religion is a blatant troll... because FSM doesn't see itself as anything other than satire.

("But what if the other religions are also satire?"... even if we imagine for a moment that religions somehow started as satire, the majority of them are now genuinely held beliefs. FSM is still openly satire.

Comment Re:Somebody ask the judge, please (Score 1) 527

Pastafarians absolutely have real beliefs, they are just different than their professed beliefs. Part of pastafarianism is to profess certain ridiculous beliefs even if you don't really believe them (i.e. like Catholics and transubstantiation).

Oh... unquestionably Pastafarians believe in *something*... but those beliefs have 0 correlation to the demands being made by the prisoners. The demands for outfits and worship (two things FSM openly mocks) make as much sense as your local Buddhist trying to get a religious grant for their Ferrari...

Comment Re:Somebody ask the judge, please (Score 2) 527

There are a lot of worshippers who don't believe the literal meaning of their literature. For example, many Catholics don't believe in transsubstantiation, i.e. that the host (wafer) turns into the flesh and the wine turns into the blood of Jesus during communion. [...]

There's a difference though, between disagreement about the details (every religion has this), vs. deliberate unbelief in the professed religion. The judge recognises that FSM initiated as a satirical belief, and is basically calling BS on the claim by these individuals that they *actually* believe and care about this satire-as-religion.

I know we're knee-deep in the whole "but who are you to question others' belief" era... but really, all proponents of FSM that I know are merely being anti-religious. I.e., if someone asked them to list the top 5 most important things in their life, FSM wouldn't make the list, I can assure you. Nor would they have even stumbled into FSM without there being a Muslim/Christian/?? group nearby to push and rile against.

On the upside, the judge has now granted these FSM believers a chance to prove themselves as genuinely religious. It seems that religions only fully develop under rejection and oppression by the current system... so the FSM folk should really be thanking this judge and embracing their opportunity!

Comment Re:In Japan (Score 1) 518

I can't help but think you've misconstrued the OP's point.

The point wasn't "America sucks because it has no suicide etiquette"... the point was Japanese take politeness SO SERIOUSLY they remember to employ this even in committing suicide. I.e., a Japanese person in the middle of taking their life is more polite than most Americans.

Comment Re:Why cheat? (Score 1) 224

The rules of these games are made up anyway and winning is not an indication of any admirable real world trait or skill.

That exact same concept applies to card games, board games, betting, or any other type of interaction. Heck, most societies promote skills and traits that are not real-world admirable ("Oh look, that person can apply make-up so perfectly it appears they have no make-up on at all!").

My own answer to that question is likely to be less than satisfactory for you, sorry, but it essentially boils down to: Winning in a fair-ish game against stiff competition is satisfying, and makes me feel like I achieved something.

And sometimes they *are* real-world admirable traits... in competitive play, many games require high levels of dexterity, well researched strategies (including determining your enemy's tactics and countering them) and rapidly responding to tactical changes. Sometimes they also require deep levels of team-work, good coordination (and *fast* coordination as well). Games can also teach you how to react to stress, and time pressures (depending on the type of game you play, and how seriously you play it).

For example, League of Legends taught me about managing previously-uncohesive teams and forming team bonds quickly, as well as learning to recognise the difference between disenfranchised vs. deliberately anti-social players. This has contributed directly towards my ability to cope and manage real work situations where I need to help repair or manage ad-hoc interest groups amongst developers.

I guess all I'm saying is that you get out of gaming what you put into it. Gaming isn't for everyone, and surely some people waste their lives with games (and some games definitely do nothing other than waste your time)... but there is a lot you can gain from them as a whole.

Comment Re:I think there's a lot of misplaced hate here (Score 1) 271

It does not matter. One does not — or, rather, should not — have a right to forcibly alter other people's memories or perception of himself

Even if those perceptions are wrong? I'm not completely convinced you are grasping the long-term impacts here. If one single mistake can ruin your future life, with no hope for redemption, well, you've heard the saying "In for a penny, in for a pound"? Why stop at a small misdemeanor when you'll get the same effect (a ruined life) for murder?

The reason it might be a good idea to allow these to expire from search engines is because the internet has greatly improved the global recall. Previously, this sort of offense would only be known to you if you personally knew someone who knew the individual. These days, you can jump on google and find out all sorts of random things about any individual you get a name for... and the internet will always remember this!

I'm guessing that you think that you'll never end up on the wrong side of an accusation, or never have any incidents that affect your future employment recorded on the internet... With the growing surveillance and online records, I don't really share that same confidence, for either myself, *or* you.

Comment Re:Simple (Score 1) 1067

That makes sense in natural language. Only math can't handle it, thus exemplifying math's inability to express real life situations that natural language handles without problem.

I've seen you repeat this phrase a few times now, but to paraphrase a good movie, I don't think it means what you believe it does.

The question make sense in natural languages only because natural languages rely on the listener to divine the speaker's intent. I.e., Natural languages handle this issue by being ambiguous most of the time. I'm not sure that being deliberately vague and unclear is quite the advantage you're wanting it to be. Ever tried reading legalese? The advantage of natural languages isn't the language... it's the human processing unit that has accumulated years of experience in how to communicate with the language.

Math can handle the question. It's just that most humans don't have enough interest or attention to detail to comprehend the answer...

Slashdot Top Deals

Money is the root of all evil, and man needs roots.

Working...