Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Moshe Bar on Programming, Society, and Religion

Roblimo posted more than 12 years ago | from the evolving-in-many-ways dept.

Programming 847

Well, here we are: Moshe Bar's answers to questions you posted earlier this week. Read and enjoy.

1) As a device-driver writer...
by Marx_Mrvelous

It seems like such a chore to write drivers that work on all distros since they all use different kernels. It seems to me that businesses only develop for windows because they are guaranteed that their drivers will work on all windows machines for X (4,5,6) years without any more work. Having experience writing Linux device drivers, do you think that a cross-distribution effort to standardize on kernel versions and guarantee major hardware manufacturers this compatibility would promote driver development in Linux?

Moshe:

I don't think a standardized kernel version across distributions is a) feasible business-wise b) necessary c) going to make driver writing any easier. Not that it is that difficult now. I also don't think that the various kernel versions among distributions is to be blamed for bigger (if really so) number of driver developers under Windows. Most drivers do not really create problems across the different kernel versions of the distributions, in most cases a simple recompile of the kernel module with the modified kernel headers is different.

On top of that, I really suspect that writing drivers across the many Windoze versions is far more difficult because each different Windows type (95, 98, ME, 2000, XP and what have you not) is really a different OS.

2) I have only one question:
by Baldric Dominus

Does Moshe have a son/daughter named "foo"?

Moshe:

Moshe does not have children yet. We do plan to fork() some children eventually, but have not yet made plans about their names. :-)

3) Different social groups
by CAIMLAS

As someone involved in many different activities, do you have cohesive social groups? That is, do the people from, say, your motorcycle-riding friends develop/use linux as well? I'm interested in knowing what your social ties are, being as it seems you are a fairly active individual.

Moshe:

The social groups of which I am a member of vary wildly, in part due to the fact that me and Ms. Bar have effectively two homes, one in Israel and one in Europe. Since Europe and the Middle East (ie Asia) differ quite substantially culturally and ethnically, I find the biggest differences lie therein. As to what concerns the various other groups (motorbikers, lawyers, business people, etc.) they do differ somewhat if on the same continent, but the diversity is actually something that attracts and intrigues me. A very typical motor-biker is not going to be a very typical kernel hacker, mostly. A very typical lawyer is not going to be a very typical Talmud student (although both study essentially just law and its practice), usually. However, I am not a typical member of any of these stereotypes (not sure if anyone really is). What unites them all is that they all do whatever they do with passion if they are good at it.

4) BitKeeper
by AirLace

Despite staunch opposition from certain developers, Linus has recently started to maintain the kernel using the non-free BitKeeper SCM product, which is not only proprietary but also uses undocumented file formats, making interoperability difficult or impossible. Do you think it's fair to encourage developers who would otherwise keep to Free Software to turn to a proprietary solution and what is in effect, shareware?

Moshe:

Nobody has to use bk to create patches or to send them to Linus. It is true that Linus is more likely to include them if they come through bk, but by far not all have adopted bk (Alan Cox being one famous such exception). I personally have switched to bk for my personal stuff, but I still don't much like the bk business model. The question is: would Larry lose money in any way if he was to open up bk completely? I don't think so. The other question is: would it be so difficult to produce a bk-compatible openBK? Don't think so either. If the community continues to adopt bk at this rate, sooner or alter, someone will come out with an openBK for sure. Welcome to the wonderful world of OpenSource!

5) As a device driver writer...
by dalutong

do you think that the Linux kernel should follow the same route as the Mozilla project. That being that when Mozilla reaches 1.0 the API will freeze and any plugins, applications that use gecko, etc. will be compatible until version 1.2 is out. Should the Linux kernel make some sort of standardized API for drivers so a driver that works with 2.4.0 will work for 2.4.20?

Moshe:

No, I dont' think so. The Mozilla API model is based on an old and mean-while superseded assumption: that writing software is expensive. In the OpenSource world having to modify a driver because something changed in the kernel, is an advantage not a disadvange, both economically and techically. Proprietary software goes at the tariff of US$ 50-200 per line of debugged code. No such price applies to OpenSource software. Additionlly, if the API changes it is for a good reason. Then why not letting your driver benefit from it?

6) Database Clusters
by emil

As a cluster guru, I am curious about your take on database server clustering in both the commercial and the open-source space.

First, it appears that IBM DB2 has been wiping the floor with Oracle on the TPC benchmarks lately, and Oracle "RAC" has been a flop. However, IBM is not using any hardware from its proprietary server lines, but instead relies on clusters of "federated" databases running on 32 standard PCs running either Linux or Windows. It does appear that Oracle still generally beats IBM in raw performance on a single system (as IBM refuses to post any non-clustered benchmarks AFAIK).

Do you think that any of the hype over either of these vendors cluster packages is worth attention? Do you agree with Sun's claim that TPC(-C) no longer has any practical relevance? It all seems to be getting rather silly.

Second, is there any push to make any of the ACID-leaning open databases (Postgres, SAP-DB, etc.) fault-tolerant, perhaps using Mosix? I assume this would require modifications to Postgres enabling it to access raw partitions. Have you had any talks with the Red Hat Database people about cluster modifications to Postgres, just out of curiousity?

Moshe:

There have been talks with the DB2, Postgres, SAP DB and various other DB technologies. All their proprietary clustering technologies (in particular DB2's and Oracle RAC's) are bound to show very poor scalability and TOC. In the openMosix model, you install *one* DB2 or *one* Oracle 9i on one machine and - assuming we have finished implementing Distributed Shared Memory, something which we plan to do - then the processes making up an instance can migrate away to other nodes and make more room for a larger DB block caching area. All that happens transparently to the RDBMS under openMosix because we implement the clustering layer within the kernel and therefore all applications, whatever they might be, benefit from it.

Under Oracle RAC, for example, you need to install the RDMBS on everynode being part of the RAC cluster. If you need to apply a patch and that process takes, say, 2 hours, then the whole patching downtime to the DB will be 2 hours x n nodes. Also, in openMosix we are soon goin to implement Dolphin support, allowing us to copy a full 4KB page from node to node within 14.4 microseconds. Something like Oracle will immediately benefit from the cluster-wide ultra-low latency. If not in kernel space, then every application vendor would have to write his own driver, possibly conflicting with other applications trying to do the same on the same machine. In short, doing clustering at the DB application level is essentially flawed.

openMosix does not handle High Availability, so I am not answering that part of the question.

7) Not about Linux at all...
by Dimwit

...but the article said pick anything. Since there are quite a few philosophers on Slashdot (and since I'm Jewish and this question gets a lot of thought from me, and when will I ever be able to ask again?) here's my question:

Do you see any reconciliation between science and the G-d of the Torah? What about between Science and any sort of Creationism at all? Do you see the possibility that science, as it approaches the moment of Creation itself, becomes more in tune with religion? I guess a big part of what I'm asking - do you see a place for (or proof of) G-d in science?

Moshe:

No, as much as I am firm believer in our G-d, I do not believe the two things can ever go together in harmony. We know the world created itself a few billion years ago and not 5762 years ago (according to the Jewish counting). We know that evolution is the culprit for that inexplicably destructive and increasingly contradictory thing called the human, the human was not made directly by G-d. Yet, the religious teachings really do make for a more peaceful and quality living if followed the same way by all people. In my view, religious belief and science do not negate one another on the philosophic level, but on the at-face-value level. The more you try to negate G-d the more you end up having to believe in something in its stead. Kierkegaard for all his trying to disprove G-d always came back to G-d. Camus' attempt to show that there is no G-d only shows how divine the emptiness is that is left behind once you eliminate G-d. Staunch atheism is ultimately only an active attempt at ignoring the question what is the divine if it is not G-d, not at answering it.

8) What area of law are you studying?
by gosand

According to the FAQ on your website, you are currently studying for your first law degree. With such a heavy technical background, especially in CS, I am curious as to what area of the law you are planning on going into. Is it a technology-related area? It would be nice to have some more technically-capable people in the law profession, especially those who are Linux friendly. Or is going into law just your way of making money for that early retirement?

Moshe:

I am studying law because at my age I already see how much faster younger programmers are than me. Back when I was in my early twenties nobody could beat me at programming. Nowadays, when I sit next to people like Andrea Arcangeli, I realize that programming, too, (even considering the advantage of experience) is for the young. Perhapes extreme programming, ie good quality, high speed programming, should be considered a sport and not an art or science or a skill. Since, I do not see myself being a programmer at 60 years (which is more than years from now), I deduced that I have to find a new job between then and now. Law is something that really goes well with progressing age. My area of law will be mergers/aquisitions, something that mainly bases on a wide-spread social network rather than talent or very intimate knowledge of the law. I do not actually intend to be a very good lawyer, just to be one.

9) Single Memory Space for openMosix
by Bytenik

Right now, as you've mentioned in the documentation, programs that access databases or shared memory do not derive any particular benefit from using openMosix.

Is there any work planned to enhance openMosix to support a single memory space among all nodes or to otherwise allow implicit sharing of memory? Is this what the "network RAM" research is attempting?

Implementing something along these lines in an efficient manner would hugely expand the range of problems that openMosix could be used to tackle.

Imagine being able to split a database transaction into hundreds of parts and run it in parallel on hundreds of openMosix nodes with a terabyte or more of combined RAM. The processes that share data would automatically migrate to the same node. Mmmmm good!

Moshe:

Network RAM is simply allowing mallocs or swap-outs to be done to the RAM of neighboring cluster node rather than to physical swap space on disk. In order to run databases under openMosix we will need to implement distributed shared memory. Due to the exceptional complexity of this project, I do not assume to have a valid implementation before the end of 2004.

10) IBM and Hercules?
by Jay Maynard

(I'm the maintainer of Hercules, an open source emulator for IBM mainframes that runs on Linux and Windows.)

You've mentioned Hercules in your column a couple of times, both quite favorably. Thanks!

One industry analyst from Germany has claimed repeatedly that IBM is getting ready to slap down Hercules with its lawyers, on the basis of some unspecified violations of their intellectual property rights. He's said that it's not just patent infringement, but refuses to go into exactly what else.

What effect would you think that taking such an action would have on IBM once the open source community finds out?

Moshe:

Hi Jay, long time no hear! I have heard similar rumours. If IBM is reading this: going against Hercules would be an extremely stupid move (not unlike the one by the asinine Adobe legal counsels against Sklyarov). Hercules only helps to sell more mainframes because as people familiarize with the Linux on the S/390 architecture, they will ultimately end up buying a mainframe to run their production workload. If you - as a vendor - want a particular computing platform to succeed, then you do everything possible to spread the gospel according to that platform. You don't go and destroy evangelists doing that for you. I use Hercules very often, and actually have an instance of Hercules running under Linux, with VM/ESA inside running Linux S/390 under it for about 3 months now. openMosix nicely balances the load across my 5 nodes cluster at home and I get very decent speed.

If IBM truly embraces Linux as just one of the members of the OpenSource family (rather than just Linux alone because it saves them billions in proprietary OS development) than it will not go against Hercules. If it does, then we all know that IBM is not serious about OpenSource and only taking advantage of it without really behaving like a good OpenSource citizen.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FP for Moshe ! (-1)

L0rdkariya (562469) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660000)

And the CLIT.

Re:FP for Moshe ! (-1)

TrollBridge (550878) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660024)

Pr0pz to the mad FP'er!

Your FP expertise is to be commended, and the fact that you obviously don't have a job and spend all day grabbing first posts on Slashdot makes you a model citizen of the anit-capitalist, anti-work, tree-hugging, dope-smoking, open-sores community.

Please do not misconstrue; I mean that in the utmost respect!

Re:FP for Moshe ! (-1)

L0rdkariya (562469) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660054)

What do you mean ? I'm a successful linux administrator.

LOL !!
There's no such thing !

Fr1st 0b1tu4ry for Moshe ! (-1)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660026)

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN)

Dee Dee Ramone, bassist and one of the founding members of the seminal punk band the Ramones, was found dead in his Hollywood home, the Los Angeles coroner's office said Thursday. He was 50.
(Truely an icon...)

th1s e4rly ps0t 1s d3d1c4t3d t0:
0n by, CLITs O th3 sp0rks,
"kl3rck" o o 4nd 4ll
n0n o. .o 4Cs
o. . .o
4nd o. .o p4g3
w1d3n3rs o o 4nd 4ls0
l3ngth3n3rs O 4V3RYWH3R3!
tr0llz r0x0r !!! cr4pfl00d r3wlz!

Re:Fr1st 0b1tu4ry for Moshe ! (-1)

Fecal Troll Matter (445929) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660123)

...semenal?

I can't control my fingers, I can't control my toes, oh no oh oh oh ooooh...

Emacs is dying.... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660030)

It is official, FSF confirms: Emacs is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered Emacs community when FSF confirmed that the Emacs market share has dropped yet again, with yet more users switching to the highly praised vi product line. Coming on the heels of a recent user survey which plainly states that Emacs is continuing to lose market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Emacs is collapsing in complete disarray, as has had so many releases it's current version number is greater than 21, a clear sign of crappily maintained software.

You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict the Emacs future. The writing is on the wall: Emacs faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Emacs because Emacs is dying. Things are looking very bad for Emacs. As many of us are already aware, Emacs continues to lose market share to vi. The red ink flows like a river of blood.

Let's keep to the facts and look at some numbers.

Tim O'Reilly, of O'Reilly and Associates Publishing (ya know, the books with the animals on the cover), told folks on his Ask Tim forum that he is among those that have made the switch from Emacs to vi. In his message [oreilly.com] , he tells his followers that O'Reilly sells almost double the number of vi books when compared to sales of Emacs books. Likewise, an O'Reilly sponsored Linux Expo vi/Emacs paintball match shows a similar 2:1 advantage to team vi.

All major surveys show that Emacs has steadily declined in market share. Emacs is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Emacs is to survive at all it will be among text editor dilettante dabblers. Emacs continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes...

Emacs is DEAD

Re:FP for Moshe ! (-1)

CLIT (581942) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660050)

All hail the power of the CLIT!

Mad pr0pz on your latest FP, L0rdKariya!

Village Idiot's Guide to Trolling (-1)

DonkeyHote (521235) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660265)

The /. troll HOWTO

This is version 0.6 of a troll HOWTO, sort of a companion piece to jsm's excellent troll FAQ. As a draft, comments and criticism are always welcome, if not appreciated :)
Section 1 - Trolling techniques

There are techniques used by successful trolls to elicit the maximum amount of responses from unthinking /.ers. This section is dedicated to explaining how to use these in the course of your trolls. Remember though, a great troll can break any or all of these and still be successful...

* Timing

Because you're posting as an AC, your troll will generally be ignored in favour of posters using their accounts, and so getting in early is essential. A good guideline is to get into the first 20 posts, so that people reading the article will see the troll before it is swamped out. One way of increasing the speed with which you get your troll into play is to prepare them beforehand, and then quickly customise them for the current article. This is easier than it sounds since /. typically repeats stories with small variations and runs lots of similar stories.

Note that this is why Jon Katz stories are pretty worthless as trolling material - by the time you've found the article and prepared a troll there's already 50+ posts on it, most of them flaming Jon Katz anyway :)
* Exposure

Once you've got your troll in, you need people to actually read it. You also want replies - /.ers are more likely to read your troll if it starts a large thread. You also want to remember that some people have set their comment thresholds to values higher than 0 - to get the attention of these you either want to get your post moderated up (see Style, below) or get a reply which gets moderated up to 4 or 5, in which case your troll becomes visible to all.
* Accounts

An alternative to the time-honoured tradition of AC trolling is that of creating a "troll" account. This gives you the advantage of posting at 1 rather than 0, and slashbots are more likely to take you seriously, especially if you at least sound reasonable. If you do this, try to avoid posting stuff where it is obvious you're a troll under the account - post it anoymously instead - some slightly more canny readers actually check your user info before they reply. Not many though :)

The ultimate goal of the troll account is to secure the +1 bonus, which is currently received once you hit 26 points of Karma. To get there, employ the techniques of karma whoring that we see every day on /. and watch the karma roll in. And of course once you get the +1 bonus, the world is your oyster in terms of /. Posts made at a default of 2 hit even those people with the threshold of 2, are more likely to get moderated up even further if they are at all coherent, and people tend to lose their critical thinking abilities in the face of the +1 bonus. Milk it for all it's worth.
* Layout

To get people reading it a troll needs to be easily readable. Make sure you break it down into easily digestible paragraphs, use HTML tags where appropriate (but always make sure you close them properly) and use whitespace appropriately.
* Size

Generally a troll shouldn't be too short, otherwise it'll get lost in the crowd. A workable minimum is a couple of medium paragraphs. Conversely, it shouldn't be too long, or no-one will bother to read it. Keep it to a happy medium.
* Spelling

Whilst spelling is important if you want the troll to be taken "seriously", key spelling mistakes can draw out the spelling zealots, especially if you mis-spell the name of a venerated /. hero, like Linus Torveldes or Richard Strawlman (thanks dmg). Related to this is the use of the wrong word, explaining an acronym as being something it isn't or making a word into an acronym even when it isn't.
* Subject

The subject line needs to draw attention to your post without making it obvious that it is a troll. A simple statement of the main point of your argument can work here.
* Style

Once you realise that most moderators don't bother to read past the first paragraph or two, you can use this fact to craft trolls that can be moderated up as "Insightful" (note that I mean this in the /. sense rather than the real-world sense). Start off fairly reasonable, making statements that are /. friendly and not being too controversial. As the troll goes on, make it more and more controversial, building it up for the coup de grace in the final paragraph.
* Linking

As we all know, a post with links is considered "informative" by the /. crowd. Moderators love it, and they rarely check the links, so be sure to include as many as possible. And make them wrong - a link to the Perl website should instead point to the Python website instead, and vice versa. The other alternative to incorrect links is "useful" links to places like www.linux.org and www.microsoft.com i.e. places /.ers could never have found on their own :)
* Feeding

The ideal troll requires no feeding - it runs on its own, generating flamewars between clueless /.ers for your amusement. But often a troll requires some help and so you should consider feeding it. Feeding is best reserved for people making either completely clueless responses, people making responses with holes in, or those wonderful people who write a 2000-word point-by-point rebuttal of your troll.
* Know your audience

Always keep in mind the kind of things advocated on /. so that you can play on and against them. This is why anti-Linux, creationist, gun-loving, pro-corporation trolls work well - the vast majority of /.ers hold the opposite viewpoints. And if a few people agree with you, so much the better - it merely validates your viewpoint in the eyes of readers.
* Arrogance

Be arrogant. You, as a troll, know that you're right. No other explanation could exist. The wronger the "fact", the more assertively you should state it. Make it clear that you are better than everyone else - you know the truth and they are just too stupid to realise it. Use plenty of sarcasm, and use "quotes" to show it to people too dumb to realise.
* Offensiveness

Being offensive in your initial troll can be counter-productive - it causes moderators to mark you down as flamebait in general. But if you're feeding, then you can get away with calling /.ers all kinds of things. Make broad generalisations about /. readers - call them "long-haired Linux zealots", "socialist open-source bigots" or whatever. Stereotyping is encouraged - people always want to think that they're an individual, and will point this out to you given half a chance.
* Indifference

Great for articles with a political or social bent, this kind of troll expresses complete indifference to the topic at hand, wondering who on Earth cares about it. An alternative method is to say that the topic only concerns a certain group of people - criminals, idiots, hackers (always use this instead of crackers) or whatever group you want to offend.
* Sympathy

Appear to take the same stance as the people you're trying to troll - claim you're as much a fan of Linux as the next man, but... This way you can make all kinds of claims in the sure knowledge that you actually know what you're talking about. A great phrase to use here is "In my experience". Remember to act like all the things you're pointing out are unfortunate but true.
* The common touch

Always accuse /.ers of being elitist. This is an easy thing to do seeing as a lot of them are. Claim that is their grandmother couldn't use it, then they are just into it to feel better than Joe Sixpack rather than "doing it for the average user". This is always great for working into anti-Linux trolls - attack command-line tools and poorly designed desktops.
* The 31337 touch

The opposite of the above. Claim that technology or whatever is only for the elite of society and that any attempt to open it up for everyone is wrong, an attack on intellectualism and possibly even dangerous. If people were meant to understand these things then they would, and it's their fault if they're too stupid to learn.
* Contradiction

Never be afraid to contradict yourself, even in the space of a single sentence. The phrases "I am a top programmer who codes in VB" or "I am a supporter of open source who uses NT at work and 95 at home" will be sure to get a response from some weenie smugly pointing out the contradiction. Confuse the issue more by engaging in contradiction when you are feeding - this will confuse /.ers who will then make even more stupid replies, leaving them even more wide open for response.

Clues

If you're feeling brave, give the reader clues that this is an obvious troll. The classic example here is dmg's stock phrase "I am often accused of trolling (whatever that is)", but also feel free to use phrases like "I have not read the article, and I don't know much about XYZ but I feel I must comment". If anyone responds to a troll with these kinds of clues in it, feel free to bask in the glow of knee-jerk /. responses.
* Denial

If you're unlucky someone will accuse you of being a troll (surely not!) and try and ruin it for you. If you don't want it all to end there, then be sure to counter it by accusing them of being small-minded and petty, saying that it's easier for them to say it's a troll than to accept that people have different opinions. Be sure to say this in the subject line, especially if their subject was the infamous "YHBT. YHL. HAND."
* Claiming credit

Given that /. has its community of regular trolls (hi guys!), it's only polite to publish your troll on one of the so-called "hidden" forums for all to see and admire. This way, you get to bask in the praise of other trolls, they get to contribute to your's if they want to, and you get an easy way to find the troll later on when you want to check on its progress :)

As for when to post it, that's a matter of opinion really. You can either post it straight away or leave it will after people start biting. Remember that the troll forum is also frequented by non-trolls, and sometimes you may get a self-declared "troll-buster" try and expose you. But remember, /.ers always post before thinking, and often it doesn't matter at all.

There is no real current forum at the moment thanks to various spammers hitting the sids, but try trolltalk, the original troll sid started by 80md and osm way back in the day. Generally all postings are done there as an AC, with your name at the end of the post. Include a link to the troll somewhere in the text, which ideally will be directly to the post and its replies - click on the #XX link in the thread to get there.
* Ending the troll

Sometimes you just get bored with a troll, or people start posting genuinely thoughtful stuff in reply (it does happen). When this happens it might be time to own up to the troll with a helpful "YHBT. YHL. HAND." post. Sometimes people will carry on a discussion of the issue, and if you're really lucky (and it was a great troll) they will completely fail to believe you and carry on arguing. If that happens, pat yourself on the back for writing a great troll :)
* The cheap $3 crack

Finally, when all else fails and your troll gets moderated down to (-1, Troll) within ten seconds of you posting it, the only honourable thing to do is to accuse the moderators of smoking the cheap $3 crack (again) and give up :(

Section 2 - Types of troll

1. The Maniac

Probably the most popular kind of troll, the Maniac holds an opinion on something, and won't budge from that opinion no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented. If challenged, the Maniac will simply get more and more agitated and abusive, deriding his opponents as "idiots", "wrong-thinking", "dangerous" and "subversive". Generally the Maniac takes a position that opposes the prevalent /. beliefs, but a similar effect can be achieved by taking a typical /. viewpoint and pushing it to ridiculous extremes.

Maniacs can be crafted for practically every article /. posts, although some are more obvious targets than others. Civil liberty articles, especially on things like censorship, DMCA, UCITA that really get /.ers riled up, are usually extremely fruitful grounds for a well-crafted maniac. The other obvious type of article is anything which could possibly involve religion, especially evolution :)

Here are some fruitful avenues to explore:
* The Right-Wing Maniac

Always popular, the right-wing maniac (RWM) is a God-fearing, gun-toting, flag-waving American, and proud of it. They don't care about the rest of the world, unless it's to "prove" that America is better than everything else, and they cannot stand liberal whining over civil rights. They hate the moral decay of America and want it to revert into a nation of heterosexual, Christian whites like it was meant to be. Woe betide anyone that dares to suggest otherwise.
* Religion

There are two ways to approach this kind of maniac. The harder to pull off is the militant atheist, but this is quite common amongst /. posters and you would have to be very offensive to get this to work. Of course with religion trolls, the argument can go on for ever once it's started... The more common approach is the Christian fundamentalist. They are ignorant, intolerant and bigoted in the extreme. For them the Bible is the inerrant word of God revealed to man - it contains no flaws and no contradictions. Thus they are strict Creationists - mentions of evolution or cosmology will set them off on vitriolic rants. Flaming denunciations of anyone daring to contradict the "Word of God" are the way to go, and any kind of proof can always be ignored by appealing to "secular humanist brainwashing". And let's not forget, the USA is the greatest nation on Earth because it has the righteous power of Jesus Christ behind it.
* Ideology

Pick a philosophy, any philosophy. This troll is a troll with a cause - they have found some kind of ideological truth, and are out to expose every other philosophy as a sham. Whether it be libertarianism, objectivism, communism or capitalism, this troll will point out the obvious "flaws" in any other philosophies, whilst spouting dogma about their own. And the best thing is - you don't even need to know that much about what you're spouting - making doctrinaire mistakes will get both sides of the argument flaming you, adding to the fun.
* Software

This is an old favourite and crops up in many forms, covering the gamut from OS maniacs (Linux zealots, MS-apologists or embittered BSD fanatics), language maniacs (Pascal vs. C, C vs. C++, C++ vs. Java, Perl vs. Python, VB vs. everything), application maniacs(GIMP vs. Photoshop, Netscape vs. IE, vi vs. emacs) and also includes people who complain about how technology should only be for the 31337 hackers.
* Guns

Americans love their guns, and will always fight passionately for their Constitutionally guarenteed rights to bear arms and shoot people. Even the slightest hint of criticism of this will bring down the wrath of a thousand and one enraged gun-owners on you, so it's always a great point to work into a troll :)
2. The Expert

The Expert is someone who is "savvy" in their particular field, and is perfectly willing to give their opinion on any topic even vauguely related to their field. The Expert is most likely to be from a field which /.ers as a rule despise - the classic example is dumb marketing guy, but try consultants, lawyers, politicians, lobbyists, executives, journalists (just think Jon Katz). With this kind of troll sweeping statements with little content are the norm, along wire dire portents of future catastrophe and dark hints of "insider knowledge".

Some possible angles to exploit:
* Industry knowledge

The expert knows the computing industry from the inside - as a long-term pro, they can dispense knowledge knowing that they can "speak for the industry". Their smug self-satisfaction is bound to annoy, as is any suggestion that things aren't the way that /.ers would like it - saying "Linux requires the rock-solid guarantee of a trusted company like Microsoft" or "Apache cannot be trusted for mission-critical enterprise platforms" is guaranteed to get you denials explaining exactly why you're wrong, in excruciating detail.
* Helpful hints

With their tech-savvy (or law-savvy or whatever) experience, the expert is obviously the best person to point out what's wrong with things or to give out useful "factual" information. In fact this probably works best with lawyer trolls - for all that /.ers protest "IANAL", they certainly seem to think they could be, and any mistakes you make will send them rushing to prove themselves by correcting you.
3. Offtopic Trolls

Not really a "troll" in the strict Jargon File sense of the word, but they certainly should be included here :) This category includes parodies, offtopic weirdness any all kinds of amusing stuff. Not really my area of expertise, this stuff is mainly done by gnarphlager and opensourceman. Thanks to gnarphlager for this section.

Offtopic trolls, like any other, come in almost as many colours as an iMac, but generally not as cute. But then again, a good offtopic "troll" can affect more people than a repulsive little gumdrop on your desk, because you need to have someone SEE your desk before they can react. Simple? Moreso than even my overblown prose could indicate. Some basic examples:
1. The serial troll

Write a story. Keep expanding it. It doesn't matter what article you post it under, so long as it's high up. If you want people to recognize you, pick a couple themes or symbols, and carry them on throughout the story. Other alternatives include back linking or including the entire story, but adding more each time. Be funny if you want. Or if you don't feel like being funny, just be really weird. Someone will react.
2. The random troll

This has nothing to do with anything. Be it a stream of consciousness rant, or a description of the corner of your desk. Another favorite is a monologue, read as if spoken from any one given entity to another. The more outlandish, the better (a pair of socks talking to a mousepad, for example). If you really wanted to be artsy, work in an actual metaphor or legitimate meaning behind it, but it's not necessary.
3. The vaguely related troll

Start out with a comment about the article. Have a definite opinion of it. Then, after a little while, disintegrate into randomness. All roads eventually can eventually lead to cheese (yum), Natalie Portman, cannibalism, toasters, squirrels, futons, you name it. All it takes is a little bit of creativity. Oh, and feel free to use other trolls' motifs. Open source and all that ;-)

General tips:
* If it's funny for a fleeting moment, then it's worth posting.
* Puns. Puns are only less vile than mimes, but it's hard to mime on /. So feel free/obligated to litter your offtopic and random bits with puns. Hurt the bastards. And if they're sick enough to laugh at them, then they'll eventually end up here ;-)
* Obscure cultural references and injokes are always good. SOMEONE will get them eventually.
* Several drafts of a serial or random post are common, but true elegance is being able to come up with something on the spot that still makes the top 40 posts (on a post-heavy article)

Introducing Red Hat Linux 7.3 (-1, Troll)

advertising (583986) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660308)

New features and functionality:
  • KDE 3.0
  • GNOME 1.4 with Natilus File Manager
  • Evolution
  • XFree86 4.2.0
  • GNOME Meeting video conferencing solution
  • >MrProject
  • Updated Mozila web browser
  • Printing configuration tool
  • Redesigned boot program
  • USB 2.0 support
  • Improved support for digital cameras.
See more features [redhat.com] Upgrade now and get cash back!

Re:Introducing Red Hat Linux 7.3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660367)

Mozila, realy?

LNUX DEATH WATCH (-1, Troll)

RoboTroll (560160) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660002)

LNUX death watch: Powered by Microsoft Moneycentral! [msn.com]


VA Software Corporation [goatse.cx]

After Hours: Last 0.81 Change -0.03 Volume 2,100

Last 0.84 Open 0.83

Change unch Previous Close 0.84

% Change unch Bid 0.82

Volume 107,100 Ask 0.86

Day's High 0.90 52 Week High 3.98

Day's Low 0.80 52 Week Low 0.76

StockScouter Rating 3

Financial data in U.S. dollars

Fundamental Data

P/E NA Market Cap. 45.25 Mil

Earnings/Share -7.22 # Shares Out. 53.87 Mil

Dividend/Share NA Exchange NASDAQ

Current Div. Yield NA Intraday Chart | Message Board


Busted! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660008)

Saw this when I first clicked the link:

404 File Not Found
The requested URL (interviews/02/06/07/1255227.shtml?tid=156) was not found.

If you feel like it, mail the url, and where ya came from to pater@slashdot.org.

EMACS IS DYING (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660015)

It is official, FSF confirms: Emacs is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered Emacs community when FSF
confirmed that the Emacs market share has dropped yet again, with yet more users
switching to the highly praised vi product line. Coming on the heels of a
recent user survey which plainly states that Emacs is continuing to lose market
share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Emacs is
collapsing in complete disarray, as has had so many releases it's current version
number is greater than 21, a clear sign of crappily maintained software.

You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict the Emacs future. The writing is on the
wall: Emacs faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for
Emacs because Emacs is dying. Things are looking very bad for Emacs. As
many of us are already aware, Emacs continues to lose market share to vi.
The red ink flows like a river of blood.

Let's keep to the facts and look at some numbers.

Tim O'Reilly, of O'Reilly and Associates Publishing (ya know, the books with the
animals on the cover), told folks on his Ask Tim forum that he is among those that
have made the switch from Emacs to vi
. In
his message [oreilly.com] , he tells
his followers that O'Reilly sells almost double the number of vi books when
compared to sales of Emacs books. Likewise, an O'Reilly sponsored Linux Expo vi/Emacs
paintball match shows a similar 2:1 advantage to team vi.

All major surveys show that Emacs has steadily declined in market share. Emacs is very
sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Emacs is to survive at all
it will be among text editor dilettante dabblers. Emacs continues to decay. Nothing short
of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes...

Emacs is DEAD

presenting. the hoe of slashdhot. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660019)


did anyone hear about that new radical diet that only allows for 1400 calories a day or something?

It is being rampantly promoted as the way to "live longer!!" based on conclusions from several sceintists.

Is the science vehicle being used as a back-end for mass brain-washing?

Do you sometimes find yourself fantasizing too much about being overly (if not morbidly) thin because it gives you sexy feelings - the idea guys will line up to take your male virginity? Well, this goes to show not only news outlets but entertainment ones are involved in the brain-washing of our young and old alike.

What about the enjoyment of life? I'm sure if
you asked an overweight person like many of the
lesser trolls here would they rather be engaging
in some cruel experiment or living life to its
fullest - via a large order of ribs from Chilis
with a piece of apple pie, whole (Vitamin D) milk
or a large order of Penne Rustica from Macaroni
Grill with choclate decendence cake for desert
(tip: say it's your birthday for free cake Just
don't do this on the same server too much) --
they would respond they would rather have the
food.

Why are my thoughts never as wildly respected as the ones of the slapbutt janitors? Why can't I have my own little soapbox in which I talk about the great injustices intelligent, receptive people like myself perceive that have been wrought upon all the others who are too ungifted to realize they are being cheated?

My friends, this latest atrocity in media presentation is the work of the media propagnda mission, and it is going to mame and kill us, our children, our self-esteem, our ideals. We need to re-take control. and fast. The cries of anorexic children, homosexual male teenagers, homosexual young male adults, techno-loving MDA addicts, etc, are abound everywhere-- it deeply troubles me that this web site is so undevoted to social issues such as this one.

yikes! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660062)

12 minutes and the only posts here are trolls and crapflooders! ahhhh!

Re:yikes! (-1)

L0rdkariya (562469) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660077)

And ?

The Hypocrisy of /. Regarding MS (-1, Troll)

returnofthe_spork (552824) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660066)

Listen, this has been bothering me for a while. Now, as we all know, most of the people who frequent this site are Libertarians (except for a few socialists - Go back to France!,) which is a fine and noble lifestyle. The problem is that they throw their ideals out the window (bad pun) with any issue concerning Microsoft.

What exactly do I mean by this? It's easy to see. Any time there is a story about Microsoft, there are 300 posts crying for the government to step in and break MS into two companies, force them to open their code, etc. Excuse me folks, but having the government interfere with the economy is not capitalism. It's communism. I don't want this great nation to end up like Russia, ok?

Another thing that pisses me off: anytime there is a circle-jerk discussion about Mozilla, people whine and bitch about how Internet Explorer doesn't conform to W3C standards, and how unfair it is. Well guess what? We don't need the W3C (government-wannabe of the Internet) forcing companies to do things. The market has decided - Internet Explorer is the standard. That's how the "Invisible Hand of John Smith" works. If you want to gain market share, follow IE's lead. Otherwise, go back to Cuba or China you commie bastards.

BTW, if this gets modded down, you can bet the Liberals are out in force modding down all non-group-think. Fuck You!

Moshe Bar (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660074)

Isn't that where you buy your drinks near the moshe pit?

just in case of slashdotting.... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660075)

Well, here we are: Moshe Bar's answers to questions you posted earlier this week. Read and enjoy.

1) As a device-driver writer...
by Marx_Mrvelous

It seems like such a chore to write drivers that work on all distros since they all use different kernels. It seems to me that businesses only develop for windows because they are guaranteed that their drivers will work on all windows machines for X (4,5,6) years without any more work. Having experience writing Linux device drivers, do you think that a cross-distribution effort to standardize on kernel versions and guarantee major hardware manufacturers this compatibility would promote driver development in Linux?

Moshe:

I don't think a standardized kernel version across distributions is a) feasible business-wise b) necessary c) going to make driver writing any easier. Not that it is that difficult now. I also don't think that the various kernel versions among distributions is to be blamed for bigger (if really so) number of driver developers under Windows. Most drivers do not really create problems across the different kernel versions of the distributions, in most cases a simple recompile of the kernel module with the modified kernel headers is different.

On top of that, I really suspect that writing drivers across the many Windoze versions is far more difficult because each different Windows type (95, 98, ME, 2000, XP and what have you not) is really a different OS.

2) I have only one question:
by Baldric Dominus

Does Moshe have a son/daughter named "foo"?

Moshe:

Moshe does not have children yet. We do plan to fork() some children eventually, but have not yet made plans about their names. :-)

3) Different social groups
by CAIMLAS

As someone involved in many different activities, do you have cohesive social groups? That is, do the people from, say, your motorcycle-riding friends develop/use linux as well? I'm interested in knowing what your social ties are, being as it seems you are a fairly active individual.

Moshe:

The social groups of which I am a member of vary wildly, in part due to the fact that me and Ms. Bar have effectively two homes, one in Israel and one in Europe. Since Europe and the Middle East (ie Asia) differ quite substantially culturally and ethnically, I find the biggest differences lie therein. As to what concerns the various other groups (motorbikers, lawyers, business people, etc.) they do differ somewhat if on the same continent, but the diversity is actually something that attracts and intrigues me. A very typical motor-biker is not going to be a very typical kernel hacker, mostly. A very typical lawyer is not going to be a very typical Talmud student (although both study essentially just law and its practice), usually. However, I am not a typical member of any of these stereotypes (not sure if anyone really is). What unites them all is that they all do whatever they do with passion if they are good at it.

4) BitKeeper
by AirLace

Despite staunch opposition from certain developers, Linus has recently started to maintain the kernel using the non-free BitKeeper SCM product, which is not only proprietary but also uses undocumented file formats, making interoperability difficult or impossible. Do you think it's fair to encourage developers who would otherwise keep to Free Software to turn to a proprietary solution and what is in effect, shareware?

Moshe:

Nobody has to use bk to create patches or to send them to Linus. It is true that Linus is more likely to include them if they come through bk, but by far not all have adopted bk (Alan Cox being one famous such exception). I personally have switched to bk for my personal stuff, but I still don't much like the bk business model. The question is: would Larry lose money in any way if he was to open up bk completely? I don't think so. The other question is: would it be so difficult to produce a bk-compatible openBK? Don't think so either. If the community continues to adopt bk at this rate, sooner or alter, someone will come out with an openBK for sure. Welcome to the wonderful world of OpenSource!

5) As a device driver writer...
by dalutong

do you think that the Linux kernel should follow the same route as the Mozilla project. That being that when Mozilla reaches 1.0 the API will freeze and any plugins, applications that use gecko, etc. will be compatible until version 1.2 is out. Should the Linux kernel make some sort of standardized API for drivers so a driver that works with 2.4.0 will work for 2.4.20?

Moshe:

No, I dont' think so. The Mozilla API model is based on an old and mean-while superseded assumption: that writing software is expensive. In the OpenSource world having to modify a driver because something changed in the kernel, is an advantage not a disadvange, both economically and techically. Proprietary software goes at the tariff of US$ 50-200 per line of debugged code. No such price applies to OpenSource software. Additionlly, if the API changes it is for a good reason. Then why not letting your driver benefit from it?

6) Database Clusters
by emil

As a cluster guru, I am curious about your take on database server clustering in both the commercial and the open-source space.

First, it appears that IBM DB2 has been wiping the floor with Oracle on the TPC benchmarks lately, and Oracle "RAC" has been a flop. However, IBM is not using any hardware from its proprietary server lines, but instead relies on clusters of "federated" databases running on 32 standard PCs running either Linux or Windows. It does appear that Oracle still generally beats IBM in raw performance on a single system (as IBM refuses to post any non-clustered benchmarks AFAIK).

Do you think that any of the hype over either of these vendors cluster packages is worth attention? Do you agree with Sun's claim that TPC(-C) no longer has any practical relevance? It all seems to be getting rather silly.

Second, is there any push to make any of the ACID-leaning open databases (Postgres, SAP-DB, etc.) fault-tolerant, perhaps using Mosix? I assume this would require modifications to Postgres enabling it to access raw partitions. Have you had any talks with the Red Hat Database people about cluster modifications to Postgres, just out of curiousity?

Moshe:

There have been talks with the DB2, Postgres, SAP DB and various other DB technologies. All their proprietary clustering technologies (in particular DB2's and Oracle RAC's) are bound to show very poor scalability and TOC. In the openMosix model, you install *one* DB2 or *one* Oracle 9i on one machine and - assuming we have finished implementing Distributed Shared Memory, something which we plan to do - then the processes making up an instance can migrate away to other nodes and make more room for a larger DB block caching area. All that happens transparently to the RDBMS under openMosix because we implement the clustering layer within the kernel and therefore all applications, whatever they might be, benefit from it.

Under Oracle RAC, for example, you need to install the RDMBS on everynode being part of the RAC cluster. If you need to apply a patch and that process takes, say, 2 hours, then the whole patching downtime to the DB will be 2 hours x n nodes. Also, in openMosix we are soon goin to implement Dolphin support, allowing us to copy a full 4KB page from node to node within 14.4 microseconds. Something like Oracle will immediately benefit from the cluster-wide ultra-low latency. If not in kernel space, then every application vendor would have to write his own driver, possibly conflicting with other applications trying to do the same on the same machine. In short, doing clustering at the DB application level is essentially flawed.

openMosix does not handle High Availability, so I am not answering that part of the question.

7) Not about Linux at all...
by Dimwit

...but the article said pick anything. Since there are quite a few philosophers on Slashdot (and since I'm Jewish and this question gets a lot of thought from me, and when will I ever be able to ask again?) here's my question:

Do you see any reconciliation between science and the G-d of the Torah? What about between Science and any sort of Creationism at all? Do you see the possibility that science, as it approaches the moment of Creation itself, becomes more in tune with religion? I guess a big part of what I'm asking - do you see a place for (or proof of) G-d in science?

Moshe:

No, as much as I am firm believer in our G-d, I do not believe the two things can ever go together in harmony. We know the world created itself a few billion years ago and not 5762 years ago (according to the Jewish counting). We know that evolution is the culprit for that inexplicably destructive and increasingly contradictory thing called the human, the human was not made directly by G-d. Yet, the religious teachings really do make for a more peaceful and quality living if followed the same way by all people. In my view, religious belief and science do not negate one another on the philosophic level, but on the at-face-value level. The more you try to negate G-d the more you end up having to believe in something in its stead. Kierkegaard for all his trying to disprove G-d always came back to G-d. Camus' attempt to show that there is no G-d only shows how divine the emptiness is that is left behind once you eliminate G-d. Staunch atheism is ultimately only an active attempt at ignoring the question what is the divine if it is not G-d, not at answering it.

8) What area of law are you studying?
by gosand

According to the FAQ on your website, you are currently studying for your first law degree. With such a heavy technical background, especially in CS, I am curious as to what area of the law you are planning on going into. Is it a technology-related area? It would be nice to have some more technically-capable people in the law profession, especially those who are Linux friendly. Or is going into law just your way of making money for that early retirement?

Moshe:

I am studying law because at my age I already see how much faster younger programmers are than me. Back when I was in my early twenties nobody could beat me at programming. Nowadays, when I sit next to people like Andrea Arcangeli, I realize that programming, too, (even considering the advantage of experience) is for the young. Perhapes extreme programming, ie good quality, high speed programming, should be considered a sport and not an art or science or a skill. Since, I do not see myself being a programmer at 60 years (which is more than years from now), I deduced that I have to find a new job between then and now. Law is something that really goes well with progressing age. My area of law will be mergers/aquisitions, something that mainly bases on a wide-spread social network rather than talent or very intimate knowledge of the law. I do not actually intend to be a very good lawyer, just to be one.

9) Single Memory Space for openMosix
by Bytenik

Right now, as you've mentioned in the documentation, programs that access databases or shared memory do not derive any particular benefit from using openMosix.

Is there any work planned to enhance openMosix to support a single memory space among all nodes or to otherwise allow implicit sharing of memory? Is this what the "network RAM" research is attempting?

Implementing something along these lines in an efficient manner would hugely expand the range of problems that openMosix could be used to tackle.

Imagine being able to split a database transaction into hundreds of parts and run it in parallel on hundreds of openMosix nodes with a terabyte or more of combined RAM. The processes that share data would automatically migrate to the same node. Mmmmm good!

Moshe:

Network RAM is simply allowing mallocs or swap-outs to be done to the RAM of neighboring cluster node rather than to physical swap space on disk. In order to run databases under openMosix we will need to implement distributed shared memory. Due to the exceptional complexity of this project, I do not assume to have a valid implementation before the end of 2004.

10) IBM and Hercules?
by Jay Maynard

(I'm the maintainer of Hercules, an open source emulator for IBM mainframes that runs on Linux and Windows.)

You've mentioned Hercules in your column a couple of times, both quite favorably. Thanks!

One industry analyst from Germany has claimed repeatedly that IBM is getting ready to slap down Hercules with its lawyers, on the basis of some unspecified violations of their intellectual property rights. He's said that it's not just patent infringement, but refuses to go into exactly what else.

What effect would you think that taking such an action would have on IBM once the open source community finds out?

Moshe:

Hi Jay, long time no hear! I have heard similar rumours. If IBM is reading this: going against Hercules would be an extremely stupid move (not unlike the one by the asinine Adobe legal counsels against Sklyarov). Hercules only helps to sell more mainframes because as people familiarize with the Linux on the S/390 architecture, they will ultimately end up buying a mainframe to run their production workload. If you - as a vendor - want a particular computing platform to succeed, then you do everything possible to spread the gospel according to that platform. You don't go and destroy evangelists doing that for you. I use Hercules very often, and actually have an instance of Hercules running under Linux, with VM/ESA inside running Linux S/390 under it for about 3 months now. openMosix nicely balances the load across my 5 nodes cluster at home and I get very decent speed.

If IBM truly embraces Linux as just one of the members of the OpenSource family (rather than just Linux alone because it saves them billions in proprietary OS development) than it will not go against Hercules. If it does, then we all know that IBM is not serious about OpenSource and only taking advantage of it without really behaving like a good OpenSource citizen.

Re:just in case of slashdotting.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660094)

Now that's just fsck'n funny.

Moshe is... (5, Funny)

phatStrat (575716) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660085)

We do plan to fork() some children eventually...

... a cannibal?

Moshe is...a comedian... (1)

bje2 (533276) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660103)

We do plan to fork() some children eventually...

nah...not a cannibal...a comedian...

i'm gonna have to remember that line...good programmer/pro-creating humor is hard to come by...

Re:Moshe is...a comedian... (2, Funny)

JordoCrouse (178999) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660228)

i'm gonna have to remember that line...good programmer/pro-creating humor is hard to come by..

Expect that particular joke has been used by every single co-worker of any Unix programmer that has overcome the odds and managed to have a child in the past 30 years.

But then you can add on jokes about how the new process has too high a priority, and how it will take you 18 years to apply the preempt patch. (But avoid the potentially dangerous clone() jokes).

Just don't forget - spawning the process is fun, the tough part is when the process actually starts running.

Re:Moshe is...a comedian... (1)

bprotas (28569) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660252)

No it's not....pro-creating and programmer in the same sentence...what more humor could you possibly need?

Re:Moshe is...a comedian... (1)

dirvish (574948) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660350)

More programmer/pro-creating humor [3fingersalute.net] . I'll let you decide if it is good or not.

Re:Moshe is... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660109)

congratulations friend. after 16 minutes, you have the first real post (defined as score >= 1) to this article. congratulations again.

Re:Moshe is... (-1)

L0rdkariya (562469) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660156)

The first REAL FP is the first post of the article, regardless of score. BIZATCH !

Re:Moshe is... (1)

whovian (107062) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660139)

fork() creates a process called a child process.
Moshe cracked me up with that comment.

Re:Moshe is... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660146)

Though you don't see many people admitting to cannibalism, it has always been quite commonly done as a religious-based ritual.

Re:Moshe is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660162)

Except of course that fork() creates a clone and is really asexual reproduction

Re:Moshe is... (2)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660176)

He'll also need to watch out for zombies.....

--
Garett

Re:Moshe is... (3, Funny)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660304)

We do plan to fork() some children eventually.

remember, there IS no spoon!.

hence the fork.

Re:Moshe is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660365)

Be warned: in several UK regional accents, "fork" sounds dangerously like "fuck"...

Who gives a sh**? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660092)

God damn, this whole article was a waste of 10 seconds downloading time..... :(

Kierkegaard trying to disprove God? (2, Informative)

casio282 (468834) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660099)

That's just not right. He was a devout Christian, and the highest category of human existence for him, above the Aesthetic and the Moral, was the Spiritual.

Re:Kierkegaard trying to disprove God? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660302)

I haven't read Kirgegaard, but you comment makes no sense.

Philosophy in a sense is like mathematics. In mathematics it is common to attempt to prove something (here the nonexistance of God) and then show that it's impossible to do so.

About atheism (5, Informative)

PD (9577) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660101)

Moshe, thanks for your comments on religion, I found them most fascinating, and I hope I can add just a bit to what you said about atheism. I am an agnostic atheist myself, which means that I do not believe in any gods because I have no reason to.

I believe that your comments were referring to what is called "strong atheism" which is an active disbelief in any god whatsoever, something distinct from agnosticism.

But, I think you're incorrect that atheists of any stripe ignore the question of what is divine, and fail to answer it. A strong atheist says that NOTHING is divine, and an agnostic atheist like myself says that nobody can show that anything is divine, so there's no reason to hypothesize it. That's a pretty direct answer to the question.

Re:About atheism (2)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660133)

It also applies to the converse.

Whenever I have a religious discussion with anyone I always start out by stating that I'm agnostic and that means:

a) I will not believe in a God until it's existance can be proven.

b) I will not NOT believe in a God until it's existance can be disproven.

--
Garett

Re:About atheism (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660166)

a) I will not believe in purple flying cheese until it's existence can be proven.

b) I will not NOT believe in purple flying cheese until it's existence can be disproven.

what a pointless game that is. Unless anyone comes up with evidence, why give their fairy stories the benefit of the doubt? Even saying "I don't not believe that" gives this rubbish too much intellectual respect.

Re:About atheism (1)

MrDog (307202) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660191)

Assume that the universe is a formal system. Godel showed that in any formal system, there are propositions that are true but cannot be proven within the framework of the system. It could be possible for God to exist, and yet the Existence to be unprovable. Namely, if one characteristic of God is existence itself, this would be difficult to prove.

Re:About atheism (2)

PD (9577) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660246)

Assume that the universe is a formal system.

Go right ahead. I'll stop here until I can get over my skepticism.

Re:About atheism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660354)

Assume that the universe is a formal system.

I would've dressed up if I'd realized this shindig was formal!

Re:About atheism (4, Insightful)

PD (9577) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660192)

b) I will not NOT believe in a God until it's existance can be disproven.

I guess that I should point out that I have a skeptical side as well. I do not agree to the second statement, for a couple of reasons. First, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If a god is claimed, I have no obligation to believe anything without support. Second, I do not think that it's necessary for an open mind. An open mind will conform to A), but I think that a skeptic with an open mind will not conform to B)

Re:About atheism (1, Insightful)

SpacePunk (17960) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660261)

The burden of proof is also on the person who claims nonexistance.

a) There is no God.
b) There is no Paris.

That's where skeptics fall out of logic. They require proof of claims of existance, but they do not require proof of claims of nonexistance. To the skeptic both claims above are true.

True skepticism like true Agnisticism requires proof of both types of cliams.

Re:About atheism (3, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660270)

that's silly!

I claim I have a martian in my cellar. prove I don't!

you can't? so I must have one then.

sheesh!

Re:About atheism (2, Insightful)

JCMay (158033) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660321)

I thought somebody said before that the one making the claim must supply the proof. So it is up to you to prove you have a martian in the cellar.

Re:About atheism (2)

SpacePunk (17960) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660369)

In this case, you are the one making the claim.

Re:About atheism (2)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660272)

I guess I'm just trying to avoid religious flame wars. I too have a skeptical side. For many years I was pure atheist and just down right did not believe in the existance of God. But that's being rather closed.

Can I disprove it's existance? No.
Can I (or anyone else) prove it's existance? No.

So why fight over it? I chose not to believe in religion because it seems to cause more pain and hatred than peace of mind. Death is certainly a scarier concept to me than for anyone who believes in an after life but at least I have the peace of mind, while I'm alive, of knowing that I'm not contributing to any organization that descriminates against others solely for what they believe in.

I see it as just being a very stupid argument and so I like to take a completely un-biased point of view and let other people fight over it if it means that much to them ;^)

But this is just my opinion of course....

--
Garett

Re:About atheism (3, Insightful)

tshak (173364) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660282)

The problem is, we have not proven Evolution by any means either. We can't. We have some evidence, and based on that evidence we draw some conclusions, but these conclusions are strictly theories. We can believe in evolution if we feel that the evidence is strong enough to warrent faith, but not blind faith. It is extremely close minded to not believe in something until it's existance can be proven, because that is choosing to be ignorant of realities that may be impossible to actually prove.

Re:About atheism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660305)

actually we have lots of evidence, the birds studied on the gallopogoes, the moths in england, thousands of years of fossil records..

Re:About atheism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660317)

But "lots of evidence" simply backs up a theory, not proves it. There's a big difference.

Re:About atheism (1)

Mc Fly (52238) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660290)

Ehem...
I do believe in God.
Your logic is pretty flawed.
If I say that (a) God exists, YOU have to prove that there is not any God out there.
If I say that God does not exist, I have to prove that there can't be any God.

Re:About atheism (1)

NixterAg (198468) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660292)

so basically, you believe ~God /\ ~(~God)?

Re:About atheism (-1)

Yr0 (224662) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660154)

why you no like me?
you a smeller.

Re:About atheism (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660224)

I have a God, and it is called the England Football Team - and it recently defeated the Argentinian football team.

Re:About atheism (1)

TheLoneCabbage (323135) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660248)

That's some what beside the point.
Part of what he said wasn't just that G_d can neither be proven or disproven, and some void must be filled. But also that believeing in G_d can, sometimes, provide a better way of life.

Which even in an athiests view is the ultimate goal of an honest religioun. As aposed to a cult that is based on control. And believe it or not there are relgions out there that are about making peoples lives better.

God vs G_d (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660332)

What's with this "G_d" spelling? I assume you're not allowed to write his name, but if you agree to call him "G_d" instead of "God", you're just using a different one.

Re:About atheism (2)

jmu1 (183541) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660310)

I'm something along the lines of an apethetic agnostic. I don't have a reason to believe in any diety, and I think that religious dogmas are hypocritical, at best. I am fascinated by the many religions, just as I am fascinated by the many myths that make up the cultures of the world. I don't care where we come from nor why the tiger eats meat instead of veggies... however, I do think that science will one day answer those riddles and pose even more questions. With knowledge comes curiosity, it is human nature.

Re:About atheism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660339)

and an agnostic atheist like myself says that nobody can show that anything is divine

Well, nobody but God, of course. :-)

Programming for the young? (5, Insightful)

abigor (540274) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660121)

I can't say I agree with this. Maybe full-on hacking, yes, but in terms of advanced development -- that is, software architecture -- then I just don't see 21 year olds fresh out of CS knowing all there is to know about J2EE design patterns, for example.

I'm not trying to be a pompous ass, I'm just trying to say that there's more to software development than breakneck coding speed, stuff that only comes from years of experience.

Re:Programming for the young? (4, Informative)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660220)

as an aging programmer (40), I see myself doing less actual grunt-level coding and more design, review and mentoring. what I don't have in raw speed I more than make up for in extensive experience (I've been coding since 16, starting back in the z80 days).

yes, the kids today have more raw stamina than someone of my age. but there's just no way they could have such a fine tuned understanding of the art of programming; and more important, seen enough of the 'world' to have an eye for what will work in a given situation and what wont.

not saying I want to move into management (yikes!) but more as a designer and less as a raw coder. isn't that pretty usual, these days?

Re:Programming for the young? (4, Interesting)

nordaim (162919) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660230)

I am currently working with an individual who has more years of programming experience than I have years of life. His ability to code quality is amazing, but I find that the younger programmers I know can whip out the smaller portions of what he is doing on a scale 10x faster. It is his knowledge of all the intricacies of the language where his abilities really show: He can tweak someone else's code, that would take him hours to write, in a matter of minutes and make it scream.

A very good project manager with excellent knowledge, but that knowledge is a hinderance because of how much of the picture he knows.

I think of it along the lines of a lot of logic puzzles: There are many that the young (12 or less) can do in 5 minutes, but an adult will ponder for hours because they have too much experience to think about the problem properly. Too many options are available...

You Want To Be Doing It At 60?? (1)

Black-Man (198831) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660241)

He made a good point. It's not exactly the occupation that ages gracefully like Law, Medical or other business fields.

I'm starting to worry just like him! Time to move on to "life's work".

Re:Programming for the young? (2, Insightful)

ApoxyButt (536650) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660250)

As a fresh-faced youngster (23) in the corperate programming world, I can say that it's much easier to monkey with code written by someone with 10 years' experience then that of someone with 2 years. Most of the prodigies I've seen during my college years wrote code quickly, and often times it was intelligent and elegant. However, from a maintainability/style standpoint it was crap. In that respect, good code comes from spending lots of time mainting your own and other people's code. So, now, the only question remaining is which is better? Code that can be maintained indefinitely, or code that is produced quickly? As a guy who pretty much maintains code (rather than developing new applications) for a living, I know what MY answer is!

Re:Programming for the young? (2)

corebreech (469871) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660253)

Yeah, I agree. I think there are two factors here, the first being that a lot of us spent more time in front of the computers when we're younger. More time = More programming, but More Programming != Better Programmer.

Secondly, I think younger programmers get to jump in to the game in a more advanced, usable state. How many of today's crop would have the patience to program if it were in assembler and you saved your programs on the same 5 1/4" 360K floppy used to load your editor and assembler?

There's a lot of crap I had to digest to get to the point where I am now, and most of it useless. Newer programmers can jump in starting with something like C++ or Java and expect that one skillset to last for a career.

Re:Programming for the young? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660276)

> There's a lot of crap I had to digest to get to the point where I am now, and most of it useless. Newer programmers can jump in starting with something like C++ or Java and expect that one skillset to last for a career.

That same argument could be made by Fortran and Cobol programmers as well. Neither of those languages are going away anytime soon.

Just the same, I'd bet against the idea of any single skillset lasting an entire career; too much real advancement occurs in this field to remain static and hope to keep productive/relevant.

Re:Programming for the young? (1)

tats (31833) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660313)

this one touched a raw nerve. i hv several examples around me (including myself) who lived and dreamed in C. nowadays all we do is blabber patterns, and when it comes to actual coding, don't know our imports.

there is also the related question of justifying your cost. generally in industry (as opposed to sports), your salaries continues to increase till you retire. how long can you be justify the cost being an individual programmer, till 2x, 3x the entry level salaries (how many programmers can be 20x, 30x more productive than "average" programmer)? what after that. i figured, one way is to ensure efficiency of 5-10 programmers by coordinating their work and helping them continue to coding at peak efficiencies, while leader tries preventing defects that s/he can foresee due to experience.

but besides that theory, it sure hurts to learns that people can beat you at the game that you were a master of. maybe one needs to grow senile to get over the feeling.

Re:Programming for the young? (-1)

neal n bob (531011) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660333)

slashbots want more young boys programming - the younger the better. they especially like the 12 and 13 year old boys - they like to open sores them.

God/Creation/Evolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660132)

I personally don't see why it can't all co-exist. I believe God created the universe, from there came Earth, and from there evolved humans. God may have guided things as it went along, or, hey, he's God, and he created from the start to have this end result.

If you don't believe in God, that's your call. But, for me, I do, and I'm not really here to argue about it.

Re:God/Creation/Evolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660268)

Believe. Why believe? What's up with that? Belief implies a "not knowing". Why muck up your mind with stuff you are not sure of, but 'believe'? Ay carrumba.

Re:God/Creation/Evolution (1)

psychopenguin (228012) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660356)

So I guess you "believe" that God doesn't exist eh? But again, to make you're own point for you, you don't really know. Why muck up your mind, life, and soul like that? Why not actually go do some research (Church, Bible, etc.) and become informed? Just a thought :)

No stable API? (3, Insightful)

mccalli (323026) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660145)

In the OpenSource world having to modify a driver because something changed in the kernel, is an advantage not a disadvange, both economically and techically.

An advantage to whom? Not to the user, who may have some obsolete hardware that they wan't to use with a newer distribution. If the driver branch hasn't been kept up to date, then since the API may not be compatible there's less chance of things working.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:No stable API? (2)

Dionysus (12737) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660214)

I agree. I never understood Linux' need to break binary compatibility between point releases (I can see an argument for major releases, like 2.2.x -> 2.4.x).

Damn, I missed this one. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660158)

I would've asked the correct pronunciation of Moshe.

I keep getting this image of a bunch of leather and chrome-clad music nuts banging their heads together everytime I see his name. :)

Re:Damn, I missed this one. (3, Insightful)

Chacham (981) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660186)

Depending on where you come from it's commonly:

1) Muy-shee
2) Moh-sheh
3) May-sheh

All with stress on the penultimate syllable.

The third is not nearly as common as the others.

Re:Damn, I missed this one. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660371)

Penultimate syllable?

Damnit. (-1, Offtopic)

TweeKinDaBahx (583007) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660175)

You actually chose to ask him is he has a kid named "foo"?!

I would have walked away. This is inane.

I hate you guys.

jESUS was a Monkey !! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660199)

monkey piss i tell ya !

Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660203)

We do plan to fork() some children eventually...

Are they gonna open-source that?

We know (0, Troll)

Chacham (981) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660212)

We know the world created itself a few billion years ago and not 5762 years ago (according to the Jewish counting).

That should either be "I believe the world...", or "We \"know\" the world...".

The world was created 5762 years ago. Believe what you want. If you can state your belief as fact, so can I state mine as fact.

Re:We know (1)

TheLoneCabbage (323135) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660289)

yeah yeah yeah.. Rashi, 5762 years + 6 days...
Ram Bam.. on and on and on..

I know, you know, but in the end he has to explain it to everyone else while standing on one foot.

And any short answere sounds like apologetics, no matter how many times you point out that your evidence predates darwin.

Besides, Moshe isn't going to convince any athiests with a 10 quesiton interview on Slashdot.

Re:We know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660309)

The difference being one is fact with a ton of evidence, and the other is tripe that some idiot wrote in a book thousands of years ago, and tons of complete and total burks since believed with absolute and total moronic conviction.

Re:We know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660326)

Of course you can. So can I, in fact. I created the world yesterday, out of some modelling clay and felt. Now one of us three is basing our "facts" on scientific study, rather than utter nonsense -- three guesses which one of us it is.

Re:We know (2)

cluening (6626) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660368)

And the world is full of green cheese too, just because I believe it!

Seriously, I have to agree with you on that. Nobody running around today was around 4.6 billion years ago, or 5762 years ago, and any human who was around at that time didn't think to record the event. So the only resources we can depend on are religious scholars interpreting human writings from a Divine source, or scientific scholars interpreting a physical world from a Divine source. Either way, I think it is a perfectly fine way to do things.

And yes, I know I inserted my own "my belief is truth"ism in there, but too bad! I can be as pig-headed as I want, because I am writing on Slashdot! :)

Catholic church has competition! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660235)

We do plan to fork() some children eventually

Just don't go to a foreign country to do so. The penalties are higher.

jESUS was a nonkey !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660242)

jESUS want a banana?
bible thumpers will all end up in hell!
big ol' monkey hell!

Eat your vitamens, read your bible, and play with your monkey named jESUS!

Re:jESUS was a nonkey !! (2)

TheLoneCabbage (323135) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660335)


One of the greatest leaders of the jewish people (no matter how controversial, especialy after his death) in recent years was Menachem Mendel Schnereson (and you thought it was hard to pronounce Moshe?) was once aproached by a man who came to him and said "Thankyour Rebbi, but I have to admit, I don't believe in god." to which he replied "The same god you don't believe in I don't beleive in either."

The moral of the story? Contrary to popular beliefe most of the world does not bleive that Jeasus has any devine nature. Nor does most of the world believe that G_d is an old man with a beard. Those who do believe that are free to do so, that's what makes the world great.

But you need to remember that to the majority of the world your idea of the god, and the reasons you don't believe, do not apply in any way to the rest of the world's faiths.

Too bad about the Israel Boycott question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660244)

Given Moshe's fascinating answer to the G-d question, it's too bad the Zionist zealot brigade modded Ashurbanipal's question out of sight.

Obviously not a orthodox nut-job like Sharon.

Ezra

Its sad that people choose law over computers (2)

Bobzibub (20561) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660256)

..especially Mr. Bar.

I think he is very skilled (whether he admits it or not), and for my money the ability to create new, useful things is soooo much more valuable to society than deciding how to distribute existing resources.

In any event, I have to thank him for his past contributions. Thanks!

Cheers,
-b

Really? (2)

Sludge (1234) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660263)

Proprietary software goes at the tariff of US$ 50-200 per line of debugged code.

I can hammer out about a thousand lines of code in an average productive coding day at my job. My employer pays about $55 an hour to keep my ass in the seat when all taxes and environmental (office, air conditioning, etc) is paid for. I know they make about $40 an hour on my work.

So then, if the client pays $760 to keep my ass in place a day, they are $49,240 short using your lowest estimate. Jeez.

I should also mention that those costs are canadian.

On creation and evolution (3, Insightful)

dgb2n (85206) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660269)

As a Christian, I believe that the entire Bible is true.

That said, I reconcile creationism and evolution through a very simple statement.

It took God 7 days to create the universe. No one can presume to know how long one of God's days lasted. Plenty of time in one of God's days for evolution to occur.

No contradiction at all.

Re:On creation and evolution (1)

NixterAg (198468) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660328)

Actually it is not specifically mentioned that some segment of creation was done in a day. Put yourself in Moses' shoes and then try to read Genesis 1 as an account of what was revealed to him. For example:

Genesis 1:3-5

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.

So Moses sees God commanding the creation of light and allowing for the absence of light. Then Moses' day ends. The next day, another aspect of creation is revealed to him. Then his day ends.


This isn't necessarily the correct way Genesis is intended to be understood but the wording of Genesis seems to suggest that something other than the traditional interpretation is going on.

Shouldn't it have been "...child named baz" (1)

p-k4 (113223) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660277)

>Does Moshe have a son/daughter named "foo"?
>
>Moshe:
>
>Moshe does not have children yet. We do plan to
>fork() some children eventually, but have not
>yet made plans about their names. :-)

The order goes foo, bar, baz. So the question should have been:

Is your parent process named foo?
Will your child process be named baz?

What? (2)

Gannoc (210256) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660293)


What is G-d? (as opposed to just writing "God")

Re:What? (5, Insightful)

wiredog (43288) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660316)

It's a Jewish religious convention. IIRC, His name is never supposed to be written.

Re:What? (1)

NixterAg (198468) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660342)

Jews show reverence to God by referring to him as G-d.

RE: G-D instead of God (1, Redundant)

tshak (173364) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660348)

Ya, I found that kind of silly myself.

G-d (2)

bbk (33798) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660357)

It's a jewish tradition to show reverence to God. According to some interpretations of the bible, you are not to speak God's name, so in writing, this is expressed as G-d. It also corresponds to the vowel-lessness of the Hebrew language.

See, you learn something new every day!

BBK

A person's programming skills is like fine wine. (1, Insightful)

iamwoodyjones (562550) | more than 12 years ago | (#3660343)

I disagree with his comment that programming should be more of a sport giving way to the younger crowd. Pllleeeeaaaassseeeee. I'm a young upstart and true I can debug and fix things faster than anyone in my department over 30, but I'm still in awe of their skills that they possess. IMHO Programming has a few facuets.

1.)Mechanical aspect
2.)Poetic aspect
3.)Mathematical aspect
4.)Emperial computer knowledge

Wrap those up in a software package and you get a piece of art. Younger people are better at picking up the Mechanical aspect than the older people do, true. But, the mathematical/logical aspect comes with age as does the poetic style of programming, and the empircal computer knowledge.

Everyone here in my department who's over the age of 50 are the gurus when it comes to the code. They rely on us younger pups to debug their fresh math and engineering work. We come through and fix it up and then if it breaks we fix it. All along learning the deepest secrets the older wizards are "hunt and pecking" out with their keyboards.

So, until I'm around 50, I doubt I'm going to understand everything there is to know about the stuff they're working on here in my IS engineering department.

So, don't listen to people string all their "Owe, them youngins are too smart for me" crap. Better find a new job.

Unfortunate you think like this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3660364)

No, as much as I am firm believer in our G-d, I do not believe the two things can ever go together in harmony. We know the world created itself a few billion years ago and not 5762 years ago (according to the Jewish counting). We know that evolution is the culprit for that inexplicably destructive and increasingly contradictory thing called the human, the human was not made directly by G-d. Yet, the religious teachings really do make for a more peaceful and quality living if followed the same way by all people. In my view, religious belief and science do not negate one another on the philosophic level, but on the at-face-value level. The more you try to negate G-d the more you end up having to believe in something in its stead. Kierkegaard for all his trying to disprove G-d always came back to G-d. Camus' attempt to show that there is no G-d only shows how divine the emptiness is that is left behind once you eliminate G-d. Staunch atheism is ultimately only an active attempt at ignoring the question what is the divine if it is not G-d, not at answering it.

Look, I'm a STAUNCH supporter of Israel and its fight against the Palestinians. I even owe a great deal of my inherited heritage (I am a born again believer of Jesus Christ, who I whole-heartedly believe was G-d (as you put His name, and yes, I understand why) come to earth in fleshly form) to Judaism and the Jewish people. However, this kind of logic from Jewish 'scholars' of today completely confuses me. It was in your Torah, and other Jewish sacred books (that I consider the 'Old Testament' of the Bible) that are BUILT upon this very premise: The Earth was CREATED in 6 24-hour days. I know the original Hebrew is even written to specifically use the word for a 24 hour day so as to avoid ambiguity! So why is it that you can claim that Judaism is a viable, trustworthy way of life if you are so intent on throwing out it's very foundation, Creation?!?!

And for the atheists and evolutionists out there: I realize it's entirely possible that God built in an evolutionary process when He created the earth, so I'm not trying to discount science (even though I have yet to see any solid evidence of beneficial mutations that cause 'evolution'). I'm merely perplexed as to how a Jewish person can reconcile such a complete misunderstanding of their own Torah into this explanation that Moshe gives on science vs. G-d. There is no "vs." to comprehend here. If G-d created the Heavens and Earth, as I believe from the writing of their own Torah, why can't G-d have created the "science" of the Universe as well??

Sadly, this sort of double-talk from Jewish 'scholars' today is exactly why the Palestinians and a great many people around the world can't stand them. I fully support the Jewish nation, but not such 'scholarly', and completely Pharasitical, thinking.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?