If your problem is with philosophy, Trisquel's philosophy has been different
from Ubuntu's right from the start. That hasn't changed Trisquel's ability to
use Ubuntu's free software architecture and make a truly free project. This
"alliance" with Windows doesn't do anything to change Ubuntu.
> Science denialism should be punishable by law like holocaust denialism is
in some parts of the world. Take climate change for instance. There's a
consensus on that.
Would you like me to tell you to just shut the fuck up? Would you?
Maybe you will like it better if I just tell you to shut
A new thread was created in the troll hole for this. I encourage you to
resume the discussion there:
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/science-denialism-academic-freedom-and-philosophy-science#comment-94661
"Skepticism is generally any questioning attitude towards unempirical
knowledge or opinions/beliefs stated as facts"
from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism
I agree with your main point, root_vegetable. Your use of the term
"skeptics" in a disparaging way, however, is both
> Science denialism should be punishable by law like holocaust denialism is
in some parts of the world.
This has done *way* off-topic, and I won't be posting further here. However,
I'm genuinely interested in a (respectful) discussion about the philosophy of
science, and the boundaries of
> degrading people
They are actively spreading pseudo-science, which is harmful both to
themselves and the people that they have an influence over. They are
degrading the Trisquel community by doing this; it contributes to the idea
that free software is for the sort of people who wear "tin
I've read through this thread, and I wanted to make a point. This forum was
designed to discuss ideas related to free software. I understand that people
have opinions on a variety of other issues, whether they be right or wrong,
but I don't see this as the most appropriate place for such
Sometimes it only takes a 4th grade science project to debunk a
pseudo-science:
" Emily Rosa, at 9 years of age, conceived and executed a study on
therapeutic touch. With the help of Stephen Barrett from Quackwatch, and with
the assistance of her mother, Linda Rosa, RN, Emily became the
Science denialism is all about politics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
Christianity probably became the official religion of Rome for political
reasons. I don't think it had anything to do with science. Also, note that
it's not like a secular nation suddenly became religious; it's just that the
official religion of Rome changed.
Indeed. Sad, but we just have go go by the reputation of specific journals
and publishers. If someone doesn't have a reputation, we just have to assume
that they are not credible.
There is no debate.
Unsatisfied with science? Don't worry, you can fork your own. Up for votes
and see who emerges as teh winner. Popularity contest. Who yells louder than
the rest?
I fail to see that it is Galileo Galilei vs. the Catholic Church. Become a
scientist, do the steps and present your findings. It's pretty easy. It's
only because their papers have bee trashed so many times they are trying to
find a backdoor.
I can't imagine how you could possibly regulate this. The scientific
community is not a single entity, and it doesn't have a single central
authority. Specific scientific peer-reviewed journals are a sort of
authority, and tricking someone into thinking that a paper was published in a
> a sceptical approach treats all claims as equal
No, it doesn't. A skeptical approach treats the null hypothesis as true until
sufficient evidence proves otherwise. It has nothing to do with "sides" or
"equal weight".
Censorship is not what I'm after. They can yell all they want but claiming to
be part of the scientific community while at the same time refusing to accept
any authorities is damaging. I'd like to know who's behind this astroturfing.
Is it a libertarian thing, small governement and all that
> Science denialism should be punishable by law like holocaust denialism is
in some parts of the world.
I can't say I agree with this. No view, no matter how disgusting, is as
disgusting as censorship. Where holocaust denial is illegal, that is an
injustice. Where showing a swastika is
There's no "middle path" in science.
There either is a consensus or there's not. That's pseudo-science you're
talking about. Layman's thoughts. What you're propagating or hiding behind is
called "false balance".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance
Thanks for this. I've added it to the list of pro-vaccination source on my
research page, and I'll have a watch soon. It can also be watched in full on
YouTube and downloaded directly from the homepage:
http://herebedragonsmovie.com/
I've also noted Gorski's blog post shared by Root
"Propaganda" used to be a valid word for disseminating information. Now, it's
a slur and an all too easy way to dismiss valid science. I'm beginning to
think that we should blow up the internet. It brings all creepy things out
from underneath their rocks.
Surgeon David Gorski who blogs as 'Orac' on ScienceBlogs is hardly a neutral
commentator (he is listed on my research page as a pro-vaccination source),
nor is he any more of an expert on vaccination than any of the members of the
IMCV. Gorski's style relies on scornful, patronising ad
My intent was not to spread conspiracy theories. I was simply wondering of
others had information to confirm my intuitive concerns. There is no proof on
both sides that guarantee than nothing ill will happen. Noone here was likely
present in the conversation that Microsoft had with Canonical
Thanks all for the info. This blew way out of proportion and I had no intend
of ruffling anyones feathers. I was simpling looking to confirm some
speculations I had. I love that I can ask questions freely and get a
response, thats the best thing about freedom, especially not needing to care
Hello, according to Dunning on his documentary Here be Dragons: An
Introduction to Critical Thinking, which is legally shareable (I think it is
under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0), and which I happen to find a torrent magnet
link[1][2] just now:
There is no real proof that vaccination is bad for
> He is posing open questions, to start a discussion about
medium-to-long-term software freedom strategy. I think this is valuable, and
it's sad to see people shouting him down for his initiative.
We have a term for the kinds of things he is saying. That term is "FUD". And
no, this is not
Good grief! There are no reputable medical professionals who advise against
vaccination. The so-called "International Council on Vaccination" are a bunch
of phonies and village idiots.
(http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/02/03/the-clueless-cite-the-ignorant/)
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that
I take the point you are making about the potential dangers of spreading
uninformed speculation as fact. However, I think it's worth pointing out that
the OP isn't making erroneous claims of fact based on ignorance. He is posing
open questions, to start a discussion about medium-to-long-term
I don't mean to be rude or anything, but what're you smoking, mate?
> I am a very intuitive person
Intution means nothing if your intuition is shit.
Snaps is nothing more than Canonical trying to make it easier to distribute
software for Ubuntu and, so it seems, with more security when used
Are you really saying that the Canonical/Microsoft relationship iehow
connected to the death of Ian Murdock? It's a ridiculous idea, you have just
said something that came in to your head with absolutely no evidence.
How is he related to this at all? He had no connection to Canonical other
Just because you have a right to say something doesn't mean you should say
it. People voicing unsubstantiated concerns about things they know nothing
about is how conspiracy theories spread, and they cause real harm. For one,
some neutral person coming across the Trisquel forum only to find
Its not my sole reason for bringing this up, there are others of course. I
say "justification" in the sense that I have a right to voice a concern
because I noticed something that I beleive I am noticing that is quite subtle
and want to bring it up for discussion. I believe all concerns are
And you are right to be concerned. A kernel contributor already demonstrated
this by creating a "snaps" package that can steal data from X11 sessions...
http://news.softpedia.com/news/developer-claims-that-canonical-s-new-snap-format-isn-t-secure-on-ubuntu-desktop-503287.shtml
"According to
Sorry, but I just disagree with you. I meant no harm and am voicing my own
genuine concern that in my view is perfectly valid and I have justified. I
have been asking questions. I think its helpful to make others aware of
potential issues.
If you don't know, then please don't spread half-baked conspiracy theories.
It doesn't do anyone any good.
Snaps is another package system of some kind. It can be used to introduce new
libre programs, and it can be used to introduce new proprietary programs.
Just like Deb. I don't know
I believe that if Canonical and Microsoft are cooperating there is a mutual
benefit. I see both of them changing. Like I've stated, this is a feeling as
I am a very intuitive person. I particularly find "Snaps" suspicious. Could
this be used to "blobify" free apps? I just don't know.
> I'm guessing perhaps ubuntu will keep including more and more blobs that it
might make Ubuntu difficult to base a distro from?
Why would you expect this? Ubuntu includes proprietary software for
particular reasons like hardware support. Canonical hasn't given any
indication that they
Money - Bet Canonical doesn't make as much as Microsoft. Microsoft I'm sure
is paying Canonical to get in on their stuff. Maybe one day just take it
over.
I see Ubuntu and Microsoft seem to be sharing similar goals. If you have ever
installed Windows 10 or have heard how invasive it is and how much it
mistreats its users, much more than Windows 8 or even 7, it just seems like
Ubuntu will eventually go down that road. I'm guessing perhaps
Shuttleworth must be thinking Microsoft will buy him out. There never was a
successful partnership with MS unless it means "to part with your
brainchild".
I will only make one post in this thread:
If I recall correctly, the argument was that this benefits MS Developers.
How does it benefit Ubuntu?
I don't have an answer for that, and I'd love to hear yours.
one word for you about this: Frightening!
> I think there is definitely potential for problems.
By what mechanism? Again, this is nothing more than a compatibility layer for
Windows so that Windows users can run Ubuntu software. It doesn't mark any
change in Ubuntu.
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-announce/2004-October/03.html
> You get a distribution that is: * absolutely committed to free software,
every end-user application on the CD is free software
;'-(
OK lets do it right then. I think there is definitely potential for problems.
I left Ubuntu because I want to keep the free and open software, free and
open. I just wonder if the Trisquel team has any words to share about this.
This is just talking about Windows getting a compatibility layer to use
Ubuntu software. There's no problem.
There was already a whole embarrassing thread on here where a couple people
were spreading crazy conspiracy theories about this. Please, let's not repeat
that again.
Yes. I agree... Microsoft is attackign free software right now...
http://www.polygon.com/2016/4/20/11474418/vlc-media-player-xbox-one-uwp
This "UWP" platform that Microsoft is pushing soudns like the "Snaps" system
on Ubuntu 16.
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in software.
Greetings all, is it just me or should we be concerned that Windows and
Ubuntu might become the same thing?
http://fossbytes.com/windows-microsoft-ubuntu-linux-canonical-friends-mark-shuttleworth/
How could this have an effect on Trisquel since its derived from Ubuntu?
Should we be looking
49 matches
Mail list logo
