Slashdot Mirror
Interviews: Ask a Question To Christine Peterson, the Nanotech Expert Who Coined the Term 'Open Source'
Christine Peterson is a long-time futurist who co-founded the nanotech advocacy group the Foresight Institute in 1986. One of her favorite tasks has been contacting the winners of the institute's annual Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology, but she also coined the term "Open Source software" for that famous promotion strategy meeting in 1998. Now Christine's agreed to answer questions from Slashdot readers. We'll pick the very best questions and forward them along for answers.
Interestingly, Christine was also on the Editorial Advisory Board of NASA's Nanotech Briefs, and on the state of California's nanotechnology task force. Her tech talks at conferences include "Life Extension for Geeks" at Gnomedex and "Preparing for Bizarreness: Open Source Physical Security" at the 2007 Singularity Summit. Another talk argues that the nanotech revolution will be like the information revolution, except that "Instead of with bits, we should do it with atoms," allowing molecule-sized machines that can kill cancer and repair DNA. Her most recent publication is "Cyber, Nano, and AGI RIsks: Decentralized Approaches to Reducing Risks." Christine graduated from MIT with a bachelors in chemistry.
So leave your best questions in the comments. (Ask as many questions as you'd like, but please, one per comment.) We'll pick the very best questions and forward them along for answers.
Interestingly, Christine was also on the Editorial Advisory Board of NASA's Nanotech Briefs, and on the state of California's nanotechnology task force. Her tech talks at conferences include "Life Extension for Geeks" at Gnomedex and "Preparing for Bizarreness: Open Source Physical Security" at the 2007 Singularity Summit. Another talk argues that the nanotech revolution will be like the information revolution, except that "Instead of with bits, we should do it with atoms," allowing molecule-sized machines that can kill cancer and repair DNA. Her most recent publication is "Cyber, Nano, and AGI RIsks: Decentralized Approaches to Reducing Risks." Christine graduated from MIT with a bachelors in chemistry.
So leave your best questions in the comments. (Ask as many questions as you'd like, but please, one per comment.) We'll pick the very best questions and forward them along for answers.
How can we more open source medical software? Given that medical devices are so heavily regulated it seems like it will be hard to get, say, an open source pacemaker system that users can hack, or at least audit.
Radio software seems to be in a similar state - cellular modems, wifi chipsets etc. are all heavily regulated and closed source, with signed code required for updates.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I heard a myth a few decades ago, that top-secret work in most fields is at least 50 years ahead of the current published state of the art. I can't begin to imagine what that would look like here.
What would that look like here? What sorts of things do you think are solidly plausible within the next 50 years of work in the field of nano-technology, and how would we detect them "in the field" today, if we were to look for them? How and where might we start to look for them, if we wanted to be likely to find something?
I know there were published discussions about silicon based listening and transmitting devices, bugs, that were smaller than grains of salt. I also know that there was great published fervor over single-pixel cameras, and, impo, I have seen a surprising gap in entangled non-return imaging. I expect "they" have working, single-photon, non-return-imaging cameras on grains of silicon too small for the eye to work with, so perhaps nano drone swarms used for data gathering/surveillance, where each drone is less than 0.1mm across?
When I look at robo-cat, and the alleged robo-squirrels or robo-insects, I think they have such swarms that can be ingested/injected/otherwise-implanted inside animals that don't realize they have become "listening posts". What would you do with a fully-functional jet-engine that was only a few microns across? I remember sub-cellular size bar-codes made by shooting proton based cylindrical holes in silicon, then lithographing layers of gold or other stuff to make the code, then removing the silicon substrate. Could we put markers into people to inform future medical reconstruction such as "non-invasive" 3d printing of organs in-vivo? How would we detect sub-cell-size tagging, or fabrication? I like the idea of nanotech-driven bio-energy harvesting. Why can't we turn trees into solar panels by hacking into their organic photosynthesis?
-EngrStudent
We have not mastered the art of manipulating bits, and now people propose we should replicate this incompetence with atoms? Thanks but no thanks.
cease fire stand down.. weep along.. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=morgellons
No need to ask any questions, the answers will be worthless anyways.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
makes you an expert on anything these dummies ask you?
Nanotech good, grammar bad.
Cut back the max term lengths to something sane like 5 years.
Recently big gains have been made in physical security. Many phones are encrypted by default and relatively difficult for unauthorized persons to unlock. Encrypted storage is increasingly common for computers too, although open source support for technologies like OPALv2 seems to be lagging behind closed source systems. In 2017 AMD introduced encrypted RAM.
All of these rely on special hardware to protect encryption keys and perform encryption functions at speeds fast enough to avoid any significant performance loss. It seems like hardware is necessary for very high levels of physical security anyway, e.g. tamper-proof boot ROMs.
How can open source provide this level of security when high end hardware is increasingly difficult for individuals to fabricate? Should we be thinking about how we can fabricate our own security processors and key storage, or is there another way achieve high levels of physical security?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Do you agree or disagree with Eric Raymond and Tim O'Reilly about the need to seperate moral considerations like end user freedom, privacy and democracy from the question of having "open" access to source?
Are Republican efforts to prop up the "defense" industry and encourage a police state deliberate population control measures?
Trying really hard to overcompensate for your micropenis, aren’t you?
I have proven conclusively that you did not coin the term "Open Source" as pertains to software; not even the term Open Source Software is your creation. Ransom Love's corporation Caldera (which was later taken over by others, becoming The SCO Group) was actually using the phrase in press releases in 1995, but I (and others) who were in the scene at the time remember well using the phrase before Caldera did so. So why do you continue making these false claims? Is it simply for your own self-aggrandizement, or are you warming up for the OSI to make a run at copyrighting the phrase?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Tell us about your experience transitioning from male to female. When did you decide to transition?
How concerned should we be about nanotechnology equivalents of the software threats we see today?
I would hate to have my circulatory system held hostage for bitcoin.
--
This is why I don't post much.
Am I the only one who read "Life Extension for Greeks"?
It involves some "Embrace and Extend", and requires much openness, growing and physical externally-controlled openness at a given moment.
They are both behind the times. Github has done more for open source and free software in the last 5 years the FSF and others have since their foundation. It could be argued that Github would not exist if not for their prior work... probably true - put it in a foot note and let's move on.
or are you warming up for the OSI to make a run at copyrighting the phrase?
That would be sort of hard when the US copyright law disallows the copyrighting short phrases and this backed up by the USPTO. One can get a trademark on a phrase but tyat is not the same as a copyright. If you’re going to try to sound smart at least learn something about the subject before blabbing.
http://web.archive.org/web/19980422034538/http://opensource.com:80/
But it's clearly an unrelated consultancy.
Whoops! I made that same error last time I brought this up! Of course, you're an anonymous coward, and I treat you like you're all the same person, too pathetic to even log into Slashdot, so I'd say I'm doing pretty well compared to you right now. 99% of what you do is troll and spam.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Bitch, please!
The OSI is essentially Bruce Perens and ESR.
I didn't know that the Office of Special Investigations used Electron Spin Resonance.
What do they use it for?
Even if the premise were true, why does it seem to bother you so much ? After all, men have been receiving more praise and attention than they deserve for millenia, and that didn't seem to bother you at all.
Which one of these ladies is you?
Try one of the first few rows of images in this search: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Chri...
What do you think Tyrell Corporation should do with its current batch of Nexus 6 replicants? Obviously the 4 year life span has its own problems and wasn't the cure-all Dr. Tyrell expected.
With enough eyeballs going over their source code, could open sourcing their programming find the cause of their tendency to rebel?
Trolling is a art,
Ans as usual the people making a fuss about her being female are the loud "it should just be about the code mah freeze peach" crowd, e.g. you.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Both should bother you, but it doesn't seem to. Why is that? Do you think making bogus claims about women in tech balances out some percieved injustice?
THIS is an important question. The motivations of OSI are questionable at best.
I kind of agree with you that it was used before, but I think the point is that its widespread use started in 1998 from that meeting.
It was basically meant as a term to replace "free software" without the undesirable connotations for businesses.
The term "open source" was first proposed by a group of people in the free software movement who were critical of the political agenda and moral philosophy implied in the term "free software" and sought to reframe the discourse to reflect a more commercially minded position.[12] In addition, the ambiguity of the term "free software" was seen as discouraging business adoption.[13][14] The group included Christine Peterson, Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall, Sam Ockman, Michael Tiemann and Eric S. Raymond. Peterson suggested "open source" at a meeting[15] held at Palo Alto, California, in reaction to Netscape's announcement in January 1998 of a source code release for Navigator. Linus Torvalds gave his support the following day, and Phil Hughes backed the term in Linux Journal. [...]
Raymond was especially active in the effort to popularize the new term. He made the first public call to the free software community to adopt it in February 1998.[18] Shortly after, he founded The Open Source Initiative in collaboration with Bruce Perens.[15]
(From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_model#Open_source_as_a_term )
(Sheesh, Wikipedia articles feel so disjointed...)
Is physical security a political problem?
At the tail end of it, there are countries acquiring anti-aircraft missile batteries, ballistic missiles or both, to guarantee their physical security. Or hypersonic anti-ship missiles or warheads. Should NATO be disbanded, and should more countries become able to sink aircraft carriers and warships full of Tomahawk missiles at will?
Should we see "national intranets" as a good thing and try to build them?
Getting closer to the subject of possible "nanobot" attacks, or "molecular-sized machines" used for nefarious purposes : we've been subject to war propaganda about a certain country committing an "act of war", consisting of an unsubstantiated allegation about using some minute amount of cold war chemical weapon with a made up name on British soil. UK and US are lying, and should have no credibility given their record about talking about other people's chemical weapons. But many vassal or accomplice countries (all Western of Five Eyes though) give them credit, and civil society or corporate media does nothing to call their bullshit.
So, how to defend against molecule-sized machines is a question, but there is a meta-question there : will we be subject to constant false flag attacks and entrapment? Year 2030 : Great Leader or Deep State accuses you of carrying a nanotech attack. You and perhaps people of your supporting network get disappeared into high security facilities, solitary confinement and all. Can we disprove the authorities' lies? Will people be able to know, but not care or do nothing, perhaps out of preservation or selfishness? Will there be anyone left to speak for you?
Open Source Initiative and Eric S. Raymond.
Also, RMS means either Root Mean Square or Richard M Stallman. Take your pick.
I've seen Github crush a small free software project because some random idiot posted a DMCA takedown and Github was too busy earning money to follow proper procedure and first *ask* the victim.
Since them, my maxim is stay away as far as possible from Github. Host my repos myself. If someone is just too retarded to enter a command line "git fork blah blah" and wants a shiny button in his browser "fork on github", I don't want them as contributor anyway.
>freeze peach
Shibboleth for PC loving petty tyrant cocksuckers
You didn't answer my question.
But I'll still answer yours, even though it's so loaded it's unbelievable.
A LOT of things bother me about humanity in general. It is my belief that humanity is an evolutionary dead-end. A species so hell-bent on self destruction cannot possibly be expected to last more than a few more thousand years. So in light of this, small annoyances become pretty trivial. Still, I don't let my beliefs turn into misanthropy. But I clearly sense that your beliefs, justified or not, true or not, are turning into misogyny. And that can't possibly be a good thing, for reasons I shouldn't have to explain.
The quest for true social justice and equality is a noble cause, but it shouldn't be motivated or fueled by anger, resentment and hate. This applies to both you and the things you are fighting against.
Nano-materials, in general, seem to be becoming a significant source of hard-to-cleanup pollution. Do you see nano-tech heading in the same direction?
Ans as usual the people making a fuss about her being female are the loud "it should just be about the code mah freeze peach" crowd, e.g. you.
Right. I just made up the whole "focus on women in tech" thing, instead of, you know, noticing it.
The biggest Open Source organization is probably: http://apache.org/
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
GitHub exists because of free/libre and open source software, but primarily the former since Linux Torvalds, the creator of Linux, also created git, the software which GitHub relies heavily since its inception, hence the name GitHub.
What do you mean "crushed"
Can the victim not host the repos themselves?
Jesus, are you getting treatment for your autism? Your website is the sperglordiest thing I've seen in a long time.
Also, your blog sucks.
"Proprietary code! Never ever touch it! Never modify it! Don't even think about re-distributing it!" That's what Caldera's talking about -- and it's evil.
I can remember when Slashdot used to understand the difference between proprietary and non-proprietary code.
Well, when yours’ is as large as a vienna sausage what do you expect?
In my view, Stallman created Free software as an ethical point. He didn't like that companies were selling software without source code. (To be clear, Stallman doesn't mind selling software, because the GPL allows that. Stallman doesn't like software without source code.)
And the term open source software was invented to communicate a way of working together on something. Out of the chaos of the bazaar comes something good.
Do you agree with that?
Are there any worthwhile and comprehensive discussions regarding how this transfer of methodology "from bits to atoms" might extend to nefarious activities including but not limited to ransomware and other malware, state sponsored terrorism, modern warfare, control, coercion, surveillance, and other various biotech infections and unintended consequences that could be dangerous?
Martin. There's a certain company out in San Diego that we all know, parts maker and patent troll. They are working to put royalty-bearing patents in modern standards. They are using the exact same language as you at the standards committees, telling us that "there isn't one Open Source" and then going on to tell us that Open Source should only be about copyright, and that there should be patent royalties in standards that - regardless of what they say about its being only about copyright - Open Source would then not be allowed to implement. Unfortunately, they are gaining traction in important standards committees, especially the national ones.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not working for these guys, you sound exactly like you are. What you are doing hurts both Free Software and Open Source (they are really the same). As I fly around the world to educate standards committees about the Open Source Definition and what they really need to do to accommodate Open Source in standards, they're going to be pointing at your words and using them against me.
This is really important. For medical reasons, this is probably the last decade of my life, and I am spending a good part of it to work on this issue. You're getting in the way. Cut it out. I promise that nobody can trademark the words "Open Source" today, and you are feeling threatened for nothing.
Bruce Perens.
He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark.
The Intoernet of Things (IoT) seems to be a ramp-up to Micro-Electromechanical Machines (MEMs), which, in turn, will prime another ramp into atomic-scale nanotechnology.
But already, security is atrocious. Worse than Windows XP's exploitation, endless automatic updates and a constant avalanche of zero-day patches.
What will a metasploit framework and CVE database for IoT, MEMs and smaller systems look like? How will biomedical bug bounties, vulnerabilities, exploits and weaponized payloads play themselves out?
Your question wasn't worth answering.
Tell us about the Beal-Feynman First Prize, and why it was rejected?
Is Slashdot paying you to do this interview?
If so, how much?
If not, why not?
So it looks like ole creimey dumpty was probably IP banned from making new sockpuppers or AC shitposts and surprisingly he's not content to shitpost a couple -1 annoyances per account.
He has to be sure people are reading his posts at at least 0 and people need to know who he is even if they hate what he writes or else it's just not worth posting to him it seems. So this means that the whole time he was here, fighting with us, annoying the piss out of everyone he was intentionally trying to make a big internet footprint on slashdot for his "personal brand" nevermind that it's overwhelmingly negative.
What will you do now? Do you have any purposes left in life with no creimey?
"After all, men have been receiving more praise and attention than they deserve for millenia,"
1) Prove it.
2) Fine, go hunt and fend for yourself in the forest and invent math, science, and technology at the same time.
Fuck you. We built it all for you to shit on, you cuck.
Your question wasn't worth answering.
Yeah, I figured as much. More like "Answering your question would have required me to use my brain, or question my present value system, neither of which I am willing/able to do".
I was genuinely interested in what you had to say, and tried to give you friendly advice. Instead, you chose to be a bitter, resentful, misogynist little man. Fine. You'll continue blaming your loneliness and resentment on all the women that rejected you, instead of accepting the fact that no-one, man or women, in their right mind would want to hang around the hateful, bitter person that you have chosen to be.
Chris couldn’t read my mind, so she had no way to know that I spotted “open source” as the winner we were looking for the first or second time the phrase was mentioned [in that same meeting where Chris Peterson introduced the term, which is what this essay is about].
Fixed that for you.
The whole point of Open Source software is you can modify it. You couldn't (and can't) modify this so-called "OpenDOS." And (as you acknowledge) you even had to pay Caldera if you wanted to pass on copies of that (un-modified) code.
And prove to me that women could not have accomplished the same if they had not been continuously put down, molested, belittled and enslaved for millenia.
Prove to me that it's not women who invented fire, cooking, stone tools, sewing, the wheel, agriculture, or domesticated the first animals, while their men were out for days and weeks getting themselves killed hunting rhinos and mammoths.
It wouldn't be so hard for good, decent men like me to approach women and win their trust if we didn't have to first climb over the piles of filthy, disgusting, misogynistic pigs like you that they've had to continuously fend off all their lives.
So fuck you too, miserable, pathetic, worthless piece of misogynistic filth.
As someone who worked closely with Eric Raymond (and had interactions with Jon "maddog" Hall), what were they like in 1998? I'm curious what the whole "mood" of the development community was like in 1998 at that historic meeting. Maybe you could also talk about how things changed -- what they were like before the Open Source movement revved into high gear, and what they were like after.
And how does it all compare to when you first joined the tech scene in the 1980s?
You do understand that there's a difference between letting people read your code (the "open source code model") and actually letting people edit your code (and redistribute the edited version) -- right?
So the handful of people talking about viewable source code is an entirely different thing. (And it is literally a handful -- I can count them on the fingers on one hand.) Doesn't it seem weird to you that in the responses, nobody picks up the phrase "open source code model"? Because nobody cared if they couldn't actually access the code themselves.
Integrated circuits, solar panels, and GMOs are some pretty big results in nanotech these days. What are some future benefits we can look forward to that help justify further research to non-techies?
The ultimate dream in nanotechnology is a molecular assembler (atomic 3D printer) on every desktop, with a widespread community of hardware designers/developers analogous to open source software today. You'll be able to, say, download files to build a new car from GitHub. Hackaday has a good writeup (https://hackaday.com/2018/02/27/can-open-source-hardware-be-like-open-source-software/). Suppose that someone finally figures out how to build such a molecular assembler. Chances are it'll be patent-encumbered and NDA'd. How can we from here to there?
What's the current outlook for nanotechnology? Technically speaking, do we get Star Trek replicators soon, or is that still a 25+ year thing (https://www.xkcd.com/678/)? Politically, how do regulations, industry, and patents look? Socially, is it generally viewed as positive or negative these days?
Who is "me"? You've assured us repeatedly that you're not creimer, but a 30 year old "girl" in New York. So who is "me"?
(BTW, how was your Easter holiday, Chris?)
Actually the whole point of Free Software is that you can use, modify it and redistribute it with the rights still intact. The term "Open Source" has many meanings.
Never. You started this, we will finish it.
Actually the whole point of Free Software is that you can use, modify it and redistribute it with the rights still intact. The term "Open Source" has many meanings.
Thank you for understanding this. Free Software and Open Source are fundamentally different things, and I believe that the OSI's ongoing attempts to conflate them when they know better are harmful to users both in the short and the long term. They like to claim that Open Source is sufficient, but that's simply doing the will of corporations rather than actually serving the needs of users. Settling for Open Source when what users need is Free Software is the white flag of surrender. We need integrity and courage, not lies and cowardice. We can't win by giving up.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's amazing that a creature your size can shift positions so rapidly. Face it, Chris, you're a mostly unlikable, uninteresting, tiresome, and repulsive individual.
You lost. Face it.
We are on the same page here. I am completely against the idea of Open Source, and support Free Software. It is the meaninglessness of the term "Open Source" that has got us into this complete mess we are in today. Computing has regressed. It used to be about empowerment of the individual. Open Source is just a meaningless marketing term. We should have been fighting to Free Software all along. Too bad OSI has obfuscated what is important.
The best outcome is that OSI is widely and publicly humiliated for this and learns that even the noblest house is worthless when built on a shaky foundation.
I don't know that is the best outcome. I think the best outcome is that the OSI adopts humility by choice at this point instead of essentially by force at some later point when — as you say — the house of cards falls. I far prefer Open Source to closed source, and I don't want to see the OSI go down hard and take FOSS with it even though I believe that Open Source is a half measure, and that what is needed to preserve the rights of users is Free Software. We are agreed that integrity is a requirement, however. It's one thing for entrenched powers with limitless budgets to behave as they like; they can afford to buy their way out of problems. The good guys have to be scrupulous. If they aren't, then they aren't the good guys anyway.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Could you shove any more exposition into this post?
In your next video please troll us hard with a trollface gif and make sure to tell us how much traffic your april fools video generated. I'm sure our jaws will hit the floor and we'll die of embarrassment. Golly creimer was trolling us the whole time!!!
can you hurry up and post your victory video about how you're not banned and we're all super april-fooled!!!
POFFERL
CRFL
ROFL
Hey creimer. I am highly disappointed by your latest videos. I was expecting a tenth video on Stan Wee but instead, you decided to talk about something else. You are unreliable!
Chris' case is getting worse, he spends all day replying to himself as AC on /. and now, on YouTube in order to grab attention!
The tests we ran on Chris have shown that Chris has the intelligence of an ameba:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So, technically, he is able to conceive some kind of agenda but it will be silly or impossible to follow on a human scale.
For example, Chris had an agenda to post anything he felt like on Slashdot which did not work well because it was based on his false beliefs that he had an infinite number of karma points as he wrote here several times.
Several people here explained to Chris that karma maxed out at some level like 50 or so but Chris kept on insisting that his python script had confirmed that he had millions of karma points!
Oh well, as I wrote before: "It isn't Chris' fault if he is the way he is. We do the best we can do with him and he is partially integrated into society. We try to cure his abnormal need for attention but he is kind of stubborn and won't listen to anybody."
For the valuable /. users that might already have read the following, please note that there is an important update.
IMPORTANT UPDATE:
Special Education for the Santa Clara County Office of Education has invested money to buy Chris a new chair:
http://www.keynamics.com/image...
Information about Christopher Dale Reimer and autistic people:
Autistic people have obsessions about things normal people don't care. For example, one of our autistic patient went haywire when he realized that there was a penny missing in his pocket change.
To calm him down, one of our educator pretended to have found it on the floor and gave a penny to him.
The autistic patient condition went even worse because he realized it wasn't the same penny!
Chris has an obsession with budgeting every penny. He doesn't understand that most people do not budget to the penny and have a flexible amount they allow for miscellaneous items.
I am Nancy Guerrero and I am Director of Special Education for the Santa Clara County Office of Education. We use Chris' (a.k.a. creimer,cdreimer) picture in our document because he is the hardest case we have ever had to handle:
http://www.sccoe.org/depts/stu...
Our artists were inspired by the low carb diet that Christopher follows scrupulously for the small lunch box and by the picture linked below for the rest. I am sure that you will notice the similarities such as the bump on the side of his chest and more:
https://ibb.co/gVad65
Please be easy on Christopher although, I am aware that some of our staff handling Chris post joke comments here and obvoiusly, the Santa Clara County Office of Education disapprove that behavior vehemently:
http://ibb.co/mRVSaG
But it isn't Chris' fault if he is the way he is. We do the best we can do with him and he is partially integrated into society. We try to cure his abnormal need for attention but he is kind of stubborn and won't listen to anybody.
Thank You dear users,
---
Nancy Guerrero
Director
Special Education
Santa Clara County Office of Education
Dear Team Creimer,
I just noticed that the Humpty-Dumpty video has ~375 millions views, that should make you salivate!
I have plenty of ideas to make the views on your own youtube channel skyrocket but you didn't contact me yet. Is it because I am a lady? Ethell says that you are sexist but I hope it isn't true.
Anyway, I will give you a free hint anyway: Dress-up as Humpty in your videos, you shouldn't need that much makeup making this a money saving situation in your own case.
My YouTube channel has 222K subscribers and many videos with hundreds of thousands of views:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Now, with some slight adjustments, I think that together, we could make the view count skyrocket on your very own Team Creimer youtube channel :)
Please feel confident to contact me if you want me to coach you, we aren't living so far away from each other so we could even easily meet.
Love XX,
--
-Granny
You don't get to draw attention to yourself for ten years, make a spectacle, sign up a dozen cashews accounts, then cry "bullying" because your on-line fantasy didn't go the way you expected, you autistic half-wit Unabomber-lite retard.
Perens supports women's rights.
There you are shit posting again, you revenue stream hogging disgusting fat sexist tube of lard, Christopher Dale Reimer!
You can be sure I will be watching this fake account too. I know this is you because you told me you were working on your freepass 11 file server and you are so dumb that you can't even masquerade yourself properly.
Now, I told you I was out of meds last week and you didn't even care to contact me you lazy fucker.
How many times do I have to express the emergency of the situation??????
The python click script you wrote for my pheromone revenue stream web site suddenly stopped to work!!!!!!
You fucking incompetent python script writer!!!
When it works, I get 4000+ clicks a day on my pheromone revenue stream web site but only 5 or 6 without it!!!!
Now, it seems like you dont care and that you have abandoned me you heartless fucking pig!
Bonus:
Here is a story that creimer told me when convincing me what a hard life he had:
The tree was him and the tree knot was his butt hole!
So, his uncle packed his fat ass with lard and with his cock! Not that it makes much of a difference but anyway, there it is!
Signed:
Ethell, The girl that used to love you and now hates you, burn in hell where you belong you sexist pig!
CROFLOL!
creimer has already managed to fuck up on youtube and creimer youtube channel already begins to look like slashdot where he is the king creimy-dumpty!
Here is one user comment about creimer on creimer youtube channel (calling creimer stupid):
once again another youtuber looking stupid like i said i got the email from registration confirming his was coming youtube is fake news.?
Then creimer replies:
C.D. Reimer
C.D. Reimer
12 hours ago (edited)
If you think I look stupid now, wait until you see my next video as I retrace what happened.
1) The Daily Beast comes out with a detailed article describing Stan Lee's troubles.
2) Stan Lee cancels ComicCon Asia in Manila (third consecutive comic con cancellation).
3) Stan Lee's profile and ticket listings are taken down from SVCC website without explanation, which was what happened when Jeff Goldblum cancelled.
4) No confirmation or denial from SVCC for a whole week, rumors and speculation run rampant.
5) Stan Lee's Facebook video was his first public communication since late February.
If you want to scream fake news, complain to the SVCC organizers who pulled Stan Lee's profile (still missing) and ticket listings, refused to communicate about what was going on their own Facebook page, and had to get Stan Lee to save their asses from the problems that they created.?
CROFLOL!
CROFLOL! CROFLOL!
Just like slashdot! : complain to management, I ain't responsible for my own fuck-ups since I am a fat retard, please still keep clicking on my stupid links although, etc. etc.
--
Balena!
C.D. Reimer
12 hours ago (edited)
If you think I look stupid now, wait until you see my next video as I retrace what happened.
Hey creimer! So, you promise to look even more stupid in your next video? OK, I'll watch it then.
Also, I see "12 hours ago (edited)" above. You must enjoy the edit functionality allowing you to re-arrange your reality at will, you delusional fucktard!
Hey creimer! Where is that video where you "retrace what happened" e.g. you being a fattard creimy-dumpty over and over again?
I was expecting to watch it since you promised to look even more stupid in it.
--
A disgruntled former Team Creimer fan.
creimer says he is going to post one comic con video every day in April but creimer lied to be a comic con affiliate and maybe win a t-shirt; By then, creimer will already have moved to his next get rich quick scheme!
He always lies! He also said that he would publish books in January but he has moved to the comic con/youtube get rich quick scheme instead!
creimer is already busy with too many affiliate link programs.
creimer would accept the mascot position although if pay is more than 5$ an hour, which is much more than creimer does collecting second hand lottery tickets.
creimer would save the puffer con with costume charge and creimer would look more like a puffer than this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
As long as creimer can still collect second hand lottery tickets while acting as mascot you got deal.
I am a nanotechnologist. I've done great academic research, worked for the government, managed a few grants, and started a few companies.
It's very easy to hype the potential of nanotechnology.
On the other hand, it's very hard to get attention put on results from serious commercial efforts.
Granting agencies and our community are not good at supporting companies that do what we all tell each other needs to get done (i.e. NanoIntegris). We are great at supporting academic research groups that have a patina of commercial application (i.e. IBM).
As a field we've missed celebrating a number of major commercialization milestones. CNT and graphene electronics are available commercially! Who knew? For five years or so, you could find commercial graphene electronics in cell phone screens in Shenzhen. For the last two years, you could find commercial graphene biosensors at many big pharma companies. For the last year, you could buy CNT based high power RF electronics.
If we were interested in showing the real potential of the field, wouldn't the leaders want to show everyone that it IS working? We have actually met the NNI timeline for commercialization set in the 1990s. The goals we set out with 20 years ago seem to mean nothing to the hype machine we've created.
Simply put, how do we deal with the addiction to hype in nanotechnology, and focus a bit more on substantive accomplishment?
You have to be delusional to think that anyone believes Slashdot would ban your accounts because of a low-profile zero-view video.
More self-aggrandizing history-rearranging backside noise from Slashdot's only shit-moth.
@Anonymous Coward: "Chris couldn’t read my mind, so she had no way to know that I spotted “open source” as the winner we were looking for the first or second time the phrase was mentioned [in that same meeting where Chris Peterson introduced the term, which is what this essay is about]
:]
Fixed that for you."
I'm sure Raymond will appreciate you correcting him
So that's a "no" then.
Prior to 1998, had you heard anyone using the phrase "open source" before?
Or was it something you came up with on your own as the only logical set of words to describe source code which is openly shared.
I.e. how important is it for researchers and manufacturers to observe objects at the nano level, how often and how easily? What kinds of improvements in methods like atomic force microscopy would be most relevant for researchers, and what other methods/breakthroughs would be key in your opinion? (Disclosure, I work for an AMF manufacturer, just started.)
Also when will we have self-assembling nanorobots like in Michael Crichton's Prey? (J/k, that falls under "hype" from previous question. :-)
You do understand that there's a difference between letting people read your code (the "open source code model") and actually letting people edit your code (and redistribute the edited version) -- right?
That's what the OSI claims, but the abundant evidence around this thread from USENET posts shows it doesn't. Further, people were distributing patches to that type of open source code before the OSI existed, and that served as a perfectly functional workaround. In practice, there is no functional difference whatsoever between an open source license that permits you to distribute changed versions, and an open source license which doesn't — you can still distribute your changed version in effect by distributing a patch.
Free Software is fundamentally different because it requires you to distribute sources to people who get binaries. Open Source is of interest only to developers, and people who want free (as in no cost) software right now. Free Software serves users, and people who want their computers and applications to work both now and in the future. It's actually not a subtle distinction.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"