It's entertainment. Just like Mythbusters. And just like Mythbusters, it's quite educational (whether you agree or disagree). I guess you missed the whole comment: "Watch the BullShit! episode about recycling and do some of your own research. [emphasis mine]
Now tell me, what's wrong with getting your scientific information by doing your own research? Or is science better served by blithely accepting whatever you condone as science?
Just FYI, before you pull comments out of your ass again Just FYI, before you pull context out of your ass again...
And at most, such legislation only cuts down on the number of accidents involving firearms. Note, drowning kills more people and no where in the Constitution does it mention a "right to swim." Your numbers are for "Assault by Firearm" not Accidental Death by Firearm. I don't have those numbers, but I'd be willing to bet it's far less than your 1-in-325, so before you start playing fast and loose with statistics, try parsing the whole comment.
Computing Intensive stuff like video editing, games, etc, are going to remain on your computer. Why? Isn't it faster and more efficient to let big ol' server iron handle the heavy lifting rather than our comparatively puny (but admittedly, still quite powerful) laptops? The bottleneck, as always, isn't really processing or bandwidth, but latency that's the killer. So I agree, for now, that anything graphically intensive and inherently interactive (like video editing, games, etc) will remain on your computer -- but only due to that pesky speed of light thing...
Theres lots of talk about democracy, but for most people, most of their days are spent at work where there is no democracy. Work is a dictatorship. I'm all for workplace democracy. Non-hierachical collectives running things. Is this what passes for union activism these days? Jesus...
You want workplace democracy? You want to get out from under the thumb of the man? Start your own damn business. Individual empowerment -- that's what YouTube et. al. is all about. All the tools of corporate America, available at low or no cost to the unwashed masses. You can piss and moan all you want about your working conditions, but now more than ever, it's all up to you. Shit, or get off the pot, sir.
The only way to have good, high-quality Linux PCs is to have an OEM willing to sell nothing but Linux boxes. Preferably one willing to sell well-designed, high-end computers and laptops with fully compatible hardware and pre-installed, thoroughly tested desktop environments and proprietary format support. Hopefully, packaged with a nice manual and long-term tech support for a particular set of "supported" packages too (Like Canonical does with Ubuntu). Have a look at system76.
No, I'm not affiliated with them in any way -- I'd never heard of them until about 20 minutes ago in a comment above. Their website's pretty impressive -- as is their product line. They look like the real deal.
In spite of the dupes, the trolls, the zealotry -- if nothing else, it's this kind of stuff that keeps bringing me back to slashdot.
"Don't take it too seriously: it's ultimately a moot..."
Don't take this as a serious rebuttal...
Where did you people come from? This is the friendliest debate I've ever seen on/. in some time.
But seriously, I do agree with the parent, many users simply don't value "open" as us geeks do. That said, there are certain intrinsic values "open" brings to the table that Microsoft and Apple will never be able to match.
Linux (or BSD for that matter) will never overtake the big boys with glitzy eye candy or even a dead-simple UI. In the long run, the community will never ben able to keep pace should a features arms race ensue. But if the OSS world plays its cards right, none of these "features" will make a damn bit of difference, to the geek or the end user.
Virtualization. Maybe it's the future, maybe not. But it's certainly one area where "free" can never be outdone -- in replication or redistribution. The benefits of virtualization require too much of these things for proprietary to ever keep up (Microsoft's seeing this now with their expanded "5 virtual liscenses" mess with Vista). Virtualization turns this entire debate upside down. It shifts the conversation.
It doesn't take too much creativity to think up some amazing uses for virtualization, not just in the data center, but for Joe Sixpack. You want to win the battle for the OS? Make it invisible. Make it brain dead easy to "install" new applications (guest hosts) that are lean servers and work with any and all other servers on the network. A lot of work will need to be done to refine and standardize a concept like this, but in my opinion it's the best way to userp the powers that be. It will not just bring free to the forefront, but leverage its benefits to the point where proprietary OSes all seem like a bad dream.
You may call me a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...
I think it's ridiculous to believe that sort of thing advances science. It doesn't. There's exactly one place where scientific discussion advances, and it's in peer reviewed scientific journals. Period.
Some people might disagree...
It's a long blog entry, but finally gets to the point with:
When I write here, I tend to get critique - usually smart, well-informed critique - within hours. I often discover that I'm flat out wrong about something I've asserted, and I can update my opinions and impressions based on feedback from people better informed than I am. That seems like a much more efficient form of peer review - at least in the academic realm I inhabit - than waiting six to twelve months to find out whether an anonymous reviewer thinks my now-out of date paper is worth publishing. That's not to say peer review accomplishes nothing, but it's a fast moving world -- can you really ONLY do science in two year cycles?
"We're now facing the same with the mafiaa. They are pushing at the lawmakers to install laws to protect their outdated business model, not wanting to realize that their time is over and they're not needed anymore."
[Emphasis mine]
Interesting you say it that way. One could argue (albeit one with a libertarian bent) that many of our current prohibitions only serve to protect business models of mafia and other organized crime. After all, what brought the mafia its power in the U.S. in the first place? The prohibition on alcohol.
Even today, drugs, gambling, prostition -- all that which we prohibit is what serves to keep the seedy underbelly afloat. With the moral crusaders in full force these days, organized crime may not need much help -- but if they had a lobbying arm (do they?), which side of these laws do you think they'd come down on? Without government help, their business models would quite clearly cease to exist.
Google is a company...Their responsibility is more towards their shareholders, not so much towards their users.
I'm pretty fed up with this prevailing Slashdot view of all public companies, just as I'm increasingly finished dealing with/investing in any company, public or private, that would prefer bow to their investors rather than service their customers, past present and future. Techdirt had a pretty solid analysis yesterday about craigslist and the whole myth of maximizing [short term] profit. What I'd like to know is when these Wall Street analysts lost sight of that ol' outdated capitalist notion that what's good for your customers is ultimately going to be goddamn good for you?!
But Google's actually a little different -- they took an end-around from some of the Wall Street pressure by withholding voting rights from their share sales. Investors know this (or should) going in, and the crippled voting writes are factored into the shareprice accordingly. This doesn't mean Google won't be evil, just that withdrawing their SOAP API probably had dickall to do with maximizing revenues or protecting brand value. Have you tried to code to a SOAP service? Without a tool it's a practical impossiblitiy. I'll wager there's a ReSTful interface already in the works. I'm surprised they went SOAP in the first place -- it really isn't Google style.
"I am way more willing to use gmail than I am to use Yahoo mail, simply because I can get my messages out of Google with a much more straightforward process. That's an anti-moat and it's the future."
I agree that's a big part of the future. That's the direction things are going. But I think it inevitable that things will progress one step further than that. I know not that many people are all that interested in hosting their own applications, but at the very least, I think there will be an increasing importance on the platform itself being OSS. Export's nice, sure, but it's not gauranteed. Like you said, "once that switch is flipped..."
And what exactly is an anti-moat? A wall?
"In the long term, increasing amounts of people are going to consider data ownership a very important feature when evaluating technology"
Damn strait! However, this is ultimately what's going to kill many of Google's most useful applications. I'm using Google Apps for your Domain right now, and as far as I'm concerned, its features and interface are top notch. However, as soon as the Hula project gets to beta, you best believe I'm switching. Is it because I'm nervous about Google using or losing (loosing? it is/. after all) my data? Not in particular. But email, personal or business, is just far too important to cede that kind of control.
While you're right in a conventional sense, Google's IPO was decidedly unconventional. They rolled the dice and opted not to cede any real control to shareholders. Nobody gets a vote but original owners, therefore they're beholden to noone. The only real pressure to grow and meet current shareholder expectations is to maintain their paper wealth. If they have no intentions on selling big any time soon, it doesn't seem likely they would be interested in bowing to short term pressure from the Street, sacrificing long term brand value, goodwill and, of course, potential revenues. And ain't that what these experimental applications are all about in the long run?
Slashdot Mirror
Now tell me, what's wrong with getting your scientific information by doing your own research? Or is science better served by blithely accepting whatever you condone as science?
You want workplace democracy? You want to get out from under the thumb of the man? Start your own damn business. Individual empowerment -- that's what YouTube et. al. is all about. All the tools of corporate America, available at low or no cost to the unwashed masses. You can piss and moan all you want about your working conditions, but now more than ever, it's all up to you. Shit, or get off the pot, sir.
No, I'm not affiliated with them in any way -- I'd never heard of them until about 20 minutes ago in a comment above. Their website's pretty impressive -- as is their product line. They look like the real deal.
In spite of the dupes, the trolls, the zealotry -- if nothing else, it's this kind of stuff that keeps bringing me back to slashdot.
Don't take this as a serious rebuttal...
Where did you people come from? This is the friendliest debate I've ever seen on
But seriously, I do agree with the parent, many users simply don't value "open" as us geeks do. That said, there are certain intrinsic values "open" brings to the table that Microsoft and Apple will never be able to match.
Linux (or BSD for that matter) will never overtake the big boys with glitzy eye candy or even a dead-simple UI. In the long run, the community will never ben able to keep pace should a features arms race ensue. But if the OSS world plays its cards right, none of these "features" will make a damn bit of difference, to the geek or the end user.
Virtualization. Maybe it's the future, maybe not. But it's certainly one area where "free" can never be outdone -- in replication or redistribution. The benefits of virtualization require too much of these things for proprietary to ever keep up (Microsoft's seeing this now with their expanded "5 virtual liscenses" mess with Vista). Virtualization turns this entire debate upside down. It shifts the conversation.
It doesn't take too much creativity to think up some amazing uses for virtualization, not just in the data center, but for Joe Sixpack. You want to win the battle for the OS? Make it invisible. Make it brain dead easy to "install" new applications (guest hosts) that are lean servers and work with any and all other servers on the network. A lot of work will need to be done to refine and standardize a concept like this, but in my opinion it's the best way to userp the powers that be. It will not just bring free to the forefront, but leverage its benefits to the point where proprietary OSes all seem like a bad dream.
You may call me a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...
Some people might disagree... It's a long blog entry, but finally gets to the point with: When I write here, I tend to get critique - usually smart, well-informed critique - within hours. I often discover that I'm flat out wrong about something I've asserted, and I can update my opinions and impressions based on feedback from people better informed than I am. That seems like a much more efficient form of peer review - at least in the academic realm I inhabit - than waiting six to twelve months to find out whether an anonymous reviewer thinks my now-out of date paper is worth publishing. That's not to say peer review accomplishes nothing, but it's a fast moving world -- can you really ONLY do science in two year cycles?
And how could you be more controlable than by being a criminal who's not been caught yet?
And that's the rub. Ever driven anywhere? Ever taken a picture? It's unavoidable -- we're all criminals, my friend...each and every one of us.
"To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt."
-- E.C. Stanton
"We're now facing the same with the mafiaa. They are pushing at the lawmakers to install laws to protect their outdated business model, not wanting to realize that their time is over and they're not needed anymore."
[Emphasis mine]
Interesting you say it that way. One could argue (albeit one with a libertarian bent) that many of our current prohibitions only serve to protect business models of mafia and other organized crime. After all, what brought the mafia its power in the U.S. in the first place? The prohibition on alcohol.
Even today, drugs, gambling, prostition -- all that which we prohibit is what serves to keep the seedy underbelly afloat. With the moral crusaders in full force these days, organized crime may not need much help -- but if they had a lobbying arm (do they?), which side of these laws do you think they'd come down on? Without government help, their business models would quite clearly cease to exist.
Google is a company...Their responsibility is more towards their shareholders, not so much towards their users.
I'm pretty fed up with this prevailing Slashdot view of all public companies, just as I'm increasingly finished dealing with/investing in any company, public or private, that would prefer bow to their investors rather than service their customers, past present and future. Techdirt had a pretty solid analysis yesterday about craigslist and the whole myth of maximizing [short term] profit. What I'd like to know is when these Wall Street analysts lost sight of that ol' outdated capitalist notion that what's good for your customers is ultimately going to be goddamn good for you?!
But Google's actually a little different -- they took an end-around from some of the Wall Street pressure by withholding voting rights from their share sales. Investors know this (or should) going in, and the crippled voting writes are factored into the shareprice accordingly. This doesn't mean Google won't be evil, just that withdrawing their SOAP API probably had dickall to do with maximizing revenues or protecting brand value. Have you tried to code to a SOAP service? Without a tool it's a practical impossiblitiy. I'll wager there's a ReSTful interface already in the works. I'm surprised they went SOAP in the first place -- it really isn't Google style.
"Do one thing and do it well" -- now where have I heard that before?
I'm willing to bet there are more than a few ways to extend this to include all the little goodies you can imagine.
"I am way more willing to use gmail than I am to use Yahoo mail, simply because I can get my messages out of Google with a much more straightforward process. That's an anti-moat and it's the future."
/. after all) my data? Not in particular. But email, personal or business, is just far too important to cede that kind of control.
I agree that's a big part of the future. That's the direction things are going. But I think it inevitable that things will progress one step further than that. I know not that many people are all that interested in hosting their own applications, but at the very least, I think there will be an increasing importance on the platform itself being OSS. Export's nice, sure, but it's not gauranteed. Like you said, "once that switch is flipped..."
And what exactly is an anti-moat? A wall?
"In the long term, increasing amounts of people are going to consider data ownership a very important feature when evaluating technology"
Damn strait! However, this is ultimately what's going to kill many of Google's most useful applications. I'm using Google Apps for your Domain right now, and as far as I'm concerned, its features and interface are top notch. However, as soon as the Hula project gets to beta, you best believe I'm switching. Is it because I'm nervous about Google using or losing (loosing? it is
While you're right in a conventional sense, Google's IPO was decidedly unconventional. They rolled the dice and opted not to cede any real control to shareholders. Nobody gets a vote but original owners, therefore they're beholden to noone. The only real pressure to grow and meet current shareholder expectations is to maintain their paper wealth. If they have no intentions on selling big any time soon, it doesn't seem likely they would be interested in bowing to short term pressure from the Street, sacrificing long term brand value, goodwill and, of course, potential revenues. And ain't that what these experimental applications are all about in the long run?
Doesn't sxip already handle this simple little task? Gracefully, and as an open standard, no less.