Yes, looks like a new round in the CISC (now represented by Intel Atom) vs. RISC (now represented by Tegra) flame war. Ars Teechnica had an interesting article about the new relevance of the differences of the two architectures two weeks ago.
One of the main difference between "killing" and "murder" in many languages is that "murder" requires the patient of the action to be human, while "killing" applies to any living being. I don't know Hebrew, but I'd guess that this is a crucial difference in the lexical semantics there too.
If we take the history of Longhorn/Vista into account, it's very much possible that it will never be realized on a real production level. Disclosing it now, is clearly a move to stay in the news, which is mainly relevant the stock market.
Come on, what were the last great news from Redmond? They clearly need some publicity, so yes it might be vaporware.
But PP addresses a crucial point, if something really is closed source there is no reviewable way to compare and present this code. So if the WRK would be total crap they could always say: yes that's only the WRK, not the real kernel.
Only statements about open source code are directly verifiable/falsifiable. One of the reasons, why the FOSS approach is superior from a scientific as well as technical point of view.
Oh, I can. I just kept the label my parent-poster gave it. AFV (or reconnaissance AFV) would probably the best manned correspondence, but I'm not going to argue about it.You are right, but please see that it was not my point.
> And w.r.t. air strikes, do you realize what the alternative is to our current approach of guided weapons? Yes, carpet bombing.
So, cruise missiles and carpet bombing are the only alternatives you can see? I think, that's what I meant with not getting the problem right. In some cases, yes, that's probably the alternative, but in other situations it's not.
Sounds really like a tank with no one to get injured in it.
It's pretty much a "more of it"-approach. They want to solve all the problems with more technology. The rational behind it is the wish to reduce one's own side's casualties as far as possible. Although it is a legitimate and very sane goal, the strategy employed, air strikes and cruise missiles, causes a lot of civilian casualties.
An thus, on the long run, this approach prepares the ground for a guerrilla force that has a footing in the country while the almighty powerful army with all their technology hovers around victorious but can not get a grip. As long a camp does only have technical skill and no political/social/cultural skills it will tilt at windmills.
As with all problems, technology is the means not the way (or should I say method).
The means can be fun, as probably every Linux geek knows, but as long as you do not get the problem right you won't pick the right means to solve it. As far as I am concerned, these robots solve none of the urgent problems that I can see.
Although the parent post is quite cheesy the analogy is has a true core:
If you want to stop something flexible and adaptive the means has to be adaptive to.
That holds true for HIV and anti-AIDS medicine and it would hold true for a swarm of robots. You would either have to get them by one hit or take a swarm-like or a viral approach. Quite interesting task actually.
Belgium! But then, judging from your username, you seem to be a hoopy frood who really knows where his towel is. (I'm an expat in NL, so quite the same unfashionable corner of the universe.)
Maybe he uses GPL in the sense of the current version of GPL, like you probably use the word English in the sense of the current standard of English, dost thou not?
But you are right, the argument is more polemic than substantial.
At any rate, Vista's bad image isn't due to perception,
I think you can count that as captatio benevolentiae of the author, just as a device to get MS to listen to him or to sound more balanced to some audience. As you can see he goes on to advice them to do a complete make over:
Ulanoff gives four suggestions for a complete Vista makeover, like starting with new code and creating a universal interface table.
I think he actually says: Vista is completely flawed. I mean, come on: "starting with new code." He just wraps it into some rhetorics.
Can't they respect their own traditions without imposing technologically enforced access controls?
Yeah, not like in our culture - where we don't need such stuff to enforce our tradition of , e.g.,keeping our kids away from pornography, horror etc.:
"CIPA requires schools and libraries using e-rate discounts to operate 'a technology protection measure with respect to any of its computers with Internet access that protects against access through such computers to visual depictions that are obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors...'" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_Internet_Protection_Act#What_CIPA_requires
But seriously, I think it is a good thing that this community adjusted modern information technology to their needs. If their needs or beliefs change they can change their access policy, but that is first of all something they have to decide by themselves.
They discredited linguistics as a science in many countries of Asia, Africa and South America - especially through their missionary work and their connections to US governmental agencies (e.g. CIA) and US corporations. That's not the SIL alone, but they are the biggest and most powerful organization of that kind. And, they actually carry linguistics in their name. You can't work as a linguist in many countries without being permanently considered as a missionary or worse.
Because of their religious and political activity they were thrown out of several Latin American states where they acted much more aggressively than in Africa and Asia. (There are several books on that subject, but I can't tell which is actually good. The SIL says - of course - none.)
To sum it up, they use science as a cover for their religious-political agenda - as a scientist that makes me very angry.
But to be fair, their fonts (and XeTeX for that matter) are great stuff and a lot of people associated with them do respectable, even tremendous, work.
Why are they doing this? There's a nice FLOSS license for fonts: the OFL.
As a linguist I do not like the SIL as a institution, but their fonts and the license under which the fonts are distributed are without any doubt great.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget .ng (Nigeria). I don't think anything good ever comes from that domain.
.no - Norway
.sh - Saint Helena
.it - Italy
sherlock
Yes, looks like a new round in the CISC (now represented by Intel Atom) vs. RISC (now represented by Tegra) flame war. Ars Teechnica had an interesting article about the new relevance of the differences of the two architectures two weeks ago.
One of the main difference between "killing" and "murder" in many languages is that "murder" requires the patient of the action to be human, while "killing" applies to any living being. I don't know Hebrew, but I'd guess that this is a crucial difference in the lexical semantics there too.
A twig. Twig Technology. This is where all the trouble started.
Or BSD desktop?
*ducks*
Why is this modded flamebait?
If we take the history of Longhorn/Vista into account, it's very much possible that it will never be realized on a real production level. Disclosing it now, is clearly a move to stay in the news, which is mainly relevant the stock market.
Come on, what were the last great news from Redmond? They clearly need some publicity, so yes it might be vaporware.
So this is going to be business as usual? I tought that the production of Vista was quite a traumatic experience.
But maybe doing a leap instead of evolution would overburden the company's structure. Or is the strain (of users and/or MS) not high enough?
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to phish and you feed him for a lifetime.
The WRK is under the Microsoft Windows Research Kernel Source Code License. I'm not sure that this license conforms with anyones definition of open source, but it's reasonably free for reasearch.
But PP addresses a crucial point, if something really is closed source there is no reviewable way to compare and present this code. So if the WRK would be total crap they could always say: yes that's only the WRK, not the real kernel.
Only statements about open source code are directly verifiable/falsifiable. One of the reasons, why the FOSS approach is superior from a scientific as well as technical point of view.
Isn't that quite the same as the CCC has done for years now on their conference with Sputnik?
according to the accuracy of measurement
Oh, I can. I just kept the label my parent-poster gave it. AFV (or reconnaissance AFV) would probably the best manned correspondence, but I'm not going to argue about it.You are right, but please see that it was not my point.
> And w.r.t. air strikes, do you realize what the alternative is to our current approach of guided weapons? Yes, carpet bombing.
So, cruise missiles and carpet bombing are the only alternatives you can see? I think, that's what I meant with not getting the problem right. In some cases, yes, that's probably the alternative, but in other situations it's not.
Sounds really like a tank with no one to get injured in it.
It's pretty much a "more of it"-approach. They want to solve all the problems with more technology. The rational behind it is the wish to reduce one's own side's casualties as far as possible. Although it is a legitimate and very sane goal, the strategy employed, air strikes and cruise missiles, causes a lot of civilian casualties.
An thus, on the long run, this approach prepares the ground for a guerrilla force that has a footing in the country while the almighty powerful army with all their technology hovers around victorious but can not get a grip. As long a camp does only have technical skill and no political/social/cultural skills it will tilt at windmills.
As with all problems, technology is the means not the way (or should I say method).
The means can be fun, as probably every Linux geek knows, but as long as you do not get the problem right you won't pick the right means to solve it. As far as I am concerned, these robots solve none of the urgent problems that I can see.
Although the parent post is quite cheesy the analogy is has a true core:
If you want to stop something flexible and adaptive the means has to be adaptive to.
That holds true for HIV and anti-AIDS medicine and it would hold true for a swarm of robots. You would either have to get them by one hit or take a swarm-like or a viral approach. Quite interesting task actually.
> Living in Belgium.
Belgium! But then, judging from your username, you seem to be a hoopy frood who really knows where his towel is. (I'm an expat in NL, so quite the same unfashionable corner of the universe.)
As a practitioner of the bitterly divided and unhappy discipline of structural linguistics I'll raise a glass of ouisghian zodah for him today.
Belgium, man!
Maybe he uses GPL in the sense of the current version of GPL, like you probably use the word English in the sense of the current standard of English, dost thou not?
But you are right, the argument is more polemic than substantial.
I was going to say PIX PLZ but then, hey, why not start "Geek Big Brother" or "I'm a Geek... Get Me Out of Here!"
I'm not sure, that it is the best way to get serious things done, but it sounds fun.
Just in case someone needs a reminder. I get always confused:
10^24 yotta Y 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000
10^21 zetta Z 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000
10^18 exa E 1 000 000 000 000 000 000
10^15 peta P 1 000 000 000 000 000
10^12 tera T 1 000 000 000 000
10^9 giga G 1 000 000 000
10^6 mega M 1 000 000
10^3 kilo k 1 000
10^2 hecto h 100
10^1 deka da 10
10^0 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_prefix
I think you can count that as captatio benevolentiae of the author, just as a device to get MS to listen to him or to sound more balanced to some audience. As you can see he goes on to advice them to do a complete make over:
I think he actually says: Vista is completely flawed. I mean, come on: "starting with new code." He just wraps it into some rhetorics.
Yeah, not like in our culture - where we don't need such stuff to enforce our tradition of , e.g.,keeping our kids away from pornography, horror etc.:
"CIPA requires schools and libraries using e-rate discounts to operate 'a technology protection measure with respect to any of its computers with Internet access that protects against access through such computers to visual depictions that are obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors...'" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_Internet_Protection_Act#What_CIPA_requires
But seriously, I think it is a good thing that this community adjusted modern information technology to their needs. If their needs or beliefs change they can change their access policy, but that is first of all something they have to decide by themselves.
I hereby welcome you, Oerlikonians. But could anybody tell me where this Oerlikon space is and how Oerlikonians look like?
But seriously:
Now we only need to get something or someone that far away that it actually makes sense to drop radio waves for laser beams.
They discredited linguistics as a science in many countries of Asia, Africa and South America - especially through their missionary work and their connections to US governmental agencies (e.g. CIA) and US corporations. That's not the SIL alone, but they are the biggest and most powerful organization of that kind. And, they actually carry linguistics in their name. You can't work as a linguist in many countries without being permanently considered as a missionary or worse.
Because of their religious and political activity they were thrown out of several Latin American states where they acted much more aggressively than in Africa and Asia. (There are several books on that subject, but I can't tell which is actually good. The SIL says - of course - none.)
To sum it up, they use science as a cover for their religious-political agenda - as a scientist that makes me very angry.
But to be fair, their fonts (and XeTeX for that matter) are great stuff and a lot of people associated with them do respectable, even tremendous, work.
Why are they doing this? There's a nice FLOSS license for fonts: the OFL.
As a linguist I do not like the SIL as a institution, but their fonts and the license under which the fonts are distributed are without any doubt great.