Controlling software is like controlling your own car or your own bank account. It won't do anything by itself. It needs someone to use it.
Try this on for size:Controlling software is like controlling your own speech. It won't do anything by itself. It needs someone to hear it.
It puts me of a mind of two things: the key requirement of totalitarian regimes to control speech; the danger inherent in the intentional falacy, the idea that locutor's intention can be relied on in the interpretation of his language. Copyright is only another subtle attempt to legislate this control. Tyrants and fools (public|private) lose because they build on the shifting sand of their dream of control. The wise (programmer|writer) knows that her content is not originary, her intent is unclear and the potential utility of her artifacts is ambiguous.
Software, like speech, is always already libre. The fight is not *for* freedom, it is *against* fools and tyrants who conspire to impose short-sighted limits and their dreams of control.
Which begs the question of Apache's marketing budget, or Linux. 8-page glossy pullouts don't move mindshare, 30-second StuporBowl spots don't move mindshare, the casual chat at the table after the staff meeting moves mindshare. So start talking.
In the non-free (as in beer) software world, I would buy their next release.
In the non-free (as in beer) software world, that's ~3 MSDN Universal subscriptions.
I call that a bargain... --The Who.
If I ever get a budget, it'll be the first license I buy. Cygwin is an outstanding toolkit. Amaze your friends! Turn your word-processor into a WORKING COMPUTER! Compile and run GNU software on Winblows!
I am familiar with the notion of manipulating scarcity to drive demand. GM played the same games in several major cities, including my own. I hadn't considered the idea of manufacturing scarcity of digital resources, or I had, but hadn't named it. DMCA is the canonical example, of course.
What I find disturbing here is not the fact that faces are being photographed. These have been "knowingly exposed in public" and are consequently not subject to a "legitimate expectation of privacy," but that Florida is keeping a database of digitised DL photos. Formerly, one had to be formally charged with a crime before getting fingerprinted and consequently entered into global law-enforcement databases. I think there is room for a presumtion of innocence beef there. Is exercising one's priviledge to operate a motor vehicle regarded as suspicious?
The point of the article is that schools are doing just that, moving to open source.
Does anyone else see this as an enormous opportunity for advocacy? Get off your tookus and get involved in moving schools onto OSS. You have skills they need. And where is the argument about the difficulty of our chosen tools when Dad comes home from a hard day managing his department's MS determined upgrade schedule and finds out his grade-schooler is using GNU/Linux/BSD et. al.
This is not bullsh*t. I've found myself lying and making up costs for the software libre work I've been doing. If you don't have costs you get two reactions: they either write it off as some unsupportable nerd nightmare that will require three PhDs to maintain or they hit pause and give you blank stares.
This in an environment of severe budget constraints. You would think they'd be falling over themselves to adopt this model, but the fear of the unknown is palpable. They tell themselves that no one ever got burned going with MS. Besides, with the beast setting the upgrade schedule, they've got more time to work on their swing.
Why it is so useful to learn one. You can use the concepts in other languages with profit, e.g. write a smart, recursive function and avoid a bunch of assignments. I always get a smile seeing *tips for avoiding recursion*, *dangerous recursive functions* and such like. With power comes responsibility.
Interesting you mention Dick. I just reread Martian Timeslip and, while I enjoyed it as much as I did as a kid, I was struck by his facile conception of schizophrenia. At any rate, a quote from Dick on questions of sanity, madness and reality sheds heat but no light. Dick begs the question of the relationship of reality to normative constructs, as well as the reliability and purity of our observation. In MT, the only sane view, that is corresponding to actual reality, is finally that of the two madmen, the kid and the protagonist.
Certainly, in a society of delusional types, a realist should not be considered mad. Although they almost certainly will be.
The tyranny of the normative is only just as dangerous as that of absolutes. I can make no apology for fools mistaking the two. Such dangers are the cost of doing cultural business. The realist's response is not to dismiss normative judgements out of hand, but to modify the norm. Such a view also cannot preclude other voices without damage to itself, even as their otherness can only be established with reference to that view.
I agree that giving this test to an AI system is totally marketroid hype. I'd like to clarify your view of the MMPI, having taken it twice.
Yes, some of the questions do seem a bit bizarre and it is often difficult to concieve either the purpose of the question or how to answer, but there is tremendous redundancy built into the test and it is scored on a curve. That is, answering yes to question 241 does not tag you a psychopath; ultimately the results are correlated against the sampling of individuals who have taken the test, as is the Rorshach. The tested individual is found to have tested within some standard deviation along nine (IIRC) scales. Individuals with particular patterns of results can be associated with others with similar patterns. Occasional questions are "hot buttons" designed to illicit responses which indicate that the subject has poor reality checking or exhibits dangerous behavior. Of course, the test is only useful in conjuction with clinical, therapeutic observation.
Finally judgements about normativity, while they strike some as distasteful, are really the only way to generalize about psychological phenomena. The range of normative behavior, while flexible, is the only standard available. The idea of universal sanity or a generalized idea of madness are simply absurd and possibly dangerous.
Under the legacy of common law which we share with England, a corporate body is considered a person for most purposes, thus they can be sued, taxed and held accountable for their actions.
It should come as no suprise that someone familiar only with Java should *fall on their faces* at pointers and memory leaks. These things don't exist in Java unless your building a VM. The idea that the *right way* to program means running afoul of these creatures is just polemic.
I feel about the C's the way I feel about Windows, I could spend time trying to master it, but world+dog has a 10 year headstart. And BTW, I've been writing Java for two years and have yet to build a GUI anything. Instructors relying on toy projects and libraries are lazy instructors and not valid arguments viz the language.
Current parlance is "withholding the product". It becomes a problem construct when the child feels the need to act out feelings of anger and frustration toward the parent. This is the only thing the child knows to be solely within his control that he can use to punish the parent. Even more apropos, ne?
Right arm, brother! But I have to say, your view of Americans seems to have been colored by an indiscriminate viewing of Kojak reruns, Bruce Willis movies and the WWF. Those are playground attitudes.
Your velum from the 16C should be alright, some of the 19C stuff as well, if high quality, but when was the last time you looked at that precious first edition paperback of Dick's Martian Timeslip? The majority of books printed in the US in the 20C used cheap paper with a high acid content and these books are quietly composting on your bookshelf. It is unlikely your great-grandchildren will be able to read them, let alone your 23C Duncan Idaho.
The internet has reached a point where that doesn't need to be true. Culture can be abstracted from economics, style from money.
Yes. This is the most true insight. What we are talking about is a special form of cultural value called fashion, which arises with the improvement of living standards and increased free-time which industrialisation brought to cultural activity. Not coincidentally, the same time that people begin to complain about boredom. Before the eighteenth century only a small handful of folks could afford to waste time on being fashionable. You were the "ton" that is, "cool". Before that, only royalty was cool. What remains to be seen is the change in the operation of fashion which the digital age will enable.
What you are proposing, a sort of distributed cool network, is really just bringing greater efficiency to our twentieth century mass-culture idea of cool. I have a strong feeling that the twenty-first century idea of cool involves participating more than consuming. Rather build a distributed drum circle, a vitual poetry workshop, a collective painting. Goddammit, make, don't buy!
This is one of the glories of the humanities, that in the absence of the empirical data of the hard sciences or the statistical data of the social sciences it is arrogance and erudition, bombast and namedropping that carry your thesis.
There is no more vicious pit of vipers than a post-bacc English program.
Slashdot Mirror
Controlling software is like controlling your own car or your own bank account. It won't do anything by itself. It needs someone to use it.
Try this on for size:Controlling software is like controlling your own speech. It won't do anything by itself. It needs someone to hear it.
It puts me of a mind of two things: the key requirement of totalitarian regimes to control speech; the danger inherent in the intentional falacy, the idea that locutor's intention can be relied on in the interpretation of his language. Copyright is only another subtle attempt to legislate this control. Tyrants and fools (public|private) lose because they build on the shifting sand of their dream of control. The wise (programmer|writer) knows that her content is not originary, her intent is unclear and the potential utility of her artifacts is ambiguous.
Software, like speech, is always already libre. The fight is not *for* freedom, it is *against* fools and tyrants who conspire to impose short-sighted limits and their dreams of control.
Which begs the question of Apache's marketing budget, or Linux. 8-page glossy pullouts don't move mindshare, 30-second StuporBowl spots don't move mindshare, the casual chat at the table after the staff meeting moves mindshare. So start talking.
In the non-free (as in beer) software world, I would buy their next release.
In the non-free (as in beer) software world, that's ~3 MSDN Universal subscriptions.
I call that a bargain... --The Who.
If I ever get a budget, it'll be the first license I buy. Cygwin is an outstanding toolkit. Amaze your friends! Turn your word-processor into a WORKING COMPUTER! Compile and run GNU software on Winblows!
HERE
I am familiar with the notion of manipulating scarcity to drive demand. GM played the same games in several major cities, including my own. I hadn't considered the idea of manufacturing scarcity of digital resources, or I had, but hadn't named it. DMCA is the canonical example, of course.
I'm a potential criminal!
What I find disturbing here is not the fact that faces are being photographed. These have been "knowingly exposed in public" and are consequently not subject to a "legitimate expectation of privacy," but that Florida is keeping a database of digitised DL photos. Formerly, one had to be formally charged with a crime before getting fingerprinted and consequently entered into global law-enforcement databases. I think there is room for a presumtion of innocence beef there. Is exercising one's priviledge to operate a motor vehicle regarded as suspicious?
Wow. Insight of the day. Thanks. And an avalanche of other legal and administrative initiatives intended to accomplish this. Imma hava think on one.
Write it. Its weader wabbit, not wocket science.
Get involved, get your LUG involved.
The point of the article is that schools are doing just that, moving to open source.
Does anyone else see this as an enormous opportunity for advocacy? Get off your tookus and get involved in moving schools onto OSS. You have skills they need. And where is the argument about the difficulty of our chosen tools when Dad comes home from a hard day managing his department's MS determined upgrade schedule and finds out his grade-schooler is using GNU/Linux/BSD et. al.
Who's bitching!?
This is not bullsh*t. I've found myself lying and making up costs for the software libre work I've been doing. If you don't have costs you get two reactions: they either write it off as some unsupportable nerd nightmare that will require three PhDs to maintain or they hit pause and give you blank stares.
This in an environment of severe budget constraints. You would think they'd be falling over themselves to adopt this model, but the fear of the unknown is palpable. They tell themselves that no one ever got burned going with MS. Besides, with the beast setting the upgrade schedule, they've got more time to work on their swing.
Why it is so useful to learn one. You can use the concepts in other languages with profit, e.g. write a smart, recursive function and avoid a bunch of assignments. I always get a smile seeing *tips for avoiding recursion*, *dangerous recursive functions* and such like. With power comes responsibility.
Here is a useful description.
crack dealers have not formed a giant conglomerate that's pretty much immune to legal action
They have, its called the CIA.
Interesting you mention Dick. I just reread Martian Timeslip and, while I enjoyed it as much as I did as a kid, I was struck by his facile conception of schizophrenia. At any rate, a quote from Dick on questions of sanity, madness and reality sheds heat but no light. Dick begs the question of the relationship of reality to normative constructs, as well as the reliability and purity of our observation. In MT, the only sane view, that is corresponding to actual reality, is finally that of the two madmen, the kid and the protagonist.
Certainly, in a society of delusional types, a realist should not be considered mad. Although they almost certainly will be.
The tyranny of the normative is only just as dangerous as that of absolutes. I can make no apology for fools mistaking the two. Such dangers are the cost of doing cultural business. The realist's response is not to dismiss normative judgements out of hand, but to modify the norm. Such a view also cannot preclude other voices without damage to itself, even as their otherness can only be established with reference to that view.
I agree that giving this test to an AI system is totally marketroid hype. I'd like to clarify your view of the MMPI, having taken it twice.
Yes, some of the questions do seem a bit bizarre and it is often difficult to concieve either the purpose of the question or how to answer, but there is tremendous redundancy built into the test and it is scored on a curve. That is, answering yes to question 241 does not tag you a psychopath; ultimately the results are correlated against the sampling of individuals who have taken the test, as is the Rorshach. The tested individual is found to have tested within some standard deviation along nine (IIRC) scales. Individuals with particular patterns of results can be associated with others with similar patterns. Occasional questions are "hot buttons" designed to illicit responses which indicate that the subject has poor reality checking or exhibits dangerous behavior. Of course, the test is only useful in conjuction with clinical, therapeutic observation.
Finally judgements about normativity, while they strike some as distasteful, are really the only way to generalize about psychological phenomena. The range of normative behavior, while flexible, is the only standard available. The idea of universal sanity or a generalized idea of madness are simply absurd and possibly dangerous.
Finally, an insightful comment.
Under the legacy of common law which we share with England, a corporate body is considered a person for most purposes, thus they can be sued, taxed and held accountable for their actions.
is straight and narrow.
It should come as no suprise that someone familiar only with Java should *fall on their faces* at pointers and memory leaks. These things don't exist in Java unless your building a VM. The idea that the *right way* to program means running afoul of these creatures is just polemic.
I feel about the C's the way I feel about Windows, I could spend time trying to master it, but world+dog has a 10 year headstart. And BTW, I've been writing Java for two years and have yet to build a GUI anything. Instructors relying on toy projects and libraries are lazy instructors and not valid arguments viz the language.
Current parlance is "withholding the product". It becomes a problem construct when the child feels the need to act out feelings of anger and frustration toward the parent. This is the only thing the child knows to be solely within his control that he can use to punish the parent. Even more apropos, ne?
Right arm, brother! But I have to say, your view of Americans seems to have been colored by an indiscriminate viewing of Kojak reruns, Bruce Willis movies and the WWF. Those are playground attitudes.
Your velum from the 16C should be alright, some of the 19C stuff as well, if high quality, but when was the last time you looked at that precious first edition paperback of Dick's Martian Timeslip? The majority of books printed in the US in the 20C used cheap paper with a high acid content and these books are quietly composting on your bookshelf. It is unlikely your great-grandchildren will be able to read them, let alone your 23C Duncan Idaho.
The internet has reached a point where that doesn't need to be true. Culture can be abstracted from economics, style from money.
Yes. This is the most true insight. What we are talking about is a special form of cultural value called fashion, which arises with the improvement of living standards and increased free-time which industrialisation brought to cultural activity. Not coincidentally, the same time that people begin to complain about boredom. Before the eighteenth century only a small handful of folks could afford to waste time on being fashionable. You were the "ton" that is, "cool". Before that, only royalty was cool. What remains to be seen is the change in the operation of fashion which the digital age will enable.
What you are proposing, a sort of distributed cool network, is really just bringing greater efficiency to our twentieth century mass-culture idea of cool. I have a strong feeling that the twenty-first century idea of cool involves participating more than consuming. Rather build a distributed drum circle, a vitual poetry workshop, a collective painting. Goddammit, make, don't buy!
But it sounds so pompous when I say it.
This is one of the glories of the humanities, that in the absence of the empirical data of the hard sciences or the statistical data of the social sciences it is arrogance and erudition, bombast and namedropping that carry your thesis.
There is no more vicious pit of vipers than a post-bacc English program.