...that's what a lot of us are. We get all huffy when some corporation violates a portion of the GPL (either on purpose or as an "oversight"), but we seem quite willing to ignore the "licensing agreement" that we all must adhere to when we purchase a CD. If you don't like the GPL, don't use GPL'd code. If you don't like the copyright restrictions that are placed on music, don't buy it or violate those restrictions by making unauthorized copies of the music.
I initially thought "Napster good. Metallica bad." too, but when I stopped to think about the obvious parallels, I realized there's more to the issue than a Free Software zealot might have you think. Now, I stand firmly behind many of the ideals that the FS and OS communities endorse, but I can't with clear conscience say that I disagree with Metallica's actions. BTW, Jon, Metallica's lawyers aren't after these kids with subpoenas and threatening them with jail time, they're just blocking them from a site...because they violated a copyright agreement. And mind you, this isn't an "oversight" (as I mentioned in my analogy with the GPL above), it's a conscious decision to violate a licensing agreement...something that we would be flipping out about if MS grabbed a portion of the linux kernel and smacked it into Windows' kernel for sale under different licensing terms.
EVERYTHING that may be a barrier to "information exchange" (if that's what you want to call MP3 trading) is not inherently bad -- just as all government regulation is not inherently bad. A lot of the zealotry out there would have you believe otherwise, but there is definitely a place for the goverment to protect the intellectual property rights of people who have chosen to license access to their work in one manner or another - whether its a violation of the GPL or a violation of a record label's copying restrictions.
How many of us are happy that it finally appears that MS is going to get what it deserves? This is just another example of GOOD government regulation. The market isn't going to take care of the problem. It would if all consumers were: a) Well educated with regards to the product b) Not lazy consumers ...but they're not. As a result, we don't have "perfect competition" and the government needs to step in to restore some semblance of competition in the industry. I am not at all an advocate of large-scale government regulation, but it is painfully obvious that the market will not solve this problem by itself. Consumers need to be protected from shady suppliers in some cases, just as suppliers (Metallica, in this case) need to be protected from consumers who have figured out how to exploit their product.
I'm sure I'm going to get flamed by some out there for the analogies that I chose to draw, but really...how would you feel if you GPL'd some little app you just wrote only to find it integrated into the next version of Outlook. Same thing.
...most of matter in the universe was created from nothing, just because its positive rest energy was compensated by negative gravitational energy, so that total energy of the flat universe was and remains zero (this is how you create the whole Universe from nothing without violating the law of energy conservation)
I think my poor programmer's mind, quite able to think in terms of 0's and 1's, just imploded.
"I have said publicly in the past that I think forcing Microsoft's source open is probably the least intrusive remedy consistent with antitrust law as it now exists. I have publicly offered Joel Klein the Open Source Initiative's help in the technical formulation of such a remedy; and I believe this stance accurately reflects at least a strong plurality of opinion in our community."
It's not a strong backing of governmental regulation in all cases by any means, but he has offered to help formulate a remedy that, in my opinion, can be categorized as regulation.
He is a great thinker...whether or not his thoughts have any practical application in this world is another issue...an issue that my question above attempts to get to the root of.
Thanks for the attempt at a jab, though, I appreciate it. Just because my opinion doesn't agree with yours doesn't necessarily mean it won't be taken seriously. Next time you do decide to take a jab at me, don't post as an AC...or don't you have the balls to back up your superior intellect and opinion?
ESR is an incredible thinker and gifted author, but what I see is a direct contradiction in his beliefs when it comes to regulation. He abhors regulation (governmental or otherwise) in one breath, but in the next, he seems to promote government intervention - in one form or another - as a solution to the MS problem. Can he - or someone more familiar with the inner workings of the ESR mind - clarify this apparent contradiction for me?
Maybe there isn't one, and maybe I haven't digged through enough of ESR's writings to find the answer...if there is, do let me know. Thanks.
econ is simple...a lot of it is common sense with big fancy words to explain things we take for granted...it's the math that scares most people away from pursuing it past econ 101.
good point. I was thinking of "spare" time...time that the programmer is not paid for...but my real goal is to show value added to open source through some approximation of the value of a programmer's time...I suppose that even at-work contributions should be considered here,then, so I guess I really mean _total_ time. I'm not as much interested in the individual's return, but more the effort spent on open source as a whole.
I'm a market research professional...if you think this is a good idea, moderate this and the previous post up so this can be seen.
Anyone who contributes to open source, send me (at pcolton@mail.com...if that fills up, send it to yennipC@yahoo.com) an email with the following file attached:
A.csv file with the following fields
Field 1=gender Field 2=average hourly wage (in dollars) Field 3=average time spent contributing to open-source projects each month (in hours) Field 4=open source projects you have contributed to -- please dont separate multiple projects with commas or else you'll make my life hell Field 5=email address (if you want to get the results back)
If enough people (at least 100) email me with this info, I should be able to produce a decent set of statistics that we can look at...I'll even send them back to slashdot for discussion, if they want it.
Well, I think we're seeing the effects of a group of people (some of us/.ers) not fully understanding the lingo/assumptions of another group of people (economists). As an econ major-turned programmer, I think I get their drift a bit. Their paper isn't that far off.
The economist in me says that we're all "rationally self-interested people" who make decisions (buying and selling -- products, ourselves, whatever) based on our own self-interests. Whether the benefit we get from Open Source work is monetary, fun, ego-boosting, or other, individuals do derive a benefit from it. The fact that the benefit can not be easily quantified (as in your "fun" example) does not make their theories null and void. Personally, I think it's fun, too, and that adds to any monetary benefit I may have received.
Nothing about the article/paper is groundbreaking, so I wouldn't call it a great academic achievement. But, it does put the spotlight -- in a very positive manner -- on Open Source in a very public arena...the paper is groundbreaking for that very reason.
But you raise an interesting point: can fun be the _sole_ motivating factor? I don't think so, either. You said as long as you can pay the bills, it's not a motivating factor. What you're really saying (at least to me) is that money is a motivating factor _in how you spend your time_, but it's not your sole motivating factor. If you can cover the bills, you will forego additional money as long as you get fun in return...a very wise philosophy.
In economic terms, you have reached a point where the marginal benefit you would receive by working a little more for $ is not greater than the marginal benefit you get from working for fun. And, if you really wanted to try to quantify your fun, you could look at the opportunity cost of your time spent having fun. It wouldn't be perfect, but you'd have some quantifiable measure of "fun"...which does fit into their theories.
So...back to you...you have a balance of $-motivated work and fun-motivated work. Great! It's tough to get that balance. I've got it too, but my fiancee doesn't understand that, when I'm working at work on a computer it's not always fun, but when I'm working at fun on a computer, it is. She sees the computer as the source of stress...so if I'm on the computer, she tells me to get off...it all depends on what I'm doing on it that makes the difference;)
From what I can remember from High School Physics, one can boil water in one of two ways:
1) Add heat 2) Lower air pressure surrounding the liquid...if the air pressure is low enough, you can boil water at room temperature
They're probably going to seal a tube with a small amount of water in it and lower the air pressure inside the tube to the point that water can vaporize at about room temperature. The press release mentioned that the cooling mechanism would distribute heat throughout the chassis of the laptop...so you'd get a slightly toasty laptop. I don't know if I like this idea...sure, the heat would be dispersed over a larger surface area, but you still get a laptop case radiating heat both away from your hardware and towards your hardware.
A better idea (as far as I'm concerned) would be to still use the fan and put a "radiator" (like you have in your car) on the inside of the fan (blowing inward, rather than outward) and pump the heated vapor through the radiator. On the other side of the radiator (the inside), put another tube that will carry the heated air (it will be warm after passing by the radiator) out and away from your hardware.
You get the benefits of water cooled processors while not turning your laptop into a giant heat sink.
I agree completely. If a keyboard came out that was linux-friendly...let's say with 12 buttons above the function keys...and had a simple coolkeyboard.conf file that looks something like this:
button_1:/path/to/my/terminal/emulator/executabl e button_2:/path/to/my/browser/executable etc
...it would be a Good Thing. But because a huge company does it, and it's somehow tied to their software, it's a Bad Thing. Now, I'm no fan of AOL/Time Warner, but it seems every time a large company does anything to make their product more accessible, it's a Bad Thing. Give them a break, stop jumping down their throats for every little "innovation" (if you call it that)...if we complain about everything they do, our more valid points will be dismissed by the NonGeekLawMakers as just more petty whining. I'm sick of it. We need to grow up as a community and realize that Large Companies are a necessary evil...let's work _with_ them rather than crucifying them for their work in getting technology into everyone's lives...even people who couldn't find their way around my little coolkeyboard.conf file. If we do this, then my favorite OS would find its way into more homes...
Nanotechnology != "nanobot" or "nanoprobe". That's just the creation of sci-fi (which, I admit, is where many of the science-facts regarding nanotech come from). What IBM is doing - through the manipulation of single magnetic particles to form an ultra-dense, ultra-small drive - is definitely nanotechnology. You don't need tiny robots running around doing your work to have nanotechnology. That's one possible application of nanotech, but you don't need bots to have nanotech.
Antitrust lawsuit? No, we're not preventing other OS's from competing with us. In fact, looky here...we make apps for linux and mac! We support the development of other OS's.
the university I went to (Drew University in Madison, NJ) did something almost as good as giving them away: gave us computers our freshman year that we paid for over the 4 years we were there...had a network connection in each dorm room...and had a decent campus-wide information system/access to the internet and bitnet before the www "got big". The cons: we paid for a machine that was horribly out of date at the end of 2 years...and still paid for it for another two...and our campus wide network was cutting edge...for a month...and then lapsed for a decade until the funds were spent to update it...
Off the topic of linguistics, but on the topic of Orwell:
Some would argue that 1984 was "borrowed" from an earlier work by the Russian author, Yevgeny Zamyatin, entitled "We" written 1919-1920. It's an incredible read that some have claimed is artistically superior to 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World. If you enjoyed 1984, pick up 'We' and give it a shot.
...actually, this is somewhat on the topic of linguistics. I believe that the creative process that goes into the formation of a novel (or the reformation of an existing theme from another language) proves the point that the human mind can shape abstract concepts into concrete terms. A talented author has a more developed linguistic skill-set for accomplishing this task. While more complex than the creation of a single word, I believe the leap from descriptive-word to descriptive-sentence to paragraph to essay to novel is a valid leap in this case.
Personally, I don't think we can point the finger at any single cause of the problem. Do TV, movies, realistic "death simulator" games play a role in developing violent tendencies? Sure. Do the home environment, the school environment, the friends a kid keeps, and parental involvement (or lack thereof) in their child's life also play roles in youthful violence? You bet your sweet ass they do. Do genetics play a role in a predisposition to violent behavior? Probably. All of these are contributing factors to the social engineering of a 14-year old killer.
I _do_ feel that as "death simulators" (gotta love that term) become more and more realistic, it is going to raise the thrill level the player feels while playing the game. I _live_ to experience extreme emotions...so I play games that allow me to escape from reality and experience things every now and then that I'm not going to experience sitting at my desk writing "killer" Perl code. (That's same reason I love poetry and perform some "heavy" classical music every now and then...they all allow me to experience a wide range of emotions) The more realistic the game, the more real my physical and mental reactions to my sensory input are. The difference is that I have a strong enough moral (and psychological) foundation to know that, while it's really thrilling to blow some guy away on the screen, it's not appropriate for me to walk out on Park Ave. one day at lunch and start taking shots at cabbies because they drive too damn fast...and goddamn it, I'm going to make NY a safer place for everyone (except cabbies)! Some children are lacking that social buffer that stops most of us from acting on our more primal urges.
That's what the real issue is. Is it the resposibility of video games to develop social responsibility? Of course not. It's the responsibility of the families, the schools, even the immediate peer group to engineer social responsibility in future generations. If those institutions have failed, it is unfair to point the finger at a violent video game (an aggravating factor, but not a direct cause).
First, let me say that I agree with you entirely: this research is important - vital - to furthering our understanding in the medical/scientific fields. However, I take issue with your objection to the consultation of religious groups.
It isn't religion that breeds intolerance, but instead the abuse of religion...just as the abuse of science and technical knowledge can breed an equal - and opposite - intolerance for the less-quantifiable elements of society. The consultation that you object to is a trend that I applaud in the scientific community - the realization that science does not operate in a vacuum...that scientific discoveries have human consequences...and specifically that an interdisciplinary approach to problems is what's required to translate pure scientific knowledge into human understanding and societal benefit.
Religious zealots...scientific zealots...linux zealots...they're all the same in that they lack the open-mindedness to accept that another perspective can complement their current knowledge. As soon as the mind is closed, you shut off the ability to develop/accept new tools to deal with familiar problems...familiar problems that may have remained problems because the closed mind's viewpoint is the only one it can see.
- clearcache
(Freedom of Religion - and lack-thereof - advocate, Freedom of Science - and lack-thereof - advocate, and Freedom of OS advocate...my personal beliefs are irrelevant, but my tolerance is not)
Well, MS could steal it...but at the same time it would be open-sourced and open to all of us, as well. The result would not be surprising:
A) MS would just mess it up and release an inferior product.
B) The Open-Source Movement would provide a better product, assuming there's interest in Corel Draw and WP for non-Linux amongst Open-Source contributors out there. It's also possible it would be ported to other OS's like BeOS and help those OS's gain a foothold (we all know, painfully, that availability of apps make or break an OS).
C) 90% of desktop computer users out there would buy the inferior product because they are chained to MS's OS and believe that they have the best there is to offer. Bill Gates is a genius, after all...right? (don't step in my dripping sarcasm)
D) Us Nerds would continue on our merry way and nothing would be any different...we'd have good software...that, in some cases, is too difficult for the novice to configure...and continue to stick our noses up at the technologically-challenged and the MS-centric.
I would hope that Red Hat (and other Open-Source co's/orgs out there) would see this as an opportunity to provide software that is user-friendly enough to appeal to the novice while maintaining its technological superiority...and seize this opportunity without falling into the same traps as MS.
There's more to "understanding" than physics and math. You should try taking some philosophy courses and actually _hearing_ (not just listening to) the words of the brilliant men and women who had neither particle accelerators nor supercomputers to help them in their quest for a better understanding of the world. You might learn something - and become a better scientist at the same time.
Someone once said "The man who thinks he knows everything really knows nothing at all." This is a motto that I try to keep in the forefront of my mind everyday to keep me humble. I am a computer programmer and was sitting on the train skimming O'Reilly's "Advanced Perl Programming" just yesterday when another computer programmer sat down next to me and indignantly said "Do you think that book helps you at all?!?". My response was "Yes, greatly." His indignance showed me that, like you, he felt he already knew it all (how opposite to the Perl mindset can you get!). A closed mind sees only one path, but an open one knows no bounds. Everytime I read and re-read that book, I gain insight into different ways to attack problems. Everytime I read and re-read the words of Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, Buddha, the Bible...the list is endless...I am reminded of my humility and the variety of ways there are to think about things. Hell, the Buddhists have had a "Grand Unified Theory" for thousands of years - they just have no need to quantify it! If your immediate reaction was "that can't compare to the GUT _I'm_ talking about", you're right, it can't compare. And it shouldn't.
If you feel that certain theories are written in stone and are -- without argument -- correct, you are doomed to only attack your problems from the perspective of those theories. Man, be a good scientist, and lose the blinders!
Also, as a recent college grad (3 years ago), bear in mind that I know very little for certain...one thing that I _learned_, however, is that what you are taught in college is one thing, and what actually happens can be a vastly different thing. Question the _assumptions_ that the theories you're learning in college are based upon (and there are always assumptions), and you'll find the holes in the theories.
This post is not a flame, nor is it intended to be condescending. I just hope it made you think.
Slightly off the Java for Be topic, but this seems to be where the Be discussion is going:
I don't have any experience working with either BeOS or Corel Linux (Caldera user, myself), but it seems to me that the two are targeting the same market. Some have said Corel's release is a dumbed-down version of Linux, and Be is "a great OS for technophobes", etc. How do the two compare? It would be a great/. article, actually, to have some _objective_ comparison of the two OS's. Does anyone out there have the resources...and the objectivity?
I've read some great reviews of the BeOS and particularly its user interface. I would be curious to see how it compares to other (maintstream and non-mainstream) OS's.
This question goes out to those of you who take issue with the implementation of the Mosaic profiling system: What would _you_ do to make our schools safer instead? I've read a lot of "No no no this is just big brother trying to group us into herds so that we are more easily manageable...", but I haven't read any real answers to the problem. At least these school systems are proactively doing something to try to better guarantee the safety of their students.
Posting armed guards and putting metal detectors up may deter some people from a violent crime spree, but if someone _REALLY_ wants to get in and blast away, they're going to find a way - schools are not fortresses, no matter how much security is added as an afterthough to the original design.
Instead, the armed guards and metal detectors create an unstable educational environment for our students that's rooted in fear and not based upon the educators' care for the students' well-being. It creates a _perceived_ adversarial relationship in which (from the students' point of view) the administration doesn't trust any of them. While they are there to protect both the administration and the student, this is not what is in the forefront of the student's mind. This environment alone will most likely serve as a detriment to most students who are in school to learn (there still are a couple...in Montana, I think...).
Yes, "false positives" are to be expected, and any good surveying/analysis firm will expect that. "Nerds" don't have anything to fear from this system...unless they (we?;) ) truly have violent tendencies. Nothing in the article indicates that the students surveyed will be hand-picked based upon any "differentness-criteria". In fact, any good surveying/analysis firm would not allow that. Their name would be attached to the results of their software's analysis, and it's not in their best interest to skew the sample with the possibility that some jock will go off the deep end and blow away his math teacher because she failed him. In the same breath, it's not in the school system's best interest to invest taxpayers' money in a system and have that happen, either.
I think this is a step in the right direction. It beats sitting on your ass and doing nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
...that's what a lot of us are. We get all huffy when some corporation violates a portion of the GPL (either on purpose or as an "oversight"), but we seem quite willing to ignore the "licensing agreement" that we all must adhere to when we purchase a CD. If you don't like the GPL, don't use GPL'd code. If you don't like the copyright restrictions that are placed on music, don't buy it or violate those restrictions by making unauthorized copies of the music.
I initially thought "Napster good. Metallica bad." too, but when I stopped to think about the obvious parallels, I realized there's more to the issue than a Free Software zealot might have you think. Now, I stand firmly behind many of the ideals that the FS and OS communities endorse, but I can't with clear conscience say that I disagree with Metallica's actions. BTW, Jon, Metallica's lawyers aren't after these kids with subpoenas and threatening them with jail time, they're just blocking them from a site...because they violated a copyright agreement. And mind you, this isn't an "oversight" (as I mentioned in my analogy with the GPL above), it's a conscious decision to violate a licensing agreement...something that we would be flipping out about if MS grabbed a portion of the linux kernel and smacked it into Windows' kernel for sale under different licensing terms.
EVERYTHING that may be a barrier to "information exchange" (if that's what you want to call MP3 trading) is not inherently bad -- just as all government regulation is not inherently bad. A lot of the zealotry out there would have you believe otherwise, but there is definitely a place for the goverment to protect the intellectual property rights of people who have chosen to license access to their work in one manner or another - whether its a violation of the GPL or a violation of a record label's copying restrictions.
How many of us are happy that it finally appears that MS is going to get what it deserves? This is just another example of GOOD government regulation. The market isn't going to take care of the problem. It would if all consumers were:
a) Well educated with regards to the product
b) Not lazy consumers
...but they're not. As a result, we don't have "perfect competition" and the government needs to step in to restore some semblance of competition in the industry. I am not at all an advocate of large-scale government regulation, but it is painfully obvious that the market will not solve this problem by itself. Consumers need to be protected from shady suppliers in some cases, just as suppliers (Metallica, in this case) need to be protected from consumers who have figured out how to exploit their product.
I'm sure I'm going to get flamed by some out there for the analogies that I chose to draw, but really...how would you feel if you GPL'd some little app you just wrote only to find it integrated into the next version of Outlook. Same thing.
wow
...most of matter in the universe was created from nothing, just because its positive rest energy was compensated by negative gravitational energy, so that total energy of the flat universe was and remains zero (this is how you create the whole Universe from nothing without violating the law of energy conservation)
I think my poor programmer's mind, quite able to think in terms of 0's and 1's, just imploded.
"I have said publicly in the past that I think forcing Microsoft's source open is probably the least intrusive remedy consistent with antitrust law as it now exists. I have publicly offered Joel Klein the Open Source Initiative's help in the technical formulation of such a remedy; and I believe this stance accurately reflects at least a strong plurality of opinion in our community."
It's not a strong backing of governmental regulation in all cases by any means, but he has offered to help formulate a remedy that, in my opinion, can be categorized as regulation.
He is a great thinker...whether or not his thoughts have any practical application in this world is another issue...an issue that my question above attempts to get to the root of.
Thanks for the attempt at a jab, though, I appreciate it. Just because my opinion doesn't agree with yours doesn't necessarily mean it won't be taken seriously. Next time you do decide to take a jab at me, don't post as an AC...or don't you have the balls to back up your superior intellect and opinion?
ESR is an incredible thinker and gifted author, but what I see is a direct contradiction in his beliefs when it comes to regulation. He abhors regulation (governmental or otherwise) in one breath, but in the next, he seems to promote government intervention - in one form or another - as a solution to the MS problem. Can he - or someone more familiar with the inner workings of the ESR mind - clarify this apparent contradiction for me?
Maybe there isn't one, and maybe I haven't digged through enough of ESR's writings to find the answer...if there is, do let me know. Thanks.
econ is simple...a lot of it is common sense with big fancy words to explain things we take for granted...it's the math that scares most people away from pursuing it past econ 101.
good point. I was thinking of "spare" time...time that the programmer is not paid for...but my real goal is to show value added to open source through some approximation of the value of a programmer's time...I suppose that even at-work contributions should be considered here,then, so I guess I really mean _total_ time. I'm not as much interested in the individual's return, but more the effort spent on open source as a whole.
I'm a market research professional...if you think this is a good idea, moderate this and the previous post up so this can be seen.
.csv file with the following fields
Anyone who contributes to open source, send me (at pcolton@mail.com...if that fills up, send it to yennipC@yahoo.com) an email with the following file attached:
A
Field 1=gender
Field 2=average hourly wage (in dollars)
Field 3=average time spent contributing to open-source projects each month (in hours)
Field 4=open source projects you have contributed to -- please dont separate multiple projects with commas or else you'll make my life hell
Field 5=email address (if you want to get the results back)
If enough people (at least 100) email me with this info, I should be able to produce a decent set of statistics that we can look at...I'll even send them back to slashdot for discussion, if they want it.
Well, I think we're seeing the effects of a group of people (some of us /.ers) not fully understanding the lingo/assumptions of another group of people (economists). As an econ major-turned programmer, I think I get their drift a bit. Their paper isn't that far off.
;)
The economist in me says that we're all "rationally self-interested people" who make decisions (buying and selling -- products, ourselves, whatever) based on our own self-interests. Whether the benefit we get from Open Source work is monetary, fun, ego-boosting, or other, individuals do derive a benefit from it. The fact that the benefit can not be easily quantified (as in your "fun" example) does not make their theories null and void. Personally, I think it's fun, too, and that adds to any monetary benefit I may have received.
Nothing about the article/paper is groundbreaking, so I wouldn't call it a great academic achievement. But, it does put the spotlight -- in a very positive manner -- on Open Source in a very public arena...the paper is groundbreaking for that very reason.
But you raise an interesting point: can fun be the _sole_ motivating factor? I don't think so, either. You said as long as you can pay the bills, it's not a motivating factor. What you're really saying (at least to me) is that money is a motivating factor _in how you spend your time_, but it's not your sole motivating factor. If you can cover the bills, you will forego additional money as long as you get fun in return...a very wise philosophy.
In economic terms, you have reached a point where the marginal benefit you would receive by working a little more for $ is not greater than the marginal benefit you get from working for fun. And, if you really wanted to try to quantify your fun, you could look at the opportunity cost of your time spent having fun. It wouldn't be perfect, but you'd have some quantifiable measure of "fun"...which does fit into their theories.
So...back to you...you have a balance of $-motivated work and fun-motivated work. Great! It's tough to get that balance. I've got it too, but my fiancee doesn't understand that, when I'm working at work on a computer it's not always fun, but when I'm working at fun on a computer, it is. She sees the computer as the source of stress...so if I'm on the computer, she tells me to get off...it all depends on what I'm doing on it that makes the difference
From what I can remember from High School Physics, one can boil water in one of two ways:
1) Add heat
2) Lower air pressure surrounding the liquid...if the air pressure is low enough, you can boil water at room temperature
They're probably going to seal a tube with a small amount of water in it and lower the air pressure inside the tube to the point that water can vaporize at about room temperature. The press release mentioned that the cooling mechanism would distribute heat throughout the chassis of the laptop...so you'd get a slightly toasty laptop. I don't know if I like this idea...sure, the heat would be dispersed over a larger surface area, but you still get a laptop case radiating heat both away from your hardware and towards your hardware.
A better idea (as far as I'm concerned) would be to still use the fan and put a "radiator" (like you have in your car) on the inside of the fan (blowing inward, rather than outward) and pump the heated vapor through the radiator. On the other side of the radiator (the inside), put another tube that will carry the heated air (it will be warm after passing by the radiator) out and away from your hardware.
You get the benefits of water cooled processors while not turning your laptop into a giant heat sink.
I agree completely. If a keyboard came out that was linux-friendly...let's say with 12 buttons above the function keys...and had a simple coolkeyboard.conf file that looks something like this:
l e
button_1:/path/to/my/terminal/emulator/executab
button_2:/path/to/my/browser/executable
etc
...it would be a Good Thing. But because a huge company does it, and it's somehow tied to their software, it's a Bad Thing. Now, I'm no fan of AOL/Time Warner, but it seems every time a large company does anything to make their product more accessible, it's a Bad Thing. Give them a break, stop jumping down their throats for every little "innovation" (if you call it that)...if we complain about everything they do, our more valid points will be dismissed by the NonGeekLawMakers as just more petty whining. I'm sick of it. We need to grow up as a community and realize that Large Companies are a necessary evil...let's work _with_ them rather than crucifying them for their work in getting technology into everyone's lives...even people who couldn't find their way around my little coolkeyboard.conf file. If we do this, then my favorite OS would find its way into more homes...
clearcache
Nanotechnology != "nanobot" or "nanoprobe". That's just the creation of sci-fi (which, I admit, is where many of the science-facts regarding nanotech come from). What IBM is doing - through the manipulation of single magnetic particles to form an ultra-dense, ultra-small drive - is definitely nanotechnology. You don't need tiny robots running around doing your work to have nanotechnology. That's one possible application of nanotech, but you don't need bots to have nanotech.
Antitrust lawsuit? No, we're not preventing other OS's from competing with us. In fact, looky here...we make apps for linux and mac! We support the development of other OS's.
the university I went to (Drew University in Madison, NJ) did something almost as good as giving them away: gave us computers our freshman year that we paid for over the 4 years we were there...had a network connection in each dorm room...and had a decent campus-wide information system/access to the internet and bitnet before the www "got big". The cons: we paid for a machine that was horribly out of date at the end of 2 years...and still paid for it for another two...and our campus wide network was cutting edge...for a month...and then lapsed for a decade until the funds were spent to update it...
Off the topic of linguistics, but on the topic of Orwell:
Some would argue that 1984 was "borrowed" from an earlier work by the Russian author, Yevgeny Zamyatin, entitled "We" written 1919-1920. It's an incredible read that some have claimed is artistically superior to 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World. If you enjoyed 1984, pick up 'We' and give it a shot.
...actually, this is somewhat on the topic of linguistics. I believe that the creative process that goes into the formation of a novel (or the reformation of an existing theme from another language) proves the point that the human mind can shape abstract concepts into concrete terms. A talented author has a more developed linguistic skill-set for accomplishing this task. While more complex than the creation of a single word, I believe the leap from descriptive-word to descriptive-sentence to paragraph to essay to novel is a valid leap in this case.
I doubt it.
I dunno...put a chip in my body, on my car keys, and in my car.
a) I'll never get lost.
b) My car keys will never get lost.
c) I'll always be able to find my car in the lot.
I like the idea.
Personally, I don't think we can point the finger at any single cause of the problem. Do TV, movies, realistic "death simulator" games play a role in developing violent tendencies? Sure. Do the home environment, the school environment, the friends a kid keeps, and parental involvement (or lack thereof) in their child's life also play roles in youthful violence? You bet your sweet ass they do. Do genetics play a role in a predisposition to violent behavior? Probably. All of these are contributing factors to the social engineering of a 14-year old killer.
I _do_ feel that as "death simulators" (gotta love that term) become more and more realistic, it is going to raise the thrill level the player feels while playing the game. I _live_ to experience extreme emotions...so I play games that allow me to escape from reality and experience things every now and then that I'm not going to experience sitting at my desk writing "killer" Perl code. (That's same reason I love poetry and perform some "heavy" classical music every now and then...they all allow me to experience a wide range of emotions) The more realistic the game, the more real my physical and mental reactions to my sensory input are. The difference is that I have a strong enough moral (and psychological) foundation to know that, while it's really thrilling to blow some guy away on the screen, it's not appropriate for me to walk out on Park Ave. one day at lunch and start taking shots at cabbies because they drive too damn fast...and goddamn it, I'm going to make NY a safer place for everyone (except cabbies)! Some children are lacking that social buffer that stops most of us from acting on our more primal urges.
That's what the real issue is. Is it the resposibility of video games to develop social responsibility? Of course not. It's the responsibility of the families, the schools, even the immediate peer group to engineer social responsibility in future generations. If those institutions have failed, it is unfair to point the finger at a violent video game (an aggravating factor, but not a direct cause).
First, let me say that I agree with you entirely: this research is important - vital - to furthering our understanding in the medical/scientific fields. However, I take issue with your objection to the consultation of religious groups.
It isn't religion that breeds intolerance, but instead the abuse of religion...just as the abuse of science and technical knowledge can breed an equal - and opposite - intolerance for the less-quantifiable elements of society. The consultation that you object to is a trend that I applaud in the scientific community - the realization that science does not operate in a vacuum...that scientific discoveries have human consequences...and specifically that an interdisciplinary approach to problems is what's required to translate pure scientific knowledge into human understanding and societal benefit.
Religious zealots...scientific zealots...linux zealots...they're all the same in that they lack the open-mindedness to accept that another perspective can complement their current knowledge. As soon as the mind is closed, you shut off the ability to develop/accept new tools to deal with familiar problems...familiar problems that may have remained problems because the closed mind's viewpoint is the only one it can see.
- clearcache
(Freedom of Religion - and lack-thereof - advocate, Freedom of Science - and lack-thereof - advocate, and Freedom of OS advocate...my personal beliefs are irrelevant, but my tolerance is not)
Well, MS could steal it...but at the same time it would be open-sourced and open to all of us, as well. The result would not be surprising:
A) MS would just mess it up and release an inferior product.
B) The Open-Source Movement would provide a better product, assuming there's interest in Corel Draw and WP for non-Linux amongst Open-Source contributors out there. It's also possible it would be ported to other OS's like BeOS and help those OS's gain a foothold (we all know, painfully, that availability of apps make or break an OS).
C) 90% of desktop computer users out there would buy the inferior product because they are chained to MS's OS and believe that they have the best there is to offer. Bill Gates is a genius, after all...right? (don't step in my dripping sarcasm)
D) Us Nerds would continue on our merry way and nothing would be any different...we'd have good software...that, in some cases, is too difficult for the novice to configure...and continue to stick our noses up at the technologically-challenged and the MS-centric.
I would hope that Red Hat (and other Open-Source co's/orgs out there) would see this as an opportunity to provide software that is user-friendly enough to appeal to the novice while maintaining its technological superiority...and seize this opportunity without falling into the same traps as MS.
There's more to "understanding" than physics and math. You should try taking some philosophy courses and actually _hearing_ (not just listening to) the words of the brilliant men and women who had neither particle accelerators nor supercomputers to help them in their quest for a better understanding of the world. You might learn something - and become a better scientist at the same time.
Someone once said "The man who thinks he knows everything really knows nothing at all." This is a motto that I try to keep in the forefront of my mind everyday to keep me humble. I am a computer programmer and was sitting on the train skimming O'Reilly's "Advanced Perl Programming" just yesterday when another computer programmer sat down next to me and indignantly said "Do you think that book helps you at all?!?". My response was "Yes, greatly." His indignance showed me that, like you, he felt he already knew it all (how opposite to the Perl mindset can you get!). A closed mind sees only one path, but an open one knows no bounds. Everytime I read and re-read that book, I gain insight into different ways to attack problems. Everytime I read and re-read the words of Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, Buddha, the Bible...the list is endless...I am reminded of my humility and the variety of ways there are to think about things. Hell, the Buddhists have had a "Grand Unified Theory" for thousands of years - they just have no need to quantify it! If your immediate reaction was "that can't compare to the GUT _I'm_ talking about", you're right, it can't compare. And it shouldn't.
If you feel that certain theories are written in stone and are -- without argument -- correct, you are doomed to only attack your problems from the perspective of those theories. Man, be a good scientist, and lose the blinders!
Also, as a recent college grad (3 years ago), bear in mind that I know very little for certain...one thing that I _learned_, however, is that what you are taught in college is one thing, and what actually happens can be a vastly different thing. Question the _assumptions_ that the theories you're learning in college are based upon (and there are always assumptions), and you'll find the holes in the theories.
This post is not a flame, nor is it intended to be condescending. I just hope it made you think.
Slightly off the Java for Be topic, but this seems to be where the Be discussion is going:
/. article, actually, to have some _objective_ comparison of the two OS's. Does anyone out there have the resources...and the objectivity?
I don't have any experience working with either BeOS or Corel Linux (Caldera user, myself), but it seems to me that the two are targeting the same market. Some have said Corel's release is a dumbed-down version of Linux, and Be is "a great OS for technophobes", etc. How do the two compare? It would be a great
I've read some great reviews of the BeOS and particularly its user interface. I would be curious to see how it compares to other (maintstream and non-mainstream) OS's.
This question goes out to those of you who take issue with the implementation of the Mosaic profiling system: What would _you_ do to make our schools safer instead? I've read a lot of "No no no this is just big brother trying to group us into herds so that we are more easily manageable...", but I haven't read any real answers to the problem. At least these school systems are proactively doing something to try to better guarantee the safety of their students.
;) ) truly have violent tendencies. Nothing in the article indicates that the students surveyed will be hand-picked based upon any "differentness-criteria". In fact, any good surveying/analysis firm would not allow that. Their name would be attached to the results of their software's analysis, and it's not in their best interest to skew the sample with the possibility that some jock will go off the deep end and blow away his math teacher because she failed him. In the same breath, it's not in the school system's best interest to invest taxpayers' money in a system and have that happen, either.
Posting armed guards and putting metal detectors up may deter some people from a violent crime spree, but if someone _REALLY_ wants to get in and blast away, they're going to find a way - schools are not fortresses, no matter how much security is added as an afterthough to the original design.
Instead, the armed guards and metal detectors create an unstable educational environment for our students that's rooted in fear and not based upon the educators' care for the students' well-being. It creates a _perceived_ adversarial relationship in which (from the students' point of view) the administration doesn't trust any of them. While they are there to protect both the administration and the student, this is not what is in the forefront of the student's mind. This environment alone will most likely serve as a detriment to most students who are in school to learn (there still are a couple...in Montana, I think...).
Yes, "false positives" are to be expected, and any good surveying/analysis firm will expect that. "Nerds" don't have anything to fear from this system...unless they (we?
I think this is a step in the right direction. It beats sitting on your ass and doing nothing.