It is exactly that attitude that makes Gnome unusable to the average PC user.
Uh huh. That's why the folks in this study said these horrible things about Gnome:
"The basic feel was fairly intuitive; the menus were where I expected them to be."
"It was easy to find things, like Windows. I can relate to everything."
"It is like a cross between Windows and a Mac. It looks like it is designed for everybody."
Yes, despite all that, the fact that we think it's funny that folks would ask what an icon labelled "terminal emulator" launches, when it launches a terminal emulator, will doom this user interface to only being used by niche companies like IBM, HP, Sun Microsystems, etc.
I should add this, which makes this look like an even smaller operation than it already does:
$ whois linuxda.com
[whois.crsnic.net]
Whois Server Version 1.3
Domain names in the.com,.net, and.org domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.
Domain Name: LINUXDA.COM
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com
Name Server: ANTARES.STARCON.COM
Name Server: STARRUNNER.STARCON.COM
Updated Date: 17-apr-2000
>>> Last update of whois database: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 01:56:11 EDT
The Registry database contains ONLY.COM,.NET,.ORG,.EDU domains and
Registrars.
[whois.networksolutions.com]
The Data in Network Solutions' WHOIS database is provided by Network
Solutions for information purposes, and to assist persons in obtaining
information about or related to a domain name registration record.
Network Solutions does not guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a
WHOIS query, you agree that you will use this Data only for lawful
purposes and that, under no circumstances will you use this Data to:
(1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass
unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail
(spam); or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes
that apply to Network Solutions (or its systems). Network Solutions
reserves the right to modify these terms at any time. By submitting
this query, you agree to abide by this policy.
Registrant:
LEUNG, PAUL (LINUXDA-DOM)
UNIT 120, 13551 VERDUN PLACE
RICHMOND, BC V6V 1W5,
CA
Domain Name: LINUXDA.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Billing Contact:
LEUNG, PAUL (PLJ76) aem_admin@AMIPO.COM
LEUNG, PAUL
UNIT 120, 13551 VERDUN PLACE
RICHMOND
BC
V6V 1W5
CA
604 649 8883 (FAX) 604 278 3102
Record last updated on 17-Apr-2000.
Record expires on 16-Dec-2001.
Record created on 16-Dec-1999.
Database last updated on 18-Jul-2001 21:35:00 EDT.
Domain names in the.com,.net, and.org domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.
Domain Name: EMPOWER-TECHNOLOGIES.COM
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com
Name Server: ANTARES.STARCON.COM
Name Server: STARRUNNER.STARCON.COM
Updated Date: 13-feb-2001
>>> Last update of whois database: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 02:02:47 EDT
The Registry database contains ONLY.COM,.NET,.ORG,.EDU domains and
Registrars.
[whois.networksolutions.com]
The Data in Network Solutions' WHOIS database is provided by Network
Solutions for information purposes, and to assist persons in obtaining
information about or related to a domain name registration record.
Network Solutions does not guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a
WHOIS query, you agree that you will use this Data only for lawful
purposes and that, under no circumstances will you use this Data to:
(1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass
unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail
(spam); or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes
that apply to Network Solutions (or its systems). Network Solutions
reserves the right to modify these terms at any time. By submitting
this query, you agree to abide by this policy.
Registrant:
LINUX DA INC. (EMPOWERTECHNOLOGIES2-DOM)
Unit 120, 13551 Verdun Place
RICHMOND, B.C. V6V 1W5
CA
Domain Name: EMPOWER-TECHNOLOGIES.COM
Administrative Contact, Billing Contact:
LINUX DA INC. (LD2286-ORG) no.valid.email@worldnic.net
LINUX DA INC.
Unit 120, 13551 Verdun Place
RICHMOND, B.C. V6V 1W5
CA
604 278 3100 fax: 604 278 3102
Technical Contact:
WorldNIC Name Host (HOST-ORG) namehost@WORLDNIC.COM
Network Solutions, Inc.
505 Huntmar Park Drive
Herndon, VA 20170-5142
1-888-642-9675
Record last updated on 13-Feb-2001.
Record expires on 18-Jan-2002.
Record created on 18-Jan-2001.
Database last updated on 18-Jul-2001 05:14:00 EDT.
Windows ships without a C compiler, but that didn't kill C. (And yes, I realize you don't need special software to RUN the C programs.)
All the major web browsers can download this stuff automagically, and that's what will happen. XP systems will be without Java for about five minutes after they're first turned on.
Exactly. Those wireless folks are going to need a fat pipe to the Internet, and they're going to need it at a rate that UUNet et al won't touch.
This will be the excuse that will let some rural ISPs afford to upgrade to that T3 they've been wanting, so they can sell a few T1s out of it without crowding it too much.
The present ABM treaty has helped us assure some peace for the last 30 years.
Actually, the present ABM treaty has only prevented the US from developing anti-missile systems. The Soviets were violating it the whole time.
So it can hardly be credited with keeping the peace.
If you can argue that they are important for people (as opposed to imperialistic plutocrats and the military-industrial complex ) than why wouldnt America, as a memeber of the UN (or some other complete and inclusive agency) ask to have this system built and deployed the whole world over?
For the same reasons we don't deploy our Army in every country; it's incredibly expensive beyond the point of being possible, and because it's none of our goddamn business.
For 50 years, we've maintained nuclear peace by being able to thoroughly destroy anybody who attacked us. Now, we're beginning to make steps towards instead being able to defend against the destruction in the first place.
I don't think the average informed citizen of, say, Switzerland would rather we were able to destroy the world than shoot down some missiles.
And remember, the opposition to this system in the '60s was based on the (probably correct) premise that we couldn't shoot down every missile in a massive Soviet attack. That was the threat we faced back then.
The threat we face now is a North Korean attack involving a couple of missiles. A system that is only 1% effective is better than nothing in that case, and a system that is only 99% effective more than good enough for the job, AGAINST THAT LIMITED THREAT ONLY.
The argument against this defense (it'll result in people building more nukes) is the same kind of fuzzy thinking that argued that cops shouldn't wear bulletproof vests, because it'll lead to criminals buying armor piercing ammo. The actual result was nothing of the sort, because AP ammo is expensive. The same thing will guarantee that Iran, for instance, doesn't counter this by building a multi-trillion dollar massive nuclear capability; they just plain can't afford it.
Think that's weird? According to a friend of mine (who is not a lawyer, but his wife is an educator for "special needs" children), in Florida it's legal to record video, except you can't record video of a retarded child without permission from their legal guardian.
So your webcam is perfectly legal, unless a retarded child walks by.
That information is third-hand, and I can't provide a citation, so don't hack on me too much if it's wrong...
Most of the US is like that, too. Canada tends to pass national laws, but the US Constitutionally leaves most questions to the states.
So what you should have said is "Massachusetts is weird."
And, you'd be right; we have a certain bunch of states that tend to have weird-ass laws that don't reflect the rest of the country. Massachusetts is among them. More power to 'em; they can have whatever laws they want, without affecting me.
Your box can do it now; it's just that you probably don't have the artistic talent (no offense), and it'd take your box a hundred years to render it all.
But get a few dozen more like yours, and some artists who can cut the mustard, and you too can produce those kind of fantastic graphics. All that hardware and talent will cost you as much as it cost them, of course.
Now, instead of being cute, a good actor needs to have good acting skills, and an in-depth knowledge of the tools. Actors and animators will merge into one profession, where you are cast to render and animate a particular character that you specialize in.
That's what people thought would happen with radio, but it only happened in the lower end of the profession.
On the high end, the best voice talents work with top engineers, and each is a specialist in his piece of the pie.
I think that's more likely to be the model that will come of this; a voice actor will become associated with an animator, and they'll work together.
Gladly, troll. I'm clearly using it as a noun here, and according to dictionary.com:
bullshit Vulgar Slang
n.
1. Foolish, deceitful, or boastful language.
2. Something worthless, deceptive, or insincere.
3. Insolent talk or behavior.
Either of the first two applies.
In the future, if you don't understand a word, you should try the services of Dictionary.com. They aren't perfect, but they're better than having to ask on public message forums.
I can't quite figure out what you're trying to imply here. That all the technology that we create is somehow going to destroy us all?
Clearly, you are correct; you can't figure it out.
I'll requote myself:
Ironically, Americans aren't worried about the technological issues that are seriously changing their lives, and will increase in impact in the future.
You don't think genetic research and artificial intelligence will change our lives? Do you think computers haven't? How about the germ theory of disease transmission? Didn't that change our lives?
I don't think advances in genetic research and artificial intelligence can help but change our lives, drastically. Each has the potential to eliminate poverty, or eliminate mankind, if the right mistakes are made.
Do you honestly think that suggesting people ought to be more concerned with discussing these issues, instead of worrying that their SUV is going to destroy the world, somehow makes me a Luddite? Get real.
Experimentation and improvement is the foundation of the human nature. Clubs worked much better than fists to kill things. If it weren't for that kind of innovation the carrying capacity of earth would be MUCH smaller than it is now, by several orders of magnitude.
I 100% agree. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be talking about the moral implications of how to implement these technologies.
Genetic research is potentially at least an order of magnitude more destructive than nuclear weapons, and surely you're not opposed to public discussion on the ramifications of that technology?
It sounds like you might be mistaking me for a Fundamentalist Republican, which is pretty damn funny since I'm an atheist Libertarian.
Seriously though, there are actually useful applications for identd, and most involve making sure you legitimately use the machine in question, and it's not just redirecting traffic on a certain port.
Except it doesn't do that, and never did.
If you can redirect one port, you can redirect two just as easily.
Ironically, Americans aren't worried about the technological issues that are seriously changing their lives, and will increase in impact in the future, but are all in a tizzy about global warming, which is bullshit.
But what do you expect, when most of us are products of the government schools?
I'm sorry, I know this is Anti-Open-Source (TM), but I think that GAIM is clearly trademark infringement. Adding one letter does not mean you're safe, any more than a clone of Windows named GWindows would be reasonable.
If adding one letter doesn't protect you, then subtracting one wouldn't have allowed Microsoft to trademark "Windows".
You have to jump through install hoops, the sound doesn't work, and it's only got one mouse button.
If that's the best, then all the rest must suck pretty bad.
Sorry, my Thinkpad 760EL works a lot better than that.
I don't doubt that it's flaming fast for a laptop with that processor, and I'll even give you "the prettiest", although a lot of people find the iBooks to be butt-ugly (I'm not among them), but "the best"? Cut back on the crack, yer startin' to hallucinate.
This mindset of "I don't like it, so let's make it illegal and enforce that law at gunpoint" is destroying this country.
It's creating a nation of sheep who think they exist to serve the government, not vice versa, and it's also making that government so huge that already the MAJORITY of our income goes to governmental entities at the federal and state level, instead of going toward our own futures and those of our children.
Every time you bitch about some stupid, ill-considered law that bothers you, look back to statements like yours above as a major reason they exist.
What if I happen to look like some murderer or DMCA offender?
The exact same thing happens to you that would happen to you now if a cop walking by thought you looked like some murderer.
Only, less often, since the software is more accurate.
A human being would be told you were a possible match, and would then look at the picture and see for himself if he though you were a match. If he did, a cop (or more than one) would stop you and ask you to produce ID. If your ID were convincing, they'd send you on your way with a brief apology. Exactly like happens now.
If you couldn't produce ID, or they thought it was fake, you'd be arrested, exactly like happens now.
Like it or not, under the law as it stands now, looking like somebody who committed a crime IS legally probable cause for being detained.
Standing in public is probable cause for being looked at, too. How could it be otherwise?
You know, we occasionally have glowing articles about cool technology that will allow us to have "mediated reality" where everybody who wants one can see the world through a camera, processing and editting it to your tastes.
I guess we're all OK with that as long as cops aren't allowed to use it, right?
Got a webcam? Are you getting everybody who passes by to sign a waiver, allowing you to put their image on the Internet? Do you require a statement from anybody who logs on to view it, certifiying that they're not a law enforcement officer?
Privacy is something very important, that you have when you're in private. When you're in public, you give up quite a bit of your privacy, necessarily. The right not to be seen is among those small sacrifices.
A.I. - Ho hum, Asimov's Frankenstein complex is in full force. Despite nearly every robotics (a word Asimov coined), despite every robotics major ANYwhere having read his robot novels, somehow they forgot the laws of robotics. D'OH!!
You know, this constant harping on the "Laws of Robotics" every time someone writes a story about robots really bugs me.
First off, Asimov wasn't doing research into robotics, he was writing stories. FICTION stories. His conclusions shouldn't be the be-all and end-all of artificial intelligence research. The three laws are flawed, as even Asimov himself admitted when he was forced to create a Zeroeth Law for his own stories.
Secondly, were we to decide that the Three Laws were indeed necessary and sufficient, that doesn't guarantee that we could implement them in any meaningful way, or that we'd do so bug-free. A robot's program is going to be incredibly complex, and no human endeavor that complex will be free of mistakes.
Hell, if nothing else, can't a story be good because it serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of NOT following Asimov's train of thought? We made them too smart, too fast, too many to properly restrict them? We needed them *NOW*, not after perfecting Asimov circuits?
David was obviously built to not deliberately hurt humans, he says that he'll "get in trouble". When he pulls Martin into the pool, it doesn't look like he's trying to hurt him; it looks like he's unaware that doing so WILL hurt him. Asimov circuits won't help a robot not cause inadvertent harm, even if implemented perfectly.
Slashdot Mirror
It is exactly that attitude that makes Gnome unusable to the average PC user.
Uh huh. That's why the folks in this study said these horrible things about Gnome:
"The basic feel was fairly intuitive; the menus were where I expected them to be."
"It was easy to find things, like Windows. I can relate to everything."
"It is like a cross between Windows and a Mac. It looks like it is designed for everybody."
Yes, despite all that, the fact that we think it's funny that folks would ask what an icon labelled "terminal emulator" launches, when it launches a terminal emulator, will doom this user interface to only being used by niche companies like IBM, HP, Sun Microsystems, etc.
-
I should add this, which makes this look like an even smaller operation than it already does:
.com, .net, and .org domains can now be registered
.COM, .NET, .ORG, .EDU domains and
$ whois linuxda.com
[whois.crsnic.net]
Whois Server Version 1.3
Domain names in the
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.
Domain Name: LINUXDA.COM
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com
Name Server: ANTARES.STARCON.COM
Name Server: STARRUNNER.STARCON.COM
Updated Date: 17-apr-2000
>>> Last update of whois database: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 01:56:11 EDT
The Registry database contains ONLY
Registrars.
[whois.networksolutions.com]
The Data in Network Solutions' WHOIS database is provided by Network
Solutions for information purposes, and to assist persons in obtaining
information about or related to a domain name registration record.
Network Solutions does not guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a
WHOIS query, you agree that you will use this Data only for lawful
purposes and that, under no circumstances will you use this Data to:
(1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass
unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail
(spam); or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes
that apply to Network Solutions (or its systems). Network Solutions
reserves the right to modify these terms at any time. By submitting
this query, you agree to abide by this policy.
Registrant:
LEUNG, PAUL (LINUXDA-DOM)
UNIT 120, 13551 VERDUN PLACE
RICHMOND, BC V6V 1W5,
CA
Domain Name: LINUXDA.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Billing Contact:
LEUNG, PAUL (PLJ76) aem_admin@AMIPO.COM
LEUNG, PAUL
UNIT 120, 13551 VERDUN PLACE
RICHMOND
BC
V6V 1W5
CA
604 649 8883 (FAX) 604 278 3102
Record last updated on 17-Apr-2000.
Record expires on 16-Dec-2001.
Record created on 16-Dec-1999.
Database last updated on 18-Jul-2001 21:35:00 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
STARRUNNER.STARCON.COM 207.230.244.2
ANTARES.STARCON.COM 208.181.131.6
-
Learn to use the tools, children:
.com, .net, and .org domains can now be registered
.COM, .NET, .ORG, .EDU domains and
$ whois empower-technologies.com
[whois.crsnic.net]
Whois Server Version 1.3
Domain names in the
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.
Domain Name: EMPOWER-TECHNOLOGIES.COM
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com
Name Server: ANTARES.STARCON.COM
Name Server: STARRUNNER.STARCON.COM
Updated Date: 13-feb-2001
>>> Last update of whois database: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 02:02:47 EDT
The Registry database contains ONLY
Registrars.
[whois.networksolutions.com]
The Data in Network Solutions' WHOIS database is provided by Network
Solutions for information purposes, and to assist persons in obtaining
information about or related to a domain name registration record.
Network Solutions does not guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a
WHOIS query, you agree that you will use this Data only for lawful
purposes and that, under no circumstances will you use this Data to:
(1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass
unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail
(spam); or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes
that apply to Network Solutions (or its systems). Network Solutions
reserves the right to modify these terms at any time. By submitting
this query, you agree to abide by this policy.
Registrant:
LINUX DA INC. (EMPOWERTECHNOLOGIES2-DOM)
Unit 120, 13551 Verdun Place
RICHMOND, B.C. V6V 1W5
CA
Domain Name: EMPOWER-TECHNOLOGIES.COM
Administrative Contact, Billing Contact:
LINUX DA INC. (LD2286-ORG) no.valid.email@worldnic.net
LINUX DA INC.
Unit 120, 13551 Verdun Place
RICHMOND, B.C. V6V 1W5
CA
604 278 3100 fax: 604 278 3102
Technical Contact:
WorldNIC Name Host (HOST-ORG) namehost@WORLDNIC.COM
Network Solutions, Inc.
505 Huntmar Park Drive
Herndon, VA 20170-5142
1-888-642-9675
Record last updated on 13-Feb-2001.
Record expires on 18-Jan-2002.
Record created on 18-Jan-2001.
Database last updated on 18-Jul-2001 05:14:00 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
STARRUNNER.STARCON.COM 207.230.244.2
ANTARES.STARCON.COM 208.181.131.6
-
Windows ships without a C compiler, but that didn't kill C. (And yes, I realize you don't need special software to RUN the C programs.)
All the major web browsers can download this stuff automagically, and that's what will happen. XP systems will be without Java for about five minutes after they're first turned on.
This means nothing for Java.
-
What he's doing is removing all the fans from the supercomputers, which quickly causes them to generate a very realistic model of fire.
And remember, if you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day; but if you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for a lifetime.
-
Exactly. Those wireless folks are going to need a fat pipe to the Internet, and they're going to need it at a rate that UUNet et al won't touch.
This will be the excuse that will let some rural ISPs afford to upgrade to that T3 they've been wanting, so they can sell a few T1s out of it without crowding it too much.
-
What idiot modded the parent post as "Troll?"
Don't worry about it, said idiot has lost shit-tons of karma.
-
The present ABM treaty has helped us assure some peace for the last 30 years.
Actually, the present ABM treaty has only prevented the US from developing anti-missile systems. The Soviets were violating it the whole time.
So it can hardly be credited with keeping the peace.
If you can argue that they are important for people (as opposed to imperialistic plutocrats and the military-industrial complex ) than why wouldnt America, as a memeber of the UN (or some other complete and inclusive agency) ask to have this system built and deployed the whole world over?
For the same reasons we don't deploy our Army in every country; it's incredibly expensive beyond the point of being possible, and because it's none of our goddamn business.
For 50 years, we've maintained nuclear peace by being able to thoroughly destroy anybody who attacked us. Now, we're beginning to make steps towards instead being able to defend against the destruction in the first place.
I don't think the average informed citizen of, say, Switzerland would rather we were able to destroy the world than shoot down some missiles.
And remember, the opposition to this system in the '60s was based on the (probably correct) premise that we couldn't shoot down every missile in a massive Soviet attack. That was the threat we faced back then.
The threat we face now is a North Korean attack involving a couple of missiles. A system that is only 1% effective is better than nothing in that case, and a system that is only 99% effective more than good enough for the job, AGAINST THAT LIMITED THREAT ONLY.
The argument against this defense (it'll result in people building more nukes) is the same kind of fuzzy thinking that argued that cops shouldn't wear bulletproof vests, because it'll lead to criminals buying armor piercing ammo. The actual result was nothing of the sort, because AP ammo is expensive. The same thing will guarantee that Iran, for instance, doesn't counter this by building a multi-trillion dollar massive nuclear capability; they just plain can't afford it.
-
Think that's weird? According to a friend of mine (who is not a lawyer, but his wife is an educator for "special needs" children), in Florida it's legal to record video, except you can't record video of a retarded child without permission from their legal guardian.
So your webcam is perfectly legal, unless a retarded child walks by.
That information is third-hand, and I can't provide a citation, so don't hack on me too much if it's wrong...
-
Most of the US is like that, too. Canada tends to pass national laws, but the US Constitutionally leaves most questions to the states.
So what you should have said is "Massachusetts is weird."
And, you'd be right; we have a certain bunch of states that tend to have weird-ass laws that don't reflect the rest of the country. Massachusetts is among them. More power to 'em; they can have whatever laws they want, without affecting me.
-
Is there a reason the machine farm couldn't be located in BFE?
Only one, and it's not insurmountable; bandwidth costs an arm, a leg, and your left nut in BFE.
-
All these Linux-based appliances are failing for one reason:
They're Linux-based appliances first, appliances second.
Come in with a sound business plan and a device that fills a niche, and happen to use Linux on it, and you'll clean up.
Come in with Linux in your head and try to build a "cool" device, then try and graft on a half-ass business plan, and you'll fail.
Duh.
-
Maybe we can use this water to clean up that ring of debris around Uranus.
-
Your box can do it now; it's just that you probably don't have the artistic talent (no offense), and it'd take your box a hundred years to render it all.
But get a few dozen more like yours, and some artists who can cut the mustard, and you too can produce those kind of fantastic graphics. All that hardware and talent will cost you as much as it cost them, of course.
-
Now, instead of being cute, a good actor needs to have good acting skills, and an in-depth knowledge of the tools. Actors and animators will merge into one profession, where you are cast to render and animate a particular character that you specialize in.
That's what people thought would happen with radio, but it only happened in the lower end of the profession.
On the high end, the best voice talents work with top engineers, and each is a specialist in his piece of the pie.
I think that's more likely to be the model that will come of this; a voice actor will become associated with an animator, and they'll work together.
-
Explain bullshit, scumfucker.
Gladly, troll. I'm clearly using it as a noun here, and according to dictionary.com:
bullshit Vulgar Slang
n.
1. Foolish, deceitful, or boastful language.
2. Something worthless, deceptive, or insincere.
3. Insolent talk or behavior.
Either of the first two applies.
In the future, if you don't understand a word, you should try the services of Dictionary.com. They aren't perfect, but they're better than having to ask on public message forums.
-
I can't quite figure out what you're trying to imply here. That all the technology that we create is somehow going to destroy us all?
Clearly, you are correct; you can't figure it out.
I'll requote myself:
Ironically, Americans aren't worried about the technological issues that are seriously changing their lives, and will increase in impact in the future.
You don't think genetic research and artificial intelligence will change our lives? Do you think computers haven't? How about the germ theory of disease transmission? Didn't that change our lives?
I don't think advances in genetic research and artificial intelligence can help but change our lives, drastically. Each has the potential to eliminate poverty, or eliminate mankind, if the right mistakes are made.
Do you honestly think that suggesting people ought to be more concerned with discussing these issues, instead of worrying that their SUV is going to destroy the world, somehow makes me a Luddite? Get real.
Experimentation and improvement is the foundation of the human nature. Clubs worked much better than fists to kill things. If it weren't for that kind of innovation the carrying capacity of earth would be MUCH smaller than it is now, by several orders of magnitude.
I 100% agree. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be talking about the moral implications of how to implement these technologies.
Genetic research is potentially at least an order of magnitude more destructive than nuclear weapons, and surely you're not opposed to public discussion on the ramifications of that technology?
It sounds like you might be mistaking me for a Fundamentalist Republican, which is pretty damn funny since I'm an atheist Libertarian.
-
Seriously though, there are actually useful applications for identd, and most involve making sure you legitimately use the machine in question, and it's not just redirecting traffic on a certain port.
Except it doesn't do that, and never did.
If you can redirect one port, you can redirect two just as easily.
-
Ironically, Americans aren't worried about the technological issues that are seriously changing their lives, and will increase in impact in the future, but are all in a tizzy about global warming, which is bullshit.
But what do you expect, when most of us are products of the government schools?
-
I'm sorry, I know this is Anti-Open-Source (TM), but I think that GAIM is clearly trademark infringement. Adding one letter does not mean you're safe, any more than a clone of Windows named GWindows would be reasonable.
If adding one letter doesn't protect you, then subtracting one wouldn't have allowed Microsoft to trademark "Windows".
-
Are you kidding?
You have to jump through install hoops, the sound doesn't work, and it's only got one mouse button.
If that's the best, then all the rest must suck pretty bad.
Sorry, my Thinkpad 760EL works a lot better than that.
I don't doubt that it's flaming fast for a laptop with that processor, and I'll even give you "the prettiest", although a lot of people find the iBooks to be butt-ugly (I'm not among them), but "the best"? Cut back on the crack, yer startin' to hallucinate.
-
I wholeheartedly support banning of ALL rebates.
I was right with you, up until that.
This mindset of "I don't like it, so let's make it illegal and enforce that law at gunpoint" is destroying this country.
It's creating a nation of sheep who think they exist to serve the government, not vice versa, and it's also making that government so huge that already the MAJORITY of our income goes to governmental entities at the federal and state level, instead of going toward our own futures and those of our children.
Every time you bitch about some stupid, ill-considered law that bothers you, look back to statements like yours above as a major reason they exist.
-
There are lots of things which priviate citizens are allowed to do which the goverenment is not.
Looking at people as they pass by isn't one of them.
-
What if I happen to look like some murderer or DMCA offender?
The exact same thing happens to you that would happen to you now if a cop walking by thought you looked like some murderer.
Only, less often, since the software is more accurate.
A human being would be told you were a possible match, and would then look at the picture and see for himself if he though you were a match. If he did, a cop (or more than one) would stop you and ask you to produce ID. If your ID were convincing, they'd send you on your way with a brief apology. Exactly like happens now.
If you couldn't produce ID, or they thought it was fake, you'd be arrested, exactly like happens now.
Like it or not, under the law as it stands now, looking like somebody who committed a crime IS legally probable cause for being detained.
Standing in public is probable cause for being looked at, too. How could it be otherwise?
You know, we occasionally have glowing articles about cool technology that will allow us to have "mediated reality" where everybody who wants one can see the world through a camera, processing and editting it to your tastes.
I guess we're all OK with that as long as cops aren't allowed to use it, right?
Got a webcam? Are you getting everybody who passes by to sign a waiver, allowing you to put their image on the Internet? Do you require a statement from anybody who logs on to view it, certifiying that they're not a law enforcement officer?
Privacy is something very important, that you have when you're in private. When you're in public, you give up quite a bit of your privacy, necessarily. The right not to be seen is among those small sacrifices.
-
A.I. - Ho hum, Asimov's Frankenstein complex is in full force. Despite nearly every robotics (a word Asimov coined), despite every robotics major ANYwhere having read his robot novels, somehow they forgot the laws of robotics. D'OH!!
You know, this constant harping on the "Laws of Robotics" every time someone writes a story about robots really bugs me.
First off, Asimov wasn't doing research into robotics, he was writing stories. FICTION stories. His conclusions shouldn't be the be-all and end-all of artificial intelligence research. The three laws are flawed, as even Asimov himself admitted when he was forced to create a Zeroeth Law for his own stories.
Secondly, were we to decide that the Three Laws were indeed necessary and sufficient, that doesn't guarantee that we could implement them in any meaningful way, or that we'd do so bug-free. A robot's program is going to be incredibly complex, and no human endeavor that complex will be free of mistakes.
Hell, if nothing else, can't a story be good because it serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of NOT following Asimov's train of thought? We made them too smart, too fast, too many to properly restrict them? We needed them *NOW*, not after perfecting Asimov circuits?
David was obviously built to not deliberately hurt humans, he says that he'll "get in trouble". When he pulls Martin into the pool, it doesn't look like he's trying to hurt him; it looks like he's unaware that doing so WILL hurt him. Asimov circuits won't help a robot not cause inadvertent harm, even if implemented perfectly.
-