Except that Harvard is not an ISP, its a University. Where freedom of speech is supposed to be sacred and protected. This just demonstrates that Harvard has no spine and only holds that ideal up when it suits them. Political Correctness at its finest. -- Python
Whereas it is criminal to violate copyright laws, it is not immoral. There is a big difference between the two concepts. Its wrong IMHO, but its being illegal does not automatically make it immoral (some laws are immoral!). -- Python
You people just don't get it, do you?
on
Why Kids Kill
·
· Score: 1
Nah, then the nut cases would just use bombs and kill hundreds of people. -- Python
No thanks. We have more civil rights than you do. Like the right against unreasonable search and seizure - something you can't enjoy or do anything about in the UK.
Not to mention theres that whole paying taxes to keep the royals living in luxury. No thanks I'll pass on that too. (I don't like the idea of being treated like a peasant)
And the right to bear arms is not a peculiarity of the USA. Many other countries REQUIRE their citizens to be armed, while other prohibit it and use it crush any opposition to their despotic rule. Could that happen inthe USA? Probably not, but the same thing has been said in other countries where it did happen.
Somehow this country was heavily armed for hundreds of years, and yet we didn't have this sort of violence happening. Its not the guns, thats too simple of an answer. The real answer is complicated and multi-facted.
Simple solution. Send the same data out to multiple clients. They should all come back with the same results. This is good scientific method anyway, it verifies that the clients are working and keeps human factors to a minimum.
Regardless, the data should be analyzed many times by different groups to keep the results honest and error free. Its the Scientific method!:-) -- Python
So its not OK to point out this was a bogus marketing test? It was. Its not OK to point that this is Junk Science? It is. The Hardware is not equivalent, and the test itself is a bit unrealistic. 32 clients? What did they do regress the test until they found a client connection rate that produced the results they liked? Where is all the data to back up their claims? Do their conclusions follow from all the data, or did they hunt for some data that validated their conclusion and discarded any that didn't? I'd love to see the real numbers, then I could make an informed decision based on this - but this press release is nothing to make any sort of informed decision on - regardless of who wrote it.
This is not science, this is junk science. You have to publish your methodology, your numbers, be rigorous in your methods (double blind the test) and everything has to be equal. Linux runs on PPCs, so why not run the test on the same hardware? Some people probably had knee jerk reactions to this test, but you would be the first to bash a test when someone said "A 667 Mhz Alpha running Linux out performed a PII450 running Windows NT!" They're not valid comparisions, the hardware is not the same. Maybe the PII is a dog compared to the G3. Apple certainly claims this. So if we take Apple at their own word, the test is invalid. The G3 is always going to win (or so Apple claims).
Why would this be whining to point out their junk science? I'll be the first to point out bad reasoning and bogus results anywhere I see them - including within the Linux community. I do this as part of my research all the time. I'm a pretty big skeptic of my own work. It keeps us honest, because we want our products/research to be the best and human beings sometimes look past results that don't conform to what we already believe. Its a classic problem with all sciences. Thats why we have to use riguous controls and methods to prevent this from happening.
So don't you know how these things are done in a commercial software and hardware company? These tests are always carefully done, and redone internally until the company gets results they like. And if they get results they don't like, they never publish those results and they don't ask third parties to do those same "tests".
After the company has come up with a testing criteria that gives them the results they want, they pay a third party to perform the exact same test and even then, the company only publishes the results when they are favorable. The third party testing company does not have the rights to publish the results - and this is a condition of getting paid! This is called junk science. Look hard enough and you can find some data to support your conclusions, and then you just discard all the data that runs counter to your pet hypothesis. Thats called junk science.
I'm sure OS X is a fast OS, its a UNIX variant - so what do you expect? Its a real OS, like Linux, Solaris, BSD, DU, and others. It better be fast. The G3 is supposed to be a fast as hell chip, and apple claims that its faster than the PII450 - os what do you expect? The G3 should out perform the PII450 - by Apples own admission! So this test is bogus on that count alone, the equipment (Apple said it first!) is not equivalent, and the test criteria are questionable at best (32 clients? I smell something fishy here). -- Python
In DC, where Al Gore is and lives, its pronounced ROWT, not root. The point is that the guy doesn't know what a router is, which is evidenced by a number of things not the least of which is that he doesn't even know how to pronounce it. And since Al Gore is an American, and since he lives in DC, and since its pronounced ROWTER in Washington DC, and the rest of the United States, and since the CEO of Cisco systems, the company that INVENTED the router was being introduced (and pronouces the word ROWTER - ask him sometime), and since Cisco Systems pronounces the word ROWTER (I work there) it stands to reason that Al Gore had no idea what he was talking about or what it is that Cisco makes - and in turn, that means Al Gore knows little about the Internet (the dolt couldn't even figure out how to use his Mac at the White House!). Which was the whole point of the article, how can the guy "invent" the Internet when he knows nothing about it, and can't even get simple things straight like how to pronounce things like router. Al Gore is not british - hes an American - and thats how we pronounce router here. Sheesh.
Damn, why the hell do people have to nit pick these things to death. Its not that fsking complicated.
Sure, and with his Clipper Chip it will be even more friendly! Having actually worked for Al Gore back in 94-95, I can tell you that he is just as clueless as every other poilitician about the Internet. When we move www.whitehouse.gov to the White House (it used to be at JPL), and redesigned the site, Al Gore went out to CA to present "Welcome to the White House" to the world.
Not only did he not know what a hyperlink was, but he couldn't even figure out that he was supposed to CLICK on hyperlinks! After he was told several times, coached, helped, scripted and everything else someone off screen finally had to move the mouse around because he was so freaking clueless. Al Gore is just another in a long line of scum sucking politicians trying to take credit for other peoples work. (And yes, I consider most - if not all - politicians to be scum sucking parasites).
Al Gore is fucking clueless about the Internet. He doesn't even read his own e-mail! Its screened and anything he does get is printed out on paper! He doesn't like to use computers! Ugh... hes a PHB at best.
As a practicing astronomer, I can tell you how great it would be to put a nice big dish or optical telescope on the dark side of the moon. Just think of all the wonderfully unobstructed skies! And how big you could make your mirrors (heck... lenses!) on the moon (less gravitational distortion) and you would have the resources there to do it. What a great place to do some serious science!
You could automate the station, but it would make alot more sense to send the scientists there to maintain the station (everything breaks...).
I hear what you're saying, we spend so little on good research and seem to squander it on seemingly ridiculous jaunts into space - but its those jaunts that keep the tax payers interested in paying for the BORING research. And very now and then you can couple the two. You have - or the money just won't flow.
And NASA does sometimes blow money on projects just because it has it (as in the Space Pen project... the Russians used pencils! It cost us a million bucks to develop a pen that could write in space - and the Russians solved the problem for free by using PENCILS!) But this problem is, IMHO, caused by Government bureacrats and the convulted process the government uses to "solve" problems.
Why is Wica any more nonsense than Christianity or Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism, Shinto, etc?
I didn't say it was. All of those are belief system based on mythological stories and faith. None of which provides one shread of proof for any of the subnatural things they claim. In short, they are all equally silly. Believe what you, but we should only care about what you can *prove*. I find it highly ironic that Rebecca rails against "orgainzed religion" when, apparently, she practices one of the older organized religions - Wica. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.
Personal beliefs are exactly that, and while may embarrass or bother you, it's not exactly as if she or anyone else is forcing it upon you.
I didn't say she was. I mearly called her rationality and ability to be skeptical and logical into question. Her beliefs neither bother me nor embarrass me. Its just disappointing to see such an intelligent person believing in things that are nothing but whimsical fancy. Care to challenge that? Great, prove some of these magical things to be real. Publish the results in a peer reviewed and serious scientific journal.
Myself I don't really know the precepts of Wica, except one of my friends dabbles/is interested in it, but that doesn't detract any more than another of my friends being Christian or Buddhist, or preferring Red Hat to Debian to SuSE, or liking pork over chicken over tofu.
Indeed. But if I said I believed the tooth fairy was real, wouldn't you think twice about other things I profess to be true? Then why is it that when people believe in other silly things, like invisible gods that pat you on the head and make the faces of their sons appear in a Tortilla, or the SeCkRiT OT Powers of a Scientologist, or the professed ability of some "psychic" to see the future we consider that to not be grounds for questioning this persons grip on reality? I have no beef with any particular belief system. I just think they are no way to figure things out, and should certainly not be the basis for understanding the word. Intelligent people along time ago agreed to the following two rules.
1) the burden of proof rests with the affirmative. 2) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
So I wonder about the rationality of someone that believes such wierd and silly things. I understand why people believe these things, but it doesnt mean that I should consider those people the best judges of the validty of other, possibly more important things. Its all the more ironic that someone which professes to be so learned, would believe in things that most of the rest of us recognize as the bunk that it is.
Astrology is only as bunk as believing in a hellfire and brimstone God, Hell, and Heavan
Couldn't agree with you more. They all sound pretty bunk to me. Wheres the proof?
or in little tiny partially charged wave-particles interacting via strange carriers to produce forces of interactions, repulsion, attraction, and other things.
Considering the large body of evidence and reproducible experiments that validate these theories, I would certainly not put this in the same category as Astrology. I suggest you read up a little on the current state of physics.
I myself don't believe in astrology, but I also don't believe in Hell, eternal damnation, or eternal paradise. I believe in an afterlife and a soul, and other things, but there is no proof to them.
So thats what you believe and not what you can prove. So why should we consider your beliefs to be anything by whimsical fancy? Why do you not require proof before you believe those things, and you would (I hope) require proof that a car you are buying really does have X miles on it, before you believe that it really is worth Y? Perhaps you're not as rational as you might believe. Its nice to think that something happens to us after we die, other than just decaying, but its no more valid that any other belief, like the tooth fairy, without proof.
A person is a bundle of contradictions, paradoxes, and misleading beliefs-but don't hold it agains her or anyone else, since everyone is like that, even you...
Everyone holds beliefs that are not true. Thats because we're irrational, illogical, emmotional and thick headed creatures. But thats no excuse for embracing silly ideas, poor reasoning or making exceptions for weak and impoverished ideas deduced from any number of fallacious arguments - just because we it might challenge our cherished belief system to do otherwise. The truth is HARD to find and requires one to set aside ones *beliefs*, think rationally, logically and work within the scientific method - and even then to look harder. The worlds problems are the products of poor and short-term thinking. We could do well to challenge ourselves to think rationally and be a little bit more skeptical about things we believe to be true. -- Python
Well, its just so hard to take you seriously when you believe in such archaric nonsense as Wica and Astrology. As skeptical as you seem to be about a lot of things, it strikes me as odd that you would not invoke that same skepticism there. Consistency is a pretty good measure of quality.
Generally, I find your articles to be well written, intelligent and thought provoking. But you have to admit that your not exactly the most technical person, and in the world of journalism too many articles are written by quasi-technical journalists that miss the point.
Its good to see that you're hip enough to read Slashdot (not that association equals rightness)... now if you could just do something about the flim-flam that you believe in...
Read a book on Physics sometime - astrology is bunk! Ugh... why do otherwise intelligent people believe such demonstrably wrong things?
I doubt that. Rebecca is an intelligent woman to be sure, but she has some very silly beliefs - like astrology for instance that really call her common sense into question.
Rebecca likes to think of herself as a knowledgable, well read and intelligent person, and in some areas there is little reason to doubt it. But shes handicapped by an arrogance that causes her to internalize beliefs that agree with the ones she already holds, and to generally dismiss things which disagree with here beliefs. In short, as smart as she is, her method for arriving at conclusions is seriously flawed (shes a lawyer afterall not a scientist or someone trained to think logically).
Rebecca has a tendency to spout out off at the mouth (on TV!) about things she barely understands (like her tirades about Java, when she knows almost nothing about Java - or Operating Systems she doesn't run - like Linux, or Solaris or even Windows for example.) Its really a quirk that she is considered a "Technology Consultant" when she has barely any skills or qualifications to justify such a position. Becky is a well read Lawyer with a real gift for gab, but a technologist she is not.
Rebecca is a cool chick IMHO, but shes not as smart as she pretends to be. (Read about how she got mugged - what the hell was she thinking? She was careless, and was lucky that something worse didnt happen, like rape or death perhaps.) I think all that Ivy league education went to her head and now she thinks she can think no wrong. Catch her on Silicon Spin (on ZDTV... I know... ZD=clueless, but sometimes you have to watch the clueless and correct them to make sure they dont hurt themselves.) She has some interesting comments, but they come largely from seondary sources - and not conclusions she herself has arrived at. In short, nice to look at, but nothing substantive to say on technology issues.
A cool chick, no doubt, but astrology? Come on Rebecca!
-- Python
"better things to do than have kids"
on
Wired on RMS
·
· Score: 1
""Breeding" is the most important thing humans do - that's not opinion, that's biology.
Most Important? Thats a value judgement my friend, not a fact. If we took your advice, and just started cranking out kids without any thought for the fact that an infinite number of people can not live on a finite planet, we will surely all perish. Such a myopic view of the world you have. Our natural resources are not infinite and a such, no matter how much you want it to be true, the planet Earth can not support an ever increasing population.
1) I have a high and tight hair cut (no long hair here). 2) Wear T-shirts, Blue Jeans and boots (to work no less!) 3) Ride a new Harley (99 Fat Boy... oh yeah! I wish it would freaking warm up outside so I can ride.) 4) Run Linux because I have no tolerance for machines that crash. I have work to do, and rebooting is not what I consider an efficient use of my valuable time. 5) Oh yeah... and I'm not a hippie. Since I spent 10 years in the Infantry... I think that rules out the tree hugging hippie label.
So.. I guess the Berkeley grad, pony tail wearing, goatee sporting, berkenstock wearing hippie Sterotype doesn't fit here either. (I hate stereotypes.) Even though I've been hacking since I was eight (which was a VERY long time ago, lets just say that 50 baud was FAST back then.)
Slashdot Mirror
Except that Harvard is not an ISP, its a University. Where freedom of speech is supposed to be sacred and protected. This just demonstrates that Harvard has no spine and only holds that ideal up when it suits them. Political Correctness at its finest.
--
Python
Whereas it is criminal to violate copyright laws, it is not immoral. There is a big difference between the two concepts. Its wrong IMHO, but its being illegal does not automatically make it immoral (some laws are immoral!).
--
Python
Nah, then the nut cases would just use bombs and kill hundreds of people.
--
Python
Its not as simple as trying to take the guns away. There is no rational explanation for why this happened.
--
Python
Not to mention theres that whole paying taxes to keep the royals living in luxury. No thanks I'll pass on that too. (I don't like the idea of being treated like a peasant)
And the right to bear arms is not a peculiarity of the USA. Many other countries REQUIRE their citizens to be armed, while other prohibit it and use it crush any opposition to their despotic rule. Could that happen inthe USA? Probably not, but the same thing has been said in other countries where it did happen.
Somehow this country was heavily armed for hundreds of years, and yet we didn't have this sort of violence happening. Its not the guns, thats too simple of an answer. The real answer is complicated and multi-facted.
--
Python
Regardless, the data should be analyzed many times by different groups to keep the results honest and error free. Its the Scientific method! :-)
--
Python
Ad hominem. Last resort of the weak minded.
So its not OK to point out this was a bogus marketing test? It was. Its not OK to point that this is Junk Science? It is. The Hardware is not equivalent, and the test itself is a bit unrealistic. 32 clients? What did they do regress the test until they found a client connection rate that produced the results they liked? Where is all the data to back up their claims? Do their conclusions follow from all the data, or did they hunt for some data that validated their conclusion and discarded any that didn't? I'd love to see the real numbers, then I could make an informed decision based on this - but this press release is nothing to make any sort of informed decision on - regardless of who wrote it.
This is not science, this is junk science. You have to publish your methodology, your numbers, be rigorous in your methods (double blind the test) and everything has to be equal. Linux runs on PPCs, so why not run the test on the same hardware? Some people probably had knee jerk reactions to this test, but you would be the first to bash a test when someone said "A 667 Mhz Alpha running Linux out performed a PII450 running Windows NT!" They're not valid comparisions, the hardware is not the same. Maybe the PII is a dog compared to the G3. Apple certainly claims this. So if we take Apple at their own word, the test is invalid. The G3 is always going to win (or so Apple claims).
Why would this be whining to point out their junk science? I'll be the first to point out bad reasoning and bogus results anywhere I see them - including within the Linux community. I do this as part of my research all the time. I'm a pretty big skeptic of my own work. It keeps us honest, because we want our products/research to be the best and human beings sometimes look past results that don't conform to what we already believe. Its a classic problem with all sciences. Thats why we have to use riguous controls and methods to prevent this from happening.
So don't you know how these things are done in a commercial software and hardware company? These tests are always carefully done, and redone internally until the company gets results they like. And if they get results they don't like, they never publish those results and they don't ask third parties to do those same "tests".
After the company has come up with a testing criteria that gives them the results they want, they pay a third party to perform the exact same test and even then, the company only publishes the results when they are favorable. The third party testing company does not have the rights to publish the results - and this is a condition of getting paid! This is called junk science. Look hard enough and you can find some data to support your conclusions, and then you just discard all the data that runs counter to your pet hypothesis. Thats called junk science.
I'm sure OS X is a fast OS, its a UNIX variant - so what do you expect? Its a real OS, like Linux, Solaris, BSD, DU, and others. It better be fast. The G3 is supposed to be a fast as hell chip, and apple claims that its faster than the PII450 - os what do you expect? The G3 should out perform the PII450 - by Apples own admission! So this test is bogus on that count alone, the equipment (Apple said it first!) is not equivalent, and the test criteria are questionable at best (32 clients? I smell something fishy here).
--
Python
In DC, where Al Gore is and lives, its pronounced ROWT, not root. The point is that the guy doesn't know what a router is, which is evidenced by a number of things not the least of which is that he doesn't even know how to pronounce it. And since Al Gore is an American, and since he lives in DC, and since its pronounced ROWTER in Washington DC, and the rest of the United States, and since the CEO of Cisco systems, the company that INVENTED the router was being introduced (and pronouces the word ROWTER - ask him sometime), and since Cisco Systems pronounces the word ROWTER (I work there) it stands to reason that Al Gore had no idea what he was talking about or what it is that Cisco makes - and in turn, that means Al Gore knows little about the Internet (the dolt couldn't even figure out how to use his Mac at the White House!). Which was the whole point of the article, how can the guy "invent" the Internet when he knows nothing about it, and can't even get simple things straight like how to pronounce things like router. Al Gore is not british - hes an American - and thats how we pronounce router here. Sheesh.
Damn, why the hell do people have to nit pick these things to death. Its not that fsking complicated.
--
Python
Not only did he not know what a hyperlink was, but he couldn't even figure out that he was supposed to CLICK on hyperlinks! After he was told several times, coached, helped, scripted and everything else someone off screen finally had to move the mouse around because he was so freaking clueless.
Al Gore is just another in a long line of scum sucking politicians trying to take credit for other peoples work. (And yes, I consider most - if not all - politicians to be scum sucking parasites).
Al Gore is fucking clueless about the Internet. He doesn't even read his own e-mail! Its screened and anything he does get is printed out on paper! He doesn't like to use computers! Ugh... hes a PHB at best.
--
Python
Nonsense. Inside Cisco its pronounced ROUTER. Not ROOTER. Gee, but I guess I wouldn't know - I just WORK THERE.
--
Python
As a practicing astronomer, I can tell you how great it would be to put a nice big dish or optical telescope on the dark side of the moon. Just think of all the wonderfully unobstructed skies! And how big you could make your mirrors (heck... lenses!) on the moon (less gravitational distortion) and you would have the resources there to do it. What a great place to do some serious science!
You could automate the station, but it would make alot more sense to send the scientists there to maintain the station (everything breaks...).
I hear what you're saying, we spend so little on good research and seem to squander it on seemingly ridiculous jaunts into space - but its those jaunts that keep the tax payers interested in paying for the BORING research. And very now and then you can couple the two. You have - or the money just won't flow.
And NASA does sometimes blow money on projects just because it has it (as in the Space Pen project... the Russians used pencils! It cost us a million bucks to develop a pen that could write in space - and the Russians solved the problem for free by using PENCILS!) But this problem is, IMHO, caused by Government bureacrats and the convulted process the government uses to "solve"
problems.
--
Python
--
Python
I didn't say it was. All of those are belief system based on mythological stories and faith. None of which provides one shread of proof for any of the subnatural things they claim. In short, they are all equally silly. Believe what you, but we should only care about what you can *prove*. I find it highly ironic that Rebecca rails against "orgainzed religion" when, apparently, she practices one of the older organized religions - Wica. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.
Personal beliefs are exactly that, and while may embarrass or bother you, it's not exactly as if she or anyone else is forcing it upon you.
I didn't say she was. I mearly called her rationality and ability to be skeptical and logical into question. Her beliefs neither bother me nor embarrass me. Its just disappointing to see such an intelligent person believing in things that are nothing but whimsical fancy. Care to challenge that? Great, prove some of these magical things to be real. Publish the results in a peer reviewed and serious scientific journal.
Myself I don't really know the precepts of Wica, except one of my friends dabbles/is interested in it, but that doesn't detract any more than another of my friends being Christian or Buddhist, or preferring Red Hat to Debian to SuSE, or liking pork over chicken over tofu.
Indeed. But if I said I believed the tooth fairy was real, wouldn't you think twice about other things I profess to be true? Then why is it that when people believe in other silly things, like invisible gods that pat you on the head and make the faces of their sons appear in a Tortilla, or the SeCkRiT OT Powers of a Scientologist, or the professed ability of some "psychic" to see the future we consider that to not be grounds for questioning this persons grip on reality? I have no beef with any particular belief system. I just think they are no way to figure things out, and should certainly not be the basis for understanding the word. Intelligent people along time ago agreed to the following two rules.
1) the burden of proof rests with the affirmative.
2) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
So I wonder about the rationality of someone that believes such wierd and silly things. I understand why people believe these things, but it doesnt mean that I should consider those people the best judges of the validty of other, possibly more important things. Its all the more ironic that someone which professes to be so learned, would believe in things that most of the rest of us recognize as the bunk that it is.
Astrology is only as bunk as believing in a hellfire and brimstone God, Hell, and Heavan
Couldn't agree with you more. They all sound pretty bunk to me. Wheres the proof?
or in little tiny partially charged wave-particles interacting via strange carriers to produce forces of interactions, repulsion, attraction, and other things.
Considering the large body of evidence and reproducible experiments that validate these theories, I would certainly not put this in the same category as Astrology. I suggest you read up a little on the current state of physics.
I myself don't believe in astrology, but I also don't believe in Hell, eternal damnation, or eternal paradise. I believe in an afterlife and a soul, and other things, but there is no proof to them.
So thats what you believe and not what you can prove. So why should we consider your beliefs to be anything by whimsical fancy? Why do you not require proof before you believe those things, and you would (I hope) require proof that a car you are buying really does have X miles on it, before you believe that it really is worth Y? Perhaps you're not as rational as you might believe. Its nice to think that something happens to us after we die, other than just decaying, but its no more valid that any other belief, like the tooth fairy, without proof.
A person is a bundle of contradictions, paradoxes, and misleading beliefs-but don't hold it agains her or anyone else, since everyone is like that, even you...
Everyone holds beliefs that are not true. Thats because we're irrational, illogical, emmotional and thick headed creatures. But thats no excuse for embracing silly ideas, poor reasoning or making exceptions for weak and impoverished ideas deduced from any number of fallacious arguments - just because we it might challenge our cherished belief system to do otherwise. The truth is HARD to find and requires one to set aside ones *beliefs*, think rationally, logically and work within the scientific method - and even then to look harder. The worlds problems are the products of poor and short-term thinking. We could do well to challenge ourselves to think rationally and be a little bit more skeptical about things we believe to be true.
--
Python
Well, its just so hard to take you seriously when you believe in such archaric nonsense as Wica and Astrology. As skeptical as you seem to be about a lot of things, it strikes me as odd that you would not invoke that same skepticism there. Consistency is a pretty good measure of quality.
Generally, I find your articles to be well written, intelligent and thought provoking. But you have to admit that your not exactly the most technical person, and in the world of journalism too many articles are written by quasi-technical journalists that miss the point.
Its good to see that you're hip enough to read Slashdot (not that association equals rightness)... now if you could just do something about the flim-flam that you believe in...
Read a book on Physics sometime - astrology is bunk! Ugh... why do otherwise intelligent people believe such demonstrably wrong things?
--
Python
I doubt that. Rebecca is an intelligent woman to be sure, but she has some very silly beliefs - like astrology for instance that really call her common sense into question.
Rebecca likes to think of herself as a knowledgable, well read and intelligent person, and in some areas there is little reason to doubt it. But shes handicapped by an arrogance that causes her to internalize beliefs that agree with the ones she already holds, and to generally dismiss things which disagree with here beliefs. In short, as smart as she is, her method for arriving at conclusions is seriously flawed (shes a lawyer afterall not a scientist or someone trained to think logically).
Rebecca has a tendency to spout out off at the mouth (on TV!) about things she barely understands (like her tirades about Java, when she knows almost nothing about Java - or Operating Systems she doesn't run - like Linux, or Solaris or even Windows for example.) Its really a quirk that she is considered a "Technology Consultant" when she has barely any skills or qualifications to justify such a position. Becky is a well read Lawyer with a real gift for gab, but a technologist she is not.
Rebecca is a cool chick IMHO, but shes not as smart as she pretends to be. (Read about how she got mugged - what the hell was she thinking? She was careless, and was lucky that something worse didnt happen, like rape or death perhaps.) I think all that Ivy league education went to her head and now she thinks she can think no wrong. Catch her on Silicon Spin (on ZDTV... I know... ZD=clueless, but sometimes you have to watch the clueless and correct them to make sure they dont hurt themselves.) She has some interesting comments, but they come largely from seondary sources - and not conclusions she herself has arrived at. In short, nice to look at, but nothing substantive to say on technology issues.
A cool chick, no doubt, but astrology? Come on Rebecca!
--
Python
Most Important? Thats a value judgement my friend, not a fact. If we took your advice, and just started cranking out kids without any thought for the fact that an infinite number of people can not live on a finite planet, we will surely all perish. Such a myopic view of the world you have. Our natural resources are not infinite and a such, no matter how much you want it to be true, the planet Earth can not support an ever increasing population.
--
Python
Lets see:
1) I have a high and tight hair cut (no long hair here).
2) Wear T-shirts, Blue Jeans and boots (to work no less!)
3) Ride a new Harley (99 Fat Boy... oh yeah! I wish it would freaking warm up outside so I can ride.)
4) Run Linux because I have no tolerance for machines that crash. I have work to do, and rebooting is not what I consider an efficient use of my valuable time.
5) Oh yeah... and I'm not a hippie. Since I spent 10 years in the Infantry... I think that rules out the tree hugging hippie label.
So.. I guess the Berkeley grad, pony tail wearing, goatee sporting, berkenstock wearing hippie Sterotype doesn't fit here either. (I hate stereotypes.) Even though I've been hacking since I was eight (which was a VERY long time ago, lets just say that 50 baud was FAST back then.)
--
Python