I don't think that's an accurate assessment. I don't know how things are like overseas, but Americans take a lot of pride in their jobs. "What do you do?" is one of the first questions asked after an introduction to another person.
What amazes me is that you're suggesting Americans answer with their job description. Over here in Australia when I ask "What do you do?" I expect (and receive) answers such as "I like to ski on the weekends" or "I play guitar at the local pub on Friday nights".
No, just that it's impossible to actually make money doing it.
That is a demonstrably false statement. The companies that publish public domain books fully intend to realise a profit.
Perhaps what you mean to say is that it's impossible to make obscene amounts of money without copyright. I wouldn't disagree with that. But these black and white statements of yours such as "it's impossible to actually make money" and "Without copyright, there is no price mechanism" are simply nonsense.
Bit by bit, it seems, that America is changing into something quite different than I was taught in school.
The USA has become a fascist state. That's based upon the historical definition that "fascism is a radical authoritarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, totalitarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism". Except for perhaps totalitarianism all of those elements are very prominent in all of the popular US political parties, not just the party currently in power. It's unfortunate that fascism became a derogatory term after WWII because its meaning has diluted, such that people assume you're a blithering idiot if you even attempt to describe a party as having fascist tendencies.
You missed the part where the PC weenie spends 15 hours downloading drivers and patches only to have his machine bluescreen because the ATI Video Driver 3.4953.3982 (pl2) is incompatible with Direct3D 9.2 (RC3) unless you've got the special RB736239 firmware flashed onto the DMA controller of your ASUX motherboard.
The whole global warming was supposedly from the Ozone hole being as large as it was at the current point in time.
No, you are confused.
However what you've said is fascinating. You heard about the ozone hole and global warming at the same time so you've incorrectly held this belief that they are strongly related. The Bush government used a similar trick to sway the public into thinking 9/11 justified a war in Iraq; a poll found approximately 70% of US citizens believe that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attack. I wonder how many other misconceptions come into being because people heard two unrelated things at roughly the same time.
Well actually I wasn't the granparent poster so I'm not claiming anything
Well yes, you are. When you questioned my truthful statement that the Hurd is available with your obviously rhetorical question "Really?" you are making a claim by contradiction.
> but I can comment that Linux is not fit for purpose for 99% of the computing world either.
Yeah , whatever. Meanwhile , back in the real world...
Back in the real world the majority of computers do not run Linux and the majority of people do not want Linux. I do. You do. Most people don't. So all I was doing was highlighting the absurdity of your false dichotomy - either it's an "useful OS with applications" or it's a "useless piece of academic-interest-only piece of pre-alpha code" - which apparently you think is a perfectly reasonable summary of the only two possible conditions possible for an OS. I'm showing you that the world isn't so black and white.
But why am I trying to explain logic to what seems to be an intellectually challenged Valley Girl. "Well like, yeah, like, whatever".
Really? Is it a usable OS with applications or is it still the useless
piece of academic-interest-only piece of pre-alpha code its been for
the last 15 years?
In either case it is available. You are attempting to change your claim from "it is not available" [ed: you are wrong, it is available] to "it is not fit for my purpose". I can't comment on your purpose, but I can comment that Linux is not fit for purpose for 99% of the computing world either. So is Linux an academic-interest-only piece of pre-alpha code as well?
- Linus is an engineer. His interest is building a system that works best *today*.
Linus is not an engineer. He is a software programmer. The entire point of this "debate" [ed: there is no debate] is that AST wants to introduce engineering concepts into the construction of operating systems. AST is the engineer; specifically he is advocating system engineering principles. Linus is not the engineer; he's at best the mechanic.
It's funny how AST listed "Hurd" as one of the microkernels - it totally defeats his own arguments. The fact is Hurd is still not available today despite it was started before Linux.
The only funny things here are that you think the Hurd isn't available (hint: it is) or that it's hypothetical lack of availability would defeat AST's arguments (hint: it wouldn't).
Yes, by all means, conduct an ad hominem attack on the ISPs rather than considering that this could possible be a difficult problem. Do you have any concept of how difficult it is to design and engineer a network that can handle all of that data and provide a high level of service to all of the end nodes?
They who do not understand ad hominem are doomed to repeat it.
Unfortunately you're wrong. Many kinds of exploits rely on assembly language to effect their "magic". Changing the underlying CPU architecture will affect the security landscape by opening the doors to experienced x86 exploit writers and their existing techniques.
Switching to Intel will make it easier for game developers to port their code,
It's amazing that you can (correctly) recognise that the Intel CPU in the Mac will make it easier to port games, but you can't recognise that it will also make it easier for exploits writers to port exploits. The CPU isn't 100% of the story - the OS and the applications and even the high-level language (Objective-C) all play a part - but the CPU is still a key factor.
The most radical approach comes from an unexpected source--Microsoft Research. In effect, the Microsoft approach discards the concept of an operating system as a single program running in kernel mode plus some collection of user processes running in user mode, and replaces it with a system written in new type-safe languages that do not have all the pointer and other problems associated with C and C++.
How is that radical? It sounds exactly like a Lisp machine.
STP, in a nutshell, stops router loops from happening. When a router loop happens, all packets caught in the loop will just keep going and going and going, kinda like the energizer bunny, around in a circle amongst some routers not actually going anywhere useful. Once enough packets get caught in the loop either your routers die or there's so much traffic you would think your routers are dead. So anyways, because the Internet is so complex with all it's routers, routing loops would happen all the time. So without STP your precious IP packets would never get anywhere on the Wild Wild World, at least not for long.
Wow, so close, and yet so far. Moderators, the parent comment is not worthy of positive mod points. Routers work at layer-3 and routing loops are solved in a number of ways, but none of them involve STP. STP is a layer-2 protocol and is designed to stop bridging loops.
After all, it wasn't engineers that ran HP into the ground.
Amen brother. And when HP was soaring it was because the managers were originally engineers. When the managers got replaced by "career managers" who had no engineering experience, the company sunk into the abyss like a stone. HP was reknowned for engineering and without engineers at the helm, the company floundered.
Similarly when Jobs (who isn't an engineer but clearly has natural talent for design) was running Apple it soared. When a "career manager" took over it sunk like a stone (3 times). When Jobs took the reigns again, Apple started soaring again. Apple is reknowned for good design (and sometimes, apparently by mere chance, for good engineering) and without a designer at the helm the company floundered.
Microsoft used to rock. No, I'm not joking, back when IBM and DEC were the 900lb gorillas there were a lot of us rooting for Microsoft because they were the underdog! Back then Microsoft created (or bought, or stole) a lot of decent software for the burgeoning PC industry. Microsoft was reknowned for their software programs and the two guys running the company were both software programmers.
Google is another example; a search engine company where the two guys running the company did post-doctorate work on search engines. Is it any wonder the company does so well?
What I'm trying to say is that companies do well when their management has expertise with the company's core offerings. The instant you get a bean counter in charge of a tech company the company tanks (I hope you rot in hell, Carly). I think it's because when engineers are in charge they tend to surround themselves with similarly minded people, so the company has an overall engineering focus. When a bean counter is in charge they've got no idea what's going on, and they hire their friends who also have no idea, so the company gets pulled in multiple incompatible directions and is largely unsuccessful.
Nonsense. Microsoft is the target of viruses and spyware because of Microsofts moronic design decisions and security policies, not because of marketshare.
Nonsense. Microsoft is the target of viruses and spyware because of Microsoft's moronic design decisions and security policies AND because of marketshare.
Virus writers are writing viruses to make profit; either by stealing information, creating botnets, or proliferation of unwanted advertising. They make more profit by exploiting more machines, so it's no wonder that the most common OS is also the most targetted.
The fact that it's so trivial to exploit Microsoft software is purely because of the moronic design decisions and security policies, not because of marketshare. But the fact that Microsoft is so frequently the target of virus writers is a function of marketshare as well.
Sounds neat; just out of curiosity, what are you using for the virtualization?
Parallels.
And perhaps I'm revealing my ignorance here, but how does the guest OS on a virtualized system handle networking?
Parallels creates a bridge betwen the guest (virtual) network interface and the host (physical) network interface. This appears as Realtek RTL-8029 card to the guest OS. The guest OS can then request a DHCP lease, participate in broadcast protocols on your LAN, connect to the Internet via your LAN router, etc.
I guess I'm just curious what you have to do to the guest OS, if anything, to get it to work inside the sandbox.
Surprisingly little. The emulated video interface is an i815. The emulated mouse is a psmouse. The emulated network card is a Realtek. The emulated hard drive is an IDE interface. Debian/Linux detected all that hardware automatically and Just Worked. Other hardware (bluetooth, airport, sleep) doesn't matter to the guest OS; the host OS handles all that guff. Even the dual-touch touchpad scrolling works inside the guest OS because Parallels emulates it as scrollwheel events. The video performance is not good enough for movie playback but perfectly acceptable for a GNOME desktop.
Linux inside Parallels on a Macbook Pro is very close to perfect. Parallels has taken away the last thing that annoyed me with Linux - driver support - and made it a non-issue. I've been running Linux inside Parallels for a week now and I'm very happy with the results.
Wrong! Google HVDC... there's plenty of DC power distribution (read: across many km).
HVDC is only used in rare situations, such as undersea power cables where capacitance works against AC. Power transmission across land is almost without exception HVAC.
It seems to me that, just as AC power is standardised, portable electronics power requirements should be also be standardised, with a standard wall outlet and car outlet at, say, 5V, and a standard device cable and interface.
The 12VDC cigarette lighter plug is a de-facto standard. Redo all your devices to use 12VDC with a simple voltage leveller - eg, a zener diode followed by a 5V regulator IC - and then standardise on cigarette lighter sockets throughout the house.
Not trying to flame here but I just don't get why everyone wants to install Linux and Windows on expensive Mac hardware.
Because Apple laptops are prettier and have more features than similarly priced laptops from Dell, HP, Toshiba and IBM. I'd pay more for an Apple though luckily I don't have to; they cost roughly the same.
Because Linux is a better system than OS X. Although I appreciate that some of you are infatuated with the sparkly lights and whizzy animations in OS X, I tire quickly of such things and prefer the practical productivity of Linux. I like my Fullscreen button for every application (proper fullscreen, not the half-arsed attempt in OS X). I like automatic security updates for all the software on my machine. I like the fact that Linux is faster on the same hardware (subjectively and objectively it is faster). I like the fact that my servers and my laptop run the same software - even the same Linux distribution - so I don't have to "change gears" in my network. I like the fact that I'm not bound to the shaky future of a single company; Linux will always be around even if my particular distro goes under.
I also like the fact that my Linux distro cost $7 for 6 compact discs, it included every piece of software I needed including the office suite, and upgrades are free. MacOS X is surrounded by shareware vultures for trivial items - like $29.99 for what is effectively an untar utility for DMG files. No thanks. I left all that nonsense behind when I dumped MS-DOS 3 and I've no intention of going back to that particular hell.
PS: I also like the 1-second sleep, better battery life, and slick windowing system in OS X, but I don't like them enough to give up all the benefits of Linux.
the Wachowskis thought that people went to see the movies because of the Car chases, bullets flying, and the Kung Fu fight scenes.
That's why I went to see it.
But what got me hooked on the first was things like this line, "Knowing the path is different from walking the path." I thought, "Ooooo" these guys are going to do something different and possibly something that has a deeper meaning than
And I liked the sequels, because I wasn't waiting for an insight into the universe.
Slashdot Mirror
What amazes me is that you're suggesting Americans answer with their job description. Over here in Australia when I ask "What do you do?" I expect (and receive) answers such as "I like to ski on the weekends" or "I play guitar at the local pub on Friday nights".
Sad. Very sad.
That is a demonstrably false statement. The companies that publish public domain books fully intend to realise a profit.
Perhaps what you mean to say is that it's impossible to make obscene amounts of money without copyright. I wouldn't disagree with that. But these black and white statements of yours such as "it's impossible to actually make money" and "Without copyright, there is no price mechanism" are simply nonsense.
The USA has become a fascist state. That's based upon the historical definition that "fascism is a radical authoritarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, totalitarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism". Except for perhaps totalitarianism all of those elements are very prominent in all of the popular US political parties, not just the party currently in power. It's unfortunate that fascism became a derogatory term after WWII because its meaning has diluted, such that people assume you're a blithering idiot if you even attempt to describe a party as having fascist tendencies.
A market based around copyright is inherently not a free market, because the government is involved.
Copyright is the artificial price mechanism.
You missed the part where the PC weenie spends 15 hours downloading drivers and patches only to have his machine bluescreen because the ATI Video Driver 3.4953.3982 (pl2) is incompatible with Direct3D 9.2 (RC3) unless you've got the special RB736239 firmware flashed onto the DMA controller of your ASUX motherboard.
No, you are confused.
However what you've said is fascinating. You heard about the ozone hole and global warming at the same time so you've incorrectly held this belief that they are strongly related. The Bush government used a similar trick to sway the public into thinking 9/11 justified a war in Iraq; a poll found approximately 70% of US citizens believe that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attack. I wonder how many other misconceptions come into being because people heard two unrelated things at roughly the same time.
Well yes, you are. When you questioned my truthful statement that the Hurd is available with your obviously rhetorical question "Really?" you are making a claim by contradiction.
Back in the real world the majority of computers do not run Linux and the majority of people do not want Linux. I do. You do. Most people don't. So all I was doing was highlighting the absurdity of your false dichotomy - either it's an "useful OS with applications" or it's a "useless piece of academic-interest-only piece of pre-alpha code" - which apparently you think is a perfectly reasonable summary of the only two possible conditions possible for an OS. I'm showing you that the world isn't so black and white.
But why am I trying to explain logic to what seems to be an intellectually challenged Valley Girl. "Well like, yeah, like, whatever".
In either case it is available. You are attempting to change your claim from "it is not available" [ed: you are wrong, it is available] to "it is not fit for my purpose". I can't comment on your purpose, but I can comment that Linux is not fit for purpose for 99% of the computing world either. So is Linux an academic-interest-only piece of pre-alpha code as well?
Linus is not an engineer. He is a software programmer. The entire point of this "debate" [ed: there is no debate] is that AST wants to introduce engineering concepts into the construction of operating systems. AST is the engineer; specifically he is advocating system engineering principles. Linus is not the engineer; he's at best the mechanic.
The only funny things here are that you think the Hurd isn't available (hint: it is) or that it's hypothetical lack of availability would defeat AST's arguments (hint: it wouldn't).
They who do not understand ad hominem are doomed to repeat it.
The reason multicast didn't take off is because there's no way for the content providers to sell subscriptions.
Wow, well I'm glad you settled the debate.
Unfortunately you're wrong. Many kinds of exploits rely on assembly language to effect their "magic". Changing the underlying CPU architecture will affect the security landscape by opening the doors to experienced x86 exploit writers and their existing techniques.
It's amazing that you can (correctly) recognise that the Intel CPU in the Mac will make it easier to port games, but you can't recognise that it will also make it easier for exploits writers to port exploits. The CPU isn't 100% of the story - the OS and the applications and even the high-level language (Objective-C) all play a part - but the CPU is still a key factor.
How is that radical? It sounds exactly like a Lisp machine.
Wow, so close, and yet so far. Moderators, the parent comment is not worthy of positive mod points. Routers work at layer-3 and routing loops are solved in a number of ways, but none of them involve STP. STP is a layer-2 protocol and is designed to stop bridging loops.
Amen brother. And when HP was soaring it was because the managers were originally engineers. When the managers got replaced by "career managers" who had no engineering experience, the company sunk into the abyss like a stone. HP was reknowned for engineering and without engineers at the helm, the company floundered.
Similarly when Jobs (who isn't an engineer but clearly has natural talent for design) was running Apple it soared. When a "career manager" took over it sunk like a stone (3 times). When Jobs took the reigns again, Apple started soaring again. Apple is reknowned for good design (and sometimes, apparently by mere chance, for good engineering) and without a designer at the helm the company floundered.
Microsoft used to rock. No, I'm not joking, back when IBM and DEC were the 900lb gorillas there were a lot of us rooting for Microsoft because they were the underdog! Back then Microsoft created (or bought, or stole) a lot of decent software for the burgeoning PC industry. Microsoft was reknowned for their software programs and the two guys running the company were both software programmers.
Google is another example; a search engine company where the two guys running the company did post-doctorate work on search engines. Is it any wonder the company does so well?
What I'm trying to say is that companies do well when their management has expertise with the company's core offerings. The instant you get a bean counter in charge of a tech company the company tanks (I hope you rot in hell, Carly). I think it's because when engineers are in charge they tend to surround themselves with similarly minded people, so the company has an overall engineering focus. When a bean counter is in charge they've got no idea what's going on, and they hire their friends who also have no idea, so the company gets pulled in multiple incompatible directions and is largely unsuccessful.
Nonsense. Microsoft is the target of viruses and spyware because of Microsoft's moronic design decisions and security policies AND because of marketshare.
Virus writers are writing viruses to make profit; either by stealing information, creating botnets, or proliferation of unwanted advertising. They make more profit by exploiting more machines, so it's no wonder that the most common OS is also the most targetted.
The fact that it's so trivial to exploit Microsoft software is purely because of the moronic design decisions and security policies, not because of marketshare. But the fact that Microsoft is so frequently the target of virus writers is a function of marketshare as well.
Correction: the emulated video interface is VESA. The i815 is the emulated bridge chipset.
Parallels.
Parallels creates a bridge betwen the guest (virtual) network interface and the host (physical) network interface. This appears as Realtek RTL-8029 card to the guest OS. The guest OS can then request a DHCP lease, participate in broadcast protocols on your LAN, connect to the Internet via your LAN router, etc.
Surprisingly little. The emulated video interface is an i815. The emulated mouse is a psmouse. The emulated network card is a Realtek. The emulated hard drive is an IDE interface. Debian/Linux detected all that hardware automatically and Just Worked. Other hardware (bluetooth, airport, sleep) doesn't matter to the guest OS; the host OS handles all that guff. Even the dual-touch touchpad scrolling works inside the guest OS because Parallels emulates it as scrollwheel events. The video performance is not good enough for movie playback but perfectly acceptable for a GNOME desktop.
Linux inside Parallels on a Macbook Pro is very close to perfect. Parallels has taken away the last thing that annoyed me with Linux - driver support - and made it a non-issue. I've been running Linux inside Parallels for a week now and I'm very happy with the results.
HVDC is only used in rare situations, such as undersea power cables where capacitance works against AC. Power transmission across land is almost without exception HVAC.
PS: and the reason why is because it's easier to step AC voltages up, and higher voltages have lower losses due to lower current.
That is pure nonsense. You are perhaps confused with power transmission; DC transmission over long distances is inefficient compared to AC.
The 12VDC cigarette lighter plug is a de-facto standard. Redo all your devices to use 12VDC with a simple voltage leveller - eg, a zener diode followed by a 5V regulator IC - and then standardise on cigarette lighter sockets throughout the house.
How many Libraries of Congress is that?
Because Apple laptops are prettier and have more features than similarly priced laptops from Dell, HP, Toshiba and IBM. I'd pay more for an Apple though luckily I don't have to; they cost roughly the same.
Because Linux is a better system than OS X. Although I appreciate that some of you are infatuated with the sparkly lights and whizzy animations in OS X, I tire quickly of such things and prefer the practical productivity of Linux. I like my Fullscreen button for every application (proper fullscreen, not the half-arsed attempt in OS X). I like automatic security updates for all the software on my machine. I like the fact that Linux is faster on the same hardware (subjectively and objectively it is faster). I like the fact that my servers and my laptop run the same software - even the same Linux distribution - so I don't have to "change gears" in my network. I like the fact that I'm not bound to the shaky future of a single company; Linux will always be around even if my particular distro goes under.
I also like the fact that my Linux distro cost $7 for 6 compact discs, it included every piece of software I needed including the office suite, and upgrades are free. MacOS X is surrounded by shareware vultures for trivial items - like $29.99 for what is effectively an untar utility for DMG files. No thanks. I left all that nonsense behind when I dumped MS-DOS 3 and I've no intention of going back to that particular hell.
PS: I also like the 1-second sleep, better battery life, and slick windowing system in OS X, but I don't like them enough to give up all the benefits of Linux.
That's why I went to see it.
And I liked the sequels, because I wasn't waiting for an insight into the universe.