In analysing that film you reveal yourself, do you ? In the whole commentary is said slim about the film and nothing about hacking. Brazil is not about Hackers, Brazil is about an overwhelming, frightening system and an individuum caught in one of its spotlights. Spanning the bridge, a hacker is an individuum, independent, caught-up in a mindless system, where however he still finds his place of living despite being a misfit. Let's translate it: A Cowboy is a lonely rider, a man who can watch his back himself, caught-up in the endless prairie in the depths of the wild beyond the frontier, where he can find his place by having a gun to shot all the nasty boys and defend his parts.
Back to the roots, right? We all want to be Heroes.
Hacking is not about a mood, but about knowledge, how it is created, how it is found, how it is made.
It should be noticed that Intel also increased the instruction pipeline's length from 15 to 20. This also makes higher clocking frequencies possible, however trading performance for it. An optimal length is between 7 and 11.
IMHO Intel has just thrown out whatever they had, which is by the way an old tactic of them, which they also put to "good" use against Motorola in the 68000-8088/86-war. The willamette shown had been an early prototype. They hooked it up a little and there the show started, I'd say.
Something very odd about this whole affair is the way you "linux/open source people" look upon everything.
Let's say Microsoft/IBM/AOL-TimeWarner are trying to embrace the darkness, whilst you on other hand tend to enjoy the light. Now, you might be initially led to believe: "Oh yea, darkness is evil, so we are the good guys."
Wrong.
You are just one side and Microsoft is the other, and in between you find an infinite number of shades of grey. Shades of Grey ? Infinite points of view ! And they are all equal.
If 90 persons say: AOL is great, and 10 alone say: They suck. Who's now right and who is wrong ? The dumb majority ? The cleverer minority ? No, both.
The next thing is: If you don't like the AOL-TimeWarner-thing, then don't get an account there, don't use ICQ, don't enjoy their content. In the "beginning" you felt limited by Microsoft's weak OS and none of the Unixes fitted your desire of "freedom", so you made up your own OS: Linux.
Fling "So what !" right into the teeth of fate. You can always make up your own thing. However, you must not tell the other 6 billion people on this planet, what they have to like and what not. This is not an evil plague sweeping over the world, and sometimes time does tend to take a different path as everyone expected. No one can foresee the future, but if you care about it, don't mourn, do something.
You (all that contributed code) are very proud and are damn right feeling so. However, just because you made up your own thing, doesn't mean you have found the ultimate. The really clever way would be to recognize both faults and advantages of both you and the "enemy"... and learn from it.
BTW: Katz: The true free enterprise - the belief that the market regulates itself through offer and demand - has fallen into oblivion, when the first commercials appeared on tv, so don't mourn about a lost "American" dream. (Commercials/Ads do manipulate demand at will nowadays) And, IBM is not embracing "open source" but "linux" (a hype). Why ? Hey, no need to write drivers or application code, just have the specs and the open source movement will do it for you. (and they sell the service, the hardware... and the news item is already all the publicity among the target group (=you) they could wish for. All of you, struck with blindness, will flock to IBM's banner. Ha!, how I(BM) would drive the hosts of Mordor...no, wait... Microsoft. Do I need to continue ?) "The United States may have been the birthplace of a free and independent press..." heck WHAT ? Don't forget your roots ! (and Axel Springer;)
And I don't even want to guess, how soon already every one of you agreed with Jon Katz, even if you didn't finish reading his comment, because... then you become one of them, one among the free kindred, one of the good linux people, right ? "Oh yea, you're using Linux and already that alone validates you." That's a whole lot better than making up your own opinion and saving democracy the right way... but whom do I try to convert ? The two party country. Alas!... sorry, I slipped off;) (never mind that paragraph)
Closingly, a warning: Don`t reply: "Is you father a microsoft employee ?" Or I tell your mommy that you must not spend hours after hours in front of that hot thing obviously melting away your brain and wits... some call it computer.
Well, you could say that war worked for the Romans back then (but, it was a different time with slaves as normal thing of everday-life !). Yet, war has changed its face over the time, I forgot to write that. Let's begin with the Romans, where people fought against people. And people were subdued, because most tribes were "honourful" warriors, that were ashamed if conquered (Take Vercingetorix as an example, surrendering before Caesar). Then I leave the steel-plated knights aside. The war in 16th and 17th century were fought in a wholly ridicolous way from a today's point of view. Armees marched up in nice squares, opposed each other on battle field and began shooting. It was a clean (for only soldiers took part in it), nearly mathematical way of fighting, very often used as a mean of politics. Already when the armees were marching up, you could tell who would win, for no solider would take cover, they just stood there and shot. The french revolution then changed wholly the face of war, because suddenly people were fighting it, and not politicians moving their armees around on a board. People took cover, stormed, ran. War became emotional. And the rest is history;) (sorry, I like that phrase a lot.)
One could say that NATO is fighting the war mathematically, while the federal republic of yugoslavia is doing it emotionally, but all that nationalism and folks fighting each other appeared first 19th and 20th century.
I agree with you on war between people are always brutal. With my state about the supertechnology I meant that this is the only way of absolutely cleaning the other "race" (take Hitler and the Jews, he could not kill all of them, not even in Germany !) (It reminds me a little of the Borg, El Aurial and Guinan, resistance is _not_ futile... pardon the off-topic). And "Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Israel" were not intended as an example for the war in Yugoslavia (just for war not working in general). That war in Yugoslavia has imho not even begun yet. NATO won't win without ground troops. However, they will never ever send in soldiers, beside the costs, they would suffer terrific casulties (today's key word is: Mines) and such a war cannot be sold to the people at home, not even with nice, shiny pictures on CNN. Furthermore, you mentioned genocide, which is imho just the attempt to stop the other race from resisting in a... terminal way. Unforunately, I cannot comment on the Falkland War because I have no clue what that was. Yet, the example with the Romans is disputable, as I explained above.
I must quite disagree with your article, beginning from the quotings of Klemm to the end. "The minute the colonies won independance..." can not be left without comment. Declaration of Independance was 1776, the war won 1783, industrialization began 1840... now that are fifty years and not a symbolic "minute". California was "discovered" 1849 and the driving power behind the new states found in the west were the desire for freedom and independancy of treckers, the struggle between North and South and of course gold... so technology's "keyrole" was quite minor in the beginning in my opinion. "America went on to become premier blahblah" (easily guessable it's written by an American)... until 1900 America was definately lacking behind in terms of industrialization against countries like England and Germany. That explains partly the Isolationism and the War of Segregation, which was fought not for the slaves but because of the struggle over taxes on imports and exports... Due to the mercantile support of the USA in World War I, they began to become today's superpower by gaining wealth through selling war materials (armament, ships, weaponry,...) to the "allies".
USA's "techno affection" I explain differently: The industrialized North won the war 1864. The belief, that had brought the pilgrim fathers to the new shores, made them formidable workers (your status in afterlife is determined by your wealth in real life). The USA was constantly lacking behind in terms of industrialization and then in technology (Russians brought the first satellite into space...) and their roots made them accepting the struggle for superiority... (not constantly, there was a hole from 1910 to 1955... but, you understand, two world wars can easily shake history...)
You continue with "Technology fails, thus has to do the Techno war". It is never the technology that fails, but the humans behind it. The engineer that forgets a nail, the architect that has not given enough thought to statics, the programmer that overlooked a bug. Your example of the massive bombing of german cities not stopping the war is ludicrous. There was a GeStaPo arresting everyone opposing Hitler and the loss of relatives in accord with mass propaganda brought forth only sorrow and "hatred against the allies". Say, there is a child on the beach, building a nice sand castle. It has just finished it, is seeking for some stones or mussels, and there your are and go destroying the castle. The kid returns and starts crying utterly. Now what have you been expecting ? The kid won't say: Hey, your proved that you are stronger than me, so I will never again build a sand castle ! ???? It will build another one, and another, and another one, maybe when you're looking away or briefly elsewhere. People have their own will, and they will act according to their own will. And destroying a person's will makes him dead or a slave... (Wait a second, what country had this trouble with slavery late until 1864 again... hmmm ?)
Technology is no god and no sanitor, that suddenly heals all the wounds of the world. Just as the computer it simply enhances the capabilities of humans, it furthers our natural borders, but it does not change what we are: Humans.
Now on to my final note. The problem is not that "techno war does not work", but that "war does not work". Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Israel. Wherever people were determined to keep their home, no war could change their free will. Not only must the means of war of one's enemy be destroyed and his country later conquered by physical means (=troops), but also it must be held afterwards ! Or all inhabitants be killed, e.g. by a supertechnology like the a thermonuclear bomb. Take a look at Ireland ! Sniping, guerilla tactics: It simply does not work ! Take Germany as another example (before your are using it against me). Germans were ashamed of themselves, Hitler was dead and all they had been believing in since 1933 had suddenly become ridiculous. They had lost their will by sorrow, terror of war and shame.
Slashdot Mirror
In analysing that film you reveal yourself, do you ? In the whole commentary is said slim about the film and nothing about hacking. Brazil is not about Hackers, Brazil is about an overwhelming, frightening system and an individuum caught in one of its spotlights. Spanning the bridge, a hacker is an individuum, independent, caught-up in a mindless system, where however he still finds his place of living despite being a misfit. Let's translate it: A Cowboy is a lonely rider, a man who can watch his back himself, caught-up in the endless prairie in the depths of the wild beyond the frontier, where he can find his place by having a gun to shot all the nasty boys and defend his parts.
Back to the roots, right? We all want to be Heroes.
Hacking is not about a mood, but about knowledge, how it is created, how it is found, how it is made.
It should be noticed that Intel also increased the instruction pipeline's length from 15 to 20. This also makes higher clocking frequencies possible, however trading performance for it. An optimal length is between 7 and 11.
IMHO Intel has just thrown out whatever they had, which is by the way an old tactic of them, which they also put to "good" use against Motorola in the 68000-8088/86-war.
The willamette shown had been an early prototype. They hooked it up a little and there the show started, I'd say.
Something very odd about this whole affair is the way you "linux/open source people" look upon everything.
... and learn from it.
... and the news item is already all the publicity among the target group (=you) they could wish for. All of you, struck with blindness, will flock to IBM's banner. Ha!, how I(BM) would drive the hosts of Mordor...no, wait ... Microsoft. Do I need to continue ?) ..." heck WHAT ? Don't forget your roots ! (and Axel Springer ;)
... then you become one of them, one among the free kindred, one of the good linux people, right ? "Oh yea, you're using Linux and already that alone validates you." That's a whole lot better than making up your own opinion and saving democracy the right way ... but whom do I try to convert ? The two party country. Alas! ... sorry, I slipped off ;) (never mind that paragraph)
... some call it computer.
... whose name does not matter
Let's say Microsoft/IBM/AOL-TimeWarner are trying to embrace the darkness, whilst you on other hand tend to enjoy the light. Now, you might be initially led to believe: "Oh yea, darkness is evil, so we are the good guys."
Wrong.
You are just one side and Microsoft is the other,
and in between you find an infinite number of shades of grey. Shades of Grey ? Infinite points of view ! And they are all equal.
If 90 persons say: AOL is great, and 10 alone say: They suck. Who's now right and who is wrong ?
The dumb majority ? The cleverer minority ? No, both.
The next thing is: If you don't like the AOL-TimeWarner-thing, then don't get an account there, don't use ICQ, don't enjoy their content. In the "beginning" you felt limited by Microsoft's weak OS and none of the Unixes fitted your desire of "freedom", so you made up your own OS: Linux.
Fling "So what !" right into the teeth of fate. You can always make up your own thing. However, you must not tell the other 6 billion people on this planet, what they have to like and what not. This is not an evil plague sweeping over the world, and sometimes time does tend to take a different path as everyone expected. No one can foresee the future, but if you care about it, don't mourn, do something.
You (all that contributed code) are very proud and are damn right feeling so. However, just because you made up your own thing, doesn't mean you have found the ultimate. The really clever way would be to recognize both faults and advantages of both you and the "enemy"
BTW: Katz: The true free enterprise - the belief that the market regulates itself through offer and demand - has fallen into oblivion, when the first commercials appeared on tv, so don't mourn about a lost "American" dream. (Commercials/Ads do manipulate demand at will nowadays)
And, IBM is not embracing "open source" but "linux" (a hype). Why ? Hey, no need to write drivers or application code, just have the specs and the open source movement will do it for you. (and they sell the service, the hardware
"The United States may have been the birthplace of a free and independent press
And I don't even want to guess, how soon already every one of you agreed with Jon Katz, even if you didn't finish reading his comment, because
Closingly, a warning: Don`t reply: "Is you father a microsoft employee ?" Or I tell your mommy that you must not spend hours after hours in front of that hot thing obviously melting away your brain and wits
CU
---
Well, you could say that war worked for the Romans back then (but, it was a different time with slaves as normal thing of everday-life !). Yet, war has changed its face over the time, I forgot to write that. Let's begin with the Romans, where people fought against people. And people were subdued, because most tribes were "honourful" warriors, that were ashamed if conquered (Take Vercingetorix as an example, surrendering before Caesar). Then I leave the steel-plated knights aside. The war in 16th and 17th century were fought in a wholly ridicolous way from a today's point of view. Armees marched up in nice squares, opposed each other on battle field and began shooting. It was a clean (for only soldiers took part in it), nearly mathematical way of fighting, very often used as a mean of politics. Already when the armees were marching up, you could tell who would win, for no solider would take cover, they just stood there and shot. The french revolution then changed wholly the face of war, because suddenly people were fighting it, and not politicians moving their armees around on a board. People took cover, stormed, ran. War became emotional. And the rest is history ;) (sorry, I like that phrase a lot.)
... pardon the off-topic). And "Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Israel" were not intended as an example for the war in Yugoslavia (just for war not working in general). That war in Yugoslavia has imho not even begun yet. NATO won't win without ground troops. However, they will never ever send in soldiers, beside the costs, they would suffer terrific casulties (today's key word is: Mines) and such a war cannot be sold to the people at home, not even with nice, shiny pictures on CNN. Furthermore, you mentioned genocide, which is imho just the attempt to stop the other race from resisting in a ... terminal way.
One could say that NATO is fighting the war mathematically, while the federal republic of yugoslavia is doing it emotionally, but all that nationalism and folks fighting each other appeared first 19th and 20th century.
I agree with you on war between people are always brutal. With my state about the supertechnology I meant that this is the only way of absolutely cleaning the other "race" (take Hitler and the Jews, he could not kill all of them, not even in Germany !) (It reminds me a little of the Borg, El Aurial and Guinan, resistance is _not_ futile
Unforunately, I cannot comment on the Falkland War because I have no clue what that was. Yet, the example with the Romans is disputable, as I explained above.
I must quite disagree with your article, beginning from the quotings of Klemm to the end. ..." can not be left without comment. Declaration of Independance was 1776, the war won 1783, industrialization began 1840 ... now that are fifty years and not a symbolic "minute". California was "discovered" 1849 and the driving power behind the new states found in the west were the desire for freedom and independancy of treckers, the struggle between North and South and of course gold ... so technology's "keyrole" was quite minor in the beginning in my opinion. ... until 1900 America was definately lacking behind in terms of industrialization against countries like England and Germany. That explains partly the Isolationism and the War of Segregation, which was fought not for the slaves but because of the struggle over taxes on imports and exports ... ...) to the "allies".
...) and their roots made them accepting the struggle for superiority ... (not constantly, there was a hole from 1910 to 1955 ... but, you understand, two world wars can easily shake history ...)
... (Wait a second, what country had this trouble with slavery late until 1864 again ... hmmm ?)
"The minute the colonies won independance
"America went on to become premier blahblah" (easily guessable it's written by an American)
Due to the mercantile support of the USA in World War I, they began to become today's superpower by gaining wealth through selling war materials (armament, ships, weaponry,
USA's "techno affection" I explain differently:
The industrialized North won the war 1864.
The belief, that had brought the pilgrim fathers to the new shores, made them formidable workers (your status in afterlife is determined by your wealth in real life).
The USA was constantly lacking behind in terms of industrialization and then in technology (Russians brought the first satellite into space
You continue with "Technology fails, thus has to do the Techno war". It is never the technology that fails, but the humans behind it. The engineer that forgets a nail, the architect that has not given enough thought to statics, the programmer that overlooked a bug.
Your example of the massive bombing of german cities not stopping the war is ludicrous. There was a GeStaPo arresting everyone opposing Hitler and the loss of relatives in accord with mass propaganda brought forth only sorrow and "hatred against the allies".
Say, there is a child on the beach, building a nice sand castle. It has just finished it, is seeking for some stones or mussels, and there your are and go destroying the castle. The kid returns and starts crying utterly. Now what have you been expecting ? The kid won't say: Hey, your proved that you are stronger than me, so I will never again build a sand castle ! ???? It will build another one, and another, and another one, maybe when you're looking away or briefly elsewhere. People have their own will, and they will act according to their own will. And destroying a person's will makes him dead or a slave
Technology is no god and no sanitor, that suddenly heals all the wounds of the world. Just as the computer it simply enhances the capabilities of humans, it furthers our natural borders, but it does not change what we are: Humans.
Now on to my final note. The problem is not that "techno war does not work", but that "war does not work". Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Israel. Wherever people were determined to keep their home, no war could change their free will. Not only must the means of war of one's enemy be destroyed and his country later conquered by physical means (=troops), but also it must be held afterwards ! Or all inhabitants be killed, e.g. by a supertechnology like the a thermonuclear bomb.
Take a look at Ireland ! Sniping, guerilla tactics: It simply does not work ! Take Germany as another example (before your are using it against me). Germans were ashamed of themselves, Hitler was dead and all they had been believing in since 1933 had suddenly become ridiculous. They had lost their will by sorrow, terror of war and shame.