We're all entitled to our opinions about how NASA is running their show, but even still, I have to disagree with your post.
From what I saw on those links you pointed out, those projects have very different goals from the lunar lander challenge. In both cases (as far as the articles made clear) the respective countries were running state-sponsored (not privately funded) programs to get their gadgets into orbit around the moon to take measurements, test out equipment, etc, without ever touching down. The lunar lander challenge, on the other hand, isn't really about the moon part, so much as the lander part (hell, the challenge takes place on earth). My understanding is that it is geared towards developing privately funded solutions capable of performing a task roughly equivalent to what a helicopter can do (vertical takeoff, controlled flight, vertical landing), but without an atmosphere. It's not nearly as much of a marvel as putting a probe in orbit and mapping out a planet (or moon), as NASA has already done (though maybe not to the degree that these new projects plan to), but it's privately funded, and I believe it is done in the name of making future trips to other planets cheaper. NASA's $2M prize is nothing compared to what the various companies could (and probably already have) shell out, so in fact this is actually a money-saver for NASA. If/when we have any sort of permanent setup on the moon, whether it is a colony of humans or an automated ore-extracting plant, or whatever, we will need this capability. Sure, we have it (NASA has done it, and with people onboard to boot), but the basement designers will, out of necessity, find ways to do it that are cheaper, requiring less-exotic materials, less human interaction, etc. These groups will explore the problem space in a way more akin to how the Russians developed much of their space technology (fly it until it breaks, redesign until it flies again, rinse, repeat... which resulted in some pretty bulletproof systems).
Opinions about NASA aside, I would personally like to see us build colonies off of this planet. Maybe we've got plenty of time left on this one, maybe not, but we don't really know, and I would love to visit the moon one day. And if I can develop something in my basement that makes that more affordable for the next generation, I'm gonna give it a try.
I agree with you that most people think that electricity comes from nowhere, so it's automatically "cleaner". However, I have to question your claim that a single-user, commercial grade device is more efficient at generating electricity than a huge mass producing power plant. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that that would surprise me, and I'd be interested to see some hard numbers. Why don't the power companies junk their power plants and just order a boat-load of hybrid cars? Clearly I'm missing something. Thanks!
I'm confused. I won't pretend to be an expert on any of this, but your comment doesn't seem right to me at all. Correct me where I'm wrong, etc, but here's my take. They're probably using the camera, because they need to visually find the barcode to begin with. Barcode scanners are excellent for reading a code that's positioned in front of the reader, but once you've gone through the trouble of locating the code with your camera, you might as well just finish the job and read the code.
Now about the light issues. This doesn't seem right at all. Light doesn't bend more underwater than in air -- it bends at the transition between different optical densities. Since there would be no transitions underwater, the light wouldn't bend.
The deeper you go for instance, the less natural light would be recieved (less light = more noise).
Isn't the whole point of using a laser, to eliminate the need for (or interference from) other sources of light? It is very easy to detect a specific frequency of light as it contrasts to black, so I highly doubt barcode scanners care at all about ambient light. I haven't tried it, but it would surprise me a lot to find that barcode scanners don't work in the dark, for instance.
red is one of first wavelengths to fade as you go deeper
Again... the light coming from the sky fades at that depth, but I submit that such light would make no difference.
For all I know you invented the bloody barcode scanner, so maybe I'm talking out of my butt. But then, maybe you are.;) These are my reasoned opinions, and if you have more details to back yourself up I'm very interested in hearing them.:)
Believe it. I go to Indiana University, and that's precisely how it is. I'm no expert on the exact details of the arrangement, but IU has a "special relationship" with Microsoft, allowing the students to purchase the software for roughly cost ($5), or you can download (all? most, certainly) of the same software for free from the school's secure servers. However, you won't find these deals with other companies. Most companies offer educational discounts, but it's not of the same level. In a Java class I had a couple of years ago, they had boxes and boxes of J++ that they would hand out to anyone that wanted them. (Most of this "free" software, such as Office, expires after one year.) Photoshop? Nope. OS X? Nope, same deal. Anyway, everybody around here pretty much understands that IU sold their soul to the devil to get it this way. They give us money and "software donations", we indoctrinate our future leaders and hook them on the dirty crack that is Microsoft. Or something like that.
I don't know anything about car capacitors, so perhaps this is a useless answer, but.... capacitor banks, rather than single large capacitors, are used in high-current circuits because they can crank out a whole lot more current a lot quicker when you have lots of small ones in parallel. This is frequently done even on small bypass capacitors in circuits -- rather than putting a few thousand microfarads on a motor, you might put several 470uF caps, for instance. The response is much quicker. So not surprisingly, this is the way you always do experiments that require frightening amounts of juice.
I'll freely admit that I haven't played around with Cyc myself, and that I'm no AI expert. (Just a lowly Cognitive Science undergrad.) Now that that's out of the way, here's my opinion: I think the Cyc project is a load of baloney. I always have. (They've been working on it since, what, the 80s? Early 90s? I forget.) Anyway, I don't believe that this type of symbolic logic is truly good for very much. It may well have applications. (The "Cyc" project, which to my understanding was originally trying to capture just about all knowledge in hopes that it could achieve some sort of "intelligence", seems like a truly misguided idea to me. However the current, non-application specific version that could be fed only specific information on a specific topic, could possibly be of some use to someone. Maybe.) In one of my AI classes we saw a video on this project and the guy who started it. I must say I was thoroughly unimpressed, and very hopeful that none of my tax dollars were funding that nonsense.
I think there are, in general, probably two ways we could hope to achieve "artificial intelligence" (whatever the heck that is): First, by some form of duplication of what's already there. For example, by digitizing an entire working animal/human brain. This would not require us to understand the workings of the greater structure of the brain, just the little parts that make it work. The second is by figuring out what sort of simple, fundamental bits are necessary to create a digital "brain" capable of learning and improving in a way that would enable it to eventually become "intelligent" (again, we would have no understanding of the final "intelligent" structure, only the methods that created them). I think Genetic Programming, while somewhat interesting and possibly even useful, is not the key. It has the same concept in mind though, I believe.
But what do I know. Clearly not enough to dupe enough investors to pay for my silly musings.
I don't want to be yet another annoying loser on this site (hah!), but.. Yes, usage of words change, and all of that. But when I hear most people use the term "hack job", it is usually meant in a derogatory manner. I myself use it all the time: "It's finished, but it's a real hack." By that I don't mean "It's really cool and geeky", rather I mean "It's a piece of crap but it was cheap and fast and it does the job".
It doesn't necessarily float MY boat, but this guy seems to have put together a pretty cool little project that he's clearly proud of. I congratulate him, and thank him for his contribution. But I think the word "hack" (used by the editor) is extremely overused on this site, and at the risk of sounding like a pedant and inviting the hoards of/.ers to pick every nit in my post, this seemed like a downright incorrect usage to me. "Nice hack job"... I'd rather have insightful commentary than me-too jargon slinging and elitism. "Cool hack" would have been more appropriate, but even then the term "hack" (in this sense) grows so tiresome.
I've been interested in robotics since I was a kid (I'm 21 now). Where I grew up, I didn't have access to resources like Radio Shack, or well stocked hardware stores. (Mail was about 2 weeks each way.) I tried to do what I could, reading all the books I could find. "Robot Builder's Bonanza" was an awesome book, which gave me many ideas and helped give me a foundation. But as you say, there were no books for the middle ground. I still didn't know jack about robots, when it came down to it.
Here is my tip for you. I know it's lame and obvious, but still: find other people that are working on this stuff. When you have a real question, no book will answer it. You can only answer it one of two ways: working your butt off for unreasonable amounts of time (what I was forced to do), or asking someone who knows. No online forums, none of that -- real live people. And then, it takes work. Lots of work. And time. (And money. Ack!)
how much will Lego Mindstorms help me in learning how to create more complex interactive robots?
I like MindStorms because they get kids and other people involved with robotics that otherwise wouldn't be. You can presumably learn a thing or two from them. But for people actually interested in learning real things, I'd say it doesn't take you far. You learn about gear ratios, great. But where do you buy a gear? What pitch should it be? How does the rotation sensor work? How will you learn about back-EMF and how to protect your circuits from it? Maybe I'm just biased, but I think it doesn't teach you so much, as it lets you play with hardware without investing time to do it. (I've always been convinced that the real value of MindStorms was the LEGO blocks, not the microcontroller at all.) Mindstorms are great. Get excited about robotics with them. Then get off your lazy butt and make it to the club meetings!;)
I've been working on some things for the new members of the Indiana University Robotics Club for next year. Kits and things that will let anyone get started building robots from scratch, for cheap. But even that will only take people so far. If you want to move past the kits, you need to learn a little about electronics. (This book is awesome: Practical Electronics for Inventors.) Find people with the same interests to work on projects with, and find people you can ask questions. Then start on a project, and learn everything you can. This WILL take time.
Robotics is hard. There are ways to have fun without getting far into it (like MindStorms). But if you want to really learn, you need to find people to help you, and you need to invest time learning.
In my experience, very few people actually want to "experiment", when it comes down to it. Everybody gets excited about building a robot, and they talk about making it do all sorts of great things, and how they'll "train" it to do this and "train" it to do that. They'll experiment with blah and blah. The number of people that actually do, however, is sadly much lower than even I had originally suspected. (I founded the Indiana University Robotics Club, for what it's worth.) When it comes down to it, very few people have the motivation to actually do real work, that takes real time and real energy. But then, I guess that's why Mindstorms are so popular, even on Slashdot.. (You honestly wouldn't believe how much progress me and my friend have made this summer so far, compared to what the entire club accomplished all last year. This is not just our robotics club suffering this problem, either. I'm convinced that CMU's robotics club, for example, is only slightly better off than us, due entirely to funding.)
Sorry for the rant..
Re:Two years ahead of the "other guys"
on
Apple Drops Mac OS 9
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
this is going to force some people to either buy new hardware or just never upgrade
This isn't going to "force" anybody to do anything. I am typing this from my 4-year-old Mac running OS X. It's slower to respond than OS 9, but I like the OS so much better that I put up with it. (The developer tools alone are simply wonderful, and worth the switch.) There's nothing I have to "go without" in using my old computer, I just have to wait longer for it to happen. Same deal here. Don't want to upgrade? Then deal with it -- it won't suddenly get worse than it was, just because of Apple's decision.
they are dead last in Legacy Support
I can't agree with this. Yes, there have been many times when Apple said, "We've decided to ditch this old technology, and move to something far superior". Every time it happens, people whine and moan. But they always have plenty of time to upgrade (years, usually), and backwards compatilibily has always been excellent (68k to PPC, for example).
Your computer doesn't become less productive when Apple decides to put in a new feature. This is ridiculous. I can understand some frustration when your 1337 new computer isn't the hottest thing on the market anymore... but it really is silly. Apple says, "Buy a new iBook tomorrow and you'll get [feature]!!" And everyone who bought an iBook last month complains that Apple isn't selling the same product for 5 years. Look at the big picture, people.
Shouldn't you at least mention that you are not the author of that passage, and that you merely changed occurrences of "moon" to read "mars"? Seems every time this comment is re-posted, it's never given credit, and it's always a +5 Funny. Oi.
I'm not sure if you're joking or what, and I don't mean to troll, but I have to ask this question to anyone who feels like replying: why is SETI worthy of respect? (I know my karma's gonna take a hit for that one.. Oh well.) It's your CPU time to do with as you please, I know. It just seems like a collosal waste of time to me. But we're all entitled to our opinions. We're all free to burn our time and our money as we see fit. That's cool with me. It's just confusing. If anyone thinks they have a good explanation for me, I'd love to hear it! I'm totally serious. The whole thing confuses me. I will concede, there were a couple of months back in 1998 or so (I was in high school) when my computer was crunching RC5 keys. Why? I don't know what I was thinking. The winner got a couple of grand. Maybe I wanted to show off how fast my 31337 new computer was. But I'm out of high school, and I still use the same computer, and its 1337 factor has diminished with time...
Ok, I just realized I've spent the last 10 minutes writing a Slashdot post. It's probably time I grew out of that, too. (Ooooh, my karma's gonna be smoking... hehe. You'd think I would learn my lesson about questioning the groupthink, from the whole Freenet thing. Ahh well. Burn, karma, burn!!;)
Great post, thanks.:) The "lizard brain" idea is interesting, I hadn't heard it put that way. It really is a tough thing to connect the higher level with the lower level.
I think we'll see a solution to lizard brain AI in the next few years, but it will come from the video game community, not academia
On the one hand I agree: the old ways of thinking don't seem to be doing it. But on the other hand, I'm an undergrad in Cognitive Science, so I like to at least pretend I'll have something to do with it.;) (But then, I'd never really consider myself "academia", so maybe there's hope for me.;)
I know I'm going to get flamed to oblivion, and maybe I deserve it, but... I don't know about Rod Brooks. He has done some cool things, sure. (Call me cynical, but I wonder what I could accomplish, given his budget.) I build robots. Nothing spectacular, I'm just a hobbyist, but I like to think I have some handle on the realities of it. And Brooks, in my (probably useless;) opinion, is just out there. Idealism is good, but so much of his work just appears frivelous to me. It is depressing to me that this guy has these ridiculous amounts of money (don't tell me about MIT budget downsizing), and he is using it to build robots that smile at you, and beefed up digital versions of BEAM robots. While I am sitting here trying to scrape up $30 for an ultrasonic rangefinder for my latest critter.
Sure, life is unfair. Wah wah wah. I just always go nuts when I hear anything by this guy. "One day we'll sell millions of tiny robots in a jar, and they'll clean your TV screen." "Robots are going to change the world." I don't see it, Rod, much as I'd genuinely love to. We need to stay grounded at least a little bit.
Thanks for putting up with my whining.;) Let the flaming begin.
Or in MacOS just set it to "View As Buttons" (instead of "View As Icons"). I hate buttons though... ('Course I'm in OS X now and don't know of any equivalent. But I don't much care, either, since I never used it before.;)
a human who uses his 5 senses together in a new way
I don't know anything about bats. But what you say sounds a lot like something I've been thinking about lately. It's incredibly common, but we probably don't think about it much: subconsciously combining our senses to create new "senses". Here's a great example: wetness. You don't have any wetness sensors. But if you stick your hand in a box and brush it up against something that's wet, you know it's wet. How? Your "cold" sensors (or temperature, or whatever) fire, your tactile sensors register certain patterns, your hairs are matted down (more tactile feedback).. and you infer subconsciously that your hand is wet. You could be wrong (just like you can be mistaken in your judgements of the sources of sounds, etc), but odds are you correct. If you rub your fingers together and they catch, slip, and vibrate in a certain way, and your muscle feedback says there's a certain resistance signature, you're probably wet. You can't help but feel it: it's a new sense.
Sorry for going a bit off-topic. Seems kinda interesting to me anyway...
Excellent post, thank you very much! (I must admit, I'm not quite inspired to join the dev team, but..;) I very much appreciate your opinions, and your good examples. If only more of the posts on Slashdot were of this caliber. I am so tired of the "you're not good enough for Freenet, we don't want you" attitude I keep getting. (All from the ACs, unsurprisingly enough.;) Why wouldn't they just answer my question instead of getting all defensive? You did! Thank you! Good post.:)
I have and do program in Java. In the future I'll try to remember that sarcasm is something that goes undetected on Slashdot. In fact, when I said that it takes "a page of code", I was (in jest, I might add) referring to the numerous complexities that are necessary to do otherwise simple things. For example, "System.out.println" compared to "printf". Or "public static final void" blah blah blah. Thank goodness I didn't say anything witty, that would have gone over like a lead balloon!;-)
Your comments on moving it to packet radio are pretty much wildly inaccurate.
No, they aren't. GPRS is a GSM thing (if I understand correctly), which isn't what we were talking about. I was referring to amateur radio based packet radio, using amateur radio frequencies. This is what the freenet guy was talking about that I mentioned. (I thought that was clear, but apparently not.) And it is a (unfortunate?) fact that encryption is not permitted on amateur bands. You need to know all of this stuff to pass the ham radio license exam, which is why I know it. Allow me to quote FCC Amateur Radio regulations, part 97.113 ("Prohibited transmissions"), section A.4 (emphasis mine):
Music using a phone emission except as specifically provided elsewhere in this Section; communications intended to facilitate a criminal act;
messages in codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning thereof, except as otherwise provided herein; obscene or indecent words or language; or false or deceptive messages, signals or identification
You are right, people could set up commercial radio transmissions similar to GPRS, but that wouldn't have several of the advantages that the guy I mentioned thought could be had by using ham radio.
I really don't like this whole "stay outta my treehouse, we're better than you" attitude I've been getting. I have been asking legitimate questions. If you are offended or insecure by me asking them, perhaps you have more important things to think about. Fine, so you want a forum for free speech. As I understand it, Freenet does not provide such a forum, it merely acts as a medium. So does such a forum exist? Does anyone use it? Please read my questions before you start insulting my intelligence. I have been trying my best not to be insulting to others, and I'd appreciate it if others did the same for me. We don't have to agree, but being civil is a prerequisite for gaining support. And no matter how 1337 your treehouse may be, if nobody supports it, it will crumble.
I can go into the bathroom and shout into the toilet, and you know what? Nobody will hear me! HEY!! Freedom of speech! I can say anything I want! That's frickin' rad.;)
Seriously though. I've gotten a million replies saying "freedom of speech". But is it speech if nobody listens? I'm asking for an actual use. China, yeah yeah. (What do you do when they decide to put anyone using Freenet in prison? Fat lot of good that did you, eh?) Cryptome.. there's a million and one better ways to do it that are here now and working great.
I'm sorry. Maybe the replies I've gotten are perfectly great, and I'm just stubborn and unaccepting of them. It doesn't feel that way though. These answers are extremely unsatisfying to me. So, in response to all the other people who will repeat that I need to stay away from Freenet: don't bother, I already do.;) (I am still welcoming any honest answers to my original question, though, from anyone who has more to say than that I am a retard for not understanding what "free speech" means. I look forward to reading them.)
Slashdot Mirror
We're all entitled to our opinions about how NASA is running their show, but even still, I have to disagree with your post.
From what I saw on those links you pointed out, those projects have very different goals from the lunar lander challenge. In both cases (as far as the articles made clear) the respective countries were running state-sponsored (not privately funded) programs to get their gadgets into orbit around the moon to take measurements, test out equipment, etc, without ever touching down. The lunar lander challenge, on the other hand, isn't really about the moon part, so much as the lander part (hell, the challenge takes place on earth). My understanding is that it is geared towards developing privately funded solutions capable of performing a task roughly equivalent to what a helicopter can do (vertical takeoff, controlled flight, vertical landing), but without an atmosphere. It's not nearly as much of a marvel as putting a probe in orbit and mapping out a planet (or moon), as NASA has already done (though maybe not to the degree that these new projects plan to), but it's privately funded, and I believe it is done in the name of making future trips to other planets cheaper. NASA's $2M prize is nothing compared to what the various companies could (and probably already have) shell out, so in fact this is actually a money-saver for NASA. If/when we have any sort of permanent setup on the moon, whether it is a colony of humans or an automated ore-extracting plant, or whatever, we will need this capability. Sure, we have it (NASA has done it, and with people onboard to boot), but the basement designers will, out of necessity, find ways to do it that are cheaper, requiring less-exotic materials, less human interaction, etc. These groups will explore the problem space in a way more akin to how the Russians developed much of their space technology (fly it until it breaks, redesign until it flies again, rinse, repeat... which resulted in some pretty bulletproof systems).
Opinions about NASA aside, I would personally like to see us build colonies off of this planet. Maybe we've got plenty of time left on this one, maybe not, but we don't really know, and I would love to visit the moon one day. And if I can develop something in my basement that makes that more affordable for the next generation, I'm gonna give it a try.
I agree with you that most people think that electricity comes from nowhere, so it's automatically "cleaner". However, I have to question your claim that a single-user, commercial grade device is more efficient at generating electricity than a huge mass producing power plant. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that that would surprise me, and I'd be interested to see some hard numbers. Why don't the power companies junk their power plants and just order a boat-load of hybrid cars? Clearly I'm missing something. Thanks!
Now about the light issues. This doesn't seem right at all. Light doesn't bend more underwater than in air -- it bends at the transition between different optical densities. Since there would be no transitions underwater, the light wouldn't bend.
Isn't the whole point of using a laser, to eliminate the need for (or interference from) other sources of light? It is very easy to detect a specific frequency of light as it contrasts to black, so I highly doubt barcode scanners care at all about ambient light. I haven't tried it, but it would surprise me a lot to find that barcode scanners don't work in the dark, for instance. Again... the light coming from the sky fades at that depth, but I submit that such light would make no difference.For all I know you invented the bloody barcode scanner, so maybe I'm talking out of my butt. But then, maybe you are. ;) These are my reasoned opinions, and if you have more details to back yourself up I'm very interested in hearing them. :)
Believe it. I go to Indiana University, and that's precisely how it is. I'm no expert on the exact details of the arrangement, but IU has a "special relationship" with Microsoft, allowing the students to purchase the software for roughly cost ($5), or you can download (all? most, certainly) of the same software for free from the school's secure servers. However, you won't find these deals with other companies. Most companies offer educational discounts, but it's not of the same level. In a Java class I had a couple of years ago, they had boxes and boxes of J++ that they would hand out to anyone that wanted them. (Most of this "free" software, such as Office, expires after one year.) Photoshop? Nope. OS X? Nope, same deal. Anyway, everybody around here pretty much understands that IU sold their soul to the devil to get it this way. They give us money and "software donations", we indoctrinate our future leaders and hook them on the dirty crack that is Microsoft. Or something like that.
Ummmmmmmmmm........ isn't that what serial is for?
I don't know anything about car capacitors, so perhaps this is a useless answer, but.... capacitor banks, rather than single large capacitors, are used in high-current circuits because they can crank out a whole lot more current a lot quicker when you have lots of small ones in parallel. This is frequently done even on small bypass capacitors in circuits -- rather than putting a few thousand microfarads on a motor, you might put several 470uF caps, for instance. The response is much quicker. So not surprisingly, this is the way you always do experiments that require frightening amounts of juice.
I think there are, in general, probably two ways we could hope to achieve "artificial intelligence" (whatever the heck that is): First, by some form of duplication of what's already there. For example, by digitizing an entire working animal/human brain. This would not require us to understand the workings of the greater structure of the brain, just the little parts that make it work. The second is by figuring out what sort of simple, fundamental bits are necessary to create a digital "brain" capable of learning and improving in a way that would enable it to eventually become "intelligent" (again, we would have no understanding of the final "intelligent" structure, only the methods that created them). I think Genetic Programming, while somewhat interesting and possibly even useful, is not the key. It has the same concept in mind though, I believe.
But what do I know. Clearly not enough to dupe enough investors to pay for my silly musings.
It doesn't necessarily float MY boat, but this guy seems to have put together a pretty cool little project that he's clearly proud of. I congratulate him, and thank him for his contribution. But I think the word "hack" (used by the editor) is extremely overused on this site, and at the risk of sounding like a pedant and inviting the hoards of /.ers to pick every nit in my post, this seemed like a downright incorrect usage to me. "Nice hack job"... I'd rather have insightful commentary than me-too jargon slinging and elitism. "Cool hack" would have been more appropriate, but even then the term "hack" (in this sense) grows so tiresome.
Here is my tip for you. I know it's lame and obvious, but still: find other people that are working on this stuff. When you have a real question, no book will answer it. You can only answer it one of two ways: working your butt off for unreasonable amounts of time (what I was forced to do), or asking someone who knows. No online forums, none of that -- real live people. And then, it takes work. Lots of work. And time. (And money. Ack!)
how much will Lego Mindstorms help me in learning how to create more complex interactive robots?
I like MindStorms because they get kids and other people involved with robotics that otherwise wouldn't be. You can presumably learn a thing or two from them. But for people actually interested in learning real things, I'd say it doesn't take you far. You learn about gear ratios, great. But where do you buy a gear? What pitch should it be? How does the rotation sensor work? How will you learn about back-EMF and how to protect your circuits from it? Maybe I'm just biased, but I think it doesn't teach you so much, as it lets you play with hardware without investing time to do it. (I've always been convinced that the real value of MindStorms was the LEGO blocks, not the microcontroller at all.) Mindstorms are great. Get excited about robotics with them. Then get off your lazy butt and make it to the club meetings! ;)
I've been working on some things for the new members of the Indiana University Robotics Club for next year. Kits and things that will let anyone get started building robots from scratch, for cheap. But even that will only take people so far. If you want to move past the kits, you need to learn a little about electronics. (This book is awesome: Practical Electronics for Inventors.) Find people with the same interests to work on projects with, and find people you can ask questions. Then start on a project, and learn everything you can. This WILL take time.
Robotics is hard. There are ways to have fun without getting far into it (like MindStorms). But if you want to really learn, you need to find people to help you, and you need to invest time learning.
<beating dead horse>
And thus, as the parent poster says, he made it. ;)
Sorry for the rant..
This isn't going to "force" anybody to do anything. I am typing this from my 4-year-old Mac running OS X. It's slower to respond than OS 9, but I like the OS so much better that I put up with it. (The developer tools alone are simply wonderful, and worth the switch.) There's nothing I have to "go without" in using my old computer, I just have to wait longer for it to happen. Same deal here. Don't want to upgrade? Then deal with it -- it won't suddenly get worse than it was, just because of Apple's decision.
they are dead last in Legacy Support
I can't agree with this. Yes, there have been many times when Apple said, "We've decided to ditch this old technology, and move to something far superior". Every time it happens, people whine and moan. But they always have plenty of time to upgrade (years, usually), and backwards compatilibily has always been excellent (68k to PPC, for example).
Your computer doesn't become less productive when Apple decides to put in a new feature. This is ridiculous. I can understand some frustration when your 1337 new computer isn't the hottest thing on the market anymore... but it really is silly. Apple says, "Buy a new iBook tomorrow and you'll get [feature]!!" And everyone who bought an iBook last month complains that Apple isn't selling the same product for 5 years. Look at the big picture, people.
Shouldn't you at least mention that you are not the author of that passage, and that you merely changed occurrences of "moon" to read "mars"? Seems every time this comment is re-posted, it's never given credit, and it's always a +5 Funny. Oi.
Ok, I just realized I've spent the last 10 minutes writing a Slashdot post. It's probably time I grew out of that, too. (Ooooh, my karma's gonna be smoking... hehe. You'd think I would learn my lesson about questioning the groupthink, from the whole Freenet thing. Ahh well. Burn, karma, burn!! ;)
Sure, life is unfair. Wah wah wah. I just always go nuts when I hear anything by this guy. "One day we'll sell millions of tiny robots in a jar, and they'll clean your TV screen." "Robots are going to change the world." I don't see it, Rod, much as I'd genuinely love to. We need to stay grounded at least a little bit.
Thanks for putting up with my whining. ;) Let the flaming begin.
Or in MacOS just set it to "View As Buttons" (instead of "View As Icons"). I hate buttons though... ('Course I'm in OS X now and don't know of any equivalent. But I don't much care, either, since I never used it before. ;)
Sorry for going a bit off-topic. Seems kinda interesting to me anyway...
It was a joke. I'll remember not to bother with those on Slashdot anymore.
Excellent post, thank you very much! (I must admit, I'm not quite inspired to join the dev team, but.. ;) I very much appreciate your opinions, and your good examples. If only more of the posts on Slashdot were of this caliber. I am so tired of the "you're not good enough for Freenet, we don't want you" attitude I keep getting. (All from the ACs, unsurprisingly enough. ;) Why wouldn't they just answer my question instead of getting all defensive? You did! Thank you! Good post. :)
I really don't like this whole "stay outta my treehouse, we're better than you" attitude I've been getting. I have been asking legitimate questions. If you are offended or insecure by me asking them, perhaps you have more important things to think about. Fine, so you want a forum for free speech. As I understand it, Freenet does not provide such a forum, it merely acts as a medium. So does such a forum exist? Does anyone use it? Please read my questions before you start insulting my intelligence. I have been trying my best not to be insulting to others, and I'd appreciate it if others did the same for me. We don't have to agree, but being civil is a prerequisite for gaining support. And no matter how 1337 your treehouse may be, if nobody supports it, it will crumble.
Seriously though. I've gotten a million replies saying "freedom of speech". But is it speech if nobody listens? I'm asking for an actual use. China, yeah yeah. (What do you do when they decide to put anyone using Freenet in prison? Fat lot of good that did you, eh?) Cryptome.. there's a million and one better ways to do it that are here now and working great.
I'm sorry. Maybe the replies I've gotten are perfectly great, and I'm just stubborn and unaccepting of them. It doesn't feel that way though. These answers are extremely unsatisfying to me. So, in response to all the other people who will repeat that I need to stay away from Freenet: don't bother, I already do. ;) (I am still welcoming any honest answers to my original question, though, from anyone who has more to say than that I am a retard for not understanding what "free speech" means. I look forward to reading them.)