Easy. Make linux and aix application compatible, sell your software to both, and sell services to small and big business customers. IBM is betting a lot on Websphere and Linux.
I remember spending hours copying the code out of back issues of Byte! magazine (i think that was it) to get a silly chain reaction game up on my computer. It was pretty neat when it was done, but I couldn't tell you how it worked.....
An Apple IIGS, GS for graphics and sound. Big plus was the hi-res graphics mode. had one of the first 3.5" disk drives which you could load the "system disk and system tools" which was a GUI interface that really didn't do much. Mine did not have a hard drive, that came out shortly afterwards. I remember the time it took to load the appleworks disk.
You gotta start with the youger generation. If they learn a new gui, then everyone else will have to catch up. If they learn dvorak, then dvorak will rule. That's they way it is in internet-time. -K. BTW, I like dvorak, (recent fascination of mine) but when you type on more than one keyboard, you gotta do querty.
Re:A long slippery slope down to Hell
on
Frankenstein Time
·
· Score: 1
However, anyone who knows how Science works knows that these area which man must take on Faith are clearly delimited--things such as the nature of God, the existance of the supernatural, or the nature of the Infinite. It's not that performing scientific experiments on God is Evil--it's that Science, properly defined, clearly says that it cannot explain these supernatural elements. Hense, supernatural.
I would completely disagree with the statement that these things are clearly delimited. big-bang vs creation? How delimited is that?
In fact, I would argue the best way to become a famous scientist is to theorize on either a supernatural or moral issue.
Although science is the study of cause and effect with the five senses, there are many scientific articles which continually extrapolate on what the have observed to postulate thier views on religious topics.
Also, many theories brought about by scientists (theories, not facts) have so determined the course of history and philosophys from that point on. Remember the full title of darwin's work:
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
And an excerpt from the beginning of the book:I WILL here give a brief sketch of the progress of opinion on the Origin of Species. Until recently the great majority of naturalists believed that species were immutable productions, and had been separately created
Creation is "supernatural", and can't be disproven (how can you disprove creation using cause and effect when the cause is supernatural), yet darwin extrapolated his theory to specifically deny creationism.
As a mathematician, I don't think pure science (the study of cause and effect) is evil (ridiculous), however, if you believe in a higher power, and you believe he has revealed himself in some way to you, yet you extrapolate your theories against that to the detriment of mankind, you are not exactly heavenly.
There's also something to be said for knowing your own limits. Perhaps JonKatz is right, we aren't responisible enough for that.
This "perfect baby" is quite like the A-bomb, discover it, try it, then decide its wrong. That is "science" after all.
I can actually see a time when the Supreme court will be defending the rights of the parents to make genetically better babies, and if something gets screwed up, well, we can go back to the '90 method and abort them. Being genetically imperfect builds character.
The proof is in human history, my friend.. there are reasons why we set up governments. If you don't believe in absolute right and wrong, then you bow to fact that the majority decides what is right and what is wrong. I believe there are absolute rights and wrong, written on our conscience. However, human nature is to go against our conscience if it seems to benefit us. (Even though it is wrong)
Many masses have been swayed by being taught propaganda. It certainly affects the choices you make (your knowledge may be flawed). Do I think teacher alone breed evil? no. HUMAN NATURE might, though.
Teachers breed knowledge. Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Corruption is evil.
Is this *really* that off base? I see it as a sad and *true* statement on human nature.
In a perfect world, knowledge itself wouldn't cause corruption...but this ain't no perfect world.
The only reason we don't see more abuse of the above is because of societal organization and regulation, because, when somebody else is corrupt, it hurts me (not in my backyard).
Human nature is looking out for number one, after all.
Inside, when left unregulated, we are all egomaniacs (at least to some degree.). You are only less blatant because you don't have the opportunity to get away with such things without societal regulation.
Although, practice alone doesn't make you a expert. In fact, just sitting down and writing code without consulting the designs/patterns/conventions of people who have more experience will usually result in hard to maintain code. It usally takes practice *corrected* by peers. (even luke skywalker had to be trained by obi-wan:) ) And a few other qualities: (see the camel book by larry wall ("Programming Perl")): laziness, hubris, and impatience.
laziness: "...write labor-saving programs other people will find useful and document what you write so you don't have to answer so many questions about it..."
impatience: "The anger you feel when the computer is being lazy. This makes you write programs that don't just react to your needs, but actually anticipate them. Or at least pretend to..."
hubris: "the quality that makes you write (and maintain) programs that other people won't want to say bad things about."
Oh, crap. It's no such thing. The variety of potential protocols is infinite, so this to decry some people's response to a particular kind of data transfer as "the end of the free internet" is just so much doomsaying hogwash
Let me clarify: I am talking about the "free spirit" of the internet being demolished by court case after court case and regulation after regulation *in America* today. In the old days, many things just appeared on the internet freeely (as in "information sharing") even if the information wasn't particularly "socially acceptable" to a wider audience. I agree that there has to be some regulation of the internet, however, you throw out the good with the bad. On top of that, introduce commercialism and patents and you've got a much more restrictive net then before.
Again, this particular article is just showing that when some (good) things (file sharing) get extremely popular in a (anti-RIAA) bad way (mp3's) then they want to restrict and regulate all file sharing.
restriction and regulation = = not free
Americans always think that they own the net. They don't. Whatever a college or even a court in America may think about something, it has absolutely 0% bearing on what I, an internet user in London, will ever do in the future.
You may be right, however, I'm commenting on the court case, which is in *America*, thus my comments fit into the in the context of American colleges (which are regulating bandwidth, not taking it away).
This isn't the end of the internet. It's just the end of the **free** Internet. Colleges who once promoted *thought* and *freedom* are now going to regulate what you can do over the internet.
This isn't the 60's
I guess it all goes into the pile: Some people abused bandwidth and now we have to punish everyone else.
If you *really* want to learn Linux, rewrite the whole kernel and gcc library in assembly while counting backwards from 1000 in binary one's complement.
Exactly what is *learning* Linux? Knowing how to compile the sources? ./configure make make test make install or knowing how to bring up your machine from a broken install? or is it configuring X? You can do this under numerous distributions.
If its knowing "Essential System Administration" in & out then I don't think this is limited to slackware.
IF YOU really want to learn linux, try contributing to an open source project using your linux machine and administrating a few others at work in a heterogenous network, and install whatever distro you please. (for extra credit, bring it up on a laptop using a dev kernel)
And then maybe you can say you scratched the surface.:)
I doubt it. That would imply that most people are actually concerned about the moral imperative. It's like the A-bomb, lets make it, try it, then decide it's wrong.
I never thought of having logs print "real-time". That's cool and all, but it sounds like a tremendous waste of paper...but I can;t really tink of anything right now that would be as cracker-proof. (as if anything is. I guess you could re-direc5t the queue, but you'd have to think of that) As far as line-printers for music....that is SICK. Although I'm into tech as much as any/. reader, there are certain things about my life that I can't stand... One is staring at a monitor all day, and two is the sound of dot-matrix printers! I was happy to see those things go!
Although I agree that there are plenty of things on slashdot that are a bit obscure to the uninitialized reader,I don't know if slashdot should be responsible to make the links. I guess the motto is "If you don't understand it, go figure it out". In addition to "everything", there are plenty of resources available such as the Jargon File and the The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (see link below) etc etc.
CVS is part of the "open source" culture as many "open source" projects use CVS to keep the source to their project. CVS allows many people to check out the source at once, and submit updates. (of course, most projects are of the manner that you have to be trusted first, and the way to be trusted is to submit good patches)
Anyways, I personally use this link which generates a definition for the word you enter from many sources. BTW, Xfree86 CVS'ing the code is great, it means better collabration. I use the JCVS client to access CVS repositories and it is great!
"In the long term, all applications software will likely be provided as a service, subscribed to over the Internet. This will allow Microsoft and other software service providers to provide better customer service, transparent installation and backup, and a positive feedback loop into the product-development process. Software delivered as a service would also allow Microsoft and independent developers to respond more swiftly with backups and antivirus protection. "
Yes, I agree, using APPLICATION SERVER technology enables better support. There is nothing new here. And it does cut down on software priracy quite a bit. However, I do question what privacy the end-user has. I mean, if all the office software now runs as an application delivered from a Microsoft portal, can I really trust microsoft enough to use that in my company?
I'm confused, can someone clarify? It's not really clear whether you can buy the server software to serv apps to your company or whether all applications will be delivered only from microsoft servers.
If you could set up some subscription service to update your servers from microsoft servers, then I think it is a good idea. It would be like MSDN without the CDS in the mail. To me, that would be the only way to let "developers, businesses and consumers to harness technology on their terms." Besides, having a single digital identiy isn't all its cracked up to me. I think the popularity of chat rooms would attest to that.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget, IBM likes the idea of running linux on the mainframe.
it's a great e-business enabler, after all.
Easy. Make linux and aix application compatible, sell your software to both, and sell services to small and big business customers. IBM is betting a lot on Websphere and Linux.
The article makes it sound like everything is in black & white. Those of us who are more experienced biologists know that it's really a gray matter.
Time does not have a definite starting point. There are theories which claim that, but that is as far as it goes.
I agree. How can you prove that time had a starting point? That's like trying to prove how the world began.
And frankly, that may not even be in the realm of science.
But isn't the gravity of the whole earth holding more than that pin on the table? It's not like that toy magnet can lift the table too.
I also remember when you could buy a special handheld scanner to scan the program in, if you were to lazy to type it.
I remember spending hours copying the code out of back issues of Byte! magazine (i think that was it) to get a silly chain reaction game up on my computer. It was pretty neat when it was done, but I couldn't tell you how it worked.....
An Apple IIGS, GS for graphics and sound. Big plus was the hi-res graphics mode. had one of the first 3.5" disk drives which you could load the "system disk and system tools" which was a GUI interface that really didn't do much. Mine did not have a hard drive, that came out shortly afterwards. I remember the time it took to load the appleworks disk.
You gotta start with the youger generation. If they learn a new gui, then everyone else will have to catch up. If they learn dvorak, then dvorak will rule. That's they way it is in internet-time.
-K.
BTW, I like dvorak, (recent fascination of mine) but when you type on more than one keyboard, you gotta do querty.
However, anyone who knows how Science works knows that these area which man must take on Faith are clearly delimited--things such as the nature of God, the existance of the supernatural, or the nature of the Infinite. It's not that performing scientific experiments on God is Evil--it's that Science, properly defined, clearly says that it cannot explain these supernatural elements. Hense, supernatural.
I would completely disagree with the statement that these things are clearly delimited. big-bang vs creation? How delimited is that?
In fact, I would argue the best way to become a famous scientist is to theorize on either a supernatural or moral issue.
Although science is the study of cause and effect with the five senses, there are many scientific articles which continually extrapolate on what the have observed to postulate thier views on religious topics.
Also, many theories brought about by scientists (theories, not facts) have so determined the course of history and philosophys from that point on. Remember the full title of darwin's work:
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
And an excerpt from the beginning of the book:I WILL here give a brief sketch of the progress of opinion on the Origin of Species. Until recently the great majority of naturalists believed that species were immutable productions, and had been separately created
Creation is "supernatural", and can't be disproven (how can you disprove creation using cause and effect when the cause is supernatural), yet darwin extrapolated his theory to specifically deny creationism.
As a mathematician, I don't think pure science (the study of cause and effect) is evil (ridiculous), however, if you believe in a higher power, and you believe he has revealed himself in some way to you, yet you extrapolate your theories against that to the detriment of mankind, you are not exactly heavenly.
There's also something to be said for knowing your own limits. Perhaps JonKatz is right, we aren't responisible enough for that.
This "perfect baby" is quite like the A-bomb, discover it, try it, then decide its wrong.
That is "science" after all.
Seriously, what if by tweaking you make a physically perfect yet over-agressive personality?
I can actually see a time when the Supreme court will be defending the rights of the parents to make genetically better babies, and if something gets screwed up, well, we can go back to the '90 method and abort them. Being genetically imperfect builds character.
The proof is in human history, my friend.. there are reasons why we set up governments. If you don't believe in absolute right and wrong, then you bow to fact that the majority decides what is right and what is wrong. I believe there are absolute rights and wrong, written on our conscience. However, human nature is to go against our conscience if it seems to benefit us. (Even though it is wrong)
Many masses have been swayed by being taught propaganda. It certainly affects the choices you make (your knowledge may be flawed). Do I think teacher alone breed evil? no. HUMAN NATURE might, though.
Teachers breed knowledge. Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Corruption is evil.
Is this *really* that off base? I see it as a sad and *true* statement on human nature.
In a perfect world, knowledge itself wouldn't cause corruption...but this ain't no perfect world.
The only reason we don't see more abuse of the above is because of societal organization and regulation, because, when somebody else is corrupt, it hurts me (not in my backyard).
Human nature is looking out for number one, after all.
Inside, when left unregulated, we are all egomaniacs (at least to some degree.). You are only less blatant because you don't have the opportunity to get away with such things without societal regulation.
yes, with that in mind, they are an ARM and a leg above the competition.
Although, practice alone doesn't make you a expert. In fact, just sitting down and writing code without consulting the designs/patterns/conventions of people who have more experience will usually result in hard to maintain code. It usally takes practice *corrected* by peers. (even luke skywalker had to be trained by obi-wan :) ) And a few other qualities: (see the camel book by larry wall ("Programming Perl")): laziness, hubris, and impatience.
laziness: "...write labor-saving programs other people will find useful and document what you write so you don't have to answer so many questions about it..."
impatience: "The anger you feel when the computer is being lazy. This makes you write programs that don't just react to your needs, but actually anticipate them. Or at least pretend to..."
hubris: "the quality that makes you write (and maintain) programs that other people won't want to say bad things about."
Oh, crap. It's no such thing. The variety of potential protocols is infinite, so this to decry some people's response to a particular kind of data transfer as "the end of the free internet" is just so much doomsaying hogwash
Let me clarify: I am talking about the "free spirit" of the internet being demolished by court case after court case and regulation after regulation *in America* today. In the old days, many things just appeared on the internet freeely (as in "information sharing") even if the information wasn't particularly "socially acceptable" to a wider audience. I agree that there has to be some regulation of the internet, however, you throw out the good with the bad. On top of that, introduce commercialism and patents and you've got a much more restrictive net then before.
Again, this particular article is just showing that when some (good) things (file sharing) get extremely popular in a (anti-RIAA) bad way (mp3's) then they want to restrict and regulate all file sharing.
restriction and regulation = = not free
Americans always think that they own the net. They don't. Whatever a college or even a court in America may think about something, it has absolutely 0% bearing on what I, an internet user in London, will ever do in the future.
You may be right, however, I'm commenting on the court case, which is in *America*, thus my comments fit into the in the context of American colleges (which are regulating bandwidth, not taking it away).
This isn't the end of the internet. It's just the end of the **free** Internet. Colleges who once promoted *thought* and *freedom* are now going to regulate what you can do over the internet.
This isn't the 60's
I guess it all goes into the pile: Some people abused bandwidth and now we have to punish everyone else.
YOu would think that there might be one or two /.'s who use linux *and* freebsd.
If there are, "they are being very very quiet"
I think I'll try FreeBSD soon. I just gotta free up a computer....
If you *really* want to learn Linux, rewrite the whole kernel and gcc library in assembly while counting backwards from 1000 in binary one's complement.
:)
Exactly what is *learning* Linux? Knowing how to compile the sources?
./configure
make
make test
make install
or knowing how to bring up your machine from a broken install?
or is it configuring X?
You can do this under numerous distributions.
If its knowing "Essential System Administration" in & out then I don't think this is limited to slackware.
IF YOU really want to learn linux, try contributing to an open source project using your linux machine and administrating a few others at work in a heterogenous network, and install whatever distro you please. (for extra credit, bring it up on a laptop using a dev kernel)
And then maybe you can say you scratched the surface.
medical. once they figure out what each gene does then they can tell, for example, if you'll get ALzheimers.
I doubt it. That would imply that most people are actually concerned about the moral imperative. It's like the A-bomb, lets make it, try it, then decide it's wrong.
I never thought of having logs print "real-time". That's cool and all, but it sounds like a tremendous waste of paper...but I can;t really tink of anything right now that would be as cracker-proof. (as if anything is. I guess you could re-direc5t the queue, but you'd have to think of that) As far as line-printers for music....that is SICK. Although I'm into tech as much as any /. reader, there are certain things about my life that I can't stand... One is staring at a monitor all day, and two is the sound of dot-matrix printers! I was happy to see those things go!
Although I agree that there are plenty of things on slashdot that are a bit obscure to the uninitialized reader,I don't know if slashdot should be responsible to make the links. I guess the motto is "If you don't understand it, go figure it out". In addition to "everything", there are plenty of resources available such as the Jargon File and the The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (see link below) etc etc.
CVS is part of the "open source" culture as many "open source" projects use CVS to keep the source to their project. CVS allows many people to check out the source at once, and submit updates. (of course, most projects are of the manner that you have to be trusted first, and the way to be trusted is to submit good patches)
Anyways, I personally use this link which generates a definition for the word you enter from many sources. BTW, Xfree86 CVS'ing the code is great, it means better collabration. I use the JCVS client to access CVS repositories and it is great!
"In the long term, all applications software will likely be provided as a service, subscribed to over the Internet. This will allow Microsoft and other software service providers to provide better customer service, transparent installation and backup, and a positive feedback loop into the product-development process. Software delivered as a service would also allow Microsoft and independent developers to respond more swiftly with backups and antivirus protection. "
Yes, I agree, using APPLICATION SERVER technology enables better support. There is nothing new here. And it does cut down on software priracy quite a bit. However, I do question what privacy the end-user has. I mean, if all the office software now runs as an application delivered from a Microsoft portal, can I really trust microsoft enough to use that in my company?
I'm confused, can someone clarify? It's not really clear whether you can buy the server software to serv apps to your company or whether all applications will be delivered only from microsoft servers.
If you could set up some subscription service to update your servers from microsoft servers, then I think it is a good idea. It would be like MSDN without the CDS in the mail.
To me, that would be the only way to let "developers, businesses and consumers to harness technology on their terms."
Besides, having a single digital identiy isn't all its cracked up to me. I think the popularity of chat rooms would attest to that.