Yeah, I hear ya. Also...it's not just religious folks, but people with a sense of morality. Like, their morality says stealing and murder is wrong, so they go and hold me hostage to that morality by telling me not to steal and murder, and they even say I should go to jail if I do! I mean, yeah, if you think murder is wrong, then fine, don't murder anybody, but don't tell me what I should and shouldn't do.
"In case you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic" -- Homer Simpson
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this. The Osborne effect is when you (you being a successful technology company) screw yourself with your own innovation. EDO RAM and the Pentium MMX chip are some obvious examples. I'm sure many readers here are more learned on this effect than I, but it seems like something we should keep in mind when discussing the benefits of innovation to established companies.
And human history is filled with enough follies by people who "know what they're doing"
Oh my, do we have a logical fallacy here? Why yes, boys and girls. It's our old friend, the argumentum ad hominem. Just because authority figures screwed up in the past (and in Challenger's case, it was bureaucrats who pushed the launch; the engineers, I believe, knew it probably wasn't safe to launch the shuttle), doesn't mean we can discount what they say now.
Mister Attack,
I think it's time to review your notes. This is not an ad hominem. The point is that experts are not infallible. Nowhere is it claimed that the experts are always wrong or that their opinions (in their respective fields, of course) are not more valid than those of others (i.e. not experts). All that is claimed is that the experts sometime make mistakes. In the case of the anhililation, even the smallest possibility of a mistake is too great. That was the point, and it is valid.
In other words, it is a proof by counterexample. I'll let you figure out the details.
Linux fundamentally relies on 30-year-old operating system technology and architecture.
Darnit! I just realized that my car is based on 70 year old technology! I wish that some company as innovative as Microsoft would build one from scratch, rather than improving current models, like those old fashioned UNIX people do! =)
This page is good news. It means that Microsoft can no longer ignore the threat that Linux poses NT. The Halloween Documents (wow! It's been almost a year!) were one thing...this is Microsoft taking public action to put down the threat Linux poses.
However, it is frustrating to read half truths and a few outright lies. The public's image of Microsoft is changing, however. Bill Gates is no longer revered as the man who realised The Great American Dream (tm). Microsoft is no longer viewed as The Company That Made Computers Usable for People Like Me(tm). Case in point: my grandmother is asking me about the benefits of running Linux on her computer! People (not that many real read this info) aren't going to trust this info just because it's coming from Microsoft.
We have them quaking in their boots, guys (and girls!).
"But I'm not rejoicing for the ascendancy of Linux or its penguin mascot."
In other words, if it's not BSD, he doesn't want it to succeed. We don't want users to have a choice. No, we just want them to have BSD.
" If I had to pick out the single difference between the BSD community as a whole and the proponents of Linux, I would say it is something called ''correctness.''"
Ok...if that is true, then that is a very important point. But is it true? How can we know? Not from this article. It doesn't cite any ways in which BSD is more "correct" than Linux. I guess we're just supposed to trust Mr. Garfinkel.
" This may be one reason proponents of Linux are frequently slow to admit the debt they owe to the Computer Science Research Group at Berkeley, which created BSD, and to the Free Software Foundation at MIT"
Oh, now I get it. I know Mr. Garfinkel's true identity. *wink* But why is he calling it Linux rather than GNU/Linux?
"Although Linux is a fine operating system, I would encourage businesses as well as advanced enthusiasts to take a serious look at the other choices."
Now, I can agree with this point. However, that "Linux is a fine operating system" is not the impression that I get from the rest of the article.
This could have been a really good article. It included some real meat, unlike most BSD articles in mainstream mags. However, it is ruined by the author's arrogance. An arrogance which unfortunately seems to be abundant among BSD users.
In some ways, I think the biggest (certainly in the mainstream world's eyes) difference between Linux and BSD are the types of users you encounter. Immature flamers or arrogant snobs. (Betcha can't guess which is which). Most of the people I know who run either OS are really cool people, who I'm glad to know. But those types of people aren't as loud as the stereotypes. Possibly the biggest advantage of Linux over BSD is that it's most stereotypical users (immature, foul-mouthed flamers) don't get published in the mainstream press.
"After a nice clean re-install, a raft of changed passwords, and a minimalist reconfiguration, my system is secure. "
This article propagates the myth that there is a such thing as Secure System. The only Secure System is to have no system. Instead of "Secure System," we should use the term "Securer System" and we should encourage schools to teach the idea of not having a system, at least, not until you have a certificate (degree?) saying you are ready to have a system.
is here. It's NYTimes...so you need the free account.
Not much for me to add. Kurick rocked my world...changed the way I look at it actually. I'm thrilled that AI might finally see the light of day. Speilberg is no Kubrick. So what? He is a good director, and if Kubrick trusted him with this project...who am I to argue?
I agree with you. However, the problem is that the patent office is overloaded with patent applications. They don't have time to thouroughly review every application given to them and/or to consult experts in the field from which the application comes, so they just approve nearly every application that comes into their offices with the mentality that the courts can decide whether the patent is valid. Unfortunately, letting the courts decide is very expensive to all parties involved. Big businesses can usually afford it. Small companies usually can't. For both, when faced with a lawsuit, it is almost always cheaper just to settle out of court. Some companies realize this, and they take out patents that they know are bogus, knowing that they can make a lot of money from companies who are willing to do anyting to avoid going to court.
...to many of the users in these stories. I'm not a computer idiot...I'm a CS major and pretty good (although inexperienced...and it shows) at programming. However, a few years ago, I hadn't a clue. Not because I was stupid...but because I just didn't know. A couple examples:
1) My first computer (like many people my age...I'm 21) was an Apple IIe...which, of course, had no hard drive. When my grandparents got a used 386 running DOS, they asked me to help them use it. They had the game Wolfensteind, and my first goal was to figure out how to play it. I knew nothing about DOS, so, to play it, I stuck the floppy into the floppy drive (even though it was already installed). I reinstalled the bloody thing every time I wanted to play it, until I figured out how to use DOS.
2) I first learned UNIX from a book. When I read about the 'ls' command, I thought it was '1s' (note the number 'one' instead of the letter 'l').
The people in these stories may now be sysadmins, programmers, etc., for all we know. They aren't necessarily stupid, they just don't know.
The stories are pretty darn funny, however. But, then again, I can also laugh at myself.
Right on, man! They were stating a fact that is very relevent to the ideas in the article. I, for one, am so sick of people screaming "FUD!" whenever anyone claims that there may be an advantage for some users to using Windows. I love Linux, hate Windows, but I'm not about to close my eyes to the truth.
"While Linux is superior to Windows is most ways, there may be some disadvantages--" "FUD! FUD! FUD! Stop spreding this FUD!"
"Anyone who denies the evidence exists is ignorant of the truth. Amazingly, I saw a science teacher on TV that supported the decision stating that there is no proof that evolution is a more valid theory than creationism. My guess is she was trying to seem more openminded than she was, and was probably a science teacher by assignment rather than training."
When I saw the post, I thought that probably Kansas was requiring that evolution be taught as a theory that hasn't been proven (which it hasn't), rather than as the absolute facts.
Then I read the article. Yes, the creation vs. evolution debate does involove religion. However, that isn't the whole point of it. I'm a Christian, and I believe in evolution (progressive Creationism). The truth is, there is evidence to both sides of the debate. How can we expect people to be able to understand the debate without presenting all the evidence for both sides of it? This standard amounts to nothing more than the Kansas school board dictating beliefs to students while ignoring facts.
When I was in sixth grade, my teacher spent a whole semester teaching us about the debate. Our grade for the semester was based on a paper we wrote, supporting one side, or the other (sadly, the idea that parts of boths theories could be true wasn't even presented). In the process, I learned a great deal about the scientific method, how to find info in scientific journals, and how to look for bias in research. While my teacher did teach some shaky ideas (such as the idea that the second law of thermodynamics contradicts evolution), a great deal was learned by all. More important than learning the facts about the debate, we learned a lot about how to think for ourselves, and not trust every view presented just because it's "in a book."
I shudder to think about how many (or few, I should say) people coming out of the Kansas school system will have any idea about how to think for themselves.
"Oh, whoops. I guess if it weren't for the fact that the United States government of late DOES NOT have an excellent track record of protecting individual rights and freedoms, maybe we'd all be a little less triggerhappy about this sort of thing."
I certainly agree that, given the federal government's track record, along with statements made be various members of government that indicate a complete lack of understanding about the technology used on/with the Internet, we should be concerned.
The reason I made the above post was that (at least at the time), the majority of comments were posted by people who did not even know what this is about. People were calling this legislation, asking how this can be enforced, claiming that this isn't valid because the U.S. is not the only nation that uses the Internet, etc; rather than voicing valid concerns (of which there are many).
Maybe you have been on vacation somewhere, but just to get you up to speed..the gov has been sending out these "harmless" bits of legislation for a while now all in the hopes to grab control of the tigers tail.
Unfortunately, this is typical/. behavior. Mention the government and the Internet in the same post, and people will flip out about the Constitution, their rights being violated, this is not what America's supposed to stand for, etc.
<Advice> Before you go off on how awful the latest news about the governent is, at least read the article. You look like an idiot when you say things like "How are they going to enforce this?", and there is nothing to be enforced (at least, not yet)./. readers seem to have their own brand of FUD. Not A Good Thing. </Advice>
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't the KKK made up of WMCs?
No, the KKK is made up of WMs who call themselves Christians. But they are not following Christ.
Yeah, I hear ya. Also...it's not just religious folks, but people with a sense of morality. Like, their morality says stealing and murder is wrong, so they go and hold me hostage to that morality by telling me not to steal and murder, and they even say I should go to jail if I do! I mean, yeah, if you think murder is wrong, then fine, don't murder anybody, but don't tell me what I should and shouldn't do.
"In case you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic"
-- Homer Simpson
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this. The Osborne effect is when you (you being a successful technology company) screw yourself with your own innovation. EDO RAM and the Pentium MMX chip are some obvious examples. I'm sure many readers here are more learned on this effect than I, but it seems like something we should keep in mind when discussing the benefits of innovation to established companies.
And human history is filled with enough follies by people who "know what they're doing"
Oh my, do we have a logical fallacy here? Why yes, boys and girls. It's our old friend, the argumentum ad hominem. Just because authority figures screwed up in the past (and in Challenger's case, it was bureaucrats who pushed the launch; the engineers, I believe, knew it probably wasn't safe to launch the shuttle), doesn't mean we can discount what they say now.
Mister Attack,
I think it's time to review your notes. This is not an ad hominem. The point is that experts are not infallible. Nowhere is it claimed that the experts are always wrong or that their opinions (in their respective fields, of course) are not more valid than those of others (i.e. not experts). All that is claimed is that the experts sometime make mistakes. In the case of the anhililation, even the smallest possibility of a mistake is too great. That was the point, and it is valid.
In other words, it is a proof by counterexample. I'll let you figure out the details.
Linux fundamentally relies on 30-year-old operating system technology and architecture.
Darnit! I just realized that my car is based on 70 year old technology! I wish that some company as innovative as Microsoft would build one from scratch, rather than improving current models, like those old fashioned UNIX people do! =)
This page is good news. It means that Microsoft can no longer ignore the threat that Linux poses NT. The Halloween Documents (wow! It's been almost a year!) were one thing...this is Microsoft taking public action to put down the threat Linux poses.
However, it is frustrating to read half truths and a few outright lies. The public's image of Microsoft is changing, however. Bill Gates is no longer revered as the man who realised The Great American Dream (tm). Microsoft is no longer viewed as The Company That Made Computers Usable for People Like Me(tm). Case in point: my grandmother is asking me about the benefits of running Linux on her computer! People (not that many real read this info) aren't going to trust this info just because it's coming from Microsoft.
We have them quaking in their boots, guys (and girls!).
"But I'm not rejoicing for the ascendancy of Linux or its penguin mascot."
In other words, if it's not BSD, he doesn't want it to succeed. We don't want users to have a choice. No, we just want them to have BSD.
" If I had to pick out the single difference between the BSD community as a whole and the proponents of Linux, I would say it is something called ''correctness.''"
Ok...if that is true, then that is a very important point. But is it true? How can we know? Not from this article. It doesn't cite any ways in which BSD is more "correct" than Linux. I guess we're just supposed to trust Mr. Garfinkel.
" This may be one reason proponents of Linux are frequently slow to admit the debt they owe to the Computer Science Research Group at Berkeley, which created BSD, and to the Free Software Foundation at MIT"
Oh, now I get it. I know Mr. Garfinkel's true identity. *wink* But why is he calling it Linux rather than GNU/Linux?
"Although Linux is a fine operating system, I would encourage businesses as well as advanced enthusiasts to take a serious look at the other choices."
Now, I can agree with this point. However, that "Linux is a fine operating system" is not the impression that I get from the rest of the article.
This could have been a really good article. It included some real meat, unlike most BSD articles in mainstream mags. However, it is ruined by the author's arrogance. An arrogance which unfortunately seems to be abundant among BSD users.
In some ways, I think the biggest (certainly in the mainstream world's eyes) difference between Linux and BSD are the types of users you encounter. Immature flamers or arrogant snobs. (Betcha can't guess which is which). Most of the people I know who run either OS are really cool people, who I'm glad to know. But those types of people aren't as loud as the stereotypes. Possibly the biggest advantage of Linux over BSD is that it's most stereotypical users (immature, foul-mouthed flamers) don't get published in the mainstream press.
"After a nice clean re-install, a raft of changed passwords, and a minimalist reconfiguration, my system is secure. "
This article propagates the myth that there is a such thing as Secure System. The only Secure System is to have no system. Instead of "Secure System," we should use the term "Securer System" and we should encourage schools to teach the idea of not having a system, at least, not until you have a certificate (degree?) saying you are ready to have a system.
"The intruder ... modified computer files to prevent detection"
But not by much. He still got caught!
Wouldn't it be cool if he went to jail and his # was 31337?
is here. It's NYTimes...so you need the free account.
Not much for me to add. Kurick rocked my world...changed the way I look at it actually. I'm thrilled that AI might finally see the light of day. Speilberg is no Kubrick. So what? He is a good director, and if Kubrick trusted him with this project...who am I to argue?
I agree with you. However, the problem is that the patent office is overloaded with patent applications. They don't have time to thouroughly review every application given to them and/or to consult experts in the field from which the application comes, so they just approve nearly every application that comes into their offices with the mentality that the courts can decide whether the patent is valid. Unfortunately, letting the courts decide is very expensive to all parties involved. Big businesses can usually afford it. Small companies usually can't. For both, when faced with a lawsuit, it is almost always cheaper just to settle out of court. Some companies realize this, and they take out patents that they know are bogus, knowing that they can make a lot of money from companies who are willing to do anyting to avoid going to court.
...to many of the users in these stories. I'm not a computer idiot...I'm a CS major and pretty good (although inexperienced...and it shows) at programming. However, a few years ago, I hadn't a clue. Not because I was stupid...but because I just didn't know. A couple examples:
1) My first computer (like many people my age...I'm 21) was an Apple IIe...which, of course, had no hard drive. When my grandparents got a used 386 running DOS, they asked me to help them use it. They had the game Wolfensteind, and my first goal was to figure out how to play it. I knew nothing about DOS, so, to play it, I stuck the floppy into the floppy drive (even though it was already installed). I reinstalled the bloody thing every time I wanted to play it, until I figured out how to use DOS.
2) I first learned UNIX from a book. When I read about the 'ls' command, I thought it was '1s' (note the number 'one' instead of the letter 'l').
The people in these stories may now be sysadmins, programmers, etc., for all we know. They aren't necessarily stupid, they just don't know.
The stories are pretty darn funny, however. But, then again, I can also laugh at myself.
You know there is a guy in japan who claims to have (if i remember correctly) a 3000 year business plan.
Hey, I have one too...open a savings account...deposit US$1...come back in 3000 years...lotsa interest!
Yeah, I know Futurama already did that (although Heinlein did it years earlier in The Door into Summer
Yeah, I know all about inflation and default risk.
Right on, man! They were stating a fact that is very relevent to the ideas in the article. I, for one, am so sick of people screaming "FUD!" whenever anyone claims that there may be an advantage for some users to using Windows. I love Linux, hate Windows, but I'm not about to close my eyes to the truth.
"While Linux is superior to Windows is most ways, there may be some disadvantages--"
"FUD! FUD! FUD! Stop spreding this FUD!"
*sigh*
I've never met a damn fine programmer who didn't.
--This is my damn fine sig.
Grand Moff Tarkin...isn't so cool...but other than that...cool!
Oops. That funny article is here. Should've used preview.
At an interview on CNN. Here is a Wired article about it. Here is a really funny site about it.
"Anyone who denies the evidence exists is ignorant of the truth. Amazingly, I saw a science teacher on TV that supported the decision stating that there is no proof that evolution is a more valid theory than creationism. My guess is she was trying to seem more openminded than she was, and was probably a science teacher by assignment rather than training."
Can you say "straw man"?
Try it:
"S-T-R-A-W M-A-N"
There! I knew you could!
When I saw the post, I thought that probably Kansas was requiring that evolution be taught as a theory that hasn't been proven (which it hasn't), rather than as the absolute facts.
Then I read the article.
Yes, the creation vs. evolution debate does involove religion. However, that isn't the whole point of it. I'm a Christian, and I believe in evolution (progressive Creationism). The truth is, there is evidence to both sides of the debate. How can we expect people to be able to understand the debate without presenting all the evidence for both sides of it? This standard amounts to nothing more than the Kansas school board dictating beliefs to students while ignoring facts.
When I was in sixth grade, my teacher spent a whole semester teaching us about the debate. Our grade for the semester was based on a paper we wrote, supporting one side, or the other (sadly, the idea that parts of boths theories could be true wasn't even presented). In the process, I learned a great deal about the scientific method, how to find info in scientific journals, and how to look for bias in research. While my teacher did teach some shaky ideas (such as the idea that the second law of thermodynamics contradicts evolution), a great deal was learned by all. More important than learning the facts about the debate, we learned a lot about how to think for ourselves, and not trust every view presented just because it's "in a book."
I shudder to think about how many (or few, I should say) people coming out of the Kansas school system will have any idea about how to think for themselves.
"Oh, whoops. I guess if it weren't for the fact that the United States government of late DOES NOT have an excellent track record of protecting individual rights and freedoms, maybe we'd all be a little less triggerhappy about this sort of thing."
I certainly agree that, given the federal government's track record, along with statements made be various members of government that indicate a complete lack of understanding about the technology used on/with the Internet, we should be concerned.
The reason I made the above post was that (at least at the time), the majority of comments were posted by people who did not even know what this is about. People were calling this legislation, asking how this can be enforced, claiming that this isn't valid because the U.S. is not the only nation that uses the Internet, etc; rather than voicing valid concerns (of which there are many).
And why isn't Al Gore on this committee? He, after all, invented the Internet.
Maybe you have been on vacation somewhere, but just to get you up to speed..the gov has been sending out these "harmless" bits of legislation for a while now all in the hopes to grab control of the tigers tail.
Do you know what legislation is? This isn't it.
Unfortunately, this is typical /. behavior. Mention the government and the Internet in the same post, and people will flip out about the Constitution, their rights being violated, this is not what America's supposed to stand for, etc.
/. readers seem to have their own brand of FUD. Not A Good Thing.
<Advice>
Before you go off on how awful the latest news about the governent is, at least read the article. You look like an idiot when you say things like "How are they going to enforce this?", and there is nothing to be enforced (at least, not yet).
</Advice>
And they listen to Limp Bizkit. Blah. If that's not brainwashed, I don't know what is.