...Gates was widely known when he first came out with MS-DOS?
Perhaps in the computing industry a bit, but not anywhere near the popularity [or lack of] that he has now. Within the next few years, if Mr. Hukunamatata starts shaking up the world of genetics as we know it, maybe then he will be world renowned like dictator Gates. Again, he's only well known to the world of genetic sciences at this point, much like emperor Gates was in the beginning...
Gotta be a troll? If not (or even if so) thanks for a great laugh.
I've got these pictures of Dirk the Daring having to sort out Singe's treasure using quicksort, or finding the shortest path through the castle to Daphnie (sp?).
Well I'm glad I'm not alone in this one... I was thinking similar things as I read the article. My physics is limited to a couple intro courses at college, but I was thinking the same things with both the examples you brought up.
I pawned it off as the person writing the article had no physics background, or maybe I didn't have enough of a background in physics. Hell, milimeter is a 1-D concept, maybe there is someway to put a measurement on dimensions (of the existance kind). On the other hand, maybe it was the scientist trying to put it in lay person terms for whoever was writing the article. Who knows? Maybe we need to get a copy of the article that appears in Scientific American.
Have you tested this hypothesis in a lab environment? I just think it would be kinda funny to read the procedure, results, and analysis sections.... then again, I've got a sick sense of humor.
I don't think you can just arbitrarily vote for the other guy/gal just because the current representitive votes against your stance on a bill. You may not agree with some decisions but you might agree more often than you would with the other candidate(s).
Hell, I ended up voting for Clinton last time around, not because I like him, but because I didn't dislike him as much as I disliked Dole.... Looks like I'm going to doing something similar again this year....
Actually, in my state they yanked a lot of pay phones all over the place as a result of drug-dealers. Bastards, now I have to either own a cell-phone I don't want or go wandering around aimlessly in less than favorable neighborhoods to call somebody if I'm in need of help... Its a pretty stupid system...
Ah but where are your math skills. I'll take the odds of playing $100 worth of lotto tickets over burning it. Burning guarantees 100% loss. At least with lotto, you've got a chance of making some percentage of it back...
...land of the free. I live in the northeast of the US. First off we've got a couple casino's up here to start with, CT and NJ. Not to mention, Canada is about a 5 hour drive for me, and anybody in any of the northern states could probably easily drive north to a casino over the border if they wanted. The Internet just makes this easier to do. (not to mention cuts down on transportation emissions making for a cleaner environment...)
But seriously, so what? If somebody is willing to risk putting their credit card up to play an online game, let them... Remember a fool and his money are soon parted. Personally, I want to see the dice roll and the cards come out of the chute or the source code for the games. This way I can feel safe while I watch those weighted dice roll or marked cards come out. How easy would it be to rig an online game in the house's favor? Better yet make eveybody "playing" a game lose but show the losers that there were winners even though they don't exist... If they are off shores, they may not have to even answer to anybody.
It must have something to do with the government not getting their cut of the winnings... Now it all makes sense. Probably, doesn't help to have people digging themselves into debt either. So since I'm not as trusting as some and as a result will never go to an online casino, and don't want my taxes to go to the social programs to help those who are more trusting, good move USA. On the other hand, I don't feel like being censored so <favorite four letter explitive> the USA. C'mon all they need is one to get the ball rolling and then we can turn this republic into a dictatorship....
I think whether telecommuting works or not depends a lot on the person, the job, and one's at home work environment. Personally, I telecommuted for about 6 months at a part time job while I was finishing up my undergrad degree. I found it very difficult to remain focused when working at home. This was most likely do to a lack of isolation in my "home" environment. I had my girlfriend constantly bugging me to hang out, distractions from the T.V. blaring in the other room, temptations to go play whatever new playstation I just bought, etc.
Another problem was a feeling of detachment. I was/am a developer, and as we know developer's often end up pulling info from a wide variety of resources to get stuff done. Even though I had full access to the network resources (albeit over a very slow modem link), there always seemed to be a feeling of disconnectedness. I also never really felt like I truely knew what was going on with my group because I'd miss those key conversations you have when everybody's taking a ten minute break and/or lunchtime conversations.
Overall, that experience didn't work well for me, but I'm not turned off to the prospects of telecommuting. I think the key is to have a bit of self discipline, an isolatable work environment at home and a home office setup has as many of the advantages of one's work environment. What I mean by the last comment is that, if I would be doing my job on two 21 in. monitors, high bandwidth, or be running on a real workstation (as opposed to a home PC) one should reproduce that environment as close as possible. Hardware is easy enough in theory for your employer to produce and have them pay for a cable modem, or DSL servic e to connect to the work LAN.
And how does your tape backup drive save you from the class action lawsuit from the customers of the site who had their credit card and personal information compromised?
(Further feeding of a troll and now totally offtopic)
I personally don't trust a damn thing Pat Robertson has to offer. However, if his message is so important, where can I view get it for free. Something tells me you can't, at least not without making a donation to his christianity network and/or the 700 Club. Why is that? Oh I know, spreading the word of God costs money and to help the oppressed of the world.
Do you think Pat Robertson totally practices what he preaches? Do you think he lives just above poverty and donates all of his money to his cause? I doubt it. I bet the man lives much like a celebrity. But then again I just don't know. I've sat and watched his program on occassion and he has never struck me as a man working for the goodness of God (if one believes in such a thing). To me the 700 club epitimizes the exact opposite of the supposed message they are preaching. They swindle people out of their money, by promising that the graces of God will rain down upon them if they contribute money to Robertson's crusade. Unfortunately, these people are too weak to resist, so I don't feel bad for them. If you can get somebody to part with their money and give it to you, more power to you.
Anyway, we'll skip my utter disdain for Mr. Robertson and other televangelists. I have no problem hearing his views on the subject, but I will not give him a single cent to do so. Gimme a free site and maybe I will approach it with as open a mind as possible...
Keep in mind, I never said that such a solution was possible. I think it is in man's nature to destroy. I think it is many a man's nature to strive for power. As a result, at this stage of development I don't think the hope of having true peace will ever occur, at least not in my or my child's lifetime. I think the utter irony will be the day man drives man into extinction trying to advance the human race.
Are you sure you weren't sending Mr. Gelernter packages along with Brother Ted? I will agree that there are certain moral issues that technology brings, but you have more of a destructive approach which opresses rather than a constructive approach which advances.
Destroy the Internet? Why? Because there is a section of cancer that runs wild on it and gives it a bad name. Who are you (or I) to say whats moral and what isn't. Islam?!?! Its a religion. What is wrong with learning about the belief system of another culture? (of course unless it contradicts with your religious beliefs, right?) I'm sure you have no problem spreading your "good word". (since your post seems to have a very heavy religious righteousness tone to it) Why not use the Interenet? Hell, I got people going door-to-door, calling me on the phone, sending me snail-mail. It's just the next step. It's all about freedom.
How about pornography on the net? My feelings on pornography are mixed, but lets say for a moment that I was completely against it. Because you and I don't believe in it, does that give us the right to destroy it? If it didn't interest somebody it would have died out. There is a following out there and even though a majority may feel it is morally wrong, unless there is a substantial moral majority who believe the same, who are we to say it is unmoral. This is one of those things that makes decisions on other controversial issues you've mentioned so damn difficult. If we weren't in that majority wouldn't we appear to them as we feel they appear to us now. It's all about morality.
Rather than destroying technologies, I would like to see them improved. Because it doesn't work the first time don't just erradicate it all together. Fix stuff. For your Internet problem, require strict adherance to the top level domains and expand the current.com,.org,.gov domains into multiple subcategories like.porn.com,.islam.org,.homosexuality.org. Voila, you can now censor your friends, family and anybody else you have influential control over easily. Its all about protection.
I think its key to recognize that destorying the technology is like curing a symptom rather than a root cause. I also think that people need to open their minds to alternative prospectives and stop waving the banner of morality over issues that we strongly disagree with. Another thing to remember is destroying technology or hindering it anyway, only slows it down. I beleive advancement is inevitable. If we were to destroy the Internet of today life would probably revert back to the BBS days. Over time they'd find ways of reconnecting groups of them and voila, your Internet creeps back into the picture.
Moral issues are not easy problems to solve in a diverse culture, and unfortunately can lead to wars. <sappy closing> To have true peace we need to open our minds to the feelings, beliefs, cultures of the world and stop looking at each other in categories, religions, races, classes and more as human beings. </sappy closing> It's not about technology....
I'm sorry but if Jar Jar is integral to the story and if the supposed rumors that he becomes Boba Fett are true, I'm affraid that George will succeed completely in turning a big-time fan off to the entire Star Wars universe... Say its not so, and that your kidding... Please...
But will George have the guts to use Samuel L. Jackson as he should be used...
Frankly it just won't feel the same unless there is something 'F*#k you, you stupid mother f*#ker' followed by him whipping out some obnoxiously huge blaster rifle that rips the guy in two and can't be deflected by a mere lightsaber....
I hope you're right, that would mean that the stupid movie would be out of the way, and E1 was pretty stupid. I have heard that E3 will be very dark, which is right now the only one that I have hopes of being a great like the original or Empire.
I don't see that Star Wars was ever originally intended for children. I would think that it targeted more of a late teen and up audience with aspects that could apeal to people of any age.
There is a solid story behind Star Wars. I can't remember who the guy was, but he had some guidelines for writing epic tales. (I'll remember it as soon as somebody chirps up with his name) Lucas admits that he was heavily influenced by him and if you look at those guidelines and Star Wars you see that there was little originality plot wise in the story. He followed the cookbook almost verbatim, but still made for a good story as worked his own special magic that created the Star Wars universe.
Empire continued the story, but I still don't feel any 'child' oriented element. And before somebody argues Yoda, I think Yoda with his philosophies, teachings, etc. is far beyond something childish.
Return of the Jedi, my second least favorite in the series (gee I wonder why) is where the child oriented element starts to creep in with the damn Ewoks. Personally, they don't bother me, too much, and nowhere near the level of Jar Jar.
There was an interesting web site that outlined why ROJ sucked and Episode I was even worse, but again it escapes me. Perhaps a fellow slashdotter can help out?
I have to totally agree. I mean, doesn't George know that Christ imagery is supposed to be sorta subtle. He just came out and rewrote the friggin new testament.
In future movies, he'll be betrayed by Obi-Wan thus turning to the dark side and dying as Ben put it in ROJ (kinda a Judas thing). Jesus Christ!!! (no pun, well maybe) I wonder if he'll be a commander of some Jedi regiment in the Clone Wars with 12 folks following him. Hell, perhaps George can work in a last supper or something in E3.
I have to agree as well. Did anybody else feel that the Empire Strikes Back yoda looked a hell of a lot better and more realistic than the thing that was in Episode I.
I can't help but feel that George has started doing special effects just to do special effects as of late. I thought all the re-releases were crap and made stuff worse with the scenes and effects he added. Episode I wasn't much better.
I wish he'd go back to basics. Concentrate on the story and use the brand spanking new effect technologies a little more conservatively.
And although I'm sure Jar Jar was some technical marvel, as most would agree it was a bad move. Kill the corny characters that make it a movie for the whole family and go back to the big rubber puppet days. It worked better.
First off it just seems to be a natural fit as many have said. Whenever I develop in UNIX/Linux, I can't help but feel that it built with the developer in mind.
Second the system comes with compliers and vast assortments of libraries at my disposal at install time. I don't need to install/configure anything else to get my development environment up and running...
Third, the tools. awk, sed, grep, perl, cut, etc. and regular expressions in general are great for quickly modifying existing source, test, configuration, data, etc. files. Also, tools like truss (Solaris) or strace (Linux) are extremely useful in a pinch where one might not have a debuggable executable to work with in an IDE to figure out what went wrong. Also, when a production piece of software goes awry, you might not be able to recreate the bug, but these utilities (at least truss, only used strace a couple times) will tell you what your process is doing at that moment. I'm sure there are other's I have yet to discover.
Fourth, I like the notion that crashing my application won't necessarilly take out my entire OS. I've crashed Win32 OS's with program bugs a lot easier than I've ever crashed a UNIX box. (which to date is never, but I know it can be done)
Fifth, Linux and some other UNIX systems are open source. If you are trying to mimic part of the behavior of a program its nice to be able to see the source. Two examples, the other day I was trying to find out where the ps command got some data... I could look at the source. Today, I want write a utility to retrieve my corporate Outlook e-mail by mimicing Outlook. (due to configuration stuff, fetchmail with NTLM support doesn't cut it) Guess how far I got on that quest.
I mean its always going to be different strokes for different folks, but I'd been searching for a better development environment for years because Windows and DOS just never really felt right. After using Linux for a week, it fit like a glove and haven't really continued my quest since.
I'm seeing a lot of references to shelf-space, marketability in a store, etc. and can't help but wondering why the big chains like CompUSA don't complain to software vendors. I mean they have to pay for wharehouse space, additional shipping costs, shelf space, etc. just so Microsoft or some other big-boxed vendor has a better marketing ploy???
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps in the computing industry a bit, but not anywhere near the popularity [or lack of] that he has now. Within the next few years, if Mr. Hukunamatata starts shaking up the world of genetics as we know it, maybe then he will be world renowned like dictator Gates. Again, he's only well known to the world of genetic sciences at this point, much like emperor Gates was in the beginning...
Katz strikes again...
I've got these pictures of Dirk the Daring having to sort out Singe's treasure using quicksort, or finding the shortest path through the castle to Daphnie (sp?).
It will be interesting if they take similar approaches as Titan AE, Iron Giant, etc. to render all the T&A...
Is the correct answer the German???
I'd put up my proof of how I solved it to prove it wasn't a wild guess, but I don't want to spoil the fun...
Well I'm glad I'm not alone in this one... I was thinking similar things as I read the article. My physics is limited to a couple intro courses at college, but I was thinking the same things with both the examples you brought up.
I pawned it off as the person writing the article had no physics background, or maybe I didn't have enough of a background in physics. Hell, milimeter is a 1-D concept, maybe there is someway to put a measurement on dimensions (of the existance kind). On the other hand, maybe it was the scientist trying to put it in lay person terms for whoever was writing the article. Who knows? Maybe we need to get a copy of the article that appears in Scientific American.
Have you tested this hypothesis in a lab environment? I just think it would be kinda funny to read the procedure, results, and analysis sections.... then again, I've got a sick sense of humor.
Hell, I ended up voting for Clinton last time around, not because I like him, but because I didn't dislike him as much as I disliked Dole.... Looks like I'm going to doing something similar again this year....
Actually, in my state they yanked a lot of pay phones all over the place as a result of drug-dealers. Bastards, now I have to either own a cell-phone I don't want or go wandering around aimlessly in less than favorable neighborhoods to call somebody if I'm in need of help... Its a pretty stupid system...
Sorry, couldn't resist...
But seriously, so what? If somebody is willing to risk putting their credit card up to play an online game, let them... Remember a fool and his money are soon parted. Personally, I want to see the dice roll and the cards come out of the chute or the source code for the games. This way I can feel safe while I watch those weighted dice roll or marked cards come out. How easy would it be to rig an online game in the house's favor? Better yet make eveybody "playing" a game lose but show the losers that there were winners even though they don't exist... If they are off shores, they may not have to even answer to anybody.
It must have something to do with the government not getting their cut of the winnings... Now it all makes sense. Probably, doesn't help to have people digging themselves into debt either. So since I'm not as trusting as some and as a result will never go to an online casino, and don't want my taxes to go to the social programs to help those who are more trusting, good move USA. On the other hand, I don't feel like being censored so <favorite four letter explitive> the USA. C'mon all they need is one to get the ball rolling and then we can turn this republic into a dictatorship....
Another problem was a feeling of detachment. I was/am a developer, and as we know developer's often end up pulling info from a wide variety of resources to get stuff done. Even though I had full access to the network resources (albeit over a very slow modem link), there always seemed to be a feeling of disconnectedness. I also never really felt like I truely knew what was going on with my group because I'd miss those key conversations you have when everybody's taking a ten minute break and/or lunchtime conversations.
Overall, that experience didn't work well for me, but I'm not turned off to the prospects of telecommuting. I think the key is to have a bit of self discipline, an isolatable work environment at home and a home office setup has as many of the advantages of one's work environment. What I mean by the last comment is that, if I would be doing my job on two 21 in. monitors, high bandwidth, or be running on a real workstation (as opposed to a home PC) one should reproduce that environment as close as possible. Hardware is easy enough in theory for your employer to produce and have them pay for a cable modem, or DSL servic e to connect to the work LAN.
And how does your tape backup drive save you from the class action lawsuit from the customers of the site who had their credit card and personal information compromised?
I personally don't trust a damn thing Pat Robertson has to offer. However, if his message is so important, where can I view get it for free. Something tells me you can't, at least not without making a donation to his christianity network and/or the 700 Club. Why is that? Oh I know, spreading the word of God costs money and to help the oppressed of the world.
Do you think Pat Robertson totally practices what he preaches? Do you think he lives just above poverty and donates all of his money to his cause? I doubt it. I bet the man lives much like a celebrity. But then again I just don't know. I've sat and watched his program on occassion and he has never struck me as a man working for the goodness of God (if one believes in such a thing). To me the 700 club epitimizes the exact opposite of the supposed message they are preaching. They swindle people out of their money, by promising that the graces of God will rain down upon them if they contribute money to Robertson's crusade. Unfortunately, these people are too weak to resist, so I don't feel bad for them. If you can get somebody to part with their money and give it to you, more power to you.
Anyway, we'll skip my utter disdain for Mr. Robertson and other televangelists. I have no problem hearing his views on the subject, but I will not give him a single cent to do so. Gimme a free site and maybe I will approach it with as open a mind as possible...
Keep in mind, I never said that such a solution was possible. I think it is in man's nature to destroy. I think it is many a man's nature to strive for power. As a result, at this stage of development I don't think the hope of having true peace will ever occur, at least not in my or my child's lifetime. I think the utter irony will be the day man drives man into extinction trying to advance the human race.
Speaking as an average Slashdotter of course....
(Offtopic but I can't resist)
Are you sure you weren't sending Mr. Gelernter packages along with Brother Ted? I will agree that there are certain moral issues that technology brings, but you have more of a destructive approach which opresses rather than a constructive approach which advances.
Destroy the Internet? Why? Because there is a section of cancer that runs wild on it and gives it a bad name. Who are you (or I) to say whats moral and what isn't. Islam?!?! Its a religion. What is wrong with learning about the belief system of another culture? (of course unless it contradicts with your religious beliefs, right?) I'm sure you have no problem spreading your "good word". (since your post seems to have a very heavy religious righteousness tone to it) Why not use the Interenet? Hell, I got people going door-to-door, calling me on the phone, sending me snail-mail. It's just the next step. It's all about freedom.
How about pornography on the net? My feelings on pornography are mixed, but lets say for a moment that I was completely against it. Because you and I don't believe in it, does that give us the right to destroy it? If it didn't interest somebody it would have died out. There is a following out there and even though a majority may feel it is morally wrong, unless there is a substantial moral majority who believe the same, who are we to say it is unmoral. This is one of those things that makes decisions on other controversial issues you've mentioned so damn difficult. If we weren't in that majority wouldn't we appear to them as we feel they appear to us now. It's all about morality.
Rather than destroying technologies, I would like to see them improved. Because it doesn't work the first time don't just erradicate it all together. Fix stuff. For your Internet problem, require strict adherance to the top level domains and expand the current .com, .org, .gov domains into multiple subcategories like .porn.com, .islam.org, .homosexuality.org. Voila, you can now censor your friends, family and anybody else you have influential control over easily. Its all about protection.
I think its key to recognize that destorying the technology is like curing a symptom rather than a root cause. I also think that people need to open their minds to alternative prospectives and stop waving the banner of morality over issues that we strongly disagree with. Another thing to remember is destroying technology or hindering it anyway, only slows it down. I beleive advancement is inevitable. If we were to destroy the Internet of today life would probably revert back to the BBS days. Over time they'd find ways of reconnecting groups of them and voila, your Internet creeps back into the picture.
Moral issues are not easy problems to solve in a diverse culture, and unfortunately can lead to wars. <sappy closing> To have true peace we need to open our minds to the feelings, beliefs, cultures of the world and stop looking at each other in categories, religions, races, classes and more as human beings. </sappy closing> It's not about technology....
Yeah, I was wondering the same thing, because it does seem vaguely familiar...
Messa Bobba Fett...
Hesa wortha alota morsa to mesa alive than dead... Solosa gonna die?
I'm sorry but if Jar Jar is integral to the story and if the supposed rumors that he becomes Boba Fett are true, I'm affraid that George will succeed completely in turning a big-time fan off to the entire Star Wars universe... Say its not so, and that your kidding... Please...
Well sure. That way he can dupe them out of rights on the residules like he did Han, Luke and Leia with Star Wars....
Frankly it just won't feel the same unless there is something 'F*#k you, you stupid mother f*#ker' followed by him whipping out some obnoxiously huge blaster rifle that rips the guy in two and can't be deflected by a mere lightsaber....
Just my thoughts on the situation...
I hope you're right, that would mean that the stupid movie would be out of the way, and E1 was pretty stupid. I have heard that E3 will be very dark, which is right now the only one that I have hopes of being a great like the original or Empire.
I don't see that Star Wars was ever originally intended for children. I would think that it targeted more of a late teen and up audience with aspects that could apeal to people of any age.
There is a solid story behind Star Wars. I can't remember who the guy was, but he had some guidelines for writing epic tales. (I'll remember it as soon as somebody chirps up with his name) Lucas admits that he was heavily influenced by him and if you look at those guidelines and Star Wars you see that there was little originality plot wise in the story. He followed the cookbook almost verbatim, but still made for a good story as worked his own special magic that created the Star Wars universe.
Empire continued the story, but I still don't feel any 'child' oriented element. And before somebody argues Yoda, I think Yoda with his philosophies, teachings, etc. is far beyond something childish.
Return of the Jedi, my second least favorite in the series (gee I wonder why) is where the child oriented element starts to creep in with the damn Ewoks. Personally, they don't bother me, too much, and nowhere near the level of Jar Jar.
There was an interesting web site that outlined why ROJ sucked and Episode I was even worse, but again it escapes me. Perhaps a fellow slashdotter can help out?
I have to totally agree. I mean, doesn't George know that Christ imagery is supposed to be sorta subtle. He just came out and rewrote the friggin new testament.
In future movies, he'll be betrayed by Obi-Wan thus turning to the dark side and dying as Ben put it in ROJ (kinda a Judas thing). Jesus Christ!!! (no pun, well maybe) I wonder if he'll be a commander of some Jedi regiment in the Clone Wars with 12 folks following him. Hell, perhaps George can work in a last supper or something in E3.
I can't help but feel that George has started doing special effects just to do special effects as of late. I thought all the re-releases were crap and made stuff worse with the scenes and effects he added. Episode I wasn't much better.
I wish he'd go back to basics. Concentrate on the story and use the brand spanking new effect technologies a little more conservatively.
And although I'm sure Jar Jar was some technical marvel, as most would agree it was a bad move. Kill the corny characters that make it a movie for the whole family and go back to the big rubber puppet days. It worked better.
First off it just seems to be a natural fit as many have said. Whenever I develop in UNIX/Linux, I can't help but feel that it built with the developer in mind.
Second the system comes with compliers and vast assortments of libraries at my disposal at install time. I don't need to install/configure anything else to get my development environment up and running...
Third, the tools. awk, sed, grep, perl, cut, etc. and regular expressions in general are great for quickly modifying existing source, test, configuration, data, etc. files. Also, tools like truss (Solaris) or strace (Linux) are extremely useful in a pinch where one might not have a debuggable executable to work with in an IDE to figure out what went wrong. Also, when a production piece of software goes awry, you might not be able to recreate the bug, but these utilities (at least truss, only used strace a couple times) will tell you what your process is doing at that moment. I'm sure there are other's I have yet to discover.
Fourth, I like the notion that crashing my application won't necessarilly take out my entire OS. I've crashed Win32 OS's with program bugs a lot easier than I've ever crashed a UNIX box. (which to date is never, but I know it can be done)
Fifth, Linux and some other UNIX systems are open source. If you are trying to mimic part of the behavior of a program its nice to be able to see the source. Two examples, the other day I was trying to find out where the ps command got some data... I could look at the source. Today, I want write a utility to retrieve my corporate Outlook e-mail by mimicing Outlook. (due to configuration stuff, fetchmail with NTLM support doesn't cut it) Guess how far I got on that quest.
I mean its always going to be different strokes for different folks, but I'd been searching for a better development environment for years because Windows and DOS just never really felt right. After using Linux for a week, it fit like a glove and haven't really continued my quest since.
Just something to think about...