I have to ask.. How does one capture the state of the dynamically routed internet in a meaningful way?
I was the blurb about generating the images over time, and viewing them as a film, with each image being a frame - but that would make for little more than a documentary of what was. Interesting to see the patterns and all, but not really a reference.
Further, doesn't the Heisenberg Principle make comprehensive mapping of the net a bit of a paradox?
I don't think the two are connected, but the tweaked mice raised my eyebrow too. I'm surprised it didn't get posted on/.
The CNN.COM version of the article ends with an ominous 'ethically questionable' blurb. B.S. says I! I've got my sleeve rolled up, and I'm waiting for the shot to come.
Mice are only good (in I.Q. research at least) for running through mazes and pushing on colored buttons. With this therapy/re-engineering, they got significantly better at their forte.
Imagine what an army of penguins could accomplish with the same genetic hack... And with gilded nerves... well...
my parents used to have this battery powered ash-trasy that sucked in the smoke from their cigarettes. It looked suspiciously like this thing, only a lot smaller.
I'm sure this thing, give the larger size, will suck a lot more.
It's a Walter Jon Williams cyberpunk book, akin to Count Zero, where people have their neural pathways 'treated' to improve their response/reflexes.. We might be seeing the first steps in that direction here.
Not too long from now, you won't have to practice that perfect golf swing for months. You'll just go to a walk-in clinic and have the responsible nerves anodized during lunch time, and be out on the green, kicking butt and taking names by early afternoon.
Talk about golden memories, too. Just have the neurons where the experience you want to remember are stored - gilded. It's like having gold-plated A/V contacts. You'd never forget anything again.
Too bad that doesn't work just from drinking Goldschlagger.
Interesting.. But why would thinking about itself have a different effect on the brain than thinking about anything else? For that matter, is thinking about thinking different than thinking about anything else? Is it 'meta-thinking'?
I think that I think, therefore I think that I am.. Uhhh... Maybe.
A company may not be able to monitor the content of a phone call (legally), but the frequency, type and duration of phone calls are fair game. Especially if you're on a PBX, making lots of long long-distance calls. Major no-no, and one that it is reasonable to get fired for.
However, we need to keep in mind the psychological side of authoritarian monitoring. Employees, like teenagers and political dissidents, will rebel against oppressive authority. If they feel trusted, and able to lead comfortable lives, they will produce. If they feel stiffled, they will spend a disproportionate amount of time figuring out ways to thwart their restrictions.
In my company, there is a monitoring disclaimer pinned to every billboard (by every entrance) that states that monitoring is thorough and logged in the event of a tresspass. We do not have Echelon in place, since it would take a large department to pore over the data each day. But, my phone call frequency and durations are logged, my web browsing habits are logged, my entry (via keyed access card) is logged. Perhaps a log is kept of the programs I run during the course of my day...
Or maybe it isn't - maybe this is just the panopticon approach to security. Maybe they cfreate the illusion of mopnitoring to curb people's behavior. I don't know if it works, but I know it does not work on me. I'm typing this from work.
If I get fired for reading/., well, that's just a company I don't want to contribute effort to in the first place. I'll take my skills elsewhere.
Absolutely. And as a security enforcement method, set up an automated script that will notify the 'perp' that they've been spotted. Notify ONLY the perp, and just log the event - until/unless it's gross and repeated misconduct.
However - this is a sure way to get fired, since everyone is equal, except for those in management, who are MORE equal. Rub the people in power the wrong way, and you'll end up with no reference from this job.
Sure, the technically minded people in the world realize that this is PR, and that M$ is chock full o'holes. With macro viruses, Back Orifice, hotmail, the ping-o-death and a slew of other issues that are never quite 'resolved' in the technical sense, the computer professionals and an increasing number of knowledgeable users are more and more sying away from M$. The success of Linux is a testament to that.
But the vast majority of the computer users out there, the ones that think Microsoft is the only software company out there, the ones that subscribe to Microsoft Internet and download a new version of the Internet everyday, and fax by holding the paper before the monitor, and complain when their cup holder breaks... They're the ones who pay good money into M$ coffers, and fund the bloat-fest and PR campaign.
M$ made the PC accessible to virtually everyone, and now preys on the ignorance of the averabe user. What's needed is an organized effort at educating the mom-n-pop computer user. What's needed is a way to tell the truth, because M$ fails to do so.
Sounds like something that the Monty Python crew might put together.
I can see it now, with "Always look on the bright side of code" for a theme song playing in the background, young Linus ventures forth into the world to herd penguins.
Along the way, he has many misadventures, one of which results in Microsoft Centurions forcing him to write a complete Linux kernel on the walls of their Redmond facility - in correct Hungarian notation.
He is eventually killed on live television, by being crucified on a podium during his keynote at an industry trade-show, as the music fades out.
Ummm, you've obviously never heard of Windows 1.0. Oh, wait, it was just plain Windows back then, wasn't it. It was character based and really didn't work well. Then there was Windows 2.0. That didn't work well either, but at least it task-switched, and the mouse worked, though the windows could only tile at that point, sort of like dosshell. Then came Windows 3.0, and the rest is, as they say, hysteria.
Win4.0 was going to be the market name of what became Windows NT, er, Win2k, er... (Linux3000 - Imagine that! Software available 1000 years ahead of schedule!) If I recall the marketting FUD correctly, this was codenamed CAIRO. Win95 was MEMPHIS, and WFW was DAYTONA, isn't that right? I ask, since you're apparently in-the-know of things MICROS~1.
As for the evolutionary software development process - I'm all for it. But charging customers full-price for a job half-done is unethical. Advertising non-existent or inadequately tested features, selling vapor, and charging for bug-fixes is wrong. Committing to support a product, and bailing out when the company with actual know-how does, is BS. This is what seems to have happened with the Alpha.
This is what Microsoft tends to do each time they venture into new territory. A new product line always debuts as a dud, albeit an expensive and well-marketted one that funds the development of a v2.0... It's enough to make the sale, and then once you've got'em, charge'em for the upgrade (at a lower cost - so it looks like you're doing them a favor - Puh-Leez!)
Now, don't get me too wrong. I use NT at home and at work. Nice and solid - no problems in over four years... (on 32-bit Intel) But MS seems to care only about the upgrade cycle and time-to-market, not about true quality and customer satisfaction. If the originator of the idea isn't there to help them, they fold, or just pile on useless features. This is why they're starting to slip. Innovation indeed.
The thing with Linux is, as I'm sure we all know by now, that it's free. If it's got a bug, it get fixed quickly, and for free. If it isn't getting fixed, you're free to do it yourself. The only free solution to Windows problems is Linux. Funny that.
Remember Access 1.0? Remember Windows 1.0? Products that claimed to work - that sometimes worked - just enough to get a few people to buy into the concept, and fund development of another version. Granted, Access 97 and Windows 4.0 work/*much better than their predecessors*/, so the strategy worked. But I guess you just can't pull that crap with a whole new arch. Especially with Linux on the horizon - it's nice to know that 'the people have voted', and 64 bits on the desktop will be a reality, sans M$.
Does that say that families and businesses can have their own subnets? That's what it sounds like to me, but then again, I'm ignorant.:)
With adequate equipment, an otherwise monolithic candidic legume may be segmented vertically, or horizontally, into smaller, more easily manipulated fragments.
So what constitutes a bug for these guys? Is it: a fatal system crash that hangs the PC? a fatal program crash that kills the process? an unexpected or unintuitive behavior on part of the software? corrupted graphics in some tight action situation? a divergence between specs and implementation? a poor choice of colors or fonts on part of a developer? the failure to support, or support completely, some obscure piece of hardware? weird interaction with some other software? unreasonable system requirements? etc...
Sounds like Hakuna Matata time for Mr. Whong.
Re:Tech support for my underwear(underware?)
on
Wearable PCs
·
· Score: 2
"Well, when I try to reboot my underwear, it just gives me a wedgie."
"What OS are you running on your underware, sir?"
"Microsoft Windows for Cotton Blends"
"Well, sir, the only solution is to change your underwear to MS-NTLongJohns"
"But it's the middle of August, and we're in the middle of a heat wave. Also, I don't think I need all of that fabric"
"I realize that Sir. But the NTLongJohns are the only version of MS-underpants what don't give you a wedgie. And you're much less likely to suffer the terrible blue-ball of death with these than with the MS-Underoos95. The NTLongJohns also come with a convenient back-orifice flap for examining core-dumps."
Re:Don't sweat yourselves..
on
Wearable PCs
·
· Score: 2
Har, har!
This will give a whole new meaning to 'electrical shorts', won't it.
"Honey, would you iron and format my pants for me?"
I suppose the shirt will be marked 'dry clean only' huh? 'Wash separately, with like OS flavors'. I HATE those! I bet it will only come in beige.
But if a friend offers to give you the shirt off his back, it will actually be welcomed.
Thank you, I do birthdays, weddings.. I'm here all week.
It all depends on what we consider art then, doesn't it?
After all, an uncommon work of architecture, such as the Parthenon, Notre Dame Cathedral, the Guggenheim (sp?), Chrysler bldg, or even some contemporary private residences are artistic.
They are the realization of a unique vision, rendered in stone (or whatever) for all to see. Much like a great symphony, they immortalize their creator, or even become cultural cliche.
BeOS and NeXT are certainly works of art in this respect. Linux is more like the Red Rocks, or the Grand Canyon. Shaped by the forces of nature and tailored by their environment. Art is the creation of a single vision, whereas GNU and Linux are more jargon than a piece of poetry. More or a common Bazaar minstrel than a Cathedral hymn, eh? But how many folk songs are considered art?
Works of art often represent the culmination of an era or style, i.e. Gothic, Baroque, etc... By this token, a mid-70's hunk of GOTO ladden FORTRAN spaghetti is also a work of art. It's a reminer of the glorious splendor of our decadent past. Y2K anyone? Let them eat cake!
We can draw a number of comparisons between software and building architectures. Take the mach kernel and the minimalist geodesics of Buckminster Fuller. Or the the massive 3rd Reich designs of Spier and OS/360:). Or the Microsoft Wal-Mart minimalls...
Tux and his friends can not be caged for long. They will rise from the dust of commercial software, spread their wings and soar (kernel 3.0 probably) over the corpses of those monopolists who would make them into a display.
As for the birds at the expo - I'd like to know who is responsible for using a living thing as a gimick. It's an insensitive thing to do. The people who would do this, would certainly not care much about their customers or the quality of their products.
Cutsey gimicks are great. Stuffed and inflatible Tux caricatures are emblematic of Linux, and the Tux logo is our banner. But please, let's show some respect for living things, and let's - if nothing else - not make ourselves targets for unnecessary criticism by proxy.
I'm not one to chain myself to an oak tree, but really, using a live animal in a display/advert shows a particular marketting mentality which does not benefit Linux or the Open Source movement in the least. Those of you at the expo, please take a minute to reflect about the impact of hype, about whom it harms, and make your opinion known to the penguin handlers.
This is not intended to insult ANYONE'S intelligence but I find it suprising that you would jump down someone's throat without even knowing the concept yourself.
C dating compares the ratio of the C14 and C12 isotopes of carbon in the sample to the ratio found commonly in nature. Nitrogen never enters the picture.
The premise is that a living organism ingests, inhales, or otherwise absorbs carbon into itself with the ratio of C14 to C12 being relatively constant. Over time, the natural ratio of C14 to C12 changes, hance dating can only be done within a window of several tens of thousands of years. (Volcanic eruptions, meteorites and other non-linear evens tend to change this natural ratio).
Anyways, when an organism dies, it stops absorbing carbon, and the C14 starts to break down into C12. This process has a well known half-life of 5730 years, and so by measuring the ratio of C14 to C12 in-sample to the current natural ratio, the age of the sample can be estimated.
is that here on/., the plethora of geeks, programmers and students who witness evolution each and every day, fail to make the mental leap and apply it to human evolution.
Let's look at software. We start with a conceptual framework of a program. Code it, run it, refine it... Evolve it until it solves the problem it is intended to solve. Then the problem domain changes, and we revise the code. The bad or ineffective changes we make result in 'dead' programs - ones that can not survive the environment of the problem. The good changes we make result in the 'fittest' solution to the problem. This is the same process as human evolution.
Now, the nature of the programmer is what is really the question. It is not rational or reasonable to question evolution. But who spurrs the changes in our DNA? Is it random mutation that just happens to hit it right, in a few of the millions of delta's in each generation? Is it cosmic radiation, radon exposure, valium consumption in teenage mothers who smoke and drink while pregnant?? Or is it a divine force which escapes our reason?
Or, and this is my personal view, the means that science condones (randomness, mutagens) are the tools of the divine, omniscient but non-conscious universe that just plain IS.
It's been said that mankind is the universe's attempt to comprehend itself. That all of creation is God made manifest. That we, being part of creation, are each a different face of God.
That part of the universe that is not us, has read each of the messages posted here about religion and evolution, and is, right now, laughing hysterically behind our collective back.
Good point. While at it, let's step down to the definition of the word 'deviant'.
Point 1: A 'deviant' is someone who is statistically removed from the norm by a wide margin. For the sake of argument, a double-sigma in either direction on the bell curve.
Point 2: Computer gaming has become culturally ubiquitous. A vast majority of casual computer users can be defined as 'gamers'. Computer gaming is the norm in our society.
Implication: Since 'deviants' are those people that lie outside of the mainstream, and since the mainstream plays games as a matter of fact, then 'deviants' can not be 'gamers' by definition.
[sarcasm] Well, you have to consider the source of the lab tests, as well as their results. You have to consider who commissioned the study, and what they have to gain by skewing the results in their favor.
I bet it was all those Linux freaks, with bad haircuts and poor personal hygiene, that are responsible. I bet that they took all of their spare change (and God knows they have plenty, since they don't buy software, but rather use Free software) and paid for a statistically unsound study, to make it appear that they are not really the sociopathic axe-murdering, rapist pedophiles that we all know they are.
I'm sure that they selected only a fringe of the college educated, gainfully employed, and self-proclaimed 'normal' people, and didn't include a representative sample of their own minions in the study.
For as surely as the sun riseth in the east, and seteth in the west at the end of the day, so doth Heaven await those who tread the path of righteousness, and heed not the words of the devil. Verily, they that playeth his acursed 'lectronic games and heedeth his call on the internet, shall burn eternally!
Whilst they that believeth in the word of Big Daddy, J.C. and the Holy Spook, as delivered by the prophets of the ABC, the NBC, the CBS and the CNN shall inherit the life eternal, with none of the distractions of no such beepin' and Quakin', Doomin', shootin' rootin-tootin...
Can I get an AMEN, brother?
[/sarcasm]
Another chance for Andover.net
on
R.I.P. Linuxbox
·
· Score: 2
If they really wanted to endear themselves to the Linux and OpenSource communities, Andover might want to take a looksie in that direction...
What do you think Rob? Is it worth making inquiries? After all, it's just some host space, right?
Slashdot Mirror
I have to ask.. How does one capture the state of the dynamically routed internet in a meaningful way?
I was the blurb about generating the images over time, and viewing them as a film, with each image being a frame - but that would make for little more than a documentary of what was. Interesting to see the patterns and all, but not really a reference.
Further, doesn't the Heisenberg Principle make comprehensive mapping of the net a bit of a paradox?
I don't think the two are connected, but the tweaked mice raised my eyebrow too. I'm surprised it didn't get posted on /.
The CNN.COM version of the article ends with an ominous 'ethically questionable' blurb. B.S. says I! I've got my sleeve rolled up, and I'm waiting for the shot to come.
Mice are only good (in I.Q. research at least) for running through mazes and pushing on colored buttons. With this therapy/re-engineering, they got significantly better at their forte.
Imagine what an army of penguins could accomplish with the same genetic hack... And with gilded nerves... well...
my parents used to have this battery powered ash-trasy that sucked in the smoke from their cigarettes. It looked suspiciously like this thing, only a lot smaller.
I'm sure this thing, give the larger size, will suck a lot more.
Anyone ever read that?
It's a Walter Jon Williams cyberpunk book, akin to Count Zero, where people have their neural pathways 'treated' to improve their response/reflexes.. We might be seeing the first steps in that direction here.
Not too long from now, you won't have to practice that perfect golf swing for months. You'll just go to a walk-in clinic and have the responsible nerves anodized during lunch time, and be out on the green, kicking butt and taking names by early afternoon.
Talk about golden memories, too. Just have the neurons where the experience you want to remember are stored - gilded. It's like having gold-plated A/V contacts. You'd never forget anything again.
Too bad that doesn't work just from drinking Goldschlagger.
Interesting.. But why would thinking about itself have a different effect on the brain than thinking about anything else? For that matter, is thinking about thinking different than thinking about anything else? Is it 'meta-thinking'?
I think that I think, therefore I think that I am.. Uhhh... Maybe.
A company may not be able to monitor the content of a phone call (legally), but the frequency, type and duration of phone calls are fair game. Especially if you're on a PBX, making lots of long long-distance calls. Major no-no, and one that it is reasonable to get fired for.
/., well, that's just a company I don't want to contribute effort to in the first place. I'll take my skills elsewhere.
However, we need to keep in mind the psychological side of authoritarian monitoring. Employees, like teenagers and political dissidents, will rebel against oppressive authority. If they feel trusted, and able to lead comfortable lives, they will produce. If they feel stiffled, they will spend a disproportionate amount of time figuring out ways to thwart their restrictions.
In my company, there is a monitoring disclaimer pinned to every billboard (by every entrance) that states that monitoring is thorough and logged in the event of a tresspass. We do not have Echelon in place, since it would take a large department to pore over the data each day. But, my phone call frequency and durations are logged, my web browsing habits are logged, my entry (via keyed access card) is logged. Perhaps a log is kept of the programs I run during the course of my day...
Or maybe it isn't - maybe this is just the panopticon approach to security. Maybe they cfreate the illusion of mopnitoring to curb people's behavior. I don't know if it works, but I know it does not work on me. I'm typing this from work.
If I get fired for reading
Absolutely. And as a security enforcement method, set up an automated script that will notify the 'perp' that they've been spotted. Notify ONLY the perp, and just log the event - until/unless it's gross and repeated misconduct.
However - this is a sure way to get fired, since everyone is equal, except for those in management, who are MORE equal. Rub the people in power the wrong way, and you'll end up with no reference from this job.
Hey, if I can get an affordable computer, with a real OS, that will not fail me on bigfloat division and isn't uniquely branded, I'm ready to sign.
:)
www.pricewatch.com might be a good place to start looking.
But does anyone else?
Sure, the technically minded people in the world realize that this is PR, and that M$ is chock full o'holes. With macro viruses, Back Orifice, hotmail, the ping-o-death and a slew of other issues that are never quite 'resolved' in the technical sense, the computer professionals and an increasing number of knowledgeable users are more and more sying away from M$. The success of Linux is a testament to that.
But the vast majority of the computer users out there, the ones that think Microsoft is the only software company out there, the ones that subscribe to Microsoft Internet and download a new version of the Internet everyday, and fax by holding the paper before the monitor, and complain when their cup holder breaks... They're the ones who pay good money into M$ coffers, and fund the bloat-fest and PR campaign.
M$ made the PC accessible to virtually everyone, and now preys on the ignorance of the averabe user. What's needed is an organized effort at educating the mom-n-pop computer user. What's needed is a way to tell the truth, because M$ fails to do so.
Sounds like something that the Monty Python crew might put together.
I can see it now, with "Always look on the bright side of code" for a theme song playing in the background, young Linus ventures forth into the world to herd penguins.
Along the way, he has many misadventures, one of which results in Microsoft Centurions forcing him to write a complete Linux kernel on the walls of their Redmond facility - in correct Hungarian notation.
He is eventually killed on live television, by being crucified on a podium during his keynote at an industry trade-show, as the music fades out.
"He's pining for the fjords!"
Did you know Alan Turing was gay?
You shouldn't use a computer, because people might say the same about you.
Did you know Elton John is bi? Don't even think about watching the Lion King again.
Did you know J. Edgar Hoover was a cross-dresser? That makes the whole FBI a bunch of panzies, now doesn't it?
Did you know Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner? Quick, renounce your U.S. citizenship and leave the country.
You Bastards!
somebody HAD to say it.
Ummm, you've obviously never heard of Windows 1.0. Oh, wait, it was just plain Windows back then, wasn't it. It was character based and really didn't work well. Then there was Windows 2.0. That didn't work well either, but at least it task-switched, and the mouse worked, though the windows could only tile at that point, sort of like dosshell. Then came Windows 3.0, and the rest is, as they say, hysteria.
Win4.0 was going to be the market name of what became Windows NT, er, Win2k, er... (Linux3000 - Imagine that! Software available 1000 years ahead of schedule!) If I recall the marketting FUD correctly, this was codenamed CAIRO. Win95 was MEMPHIS, and WFW was DAYTONA, isn't that right? I ask, since you're apparently in-the-know of things MICROS~1.
As for the evolutionary software development process - I'm all for it. But charging customers full-price for a job half-done is unethical. Advertising non-existent or inadequately tested features, selling vapor, and charging for bug-fixes is wrong. Committing to support a product, and bailing out when the company with actual know-how does, is BS. This is what seems to have happened with the Alpha.
This is what Microsoft tends to do each time they venture into new territory. A new product line always debuts as a dud, albeit an expensive and well-marketted one that funds the development of a v2.0... It's enough to make the sale, and then once you've got'em, charge'em for the upgrade (at a lower cost - so it looks like you're doing them a favor - Puh-Leez!)
Now, don't get me too wrong. I use NT at home and at work. Nice and solid - no problems in over four years... (on 32-bit Intel) But MS seems to care only about the upgrade cycle and time-to-market, not about true quality and customer satisfaction. If the originator of the idea isn't there to help them, they fold, or just pile on useless features. This is why they're starting to slip. Innovation indeed.
The thing with Linux is, as I'm sure we all know by now, that it's free. If it's got a bug, it get fixed quickly, and for free. If it isn't getting fixed, you're free to do it yourself. The only free solution to Windows problems is Linux. Funny that.
Remember Access 1.0? Remember Windows 1.0? /*much better than their predecessors*/, so the strategy worked. But I guess you just can't pull that crap with a whole new arch. Especially with Linux on the horizon - it's nice to know that 'the people have voted', and 64 bits on the desktop will be a reality, sans M$.
Products that claimed to work - that sometimes worked - just enough to get a few people to buy into the concept, and fund development of another version. Granted, Access 97 and Windows 4.0 work
Now, about that 'chasing tail-lights' thing...
Does that say that families and businesses can have their own subnets? That's what it sounds like to me, but then again, I'm ignorant. :)
With adequate equipment, an otherwise monolithic candidic legume may be segmented vertically, or horizontally, into smaller, more easily manipulated fragments.
So what constitutes a bug for these guys?
Is it:
a fatal system crash that hangs the PC?
a fatal program crash that kills the process?
an unexpected or unintuitive behavior on part of the software?
corrupted graphics in some tight action situation?
a divergence between specs and implementation?
a poor choice of colors or fonts on part of a developer?
the failure to support, or support completely, some obscure piece of hardware?
weird interaction with some other software?
unreasonable system requirements?
etc...
Sounds like Hakuna Matata time for Mr. Whong.
"Well, when I try to reboot my underwear, it just gives me a wedgie."
"What OS are you running on your underware, sir?"
"Microsoft Windows for Cotton Blends"
"Well, sir, the only solution is to change your underwear to MS-NTLongJohns"
"But it's the middle of August, and we're in the middle of a heat wave. Also, I don't think I need all of that fabric"
"I realize that Sir. But the NTLongJohns are the only version of MS-underpants what don't give you a wedgie. And you're much less likely to suffer the terrible blue-ball of death with these than with the MS-Underoos95. The NTLongJohns also come with a convenient back-orifice flap for examining core-dumps."
Har, har!
This will give a whole new meaning to 'electrical shorts', won't it.
"Honey, would you iron and format my pants for me?"
I suppose the shirt will be marked 'dry clean only' huh? 'Wash separately, with like OS flavors'. I HATE those! I bet it will only come in beige.
But if a friend offers to give you the shirt off his back, it will actually be welcomed.
Thank you, I do birthdays, weddings.. I'm here all week.
It all depends on what we consider art then, doesn't it?
:). Or the Microsoft Wal-Mart minimalls...
After all, an uncommon work of architecture, such as the Parthenon, Notre Dame Cathedral, the Guggenheim (sp?), Chrysler bldg, or even some contemporary private residences are artistic.
They are the realization of a unique vision, rendered in stone (or whatever) for all to see. Much like a great symphony, they immortalize their creator, or even become cultural cliche.
BeOS and NeXT are certainly works of art in this respect. Linux is more like the Red Rocks, or the Grand Canyon. Shaped by the forces of nature and tailored by their environment. Art is the creation of a single vision, whereas GNU and Linux are more jargon than a piece of poetry. More or a common Bazaar minstrel than a Cathedral hymn, eh? But how many folk songs are considered art?
Works of art often represent the culmination of an era or style, i.e. Gothic, Baroque, etc... By this token, a mid-70's hunk of GOTO ladden FORTRAN spaghetti is also a work of art. It's a reminer of the glorious splendor of our decadent past. Y2K anyone? Let them eat cake!
We can draw a number of comparisons between software and building architectures. Take the mach kernel and the minimalist geodesics of Buckminster Fuller. Or the the massive 3rd Reich designs of Spier and OS/360
Tux and his friends can not be caged for long. They will rise from the dust of commercial software, spread their wings and soar (kernel 3.0 probably) over the corpses of those monopolists who would make them into a display.
As for the birds at the expo - I'd like to know who is responsible for using a living thing as a gimick. It's an insensitive thing to do. The people who would do this, would certainly not care much about their customers or the quality of their products.
Cutsey gimicks are great. Stuffed and inflatible Tux caricatures are emblematic of Linux, and the Tux logo is our banner. But please, let's show some respect for living things, and let's - if nothing else - not make ourselves targets for unnecessary criticism by proxy.
I'm not one to chain myself to an oak tree, but really, using a live animal in a display/advert shows a particular marketting mentality which does not benefit Linux or the Open Source movement in the least. Those of you at the expo, please take a minute to reflect about the impact of hype, about whom it harms, and make your opinion known to the penguin handlers.
This is not intended to insult ANYONE'S intelligence but I find it suprising that you would jump down someone's throat without even knowing the concept yourself.
C dating compares the ratio of the C14 and C12 isotopes of carbon in the sample to the ratio found commonly in nature. Nitrogen never enters the picture.
The premise is that a living organism ingests, inhales, or otherwise absorbs carbon into itself with the ratio of C14 to C12 being relatively constant. Over time, the natural ratio of C14 to C12 changes, hance dating can only be done within a window of several tens of thousands of years. (Volcanic eruptions, meteorites and other non-linear evens tend to change this natural ratio).
Anyways, when an organism dies, it stops absorbing carbon, and the C14 starts to break down into C12. This process has a well known half-life of 5730 years, and so by measuring the ratio of C14 to C12 in-sample to the current natural ratio, the age of the sample can be estimated.
is that here on /., the plethora of geeks, programmers and students who witness evolution each and every day, fail to make the mental leap and apply it to human evolution.
Let's look at software. We start with a conceptual framework of a program. Code it, run it, refine it... Evolve it until it solves the problem it is intended to solve. Then the problem domain changes, and we revise the code. The bad or ineffective changes we make result in 'dead' programs - ones that can not survive the environment of the problem. The good changes we make result in the 'fittest' solution to the problem. This is the same process as human evolution.
Now, the nature of the programmer is what is really the question. It is not rational or reasonable to question evolution. But who spurrs the changes in our DNA? Is it random mutation that just happens to hit it right, in a few of the millions of delta's in each generation? Is it cosmic radiation, radon exposure, valium consumption in teenage mothers who smoke and drink while pregnant?? Or is it a divine force which escapes our reason?
Or, and this is my personal view, the means that science condones (randomness, mutagens) are the tools of the divine, omniscient but non-conscious universe that just plain IS.
It's been said that mankind is the universe's attempt to comprehend itself. That all of creation is God made manifest. That we, being part of creation, are each a different face of God.
That part of the universe that is not us, has read each of the messages posted here about religion and evolution, and is, right now, laughing hysterically behind our collective back.
Good point. While at it, let's step down to the definition of the word 'deviant'.
Point 1: A 'deviant' is someone who is statistically removed from the norm by a wide margin. For the sake of argument, a double-sigma in either direction on the bell curve.
Point 2: Computer gaming has become culturally ubiquitous. A vast majority of casual computer users can be defined as 'gamers'. Computer gaming is the norm in our society.
Implication: Since 'deviants' are those people that lie outside of the mainstream, and since the mainstream plays games as a matter of fact, then 'deviants' can not be 'gamers' by definition.
[sarcasm]
Well, you have to consider the source of the lab tests, as well as their results. You have to consider who commissioned the study, and what they have to gain by skewing the results in their favor.
I bet it was all those Linux freaks, with bad haircuts and poor personal hygiene, that are responsible. I bet that they took all of their spare change (and God knows they have plenty, since they don't buy software, but rather use Free software) and paid for a statistically unsound study, to make it appear that they are not really the sociopathic axe-murdering, rapist pedophiles that we all know they are.
I'm sure that they selected only a fringe of the college educated, gainfully employed, and self-proclaimed 'normal' people, and didn't include a representative sample of their own minions in the study.
For as surely as the sun riseth in the east, and seteth in the west at the end of the day, so doth Heaven await those who tread the path of righteousness, and heed not the words of the devil. Verily, they that playeth his acursed 'lectronic games and heedeth his call on the internet, shall burn eternally!
Whilst they that believeth in the word of Big Daddy, J.C. and the Holy Spook, as delivered by the prophets of the ABC, the NBC, the CBS and the CNN shall inherit the life eternal, with none of the distractions of no such beepin' and Quakin', Doomin', shootin' rootin-tootin...
Can I get an AMEN, brother?
[/sarcasm]
If they really wanted to endear themselves to the Linux and OpenSource communities, Andover might want to take a looksie in that direction...
What do you think Rob? Is it worth making inquiries? After all, it's just some host space, right?