Gone are the times when only unix hackers used new Linux releases.
This means: A kernel officially released as "Release" should be VERY stable. Stable enough for anyone to put it on his most important servers, without a second thought.
Remember the problems the 2.2 series went through.
Maybe a new version tag is needed, additionally to the the odd numbers, and the "pre" and "ac" tags.
Like "ea" for "early adopter". Whatever. Anything above "beta".
The distributions would offer two kernels then: "ea" and "stable as hell".
And "stable as hell" is what "release" should mean.
PS: Potential deficiencies in the NT release versions are not really of interest here. Linux can do better. The people in control of the kernel dont need to care about public company quarter results.
I'm not someone who advocates trying to resist the progress of technology, I believe we have to embrace it and change our lives accordingly, but its interesting that Nano-technology research is not more controversial considering the possible dangers involved.
The "dangers" involved in debated and even banned areas such as human cloning, bio engineering, and true AI are really pretty small compared with Nanotech, where one invisibly small nanomachine, programmed to multiply and destroy its host could eradicate life on earth and still not stop. Does Clinton want to be known for having started a second Manhattan project (I suppose it is a lot better than what he will most likely be known for)?
And the prospect of Nanotech has some _very_ interesting implications on the current RIAA, MPAA, and other "evil forces of the world" situation with the freedom of Information. When nanotech comes along, will we have a Copyright Act that forbids programming nanomachines to work-around "nano-scan protection systems"? Will Ford sue me for writing a Nano-assembler that can make a copy of your neighbors Mustang? Will Coca-Cola go after me for having bought one bottle and then copied it to all my friends at the party? And most importantly, if its true as the Copyright defenders say, that copy protection is necessary for the economy to work, will society then end with Nanotech? Maybe all the companies that produce physcial items ought to be out lobbying congress to not spend another cent on Nano-research, which could cripple their bussiness!
To avoid having runaway nanotechs, you make them highly oxidizable so that exposure to o2 would rust them quickly. Then they can only work in inert gasses.
Sure, it limits a lot of the practical use of nanotechs, but since this is a new technology proceed carefully. Give them 20 years testing and using nanotechs in inert gas before you think about deploying them in environments containing oxygene, that way they have real world tests of how well nanotech's work and how likely they are to run away.
It looks like everyone has already brought up the point that the danger in putting a "self-destruct" mechanism in a nanite. With millions or billions of nanites, even if the odds of one of them surviving that self-destruction are one in a million, those odds are too high. And if that nanite is designed to construct other nanites (or, worst case, copies of itself) then you have a problem on your hands.
If nanotechnology ever reaches the total control of matter, self-replicating machine, Diamond Age "Seed" level (I don't have enough information to argue either way, but it seems to me that it'd be easier to create macroscopic Von Neumann machines than microscopic ones, and we haven't even done that yet) we're going to need more protection than a self destruct mechanism.
What I'd like to see, in a world swarming with potential nanotech viruses, is an analogous nanotech immune system to take care of them, nanites which can be set to recognize and rip apart other nanites which meet certain parameters. Got a rogue oil-spill cleaning nanite ripping up asphalt in San Francisco? Get the standby security nanites in Oakland to kill it.
There was an interview with a somewhat apocalyptic tech giant (a veep at Sun? I forget) who believed that the ever increasing technological power available to humanity (nanotech, biotech, and AI being three examples I remember) would cause the world to be ripped apart by terrorism in the coming century. He likened it to an airplane in which every passenger had a "Crash" button in front of their seat, and only one psycho was necessary to bring everyone down with him.
I don't think it will be that way. With nanotechnology specifically, if our available defenses are kept up to the level that our potential offenses would require, then having a small set of nanites go rogue wouldn't be a concern; they would be overwhelmed by their surroundings. Going back to that analogy, if everybody had a "Crash" button in front of their airplane seat, but the plane was guaranteed to survive unless 50% of the passengers voted to crash, that would be the safest flight in history.
People theoretically see the need for lots of nice protections. Then they go ahead and cut corners unless someone has been burned and the memory is fresh.
I cannot think of any area of technology from automobile design to nuclear power plants to office suites where this principle of human nature has not been operational. I can personally list examples from NASA to genetics research to the SNMP spec. (It was nicknamed Security - Not My Problem for a reason!)
IMNSHO anyone who thinks that nano has the potential to be any different is just kidding themselves about human nature...
Time for me to be a bit fece^H^H^H^Hfacetious. Microsoft is an Evil Empire(TM). Their products are the joint effort of thousands of easily brain-washed students fresh out of college who decided, at the last minute, to major in computer science rather than business.
Wow, I don't know who you are, but that was a nice job of defending me, I guess. Your words are kind of cruel, but that jerk who doesn't like me based on a sentence or two that I wrote probably deserves it.
Every day, humans lose-and replace-200 billion red blood cells. Remarkably, our bodies manufacture 2 million replacement cells in a split second. A single red blood cell will make an incredible journey, traveling 100 miles through a vast network of 60,000 miles of veins, capillaries and arteries.
This is why we should have a code fork of the Linux source for 6 months to a year to see which VM matures more quickly. Then, rejoin forces, settle on one of the VMs, and (johnMadden)BOOM!!!(/johnMadden) Thoughts?
If you had noted that I said Once again..., you would realize that my faith in humanity has been decreasing quite a bit lately, not just from this TV incident. Don't be so quick to judge.
Breaking news just off of the wire -- A free operating system costs less than an operating system that you have to pay for! (Yes, I'm being fecetious (sp?))
"According to this article at space.com, scientists have finally measured the approximately 90% of the universe we can't see (the dark matter)."
Pardon me, but we can apparently only see certain bits & pieces of the universe, right? So, how the f*ck is it that we know exactly how much ELSE there is out there? Isn't this like saying "I have 3 Weezer albums, and I just figured out the names of the songs on their 4th, 5th, and 6th albums (even though I have NO IDEA how many more albums they'll make) and I now know the name of every Weezer song.
Awww, come on man, 160kbps is pretty good quality and is pretty much error-free as far as the majority of non-audiophiles are concerned. A "workout cd" of 40 songs, or a "day trip cd" or two of 40 songs is fine with me, and should please most people. Hey, it beats an iPod if nothing else in terms of all its features.
If Apple(TM)(R) had made this, it would be either translucent indigo or arctic white, and cost a mere $19.95 a month for 20 months, or, if you act now, $9.95 a month for 39 months.;-)
Am I the only one who HASN'T read the Harry Potter books? I don't mean to sound like an arrogant prick (although I really am), but weren't these books written for little kids? I mean, sure, I enjoyed Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers and all when I was younger, but these days I barely watch any TV. So, my question is "What's the appeal of these childish stories to grown, sophisticated adults?".
I believe that they have simply seeded the synonym algorithm for every "curse word" with a random value for the subscript of an array of every M$FT employee since the company's inception. Therefore, if you type in "f*ckhead", Steve Ballmer might be a suggested replacement. Similarly, "assh*le" is often times replaced by "William H. Gates" in the new Office XP. Just don't ask for a replacement for "naked clippy".;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Gone are the times when only unix hackers used new Linux releases.
This means: A kernel officially released as "Release" should be VERY stable. Stable enough for anyone to put it on his most important servers, without a second thought.
Remember the problems the 2.2 series went through.
Maybe a new version tag is needed, additionally to the the odd numbers, and the "pre" and "ac" tags.
Like "ea" for "early adopter". Whatever. Anything above "beta".
The distributions would offer two kernels then: "ea" and "stable as hell".
And "stable as hell" is what "release" should mean.
PS: Potential deficiencies in the NT release versions are not really of interest here. Linux can do better. The people in control of the kernel dont need to care about public company quarter results.
I'm not someone who advocates trying to resist the progress of technology, I believe we have to embrace it and change our lives accordingly, but its interesting that Nano-technology research is not more controversial considering the possible dangers involved.
The "dangers" involved in debated and even banned areas such as human cloning, bio engineering, and true AI are really pretty small compared with Nanotech, where one invisibly small nanomachine, programmed to multiply and destroy its host could eradicate life on earth and still not stop. Does Clinton want to be known for having started a second Manhattan project (I suppose it is a lot better than what he will most likely be known for)?
And the prospect of Nanotech has some _very_ interesting implications on the current RIAA, MPAA, and other "evil forces of the world" situation with the freedom of Information. When nanotech comes along, will we have a Copyright Act that forbids programming nanomachines to work-around "nano-scan protection systems"? Will Ford sue me for writing a Nano-assembler that can make a copy of your neighbors Mustang? Will Coca-Cola go after me for having bought one bottle and then copied it to all my friends at the party? And most importantly, if its true as the Copyright defenders say, that copy protection is necessary for the economy to work, will society then end with Nanotech? Maybe all the companies that produce physcial items ought to be out lobbying congress to not spend another cent on Nano-research, which could cripple their bussiness!
To avoid having runaway nanotechs, you make them highly oxidizable so that exposure to o2 would rust them quickly. Then they can only work in inert gasses.
Sure, it limits a lot of the practical use of nanotechs, but since this is a new technology proceed carefully. Give them 20 years testing and using nanotechs in inert gas before you think about deploying them in environments containing oxygene, that way they have real world tests of how well nanotech's work and how likely they are to run away.
It looks like everyone has already brought up the point that the danger in putting a "self-destruct" mechanism in a nanite. With millions or billions of nanites, even if the odds of one of them surviving that self-destruction are one in a million, those odds are too high. And if that nanite is designed to construct other nanites (or, worst case, copies of itself) then you have a problem on your hands.
If nanotechnology ever reaches the total control of matter, self-replicating machine, Diamond Age "Seed" level (I don't have enough information to argue either way, but it seems to me that it'd be easier to create macroscopic Von Neumann machines than microscopic ones, and we haven't even done that yet) we're going to need more protection than a self destruct mechanism.
What I'd like to see, in a world swarming with potential nanotech viruses, is an analogous nanotech immune system to take care of them, nanites which can be set to recognize and rip apart other nanites which meet certain parameters. Got a rogue oil-spill cleaning nanite ripping up asphalt in San Francisco? Get the standby security nanites in Oakland to kill it.
There was an interview with a somewhat apocalyptic tech giant (a veep at Sun? I forget) who believed that the ever increasing technological power available to humanity (nanotech, biotech, and AI being three examples I remember) would cause the world to be ripped apart by terrorism in the coming century. He likened it to an airplane in which every passenger had a "Crash" button in front of their seat, and only one psycho was necessary to bring everyone down with him.
I don't think it will be that way. With nanotechnology specifically, if our available defenses are kept up to the level that our potential offenses would require, then having a small set of nanites go rogue wouldn't be a concern; they would be overwhelmed by their surroundings. Going back to that analogy, if everybody had a "Crash" button in front of their airplane seat, but the plane was guaranteed to survive unless 50% of the passengers voted to crash, that would be the safest flight in history.
People theoretically see the need for lots of nice protections. Then they go ahead and cut corners unless someone has been burned and the memory is fresh.
I cannot think of any area of technology from automobile design to nuclear power plants to office suites where this principle of human nature has not been operational. I can personally list examples from NASA to genetics research to the SNMP spec. (It was nicknamed Security - Not My Problem for a reason!)
IMNSHO anyone who thinks that nano has the potential to be any different is just kidding themselves about human nature...
Time for me to be a bit fece^H^H^H^Hfacetious. Microsoft is an Evil Empire(TM). Their products are the joint effort of thousands of easily brain-washed students fresh out of college who decided, at the last minute, to major in computer science rather than business.
Funny, 'cause your wife didn't make me wear anything...sorry dude.
;-)
Wow, I don't know who you are, but that was a nice job of defending me, I guess. Your words are kind of cruel, but that jerk who doesn't like me based on a sentence or two that I wrote probably deserves it.
Every day, humans lose-and replace-200 billion red blood cells. Remarkably, our bodies manufacture 2 million replacement cells in a split second. A single red blood cell will make an incredible journey, traveling 100 miles through a vast network of 60,000 miles of veins, capillaries and arteries.
This is why we should have a code fork of the Linux source for 6 months to a year to see which VM matures more quickly. Then, rejoin forces, settle on one of the VMs, and (johnMadden)BOOM!!!(/johnMadden) Thoughts?
So, it would basically start-up without crashing? Cool...I guess...uggghhh...
If you had noted that I said Once again..., you would realize that my faith in humanity has been decreasing quite a bit lately, not just from this TV incident. Don't be so quick to judge.
Once again...
faithInHumanity--;
Feel free to add your own version your favorite language.
Breaking news just off of the wire -- A free operating system costs less than an operating system that you have to pay for! (Yes, I'm being fecetious (sp?))
Pardon me, but we can apparently only see certain bits & pieces of the universe, right? So, how the f*ck is it that we know exactly how much ELSE there is out there? Isn't this like saying "I have 3 Weezer albums, and I just figured out the names of the songs on their 4th, 5th, and 6th albums (even though I have NO IDEA how many more albums they'll make) and I now know the name of every Weezer song.
Um, I know, dude. Believe it or not, I read Slashdot. Apparently, you didn't "get" my joke :-/
Now I can get my dream domain, VALinux.biz!
Awww, come on man, 160kbps is pretty good quality and is pretty much error-free as far as the majority of non-audiophiles are concerned. A "workout cd" of 40 songs, or a "day trip cd" or two of 40 songs is fine with me, and should please most people. Hey, it beats an iPod if nothing else in terms of all its features.
If Apple(TM)(R) had made this, it would be either translucent indigo or arctic white, and cost a mere $19.95 a month for 20 months, or, if you act now, $9.95 a month for 39 months. ;-)
I'd say that the "cool titles" you mention aren't that spectacular at all, really. "Attack of the Clones" is just another lackluster title, IMHO.
Am I the only one who HASN'T read the Harry Potter books? I don't mean to sound like an arrogant prick (although I really am), but weren't these books written for little kids? I mean, sure, I enjoyed Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers and all when I was younger, but these days I barely watch any TV. So, my question is "What's the appeal of these childish stories to grown, sophisticated adults?".
Thanks.
I believe that they have simply seeded the synonym algorithm for every "curse word" with a random value for the subscript of an array of every M$FT employee since the company's inception. Therefore, if you type in "f*ckhead", Steve Ballmer might be a suggested replacement. Similarly, "assh*le" is often times replaced by "William H. Gates" in the new Office XP. Just don't ask for a replacement for "naked clippy". ;-)
what year did you graduate from Apple U.?
or are you just happy to see me? ;-)
Whoa, sorry if the editors have better things to do than actually click a link or two before posting new topics. 5GB, 10GB, no big difference.
;-)