Of course they're offensive and racist. Most of all, they expose willful ignorance. If this is "Stuff that Matters", then all I've learned is that "Nerds" are a self-centered lot who measure success by how many toys and pleasures they acquire.
If you decide to stagnate and perish, your ultimate goal is suicide.
"Multi-stage launch vehicles" aren't the point, either. They're simply a tool. If we have the ability to build a tool that can take us to the Moon, or Mars, or Alpha Centauri, or anwhere, then only fear and timidity will keep us rooted here.
Because some people think something is worth doing only if it inceases their material wealth and pleasure. E.g., so what did we get out of the moon landings?
And some people are so disappointed in themselves that the only way they can sustain self-esteem is to deny the wonderful things that others have done.
Borders and nation states -- remember, you can't see them from space -- are creations of the fertile human imagination. For all we know, no other sentient species has comparable institutions.
Countries as we know them are becoming increasingly irrelevant, in large part due to the technology that has produced the Internet and the technology that allows us to leave the planet. Both trends point to a future in which people look to something other than traditional state structures for their welfare, and form their allegiances accordingly.
>> What if the moon money was pumped *directly* into technology research instead?
Since we didn't have the technology to go to the moon in 1960, you can make a pretty good case that technology research is precisely where most of it went.
Whether or not you "got' something from the Apollo program isn't the point. The point is the human race building a capability to leave the planet and go elsewhere.
Grow, develop, expand and survive. Stay put, compete for limited resources, stagnate and perish. Pick one.
Absolutely. My own experiences installing Win2K Pro from the retail Microsoft CD is nothing like his. In particular, no "blizzard" of windows, and no sales pitches, and certainly no prompt to install Word. Aren't PC vendors packaging their own system restore CD's? After all, installing an OS is not the same thing as restoring software to the state it was when the vendor shipped it.
The last RedHat install I did was 7.2, and it was really quite nice. Slackware's install is also very smooth, if you have the appropriate skills and knowledge.
All -- Windows and Linux -- install routines that I've used fall down when they can't get an accurate picture of the hardware. Then they have no choice but to depend on the user to know the hardware. Even if novice users know the right answers, there's every chance that they'll be flummoxed by questions about color depth, screen resolution, networking, etc., to say nothing of printers, which continue to be evil little devices.
None, actually. Even a perfect Office clone would have marginal impact.
Yes, develop one if you're convinced that it's needed to establish credibility with the corporate crowd. But, remember, there's no compelling reason for anyone who's happy using Office to switch to a "wannabe" package, especially when it means switching to a new and strange OS, throwing away all those shrink-wrapped programs that someone has paid for, and throwing away the familiarity of Windows.
What's in it for them: Wipe my machine, throw everything away, and start a new and steep learning curve, just to use something that's "free"? No thanks, that costs too much.
Linux, et al, will continue to appeal primarily to (1) people who like Unix, and (2) people who are motivated by ideology, and (3) people who can't/won't buy commercial software, until someone develops and markets software that provides capabilities that are so unique and compelling that it merits absorbing the very real cost of moving from Windows.
I'm more worried about Amazon and the like than public libraries. They have a reason to track and retain your reading habits. Libraries, I suspect, track current borrowings.
Meanwhile, your bank knows how and where you use your credit cards, your phone company knows who and when you use the telephone, and, if you use one of those cute little discount cards, your local grocery knows what you eat.
All this privacy threatening activity existed before the current post-9/11 focus, and would still exist absent that. It is financially driven, even in the case of libraries who want their books back.
For those who don't follow the link to the Wired piece:
1. the use of ellipses in the middle of the teaser is deceptive. The passage after the ellipses beginning with "The Total Information Awareness program, with its ability to provide persistent storage.." up to the last sentence is not from Wired, but rather a quote from an EFF lawyer included in the piece by Wired.
2. While it's never wise to trust your privacy to anyone you don't know, much less the government, hysteria seems a but premature. This is clearly an R&D effort.
"Buying" laws may not not produce legislation you see as equitable, but the law remains the law until changed. Almost all the posts here are arguing for the right to engage in criminal activity, and their main argument seems to be that it ought not to be illegal.
For god's sake, the stuff is only throw-away commercial pop entertainment. Are you going to stake the future of the Internet on the "right" to distribute, say, Mariah Carey tracks? Come on!
Why are people so adamant about making and distributing copies of copywritten material? Don't you think that if you started printing copies of the top ten best-selling books that the publishers, with justification, would come after you?
Put aside tthe large coffers, contracting methods, and general shenanigans of the entertainment industry. Even if they turn out to be the scuzziest people in the world, even if entertainers sign contracts that give them pennies on the dollar, that's all irrelevant. Their products are under copyright, not in the public domain.
Seems to me that arguing for the "right" to distribute unlimited copies of someone else's copywritten work is a lose-lose sitatuation: lose the "right" to steal and lose the freedom of the Internet.
If you leave college with a degree in your pocket and confidence in your ability to think for yourself, you will have done well, better than most.
Take advantage of the protective and nurturing environment college provides, but remember that it is artificial and doesn't exist in the "real" world.
Don't worry about balancing study and social life. If you make a deliberate effort to do that, you'll likely spend too much time away from the books. Figure out what works for you and don't be afraid to take a break.
Remember, though, that most chances for social growth and development do not happen at a stereotypical college party. Instead, follow your interests and go out of your way to find and associate with people who share those interests.
Don't panic if you do something stupid or if you find yourself failing to meet the standards you set in high school. IT's all part of learning about yourself.
Ummm...I use Mac OS X and I'm not a 'retard". I'm a desktop guy who's been using Linux for seveal years. KDE and Gnome in their current incarnations aren't bad, but I am really sick and tired of having to jump through hoops just to get a desktop that's easy on my eyes. Yes, I kow all about antialias fonts and all that, and, yes, I know about things like tweaking the freetype code before you compile it, etc., etc. But, you know, within reason i don't really care that much about MIPS/$. I care more about my time, which was being twiddled with Linux.
Statements like "the rest of us' convey a belief in an imaginary community that vets its membership via a rite of passage based on man pages and HowTo files.
Yeah, yeah. I suspect the percentage of desktop computer buyers who have the ability to even recognize source code when they see it -- or have a reason to look at it -- is about the same as the percentage of TV buyers who know how to repair their own sets.
Free software and the surrounding RMS-inspired thought have a reason for existing within the particular culture spawned by Unix, especially given it's focus on servers, but not on the desktop.
Why? Who cares how many people use OS X as a Unix box? Who cares how many people are using a Mac as a Unix box, or as a dead paperweight? Unless you get paid for it, or are just interested for their own sake, who cares about BSD, or Linux or all the others? Unix has been around for about 30 years. It is great as a server OS, but the most desktop computer users don't care. For them, servers are just the invisible background. They care about what's sitting on their desktop, and, in that regard, Apple seems to have done a pretty good job with OS X. Much better, I think, than any GUI Linux has coughed up to date.
>>"Strangely, Michael, it is a convention of the "old media" that one does not refer to someone as having committed a "criminal fraud...."
Not really strange. The response to alleged libel or slander is a civil suit by the target. E.g., in the U.S., if you publicly deride someone as a "criminal" when, in fact, they have not been convicted of a crime, that person can bring suit against you. The WorldCom folks have been arrested; they have not been convicted of anything.
Personally, I don't believe there's any such thing as "old" or "new" media. It's the story that counts, not the publishing medium, and I suspect a jury would think likewise.
Re:Spread of US "culture"
on
The Last Place
·
· Score: 1
A while back, living in southern Africa, I had a choice of one brand of local bottled water or imported bottled water, usually Perrier. (We always filtered and boiled the local tap water, because the e coli levels were off the scale, but a bit of rain would turn the water a rich brown.) The source of the local water turned out to be a vegetation-covered pond in the middle of an busy cow pasture, with only the most rudimentary filtration. I opted to spread a little Western culture and stayed with the Perrier.
Technologies that scale to a global equilibrium are perhaps more responsible for the spread of Western culture than anything else, including marketing and greed. In the specific case of television, it seems unreasonable to expect a culture that has never had TV to instantly ramp up the capability to produce local programming. Much simpler to grab whatever's already on the satellites.
>> "...a significant transfer of resources from European taxpayers to the world airline travalling public."
A non-European jumps in: Didn't that also involve a transfer of resources (cash) from airlines to Europe? I don't recall seeing a sign on any Airbus I've flown that says "A donation from the people of Europe"?
Huh? Clean-room construction has been routine for years. You don't want terrestrial contamiination to distort findings on the target planet's surface; you also don't want terrestrial dust gumming up the probe's works.
Relatively few probes have targeted Mars, and a number have landed successfully.
Touchy, touchy! The guy was just trying to provide a little thoughtful entertainment by pouring on the hyperbole and stretching a few metaphors. Presumably, the best way to treat a Sterling speech on technology is to approach it as you would a Sterling novel: suspend disblief. I.e., don't let the factual errors obscure what he's saying. If you've chosen to self-identify with a so-called "geekspace" community, occasional rays of light from the rest of the planet will help shape a well-rounded perspective. It is worth remembering that most people on the planet don't have the luxury of using computers, don't know about open source or closed source, and have never heard of Linux, Stallman, et al.
1. The existence of "big airships" would be classified if knowledge of them exposed classified technologies and/or methodologies used to build, fly and maintain them.
2. "Keeping stuff" classified is not that difficult. No one is going to avoid any promising new technology simply because it will be classified. Clearances do take a long time, but plenty of cleared personnel are already available.
3. The U-2, the stealth prototypes, and the SR-71 all flew for years before being publicly acknowledged by confining flight operations and support to a small number of secure facilties.
4. Lack of a clearance does not absolve you of responsibility for exposing classified information. If someone decides to land a secret aircraft within view of your office window, one of two things is likely to happen: (1) You won't be allowed to be there when it lands; (2) you get a security briefing, you sign some papers, and you get a new clearance.
5. A large, stealthy transport that can hover or make use of a very short runway and fly missions of global dimensions would be a tremendous boon to any country's military. Such an aircraft would greatly reduce dependence on prepositioning troops and materials and on the willingess of other nations to allow use of their facilities and airspace.
6. If such an aircraft exists, why assume it is a cargo or troop transport? Why not a weapons platform? The U.S. uses the B-2 as a weapons platform on flights originating within the U.S. Think what weaponry a stealth aircraft the size of a football field could carry.
Pity the Dial-Up Users
on
More MS EULA Fun
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Putting aside the usual rants that will spew forth here, I'd be really ticked if I was a dial-up user and MS started pushing a multi-megabyte patch to me the next time I checked my email. Especially if I was billed for time on line.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course they're offensive and racist. Most of all, they expose willful ignorance. If this is "Stuff that Matters", then all I've learned is that "Nerds" are a self-centered lot who measure success by how many toys and pleasures they acquire.
Puerile, selfish, demeaning nonsense.
Try counting the number of people murdered in the wars of the 20th century. They died unnecessary deaths in the name of somebody's nationalism.
"Multi-stage launch vehicles" aren't the point, either. They're simply a tool. If we have the ability to build a tool that can take us to the Moon, or Mars, or Alpha Centauri, or anwhere, then only fear and timidity will keep us rooted here.
And some people are so disappointed in themselves that the only way they can sustain self-esteem is to deny the wonderful things that others have done.
Countries as we know them are becoming increasingly irrelevant, in large part due to the technology that has produced the Internet and the technology that allows us to leave the planet. Both trends point to a future in which people look to something other than traditional state structures for their welfare, and form their allegiances accordingly.
Since we didn't have the technology to go to the moon in 1960, you can make a pretty good case that technology research is precisely where most of it went.
Grow, develop, expand and survive. Stay put, compete for limited resources, stagnate and perish. Pick one.
The last RedHat install I did was 7.2, and it was really quite nice. Slackware's install is also very smooth, if you have the appropriate skills and knowledge.
All -- Windows and Linux -- install routines that I've used fall down when they can't get an accurate picture of the hardware. Then they have no choice but to depend on the user to know the hardware. Even if novice users know the right answers, there's every chance that they'll be flummoxed by questions about color depth, screen resolution, networking, etc., to say nothing of printers, which continue to be evil little devices.
Yes, develop one if you're convinced that it's needed to establish credibility with the corporate crowd. But, remember, there's no compelling reason for anyone who's happy using Office to switch to a "wannabe" package, especially when it means switching to a new and strange OS, throwing away all those shrink-wrapped programs that someone has paid for, and throwing away the familiarity of Windows.
What's in it for them: Wipe my machine, throw everything away, and start a new and steep learning curve, just to use something that's "free"? No thanks, that costs too much.
Linux, et al, will continue to appeal primarily to (1) people who like Unix, and (2) people who are motivated by ideology, and (3) people who can't/won't buy commercial software, until someone develops and markets software that provides capabilities that are so unique and compelling that it merits absorbing the very real cost of moving from Windows.
Meanwhile, your bank knows how and where you use your credit cards, your phone company knows who and when you use the telephone, and, if you use one of those cute little discount cards, your local grocery knows what you eat.
All this privacy threatening activity existed before the current post-9/11 focus, and would still exist absent that. It is financially driven, even in the case of libraries who want their books back.
1. the use of ellipses in the middle of the teaser is deceptive. The passage after the ellipses beginning with "The Total Information Awareness program, with its ability to provide persistent storage.." up to the last sentence is not from Wired, but rather a quote from an EFF lawyer included in the piece by Wired.
2. While it's never wise to trust your privacy to anyone you don't know, much less the government, hysteria seems a but premature. This is clearly an R&D effort.
For god's sake, the stuff is only throw-away commercial pop entertainment. Are you going to stake the future of the Internet on the "right" to distribute, say, Mariah Carey tracks? Come on!
Put aside tthe large coffers, contracting methods, and general shenanigans of the entertainment industry. Even if they turn out to be the scuzziest people in the world, even if entertainers sign contracts that give them pennies on the dollar, that's all irrelevant. Their products are under copyright, not in the public domain.
Seems to me that arguing for the "right" to distribute unlimited copies of someone else's copywritten work is a lose-lose sitatuation: lose the "right" to steal and lose the freedom of the Internet.
Take advantage of the protective and nurturing environment college provides, but remember that it is artificial and doesn't exist in the "real" world.
Don't worry about balancing study and social life. If you make a deliberate effort to do that, you'll likely spend too much time away from the books. Figure out what works for you and don't be afraid to take a break.
Remember, though, that most chances for social growth and development do not happen at a stereotypical college party. Instead, follow your interests and go out of your way to find and associate with people who share those interests.
Don't panic if you do something stupid or if you find yourself failing to meet the standards you set in high school. IT's all part of learning about yourself.
Statements like "the rest of us' convey a belief in an imaginary community that vets its membership via a rite of passage based on man pages and HowTo files.
Free software and the surrounding RMS-inspired thought have a reason for existing within the particular culture spawned by Unix, especially given it's focus on servers, but not on the desktop.
Why? Who cares how many people use OS X as a Unix box? Who cares how many people are using a Mac as a Unix box, or as a dead paperweight? Unless you get paid for it, or are just interested for their own sake, who cares about BSD, or Linux or all the others? Unix has been around for about 30 years. It is great as a server OS, but the most desktop computer users don't care. For them, servers are just the invisible background. They care about what's sitting on their desktop, and, in that regard, Apple seems to have done a pretty good job with OS X. Much better, I think, than any GUI Linux has coughed up to date.
>>"Strangely, Michael, it is a convention of the "old media" that one does not refer to someone as having committed a "criminal fraud...."
Not really strange. The response to alleged libel or slander is a civil suit by the target. E.g., in the U.S., if you publicly deride someone as a "criminal" when, in fact, they have not been convicted of a crime, that person can bring suit against you. The WorldCom folks have been arrested; they have not been convicted of anything.
Personally, I don't believe there's any such thing as "old" or "new" media. It's the story that counts, not the publishing medium, and I suspect a jury would think likewise.
Technologies that scale to a global equilibrium are perhaps more responsible for the spread of Western culture than anything else, including marketing and greed. In the specific case of television, it seems unreasonable to expect a culture that has never had TV to instantly ramp up the capability to produce local programming. Much simpler to grab whatever's already on the satellites.
>> "...a significant transfer of resources from European taxpayers to the world airline travalling public."
A non-European jumps in: Didn't that also involve a transfer of resources (cash) from airlines to Europe? I don't recall seeing a sign on any Airbus I've flown that says "A donation from the people of Europe"?
Relatively few probes have targeted Mars, and a number have landed successfully.
Touchy, touchy! The guy was just trying to provide a little thoughtful entertainment by pouring on the hyperbole and stretching a few metaphors. Presumably, the best way to treat a Sterling speech on technology is to approach it as you would a Sterling novel: suspend disblief. I.e., don't let the factual errors obscure what he's saying. If you've chosen to self-identify with a so-called "geekspace" community, occasional rays of light from the rest of the planet will help shape a well-rounded perspective. It is worth remembering that most people on the planet don't have the luxury of using computers, don't know about open source or closed source, and have never heard of Linux, Stallman, et al.
1. The existence of "big airships" would be classified if knowledge of them exposed classified technologies and/or methodologies used to build, fly and maintain them.
2. "Keeping stuff" classified is not that difficult. No one is going to avoid any promising new technology simply because it will be classified. Clearances do take a long time, but plenty of cleared personnel are already available.
3. The U-2, the stealth prototypes, and the SR-71 all flew for years before being publicly acknowledged by confining flight operations and support to a small number of secure facilties.
4. Lack of a clearance does not absolve you of responsibility for exposing classified information. If someone decides to land a secret aircraft within view of your office window, one of two things is likely to happen: (1) You won't be allowed to be there when it lands; (2) you get a security briefing, you sign some papers, and you get a new clearance.
5. A large, stealthy transport that can hover or make use of a very short runway and fly missions of global dimensions would be a tremendous boon to any country's military. Such an aircraft would greatly reduce dependence on prepositioning troops and materials and on the willingess of other nations to allow use of their facilities and airspace.
6. If such an aircraft exists, why assume it is a cargo or troop transport? Why not a weapons platform? The U.S. uses the B-2 as a weapons platform on flights originating within the U.S. Think what weaponry a stealth aircraft the size of a football field could carry.
Putting aside the usual rants that will spew forth here, I'd be really ticked if I was a dial-up user and MS started pushing a multi-megabyte patch to me the next time I checked my email. Especially if I was billed for time on line.
Thanks. Now we kow who to blame for this sorry mess.