During my checkered career, I managed to pick up a degree in philosophy. About 20 years ago, I came up with a theory of 'the soul' that I felt had the potential for real significance and verifiability
I'd have to spend weeks reviewing the notes I took over the years before I'd be willing to frame it again in today's terms, but it did contain a central element that Slashdotters are uniquely qualified to appreciate and explore.
I'd welcome your comments
I call it "The Output Problem": Namely If the human brain is a processor of any sort, then there must exist a single central location where the output of the proceses we call 'conscious thought' is present
Extensive studies of lesions of all parts of the brain have not turned up no location where a lesion causes a loss of this 'output' -- i.e. a loss of the awareness of conscious thought -- though numerous spilt-brain and lesion studies have contributed interesting insight (That's why it would take me many weeks to review my medical notes) We have seen the effects of trauma, tumors, CVA/TIA (strokes/near-strokes), and surgical ablation (and electrical stimulation) of literally every square millimeter of the brain many thousands of times in the past century
Saying its the 'frontal cortex' would be like saying simply "CPU" or "ALU", since the frontal cortex consists of (on the order of) 10^9 neurons. Even on a computer chip there is relative handful of gates that constitute the total output. Blow those gates and the chip can't output. Concepts like "redundancy", "plasticity", and "holographic output" do not really explain anything here, since the underlying biological processes are slow enough that we would be able ot observe the loss and recovery of conscious thought over a period from hours to months. (Coma and unconscious states do not seem to be merely the loss of conscious thought -- or even closely related to it. They have other quite different, widespread physiologic effects)
When I was a naive teenager, I thought that if we could locate this 'output' we'd be on the road to exploring the soul. Now I think the issue may be a bit more complex, but I still think this is an important question that someone else might be able to use to gain serious insight and/or formulate a new theory
[BTW, I've yet to read a theorist who didn't 'pick and chose' their neurological cases (if they use them at all) with so carefully that it seems impossible that they didn't hear of of other cases that contradicted their theories outright. (Empiricism is such a bitch)]
I am pleased that Starship Titanic was finally released for the Mac. I must have missed the announcement. I don't follow Mac stuff that closely anymore
However, my underlying point remains, even Douglas Adams had to bow to commercial pressures and favor the PC version -- though the Mac (unlike Linux) has been an established gaming market for almost 20 years!
Also, I was thinking 'initially released' when I wrote 'released'. Sloppy wording. Mea Culpa.
In penance, let me offer the following: While I don't know if formal Mac versions were released for any of his previous Infocom/Activision games, free/shareware interpreters for many platforms are available for free download (per Douglas Adams' website). Maybe there's even a Linux version.
Dang! 100,000 unfiltered terahertz lip-flappers on/. -- and I get caught out on a point that I thought I fact-checked. (*grumble*) I hope that doesn't make anyone else think twice before spending the time to fact-check.
Face it, the commercial market for Linux versions is not at present anywhere near the market for MS OS versions. Next year or two years from now may be an entirely different story, but today -- nyet!
It could well be dnagerous to force this issue onto the developer's agenda prematurely. Yes, it's nice to keep it on the horizon, but if we pressure developers to do it *now* we're also forcing them to decide based on *current* market conditions. And frankly, in a highly competitive environment, the smart decision for most of them will be to dedicate their resources to improving their cash cow, or developing other, more lucrative projects. (Douglas Adams, the author and staunch Mactivist, never released a Mac version of his games because it would have bankrupted the company -- which would have benefited no one)
Once such an official policy is in place, it will probably delay introduction more than the current vague interest. An explicit policy is difficult to change, even if it is explicitly "Linux? Someday... but not now". The bar for the eventual entry into Linux may actually be raised by the policy
It might be safer if we maintain a steady gentle awareness of Linux in the marketplace, and wait until the hard financial facts support entry. Let's keep it as a 'concept that all the really cool companies are thinking about' instead of trying to pretend it's a commercial mandate.
Any/.er can name 20 things that should/would have succeeded except for an early failure (premature exposure/introduction) and even the corporate resources of an Edison, IBM, etc. couldn't keep them afloat until they were ready to swim.
"My personal experience is that almost no one coming online these days even knows Usenet exists. "
True enought, but I think it's important to stand fast against the always tempting pseudo-democratic ideal of considering all opinions equally valid -- Specifically, the assumption that those who 'do not know' are 'more representative' and hence a indicator of the future.
Everyone is a newbie once, but not for (one hopes) very long. Newcomers do not determine the future -- especially a 'Net fluency approaches telephone fluency.
We shouldn't forget that one reason for its early popularity was that it was 'mail-like' at a time when 'mail' was the key to the learning path. Newbies used to advance to usenet, FTP, telnet etc. (the order varied) in order of divergence from the mail paradigm.[Gopher, etc. changed akll that, by making file-based access]
Yes, usenet has advantages over other modalities (decentralized, low bandwidth) -- but absent a gov't/commercial crackdown, 'decentralized' may mena little to end users, and 'low bandwidth will mean equally little, when everyone demands fat pipes for their other internet access, anyway.
That does not mean USEnet is forever. USEnet depends on the number of experts -- not newcomers -- who use it extensively. It will survive as long as its knowledge- and thought-base does. [Several posters have complained that it can be hard to squeeze some types of answers from the Web vs. USennet, yet the very observation suggests that *even they* turned to the web first!)
The broadcast and community functions are well-served by Web-boards and listserves (and will be even better served in the future, as tools evolve (aided by open source) to make the Web-board experience equal or exceed USEnet. (remember what a pain it was to search usenet before DejaNews?) The best demonstartion of this was the evolution of the newsreaders themselves
I am afraid that, absent a gov't or commercial 'crackdown' on websites, USEnet's decentralized nature will not be a potent 'selective pressure' in the evolution of the internet. Its efficient use of bandwidth is unlikely to be a factor at all (Users need 'fat pipes' for their other Internet use, so they will scarcely notice the difference, espcially since newservers are increasingly overloaded 'lower tier' equipment)
If other once-avid USEnet regulars (and subject matter experts) don't follow USEnet anymore (mea culpa), it will die. Already, the greatest achievement of USENET -- its library of FAQs -- is becoming out-dated in many subjects.
"And what other news medium showed a public figure recant a statement in realtime?"
TV... Radio... Town criers... (oyez, oyez, the mayor is speaking of seting the witches free. Come say your piece!) Let's not get carried away with the instantaniety of the web. Life has always been realtime -- with an amazing bandwidth.
In modern life, the act of 'recanting' means announcing it to the media (You can't 'recant in your heart'; it's not Galileo's world anymore). Every live press conference, debate, or press seige on the way from plane to limo is potentially a real-time recant. You've probably seen dozens of real-time recants, and never thought anything of it.
In my mind, Slashdot is still one of the most trusted news forums for me-- because someone can post a message openly criticising their journalistic integrity. There really isn't that much journalism going on by the Slashdot guys, relatively speaking. The ratio of content on this site between what the guys in the Geek Compound here in Michigan post, versus the content posted by YOU worldwide is incredibly large. And the fact that YOU can moderate and score that content is amazingly bold too. If you can, list for me the number of news sites which get as much or more traffic as Slashdot that have a similar tradition of openness.
I strongly agree with your major point, however, you are presuming that everything works as we like to assume it does.
Suppose I told you that yesterday, dozens of posts critical of/. were downgraded to an undocumented (and effectively invisible) -5 filter level -- and that even at that level, the parts the posters had considered the "guts" of the message were editied out of the posts?
It happened. And I'm even glad it did.
The posts were announcements and demonstrations of a weakness in the Slash.9 software. (apparently it allowed more HTML code than previous versions) The 'demonstrations' were gutted within an hour by slashdot admins and all the postings downrated to -5 (though/. claims that -1 lets you see all posts)
This action protected us from possibly dangerous embedded HTML, and though I'd have prefered to see it handled diferently, I full appreciate that the 'need for speed' was pressing.
However, they never announced what they were doing this or how to view the downrated posts (browse after manually changing the filte level in the URL to -9999)
I trust/. because of its track record. If there's a new boss, the old track record might goes out the window. We simply have to see.
As regards editorial content and viewpoint: whatever their intent, guys who were on display at a packed Jacob Javits Center yesterday (vs. hacking in torn underwear behind the quasi-anonymity of a monitor in 'the compound' in MI) can be forgiven if their viewpoint drifts or mutates. We've all seen the process a hundred times both in real life and on the web
> "Prefect" sounds too close to "perfect" > -- no way intel holds themself to THAT standard.
Actually, the argument against 'Perfect' is stark proof that the Intel marketing teams have (amazingly) finally mastered the concept of succession -- "What would we call the processor after 'Perfect'?...Pluperfect?...Buckaroo Banzai?"
Let's not forget the red faces at Intel the day after the name 'Pentium' got out, and everyone was asking if the '686' would be Hexium or Sexium.
Please moderate this up to the level of my Anonymous Coward post (above)
Some friends have convinced me that if I really want to hear about similar sightings, I need to provide contact info, rather than expecting reports to be posted here. Others may be as hesitant as I was to present unsubstantiable reports.
I originally debated whether to post without bonus points (since it is merely an anecdote, rather than a reasoned comment) or as an AC. I guess I made the wrong choice (hey, it was 5:30 am here!) since the original post was moderated up +5 in the next several hours, yet no replies were posted
It's been over a decade since I did any appreciable assembly coding (I quit after the 80286), but I have a serious question, and I'd be interested in serious answers:
How many of you actually routinely (e.g. 6 times a year) examine the output of your compiler, and compare it to what you would have written?
I've done it often (a promise I made to myself as a foolish youth) and learned quite a bit. It's actually changed my higher-level coding technique on a few occassions (and I'm not just talking about optimizing for a better fit with a specific compiler)
Not only have I never met another person who does it, but I've almost never met a programmer who didn't look at me oddly for even mentioning the practice. And yet, here are so many people walking as if they did it routinely. I guess that's just the Silicon Valley edge.
I'm not being sarcastic or snide. I really want to know. Maybe I should give up my current profession (ditching a decade of grad and post-doc training) and move to the West Coast, where Programmers are Real Programmers.
Or maybe I should finish reading my NEJM, and we should all just keep in mind what we really know, and what we only think we know. Again, no disrespect, Lord knows I've had to re-think the extent to which I "knew" things before.
Please post your honest answer, and encourage your friends to do so as well. I'm afraid I'll have to take a lack of responses as a confirmation of my worst fears -- that everyone is only guessing.
I think it is interesting that that proposal makes deliberate use of the 'information highway' metaphor [autobahn, whatever] to ease the shock of the 'license' concept.
Suppose they'd used another metaphor? They'd be laughed at!
a) Net surfers should be licensed just like real surfers should be... uh no, attempts to require licensure of 'dangerous sports fall short in most nations, including the US. 'Risk to others' does not necessarily enter into it. A skydiver or ultra light pilot could cause a lot of injury if they happened to land on a schoolbus. Indeed the risk of injuring innocent bystanders exists in *most* sports (I've seen people hit by wayward golfballs)
b) Those who browse the web should be licensed just as those who browse books in a library or bookstore... another non-starter in most 'free' nations.
c) Those who talk/write over the internet should be licensed like those who call or write letters. (ulp!)
d) Hey the internet is effectively broadcasting! We license TV/radio stations! -- Alas, talk radio is rather popular. Note that we license the station (site??), but not the users (callers/listeners) -- and in the US, at least, freedom of the press has roots almost as deep as freedom of speech
e) There are countless metaphors that could be used, and only the 'driving a car' metaphor gets the proponents anywhere near where they want to go (partly because of the aura of fear that surrounded the automobile when it was introduced accompanying the excitement and enthusiasm -- hence the old laws (now jokes) requiring that flagwavers precede automobiles to warn pedestrians/sensible horse-riders/etc.)
By now, we all know that the telegraph and telephone were, realio-trulio, slandered with the same 'society destroying' label that the internet faces today.
But we cannot ignore the power and misuse of metaphors -- they are likely to be all that many of our legislators and law enforcement authorities understand... or choose to understand. It is important to remember (and almost impossible to overestimate) the degree to which most people will seek out, and accepts as fully real ('intuitively obvious') those metaphors that justify their preconceptions, fears, etc.
And even we/.ers know that there are things to fear in the Internet. We can evaluate these risks and accept them as the price of freedom. Others might not see any need for any freedom they don't personally exercise. ("Hey, I got nothin' to hide")
Finally, (and this is truly shocking to Americans like me) there have been legal cases (recent ones) in US state courts that quietly question whether drivers licenses can be required for private individuals driving their own cars on the public ways. At least one state supreme court has ruled that it isn't. Any search engine can point you to many 'nutcase' anti-tax anti-gov't pages that have the unfortunate property of citing quite valid case findings (text available online; verifiable in any law library) I find the idea unsettling, but it is nice to know that the gov't can't just 'make it so' by fiat. (not that I'd risk being a test case in *my* state) I've read some interesting social analyses of the factors that allowed the institution of the driver's license -- which is in many ways an unprecedented abrogation of our social rights.
(Don't argue the necessity with me -- just note that proponents of a dozen other social programs have tried throughout the century to acquire this type of licensing/identification/authorization privileges, and the courts struck every one of them down. The driver's license is the one that sneaked by -- and not because it was the most worthy.]
OS's are so multifaceted (and personal) that there really isn't (and may never be) any single 'best' OS (even if its name ends in 'x'). 'linux' is just a name, 'Linux Rulez' is just a motto. The real question is: will kernel 3.2 or release 7 of (your choice) be what you hope it will be? Or will you have to wait another year while the needs of a highly demanding, specialized influx of newcomers are met? (be they enterprise centers or gamers)
The definition of Linux is still plastic - fundamental design decisions may be made to support the gaming market instead of your most demanding use. Would it even be wise for Linus deliberately disregard the needs and wishes of 10% of the market? 30%? 50? There are millions of gamers out ther trying to breath life into old Pentiums or 486's. They could triple our ranks overnight
In the longer run, gaming is likely to be a boon. Home LANs, video, audio, etc. got a giant boost from games. However, if we're going to look at the long term, we might be better served by a massive gamer focus in late 2000 vs. late 1999.
Games are widely considered the most demanding and fastidious applications on a typical system. We may enjoy fiddling with the OS (rather a game in itself, no?) but someone who only cares about their 'kill factor' may find themselves pushed to accept all the 'not ready for primetime' PR that is noted here each day, if they have a bad experience.
Is the linux community aupport up to this influx? Many gamers, downloading from FTP, may find that Linux leaves a bad taste in their mouths, and that's a black eye for us (even if half the problem is just "this ain't how Windows does it" - we're all frustrated by apps/OSs that don't do things as we're used to)
Maybe your top app isn't that demanding; maybe you dying to build your joystick calluses; maybe the demands (OS/support/discussion) of gamers will fling you out the nearest (X)window; And maybe you'll gnash your teeth to nubs because the driver for some card on your older-tech box gets held up, while the perpetual torrent of new gamer cards gets instant support and constant driver updates.
[The Linux community is somewhat fad-proofed by volunteer efforts, but that still doesn't necessarily make gaming support more attractive to a typical Linuxer]
The Lamborghinis don't mean that there's tons of capital available for Linux. Rather they illustrate gaming capital that is not available for Linux. Tell a hotshot game coder you're cutting his perks/pay to go into a OS that he (obviously) doesn't currently use -- he'll wish you luck (and enjoy the fruits of your labor - as a consumer) and hightail it to another outfit,
Just a few Lamboghinis can cost you enough coders to put you in chapter 11, without doing that much to help your company, the Linux community, or computing in general. What's a million these days?
To provide a little clarification, there were indeed other issues behind the Whitlaw ouster.
e.g. the 'anti nuclear' stance that one reader cited prohibited nuclear weapons -- or any warship carrying them -- from docking at an Aussie port. This meant warheads had to be transferred to other ships before refuel/resupply/repair in Australia. Principled stand or uppity insubordination? You decide. Of course, a formal tenet of institutional US policy is that it borders on uppity insubordination to even take an inconvenient 'principled stance' without approval by the US (much less in the face of our disapproval)
The more interesting element (to me, as an American) was the means of the ouster: the US prevailed upon the UK to simply 'fire' the duly-elected Aussie PM via the Governor General, an unrestricted power that this largely ceremonial office retained under post-colonial law.
Next time you hear someone from a British Commonwealth nation throw up his hands and say -- "Why would we want a Constituion, we're fine the way we are -- and it does sem a rather un friendly act" [a rather common view, e.g. in Canada, before The Queen granted it permission to draft a constitution]... well, now you have an answer.
The crypto-limiting policies in the US have little to do with the publicly cited goals. However, though I can't claim to be privy to any deep motivations, I am fairly convinced that a large part of the initiative (or the political support behind it) is the implied threat to the smug power structure. Let's face it, politics is not an idyllic lifestyle, and public failure (i.e. losing elections) is so bruising, that the great majority (not all) of politicos are driven by a deep internal need for power/respect.
If their responses sometimes seem like the petulance of children, it may be because that is indeed the developmental stage where those needs crystalized. (A similar process has been documented in group psychological studies of policemen and cadets)
The problem with this emphasis on power and the trappings of respect is that any perceived threat to their standing is as real (to them) as a genuine risk of mobs rioting in the street. An 'unbreakable code' is just such a threat because ire represents somethin that their power (and the resources at their disposal) can't do
Arbitrary whim ain't much, but it's all they've got.
The trick is to accept and utilize this fact,rather than smirking cynically and dismissing it, or leaving it to run its own course
A lot of Americans unconsciously think of Austalians as being 'just like us', due to the (occassionally;>) shared language and frontier influence.
However when I read this post, I was immediately reminded of Pine gap (etc.) and the fact that we (through the British) once effectively overthrew a duly elected Australian administration (ousting the PM) because he asked too many embarrassing questions about intelligence actvities at massive US intelligence installations in their own country.)
I just thought I'd provide that bit of background so his post could be properly appreciated (I hope that I haven't misread the Australian's intent) since I know thesefacts are not widely known in the US. We don't just mess with banana republics (Chile, Allende) or even 'darkie' NATO allies (Greece, where we actively assisted in a military overthrow of of a democratic parliament)
I say 'darkie' because, though many of the principals were unprejudiced and principled, the overall institutional outlook seemed to be -well, racist isn't quite the right word, but it's close.
This has been my personal parody since they came out with that slogan. I was sure others had come up with it too, but after reading so many taglines on this theme, I had to put an end to it.
I'm still interested in seeing better tag lines, I'm sure this isn't the best that can be done. But for those of you just messing aound because you're sure there's a punchline in there somewhere... Thanks for playing. See ya next thread...
Okay, it's official NSI has made it onto my list of 'corrupt organizations'. No flameage, this is not intended as a reflection on their ethics, it's a private designation for companies who have (for one reason or another) corrupted their ability to fairly, efficiently, and appropriately fulfill the functions I contract with them for [and generally must be replaced, like a corrupt file]
I have several domains coming up for renewal this month, and need reports from the trenches on the level of service, function and compatibility available by registering at Joker.com (CSL GmBH).
Despite owning domains since '94 (when they were free), the potential for havoc still makes my stomach queasy. [In NSI's defense, it made the process easy enough that I rarely had to delve into the details, and it was fairly reliable.]
Would some joker.com registrants care to help me out by discussing (the quality of):
propagation of registration changes
inter-registrar cooperation
unforeseen glitches
general caveats
Please post here (for the benefit of the general community) and not to my username. The experiences of domain transferers vs. new registrants would be paticularly welcome!
In the meantime, I'm going to dust off my once-fluent German and pore through the original docs (In international negotiations, I find that comparing my translations with theirs often highlights points that might have been trouble]
Much thanks for the help!
Forget hunter/killer nanites
on
Smart Dust
·
· Score: 1
The (undoubtedly heroic) future efforts of EFF inter alia on this issue aside, absence of a surveilance signal will be seen as suspicious signs (just as use of cryptography is now) by certain authorities. This is a basic principle of SigInt (Signals Intelligence), also used by some crackers (go where the security is)
The budding nanoengineers among you would be better served by rigging 'nothing interesting to see here' nanites - maybe transmitting endless hours of you playing Quake. Badly.
But, honey, I'm not playing a game. I'm recording part of the house security system -- because I'd be lost, if something happened to you.
Slashdot Mirror
During my checkered career, I managed to pick up a degree in philosophy. About 20 years ago, I came up with a theory of 'the soul' that I felt had the potential for real significance and verifiability
I'd have to spend weeks reviewing the notes I took over the years before I'd be willing to frame it again in today's terms, but it did contain a central element that Slashdotters are uniquely qualified to appreciate and explore.
I'd welcome your comments
I call it "The Output Problem":
Namely If the human brain is a processor of any sort, then there must exist a single central location where the output of the proceses we call 'conscious thought' is present
Extensive studies of lesions of all parts of the brain have not turned up no location where a lesion causes a loss of this 'output' -- i.e. a loss of the awareness of conscious thought -- though numerous spilt-brain and lesion studies have contributed interesting insight (That's why it would take me many weeks to review my medical notes) We have seen the effects of trauma, tumors, CVA/TIA (strokes/near-strokes), and surgical ablation (and electrical stimulation) of literally every square millimeter of the brain many thousands of times in the past century
Saying its the 'frontal cortex' would be like saying simply "CPU" or "ALU", since the frontal cortex consists of (on the order of) 10^9 neurons. Even on a computer chip there is relative handful of gates that constitute the total output. Blow those gates and the chip can't output. Concepts like "redundancy", "plasticity", and "holographic output" do not really explain anything here, since the underlying biological processes are slow enough that we would be able ot observe the loss and recovery of conscious thought over a period from hours to months. (Coma and unconscious states do not seem to be merely the loss of conscious thought -- or even closely related to it. They have other quite different, widespread physiologic effects)
When I was a naive teenager, I thought that if we could locate this 'output' we'd be on the road to exploring the soul. Now I think the issue may be a bit more complex, but I still think this is an important question that someone else might be able to use to gain serious insight and/or formulate a new theory
[BTW, I've yet to read a theorist who didn't 'pick and chose' their neurological cases (if they use them at all) with so carefully that it seems impossible that they didn't hear of of other cases that contradicted their theories outright. (Empiricism is such a bitch)]
I am pleased that Starship Titanic was finally released for the Mac. I must have missed the announcement. I don't follow Mac stuff that closely anymore
/. -- and I get caught out on a point that I thought I fact-checked. (*grumble*) I hope that doesn't make anyone else think twice before spending the time to fact-check.
However, my underlying point remains, even Douglas Adams had to bow to commercial pressures and favor the PC version -- though the Mac (unlike Linux) has been an established gaming market for almost 20 years!
I did a spot check before posting, and saw a page on the official Starship Titanic web site entitled "Why Isn't Starship Titanic on the Macintosh?" I hope you'll understand why my quick check of the page suggested that Starship Titanic *still* wasn't on the Mac.
Also, I was thinking 'initially released' when I wrote 'released'. Sloppy wording. Mea Culpa.
In penance, let me offer the following: While I don't know if formal Mac versions were released for any of his previous Infocom/Activision games, free/shareware interpreters for many platforms are available for free download (per Douglas Adams' website). Maybe there's even a Linux version.
Dang! 100,000 unfiltered terahertz lip-flappers on
Face it, the commercial market for Linux versions is not at present anywhere near the market for MS OS versions. Next year or two years from now may be an entirely different story, but today -- nyet!
/.er can name 20 things that should/would have succeeded except for an early failure (premature exposure/introduction) and even the corporate resources of an Edison, IBM, etc. couldn't keep them afloat until they were ready to swim.
It could well be dnagerous to force this issue onto the developer's agenda prematurely. Yes, it's nice to keep it on the horizon, but if we pressure developers to do it *now* we're also forcing them to decide based on *current* market conditions. And frankly, in a highly competitive environment, the smart decision for most of them will be to dedicate their resources to improving their cash cow, or developing other, more lucrative projects. (Douglas Adams, the author and staunch Mactivist, never released a Mac version of his games because it would have bankrupted the company -- which would have benefited no one)
Once such an official policy is in place, it will probably delay introduction more than the current vague interest. An explicit policy is difficult to change, even if it is explicitly "Linux? Someday... but not now". The bar for the eventual entry into Linux may actually be raised by the policy
It might be safer if we maintain a steady gentle awareness of Linux in the marketplace, and wait until the hard financial facts support entry. Let's keep it as a 'concept that all the really cool companies are thinking about' instead of trying to pretend it's a commercial mandate.
Any
"My personal experience is that almost no one coming online these days even knows Usenet exists. "
True enought, but I think it's important to stand fast against the always tempting pseudo-democratic ideal of considering all opinions equally valid -- Specifically, the assumption that those who 'do not know' are 'more representative' and hence a indicator of the future.
Everyone is a newbie once, but not for (one hopes) very long. Newcomers do not determine the future -- especially a 'Net fluency approaches telephone fluency.
We shouldn't forget that one reason for its early popularity was that it was 'mail-like' at a time when 'mail' was the key to the learning path. Newbies used to advance to usenet, FTP, telnet etc. (the order varied) in order of divergence from the mail paradigm.[Gopher, etc. changed akll that, by making file-based access]
Yes, usenet has advantages over other modalities (decentralized, low bandwidth) -- but absent a gov't/commercial crackdown, 'decentralized' may mena little to end users, and 'low bandwidth will mean equally little, when everyone demands fat pipes for their other internet access, anyway.
That does not mean USEnet is forever. USEnet depends on the number of experts -- not newcomers -- who use it extensively. It will survive as long as its knowledge- and thought-base does. [Several posters have complained that it can be hard to squeeze some types of answers from the Web vs. USennet, yet the very observation suggests that *even they* turned to the web first!)
The broadcast and community functions are well-served by Web-boards and listserves (and will be even better served in the future, as tools evolve (aided by open source) to make the Web-board experience equal or exceed USEnet. (remember what a pain it was to search usenet before DejaNews?) The best demonstartion of this was the evolution of the newsreaders themselves
I am afraid that, absent a gov't or commercial 'crackdown' on websites, USEnet's decentralized nature will not be a potent 'selective pressure' in the evolution of the internet. Its efficient use of bandwidth is unlikely to be a factor at all (Users need 'fat pipes' for their other Internet use, so they will scarcely notice the difference, espcially since newservers are increasingly overloaded 'lower tier' equipment)
If other once-avid USEnet regulars (and subject matter experts) don't follow USEnet anymore (mea culpa), it will die. Already, the greatest achievement of USENET -- its library of FAQs -- is becoming out-dated in many subjects.
"And what other news medium showed a public figure recant a statement in realtime?"
TV... Radio... Town criers... (oyez, oyez, the mayor is speaking of seting the witches free. Come say your piece!) Let's not get carried away with the instantaniety of the web. Life has always been realtime -- with an amazing bandwidth.
In modern life, the act of 'recanting' means announcing it to the media (You can't 'recant in your heart'; it's not Galileo's world anymore). Every live press conference, debate, or press seige on the way from plane to limo is potentially a real-time recant. You've probably seen dozens of real-time recants, and never thought anything of it.
I strongly agree with your major point, however, you are presuming that everything works as we like to assume it does.
Suppose I told you that yesterday, dozens of posts critical of
It happened. And I'm even glad it did.
The posts were announcements and demonstrations of a weakness in the Slash
This action protected us from possibly dangerous embedded HTML, and though I'd have prefered to see it handled diferently, I full appreciate that the 'need for speed' was pressing.
However, they never announced what they were doing this or how to view the downrated posts (browse after manually changing the filte level in the URL to -9999)
I trust
As regards editorial content and viewpoint: whatever their intent, guys who were on display at a packed Jacob Javits Center yesterday (vs. hacking in torn underwear behind the quasi-anonymity of a monitor in 'the compound' in MI) can be forgiven if their viewpoint drifts or mutates. We've all seen the process a hundred times both in real life and on the web
> "Prefect" sounds too close to "perfect"
...Pluperfect? ...Buckaroo Banzai?"
> -- no way intel holds themself to THAT standard.
Actually, the argument against 'Perfect' is stark proof that the Intel marketing teams have (amazingly) finally mastered the concept of succession -- "What would we call the processor after 'Perfect'?
Let's not forget the red faces at Intel the day after the name 'Pentium' got out, and everyone was asking if the '686' would be Hexium or Sexium.
Please moderate this up to the level of my Anonymous Coward post (above)
Some friends have convinced me that if I really want to hear about similar sightings, I need to provide contact info, rather than expecting reports to be posted here. Others may be as hesitant as I was to present unsubstantiable reports.
I originally debated whether to post without bonus points (since it is merely an anecdote, rather than a reasoned comment) or as an AC. I guess I made the wrong choice (hey, it was 5:30 am here!) since the original post was moderated up +5 in the next several hours, yet no replies were posted
I have created a hotmail address for this correspondence: burnedrectifier@hotmail.com
Your report will not be shared (or, if you prefer, even abstracted) without your consent
How many of you actually routinely (e.g. 6 times a year) examine the output of your compiler, and compare it to what you would have written?
I've done it often (a promise I made to myself as a foolish youth) and learned quite a bit. It's actually changed my higher-level coding technique on a few occassions (and I'm not just talking about optimizing for a better fit with a specific compiler)
Not only have I never met another person who does it, but I've almost never met a programmer who didn't look at me oddly for even mentioning the practice. And yet, here are so many people walking as if they did it routinely. I guess that's just the Silicon Valley edge.
I'm not being sarcastic or snide. I really want to know. Maybe I should give up my current profession (ditching a decade of grad and post-doc training) and move to the West Coast, where Programmers are Real Programmers.
Or maybe I should finish reading my NEJM, and we should all just keep in mind what we really know, and what we only think we know. Again, no disrespect, Lord knows I've had to re-think the extent to which I "knew" things before.
Please post your honest answer, and encourage your friends to do so as well. I'm afraid I'll have to take a lack of responses as a confirmation of my worst fears -- that everyone is only guessing.
Suppose they'd used another metaphor? They'd be laughed at!
a) Net surfers should be licensed just like real surfers should be ... uh no, attempts to require licensure of 'dangerous sports fall short in most nations, including the US. 'Risk to others' does not necessarily enter into it. A skydiver or ultra light pilot could cause a lot of injury if they happened to land on a schoolbus. Indeed the risk of injuring innocent bystanders exists in *most* sports (I've seen people hit by wayward golfballs)
b) Those who browse the web should be licensed just as those who browse books in a library or bookstore... another non-starter in most 'free' nations.
c) Those who talk/write over the internet should be licensed like those who call or write letters. (ulp!)
d) Hey the internet is effectively broadcasting! We license TV/radio stations! -- Alas, talk radio is rather popular. Note that we license the station (site??), but not the users (callers/listeners) -- and in the US, at least, freedom of the press has roots almost as deep as freedom of speech
e) There are countless metaphors that could be used, and only the 'driving a car' metaphor gets the proponents anywhere near where they want to go (partly because of the aura of fear that surrounded the automobile when it was introduced accompanying the excitement and enthusiasm -- hence the old laws (now jokes) requiring that flagwavers precede automobiles to warn pedestrians/sensible horse-riders/etc.)
By now, we all know that the telegraph and telephone were, realio-trulio, slandered with the same 'society destroying' label that the internet faces today.
But we cannot ignore the power and misuse of metaphors -- they are likely to be all that many of our legislators and law enforcement authorities understand... or choose to understand. It is important to remember (and almost impossible to overestimate) the degree to which most people will seek out, and accepts as fully real ('intuitively obvious') those metaphors that justify their preconceptions, fears, etc.
And even we /.ers know that there are things to fear in the Internet. We can evaluate these risks and accept them as the price of freedom. Others might not see any need for any freedom they don't personally exercise. ("Hey, I got nothin' to hide")
Finally, (and this is truly shocking to Americans like me) there have been legal cases (recent ones) in US state courts that quietly question whether drivers licenses can be required for private individuals driving their own cars on the public ways. At least one state supreme court has ruled that it isn't. Any search engine can point you to many 'nutcase' anti-tax anti-gov't pages that have the unfortunate property of citing quite valid case findings (text available online; verifiable in any law library) I find the idea unsettling, but it is nice to know that the gov't can't just 'make it so' by fiat. (not that I'd risk being a test case in *my* state) I've read some interesting social analyses of the factors that allowed the institution of the driver's license -- which is in many ways an unprecedented abrogation of our social rights.
(Don't argue the necessity with me -- just note that proponents of a dozen other social programs have tried throughout the century to acquire this type of licensing/identification/authorization privileges, and the courts struck every one of them down. The driver's license is the one that sneaked by -- and not because it was the most worthy.]
The definition of Linux is still plastic - fundamental design decisions may be made to support the gaming market instead of your most demanding use. Would it even be wise for Linus deliberately disregard the needs and wishes of 10% of the market? 30%? 50? There are millions of gamers out ther trying to breath life into old Pentiums or 486's. They could triple our ranks overnight
In the longer run, gaming is likely to be a boon. Home LANs, video, audio, etc. got a giant boost from games. However, if we're going to look at the long term, we might be better served by a massive gamer focus in late 2000 vs. late 1999.
Games are widely considered the most demanding and fastidious applications on a typical system. We may enjoy fiddling with the OS (rather a game in itself, no?) but someone who only cares about their 'kill factor' may find themselves pushed to accept all the 'not ready for primetime' PR that is noted here each day, if they have a bad experience.
Is the linux community aupport up to this influx? Many gamers, downloading from FTP, may find that Linux leaves a bad taste in their mouths, and that's a black eye for us (even if half the problem is just "this ain't how Windows does it" - we're all frustrated by apps/OSs that don't do things as we're used to)
Maybe your top app isn't that demanding; maybe you dying to build your joystick calluses; maybe the demands (OS/support/discussion) of gamers will fling you out the nearest (X)window; And maybe you'll gnash your teeth to nubs because the driver for some card on your older-tech box gets held up, while the perpetual torrent of new gamer cards gets instant support and constant driver updates.
[The Linux community is somewhat fad-proofed by volunteer efforts, but that still doesn't necessarily make gaming support more attractive to a typical Linuxer]
The Lamborghinis don't mean that there's tons of capital available for Linux. Rather they illustrate gaming capital that is not available for Linux. Tell a hotshot game coder you're cutting his perks/pay to go into a OS that he (obviously) doesn't currently use -- he'll wish you luck (and enjoy the fruits of your labor - as a consumer) and hightail it to another outfit,
Just a few Lamboghinis can cost you enough coders to put you in chapter 11, without doing that much to help your company, the Linux community, or computing in general. What's a million these days?
To provide a little clarification, there were indeed other issues behind the Whitlaw ouster.
... well, now you have an answer.
e.g. the 'anti nuclear' stance that one reader cited prohibited nuclear weapons -- or any warship carrying them -- from docking at an Aussie port. This meant warheads had to be transferred to other ships before refuel/resupply/repair in Australia. Principled stand or uppity insubordination? You decide. Of course, a formal tenet of institutional US policy is that it borders on uppity insubordination to even take an inconvenient 'principled stance' without approval by the US (much less in the face of our disapproval)
The more interesting element (to me, as an American) was the means of the ouster: the US prevailed upon the UK to simply 'fire' the duly-elected Aussie PM via the Governor General, an unrestricted power that this largely ceremonial office retained under post-colonial law.
Next time you hear someone from a British Commonwealth nation throw up his hands and say -- "Why would we want a Constituion, we're fine the way we are -- and it does sem a rather un friendly act" [a rather common view, e.g. in Canada, before The Queen granted it permission to draft a constitution]
If their responses sometimes seem like the petulance of children, it may be because that is indeed the developmental stage where those needs crystalized. (A similar process has been documented in group psychological studies of policemen and cadets)
The problem with this emphasis on power and the trappings of respect is that any perceived threat to their standing is as real (to them) as a genuine risk of mobs rioting in the street. An 'unbreakable code' is just such a threat because ire represents somethin that their power (and the resources at their disposal) can't do
Arbitrary whim ain't much, but it's all they've got.
The trick is to accept and utilize this fact,rather than smirking cynically and dismissing it, or leaving it to run its own course
However when I read this post, I was immediately reminded of Pine gap (etc.) and the fact that we (through the British) once effectively overthrew a duly elected Australian administration (ousting the PM) because he asked too many embarrassing questions about intelligence actvities at massive US intelligence installations in their own country.)
I just thought I'd provide that bit of background so his post could be properly appreciated (I hope that I haven't misread the Australian's intent) since I know thesefacts are not widely known in the US. We don't just mess with banana republics (Chile, Allende) or even 'darkie' NATO allies (Greece, where we actively assisted in a military overthrow of of a democratic parliament)
I say 'darkie' because, though many of the principals were unprejudiced and principled, the overall institutional outlook seemed to be -well, racist isn't quite the right word, but it's close.
This has been my personal parody since they came out with that slogan. I was sure others had come up with it too, but after reading so many taglines on this theme, I had to put an end to it.
I'm still interested in seeing better tag lines, I'm sure this isn't the best that can be done. But for those of you just messing aound because you're sure there's a punchline in there somewhere... Thanks for playing. See ya next thread...
I have several domains coming up for renewal this month, and need reports from the trenches on the level of service, function and compatibility available by registering at Joker.com (CSL GmBH).
Despite owning domains since '94 (when they were free), the potential for havoc still makes my stomach queasy. [In NSI's defense, it made the process easy enough that I rarely had to delve into the details, and it was fairly reliable.]
Would some joker.com registrants care to help me out by discussing (the quality of):
- propagation of registration changes
- inter-registrar cooperation
- unforeseen glitches
- general caveats
Please post here (for the benefit of the general community) and not to my username. The experiences of domain transferers vs. new registrants would be paticularly welcome!In the meantime, I'm going to dust off my once-fluent German and pore through the original docs (In international negotiations, I find that comparing my translations with theirs often highlights points that might have been trouble]
Much thanks for the help!
The (undoubtedly heroic) future efforts of EFF inter alia on this issue aside, absence of a surveilance signal will be seen as suspicious signs (just as use of cryptography is now) by certain authorities. This is a basic principle of SigInt (Signals Intelligence), also used by some crackers (go where the security is)
The budding nanoengineers among you would be better served by rigging 'nothing interesting to see here' nanites - maybe transmitting endless hours of you playing Quake. Badly.
But, honey, I'm not playing a game. I'm recording part of the house security system -- because I'd be lost, if something happened to you.