Call me paranoid, but I don't. Even wireless networks with WPA2. Too many ways they can be spoofed, or cracked, or hacked, or man-in-the-middle'd. But that's just me.
Sigh. You assume that it's all drain and no return. Wrong! See the link above (and the links referenced therein). This would pay for itself if it was done right.
Wouldn't the vast sum of money required be better spent preserving the rainforests here on earth?
.
And how are you going to preserve them? First, figure out what's killing them: OVERPOPULATION. People clearcut the forests to make room for houses and farmland.
So? Move the freakin' population out into space. That's not a case of "exploring in case we screw this one up," it's a clear, unambiguous case of exploring so that we WON'T screw this one up. Can't you see that?
The only alternative is a future filled with angst, tightened belts and draconian population controls. And you have been warned: I will fight that future with every breath that I possess.
Our destiny is the stars, dood. Let's start making it happen before things DO get so bad here that we can't.
It never ceases to amaze me how often this objection is raised. The original drive to the moon in the 1960's is one of the very few examples of a government program that WORKED, and that paid for itself many times over. This point has been raised many times over as well: a quick Google search, in fact, led to this comment from September of 2007 right here on/.:
Besides, even if it did cost, why not invest in the future in the most tangible way? Rather that sitting on this planet whining about resources running out, why not go "out there" and FIND MORE? Rather than worrying about overpopulation, why not go find some more real estate??? Man, even if we never make it to Mars, putting viable colony/way stations at the Lagrange points would be cooler than liquid helium.:)
It's time for us to stop whining and tightening our belts and worrying about the future. It's time to start MAKING IT.
As for a change of administrations killing this new initiative, it won't happen if the people get behind it. That's a simple sales job. And to quote Jerry Pournelle, one great way to start is just to ask everyone to go outside tonight and look up at the stars for a while.
I guess the only reason why the usual args about Conservative-vs-Liberal-vs-Libertarian always pop up is because of people's basic believes: the first and last tend to distrust government, while liberals/progressives/(choose your label) tend to believe it the answer to most large problems.
Without even getting into that -- (I beg you) -- and trying to simply state and face facts: the government is incompetent. Sure, large corporations have committed their own boners (witness the number of stories that regularly appear about compromised credit card info, just to name one). But what makes anyone think that the government is any better? They lose laptops with top-secret info, THEY get hacked (and half the time, you don't hear about it solely because THEY'RE TOO STUPID TO EVEN REALIZE IT!), and you name it.
Go into any government office and you'll see people playing solitaire, chatting on their cellphones, and generally, doing as little work as possible. Political correctness runs rampant, to the extent that even if someone comes into the building with a laptop and a set of DVDs labeled "W-B-Hackers-LOLZ.com," they'll be scolded if the "assume" anything about that person.
The real answer, though it will NEVER happen and is totally impractical, is to never trust ANY large organization, be it public or private. Just my opinion.
All's I'm saying is, if you think that moving that data from private contractors back into government control will somehow make it safer, you're wrong.
... to conservatives? The seem to think that "Network Neutrality" is some form of "Fairness Doctrine" for the Internet.
I'm a conservative who is 100% in favor of ISPs not being able to limit my access to YouTube or Google. I'm having a hard time explaining this to Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh listeners, though.:)
How about an even simpler idea: if a CongressCritter receives more than a certain amount from a donor, he/she must excuse him or herself from any vote that would obviously benefit that donor.
In other words, call it what it is: "conflict of interest" and actually do something about it.
Not that it will actually happen, of course, but if you're going to dream, why not do it right?
I've been thinking a lot lately about the end of the Space Shuttle. For someone my age, the shuttle really *IS* space travel. I'm going to be really sad to see STS-133 land.
.
And for someone as old as me, "space travel" was the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs, when we put men on the moon in less than a decade. That was when NASA wasn't afraid to take risks -- yes, to put it bluntly, when we accepted that there would be some casualties.
I'm not making light of the shuttle program, but "Space travel"... i.e., the Space Program -- is a weak shadow of those heady days. Back when I was a kid, everyone wanted to be an astronaut. That was the highest goal for a young geek like me. I actually dreamed that one day I might have at least a fractional chance of setting foot on Mars, or Titan, or Ganymede. Nowadays? Since the "Space Program" has been pared down to a safe, repeatable, predictable, Do-The-Same-Boring-Things and Haul Satellites Into Orbit again and again, no one cares.
Right over our heads are all the raw materials and resources we will need for the conceivable life of the entire human race. Copper? Gold? Iron? Even some basic Organics and aromatics? They're all out there. If we had people with the guts to do "unsafe" things, in spite of what some Nanny Stater might think, we could even encourage private exploration -- and the payoff might be astronomical (pun intended) for the first prospector to lay claim to an asteroid filled with gold, or rhodium, or some other precious metal. (And yes, it's statistically possible... even likely; look it up.)
Bah. Most kids don't even know what "Space Travel" is. The closest they get is watching Apollo 13, assuming that they're watching special effects and a half-fictitious, dramatized story, when it truth, it was actually a lot tenser than was portrayed in the movie, especially the first 24 hours, and the discussion that led to that last "burn" to get them to earth more quickly. What that movie DID capture was the way that it felt, as I sat there as a young kid watching the TV, as Houston said over and over, "Odyssey, this is Houston, do you copy..." I can remember how my heart went into throat while I waited for them to respond just before splashdown. But you know what? If they had died, I'd have grieved and mourned, but I was have considered it worth it. They would have died for something.
Isn't the lack of comments, it's getting lost in a dozen (or two or fifteen dozen) different source code files, trying to figure out what the original programmer wanted to do. F/OSS is a beautiful, wonderful thing, and I'm fully committed to it, but I can't tell you how many times I've downloaded a F/OSS project with the intention to tinker with the code, only to get completely lost in it.
Just for record, I'm a commenter, and I like comments that explain what the code is doing. But to help address the aforementioned, my code contains lines like "SomeFunction()/* see doodat.h */" and "function( SOMEVALUE );/* see heredat.h for SOMEVALUE */" because I know that even I, the guy who wrote the stuff, will come back years later and be totally lost.
If I had a dollar for every time I've grep'd for the main() function, then followed the execution thread just to see what a program was really doing, I could take us all to dinner.:)
Well, as proof that I'm trying to be fair, if I hadn't posted in this thread, I'd mod you up for this one comment: "The experts were right. It was the people who didn't know what they were talking about (or went along with the paranoia for financial gain) who were predicting doom and gloom."
I agree that the article could have done a better job on the wording, too. Nuff said.:)
"Then it doesn't deserve to be on a list of lamest moments in tech. Surely it should be on the greatest moments in tech. Or the lamest moments in journalism."
I guess this is a matter of perspective, then. You can say that his list contains some odd entries (what list doesn't?). But to be fair to the article's author, he clarifies precisely what he was referring to in the first actual item: "It turns out that the world has addressed the Y2K problem remarkably well."
It's funny how two people can read the same article and come up with two different conclusions. I never thought the author was ridiculing those programmers who quietly, and with dedication, worked to fix Y2K bugs (which DID exist).
And to continue quoting the author, "Those who predicted widespread starvation, utility failures, medical emergencies, and financial catastrophy probably feel a tad sheepish."
Just being fair to the author.
Besides, "best of" and "worst of" lists are almost always a farce, anyway. Getting worked up over them is a waste of time and energy.
To this (and the other replies here): he's not referring to people like you. Don't think that for a minute. I was a Y2K Fear debunker myself, and I assure you, I NEVER attacked people like you who WERE working around the clock to ensure that the transition was smooth.
What I attacked -- and what he's clearly referring to -- were the outright fearmongers. "We CAN'T fix it all in time, buy beans, bullets and head for the hills!"... and... "embedded systems are the great unknown, we're all going to die, so buy beans and bullets and head for the... etc., etc." Have you forgotten the "Y2K Crisis Center" (or whatever they called it) with Sam Donaldson, on watch over the transition? All of the newspaper articles in early 1999 about how the End Was Coming?
THAT'S what he's referring to. Of course there were bugs to be fixed -- some of them true showstoppers. Yes, a lot of people like you poured a lot of nervous sweat into fixing them.
But personally, speaking for myself, I'll never respect Ed Yourdon again. He was the ringleader of the "too many lines of code, it CAN'T be fixed crowd," and continued to ringlead even after it became obvious that it WAS being fixed.
Not you, poster. You did a GREAT job just so that "debunkers" like me COULD say, "it'll be a non-event.":)
The retail price of something is rarely based on the cost to make the unit. This is a common fallacy. The retail price is primarily determined by what the market will pay for the unit. It's just that simple.
The demand for thin clients is much smaller than the demand for full-blown, self-contained computer units (primarily driven by home sales).
... in radio, and here's the thing. Yes, we use processing (compression/limiting) to make ourselves as loud as possible without overdriving the transmitter (the technical term is "overmodulation," and it's illegal because it causes interference).
But we routinely receive pre-packaged audio that is ALREADY processed. When we "re-process" it, it sometimes makes it sound louder. (Certainly less dynamic range, and typically more distorted.) Commercials are by far the most common offenders. Some of these are even EQ'd so that the bass is severely cut, coupled with an annoying peak in the response from 2-3KHz, where the ear is most sensitive. Any rational, cost-effective metering will show it to have the same "level" as our normal program audio, but it WILL be harsher and louder-sounding.
However, I'll defend our processing (we use Omnia processors at our stations -- www.omniaaudio.com); it does a remarkably good job with 90-95% of our audio, including some of these badly-produced commercial and satellite feeds.
The problem doesn't afflict standard broadcast radio and TV stations nearly as much as it does cable and satellite channels, probably because these smaller providers can't afford (or don't want to pay) to put top-notch processing on 20-100 different channels.
(In fact, I called one of our satellite providers a while back, complaining about varying levels, and their engineer admitted to me that the didn't have any processing on their airchain. They expected OUR processing to "clean it up.")
The proposals here to divide things into spectra and measure it that way?... well, we already do that. We use the Omnia processors (www.omniaaudio.com) ourselves; others (such as Optimods -- www.orban.com) do as well. But it's very expensive.
And finally, yes, this is all subjective, anyway, as others have pointed out.
Is anything that stands in the way of you getting whatever you want at zero cost "bullshit"?
.
I am anything but a GNU diehard (a True GNU(tm) will insist that you don't use Acrobat Reader or NVidia's drivers for Linux, for example; I use both). But I understand the license and the purpose behind it.
I create a piece of software. I own it. It is MINE. There's a ton of work put into that software. So... it's time to release it. For whatever reason, I choose the GPL.
If it helps your thinking, look at it this way. You could pay me for the right to use that software. But in a sense, I have said: "you can use this software, and may redistribute it to your heart's content, subject to this one restriction: if you make changes, you must include the source code for those changes with the distribution." That's what I am "charging" you, as the owner of that code, for distribution. Pay up, or shut up.
(Yes, that's a simplification, but it makes the point.)
This is WHY there can be dual-license schemes -- GPL for the masses, paid-and-closed for those who prefer. If you don't pay me, then I expect you to abide by the GPL.
While this, too, is inaccurate, it's another way to look at it: suppose someone donates property for a hospital or civic center. It's THEIR property. They own it. They have a right to dispose of it as they wish. They have chosen to donate it, WITH a stipulation: it must be used for the intended purpose. If the ones receiving the property attempt to sell it for mere gain, or do something else with it, there will probably be a lawsuit (happens all the time).
Likewise, that software is MINE. I OWN it (this is one reason why the FSF frowns on public-domain release; read the Richard Stallman's admittedly-long-winded mainfestos about this). The only way to guarantee *freedom* for that software once it leaves your hard drive is to (a), retain ownership, but (b), insist that AS A COST of distributing that software, you agree to the terms of the GPL.
If you don't like it, don't use the GPL. Use BSD or public-domain software. No one is forcing you.
What about browsers that pre-load? Supposed I go to a legitimate (if racy) Website and one of the links goes to "NakedKoreanInfants.com?" The browser might pre-load that page, whether I click on it or not, and the incriminating evidence is in the cache.
Why? It's costing you money. What do you save by keeping it? Maybe my attitude comes from listening to too much Dave Ramsey lately (g), but sometimes you just have to cut and run.
As others here have suggested:
1 - Donate it.
2 - Throw it away.
... and I add this one:
3 - give it to someone you don't like for Christmas.:)
Why limit yourself to only that which runs natively on Linux? All that matters is killing time and having a little fun.
DOSBox (www.dosbox.org) provides the emulator and Classic DOS Games (www.classicdosgames.com) has dozens of older DOS classics, from Keen to Duke Nukem to whatever. Enjoy it.
The thing is, the Republicans are not my "cherished party." And the fact is, the Democrats DO "do it, too." That was rather my point. Nice strawman, but I'm not taking the bait.:)
.
Whenever I see anyone who is an outright partisan -- Democrat no matter what, *OR* Republican no matter what (you apparently missed that in my post), I see one of three things:
1. Someone who is an active member of the party. Read: an operative, perhaps even a paid shill.
2. Someone who, to be fair, may not be a paid shill, but whose friends are so rabidly partisan that they feel like they have to be (i.e., peer pressure).
3. Someone who's an idiot.
Decide where you belong. If you believe that EITHER party is pristine, moral and has only the best interests of the country in mind, you're #3.
Oh... and while I'm on a roll. You know those Town Hall meetings on health care? The ones where some members of congress needed armed escorts, and ran like scorched cats when they were over?
You know WHY they were so surprised?
Because THEIR precious pollsters were assuring them that there was "broad-based support" FOR the health care bill. They honestly believed that the people complaining at those meetings were just noisy troublemakers who didn't represent the consensus.
By the time they figured out that THEIR pollsters had been telling THEM what they wanted to hear, the damage had been done. They lost a great deal of support for their health care scheme in the PR department -- calling some mild-mannered Granny or a young couple with two children "Nazis" ain't exactly a great way to sway minds and win public opinion, because the average American can watch TV and think, "yeah, sure, that old biddy looks JUST LIKE a paid 'rent a protestor' from some fringe militia movement."
Jesus help us, people. GET A BRAIN. BOTH parties are guilty of this crap, and have been for years.
Grow up and stop being naive! The Christian Right has allowed Republicans to cynically use them and depend on their vote for years... just as Blacks and young intellectuals are completely taken for granted by the Democrats. Both sides need to rent a clue.
I will be as blunt as possible. I am accusing Rasmussen, Strategic Vision and other Republican pollsters of deliberately lying to the American people in order to alter the public debate.
And I'll be just as blunt: I think the same thing when I see a CBS poll that is wildly different from the consensus. Get over it.:)
News flash: politicians of BOTH PARTIES hire pollsters not just to find out what's going on, but also to ALTER public opinion (it's called "push polling"). Where you will lose me is when you start insisting that it's primarily Republicans or Democrats who does it. BOTH do it. Politics is one giant, gelatinous and festering stew of circus-like improbabilities.
As for it influencing my opinion, anyone with half a brain knows that polls will vary depending on where they're done. Ex: do a poll on gun control and gay marriage in the Deep South and the numbers will be something like 90% against in both cases.:)
I also depends on whom they ask, what time of day the poll is done, and -- as others here have pointed out -- the wording of the questions.
Different pollsters have different methodologies. Speaking as a conservative, I've discounted Strategic Vision's numbers for years because they do seem unbelievable at times. But then I'll look at Gallup, Zogby, Rasmussen, and a couple of others that I trust and look for TRENDS. I don't look at actual numbers, I look at TRENDS.
And I hate to tell you this... but on the health care issue (since you brought it up), Strategic Vision is not the ONLY one showing that it's losing traction, especially amongst seniors. It's not just "republican pollsters" showing this. Look at the consensus: the numbers may go up a little one day, down a little the next, but the overall trend among ALL pollsters has been headed straight down since the actual proposed bill was released online and people had a chance to read the thing.
Bottom line: if you are a partisan Democrat who believes that some giant conspiracy keeps thwarting them, *OR* a partisan Republican who believes that some giant conspiracy keeps thwarting them, I'll (ahem) be as blunt as possible: grow a brain. Grow up. Realize that both sides are self-centered, self-absorbed crooks and that, at the end of the day, you are voting for your crooks only because you believe they are marginally better than the others.:)
> It was opposition to binary-only drivers that
> kicked off the formal free software movement
.
Stallman himself says that the primary goal of the GNU Foundation, when it was created, was to develop a free version of Unix. Drivers were only part of it.
> What's more, the fact that the binary Nvidia
> drivers are treated as a sort of pariah helps
> Linux overall
I'm sorry, but this is a happy fantasy. The primary reason why you don't see more drivers for Linux is because manufacturers are frustrated by the need to recompile/rebuild each and every time the kernel is updated. THIS is the primary source of frustration amongst Linux users, too -- they'll install the NVidia driver kit (which, just for the record, generally works just fine and enables advanced features), only to have the whole thing break when the next Kernel security update comes out.
I think there is a place for FSF philosophy, but there's a reason why the more pragmatic OSI was founded.
Further and finally, while I love Linux -- absolutely and to death -- it is NOT, as of this writing, the most popular F/OSS. Packages such as Mozilla's Firefox and OpenOffice would get that nod, if you go by install figures.
And just for the record, I think your sig line gives a great insight into your mentality.:)
The real problem with every wireless scheme introduced to date is that there's not enough bandwidth. The is the big, 100lb gorilla that no one is addressing.
Do the math. OK, so peak download speeds with LTE might be 100Mbps. That sounds good. But put 1000 users on that link, and let 50-100 simultaneously try to do bandwidth-intensive stuff (from YouTube to gaming to you-name-it), and the whole thing will STILL slow to a crawl.
I don't see wireless ever completely replacing wired access. Right now, I'm in a great situation -- I'm in a relatively rural area that just upgraded its backbone, but with few users competing with me for bandwidth -- but I have no illusions that this will last.
What I'd like to see here at/. is an article about growing bandwidth demands vs. the complete inability of the current (or even planned) infrastructure to handle it.
In my area last year, same as in many others, ATT did an ad blitz about their DSL-based packages that offered cable, wireless and high-speed Internet. I note that this past month, they've stopped promoting the Cable-over-DSL and have instead worked a deal with one of the satellite providers!
Slashdot Mirror
"What I do here is not legal advice."
Acknowledged, and my bad. I shouldn't have used that term. "Informed (and interesting, to me) commentary" would be more accurate. :)
At any rate, I've enjoyed your take on these issues over the years.
I must have accidentally clicked "post anonymously" when I posted the above defense of Mr. Beckerman. I wrote it and I'm not ashamed of it. :)
Call me paranoid, but I don't. Even wireless networks with WPA2. Too many ways they can be spoofed, or cracked, or hacked, or man-in-the-middle'd. But that's just me.
Sigh. You assume that it's all drain and no return. Wrong! See the link above (and the links referenced therein). This would pay for itself if it was done right.
.
And how are you going to preserve them? First, figure out what's killing them: OVERPOPULATION. People clearcut the forests to make room for houses and farmland.
So? Move the freakin' population out into space. That's not a case of "exploring in case we screw this one up," it's a clear, unambiguous case of exploring so that we WON'T screw this one up. Can't you see that?
The only alternative is a future filled with angst, tightened belts and draconian population controls. And you have been warned: I will fight that future with every breath that I possess.
Our destiny is the stars, dood. Let's start making it happen before things DO get so bad here that we can't.
.
It never ceases to amaze me how often this objection is raised. The original drive to the moon in the 1960's is one of the very few examples of a government program that WORKED, and that paid for itself many times over. This point has been raised many times over as well: a quick Google search, in fact, led to this comment from September of 2007 right here on /.:
Besides, even if it did cost, why not invest in the future in the most tangible way? Rather that sitting on this planet whining about resources running out, why not go "out there" and FIND MORE? Rather than worrying about overpopulation, why not go find some more real estate??? Man, even if we never make it to Mars, putting viable colony/way stations at the Lagrange points would be cooler than liquid helium. :)
It's time for us to stop whining and tightening our belts and worrying about the future. It's time to start MAKING IT.
As for a change of administrations killing this new initiative, it won't happen if the people get behind it. That's a simple sales job. And to quote Jerry Pournelle, one great way to start is just to ask everyone to go outside tonight and look up at the stars for a while.
Just look at them. :)
I guess the only reason why the usual args about Conservative-vs-Liberal-vs-Libertarian always pop up is because of people's basic believes: the first and last tend to distrust government, while liberals/progressives/(choose your label) tend to believe it the answer to most large problems.
Without even getting into that -- (I beg you) -- and trying to simply state and face facts: the government is incompetent. Sure, large corporations have committed their own boners (witness the number of stories that regularly appear about compromised credit card info, just to name one). But what makes anyone think that the government is any better? They lose laptops with top-secret info, THEY get hacked (and half the time, you don't hear about it solely because THEY'RE TOO STUPID TO EVEN REALIZE IT!), and you name it.
Go into any government office and you'll see people playing solitaire, chatting on their cellphones, and generally, doing as little work as possible. Political correctness runs rampant, to the extent that even if someone comes into the building with a laptop and a set of DVDs labeled "W-B-Hackers-LOLZ.com," they'll be scolded if the "assume" anything about that person.
The real answer, though it will NEVER happen and is totally impractical, is to never trust ANY large organization, be it public or private. Just my opinion.
All's I'm saying is, if you think that moving that data from private contractors back into government control will somehow make it safer, you're wrong.
... to conservatives? The seem to think that "Network Neutrality" is some form of "Fairness Doctrine" for the Internet.
I'm a conservative who is 100% in favor of ISPs not being able to limit my access to YouTube or Google. I'm having a hard time explaining this to Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh listeners, though. :)
How about an even simpler idea: if a CongressCritter receives more than a certain amount from a donor, he/she must excuse him or herself from any vote that would obviously benefit that donor.
In other words, call it what it is: "conflict of interest" and actually do something about it.
Not that it will actually happen, of course, but if you're going to dream, why not do it right?
.
And for someone as old as me, "space travel" was the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs, when we put men on the moon in less than a decade. That was when NASA wasn't afraid to take risks -- yes, to put it bluntly, when we accepted that there would be some casualties.
I'm not making light of the shuttle program, but "Space travel" ... i.e., the Space Program -- is a weak shadow of those heady days. Back when I was a kid, everyone wanted to be an astronaut. That was the highest goal for a young geek like me. I actually dreamed that one day I might have at least a fractional chance of setting foot on Mars, or Titan, or Ganymede. Nowadays? Since the "Space Program" has been pared down to a safe, repeatable, predictable, Do-The-Same-Boring-Things and Haul Satellites Into Orbit again and again, no one cares.
Right over our heads are all the raw materials and resources we will need for the conceivable life of the entire human race. Copper? Gold? Iron? Even some basic Organics and aromatics? They're all out there. If we had people with the guts to do "unsafe" things, in spite of what some Nanny Stater might think, we could even encourage private exploration -- and the payoff might be astronomical (pun intended) for the first prospector to lay claim to an asteroid filled with gold, or rhodium, or some other precious metal. (And yes, it's statistically possible ... even likely; look it up.)
Bah. Most kids don't even know what "Space Travel" is. The closest they get is watching Apollo 13, assuming that they're watching special effects and a half-fictitious, dramatized story, when it truth, it was actually a lot tenser than was portrayed in the movie, especially the first 24 hours, and the discussion that led to that last "burn" to get them to earth more quickly. What that movie DID capture was the way that it felt, as I sat there as a young kid watching the TV, as Houston said over and over, "Odyssey, this is Houston, do you copy ..." I can remember how my heart went into throat while I waited for them to respond just before splashdown. But you know what? If they had died, I'd have grieved and mourned, but I was have considered it worth it. They would have died for something.
Isn't the lack of comments, it's getting lost in a dozen (or two or fifteen dozen) different source code files, trying to figure out what the original programmer wanted to do. F/OSS is a beautiful, wonderful thing, and I'm fully committed to it, but I can't tell you how many times I've downloaded a F/OSS project with the intention to tinker with the code, only to get completely lost in it.
/* see doodat.h */" and "function( SOMEVALUE ); /* see heredat.h for SOMEVALUE */" because I know that even I, the guy who wrote the stuff, will come back years later and be totally lost.
:)
Just for record, I'm a commenter, and I like comments that explain what the code is doing. But to help address the aforementioned, my code contains lines like "SomeFunction()
If I had a dollar for every time I've grep'd for the main() function, then followed the execution thread just to see what a program was really doing, I could take us all to dinner.
Well, as proof that I'm trying to be fair, if I hadn't posted in this thread, I'd mod you up for this one comment: "The experts were right. It was the people who didn't know what they were talking about (or went along with the paranoia for financial gain) who were predicting doom and gloom."
:)
I agree that the article could have done a better job on the wording, too. Nuff said.
"Then it doesn't deserve to be on a list of lamest moments in tech. Surely it should be on the greatest moments in tech. Or the lamest moments in journalism."
I guess this is a matter of perspective, then. You can say that his list contains some odd entries (what list doesn't?). But to be fair to the article's author, he clarifies precisely what he was referring to in the first actual item: "It turns out that the world has addressed the Y2K problem remarkably well."
It's funny how two people can read the same article and come up with two different conclusions. I never thought the author was ridiculing those programmers who quietly, and with dedication, worked to fix Y2K bugs (which DID exist).
And to continue quoting the author, "Those who predicted widespread starvation, utility failures, medical emergencies, and financial catastrophy probably feel a tad sheepish."
Just being fair to the author.
Besides, "best of" and "worst of" lists are almost always a farce, anyway. Getting worked up over them is a waste of time and energy.
To this (and the other replies here): he's not referring to people like you. Don't think that for a minute. I was a Y2K Fear debunker myself, and I assure you, I NEVER attacked people like you who WERE working around the clock to ensure that the transition was smooth.
... and ... "embedded systems are the great unknown, we're all going to die, so buy beans and bullets and head for the ... etc., etc." Have you forgotten the "Y2K Crisis Center" (or whatever they called it) with Sam Donaldson, on watch over the transition? All of the newspaper articles in early 1999 about how the End Was Coming?
:)
What I attacked -- and what he's clearly referring to -- were the outright fearmongers. "We CAN'T fix it all in time, buy beans, bullets and head for the hills!"
THAT'S what he's referring to. Of course there were bugs to be fixed -- some of them true showstoppers. Yes, a lot of people like you poured a lot of nervous sweat into fixing them.
But personally, speaking for myself, I'll never respect Ed Yourdon again. He was the ringleader of the "too many lines of code, it CAN'T be fixed crowd," and continued to ringlead even after it became obvious that it WAS being fixed.
Not you, poster. You did a GREAT job just so that "debunkers" like me COULD say, "it'll be a non-event."
The retail price of something is rarely based on the cost to make the unit. This is a common fallacy. The retail price is primarily determined by what the market will pay for the unit. It's just that simple.
The demand for thin clients is much smaller than the demand for full-blown, self-contained computer units (primarily driven by home sales).
... in radio, and here's the thing. Yes, we use processing (compression/limiting) to make ourselves as loud as possible without overdriving the transmitter (the technical term is "overmodulation," and it's illegal because it causes interference).
... well, we already do that. We use the Omnia processors (www.omniaaudio.com) ourselves; others (such as Optimods -- www.orban.com) do as well. But it's very expensive.
But we routinely receive pre-packaged audio that is ALREADY processed. When we "re-process" it, it sometimes makes it sound louder. (Certainly less dynamic range, and typically more distorted.) Commercials are by far the most common offenders. Some of these are even EQ'd so that the bass is severely cut, coupled with an annoying peak in the response from 2-3KHz, where the ear is most sensitive. Any rational, cost-effective metering will show it to have the same "level" as our normal program audio, but it WILL be harsher and louder-sounding.
However, I'll defend our processing (we use Omnia processors at our stations -- www.omniaaudio.com); it does a remarkably good job with 90-95% of our audio, including some of these badly-produced commercial and satellite feeds.
The problem doesn't afflict standard broadcast radio and TV stations nearly as much as it does cable and satellite channels, probably because these smaller providers can't afford (or don't want to pay) to put top-notch processing on 20-100 different channels.
(In fact, I called one of our satellite providers a while back, complaining about varying levels, and their engineer admitted to me that the didn't have any processing on their airchain. They expected OUR processing to "clean it up.")
The proposals here to divide things into spectra and measure it that way?
And finally, yes, this is all subjective, anyway, as others have pointed out.
.
I am anything but a GNU diehard (a True GNU(tm) will insist that you don't use Acrobat Reader or NVidia's drivers for Linux, for example; I use both). But I understand the license and the purpose behind it.
I create a piece of software. I own it. It is MINE. There's a ton of work put into that software. So ... it's time to release it. For whatever reason, I choose the GPL.
If it helps your thinking, look at it this way. You could pay me for the right to use that software. But in a sense, I have said: "you can use this software, and may redistribute it to your heart's content, subject to this one restriction: if you make changes, you must include the source code for those changes with the distribution." That's what I am "charging" you, as the owner of that code, for distribution. Pay up, or shut up.
(Yes, that's a simplification, but it makes the point.)
This is WHY there can be dual-license schemes -- GPL for the masses, paid-and-closed for those who prefer. If you don't pay me, then I expect you to abide by the GPL.
While this, too, is inaccurate, it's another way to look at it: suppose someone donates property for a hospital or civic center. It's THEIR property. They own it. They have a right to dispose of it as they wish. They have chosen to donate it, WITH a stipulation: it must be used for the intended purpose. If the ones receiving the property attempt to sell it for mere gain, or do something else with it, there will probably be a lawsuit (happens all the time).
Likewise, that software is MINE. I OWN it (this is one reason why the FSF frowns on public-domain release; read the Richard Stallman's admittedly-long-winded mainfestos about this). The only way to guarantee *freedom* for that software once it leaves your hard drive is to (a), retain ownership, but (b), insist that AS A COST of distributing that software, you agree to the terms of the GPL.
If you don't like it, don't use the GPL. Use BSD or public-domain software. No one is forcing you.
What about browsers that pre-load? Supposed I go to a legitimate (if racy) Website and one of the links goes to "NakedKoreanInfants.com?" The browser might pre-load that page, whether I click on it or not, and the incriminating evidence is in the cache.
.
Why? It's costing you money. What do you save by keeping it? Maybe my attitude comes from listening to too much Dave Ramsey lately (g), but sometimes you just have to cut and run.
As others here have suggested:
1 - Donate it.
2 - Throw it away.
3 - give it to someone you don't like for Christmas. :)
Why limit yourself to only that which runs natively on Linux? All that matters is killing time and having a little fun. DOSBox (www.dosbox.org) provides the emulator and Classic DOS Games (www.classicdosgames.com) has dozens of older DOS classics, from Keen to Duke Nukem to whatever. Enjoy it.
.
Whenever I see anyone who is an outright partisan -- Democrat no matter what, *OR* Republican no matter what (you apparently missed that in my post), I see one of three things:
1. Someone who is an active member of the party. Read: an operative, perhaps even a paid shill.
2. Someone who, to be fair, may not be a paid shill, but whose friends are so rabidly partisan that they feel like they have to be (i.e., peer pressure).
3. Someone who's an idiot.
Decide where you belong. If you believe that EITHER party is pristine, moral and has only the best interests of the country in mind, you're #3.
Nice try.
You know WHY they were so surprised?
Because THEIR precious pollsters were assuring them that there was "broad-based support" FOR the health care bill. They honestly believed that the people complaining at those meetings were just noisy troublemakers who didn't represent the consensus.
By the time they figured out that THEIR pollsters had been telling THEM what they wanted to hear, the damage had been done. They lost a great deal of support for their health care scheme in the PR department -- calling some mild-mannered Granny or a young couple with two children "Nazis" ain't exactly a great way to sway minds and win public opinion, because the average American can watch TV and think, "yeah, sure, that old biddy looks JUST LIKE a paid 'rent a protestor' from some fringe militia movement."
Jesus help us, people. GET A BRAIN. BOTH parties are guilty of this crap, and have been for years.
Grow up and stop being naive! The Christian Right has allowed Republicans to cynically use them and depend on their vote for years ... just as Blacks and young intellectuals are completely taken for granted by the Democrats. Both sides need to rent a clue.
And I'll be just as blunt: I think the same thing when I see a CBS poll that is wildly different from the consensus. Get over it. :)
News flash: politicians of BOTH PARTIES hire pollsters not just to find out what's going on, but also to ALTER public opinion (it's called "push polling"). Where you will lose me is when you start insisting that it's primarily Republicans or Democrats who does it. BOTH do it. Politics is one giant, gelatinous and festering stew of circus-like improbabilities.
As for it influencing my opinion, anyone with half a brain knows that polls will vary depending on where they're done. Ex: do a poll on gun control and gay marriage in the Deep South and the numbers will be something like 90% against in both cases. :)
I also depends on whom they ask, what time of day the poll is done, and -- as others here have pointed out -- the wording of the questions.
Different pollsters have different methodologies. Speaking as a conservative, I've discounted Strategic Vision's numbers for years because they do seem unbelievable at times. But then I'll look at Gallup, Zogby, Rasmussen, and a couple of others that I trust and look for TRENDS. I don't look at actual numbers, I look at TRENDS.
And I hate to tell you this ... but on the health care issue (since you brought it up), Strategic Vision is not the ONLY one showing that it's losing traction, especially amongst seniors. It's not just "republican pollsters" showing this. Look at the consensus: the numbers may go up a little one day, down a little the next, but the overall trend among ALL pollsters has been headed straight down since the actual proposed bill was released online and people had a chance to read the thing.
Bottom line: if you are a partisan Democrat who believes that some giant conspiracy keeps thwarting them, *OR* a partisan Republican who believes that some giant conspiracy keeps thwarting them, I'll (ahem) be as blunt as possible: grow a brain. Grow up. Realize that both sides are self-centered, self-absorbed crooks and that, at the end of the day, you are voting for your crooks only because you believe they are marginally better than the others. :)
> kicked off the formal free software movement
.
Stallman himself says that the primary goal of the GNU Foundation, when it was created, was to develop a free version of Unix. Drivers were only part of it.
> What's more, the fact that the binary Nvidia
> drivers are treated as a sort of pariah helps
> Linux overall
I'm sorry, but this is a happy fantasy. The primary reason why you don't see more drivers for Linux is because manufacturers are frustrated by the need to recompile/rebuild each and every time the kernel is updated. THIS is the primary source of frustration amongst Linux users, too -- they'll install the NVidia driver kit (which, just for the record, generally works just fine and enables advanced features), only to have the whole thing break when the next Kernel security update comes out.
I think there is a place for FSF philosophy, but there's a reason why the more pragmatic OSI was founded.
Further and finally, while I love Linux -- absolutely and to death -- it is NOT, as of this writing, the most popular F/OSS. Packages such as Mozilla's Firefox and OpenOffice would get that nod, if you go by install figures.
And just for the record, I think your sig line gives a great insight into your mentality. :)
Do the math. OK, so peak download speeds with LTE might be 100Mbps. That sounds good. But put 1000 users on that link, and let 50-100 simultaneously try to do bandwidth-intensive stuff (from YouTube to gaming to you-name-it), and the whole thing will STILL slow to a crawl.
I don't see wireless ever completely replacing wired access. Right now, I'm in a great situation -- I'm in a relatively rural area that just upgraded its backbone, but with few users competing with me for bandwidth -- but I have no illusions that this will last.
What I'd like to see here at /. is an article about growing bandwidth demands vs. the complete inability of the current (or even planned) infrastructure to handle it.
In my area last year, same as in many others, ATT did an ad blitz about their DSL-based packages that offered cable, wireless and high-speed Internet. I note that this past month, they've stopped promoting the Cable-over-DSL and have instead worked a deal with one of the satellite providers!
Why? They did the math.