I'm dissapointed to hear this. I remember when the big two in consoles were Nintendo and Sega. I wasn't sorry to see Sega and its Dreamcast go, as I think the PS1 & PS2 just blew them out of the water, but I am sad to see Nintendo possibly losing the Gamecube to the Xbox. Microsoft is the 800 lb gorilla in almost every market it hits it seems, and if they get the jump on the 'cube, things could go badly for Nintendo methinks.
Here's hoping they make their street date and shipping numbers for march. I'l love to see Nintendo's 'cube sink the 'box.
Nice to see public schools moving towards a non-proprietary alternative to current software. Of course the reason for this now is budgetary concerns, but I can see a greater result--increased computer literacy.
Its been my experience (as a web development instructor with a private post-secondary school) that teens these days, despite the stereotypes, actually posess less computer literacy than geeks of my generation.
I learned DOS and UNIX on the command line. Windows and Mac will stunt your understanding of how a computer works, and make you think only of pushing around cute little icons. WIMP interfaces make people dumb. They can't understand how the computer works, so they end up relying on 'geeks' to fix their problems.
Teach programming to everyone (Thanks to GvR) and teach kids a command line in school. Make them understand the technology that they'll use every day of their lives. Let our kids develop some computer savy and brains.
I have to agree. RMS was the guy in the trenches-- one of the few vocal advocates of non-proprietary software for a very long time. Without him and the GNU foundation a lot of what we 'open-source' or 'free software' developers take for granted wouldn't exist. For that I thank him, and can respect his accomplishments.
But....
RMS is a fanatic. Not only that, he is a millitant fanatic. While that was useful twenty years ago, the playing field has changed. there are many vocal advocates now, none of whome I think are 'selling-out' RMS' ethics. None of whome are harming the movement.
RMS though, now he's gone from being the cure of problems to the cause. Militant fanatics suffer from tunnel vision, and anyone in the way of their goals--well, the ends justify the means right?
I thank RMS for what he's done in the past, but I think its time for him to step aside and let some more moderate people carry the torch. The movement is alive and well, and would do better without the militant fanatics.
What's really interesting about this story is how sure the scientific community is that this is impossible.
Could this be another cold-fusion, or are we looking at a revolution in bio-sciences that the current scientists fear?
And what of the ethics? Could this be used to reverse ageing? (unlikely, but if it could, what are the ethics of keeping entire generations around just so they can oppress their descendants).
This is another one of the disturbing security trends I've seen recently; the way some companies--and in this case several togather as a group--turtle in the face of security threats.
If you ask me, there should be less reaction to this sort of thing and more action. I don't hold a lot of faith in the big companies any more. I believe in the little fellows who work on stuff like the BSDs (now -they- understand security issues).
Hell, that Interbase backdoor wasn't dealt with by Borland/Inprise, but by OSS hackers. I say bring security concerns into the light, and let some more open minds worry about things like this. As a user and developer I would like not to be left in the dark by these close source, and closed minded people.
I'll still be using the miniature microwave to nuke my brain until I have a tumor the size of Rhode Island--only then will I admit that it's hazardous to my health and not before!
Hell, without my cel, no one would ever be able to get a hold of me. The world would miss my winning personality::evil grin::
SUre this looks like a troll--but I know too many people who do hold views like this--and so I feel the need to respond.
One of the downsides of living in a 'free' (as in speech) society, is that people have the 'freedom' to commit crimes. This is not a problem with the system--not a flaw. This is simply a misunderstanding by those who commit the crimes.
You see, you have all the rights you wish to excersise within a free society up to and including the moment you begin to excersice freedoms which interfear with another's rights. That's where your freedom stops. (sure there are lots of examples of our government curtailing this kind of freedom--but I'm not a libertarian, and I agree with most of those--and with the above principle)
You have the freedome to create music, or art or whatever, and sell it if you want. You also have the freedom to give it away. I don't have the freedom of stealing it either way. When Metallica sells their music there is an implied license, and like the GPL, that needs to be enforced. I can't copy their music electronicly, because they have the freedom to tell me not to, and have done so.
I do not have the freedom to deny them that right. that's where a lot of people don't 'get it.'
Nice to know some get it...
on
The CPO Cometh
·
· Score: 2
Aparently some companies are finally getting the whole privacy on the Internet issue. For a very long time I've been resigned to the fact that privacy on the 'net is an illusion. For all the privacy statements out there, one sometimes has to wonder just how effective they are.
A company I used to work for (who shall remain nameless) had me develop a privacy statement for their website (at my urging). While there wern't any technical violations, the company's managment seemd to go all out to try to violate the spirit if not the letter of the statement--we were always looking for ways to grab more 'customer info' to add to the CRM database. Granted, not exactly wrong--but let's be honest, why put a privacy policy in place if you're working against it?
That situation (and more recently Toysmart.com) have had me considering how effective privacy policies are. Perhaps putting a CPO in place will add some checks and balances to the process.
Kudos to AT&T, Prudential, Citibank and the others. Some people seem to be getting it.
I've seen some documentaries about the Zvezda module and the technology that went into it. The module itself is the main service module for the International Space Station. this means that it handles all the life support and waste-recycling responsibilities for the entire station--among other responsibilities.
The most interesting thing though is that despite the fact that the Russian space program is apparently years behind the US in terms of technology, Zvezda actually represents a level of accomplishment that NASA engineers have yet to acchieve.
The Russians have been perfecting life support and environmental systems for decades; meanwhile NASA has been busy pushing the envelope in computers and flight systems.
Most of the reports I've seen detailing technical specs for Zvezda report it as if the Russian tech is backwards. I disagree. Zvezda isn't low tech, but simply an area NASA and the US hasn't developed as well as the Russians. I don't agree with the belief that the world threw Russia a bone with the comissioning of Zvezda--we simply used the know-how that their scientists have.
For all its flaws, what I really like about ISS is the international teamwork that's at work here.
What I have a problem with is when litigation stemming from supposed 'patent infringement' ends up scaring away competition and/or innovation. Now I'm not saying this is the case with RAMBUS--in fact I'm almost willing to say it isn't.
However, I'm not a fan of companies that patent business practices, or concepts. Unless RAMBUS paptented the idea of faster memory, it's perfectly acceptable for other companies to develop another technology different from RAMBUS's which will allow for faster (and hopefuly cheaper memory)
This is the way it should work. patents are good, when they assist in innovation--but when you've got the Amazon.com's of the world patenting ideas and not implementions--that's when things get a little crazy.
That and when innovation dies at the end of a lawsuit. Too much litigation, if you ask me, and not enough innovation.
I gotta say, this -is- a neat idea (unlike the whole videogame to Mozilla port thing we saw a few days back). I remember playing a lot of these old games back in my misbegotten youth (my favorite being Joust), and the though that I can pick up MAME and play the original Joust again (if I could find it) kind of warms the cockles of my heart.
What really strikes me as very cool though is the idea of supporting old hardware and software on newer platforms. Not only does this mean my kids will get to play all the great games I grew up on, but it also looks like this is the first step towards Vernor Vinge's idea of a massive database of source code which could be used and modified in the future to really do anything we wanted. (He explains this a bit better in his novel 'A Deepness in the Sky').
Hell, in twenty years time you might well see people hacking toegther software with little algorithms ripped from old arcade game ROMS:)
But when we wrote it, it was basically an advertisement for ourselves, a way of saying "Hey, look what I can do. I can do the same thing for you" to some company.
Looks like Mister Allison isn't a big believer in business being able to make a profit from an OSS business model. I'm not sure this is a healthy thing for the OSS movement, especially when voiced by someone with some visibility like Warrick.
Now, i can't naysay how he sees thing. Currently the money is definitly more likley to come from a company hiring an Open Source programmer who's got a good track record writing free software, but I'm hoping (and betting on) ESR's services-based model. Allison says it breeds non-user firendly code. Hogwash. Only if your company or programming team is unscrupulous or lazy.
I am hoping that most leading OSS companies like VA and Red Hat don't fit into that particular category. We've all had enough of unscrupulous and lazy software companies. Or at least I have.
So yeah, Warrick is right about why he got a job, but by saying that's the way it should work, he may be pronouncing self-fulfilling prophesy.
I hope not. We all have too much to lose if OSS can't make the big leap to big business.
A major contributing factor is that developers recklessly chop down trees to make room for suburbs, the scientists said. Trees provide shade from the heat and absorb many of the sun's harmful rays. Without them, the effect is a sort of urban desert.
I come from a very rural part of Canada--the smallest province in fact, and on Prince Edward Island we have lots of trees, and not much in the way of urban sprawl.
My first experience in the big city came quite a few years back when I moved to Calgary, Alberta, and in retrospect I feel very lucky. Calgary has an imense amount of greenspace within it's limits--heck we still see deer and get the occasional bear in the 'berbs.
However, coming from the countryside as I do, I have to say I do miss the trees. If I lived in a larger or more urban city, I'd likley have worse bouts of homesickness:)
People who grow up in cities often don't see nature the same way I do. Parks are very organized in comparison to raw Canadian wilderness. That said, I'd love to see more green in the urban landscape--and there does seem to be a larger move towards this kind of 'greening of the urban jungle.'
I remember a report several years back about a high-tech company in Toronto adding an atrium to their front lobby--one that was essentially a giant watershed (read swamp). A fascinating concept--no less than the idea of planting trees and creating parks on the roof's of office buildings.
I guess what I'm saying is that it's nice to see everyone--urban pesant and country hick living in the big city, see the benefits of greening our cities.
Maybe one more would be weather moderation. With the thunderstorm raging outside my window right now, that would be a welcome change:)
Personally I think anything that increases interoperability between -any and all- operating systems is A Good Thing(TM). I run a linux network at home, and truth be told, I'd rather have a quick point-and-click GUI way of working on my server from my Win95 box than logon through telnet.
In terms of the future of Olympus, administration of multiple servers is something I'm keen on--something linuxconf doesn't do, or at least doesn't do well.
Once again, I'm a linux admin, and a Windows user. Maybe that makes me a lower form of life to the Linux fanatics, but if you ask me, flexibility is the watchword of an industry which goes through as many rapid technology shifts as ours.
Don't forget, Open Source advocates want the IT industry to be flexible enough to embrace the concept--let's not turn people away with pointless prejudice.
I like Linux. If it had a GUI that was as good as Mac or Windows, I'd use it on my desktop, but it doesn't. Until then, I want interoperability--and I'm willing to work towards that.
Despite it not being complete, the fact that the majority of what is essentially the source code for human beings has been released it fascinating. The day when we could literally look at what makes us 'us' on a computer screen--and meddle with our own genetics--isn't too far off. With this kind of data at your fingertips, and some programs to run DNA combinations, you could imagine 'compiling' a virtual human being within cyberspace.
Who needs avatars when you can upload your genetic code and appear in cyberspace with the same 'realness' as in meatspace?
Are we ready for any of this? Does it matter? Once again, the future is rusing at us, and we have to surf it and ride out the storm as best we can. Hopefully more good will come of the Human Genome Project and it's brethren than ill.
As for GPLing the human genome, I think GOD already hols the patent. When you creat life, license it as you will, for now, I'm accepting the King James Bible as my EULA with God:)
After all, who's going to continue to frequent a sight that continually spawns browser windows after you've exited. What's irritating in porn sights, might very well sink a business as it drives customers (especially non-technical end users) away.
Hell, I've had several of these types of sites cause fatal errors in my browser and crash it. Not a smar idea if you want me to buy your products or services (or whatever)
The heart of the problem, IMHO, though is that far too many business look to the corporate website as a gimick and not a true marketing tool. I've had this fight myself--and after I left my last position, the company butchered the website I'd spent 3 months coding.
Ah well, as with all things, the proof is in the pudding (not to mention the HTML)
What you're missing here is that as a race we're fat to fragmented to ever collectivly 'sit back and logically think about' technology. I don't believe there will ever be a truly 'global' society, becuase human social groups larger than the nuclear family tend to splinter under their own weight.
If we're to use technology responsibly, we need to stop preaching about 'the greater good' and start thinking in a more human--and consequently more selfish--manner. Technology needs to be used responsibly not for the 'greater good' but for the 'good of myself and my family/friends/social group'
Be selfish--it's more natural.
Hell, lets look at the Open Source paradigm--how many of us code and release it for free to be altruistic, or because 'code needs to be free?' I don't. I work with Open Source because it betters my own personal reputation, my sekill set, and my industry.
There's nothing wrong with a little selfishness; but too much and you've just become anti-social.
WHy to users blame themselves for the short comings in software? Why is the 'net about porn? Why do we build a space station and whine about the cost of losing martian probles due to software glitches?
What happened to the bright and shiney future predicted in the 1960's, the one that Apollo was supposed to user in--the new edge of exploration, both innerspace, outerspace and cyberspace?
Well folks, it's here, and it's not what we expected. Like a Christmas gift you waited all year to get, which just isn't what you expected when you unwrapped it (and which subsequently broke within twenty minutes of playing with it), our new Millennium (coming to a household near you this January) isn't quite what we'd been told it would be.
It's not bright and shiny, but cynical. Not the dystopic cyberscape the gloom and doom cyberpunks thought it would be, bbut neither is it utopic either. We're stuch with the future our father's made, and the one we're making.
The problem is, we've gotten lost in the details. Innovation today is about making old things better, not making new things--not exploring new boundries. And even those projects that open new frontiers are fraught with legal, ethical and moral concerns. The Human Genome Project? Hello Dr. Frankenstein!
Maybe if we stopped looking at our shoes, and took a glance towards the horizon once in awhile, we might actually make a better future, rather than just a different one.
Actually that's a good question. In this day and age, do actual physical rally's mean anything anymore? Would a signed petition help the whole DeCSS thing?
Shouldn't our fight against this kind of on-line censorship be fought on-line, and not in gatherings, get-togethers, sit-ins and petitions in the 'real' world?
It's looking more and more like privacy is a comdity in short supply these days. ANy why wouldn't it be? How many of you work for employers who can, quite legaly, tap your office phone, drop a packet sniffer on your network connection and log everytime you check Slashdot?
This kind of data tracking, be it wire taps or packet sniffing is becomming more common, and the common man is login his right to privacy for 'the greater good.' Can't say i agree, but neither can I say I'm surprised.
Welcome to 1984 indeed.
Do we need to be paranoid about it? I don't think so. Lets be honest--what can you do? Besides, how does it harm you if the FBI (or RCMP or whatever) taps your phone? Were you really planning on making a death threat against the President? Were you actually stupid enough to talk about bombing a TWA flight over the phone?
..In Germany, but let's be honest, just how much will this ruling effect the North American market? Hell, up here in Canada, we don't expect to see much effect on the DOJ case against Billy boy.
It's an interesting legal precedent in Germany, and does show promise in terms of slapping down the M$ arrogance, but until there's some sort of binding international court for these sorts of things, legal ruling in one country against a intinational corporation just won't hurt it that much.
I have to say, I'm getting tired of this anti-MS stuff all the time. Lets just get on with improving Linux on the desktop, and take over the market--that'll learn Microsoft!
To me what seems to be the centerpoint of this article is how Open Source doesn't work for the end user. Macs are touted as being 'designed for' the end user who has no interest in coding/debugging etc. but simply want good software that's easy to use. Thus the commercial, closed source, model needs to be used to develop this kind of software.
Sounds to me to be very circular logic. Mac is not Open Sourced because Mac users are closed source. Mac users are closed source, because Mac is not Open Sourced.
I think both sides may be missing the real point. As ESR said in The Magic Cauldron Open Source business practices need to be service oriented. Mr Lewis is of the opinion that this will breed even less friendly software. Why? Because programmers are lazy? Because they're greedy?
Mr. Lewis is correct though--the future of software design is ease of use; something Mac has in spades. It is also service oriented, which is what Linux has in spades. Maybe OS-X will actually combine these into what I think might be the holy grail of operating systems, but I doubt it.
The Open Source movement has visionaries--Eric s. Raymond, Linus Torvalds, RMS. Now what the movement needs are some visionaries who can implement the paradigm shift in the IT industry itself, on a business level. It's coming, but if you don't 'get it' from the user's angle, you may be left behind.
Could OS-X be the mythical middle ground in computer operating systems? Could it truly have the power of UNIX that every sysadmin demands, with the ease of use that every stupid end user requires?
Isn't this what Billy G promised us in Win2000? Not sure if I should believe Apple either, but you must have faith.
Thye jack of all trades master of none OS is just around the corner!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm dissapointed to hear this. I remember when the big two in consoles were Nintendo and Sega. I wasn't sorry to see Sega and its Dreamcast go, as I think the PS1 & PS2 just blew them out of the water, but I am sad to see Nintendo possibly losing the Gamecube to the Xbox. Microsoft is the 800 lb gorilla in almost every market it hits it seems, and if they get the jump on the 'cube, things could go badly for Nintendo methinks.
Here's hoping they make their street date and shipping numbers for march. I'l love to see Nintendo's 'cube sink the 'box.
Nice to see public schools moving towards a non-proprietary alternative to current software. Of course the reason for this now is budgetary concerns, but I can see a greater result--increased computer literacy.
Its been my experience (as a web development instructor with a private post-secondary school) that teens these days, despite the stereotypes, actually posess less computer literacy than geeks of my generation.
I learned DOS and UNIX on the command line. Windows and Mac will stunt your understanding of how a computer works, and make you think only of pushing around cute little icons. WIMP interfaces make people dumb. They can't understand how the computer works, so they end up relying on 'geeks' to fix their problems.
Teach programming to everyone (Thanks to GvR) and teach kids a command line in school. Make them understand the technology that they'll use every day of their lives. Let our kids develop some computer savy and brains.
I have to agree. RMS was the guy in the trenches-- one of the few vocal advocates of non-proprietary software for a very long time. Without him and the GNU foundation a lot of what we 'open-source' or 'free software' developers take for granted wouldn't exist. For that I thank him, and can respect his accomplishments.
But....
RMS is a fanatic. Not only that, he is a millitant fanatic. While that was useful twenty years ago, the playing field has changed. there are many vocal advocates now, none of whome I think are 'selling-out' RMS' ethics. None of whome are harming the movement.
RMS though, now he's gone from being the cure of problems to the cause. Militant fanatics suffer from tunnel vision, and anyone in the way of their goals--well, the ends justify the means right?
I thank RMS for what he's done in the past, but I think its time for him to step aside and let some more moderate people carry the torch. The movement is alive and well, and would do better without the militant fanatics.
IMHO.
What's really interesting about this story is how sure the scientific community is that this is impossible.
Could this be another cold-fusion, or are we looking at a revolution in bio-sciences that the current scientists fear?
And what of the ethics? Could this be used to reverse ageing? (unlikely, but if it could, what are the ethics of keeping entire generations around just so they can oppress their descendants).
Thoughts as I teach a class....
I assume that would be a 2.5 release ::Grin::
This is another one of the disturbing security trends I've seen recently; the way some companies--and in this case several togather as a group--turtle in the face of security threats.
If you ask me, there should be less reaction to this sort of thing and more action. I don't hold a lot of faith in the big companies any more. I believe in the little fellows who work on stuff like the BSDs (now -they- understand security issues).
Hell, that Interbase backdoor wasn't dealt with by Borland/Inprise, but by OSS hackers. I say bring security concerns into the light, and let some more open minds worry about things like this. As a user and developer I would like not to be left in the dark by these close source, and closed minded people.
...when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
::evil grin::
I'll still be using the miniature microwave to nuke my brain until I have a tumor the size of Rhode Island--only then will I admit that it's hazardous to my health and not before!
Hell, without my cel, no one would ever be able to get a hold of me. The world would miss my winning personality
SUre this looks like a troll--but I know too many people who do hold views like this--and so I feel the need to respond.
One of the downsides of living in a 'free' (as in speech) society, is that people have the 'freedom' to commit crimes. This is not a problem with the system--not a flaw. This is simply a misunderstanding by those who commit the crimes.
You see, you have all the rights you wish to excersise within a free society up to and including the moment you begin to excersice freedoms which interfear with another's rights. That's where your freedom stops. (sure there are lots of examples of our government curtailing this kind of freedom--but I'm not a libertarian, and I agree with most of those--and with the above principle)
You have the freedome to create music, or art or whatever, and sell it if you want. You also have the freedom to give it away. I don't have the freedom of stealing it either way. When Metallica sells their music there is an implied license, and like the GPL, that needs to be enforced. I can't copy their music electronicly, because they have the freedom to tell me not to, and have done so.
I do not have the freedom to deny them that right. that's where a lot of people don't 'get it.'
Aparently some companies are finally getting the whole privacy on the Internet issue. For a very long time I've been resigned to the fact that privacy on the 'net is an illusion. For all the privacy statements out there, one sometimes has to wonder just how effective they are.
A company I used to work for (who shall remain nameless) had me develop a privacy statement for their website (at my urging). While there wern't any technical violations, the company's managment seemd to go all out to try to violate the spirit if not the letter of the statement--we were always looking for ways to grab more 'customer info' to add to the CRM database. Granted, not exactly wrong--but let's be honest, why put a privacy policy in place if you're working against it?
That situation (and more recently Toysmart.com) have had me considering how effective privacy policies are. Perhaps putting a CPO in place will add some checks and balances to the process.
Kudos to AT&T, Prudential, Citibank and the others. Some people seem to be getting it.
I've seen some documentaries about the Zvezda module and the technology that went into it. The module itself is the main service module for the International Space Station. this means that it handles all the life support and waste-recycling responsibilities for the entire station--among other responsibilities.
:)
The most interesting thing though is that despite the fact that the Russian space program is apparently years behind the US in terms of technology, Zvezda actually represents a level of accomplishment that NASA engineers have yet to acchieve.
The Russians have been perfecting life support and environmental systems for decades; meanwhile NASA has been busy pushing the envelope in computers and flight systems.
Most of the reports I've seen detailing technical specs for Zvezda report it as if the Russian tech is backwards. I disagree. Zvezda isn't low tech, but simply an area NASA and the US hasn't developed as well as the Russians. I don't agree with the belief that the world threw Russia a bone with the comissioning of Zvezda--we simply used the know-how that their scientists have.
For all its flaws, what I really like about ISS is the international teamwork that's at work here.
Wish I was up there
I agree; patents arn't bad.
What I have a problem with is when litigation stemming from supposed 'patent infringement' ends up scaring away competition and/or innovation. Now I'm not saying this is the case with RAMBUS--in fact I'm almost willing to say it isn't.
However, I'm not a fan of companies that patent business practices, or concepts. Unless RAMBUS paptented the idea of faster memory, it's perfectly acceptable for other companies to develop another technology different from RAMBUS's which will allow for faster (and hopefuly cheaper memory)
This is the way it should work. patents are good, when they assist in innovation--but when you've got the Amazon.com's of the world patenting ideas and not implementions--that's when things get a little crazy.
That and when innovation dies at the end of a lawsuit. Too much litigation, if you ask me, and not enough innovation.
I gotta say, this -is- a neat idea (unlike the whole videogame to Mozilla port thing we saw a few days back). I remember playing a lot of these old games back in my misbegotten youth (my favorite being Joust), and the though that I can pick up MAME and play the original Joust again (if I could find it) kind of warms the cockles of my heart.
:)
What really strikes me as very cool though is the idea of supporting old hardware and software on newer platforms. Not only does this mean my kids will get to play all the great games I grew up on, but it also looks like this is the first step towards Vernor Vinge's idea of a massive database of source code which could be used and modified in the future to really do anything we wanted. (He explains this a bit better in his novel 'A Deepness in the Sky').
Hell, in twenty years time you might well see people hacking toegther software with little algorithms ripped from old arcade game ROMS
Now -that's- a legacy system!
Looks like Mister Allison isn't a big believer in business being able to make a profit from an OSS business model. I'm not sure this is a healthy thing for the OSS movement, especially when voiced by someone with some visibility like Warrick.
Now, i can't naysay how he sees thing. Currently the money is definitly more likley to come from a company hiring an Open Source programmer who's got a good track record writing free software, but I'm hoping (and betting on) ESR's services-based model. Allison says it breeds non-user firendly code. Hogwash. Only if your company or programming team is unscrupulous or lazy.
I am hoping that most leading OSS companies like VA and Red Hat don't fit into that particular category. We've all had enough of unscrupulous and lazy software companies. Or at least I have.
So yeah, Warrick is right about why he got a job, but by saying that's the way it should work, he may be pronouncing self-fulfilling prophesy.
I hope not. We all have too much to lose if OSS can't make the big leap to big business.
I come from a very rural part of Canada--the smallest province in fact, and on Prince Edward Island we have lots of trees, and not much in the way of urban sprawl.
My first experience in the big city came quite a few years back when I moved to Calgary, Alberta, and in retrospect I feel very lucky. Calgary has an imense amount of greenspace within it's limits--heck we still see deer and get the occasional bear in the 'berbs.
However, coming from the countryside as I do, I have to say I do miss the trees. If I lived in a larger or more urban city, I'd likley have worse bouts of homesickness :)
People who grow up in cities often don't see nature the same way I do. Parks are very organized in comparison to raw Canadian wilderness. That said, I'd love to see more green in the urban landscape--and there does seem to be a larger move towards this kind of 'greening of the urban jungle.'
I remember a report several years back about a high-tech company in Toronto adding an atrium to their front lobby--one that was essentially a giant watershed (read swamp). A fascinating concept--no less than the idea of planting trees and creating parks on the roof's of office buildings.
I guess what I'm saying is that it's nice to see everyone--urban pesant and country hick living in the big city, see the benefits of greening our cities.
Maybe one more would be weather moderation. With the thunderstorm raging outside my window right now, that would be a welcome change :)
I mean, really, is that so hard? Oddly enough (or depressingly enough), the one we have must trouble explaining to clients is the first.
Which brings to mind a very simple question:
What ever happened to the belief that the customer was always right?
Apparently in the IT industry (and those who turn to us to help them with things like websites) customer service is a thing of the past.
Thank God for the move towards Open Source--in that paradigm at least, service is important.
Personally I think anything that increases interoperability between -any and all- operating systems is A Good Thing(TM). I run a linux network at home, and truth be told, I'd rather have a quick point-and-click GUI way of working on my server from my Win95 box than logon through telnet.
In terms of the future of Olympus, administration of multiple servers is something I'm keen on--something linuxconf doesn't do, or at least doesn't do well.
Once again, I'm a linux admin, and a Windows user. Maybe that makes me a lower form of life to the Linux fanatics, but if you ask me, flexibility is the watchword of an industry which goes through as many rapid technology shifts as ours.
Don't forget, Open Source advocates want the IT industry to be flexible enough to embrace the concept--let's not turn people away with pointless prejudice.
I like Linux. If it had a GUI that was as good as Mac or Windows, I'd use it on my desktop, but it doesn't. Until then, I want interoperability--and I'm willing to work towards that.
Prejudice simpley breeds waste.
Despite it not being complete, the fact that the majority of what is essentially the source code for human beings has been released it fascinating. The day when we could literally look at what makes us 'us' on a computer screen--and meddle with our own genetics--isn't too far off. With this kind of data at your fingertips, and some programs to run DNA combinations, you could imagine 'compiling' a virtual human being within cyberspace.
:)
Who needs avatars when you can upload your genetic code and appear in cyberspace with the same 'realness' as in meatspace?
Are we ready for any of this? Does it matter? Once again, the future is rusing at us, and we have to surf it and ride out the storm as best we can. Hopefully more good will come of the Human Genome Project and it's brethren than ill.
As for GPLing the human genome, I think GOD already hols the patent. When you creat life, license it as you will, for now, I'm accepting the King James Bible as my EULA with God
OTOH, I've always wanted to create life myself...
After all, who's going to continue to frequent a sight that continually spawns browser windows after you've exited. What's irritating in porn sights, might very well sink a business as it drives customers (especially non-technical end users) away.
Hell, I've had several of these types of sites cause fatal errors in my browser and crash it. Not a smar idea if you want me to buy your products or services (or whatever)
The heart of the problem, IMHO, though is that far too many business look to the corporate website as a gimick and not a true marketing tool. I've had this fight myself--and after I left my last position, the company butchered the website I'd spent 3 months coding.
Ah well, as with all things, the proof is in the pudding (not to mention the HTML)
What you're missing here is that as a race we're fat to fragmented to ever collectivly 'sit back and logically think about' technology. I don't believe there will ever be a truly 'global' society, becuase human social groups larger than the nuclear family tend to splinter under their own weight.
If we're to use technology responsibly, we need to stop preaching about 'the greater good' and start thinking in a more human--and consequently more selfish--manner. Technology needs to be used responsibly not for the 'greater good' but for the 'good of myself and my family/friends/social group'
Be selfish--it's more natural.
Hell, lets look at the Open Source paradigm--how many of us code and release it for free to be altruistic, or because 'code needs to be free?' I don't. I work with Open Source because it betters my own personal reputation, my sekill set, and my industry.
There's nothing wrong with a little selfishness; but too much and you've just become anti-social.
Think about it, my friend.
WHy to users blame themselves for the short comings in software? Why is the 'net about porn? Why do we build a space station and whine about the cost of losing martian probles due to software glitches?
What happened to the bright and shiney future predicted in the 1960's, the one that Apollo was supposed to user in--the new edge of exploration, both innerspace, outerspace and cyberspace?
Well folks, it's here, and it's not what we expected. Like a Christmas gift you waited all year to get, which just isn't what you expected when you unwrapped it (and which subsequently broke within twenty minutes of playing with it), our new Millennium (coming to a household near you this January) isn't quite what we'd been told it would be.
It's not bright and shiny, but cynical. Not the dystopic cyberscape the gloom and doom cyberpunks thought it would be, bbut neither is it utopic either. We're stuch with the future our father's made, and the one we're making.
The problem is, we've gotten lost in the details. Innovation today is about making old things better, not making new things--not exploring new boundries. And even those projects that open new frontiers are fraught with legal, ethical and moral concerns. The Human Genome Project? Hello Dr. Frankenstein!
Maybe if we stopped looking at our shoes, and took a glance towards the horizon once in awhile, we might actually make a better future, rather than just a different one.
Or, maybe I'm just a cynic.
Actually that's a good question. In this day and age, do actual physical rally's mean anything anymore? Would a signed petition help the whole DeCSS thing?
Shouldn't our fight against this kind of on-line censorship be fought on-line, and not in gatherings, get-togethers, sit-ins and petitions in the 'real' world?
It's looking more and more like privacy is a comdity in short supply these days. ANy why wouldn't it be? How many of you work for employers who can, quite legaly, tap your office phone, drop a packet sniffer on your network connection and log everytime you check Slashdot?
This kind of data tracking, be it wire taps or packet sniffing is becomming more common, and the common man is login his right to privacy for 'the greater good.' Can't say i agree, but neither can I say I'm surprised.
Welcome to 1984 indeed.
Do we need to be paranoid about it? I don't think so. Lets be honest--what can you do? Besides, how does it harm you if the FBI (or RCMP or whatever) taps your phone? Were you really planning on making a death threat against the President? Were you actually stupid enough to talk about bombing a TWA flight over the phone?
Privacy? Whe needs it. What have you got to hide?
..In Germany, but let's be honest, just how much will this ruling effect the North American market? Hell, up here in Canada, we don't expect to see much effect on the DOJ case against Billy boy.
It's an interesting legal precedent in Germany, and does show promise in terms of slapping down the M$ arrogance, but until there's some sort of binding international court for these sorts of things, legal ruling in one country against a intinational corporation just won't hurt it that much.
I have to say, I'm getting tired of this anti-MS stuff all the time. Lets just get on with improving Linux on the desktop, and take over the market--that'll learn Microsoft!
To me what seems to be the centerpoint of this article is how Open Source doesn't work for the end user. Macs are touted as being 'designed for' the end user who has no interest in coding/debugging etc. but simply want good software that's easy to use. Thus the commercial, closed source, model needs to be used to develop this kind of software.
Sounds to me to be very circular logic. Mac is not Open Sourced because Mac users are closed source. Mac users are closed source, because Mac is not Open Sourced.
I think both sides may be missing the real point. As ESR said in The Magic Cauldron Open Source business practices need to be service oriented. Mr Lewis is of the opinion that this will breed even less friendly software. Why? Because programmers are lazy? Because they're greedy?
Mr. Lewis is correct though--the future of software design is ease of use; something Mac has in spades. It is also service oriented, which is what Linux has in spades. Maybe OS-X will actually combine these into what I think might be the holy grail of operating systems, but I doubt it.
The Open Source movement has visionaries--Eric s. Raymond, Linus Torvalds, RMS. Now what the movement needs are some visionaries who can implement the paradigm shift in the IT industry itself, on a business level. It's coming, but if you don't 'get it' from the user's angle, you may be left behind.
Just my thoughts.
Could OS-X be the mythical middle ground in computer operating systems? Could it truly have the power of UNIX that every sysadmin demands, with the ease of use that every stupid end user requires?
Isn't this what Billy G promised us in Win2000? Not sure if I should believe Apple either, but you must have faith.
Thye jack of all trades master of none OS is just around the corner!