"...if you are running at low priority and are guaranteed not to be draining bandwidth from important applications, who would care?"
Lars would.
Regardless of who would care, its irritating that anyone would try to say that my data is less important than their's is, and thus should be sent to Japan before I get the packets. I would think that it is in everyone's best interest, in a technical sense, for all data to spend as little time in transit as possible, thus freeing bandwidth for more data.
With regards to everyone who thinks we should let anyone have any TLD they can add to their own DNS: anarchy is bad, mmmkay? Practically speaking, it just simply would not work. How many people would try to take Hotmail.com and map it to their dialup linux box (or slashdot.org, for that matter)?
Icann is absolutely right for turning down Afternic. Its companies and people like them that prevent regular people from buying domains with simple, easily remembered names.
A decent analogy would be if a person or company tried to buy all the 800/877/toll free prefixed telephone numbers that spell something, in order to resell them at a later date. Its irritating at the very least, and although IANAL, I suspect it is illegal.
"Some scientists have said this breakthrough -- which comes 10 years after the project was started -- is as significant as man walking on the moon."
We haven't been back to the moon in decades. Is the human genome doomed to the same fate? Now that we've seen it, will it simply be filed away and taught to third graders?
Well. That is a bit ludicrous. Does anyone know what we actually can do with this information? Things like growing modified human clones (with, say, an eye in the back of the head) would never ever pass any kind of review board. What is the practical application of this work?
"Terrorists will have access to nanotech, and the question is will they use it, and will the masses have any defence from it."
I disagree. I suspect that nanotechnology, in any form that poses a genuine threat to the population at large, will probably cost a great deal more than than terrorists are willing to pay.
Also. I wonder if EMP is a viable defense against nanotech?
What you're actually suggesting is that nanotechnology = artificial intelligence, which may be true to some degree, but even the most intelligent AI nanobot is still not as smart as, say, a mouse.
"...life will find a way to adapt."
Robots don't count as "life," last time I checked.
Doom 2 had a funny one: at the very end of the game, if you weren't cheating, you had to make it to an elevator in the center of the room and shoot at a hole across the room once the elevator was as high as it would go. If you were cheating, and I couldn't beat the game without doing so, you could get into the little chamber you were shooting at. Inside was (I think) John Carmack's bloody head on a stake.
Geological research in caves with fissures only large enough to accomodate, say, a small robotic lizard with a camera and transmitter attached, could probably benefit from this.
I wonder if geckos have traction in low-gravity. If so, a larger version of these feet might help astronauts stay attached to the floor of a space shuttle/ISS/MIR^H^H^H^H etc.
Feudalism, eh? Do you lease your computer? Is your clothing rented? Just because you have the choice to borrow your stuff from companies for small monthly fees doesn't mean that you _have_ to.
For example: You can lease a car. At the end of the lease, you have no equity in it at all (unless you choose to buy the car, which I'll ignore for this part of the example), but because you leased it, you were able to drive a nicer car than you could afford if you bought it outright, which is the point. You are offered the choice of driving a Lexus ES300 on Toyota Camry payments. And if you choose to buy, you have made another choice.
At what point does Toyota own you? Does a three year lease mean "forever"?
Why is it that wealthy businesspeople and rich corporations are always evil in the public eye? Is it wrong to be cutthroat (read: highly competitive) in industry if the trend is such? Of course, I realize the obvious flaw in that argument: two wrongs don't equal a right. But why is it even considered wrong to have that kind of attitude?
I have a theory on why the/. readership sometimes has this reaction to wealthy/brutal businesspeople. As computer geeks, we are the h4x0rs of corporate America, and we don't have to be bastards to get ahead. I'm 19, and am currently at work as an intern at a major news organisation in New York. I'm getting paid $12/hr right now to read slashdot and post replies. I'm wearing jeans and sneakers, and a t-shirt from unamerican.com. I think I did maybe five or six solid hours of work out of the last nine that I've been here at the office. In any other department, I would probably be fired by now. Bottom line? Even a 19-year-old intern has job security, because I know how to configure a DHCP server and add a computer to a Windows NT domain.
As geeks, we're isolated from a lot of the ethics that hard core businesspeople have to adopt in order to stay valuable to a company. That doesn't make everyone else a bastard.
In fact, I have the original issue of Wired from which this mis-quote was taken. The original reads: "Why The Future Doesn't Need Us" (Wired 8.04, which appeared on news stands as the April 2000 issue)
I did not mean my message to be a flame, but rather a request for more information.
I apologize. I misinterpreted your comment. I think that Katz's opinion on the book may be, in one regard, more useful than an opinion from a reader who is versed in computing theory. That is, this book doesn't seem targeted as a textbook, so its market is for enthusiasts as much as professors and researchers, who may have a level of understanding closer to Katz's.
Has anyone a little more sophisticated than Katz read this book? Is this just another rehash of decidability and intractability? Or is there something new here?
Has a slashdot user bashed Katz? Is this just another rehash of decidability and intractability? Or is there something new here?
My mommy always said, if you don't have anything nice to say, STFU.
Slashdot Mirror
Lars would.
Regardless of who would care, its irritating that anyone would try to say that my data is less important than their's is, and thus should be sent to Japan before I get the packets. I would think that it is in everyone's best interest, in a technical sense, for all data to spend as little time in transit as possible, thus freeing bandwidth for more data.
Icann is absolutely right for turning down Afternic. Its companies and people like them that prevent regular people from buying domains with simple, easily remembered names.
A decent analogy would be if a person or company tried to buy all the 800/877/toll free prefixed telephone numbers that spell something, in order to resell them at a later date. Its irritating at the very least, and although IANAL, I suspect it is illegal.
We haven't been back to the moon in decades. Is the human genome doomed to the same fate? Now that we've seen it, will it simply be filed away and taught to third graders?
Well. That is a bit ludicrous. Does anyone know what we actually can do with this information? Things like growing modified human clones (with, say, an eye in the back of the head) would never ever pass any kind of review board. What is the practical application of this work?
Riiiiight.
I disagree. I suspect that nanotechnology, in any form that poses a genuine threat to the population at large, will probably cost a great deal more than than terrorists are willing to pay.
Also. I wonder if EMP is a viable defense against nanotech?
What you're actually suggesting is that nanotechnology = artificial intelligence, which may be true to some degree, but even the most intelligent AI nanobot is still not as smart as, say, a mouse.
"...life will find a way to adapt."
Robots don't count as "life," last time I checked.
"Geeks worldwide cook neighbors with kit found on evilnet (aka internet)"
All kidding aside, I wonder if my ISP would let me set one of these up between the local POP and my house.
I wonder if geckos have traction in low-gravity. If so, a larger version of these feet might help astronauts stay attached to the floor of a space shuttle/ISS/MIR^H^H^H^H etc.
For example: You can lease a car. At the end of the lease, you have no equity in it at all (unless you choose to buy the car, which I'll ignore for this part of the example), but because you leased it, you were able to drive a nicer car than you could afford if you bought it outright, which is the point. You are offered the choice of driving a Lexus ES300 on Toyota Camry payments. And if you choose to buy, you have made another choice.
At what point does Toyota own you? Does a three year lease mean "forever"?
I have a theory on why the /. readership sometimes has this reaction to wealthy/brutal businesspeople. As computer geeks, we are the h4x0rs of corporate America, and we don't have to be bastards to get ahead. I'm 19, and am currently at work as an intern at a major news organisation in New York. I'm getting paid $12/hr right now to read slashdot and post replies. I'm wearing jeans and sneakers, and a t-shirt from unamerican.com. I think I did maybe five or six solid hours of work out of the last nine that I've been here at the office. In any other department, I would probably be fired by now. Bottom line? Even a 19-year-old intern has job security, because I know how to configure a DHCP server and add a computer to a Windows NT domain.
As geeks, we're isolated from a lot of the ethics that hard core businesspeople have to adopt in order to stay valuable to a company. That doesn't make everyone else a bastard.
In fact, I have the original issue of Wired from which this mis-quote was taken. The original reads: "Why The Future Doesn't Need Us" (Wired 8.04, which appeared on news stands as the April 2000 issue)
Does Corel Draw compare to packages like Photoshop? Anyway, this is the last thing I was waiting for to ditch Windows forever. Schweeeet.
I apologize. I misinterpreted your comment. I think that Katz's opinion on the book may be, in one regard, more useful than an opinion from a reader who is versed in computing theory. That is, this book doesn't seem targeted as a textbook, so its market is for enthusiasts as much as professors and researchers, who may have a level of understanding closer to Katz's.
Regardless, I apologize for being rude.
Has a slashdot user bashed Katz? Is this just another rehash of decidability and intractability? Or is there something new here?
My mommy always said, if you don't have anything nice to say, STFU.