Yes, the interview was sort of a giant troll - the author appears to still not understand many of the reasons why people use Linux. The most annoying points were about mp3 and DVD licensing - sure, it's a pain in the ass, but RedHat's motiviations in this regard are both reasonable and obvious. Not very business-minded, perhaps, but he has a point.
Most ecological parties are also essentially capitalist,
Wrong. In the US, many people who would term themselves environmentalists are politically moderate or run-of-the-mill liberal. I would include myself here; I'm pretty much right at the center. However, the party which makes environmental concerns the largest part of its platform is the Greens, in both the US and Europe. I would not call them "capitalist" by any stretch of the imagination - they are about as socialist as possible. They simply phrase themselves differently from groups such as, say, the International Socialist Organization.
I don't see any necessary conflict between environmentalism and capitalism; rather, the conflict is between environmentalism and free-market libertarianism. However, many of the ecological disputes center around what are essentially shared resources (e.g. national forests, waterways), which makes libertarian arguments sound rather stupid. I grew up in the Pacific NW, and I for one think the timber companies should be permanantly expelled from public lands.
We started to hear rumblings from SCO about Linux earlier this year (and, typically, ignored them). Specifically, the possibility of SCO charging users of Linux for using what SCO claimed was its IP. Therefore, my question is: does SCO plan to attack other companies or *users* at any point, regardless of what happens with IBM? For instance, would SCO bill Google $96 for each installation of Linux on that massive server farm? Or do you plan to seek licensing from actual Linux vendors like RedHat? The IBM lawsuit seems to simply cover damages.
Second question: on that note, what is the point to suing IBM? If you seriously believe that Linux infringes on SCO's IP in some way, how is suing the largest and wealthiest company working with Linux fundamental to your strategy? This seems like an uphill route to take, and not necessarily the best way to establish a basis for future settlements with other Linux vendors. (Unless, of course, SCO is so fucked already that you're hoping for some quick money from a buyout or one-in-a-million surprise win.)
Third question: aside from the obvious fact that you've crippled SCO's ability to ever compete in the Linux (-compatible) market and have ensured that no open-/free-software developers will ever work with you, WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? This is IBM. Who once shook down Sun, just for the hell of it. Who made $1bn profit on $22bn revenues just last quarter, and whose revenues have gone up by more than 20% just this year when we're in an economic downturn. Oh, and they've got $96bn in assets. I bet they employ more lawyers than SCO has total employees. Do you expect SCO to have any cash reserves left by the time IBM's lawyers are done with you?'
Fourth question: if you're unable to secure a full injunction against IBM on Unix sales, will you continue the lawsuit? The way I see it, the only way you have any chance is if the judge grants the injunction, in which case IBM might panic and settle.
I think every healthy, freedom-loving Slashdot reader owes these porn purveyors our thanks. Each and every one of you should go subscribe to their services tonight - remember, you're doing it to protect innovation. If this angers your wife/girlfriend, tell her it's for a good cause.
As far as I can see, we've spent zillions and zillions on DNA research, without a really big bang for the buck.
What in the FUCK are you talking about? The entire modern field of molecular biology is partly based on understanding how genetic information is stored and replicated. If you seriously believe that the past 50 years of advances in biology have yielded no benefits to society, you're stoned. Every single advance in fighting infectious diseases, cancer, and inherited disorders has been enabled by the type of research you're dismissing.
There is a hell of alot more science being done that isn't ending up on the cover of Time....
I've heard it said that it takes anywhere from 10 to 30 years for the value of a scientific advance to be realized, and this fits with my own observations. If you look at the progress of crystallography since Franklin's DNA pictures, it took decades for the field to yield more than a handful of high-resolution macromolecular structures and only in the past ten to fifteen years has it really exploded. Yet much of the fundamental chemistry and physics was established before the current leaders in the field went to college.
I'd also argue that this is why publically-funded basic research is essential, but that's another rant.
Most importantly, you don't seem to realize that the way science works is that sometimes you don't really know exactly how important something is when you are working on it. Sometimes, only in retrospect does it become clear if a piece of work is an interesting and novel phenomenon on its own, or more deeply significant, "groundbreaking" research.
Very true. Also, the parent poster claims that Crick didn't make any "post-DNA discoveries", which is an absurd thing to say. Most scientists focus intensely on a single problem or set of problems. Crick did this (for a while), and his work yielded more than one profound discovery. That's how most fundamental advances occur - nobody wins the Nobel and then switches to an entirely new field.
Obviously none of that diminish the problem of the sharia courts, but it should give some insight in why they're tolerated
Sure - my point was simply that I have every right to judge other legal systems by American standards. And by converse, Europeans have every right to sneer at our abuse of the death penalty. Obviously it was unfair of me to pick on Norway - I really know zilch about the issues involved - but I was concerned by the parent poster's argument that we couldn't make value judgements about other legal systems, cultures, etc.
The exact phrase was something like "The VCR is to the movie industry what the Boston Strangler is to women." Ah, Jack Valenti - such a way with words.
However, there are people and societies that believe removing criminals from the streets is better for the greater good of the community and outweighs the dangers of innocent people being affected by their methods.
There are several logical extensions to this statement, which explain why the American legal system is (theoretically) so protective of the defendant.
First of all, the desire to see justice done often leads people to treat the law as an agent of retribution rather than of justice. Whenever a suspected murderer is acquitted, the news story includes an obligatory statement from the family saying how disappointed they are. In some cases the defendant really is quite innocent, or prosecutorial abuse of the legal system was far out of bounds.
This means that when popular attention fixes on one suspect any concept of legal "fairness" goes out the window. The need for someone to blame and punish leads to lynching by jury. Typically the poor (and/or minorities, uneducated, etc.) get hit hardest by this. They're the easiest to pick on, and the easiest to abuse in court or interrogation. By the way, 38 black residents of Tulia, TX were just freed on the basis that the entire case against them was almost certainly fabricated.
Some people would take this to extremes and seriously argue that the application of the death penalty to innocents is worth having it as a deterrent. (I'm not joking - a National Review columnist once said this, and I've heard it elsewhere.)
You have to understand that the enemy isn't necessarily the government - it's the people. Read up on the history of lynching in the South. I think the problems we're seeing with crime enforcement in general and the death penalty in particular stem from similar factors - not necessarily racism per se, but scapegoating and the violent expression of popular anger. No one cares if some poor, retarded man fries, and doesn't even bother to think about his innocence, because they're convinced (reasonably so) that it'll never happen to them.
America's system clearly isn't perfect; the legal protections defendants enjoy have not prevented many people being railroaded into long prison sentences or execution. I'd argue that we should abolish the death penalty entirely, for that matter. However, I have no respect for any legal system that places defendants at the mercy of overzealous prosecutors driven by either corporate cartels or popular sentiment. I have no opinion on Norway's society or government in general, but I can still say their legal rules suck fat cock.
Does your respect for the diversity of legal systems extend to the sharia court in Nigeria that's planning to stone a woman for adultery?
As far as I can tell nothing you said contradicted anything that I said - although you did point out some other incentives that Celera had (some other types of intellectual property besides gene patents).
No, my point is that there was sufficient incentive for Celera without gene patents, and that gene patents were never a large part of the strategy - nowhere near to the extent of HGS, Incyte, or Millennium. Venter saw a new market opportunity and went for it. I believe this would have happened without gene patents.
Which brings another point: the human genome project was truly visionary and was started years before even the majority of the scientific community saw a use for it. This is why it was a very long-term project. When Celera started, the need had finally been recognized, but the public effort was still thinking on a much longer time scale. Many groups were willing to pay for immediate access to the data.
One final remark: I'm almost certain that you can't just run BLAST and Genscan on a genome, pick out any interesting hits, and patent them. If you actually read the text of a gene patent, they involve full isolation and characterization *experimentally*. Which means that Celera would still have had to do the more mundane work which was already being done by other companies. The genome would be a shortcut to identifying interesting genes to investigate, but not a sure-fire source of new IP.
We would still be waiting for the genome map if it were not for the incentives offered by gene patents.
Wrong! The way I heard it, Celera's business plan was to patent a few key genes that were of interest, but to make most of their money from very expensive subscriptions to their database. Most of the companies with large gene patent portfolios haven't done much sequencing, and they haven't actually done much "science" either. In terms of practical benefits to society, gene patents haven't done shit (whereas drug patents have been generally beneficial).
Also, you need to keep in mind that much of the motivation for Celera was based on Venter's ego and the need to prove new technology. Venter teamed up with AB both to prove that Venter's sequencing strategy worked for massive genomes (previously it had only been used on bacteria) and to show how badass AB's new sequencers were. I don't think Venter and his backers went into this thinking that they'd gain complete control over the next 20 years of human genetic research.
Also remember that part of the reason Celera was able to go so quickly is that they started from the beginning with the latest techniques and technology, and also a shitload of money to spend on supercomputers and sequencers. Once the public effort modernized it started going at the same speed.
It's not just the logo. I was trying to explain to a non-techie coworker about the terrific free alternative to Photoshop, which I'm pretty sure would do everything she actually needs Photoshop for, but wouldn't cost almost half again as much as her new computer. I just couldn't bring myself to tell her what it was called. (The fact that she's sort of cute makes it even worse.)
I'm serious - The GIMP is an excellent piece of software (even if it's not as powerful as Photoshop), and I use it all the time, but the product name is, in retrospect, the worst choice they could have made.
Furthermore the movie Screamers (with the burrowing robot/mines) was also based on one of PKDs stories. Not sure of the name of that one though.
"Second Variety", which I think is one of his best short stories, along with "Minority Report" (which had a much more brutal and cynical ending than the movie - I liked the movie, but because of Spielberg's direction, not the plot).
"Screamers" was merely okay. What saves it from complete mediocrity is the very final image before they cut to credits. Few twist endings are as subtle or ambiguous - all I could think about it was "what the fuck did that mean?"
I would kill to see movies of "Eye in the Sky" (probably PKD's most under-appreciated work) and "Ubik" (my personal favorite).
Exactly. Many people find that Windows cripples their productivity, and I see many people insist on using Windows because they think it's the best OS, and never realize how they're doing things wrong. They're always amazed when they find out that something can be done much faster on another platform, if they'd bother to learn how.
I recently visited several major grad schools to look at their biology programs, and at least two-thirds of the faculty were using either the Titanium or one of the new G4s with the Cinema display. They don't need a computer to be fast, they need it to work properly. If they need number-crunching power, they almost always use a Linux PC. Even the people who use Windows on the desktop never do anything more than PowerPoint and Word - I have yet to see someone doing serious biology research on a Windows platform. Quite a few people, however, are doing serious research on OS X.
Yes. However, Adobe never released a more recent version, and won't even sell you a license for the old IRIX Photoshop, despite the fact that SGI still has a page up for it.
This is one reason I still have Windows(r) on the desktop, even tho I insist on Linux on the servers.
This is the reason I stick with one distro for personal use, and have never used anything but RedHat on the desktop (and will stay with 7.3 for a while). I've figured out how to make it work, but without sacrificing everything and using Windows.
I guess my sarcasm didn't show through in the original comment. I work with many people who use Windows for almost everything, but don't understand how much harder this is making their job. We end up having to do bizarre hacks with VMWare so they can actually use their computers to do real work. However, getting Linux to function properly for them is a nightmare, so they end up using Windows because they're used to all the associated inefficiencies. People like a known quantity, and view one month mastering Linux as a waste of time even if they'll lose two months doing things ass-backwards in Windows. This is the same reason MS goes on and on about retraining costs.
The problem is, I work in a mixed Windows/Linux environment, plus a couple of SGI file servers. The web servers are all running SuSE (absolutely no Windows), because it has a number of features included that we find advantageous (e.g. journalling file system support long before RedHat did, plus lots of advanced network/scientific software). YAST is okay - it works most of the time - and hacking config files is good for other stuff.
Since there are only a few things that need to be fine-tuned, we're happy to mess around on a low level. In fact, I prefer to mess around on a low level, because even on my desktops I only use several programs. Linux is perfect for my desktop, because I can make it do exactly what I want. Other people find my setup bizarre, but it allows me to work very efficiently. (I like IRIX a lot, because it already works close to the way I want, but is more consistent and stable than Linux. Obviously, I usually end up using PCs because speed usually trumps stability.)
However, desktops in my workplace (academic research group) are mixed. Both I and our principal sysadmin use Linux; a few other people do as well. Everyone expects us to support Windows, which we can't stand and don't know much about. We try to get people to use Linux instead, because it'll do just about everything they actually need an office computer for.
Of course when you sit a bunch of non- or semi-technical people in front of Linux, you find all sorts of ways to break it. SuSE on the desktop has been a mixed bag - some things turn out to be miserably difficult to configure. We thought RedHat 8 was a gift from heaven, because it was supposed to have a very intuitive, clean interface which would be attractive to the n00bs. Of course we rushed to install it on selected workstations. Oops.
Desktop Linux (which is what redhat linux is now) is still very much beta software
Sure, because it's a moving target and because it's so inconsistent. With Linux, I can never tell if the new distro will be a dog until I've played with it a few months, and each machine I install it on may react a little differently. With Windows, I already *know* it's going to suck.
Agreed, but there is some reason to cheer the overwhelming might of US military. If this works out well, there will be very few casualties, military or civilian. That's what I'm rooting for - the sooner allied troops take Baghdad, the fewer innocents (or soldiers) get killed, and the less damage will be done to the country's infrastructure. It would be inexcusable if this got fucked up.
I once saw a 30-second film clip assembled from coverage of the first Gulf War by all the major networks. The joker who made it simply took all the computer animated logos and miscellaneous tripe associated with the newscasts and ran them together- when you view it that way, the true tastelessness really shows through. Best part, however, was adding the title music to the David Lynch version of "Dune". I've been trying to find this for years - I first came across it on the 'net in 1998.
All this glitz is sort of pointless after seeing footage of the WTC attacks. . . watching the towers collapse is like a punch in the nuts. These color-coded terror alerts just seem moronic.
What other than this "benevolent" racism would lead Forbes to suggest autocratic rule for a nation the US administration is denouncing for its undemocratic practices?
Interesting idea, and it certainly has quite a bit of precedent, but I think it's just a little too hyperbolic. Forbes was born with a silver spoon up his ass; his daddy was known for throwing huge parties and Steve has always been in a position of immense power and wealth. It takes a massive ego (and usually, a delusional sense of self-worth) to start spending your personal fortune on a campaign for president without any prior political experience. And with Forbes, like with Perot, we could always be sure that he seriously thought he should be president and might actually get the job. I almost felt sorry for him when I saw his withdrawl speech, because it looked like he was giving up a cherished dream, and that he Really Wanted to Make a Difference. Schmuck.
So, Forbes' suggestion that the Hashemites be restored is largely pure elitism. However, the rest of your point is at least partly correct. Although the Hashemites were a purely homegrown, Arab royal family (used to rule Mecca before the Saudis kicked them out), the underlying concept is that a monarch will unite the quibbling peoples of Iraq. This is certainly racist. The more disturbing part of his suggestion, however, is that the US should a) leave the Kurds and other ethnic minorities to rot, and b) leave a strongman in power. Wholly aside from any racist ideas inherent in these actions, this is simply awful geopolitics and a horrendous use of American power. Even the Administration has repeatedly claimed that they do not intend to install a dictator but rather set up a purely democratically elected government as soon as the dust settles.
Ah, yes, good ol' Steve has some particularly nauseating ideas about postwar Iraq. Apparently nobody actually read the linked column in its entirety:
After recommending Newt Gingrich for temporary governor-general of Iraq while it's being rebuilt, he continues:
Why not bring back to Iraq the Hashemite Monarchy that was murderously ousted in 1958? The Hashemites ruled Iraq well, just as they have Jordan. They could provide the glue to hold together what will be a three-part confederation made up of Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis. Also, such a unifying monarchy might ease Turkey's concerns over an independent Kurdish state.
Jesus, the guy's a fucking moron. How can anyone take the rest of what he says seriously? (I'm slightly leaning towards favoring war, but installing a monarchy is an awful idea.) And by the way, leaving the Kurds to fend for themselves under yet another Sunni Arab ruler is both a double-cross and a real great way to make another entire ethnic group hate our guts.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the interview was sort of a giant troll - the author appears to still not understand many of the reasons why people use Linux. The most annoying points were about mp3 and DVD licensing - sure, it's a pain in the ass, but RedHat's motiviations in this regard are both reasonable and obvious. Not very business-minded, perhaps, but he has a point.
Most ecological parties are also essentially capitalist,
Wrong. In the US, many people who would term themselves environmentalists are politically moderate or run-of-the-mill liberal. I would include myself here; I'm pretty much right at the center. However, the party which makes environmental concerns the largest part of its platform is the Greens, in both the US and Europe. I would not call them "capitalist" by any stretch of the imagination - they are about as socialist as possible. They simply phrase themselves differently from groups such as, say, the International Socialist Organization.
I don't see any necessary conflict between environmentalism and capitalism; rather, the conflict is between environmentalism and free-market libertarianism. However, many of the ecological disputes center around what are essentially shared resources (e.g. national forests, waterways), which makes libertarian arguments sound rather stupid. I grew up in the Pacific NW, and I for one think the timber companies should be permanantly expelled from public lands.
Here's a question that isn't flamebait:
We started to hear rumblings from SCO about Linux earlier this year (and, typically, ignored them). Specifically, the possibility of SCO charging users of Linux for using what SCO claimed was its IP. Therefore, my question is: does SCO plan to attack other companies or *users* at any point, regardless of what happens with IBM? For instance, would SCO bill Google $96 for each installation of Linux on that massive server farm? Or do you plan to seek licensing from actual Linux vendors like RedHat? The IBM lawsuit seems to simply cover damages.
Second question: on that note, what is the point to suing IBM? If you seriously believe that Linux infringes on SCO's IP in some way, how is suing the largest and wealthiest company working with Linux fundamental to your strategy? This seems like an uphill route to take, and not necessarily the best way to establish a basis for future settlements with other Linux vendors. (Unless, of course, SCO is so fucked already that you're hoping for some quick money from a buyout or one-in-a-million surprise win.)
Third question: aside from the obvious fact that you've crippled SCO's ability to ever compete in the Linux (-compatible) market and have ensured that no open-/free-software developers will ever work with you, WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? This is IBM. Who once shook down Sun, just for the hell of it. Who made $1bn profit on $22bn revenues just last quarter, and whose revenues have gone up by more than 20% just this year when we're in an economic downturn. Oh, and they've got $96bn in assets. I bet they employ more lawyers than SCO has total employees. Do you expect SCO to have any cash reserves left by the time IBM's lawyers are done with you?'
Fourth question: if you're unable to secure a full injunction against IBM on Unix sales, will you continue the lawsuit? The way I see it, the only way you have any chance is if the judge grants the injunction, in which case IBM might panic and settle.
I think every healthy, freedom-loving Slashdot reader owes these porn purveyors our thanks. Each and every one of you should go subscribe to their services tonight - remember, you're doing it to protect innovation. If this angers your wife/girlfriend, tell her it's for a good cause.
Mmmm, I'll bet it's vigorous all right.
As far as I can see, we've spent zillions and zillions on DNA research, without a really big bang for the buck.
What in the FUCK are you talking about? The entire modern field of molecular biology is partly based on understanding how genetic information is stored and replicated. If you seriously believe that the past 50 years of advances in biology have yielded no benefits to society, you're stoned. Every single advance in fighting infectious diseases, cancer, and inherited disorders has been enabled by the type of research you're dismissing.
There is a hell of alot more science being done that isn't ending up on the cover of Time....
I've heard it said that it takes anywhere from 10 to 30 years for the value of a scientific advance to be realized, and this fits with my own observations. If you look at the progress of crystallography since Franklin's DNA pictures, it took decades for the field to yield more than a handful of high-resolution macromolecular structures and only in the past ten to fifteen years has it really exploded. Yet much of the fundamental chemistry and physics was established before the current leaders in the field went to college.
I'd also argue that this is why publically-funded basic research is essential, but that's another rant.
Most importantly, you don't seem to realize that the way science works is that sometimes you don't really know exactly how important something is when you are working on it. Sometimes, only in retrospect does it become clear if a piece of work is an interesting and novel phenomenon on its own, or more deeply significant, "groundbreaking" research.
Very true. Also, the parent poster claims that Crick didn't make any "post-DNA discoveries", which is an absurd thing to say. Most scientists focus intensely on a single problem or set of problems. Crick did this (for a while), and his work yielded more than one profound discovery. That's how most fundamental advances occur - nobody wins the Nobel and then switches to an entirely new field.
Obviously none of that diminish the problem of the sharia courts, but it should give some insight in why they're tolerated
Sure - my point was simply that I have every right to judge other legal systems by American standards. And by converse, Europeans have every right to sneer at our abuse of the death penalty. Obviously it was unfair of me to pick on Norway - I really know zilch about the issues involved - but I was concerned by the parent poster's argument that we couldn't make value judgements about other legal systems, cultures, etc.
The exact phrase was something like "The VCR is to the movie industry what the Boston Strangler is to women." Ah, Jack Valenti - such a way with words.
And yes, they did take it to court - and lost.
However, there are people and societies that believe removing criminals from the streets is better for the greater good of the community and outweighs the dangers of innocent people being affected by their methods.
There are several logical extensions to this statement, which explain why the American legal system is (theoretically) so protective of the defendant.
First of all, the desire to see justice done often leads people to treat the law as an agent of retribution rather than of justice. Whenever a suspected murderer is acquitted, the news story includes an obligatory statement from the family saying how disappointed they are. In some cases the defendant really is quite innocent, or prosecutorial abuse of the legal system was far out of bounds.
This means that when popular attention fixes on one suspect any concept of legal "fairness" goes out the window. The need for someone to blame and punish leads to lynching by jury. Typically the poor (and/or minorities, uneducated, etc.) get hit hardest by this. They're the easiest to pick on, and the easiest to abuse in court or interrogation. By the way, 38 black residents of Tulia, TX were just freed on the basis that the entire case against them was almost certainly fabricated.
Some people would take this to extremes and seriously argue that the application of the death penalty to innocents is worth having it as a deterrent. (I'm not joking - a National Review columnist once said this, and I've heard it elsewhere.)
You have to understand that the enemy isn't necessarily the government - it's the people. Read up on the history of lynching in the South. I think the problems we're seeing with crime enforcement in general and the death penalty in particular stem from similar factors - not necessarily racism per se, but scapegoating and the violent expression of popular anger. No one cares if some poor, retarded man fries, and doesn't even bother to think about his innocence, because they're convinced (reasonably so) that it'll never happen to them.
America's system clearly isn't perfect; the legal protections defendants enjoy have not prevented many people being railroaded into long prison sentences or execution. I'd argue that we should abolish the death penalty entirely, for that matter. However, I have no respect for any legal system that places defendants at the mercy of overzealous prosecutors driven by either corporate cartels or popular sentiment. I have no opinion on Norway's society or government in general, but I can still say their legal rules suck fat cock.
Does your respect for the diversity of legal systems extend to the sharia court in Nigeria that's planning to stone a woman for adultery?
As far as I can tell nothing you said contradicted anything that I said - although you did point out some other incentives that Celera had (some other types of intellectual property besides gene patents).
No, my point is that there was sufficient incentive for Celera without gene patents, and that gene patents were never a large part of the strategy - nowhere near to the extent of HGS, Incyte, or Millennium. Venter saw a new market opportunity and went for it. I believe this would have happened without gene patents.
Which brings another point: the human genome project was truly visionary and was started years before even the majority of the scientific community saw a use for it. This is why it was a very long-term project. When Celera started, the need had finally been recognized, but the public effort was still thinking on a much longer time scale. Many groups were willing to pay for immediate access to the data.
One final remark: I'm almost certain that you can't just run BLAST and Genscan on a genome, pick out any interesting hits, and patent them. If you actually read the text of a gene patent, they involve full isolation and characterization *experimentally*. Which means that Celera would still have had to do the more mundane work which was already being done by other companies. The genome would be a shortcut to identifying interesting genes to investigate, but not a sure-fire source of new IP.
We would still be waiting for the genome map if it were not for the incentives offered by gene patents.
Wrong! The way I heard it, Celera's business plan was to patent a few key genes that were of interest, but to make most of their money from very expensive subscriptions to their database. Most of the companies with large gene patent portfolios haven't done much sequencing, and they haven't actually done much "science" either. In terms of practical benefits to society, gene patents haven't done shit (whereas drug patents have been generally beneficial).
Also, you need to keep in mind that much of the motivation for Celera was based on Venter's ego and the need to prove new technology. Venter teamed up with AB both to prove that Venter's sequencing strategy worked for massive genomes (previously it had only been used on bacteria) and to show how badass AB's new sequencers were. I don't think Venter and his backers went into this thinking that they'd gain complete control over the next 20 years of human genetic research.
Also remember that part of the reason Celera was able to go so quickly is that they started from the beginning with the latest techniques and technology, and also a shitload of money to spend on supercomputers and sequencers. Once the public effort modernized it started going at the same speed.
I thought they compared them to VW bugs because they are both things that we hope will burn up before we see them.
Or because they turn into a giant ball of flame when hurtling into barriers (Earth's atmosphere, Chevy Suburban) at great speeds.
It's not just the logo. I was trying to explain to a non-techie coworker about the terrific free alternative to Photoshop, which I'm pretty sure would do everything she actually needs Photoshop for, but wouldn't cost almost half again as much as her new computer. I just couldn't bring myself to tell her what it was called. (The fact that she's sort of cute makes it even worse.)
I'm serious - The GIMP is an excellent piece of software (even if it's not as powerful as Photoshop), and I use it all the time, but the product name is, in retrospect, the worst choice they could have made.
Furthermore the movie Screamers (with the burrowing robot/mines) was also based on one of PKDs stories. Not sure of the name of that one though.
"Second Variety", which I think is one of his best short stories, along with "Minority Report" (which had a much more brutal and cynical ending than the movie - I liked the movie, but because of Spielberg's direction, not the plot).
"Screamers" was merely okay. What saves it from complete mediocrity is the very final image before they cut to credits. Few twist endings are as subtle or ambiguous - all I could think about it was "what the fuck did that mean?"
I would kill to see movies of "Eye in the Sky" (probably PKD's most under-appreciated work) and "Ubik" (my personal favorite).
Exactly. Many people find that Windows cripples their productivity, and I see many people insist on using Windows because they think it's the best OS, and never realize how they're doing things wrong. They're always amazed when they find out that something can be done much faster on another platform, if they'd bother to learn how.
I recently visited several major grad schools to look at their biology programs, and at least two-thirds of the faculty were using either the Titanium or one of the new G4s with the Cinema display. They don't need a computer to be fast, they need it to work properly. If they need number-crunching power, they almost always use a Linux PC. Even the people who use Windows on the desktop never do anything more than PowerPoint and Word - I have yet to see someone doing serious biology research on a Windows platform. Quite a few people, however, are doing serious research on OS X.
Yes. However, Adobe never released a more recent version, and won't even sell you a license for the old IRIX Photoshop, despite the fact that SGI still has a page up for it.
This is one reason I still have Windows(r) on the desktop, even tho I insist on Linux on the servers.
This is the reason I stick with one distro for personal use, and have never used anything but RedHat on the desktop (and will stay with 7.3 for a while). I've figured out how to make it work, but without sacrificing everything and using Windows.
I guess my sarcasm didn't show through in the original comment. I work with many people who use Windows for almost everything, but don't understand how much harder this is making their job. We end up having to do bizarre hacks with VMWare so they can actually use their computers to do real work. However, getting Linux to function properly for them is a nightmare, so they end up using Windows because they're used to all the associated inefficiencies. People like a known quantity, and view one month mastering Linux as a waste of time even if they'll lose two months doing things ass-backwards in Windows. This is the same reason MS goes on and on about retraining costs.
The problem is, I work in a mixed Windows/Linux environment, plus a couple of SGI file servers. The web servers are all running SuSE (absolutely no Windows), because it has a number of features included that we find advantageous (e.g. journalling file system support long before RedHat did, plus lots of advanced network/scientific software). YAST is okay - it works most of the time - and hacking config files is good for other stuff.
Since there are only a few things that need to be fine-tuned, we're happy to mess around on a low level. In fact, I prefer to mess around on a low level, because even on my desktops I only use several programs. Linux is perfect for my desktop, because I can make it do exactly what I want. Other people find my setup bizarre, but it allows me to work very efficiently. (I like IRIX a lot, because it already works close to the way I want, but is more consistent and stable than Linux. Obviously, I usually end up using PCs because speed usually trumps stability.)
However, desktops in my workplace (academic research group) are mixed. Both I and our principal sysadmin use Linux; a few other people do as well. Everyone expects us to support Windows, which we can't stand and don't know much about. We try to get people to use Linux instead, because it'll do just about everything they actually need an office computer for.
Of course when you sit a bunch of non- or semi-technical people in front of Linux, you find all sorts of ways to break it. SuSE on the desktop has been a mixed bag - some things turn out to be miserably difficult to configure. We thought RedHat 8 was a gift from heaven, because it was supposed to have a very intuitive, clean interface which would be attractive to the n00bs. Of course we rushed to install it on selected workstations. Oops.
Desktop Linux (which is what redhat linux is now) is still very much beta software
Sure, because it's a moving target and because it's so inconsistent. With Linux, I can never tell if the new distro will be a dog until I've played with it a few months, and each machine I install it on may react a little differently. With Windows, I already *know* it's going to suck.
Agreed, but there is some reason to cheer the overwhelming might of US military. If this works out well, there will be very few casualties, military or civilian. That's what I'm rooting for - the sooner allied troops take Baghdad, the fewer innocents (or soldiers) get killed, and the less damage will be done to the country's infrastructure. It would be inexcusable if this got fucked up.
I once saw a 30-second film clip assembled from coverage of the first Gulf War by all the major networks. The joker who made it simply took all the computer animated logos and miscellaneous tripe associated with the newscasts and ran them together- when you view it that way, the true tastelessness really shows through. Best part, however, was adding the title music to the David Lynch version of "Dune". I've been trying to find this for years - I first came across it on the 'net in 1998.
All this glitz is sort of pointless after seeing footage of the WTC attacks. . . watching the towers collapse is like a punch in the nuts. These color-coded terror alerts just seem moronic.
What other than this "benevolent" racism would lead Forbes to suggest autocratic rule for a nation the US administration is denouncing for its undemocratic practices?
Interesting idea, and it certainly has quite a bit of precedent, but I think it's just a little too hyperbolic. Forbes was born with a silver spoon up his ass; his daddy was known for throwing huge parties and Steve has always been in a position of immense power and wealth. It takes a massive ego (and usually, a delusional sense of self-worth) to start spending your personal fortune on a campaign for president without any prior political experience. And with Forbes, like with Perot, we could always be sure that he seriously thought he should be president and might actually get the job. I almost felt sorry for him when I saw his withdrawl speech, because it looked like he was giving up a cherished dream, and that he Really Wanted to Make a Difference. Schmuck.
So, Forbes' suggestion that the Hashemites be restored is largely pure elitism. However, the rest of your point is at least partly correct. Although the Hashemites were a purely homegrown, Arab royal family (used to rule Mecca before the Saudis kicked them out), the underlying concept is that a monarch will unite the quibbling peoples of Iraq. This is certainly racist. The more disturbing part of his suggestion, however, is that the US should a) leave the Kurds and other ethnic minorities to rot, and b) leave a strongman in power. Wholly aside from any racist ideas inherent in these actions, this is simply awful geopolitics and a horrendous use of American power. Even the Administration has repeatedly claimed that they do not intend to install a dictator but rather set up a purely democratically elected government as soon as the dust settles.
After recommending Newt Gingrich for temporary governor-general of Iraq while it's being rebuilt, he continues:
Jesus, the guy's a fucking moron. How can anyone take the rest of what he says seriously? (I'm slightly leaning towards favoring war, but installing a monarchy is an awful idea.) And by the way, leaving the Kurds to fend for themselves under yet another Sunni Arab ruler is both a double-cross and a real great way to make another entire ethnic group hate our guts.