Geezer, I agree with what you are saying. But I don't think Ferris Bueller would have wanted you to sleep 6 hours a night just so you could constantly train yourself to 'make yourself essential in the workplace'. He was more into the "stop and look around..." thing. Long live success and hard work, but long live idleness, inertia and failure too.
By your own logic, which I accept, the managers and executives aren't clueless.
When computers are vastly more expensive than programmers, it's cheaper to write good programs that require less hardware. When the reverse is true - and, due to Moore's law, getting ever more true - it is cheaper to buy a bigger computer than a better programmer. Even for consumer software this applies: 64 extra Mb of RAM cost less than most programs (beyond the free stuff like email clients).
Business logic therefore inevitably says: cut down on labour costs by using RAD tools and easy-peasy programming languages; your programs won't be as good (fast, elegant, slim etc.) but that won't matter because hardware is always getting cheaper.
End result: programming becomes deskilled. That's the free market. Those of you who profess to be libertarians should deal with it and stop whinging. (The rest of you may whinge.)
Not to be paranoid, but they _would_ say that, wouldn't they? Maybe they're just trying to drum up support. But boycotting it until it's properly released and _then_ hacking it is much more amusing than joining in the RIAA's silly $10,000 buck contest. Talk about tightfisted too, would a decent programmer get out of bed for that amount of cash?
Well, I would say that Mozilla's browser is already working and complete - so long as you can get the SSL from NeoPlanet to work:-(. It does pretty much everything you want it to do, and doesn't crash. But, it is rather bloated. Itself now runs pretty fast, but slows my 64M machine up a lot.
If you are in favour of free trade in goods and services, you should also be in favour of free trade in the services offered by individual humans, i.e., labour. Otherwise you are in effect saying: "Give me free trade in goods so I can buy at the cheapest price worldwide; but don't let foreign workers compete with me, because I don't want to lose my privileges." In practice, this comes down to: keep the Indians in India spinning cotton for me at starvation wages.
There is also no "economic crime". Supply and demand operate on a global, as well as a national scale. To prevent companies from hiring immigrants is to attempt to restrict the labour supply. This is analogous to a company which calls for tariffs in order to restrict the supply of a good it sells.
If you want to be against a global labour market, there are powerful reasons for that; but you can't then demand the benefits of global trade.
The guy is right that file sharing would be improved by some way of classifying the music, and avoiding the "same old stuff I know"/"unknown stuff, 99% chance I won't like it" dichotomy. But his solution is still too stuck in the old "broadcasting" way of doing things. We define the format, and categorise the music, for the benefit of you, the sheeplike mass consumer. Bad because it relies on central control, and is therefore not individualised to how a particular person categorises music. (Is Public Enemy the same format as Herb Alpert? No, of course not. So why did they get together and collaborate?)
As a more modern alternative, let me suggest a web of trust type idea, which develops the idea of looking through someone else's files.
(1) The songs you like.
(2) Other people who have the same songs
(3) Their mp3 collections
(4) The songs which are most common among those collections
So, I would find that among fellow Tindersticks lovers, Belle and Sebastian was popular. This would be a more individualised way of collecting music you want, and more reliable than just browsing through an individual's files, because it would aggregate the choices of a lot of people. No cheesy DJ or MTV muppet required.
I can see this being the next killer app for somebody -
Been done already: Radio SonicNet. Nice, but doesn't work on Linux, because it is made by greedheads, for "consumers".
Re:Left it a little late.
on
Qt Going GPL
·
· Score: 1
Why is it companies never open source stuff when things are going their way?
Things are going Trolltech's way, no? I thought they were expanding at a rate of knots, had a new office in Australia, etc. Or have I been fooled by their PR?
The simple answer is that this stuff is too useful not to have. The solution is not to store secure data locally. Yahoo probably devotes more effort to security than 99% of individuals can. In future, computer data security won't matter because everyone will just keep their stuff on some hardened remote server. (Program security, like getting viruses, will still matter.)
I don't think that "reformat your root partition" should be the main concern, but clearly without some security mechanism in place, your linux install becomes only as secure as the Helix servers. This more likely means the possibility of trojan horses for common apps.
This is the heart of the issue. I think the truth of the matter is, the Helix servers will be hella more secure than most people's home boxen. (I speak from personal experience: as a Linux newbie, I've been hacked once and had my computer rebooted remotely once.) People worry about remote security but I can see the day when all your really secure data will be kept off site in some company's vault; just like you wouldn't keep your life savings under the bed.
Well, I can't resist that: seems to me you never invaded us, but we did sail up the Potomac or whatever that stupid river is called and shoot up Washington; and then we fought two world wars, and you were LATE for both. Wimps.
2) baby babble phone: Lower the difficulty of usage, so that even babies can start using them (now there's an unexploited market)
There are already phones being sold in the UK with a "Fisher Price" look for young kids. This is either encouraging and enterprising, or hideously evil, and I'm not sure which.
I'd rather be superstitious than a miserable worshipper at the altar of evolutionary success. I'm human. I like humans. I'm not obsolete because I wasn't designed to fulfil a task in the first place.
There's a parallel between real roads and the internet but it is limited. The amount of space cars can take up is pretty much fixed - certainly hasn't changed much in the past 50 years - and their maximum safe speed in a crowded environment is fixed, at least until we develop some kind of autopilot system to allow safe highspeed travel. But the internet hasn't yet hit any absolute bottleneck: all you are moving is bits of information, and the speed at which this can be done has not yet hit a maximum. I have a 10Mb LAN (hee hee, lucky college student) but most of the internet is still going at about 28kbps. And there are regular articles on slashdot about new technologies which will push towards gigabytes per second of data transfer.
So I don't think we need to worry about running out of space yet. Of course, we might think up fatter and fatter file formats, but I find it hard to imagine what they are: heck, even a whole uncompressed film is only going to be a few terabytes or something, and what comes after that.
I'd swap over to an IE clone that was running gecko instead of IE in a second.
Maybe you should try Mozilla with the Mozbilla or Native.windows themes - available here. I can recommend the Native.windows chrome as one of the best available.
Of course, that means you have to suffer the Mozilla bloat, but it isn't as bad as it used to be.
Slashdot Mirror
Geezer, I agree with what you are saying. But I don't think Ferris Bueller would have wanted you to sleep 6 hours a night just so you could constantly train yourself to 'make yourself essential in the workplace'. He was more into the "stop and look around..." thing. Long live success and hard work, but long live idleness, inertia and failure too.
By your own logic, which I accept, the managers and executives aren't clueless.
When computers are vastly more expensive than programmers, it's cheaper to write good programs that require less hardware. When the reverse is true - and, due to Moore's law, getting ever more true - it is cheaper to buy a bigger computer than a better programmer. Even for consumer software this applies: 64 extra Mb of RAM cost less than most programs (beyond the free stuff like email clients).
Business logic therefore inevitably says: cut down on labour costs by using RAD tools and easy-peasy programming languages; your programs won't be as good (fast, elegant, slim etc.) but that won't matter because hardware is always getting cheaper.
End result: programming becomes deskilled. That's the free market. Those of you who profess to be libertarians should deal with it and stop whinging. (The rest of you may whinge.)
Not to be paranoid, but they _would_ say that, wouldn't they? Maybe they're just trying to drum up support. But boycotting it until it's properly released and _then_ hacking it is much more amusing than joining in the RIAA's silly $10,000 buck contest. Talk about tightfisted too, would a decent programmer get out of bed for that amount of cash?
Yeah, I recall reading some people have already set up private child pornography Gnutella exchanges. Hurrah for technology.
Yeah, Yellow Star Linux or Yellow Peril Linux, something like that. Interesting Freudian slip, it's actually _Red_ Star.
Well, I would say that Mozilla's browser is already working and complete - so long as you can get the SSL from NeoPlanet to work :-(. It does pretty much everything you want it to do, and doesn't crash. But, it is rather bloated. Itself now runs pretty fast, but slows my 64M machine up a lot.
First "now how about a Beowulf cluster of those" Post!
This is self-contradictory.
If you are in favour of free trade in goods and services, you should also be in favour of free trade in the services offered by individual humans, i.e., labour. Otherwise you are in effect saying: "Give me free trade in goods so I can buy at the cheapest price worldwide; but don't let foreign workers compete with me, because I don't want to lose my privileges." In practice, this comes down to: keep the Indians in India spinning cotton for me at starvation wages.
There is also no "economic crime". Supply and demand operate on a global, as well as a national scale. To prevent companies from hiring immigrants is to attempt to restrict the labour supply. This is analogous to a company which calls for tariffs in order to restrict the supply of a good it sells.
If you want to be against a global labour market, there are powerful reasons for that; but you can't then demand the benefits of global trade.
The guy is right that file sharing would be improved by some way of classifying the music, and avoiding the "same old stuff I know"/"unknown stuff, 99% chance I won't like it" dichotomy. But his solution is still too stuck in the old "broadcasting" way of doing things. We define the format, and categorise the music, for the benefit of you, the sheeplike mass consumer. Bad because it relies on central control, and is therefore not individualised to how a particular person categorises music. (Is Public Enemy the same format as Herb Alpert? No, of course not. So why did they get together and collaborate?)
As a more modern alternative, let me suggest a web of trust type idea, which develops the idea of looking through someone else's files.
(1) The songs you like.
(2) Other people who have the same songs
(3) Their mp3 collections
(4) The songs which are most common among those collections
So, I would find that among fellow Tindersticks lovers, Belle and Sebastian was popular. This would be a more individualised way of collecting music you want, and more reliable than just browsing through an individual's files, because it would aggregate the choices of a lot of people. No cheesy DJ or MTV muppet required.
I can see this being the next killer app for somebody -
Been done already: Radio SonicNet. Nice, but doesn't work on Linux, because it is made by greedheads, for "consumers".
The simple answer is that this stuff is too useful not to have. The solution is not to store secure data locally. Yahoo probably devotes more effort to security than 99% of individuals can. In future, computer data security won't matter because everyone will just keep their stuff on some hardened remote server. (Program security, like getting viruses, will still matter.)
the ACs get 0 rating system is such a bummer sometimes.
This is a hilarious troll. Nice one.
Well, I can't resist that: seems to me you never invaded us, but we did sail up the Potomac or whatever that stupid river is called and shoot up Washington; and then we fought two world wars, and you were LATE for both. Wimps.
I'd rather be superstitious than a miserable worshipper at the altar of evolutionary success. I'm human. I like humans. I'm not obsolete because I wasn't designed to fulfil a task in the first place.
So I don't think we need to worry about running out of space yet. Of course, we might think up fatter and fatter file formats, but I find it hard to imagine what they are: heck, even a whole uncompressed film is only going to be a few terabytes or something, and what comes after that.
how the heck is this blatant piece of incitement to molestation "insightful"?
Chances are the language is, indeed, figurative.
Yyou mean the bit about the talking snake is figurative? No shit, Sherlock.
Chances are the language is, indeed, figurative.
<p>Yyou mean the bit about the talking snake is figurative? No shit, Sherlock.
maybe they should accuse AOL of helping users "find" spam, trojans and --#MP3 ownz j000--//-- messages.
Maybe you should try Mozilla with the Mozbilla or Native.windows themes - available here. I can recommend the Native.windows chrome as one of the best available.
Of course, that means you have to suffer the Mozilla bloat, but it isn't as bad as it used to be.
mate, that is wicked! not just the sidebar, but the way it installs itself with just a click.
Damn it. Every time I get sick of Moz, she just lures me back. The tart.
----------------------------------
What are the weapons of happiness?