Pretty simple. The only group that could realistically put this together is the government. (Corporations have no incentive to do something on that scale.) Pretend you're a politician. Here's a program that we can spend tons of money on now, but will have absolutely no payoff during your lifetime. Can you say political suicide?
Remember, there's nothing in the Constition about 'freedom of advertisement;' just because they're helping Nintendo, it doesn't mean Nintendo has to put up with it. Legalities usually ignore the right and wrong of a situation.
From what I understand of fair use, they may be on shaky ground... it's definately not a review, or something very similar. But I am not a kumquat... no, that's lawyer... of course, so I'll just shut up about that.
Y'know... I don't exactly know how the behind-the-scenes stuff happens at Slashdot, but I assume that whoever's reading the submissions just pulls up the next article in the queue, and decides whether to accept or reject it. It would be interesting to be able to see who rejected articles.. you could gather some better statistics on who posts what. (Perhaps, by learning their schedules, you could incease your chances of getting your article accepted.)
Unless you're the one making the effort, then you have no say in where it may be better spent. Same thing we say to people who complain that we ought to be "building a copy of wind-- I mean, a better GUI" instead of porting Linux to our toasters. If you think that there's something else more worthy of work, then do it instead.
What's next, making a chemical analysis of Martian rock composition from debris thrown up by a nuclear strike on its surface?
Well... why not? By all accounts, Mars is just a really big chunk of rock, and nobody's using it at the moment. One crater won't make much of a difference.
It's the same thing we always go through with environmentalists. There's no reason to be afraid of using natural resources. If we always hold off, afraid that we might damage something, we'll never get anything done. As long as the good (scientific data) outweighs the bad (nothing, as far as we know), we should consider it fair game.
Real encyclopedias are controlled by editorial boards that provide unbiased, fair and reasonable content
No person, or group of them, is completely unbiased. An editorial board is no exception. Since whether or not something is 'biased' is really based on the viewer's perspective, what may seem unbiased to you may seem biased to me. So that's not a reasonable argument for calling this 'not a real' encyclopedia.
Perhaps what you meant is that their particular bias is somewhat less mainstream than that of the typical suit-and-tie editorial board. Probably true. I'm in agreement that RMS is a nut. But does that make the information any less valid? Personally, I think that the more different views of the same information we have, the better.
Yes, this is the type of encyclopedia that I want. Or, rather, it's one of them.
Well, people have been pointing out that speed of light / heat dissapation / etc. might cause problems in making a computer that huge... although I have thought about (when I get my own place) building my computer into the wall. Imagine... just open up a panel, and get full access to your computer, nicely laid out, with lots of workspace. Besides, you could save a lot of floor or desk space (I'm always kicking my computer, where I have it now...
However, does it not adversely affect the development of the OS as a whole?
The only way to tell is to try it out. Really.
What would you rather have -- A great OS that only works on your computer, or a great OS that works on every single device known to man? (Note that I said 'great' for each... assume the quality is the same.) You'd rather it work everywhere, of course, unless you actively dislike the other markets.
Lack of focus is a possible problem, but not neccesarily true. It's also possible that making the code work on many different architectures has helped the design of the kernel as a whole. (I rather believe this to be the case.) But anyway, arguing intellectually about 'I think this would help/hurt the kernel' is rather useless. Find a part of the kernel that has been compromised by lack of focus. That's the backup you need to follow this line of reasoning.
Not only is.NET a Microsoft creation, it doesn't really exist yet. They haven't even really been able to explain what it is, besides the fact that they'll be appending that to the names of all their products.
Not that I want to play grammar police... but calling the internet ".NET" is like giving in to Microsoft, saying, "Yes, you can control the world. We believe in everything you say." So don't try to be clever -- just call it the internet, or, if you want, the net (notice: not period, no capitalization.) Or ARPANET. Or Earth's big LAN party. Or the Information Superhighway, if you have to. Just not.NET.
This guy's got it right. It's never been a good idea to assume that you can keep your stupid actions secret... just pick up a history book sometime, they're full of people's dumb mistakes. The only way to keep these things private is, unfortunately, to refrain from doing them.
If we were alwasy turned away by little challenges, technology wouldn't go anywhere. When you see some sort of problem or barrier -- in this case, the problems with electric circuits at high temperatures -- it doesn't do any good to say, "That'll never be solved... just forget it." When we do solve it, then our technology will be that much more useful.
(Of course, my knowledge of this stuff runs about as far as yours, so it's possible that this isn't a problem/is unsolvable/is useless. But leave that judgement to the experts.)
"a chunk of code that performs some task?" We got those -- them's a relatively unknown C contruct, called a -- dagnabbit, what's it called... oh, yeah -- function. Yeah, you can make an object out of just about everything, if you feel like it... but that doesn't make it the best way to go. I absolutely cannot see how simply surrounding functions with an object-oriented architecture is helpful. That's what I was trying to point out.
(Go figure; that post just gave me my bonus back. Time to lose it again:)
Well, OOP should be used for things where the data structures resemble (in some way) real-world objects. For instance, games and other things that simulate physics can benefit from object-oriented design. Databases with dissimilar chunks of data might be easier to deal with using OOP. It may be helpful to represent other computers or programs as objects, in applications that require large amounts of intercommunication and response.
OOP essentially downplays procedural programming, but (at least I) tend to find many things procedural, which would have to be twisted up to fit into the OO paradigm. Anything that does an easily-definable process, such as most system utilities and so forth, is probably not suited for OOP. Back to games, I recently wrote a 'roguelike' game: although the code dealing with monsters and items was somewhat object-oriented, the game logic itself was procedural. Programs that primarily deal with large amounts of raw data should probably deal with it in a procedural rather than OO manner.
Unfortunately, a large contingent of programmers claim that OO is the only way to program, and universally is easier to write/easier to read/faster to code/faster running/etc/etc/etc. You see it in the 'language wars', where you often see "Java is better than C, because the OOP support is better." Please. You should base your style of programming on the task at hand, not try to twist it into the techniques of the current fad.
There are problems where OOP is good, and problems where it's not such a good idea. If you insist on using one or the other, pick those problems that it's suited for. I admit that I have some real problems with object-oriented programming's approach to things, but I don't want to convince people to give it up. Just don't make me do it. (That's the main reason why I chose not to do CS in school.)
It's just the/. mentality. (Fortunately, somebody modded you back up again. If I had mod points, I would have done it.) That was actually one of the only halfway well-reasoned posts I've ever seen here on one of the privacy articles. (I admit, I just read these things for the amusement of seeing the/. crowd make fools of themselves... the extremist mindset of everyone here provides some quality entertainment.)
I've even found that I get metamodded for knocking up any post with a tone that's tolerant to corporations or the government, or advocates MS in any way. Unfortunately, I haven't yet found a good place with a smaller proportion of close-minded wackos, so I stay here.
But he didn't say that he liked A better than B. He said that there were some things he liked about A, but that they weren't enough to make him switch. The faster speeds and drastically lower cost of B make it, in this person's opinion, better than A, despite A's good qualities.
If they're well-known, start using them. Convert your car to use a renewable resource. Stop using your computer, to reduce the amount of oil that has to be burned to create your power. Donate money to researchers who try to make things better. Heck, just go outside and pick up a load or two of trash... it seems to me that litter is a much bigger problem than the unlikely possibility of a small amount of a slightly radioactive material being released into the air. You can join Greenpeace and demonstate if you want to, but if you spend your time doing that rather than actually attempting to help the environment, you're a hypocrite and a whiner.
There's always someone who will protest. Fortunately, most of the people who protest don't actually care... they just want something to whine about. It makes them feel good to claim that they're protecting the environment. Note that you rarely see them actually working on the problems of getting energy, or trying to find ways that we can "save the environment" without harming the human race. Instead, they spend most of their time filing lawsuits, chaining themselves to trees, and distributing pamphlets.
Probably it could power an automobile for awhile, but that's not the only consideration we have to take into account. How come we don't just mount a nuclear reactor inside all new cars? A load of fuel could probably keep the thing going for years...
Anyway, I never could see why people get so worried about us using up all of our oil. It's all simple economics: right now, it doesn't make sense to look for a new fuel source. We have plenty of oil, and it's not doing any good where it is. When it becomes too expensive to obtain, we'll find another energy source real fast.
It seems like a lot of your reasons for choosing to not use Linux are political and ideological, not technical. Now, are you willing to give up a superior operating system, just because it seems to you that effort isn't being used in the best way possible? (I'm not saying that Linux is necessarily superior, but if you thought that it wasn't at least as good as the competition, you would have left it for technical reasons rather than the ones you cited.)
No, what Red Hat does/is/ that what the community does. It's about making everything easier at the expense of configurability. It's about
supporting more stuff at the expense of stability or code correctness.
Um... this runs completely counter to what you were saying about fragmentation by the community because of all the different distributions. If Red Hat defined what the community did, then we'd all be using essentially the same system. Although RH is the most popular distribution, and admittedly has quite a bit of clout, we don't follow them blindly.
Obviously, they're just greedy, and hiding under the pretense that M$ needs to be punished. As many people have already said.
Now, something that would show that these people have some morals would be if, (assuming they won anywhere near such a ridiculous amount), they were to take out whatever money they actually lost, pay the lawyers, and then give the rest to charity. That way, they've been dealt with fairly, microsoft has been punished, and some good has been done as well. Unfortunately, you rarely (if ever) hear of something like this, because, as a general rule, people are greedy.
Make all the noises you want about safety, children, Columbine, Wakefield, or whatever--these are no more than the
analogue of protected Nazi marches or anti-abortion websites. You've got to take the bad with the good.
But guns don't have to be an all-or-nothing thing. There can be restrictions without banning the right to use or carry a gun.
The reason why gun laws are important is the permanance of being dead. (Well, duh.) Commonly those who whine about gun laws say that nothing's been done wrong until you shoot someone else. That's true enough; I can't think of anything morally wrong with taking a machine gun out in your backyard and practicing some target shooting. However, jail time or execution for a criminal is poor consolation for someone who's been killed.
Restricting the power of guns, instituting delays in recieving them, mandating trigger locks, and so forth, don't harm your ability to protect yourself or to enjoy a sport, but they can help prevent tragedies, whether it's a criminal or accidental shooting. People can get around the laws, and guns aren't the only way to kill, I admit. But it's easier to obey the laws; it's easier to use a gun.
I'll always fight for your right to own or carry a gun, but safety deserves its measures as well.
Yes, if you love money more than anything else, fine. Live in a country with no taxes. I don't care. Just don't force me to do the same.
Who's forcing you to live in a country with no taxes? (We'll ignore the fact that you're in Canada, and pretend that this argument actually matters.) Why should you assert that those who want lower taxes should be the ones to leave? If public sentiment wants lower taxes you don't like it, get out. Find a near-socialist country and have a nice life.
Meanwhile, I'll happily pay my taxes to the govt' of Canada, secure in the knowledge that that money pays for good public
schools, great roads, and the best damn health care system on the planet,
Although it may be different in Canada, I certainly haven't seen the money being wisely spent. I'm generally not opposed to the ideals of most government-sponsored programs, even welfare and so forth, but I hardly think that the top-heavy beauracracy in nearly all government programs benefits me or the general public. Why should I give my money to the government and let them grab half of it before giving it back?
And I *am* working to better myself. Don't you dare accuse me of being lazy.
Nobody accused you of being lazy. Getting an education is a fine pursuit. However, you seem to be a little deluded as to why we get money. We recieve money in exchange for providing goods or services to others... in most cases, by providing labor of some sort for our employers. It's not just something you should recieve for 'bettering yourself'. The reason you have money now is with the understanding that your education will prove useful to the nation, and is therefore worth the cost.
I simply believe in helping others in their times of need. Why is sharing such a difficult concept for some people to
understand?
Sharing is a voluntary action. Taxes are not. I have no problem with sharing some of my (rather limited) funds with others. However, I believe that I can do a better job of it than an enormous government. If Joe on the Street wants a meal, he should come ask me for some money, not go to the government and ask them to take my money at gunpoint. The purpose of taxes should be to fund projects that cannot be done by smaller entities: road construction, etc. They shouldn't be to distribute my money to other people; that's robbery.
Well, let's see: if it's better than current technologies, and it's not GPL'ed, you're right. MS & company grab it and close-source it with minor changes to make it incompatible. Generally, the same situation that we have now, but windows users get a slightly better-quality product. I don't see how that's a loss, unless you just want to make the MS users suffer.
If it's GPL'ed, MS and the gang won't touch it. If it's really significantly better than current codecs, they'll use the specification, write their own version, change and close-source it again. It will take a little longer, but the end result is the same.
Ideally, I'd prefer that this was GPL'ed (this is sort of a moot point; it looks as though this whole thing is probably a bit of a scam, but anyway...), but I don't think it would make any difference. Corporations simply refuse to work with open-source anything. I've been trying to get my employer to consider open-sourcing a Linux project we've been working on; not only would the community benefit, but they would be able to reuse quite a bit of GPL'ed code. However, they estimated that developing from scratch would 'only' double the development time, and they would get all the advantages of being able to keep it closed source. (What those advantages are were, I'm afraid, rather unclear.)
1 - I'm pretty safe in saying that a cell phone is not a neccesity in life. People got along for thousands of years without one, and still do today. Yes, I would tell you that you don't need a car, or a computer, either. I don't say they're inherently evil, either, but you don't need one.
2 - If you had actually read the post (instead of immediately going into rant mode) you would have realized that my problem is with people who think that, for the sake of their convenience, should be able to degrade the quality of others' environments. Idiot drivers who don't pay attention because their talking on the phone, or people who jabber on loudly in public places are doing just that. I know that most posters on slashdot think that the times of being considerate to other people is outdated, but some of us would like to live in a rather more pleasant world than that. In other words, if you use your phone appropriately, that's fine by me, but if not, I reserve the right to be an 'arrogant prick'.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty simple. The only group that could realistically put this together is the government. (Corporations have no incentive to do something on that scale.) Pretend you're a politician. Here's a program that we can spend tons of money on now, but will have absolutely no payoff during your lifetime. Can you say political suicide?
From what I understand of fair use, they may be on shaky ground ... it's definately not a review, or something very similar. But I am not a kumquat ... no, that's lawyer ... of course, so I'll just shut up about that.
No good reason, of course; just a thought.
Unless you're the one making the effort, then you have no say in where it may be better spent. Same thing we say to people who complain that we ought to be "building a copy of wind-- I mean, a better GUI" instead of porting Linux to our toasters. If you think that there's something else more worthy of work, then do it instead.
Well ... why not? By all accounts, Mars is just a really big chunk of rock, and nobody's using it at the moment. One crater won't make much of a difference.
It's the same thing we always go through with environmentalists. There's no reason to be afraid of using natural resources. If we always hold off, afraid that we might damage something, we'll never get anything done. As long as the good (scientific data) outweighs the bad (nothing, as far as we know), we should consider it fair game.
No person, or group of them, is completely unbiased. An editorial board is no exception. Since whether or not something is 'biased' is really based on the viewer's perspective, what may seem unbiased to you may seem biased to me. So that's not a reasonable argument for calling this 'not a real' encyclopedia.
Perhaps what you meant is that their particular bias is somewhat less mainstream than that of the typical suit-and-tie editorial board. Probably true. I'm in agreement that RMS is a nut. But does that make the information any less valid? Personally, I think that the more different views of the same information we have, the better.
Yes, this is the type of encyclopedia that I want. Or, rather, it's one of them.
Well, people have been pointing out that speed of light / heat dissapation / etc. might cause problems in making a computer that huge ... although I have thought about (when I get my own place) building my computer into the wall. Imagine ... just open up a panel, and get full access to your computer, nicely laid out, with lots of workspace. Besides, you could save a lot of floor or desk space (I'm always kicking my computer, where I have it now ...
The only way to tell is to try it out. Really.
What would you rather have -- A great OS that only works on your computer, or a great OS that works on every single device known to man? (Note that I said 'great' for each ... assume the quality is the same.) You'd rather it work everywhere, of course, unless you actively dislike the other markets.
Lack of focus is a possible problem, but not neccesarily true. It's also possible that making the code work on many different architectures has helped the design of the kernel as a whole. (I rather believe this to be the case.) But anyway, arguing intellectually about 'I think this would help/hurt the kernel' is rather useless. Find a part of the kernel that has been compromised by lack of focus. That's the backup you need to follow this line of reasoning.
Not that I want to play grammar police ... but calling the internet ".NET" is like giving in to Microsoft, saying, "Yes, you can control the world. We believe in everything you say." So don't try to be clever -- just call it the internet, or, if you want, the net (notice: not period, no capitalization.) Or ARPANET. Or Earth's big LAN party. Or the Information Superhighway, if you have to. Just not .NET.
This guy's got it right. It's never been a good idea to assume that you can keep your stupid actions secret ... just pick up a history book sometime, they're full of people's dumb mistakes. The only way to keep these things private is, unfortunately, to refrain from doing them.
(Of course, my knowledge of this stuff runs about as far as yours, so it's possible that this isn't a problem/is unsolvable/is useless. But leave that judgement to the experts.)
"a chunk of code that performs some task?" We got those -- them's a relatively unknown C contruct, called a -- dagnabbit, what's it called ... oh, yeah -- function. Yeah, you can make an object out of just about everything, if you feel like it ... but that doesn't make it the best way to go. I absolutely cannot see how simply surrounding functions with an object-oriented architecture is helpful. That's what I was trying to point out.
Well, OOP should be used for things where the data structures resemble (in some way) real-world objects. For instance, games and other things that simulate physics can benefit from object-oriented design. Databases with dissimilar chunks of data might be easier to deal with using OOP. It may be helpful to represent other computers or programs as objects, in applications that require large amounts of intercommunication and response.
OOP essentially downplays procedural programming, but (at least I) tend to find many things procedural, which would have to be twisted up to fit into the OO paradigm. Anything that does an easily-definable process, such as most system utilities and so forth, is probably not suited for OOP. Back to games, I recently wrote a 'roguelike' game: although the code dealing with monsters and items was somewhat object-oriented, the game logic itself was procedural. Programs that primarily deal with large amounts of raw data should probably deal with it in a procedural rather than OO manner.
There are problems where OOP is good, and problems where it's not such a good idea. If you insist on using one or the other, pick those problems that it's suited for. I admit that I have some real problems with object-oriented programming's approach to things, but I don't want to convince people to give it up. Just don't make me do it. (That's the main reason why I chose not to do CS in school.)
I've even found that I get metamodded for knocking up any post with a tone that's tolerant to corporations or the government, or advocates MS in any way. Unfortunately, I haven't yet found a good place with a smaller proportion of close-minded wackos, so I stay here.
(I hope I kept the A's and B's straight there.)
If they're well-known, start using them. Convert your car to use a renewable resource. Stop using your computer, to reduce the amount of oil that has to be burned to create your power. Donate money to researchers who try to make things better. Heck, just go outside and pick up a load or two of trash ... it seems to me that litter is a much bigger problem than the unlikely possibility of a small amount of a slightly radioactive material being released into the air. You can join Greenpeace and demonstate if you want to, but if you spend your time doing that rather than actually attempting to help the environment, you're a hypocrite and a whiner.
There's always someone who will protest. Fortunately, most of the people who protest don't actually care ... they just want something to whine about. It makes them feel good to claim that they're protecting the environment. Note that you rarely see them actually working on the problems of getting energy, or trying to find ways that we can "save the environment" without harming the human race. Instead, they spend most of their time filing lawsuits, chaining themselves to trees, and distributing pamphlets.
Anyway, I never could see why people get so worried about us using up all of our oil. It's all simple economics: right now, it doesn't make sense to look for a new fuel source. We have plenty of oil, and it's not doing any good where it is. When it becomes too expensive to obtain, we'll find another energy source real fast.
No, what Red Hat does /is/ that what the community does. It's about making everything easier at the expense of configurability. It's about
supporting more stuff at the expense of stability or code correctness.
Um ... this runs completely counter to what you were saying about fragmentation by the community because of all the different distributions. If Red Hat defined what the community did, then we'd all be using essentially the same system. Although RH is the most popular distribution, and admittedly has quite a bit of clout, we don't follow them blindly.
Now, something that would show that these people have some morals would be if, (assuming they won anywhere near such a ridiculous amount), they were to take out whatever money they actually lost, pay the lawyers, and then give the rest to charity. That way, they've been dealt with fairly, microsoft has been punished, and some good has been done as well. Unfortunately, you rarely (if ever) hear of something like this, because, as a general rule, people are greedy.
But guns don't have to be an all-or-nothing thing. There can be restrictions without banning the right to use or carry a gun.
The reason why gun laws are important is the permanance of being dead. (Well, duh.) Commonly those who whine about gun laws say that nothing's been done wrong until you shoot someone else. That's true enough; I can't think of anything morally wrong with taking a machine gun out in your backyard and practicing some target shooting. However, jail time or execution for a criminal is poor consolation for someone who's been killed.
Restricting the power of guns, instituting delays in recieving them, mandating trigger locks, and so forth, don't harm your ability to protect yourself or to enjoy a sport, but they can help prevent tragedies, whether it's a criminal or accidental shooting. People can get around the laws, and guns aren't the only way to kill, I admit. But it's easier to obey the laws; it's easier to use a gun.
I'll always fight for your right to own or carry a gun, but safety deserves its measures as well.
Who's forcing you to live in a country with no taxes? (We'll ignore the fact that you're in Canada, and pretend that this argument actually matters.) Why should you assert that those who want lower taxes should be the ones to leave? If public sentiment wants lower taxes you don't like it, get out. Find a near-socialist country and have a nice life.
Meanwhile, I'll happily pay my taxes to the govt' of Canada, secure in the knowledge that that money pays for good public schools, great roads, and the best damn health care system on the planet,
Although it may be different in Canada, I certainly haven't seen the money being wisely spent. I'm generally not opposed to the ideals of most government-sponsored programs, even welfare and so forth, but I hardly think that the top-heavy beauracracy in nearly all government programs benefits me or the general public. Why should I give my money to the government and let them grab half of it before giving it back?
And I *am* working to better myself. Don't you dare accuse me of being lazy.
Nobody accused you of being lazy. Getting an education is a fine pursuit. However, you seem to be a little deluded as to why we get money. We recieve money in exchange for providing goods or services to others ... in most cases, by providing labor of some sort for our employers. It's not just something you should recieve for 'bettering yourself'. The reason you have money now is with the understanding that your education will prove useful to the nation, and is therefore worth the cost.
I simply believe in helping others in their times of need. Why is sharing such a difficult concept for some people to understand?
Sharing is a voluntary action. Taxes are not. I have no problem with sharing some of my (rather limited) funds with others. However, I believe that I can do a better job of it than an enormous government. If Joe on the Street wants a meal, he should come ask me for some money, not go to the government and ask them to take my money at gunpoint. The purpose of taxes should be to fund projects that cannot be done by smaller entities: road construction, etc. They shouldn't be to distribute my money to other people; that's robbery.
If it's GPL'ed, MS and the gang won't touch it. If it's really significantly better than current codecs, they'll use the specification, write their own version, change and close-source it again. It will take a little longer, but the end result is the same.
Ideally, I'd prefer that this was GPL'ed (this is sort of a moot point; it looks as though this whole thing is probably a bit of a scam, but anyway...), but I don't think it would make any difference. Corporations simply refuse to work with open-source anything. I've been trying to get my employer to consider open-sourcing a Linux project we've been working on; not only would the community benefit, but they would be able to reuse quite a bit of GPL'ed code. However, they estimated that developing from scratch would 'only' double the development time, and they would get all the advantages of being able to keep it closed source. (What those advantages are were, I'm afraid, rather unclear.)
2 - If you had actually read the post (instead of immediately going into rant mode) you would have realized that my problem is with people who think that, for the sake of their convenience, should be able to degrade the quality of others' environments. Idiot drivers who don't pay attention because their talking on the phone, or people who jabber on loudly in public places are doing just that. I know that most posters on slashdot think that the times of being considerate to other people is outdated, but some of us would like to live in a rather more pleasant world than that. In other words, if you use your phone appropriately, that's fine by me, but if not, I reserve the right to be an 'arrogant prick'.