The article is silly and lacks any depth of understanding of the real issues.
In the 80's you had to be near a landline phone and only a small handful of people in academics and the research community used email.
In the 90's if you worked in IT and spent a non-trivial amount of time on the road or on-call, you had to carry a pocket pager *and* a cell phone. It wasn't until the late 90's that email became ubiquitous, and even then it was still limited to 9-5 in the office environment.
In the "00" decade, many different initiatives came along to merge all that stuff into one thing, so that it's no longer about the device or the communications medium, it's about just being in communication period. The Blackberry is simply the most successful example of that.
The real "killer app" aspect of the BB is that you can take all your possible methods of being interrupted, route them through a single device, and then turn that device off when you no longer wish to be interrupted. It gives you the power. What you do with that power is entirely your choice.
The other killer app is the ability to merge your email and cell phone address lists and have them update instantly and on-the-fly thru the wireless network. This is just the fulfillment of "computer-telephony integration" that we have been promised for the past 20 years. BB was the first one to make it into a real product that people could benefit from.
Saying that a new technology invites rude or disruptive behavior is nothing new. There were many people who thought electric lighting was evil because decent people should not be working after the sun went down. That problem won't be going away, unfortunately.
I would argue that the reason BlackBerry has been so successful is that it lets you route all the different interruption channels into a single device, which you have with you all the time and can view them all at a glance and decide what you want to deal with. Plus you get to configure which things you want to alert on (incoming calls, emails, IM messages), and what not to bother you about until you dig into the device and check for yourself.
It's paradoxical, but the effect of this is actually freeing. It puts you in complete control of the time and manner in which you choose to be interrupted.
That's the "killer app" aspect of the BlackBerry in a nutshell.
This is no different than BitKeeper
on
Microsoft Sues EU
·
· Score: 1
Being told you "have to" interoperate with Open Source is not trivial.
It seems like Star Trek's problem was that it was a Paramount property and was at the mercy of corporate decision-making, which means having a "creative vision" is just a luxury that can be dispensed with. B5's problem was that it never really had corporate backing therefore JMS was at the mercy of the problems that come from limited financing. You basically have to eat sh*t in hollywood when you don't have enough backing and you're just at people's mercy to finance you. B5 was successful but never quite successful enough to give JMS the clout he needed to see it through, and this is just another chapter in that story. The only other alternative is to self-finance like George Lucas does, and the fact that he has more money than God means we get movies that reflect his vision, but also his absolute need for control. So which of those three devils do you sell your soul to?
Well where a lot of us "are" (like me) is still on RH9 wondering what path to take when we absolutely need to go to a 2.6 distro. Fedora was seen as a take-away when it came out and I don't see that situation changing in any real way. They should give back what they took away, that is, a free-as-in-beer distro that represents the best of what Red Hat and the community process has to offer. Either do that or walk away.
Don't treat us like we're stupid. We spend a lot of time getting used to the "flavor" of a distro and you can't just change all that around and expect us to take it. We want the old Red Hat back. We want an RH10 distro or something very close to it.
That's actually a good idea. After they address the "Klingons With Smooth Foreheads" issue they can explain the logic that led up to female federation crew (officers and starfleet included) having to wear miniskirts.
Seriously, if any future Trek episode has to address the issue of a female captain in the TOS universe they will have to cross paths with this question. They sort of touched on it in that one DS9 Tribble episode but only because Terry Farrell looked way hot in that outfit...
I hope this doesn't get modded down to "Flamebait".
Can someone help my understand why people in India and Pakistan are so touchy about Kashmir? I really want to understand this. Sorry if the mere asking of this question offends anyone. That is not my intent. All I know is what I saw in the "Gandhi" movie. It seems very sad that there is still conflict more than 50 years later...
I appreciate what you're saying, but I can't get past the fact that we haven't had any real breakthroughs since the birth of the Atomic and Computer ages 40-50 years ago. Great stuff like the Internet is just the deployment of stuff that was invented more than 30 years ago.
My biggest fear is that one of those yet-to-be breakthroughs I described in my earlier post has already happened but that information is being withheld from the general public.
So... maybe you are right. I'm just waiting for the proof. Give me a flying car and a Dick Tracy watch (with video AND audio please) and I'll be happy.
To be honest, I really hate articles like this. I predict that the future will be pretty much like the present only with more people and more problems.
SF utopians please note:
- With regards to the human brain, we are just barely getting started. We can't cure or even partially remedy any of the diseases related to brain/nerve damage (strokes, Alzheimer's, cord injuries). The idea that we will ever be able to create Matrix-style VR or "upload" people's minds is just wishful thinking at this point.
- We haven't solved the strong AI problem (P=NP).
- We haven't solved the problem of getting spaceships into orbit without using bulky multi-stage rockets and ungodly amounts of fuel. No one really knows how we will get to Mars let alone past the Solar System.
- We haven't solved the basic unification problem in Physics (reconciling QM with GR so we can have some clue about the nature of gravity). Fifty years after Einstein's death we are still working on the same riddles he left behind.
- We haven't solved the energy problem. Sustainable fusion keeps getting pushed further back each decade.
- And, more fundamentally, we haven't solved the problem of our own natures. Every time we have a technological breakthrough the first thing we worry about is someone using it to blow us all up. The "Star Trek" ideal that Earth will eventually be a unified planet is, well, just turn on the news, folks...
Let's all try to work on that stuff before we start worrying about Verner Vinge-style singularities. Okay thanks...
Forgive me if this sounds clueless, but most people who are given the task of setting up a web site are going to be looking at ways to not have to do it from scratch. There are a lot of CMS (Content Management Systems) out there, some free, some not. What *I* really need is an O'Reilly book about CMS that helps wade through all the stuff that's out there right now so the reader (me) can make an informed decision about which way to go.
I did a quick check of the O'Reilly web site and all their CMS info revolves around XML and Java. This does not help me.
The difference between the brain and the heart is that we understand how the heart works in detail. Treating the hippocampus like a "black box" will probably not work. This just begs the question of how the brain works, which we still don't know. I would never let someone open up my skull and implant something if they couldn't explain how and why it works. Sorry but this is not news, just some promising research combined with wishful thinking.
There have been a few startups that tried to do the "PayPal thing" better, but they all failed because the overhead required to track down and prevent fraud is prohibitive for a venture-backed start-up, and the big banking industry players don't want the competition to their lucrative credit card revenue model.
Until a brilliant entrepeneur comes up with a vision and a plan to solve the problem I just stated, micropayments will simply not happen.
The ideal setup would probably be some major traditional banks stepping up and providing this service.
Yes, and this is precisely the reason why it won't happen. Do you really think the major banking institutions want to be burdened with this? This is exactly where the discussion breaks down becaise the vast majority of people are totally ignorant of what it takes to set up a reliable payment system and make it profitable while protecting against fraud and allowing the consumer an avenue of recourse when they get ripped off which will inevitably happen. There have been at least a half-dozen startups that tried to compete with Paypal and they all floundered over this exact issue. THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS!!!
I think one of the things people are reacting to here is, given how funny and clever Galaxy Quest was (and how positively audiences reacted to it), people were sort of expecting the Trek powers that be to get a clue, and they obviously didn't.
> Now, the work "Universe" means "everything that is."
No, the word "cosmos" means "everything that is." That's why the study of the nature of the universe is called "cosmology".
A more useful definition of "universe" is "the four-dimensional space-time manifold within which everything observable to human beings exists". It's possible that other universes exist but no evidence is available for this, nor any theory or thought-experiment or anything else that could pull this idea out of the realm of pure speculation, and into the realm where any actual "science" can be done about it.
However IANAP and I'm sure others my have more useful definitions.
Slashdot Mirror
The article is silly and lacks any depth of understanding of the real
issues.
In the 80's you had to be near a landline phone and only a small
handful of people in academics and the research community used email.
In the 90's if you worked in IT and spent a non-trivial amount of time
on the road or on-call, you had to carry a pocket pager *and* a cell
phone. It wasn't until the late 90's that email became ubiquitous,
and even then it was still limited to 9-5 in the office environment.
In the "00" decade, many different initiatives came along to merge all
that stuff into one thing, so that it's no longer about the device or
the communications medium, it's about just being in communication
period. The Blackberry is simply the most successful example of that.
The real "killer app" aspect of the BB is that you can take all your
possible methods of being interrupted, route them through a single
device, and then turn that device off when you no longer wish to be
interrupted. It gives you the power. What you do with that power is
entirely your choice.
The other killer app is the ability to merge your email and cell phone
address lists and have them update instantly and on-the-fly thru the
wireless network. This is just the fulfillment of "computer-telephony
integration" that we have been promised for the past 20 years. BB was
the first one to make it into a real product that people could benefit
from.
Saying that a new technology invites rude or disruptive behavior is
nothing new. There were many people who thought electric lighting was
evil because decent people should not be working after the sun went
down. That problem won't be going away, unfortunately.
... is that Mormons aren't as hung up on anti-Darwinism as the Evangelicals are.
I would argue that the reason BlackBerry has been so successful is
that it lets you route all the different interruption channels into a
single device, which you have with you all the time and can view them
all at a glance and decide what you want to deal with. Plus you get
to configure which things you want to alert on (incoming calls, emails,
IM messages), and what not to bother you about until you dig into the
device and check for yourself.
It's paradoxical, but the effect of this is actually freeing. It puts
you in complete control of the time and manner in which you choose to
be interrupted.
That's the "killer app" aspect of the BlackBerry in a nutshell.
Being told you "have to" interoperate with Open Source is not trivial.
It seems like Star Trek's problem was that it was a Paramount property
and was at the mercy of corporate decision-making, which means having
a "creative vision" is just a luxury that can be dispensed with. B5's
problem was that it never really had corporate backing therefore JMS
was at the mercy of the problems that come from limited financing.
You basically have to eat sh*t in hollywood when you don't have enough
backing and you're just at people's mercy to finance you. B5 was
successful but never quite successful enough to give JMS the clout he
needed to see it through, and this is just another chapter in that
story. The only other alternative is to self-finance like George
Lucas does, and the fact that he has more money than God means we get
movies that reflect his vision, but also his absolute need for
control. So which of those three devils do you sell your soul to?
path to take when we absolutely need to go to a 2.6 distro. Fedora
was seen as a take-away when it came out and I don't see that
situation changing in any real way. They should give back what they
took away, that is, a free-as-in-beer distro that represents the best
of what Red Hat and the community process has to offer. Either do
that or walk away.
Don't treat us like we're stupid. We spend a lot of time getting used
to the "flavor" of a distro and you can't just change all that around
and expect us to take it. We want the old Red Hat back. We want an
RH10 distro or something very close to it.
Of course I am not holding my breath.
That's actually a good idea. After they address the "Klingons With
Smooth Foreheads" issue they can explain the logic that led up to
female federation crew (officers and starfleet included) having to
wear miniskirts.
Seriously, if any future Trek episode has to address the issue of a
female captain in the TOS universe they will have to cross paths with
this question. They sort of touched on it in that one DS9 Tribble
episode but only because Terry Farrell looked way hot in that
outfit...
Agreed, yes, that is the question... And it's been the question since Chandler was first announced in 2002...
I hope this doesn't get modded down to "Flamebait".
Can someone help my understand why people in India and Pakistan are so
touchy about Kashmir? I really want to understand this. Sorry if the
mere asking of this question offends anyone. That is not my intent.
All I know is what I saw in the "Gandhi" movie. It seems very sad that
there is still conflict more than 50 years later...
When do we get Perl 6? Do we think it will be sometime in 2006? 2007?
How much longer before the current work on Parrot and Ponie bear fruit that regular people can use?
I want to start playing with the OO stuff from Apocalypse 12. I want it NOW!
It seems like no one's talking about this... Are there any dates at all?
It seems like Larry's talk had no content becuase everything that's going on now is too abstract and behind the scenes.
The 5.8 and 5.9 codelines are moving along, Perl 6 is still in design/pre-alpha, and that's all for now. Later...
I appreciate what you're saying, but I can't get past the fact that we
haven't had any real breakthroughs since the birth of the Atomic and
Computer ages 40-50 years ago. Great stuff like the Internet is just
the deployment of stuff that was invented more than 30 years ago.
My biggest fear is that one of those yet-to-be breakthroughs I
described in my earlier post has already happened but that information
is being withheld from the general public.
So... maybe you are right. I'm just waiting for the proof. Give me a
flying car and a Dick Tracy watch (with video AND audio please) and
I'll be happy.
To be honest, I really hate articles like this. I predict that the
future will be pretty much like the present only with more people and
more problems.
SF utopians please note:
- With regards to the human brain, we are just barely getting started.
We can't cure or even partially remedy any of the diseases related to
brain/nerve damage (strokes, Alzheimer's, cord injuries). The idea
that we will ever be able to create Matrix-style VR or "upload"
people's minds is just wishful thinking at this point.
- We haven't solved the strong AI problem (P=NP).
- We haven't solved the problem of getting spaceships into orbit
without using bulky multi-stage rockets and ungodly amounts of fuel.
No one really knows how we will get to Mars let alone past the Solar
System.
- We haven't solved the basic unification problem in Physics
(reconciling QM with GR so we can have some clue about the nature of
gravity). Fifty years after Einstein's death we are still working on
the same riddles he left behind.
- We haven't solved the energy problem. Sustainable fusion keeps
getting pushed further back each decade.
- And, more fundamentally, we haven't solved the problem of our own
natures. Every time we have a technological breakthrough the first
thing we worry about is someone using it to blow us all up. The "Star
Trek" ideal that Earth will eventually be a unified planet is, well,
just turn on the news, folks...
Let's all try to work on that stuff before we start worrying about
Verner Vinge-style singularities. Okay thanks...
When they drop the disposables that will be news.
"Except for disposables" is a pretty big except. They sell a lot of those things.
This one is good...
Unix Fire Extinguisher
These two are also pretty funny:
Apple Evil
Connection reset by peer
Thanks for the replies.
Forgive me if this sounds clueless, but most people who are given the
task of setting up a web site are going to be looking at ways to not
have to do it from scratch. There are a lot of CMS (Content
Management Systems) out there, some free, some not. What *I* really
need is an O'Reilly book about CMS that helps wade through all the
stuff that's out there right now so the reader (me) can make an
informed decision about which way to go.
I did a quick check of the O'Reilly web site and all their CMS info
revolves around XML and Java. This does not help me.
For more information, contact me.
Arpanet mail:
RMS@MIT-MC.ARPA
Usenet:
Raise your hand if you ever had a "bang-path" email address. For that matter, raise your hand if you know what a bang-path address is.
This was always my favorite re-telling of the story... From David Goodstein at Caltech...
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/fusion_art.html
The difference between the brain and the heart is that we understand
how the heart works in detail. Treating the hippocampus like a "black
box" will probably not work. This just begs the question of how the
brain works, which we still don't know. I would never let someone
open up my skull and implant something if they couldn't explain how
and why it works. Sorry but this is not news, just some promising
research combined with wishful thinking.
Yes Larry Niven intersected with Trek...
This really trips me out...
It shows programmers working their asses off on some new communications system...
Thank you for hitting the nail on the head.
There have been a few startups that tried to do the "PayPal thing"
better, but they all failed because the overhead required to track down
and prevent fraud is prohibitive for a venture-backed start-up, and
the big banking industry players don't want the competition to their
lucrative credit card revenue model.
Until a brilliant entrepeneur comes up with a vision and a plan to
solve the problem I just stated, micropayments will simply not happen.
The ideal setup would probably be some major traditional banks
stepping up and providing this service.
Yes, and this is precisely the reason why it won't happen. Do you
really think the major banking institutions want to be burdened with
this? This is exactly where the discussion breaks down becaise the
vast majority of people are totally ignorant of what it takes to set
up a reliable payment system and make it profitable while protecting
against fraud and allowing the consumer an avenue of recourse when
they get ripped off which will inevitably happen. There have been at
least a half-dozen startups that tried to compete with Paypal and they
all floundered over this exact issue. THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS!!!
I think one of the things people are reacting to here is, given how
funny and clever Galaxy Quest was (and how positively audiences
reacted to it), people were sort of expecting the Trek powers that be
to get a clue, and they obviously didn't.
> Now, the work "Universe" means "everything that is."
No, the word "cosmos" means "everything that is." That's why the
study of the nature of the universe is called "cosmology".
A more useful definition of "universe" is "the four-dimensional
space-time manifold within which everything observable to human beings
exists". It's possible that other universes exist but no evidence is
available for this, nor any theory or thought-experiment or anything
else that could pull this idea out of the realm of pure speculation,
and into the realm where any actual "science" can be done about it.
However IANAP and I'm sure others my have more useful definitions.