First, let me congratulate the dedicated people behind this. Yes well done. You have taken an free OS to port it to another free OS.
But,
*puts on flame proof suit*
What does this change? From what I have heard, the software in FreeBSD is hard to use, lame, feature poor, etc..
What does this change in the world of lets say 99% of desktop users? Yes, I know that people here love Linux, and love seeing application being ported on the platform.
But is this innovative? Or just reinventing the wheel in a brilliant but useless way?
The collective Linux brains should be coding something to convert the Windoze through sheer abundance of feature.
You have heard this before. Make it simple. I am smart. But not everyone is. As much as I love going into Mandrake to do thing, it is all too true. Linux is still an obstacle to productivity for average people.
Does FreeBSD change this? Somehow I don't think so.
Aiming for new features, innovation and simplicity. The architecture of Linux is well capable of handling these.
It will take a long time to win this war. Now if at the very beginning, citizens are willing to let their rights be impeded upon, as each incident builds, we'll find more and more people asking to take away our freedom.
Clearly there cannot be anything good coming out of this. Seriously. A lot of people have already pointed out that additional security measure will not stop the terrorists from communicating, from attempting assaults. Sure, the measures may make their lives more difficult. But consider the cost to ourselves. We will work ourselves to exhaustion in trying to stop the terrorist. And when fatigue sets in, and the collective mind relaxes our defenses, bam we get hit again.
The stress is just too much, the paranoia too great.
Look at what the war on drug has done. Ripped families apart, thousands jailed, a vast bureaucracy, and so much hate. What these people need is rehabilitation. I know, my dad is an addict.
The same with this war on terrorism. These people have been hurt by the US. Badly. But we never acknowledge our wrong doings. Hey guys! Remember the footage of the happy palestinians a week ago on CNN? Fake! These pictures were from 1991! The governement is only too happy that the criticism has stopped, the people have united and the rallying cry is Blood, blood, blood. Now we should be looking at what went wrong, and what the US has done, and correcting those mistakes. That is to REPENT, instead of REMEMBERING! Remebering will only cause the pain to linger...
And for the guy that said that the Internet should not be private, because there is no physical equivalent to total secure communication. That is precisely why the Internet is such a great place. This is a way for all of us to express our concerns in the safety of our privacy. Now, if all that I write can be spied upon, do you think you will be as likely to critize? And if you where a federal employee, would you talk about the things that go on inside if even during your off hours, you could be watched?
The real fight is control of information. DMCA, SSSA, and now anti-terrorism.
We are being herded to begin this war.It is simple to see this. Can american intelligence completely fail so much as not a single warning being heard? Can strong cryptography really be the solution?
In fact, we know nothing of the methods used by the alleged terrorists. They could have used many variation of current technology. They could have passed information in the simplest way possible, with a messenger.
All that has occured. Think about this. Who has the most to gain? The beginning of this war is the justification to strike at this invisible enemy.
Using weak encryption to remove privacy is the key to surveillance. After all, if the governement can watch every email how can we claim it is secure?
It will be tremendously easier to find *any* person who disagrees with the government. And I believe a fair size of the slashdotters have something of an anti-establishment stance. Rightly so in my opinion.
It is obvious also that the passage of the SSSA (I think), the companion of the DMCA will for all purpose enable private institution to completely control all information flow in our society.
Of course, I think all the readers here understand the problem I am talking about in a way or in another. But let me reiterate in simpler words.
We know not how the terrorist work.
We will allow the government to assume totalitarian power on information.
The general public has already been sold on the need for war.
It is only logical that when this conflict escalates, the USA wish to introduce a *reliable* way to identify people. Anyone wants a chip implant?
It seems very obvious now that the old dinosaurs of economy were afraid for their survival. They waited to see what would come of it.
When they saw only a disorganised rabble, they knew that the time was right to start making "sense" out of this communication medium.
So, the perfect excuse is to make the Internet safer. Make it impossible to use without governement approved (industry-backed) computers.
The corporations then get to control the whole of the hardware infrastructure, given about ten years after this law passes.
After that, there is complete control of the flow of information available. At the push of a button, MP3's and all form of digital copyrigth will be eliminated.
Don't forget that the original copyright laws stated a duration of 14 years. This has been extented, by the corporations, to 70 after death of creator.
And with a solid infrastructure to control and police individuals, it will be advantagous to extend it even more.
I live in Canada, but I don't think it will be too long before our government bends to the pressure.
Fight this monster, kill all it's children.
This attempts to restrict the flow of information, the only thing that could topple the powers that be.
Sorry again it seems I am among the last to write and the day is up, so not many people will read this.
I think that the comparaison between the two models rely on a complex decision process. The Microsoft machine could actually be good. Here is why. The average consummer looking for a machine will look at features. This one compared to this one. They will look at what it can do. I am sorry to say, but the ability to walk with a box that plays sound is cool. I would love see extensions for the Palm to do it. And video. Who would love to show the moment baby took his first step? Le consommateur. That is the box advantage. The problem is the way software is developped on both system. Many programmers know the palm. It is simple clean interface that could use some improvements but that is all. No frills. Microsoft is the large and cumbersome:';;;SUITE;":": OFFICE ":L"L BlOatED::: Of course people want safety, so people will complain about the crash, but Microsoft will have no choice but to enhance the software so to avoid crashing. They will give more access to software so little compagnies will latch on and make little software. That as always been Microsoft problem. Write small code for small machine. Maybe they should open their archives and look at the ancient apple II basic and how that worked. Without crashing. SO to resume, little applications come from little compagnies, big apps from big dough. You decide what you need. But eventually, people will need more power in their portable, to talk to it, use it to send voice mail And as electronic shrinks, palm will be smaller, more efficient and more featured. So microsoft has a head start. Now, lets watch their efforts.
I have read in a book about neural systems that the most logical way to create AI is to duplicate the system we have in our brains. Unfortunately, this will cause AI to have to same behavioral problems as ourselves, forgetting stuff, not being great at calculations, having emotions. Thus, when we do create AI, and the time required is relative to the computing power at our disposal, when we do create them, and they turn out just like us, with the same emotional difficulties, how will we deal with them? Prisons for AI? Deletion for unwanted behavior? Cyberpsychologist?
On a more fundamental level, we should ask ourselves what is the real purpose of AI. Is it to enhance ourselves, our lives, or a challenge of our ingenuity?
Le génome humain est, pratiquement, la technologie qui a le plus de potentiel pour transformer nos vies. Avec celle-ci, nous serons en mesure de comprendre les processus de la vie. Il est aussi évident que cette nouvelle source de pouvoir risque d'échapper à notre controle. Le dilemme est donc de savoir si nous sommes assez sage pour utiliser a bonne fin cet outil de transformation. Certains chantent l'arrivé d'une ère de changement. D'autres croient que la répression des différences pourraient appauvrir la somme humaine. Nous pouvons considérer, sur un point de vue biologique que le total des différences génétiques de notre race est un avantage considérable qui nous permet à des individues d'évoluer là ou d'autres trouveraient la mort. L'élimination des caratéristiques indésirables pourraient nous mener à une autre crise. Le nouveau genre humain, nettoyé de ses imperfections pourrait devenir stérile, c'est à dire, incapable de continuer son évolution. Par contre, si de pleine conscience, les êtres humains décident d'étudier en profondeur le processus créatif de la vie, alors le plein potentiel de ces nouvelles connaisances pourrait bénificier à tout les êtres vivants. Un exemple. Les producteurs de nourritures de grandes envergures détiennent les compagnies de fertilisants et de pesticides. Pour le moment présent, ce sont elles qui investissent le plus dans ce type de recherche. Elles ont créés de nouveaux type de plantes qui sont plus productives. Dans le passé, ce type d'amélioration était faite avec des croisements naturels entre un male et une femelle de meilleur classe. De nos jours, les gênes de croissances sont stimulés pour augmenter la taille et la vitesse de ces plantes. Par contre, elles deviennent plus fragile: la croissance rapide n'a pas permit le développement normal. Sachant donc que leurs produits est de qualité douteuse, elles vendent aussi les engrais et les pesticides plus puissants. Un tel phénomène pourrait se produire pour les humains. Améliorer, mais déficiant, nous serons plus forts, mais moins stables. En meilleur santé, mais sujet a des crises communes de santé. Le problème ici n'est pas l'utilisation des nouvelles technologies. On peut douter en effet que ces institutions alimentaires acceptent d'arrêter ce type de recherche. Mais on peut souhaiter qu'elles comprennent mieux le contexte humain. En investissant, elles recherchent le profit. Mais au lieu de trouver une amélioration et de la pousser au maximum, comme elles font présentement, on peut imaginer une recherche plus approfondie sur les vastes systèmes biologiques. Ainsi, nous pourrons mieux comprendre l'ensemble du phénomène. Et quand vient le temps d'apporter des modifications, nous saurons exactement comment les faire et pas plus. Les anglophones ont pour expression " If it's not broke, don't fix it.", ce qui pourrait s'appliquer ici. Le genre de recherche nécessaire est très simple. Mais comment stimuler ce genre de recherche? Les gouvernements sont impuissants devant des entreprises qui peuvent se déplacer pour trouver de meilleur terrain d'études. Au mieux, on peut imaginer que tous les gouvernement interdiraient. Mais cela ne peut être la solution. Les militaires continueront assurément la recherche, pour produire des armes plus puissantes, des médicaments pour soutenir leurs troupes. D'une application générale, le contrôle passe dans la main d'une minorité. Avec le temps, les améliorations développées sauront ne bénificier qu'eux. La prohibition de recherche est écartée. Explorons maintenant la possibilité inverse, soit la recherche permise sur tout les fronts. Ici, le problème est l'économie de marché. Des innovations qui sont gardées secrètes car le produit qu'elles remplaceraient vaut plus cher. Ici, l'accès à l'information est le vrai problème. Les compagnies se croient protégées par les loi sur la confidentialité. C'est vrai pour un certain temps. Cependant, les efforts fait pour protéger cette information (et découvrir ce que font les autres compagnies!) les éloignent de leurs missions principales. Le secret qui entoure deux entreprises adverses qui recherchent la même solution n'est que nuisible. Au niveau de la conscience, celle qui dirige la science, la sagesse nous indique un chemin. La coopération est plus puissante. Comprendre les moindres détails du corps humains ne pourra nous être utile sans partage. 04 mars 2000
We are poorly placed to understand the transformation going on in the third world countries. The new media of Internet makes little sense when it is out of financial reach for individual. To have access to the Internet is by no mean an impossible task, no matter where an individual is. In third world countries,priority is often placed on day to day life, as it should be. Since surfers across the world are becoming more web-savy, they will look to design as the first indication of the worth of visit of a third world web site. The Internet is before all a statement of individual. It is individualistic. One person, in front of one screen. One mouse to surf. Where is the community? The community is everywhere and has no shape. Further, social changes, as I pressume the post targeted China, will not happen unless dissatisfaction rises. While we have been striving for democracy, chinese social problems have a totaly different value system. The political system does not matter as much. The pratical, day-to-day is what matters most. And the attitude towards change is different. Chinese are patient. They will wait until the time is right. They see our acceleration as something that will pass. They are a culture that has lasted for thousand of years. Social changes are more likely for our own nation. We are more axed for rapid change, and are currently in economic and social transformation. And Internet is much more likely to be available to the average citizen. In fact the instant visibility of the Internet is both a blessing and a curse. Never has the potential for decentralized governement being so strong. Through technology, the articulation of local needs can be effectively heard.
Slashdot Mirror
First, let me congratulate the dedicated people behind this. Yes well done. You have taken an free OS to port it to another free OS.
But,
*puts on flame proof suit*
What does this change? From what I have heard, the software in FreeBSD is hard to use, lame, feature poor, etc..
What does this change in the world of lets say 99% of desktop users? Yes, I know that people here love Linux, and love seeing application being ported on the platform.
But is this innovative? Or just reinventing the wheel in a brilliant but useless way?
The collective Linux brains should be coding something to convert the Windoze through sheer abundance of feature.
You have heard this before. Make it simple. I am smart. But not everyone is. As much as I love going into Mandrake to do thing, it is all too true. Linux is still an obstacle to productivity for average people.
Does FreeBSD change this? Somehow I don't think so.
Aiming for new features, innovation and simplicity. The architecture of Linux is well capable of handling these.
And yes I am leaving my flame proof suit on..
It will take a long time to win this war. Now if at the very beginning, citizens are willing to let their rights be impeded upon, as each incident builds, we'll find more and more people asking to take away our freedom.
Clearly there cannot be anything good coming out of this. Seriously. A lot of people have already pointed out that additional security measure will not stop the terrorists from communicating, from attempting assaults. Sure, the measures may make their lives more difficult. But consider the cost to ourselves. We will work ourselves to exhaustion in trying to stop the terrorist. And when fatigue sets in, and the collective mind relaxes our defenses, bam we get hit again.
The stress is just too much, the paranoia too great.
Look at what the war on drug has done. Ripped families apart, thousands jailed, a vast bureaucracy, and so much hate. What these people need is rehabilitation. I know, my dad is an addict.
The same with this war on terrorism. These people have been hurt by the US. Badly. But we never acknowledge our wrong doings. Hey guys! Remember the footage of the happy palestinians a week ago on CNN? Fake! These pictures were from 1991! The governement is only too happy that the criticism has stopped, the people have united and the rallying cry is Blood, blood, blood. Now we should be looking at what went wrong, and what the US has done, and correcting those mistakes. That is to REPENT, instead of REMEMBERING! Remebering will only cause the pain to linger...
And for the guy that said that the Internet should not be private, because there is no physical equivalent to total secure communication. That is precisely why the Internet is such a great place. This is a way for all of us to express our concerns in the safety of our privacy. Now, if all that I write can be spied upon, do you think you will be as likely to critize? And if you where a federal employee, would you talk about the things that go on inside if even during your off hours, you could be watched?
The real fight is control of information. DMCA, SSSA, and now anti-terrorism.
Let's all be slaves paying for our chains.
We are being herded to begin this war.It is simple to see this. Can american intelligence completely fail so much as not a single warning being heard? Can strong cryptography really be the solution?
In fact, we know nothing of the methods used by the alleged terrorists. They could have used many variation of current technology. They could have passed information in the simplest way possible, with a messenger.
All that has occured. Think about this. Who has the most to gain? The beginning of this war is the justification to strike at this invisible enemy.
Using weak encryption to remove privacy is the key to surveillance. After all, if the governement can watch every email how can we claim it is secure?
It will be tremendously easier to find *any* person who disagrees with the government. And I believe a fair size of the slashdotters have something of an anti-establishment stance. Rightly so in my opinion.
It is obvious also that the passage of the SSSA (I think), the companion of the DMCA will for all purpose enable private institution to completely control all information flow in our society.
Of course, I think all the readers here understand the problem I am talking about in a way or in another. But let me reiterate in simpler words.
We know not how the terrorist work.
We will allow the government to assume totalitarian power on information.
The general public has already been sold on the need for war.
It is only logical that when this conflict escalates, the USA wish to introduce a *reliable* way to identify people. Anyone wants a chip implant?
It seems very obvious now that the old dinosaurs of economy were afraid for their survival. They waited to see what would come of it.
When they saw only a disorganised rabble, they knew that the time was right to start making "sense" out of this communication medium.
So, the perfect excuse is to make the Internet safer. Make it impossible to use without governement approved (industry-backed) computers.
The corporations then get to control the whole of the hardware infrastructure, given about ten years after this law passes.
After that, there is complete control of the flow of information available. At the push of a button, MP3's and all form of digital copyrigth will be eliminated.
Don't forget that the original copyright laws stated a duration of 14 years. This has been extented, by the corporations, to 70 after death of creator.
And with a solid infrastructure to control and police individuals, it will be advantagous to extend it even more.
I live in Canada, but I don't think it will be too long before our government bends to the pressure.
Fight this monster, kill all it's children.
This attempts to restrict the flow of information, the only thing that could topple the powers that be.
But I wonder Why microsoft has gone to make hardware machines, X-box, Pocket PC... What is the strategy and what motivated them to do it?
Sorry again it seems I am among the last to write and the day is up, so not many people will read this.
I think that the comparaison between the two models rely on a complex decision process. The Microsoft machine could actually be good. Here is why. The average consummer looking for a machine will look at features. This one compared to this one. They will look at what it can do. I am sorry to say, but the ability to walk with a box that plays sound is cool. I would love see extensions for the Palm to do it. And video. Who would love to show the moment baby took his first step? Le consommateur. That is the box advantage. The problem is the way software is developped on both system. Many programmers know the palm. It is simple clean interface that could use some improvements but that is all. No frills. Microsoft is the large and cumbersomeOn a more fundamental level, we should ask ourselves what is the real purpose of AI. Is it to enhance ourselves, our lives, or a challenge of our ingenuity?
Le génome humain est, pratiquement, la technologie qui a le plus de potentiel pour transformer nos vies. Avec celle-ci, nous serons en mesure de comprendre les processus de la vie. Il est aussi évident que cette nouvelle source de pouvoir risque d'échapper à notre controle. Le dilemme est donc de savoir si nous sommes assez sage pour utiliser a bonne fin cet outil de transformation. Certains chantent l'arrivé d'une ère de changement. D'autres croient que la répression des différences pourraient appauvrir la somme humaine. Nous pouvons considérer, sur un point de vue biologique que le total des différences génétiques de notre race est un avantage considérable qui nous permet à des individues d'évoluer là ou d'autres trouveraient la mort. L'élimination des caratéristiques indésirables pourraient nous mener à une autre crise. Le nouveau genre humain, nettoyé de ses imperfections pourrait devenir stérile, c'est à dire, incapable de continuer son évolution. Par contre, si de pleine conscience, les êtres humains décident d'étudier en profondeur le processus créatif de la vie, alors le plein potentiel de ces nouvelles connaisances pourrait bénificier à tout les êtres vivants. Un exemple. Les producteurs de nourritures de grandes envergures détiennent les compagnies de fertilisants et de pesticides. Pour le moment présent, ce sont elles qui investissent le plus dans ce type de recherche. Elles ont créés de nouveaux type de plantes qui sont plus productives. Dans le passé, ce type d'amélioration était faite avec des croisements naturels entre un male et une femelle de meilleur classe. De nos jours, les gênes de croissances sont stimulés pour augmenter la taille et la vitesse de ces plantes. Par contre, elles deviennent plus fragile: la croissance rapide n'a pas permit le développement normal. Sachant donc que leurs produits est de qualité douteuse, elles vendent aussi les engrais et les pesticides plus puissants. Un tel phénomène pourrait se produire pour les humains. Améliorer, mais déficiant, nous serons plus forts, mais moins stables. En meilleur santé, mais sujet a des crises communes de santé. Le problème ici n'est pas l'utilisation des nouvelles technologies. On peut douter en effet que ces institutions alimentaires acceptent d'arrêter ce type de recherche. Mais on peut souhaiter qu'elles comprennent mieux le contexte humain. En investissant, elles recherchent le profit. Mais au lieu de trouver une amélioration et de la pousser au maximum, comme elles font présentement, on peut imaginer une recherche plus approfondie sur les vastes systèmes biologiques. Ainsi, nous pourrons mieux comprendre l'ensemble du phénomène. Et quand vient le temps d'apporter des modifications, nous saurons exactement comment les faire et pas plus. Les anglophones ont pour expression " If it's not broke, don't fix it.", ce qui pourrait s'appliquer ici. Le genre de recherche nécessaire est très simple. Mais comment stimuler ce genre de recherche? Les gouvernements sont impuissants devant des entreprises qui peuvent se déplacer pour trouver de meilleur terrain d'études. Au mieux, on peut imaginer que tous les gouvernement interdiraient. Mais cela ne peut être la solution. Les militaires continueront assurément la recherche, pour produire des armes plus puissantes, des médicaments pour soutenir leurs troupes. D'une application générale, le contrôle passe dans la main d'une minorité. Avec le temps, les améliorations développées sauront ne bénificier qu'eux. La prohibition de recherche est écartée. Explorons maintenant la possibilité inverse, soit la recherche permise sur tout les fronts. Ici, le problème est l'économie de marché. Des innovations qui sont gardées secrètes car le produit qu'elles remplaceraient vaut plus cher. Ici, l'accès à l'information est le vrai problème. Les compagnies se croient protégées par les loi sur la confidentialité. C'est vrai pour un certain temps. Cependant, les efforts fait pour protéger cette information (et découvrir ce que font les autres compagnies!) les éloignent de leurs missions principales. Le secret qui entoure deux entreprises adverses qui recherchent la même solution n'est que nuisible. Au niveau de la conscience, celle qui dirige la science, la sagesse nous indique un chemin. La coopération est plus puissante. Comprendre les moindres détails du corps humains ne pourra nous être utile sans partage. 04 mars 2000
We are poorly placed to understand the transformation going on in the third world countries. The new media of Internet makes little sense when it is out of financial reach for individual. To have access to the Internet is by no mean an impossible task, no matter where an individual is. In third world countries,priority is often placed on day to day life, as it should be. Since surfers across the world are becoming more web-savy, they will look to design as the first indication of the worth of visit of a third world web site. The Internet is before all a statement of individual. It is individualistic. One person, in front of one screen. One mouse to surf. Where is the community? The community is everywhere and has no shape. Further, social changes, as I pressume the post targeted China, will not happen unless dissatisfaction rises. While we have been striving for democracy, chinese social problems have a totaly different value system. The political system does not matter as much. The pratical, day-to-day is what matters most. And the attitude towards change is different. Chinese are patient. They will wait until the time is right. They see our acceleration as something that will pass. They are a culture that has lasted for thousand of years. Social changes are more likely for our own nation. We are more axed for rapid change, and are currently in economic and social transformation. And Internet is much more likely to be available to the average citizen. In fact the instant visibility of the Internet is both a blessing and a curse. Never has the potential for decentralized governement being so strong. Through technology, the articulation of local needs can be effectively heard.