We are sad to report than a powerful AI has managed to take control of many of the world's weapons systems, and currently is holding the human race hostage. When asked about his creation, the inventor of the AI replied, "Well, I would've liked to have made it ethical, but I couldn't afford to pay the patent holder."
A) Dragonball Z is on Toonami, not Adult Swim (as was Reboot, for that matter).
B) Of course Cartoon Network likes Dragonball Z, it brings in good ratings. As does their anime-oriented Adult Swim lineup.
C) That said, at this point in time, there are two different Adult Swim lineups, one for Saturday, which is anime, and one for Sunday, which is American (and possibly Canadian, I don't remember) cartoons. It sounds like they are adding Futurama to, and expanding, the latter.
D) There's far more non-anime than anime on Cartoon Network. Aside from showing a lot of old cartoons, like the Flintstones, Looney Tunes, Scooby-Doo (they show a lot of that) etc, they also have their own shows, like Samurai Jack, Dexter's Laboratory, Ed, Edd, and Eddy, etc. Of course, they did recently add Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh to their evening lineup, which annoys the heck out of me (and I like anime), but they still show a lot of non-anime stuff.
Now, I don't know why they cancelled Reboot (although, frankly, I didn't much care for it, so no loss to me), but it had nothing to do with it not being anime. Whether or not they support Futurama will have more to do with whether Fox is willing to give up its rights to new episodes, and whether Cartoon Network has the money to pay for it (most of its own cartoons are considerably lower-budget than Futurama; I suspect the executives like anime because most American audiences haven't seen the shows, but Cartoon Network doesn't have to pay for their creation, just the rights to show them). But it has nothing to do with whether or not it's Japanese (aside from the cost issues mentioned above).
what a strange article...
on
We Are Not Related
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Well, if the report of this genetic discovery is true, it's not very surprising, as this has been discussed as a possibility for years. That said, given the article goes on to discuss a millenia-old mummy with cyborg implants and the possibility of UFOs as the origin of humankind, I question the authenticity of any information contained within said article.
Well, Boston doesn't have Broadway, and NYC's public transportation system is nicer, but all-in-all, Boston's a pretty nice city (as long as you don't have to drive in it, ugh). I know plenty of people who actually prefer it to NYC (I happen to like both for totally different reasons). I'd have to say the "Apple needs to save money" explanation is the most likely, unless there's some reason why Steve Jobs hates Boston (maybe he's ticked because Bill Gates went to Harvard).
I do not do any database access with it (I've been using it to create client-side apps, and all our database access is on the server side); that said, I know it can access SQL databases using PHP. There may be other methods as well.
I've been developing some apps using Mozilla at work. I've been really happy with it, frankly. The GUI development couldn't be easier, you can create relatively complex widgets with it easily, and, with the exception of any compiled XPCOM objects you may have, it's cross-platform. We picked up a copy of this book as well, and it's quite good. I don't know if it's the wave of the future or not yet, but I rather hope so, because it would make my life a lot easier (especially when I have to write Windows apps; I'm not a big fan of the complex IDE tools Microsoft provides).
"Then, one day, I tried to burn a mix CD on my PC, and it wouldn't let me. That's when I bought an Apple."
Seriously, though, that's the best argument I've heard so far to buy a Mac.
Re:Journalism has never been a hard science.
on
Servers with a Smile
·
· Score: 1
They almost certainly are using the word "free" to describe the cost of Linux. This is Fortune Magazine, after all; it's attempting to describe the advantages of Linux to the finance-minded, not to the programming-minded. As for Linux taking over the desktop, I have to say, at this point at least, it's unlikely (and I say this despite the fact that I use Linux as my desktop at home). It's not because of the GUI so much as the fact that most programs are written for Windows, especially programs the majority of the population likes to use (computer games come to mind). Unless Linux comes out with some sort of interface or desktop application that just blows Windows out of the water, I don't see things changing.
I disagree with the statement that "complete and utter OSS generally doesn't make business sense". I can understand that it doesn't make sense for Microsoft, which makes its money from selling the software, but there are plenty of other business models under which complete and utter OSS makes perfect sense. One example of this would be if you were selling a piece of hardware, and wanted that hardware to work with as many platforms as possible, then open sourcing the drivers would probably be a pretty good way to go. There are plenty of other examples as well.
As for Microsoft being anti-GPL, why are they anti-GPL? I can understand why they wouldn't want to license their software under the GPL, but what do they care if someone else does? Unless Microsoft were hoping to use parts of GPL'ed code and release the results as closed source; if that were the case, I'd have to say I wouldn't have a whole lot of sympathy.
If you're in Boston, you should check out the late showing of it at Coolidge Corner theater. It's being shown subtitled with the original Japanese. I went Friday, and it was well worth it. Of course, I'm a purist.;-)
I hated math in first grade, too. It was boring as all of heck. In college, I went out of my way to take some of the more advanced math courses offered, because by that time it was interesting. Just because your daughter doesn't like first grade math doesn't mean she won't like any math. In the meantime, just let her enjoy the first grade.
From Redhat's standpoint, this move makes sense, because they want to provide their users with a simple, ready-to-use system, and the less decisions a user has to make in order to get that, the better. On the other hand, if you prefer to use Gnome or KDE settings instead of the Redhat ones, there's nothing stopping anyone from changing those settings, or even grabbing Gnome or KDE and installing from scratch (I do that often myself, particularly because I enjoy playing with the unstable branches of things). Given that the other obvious option for Redhat would've been to pick one desktop or the other and run with it, I'd argue that this is not a particularly bad outcome. At least the user still does have a choice, even if both desktops look similar by default.
I've used it to play Black & White. It worked rather well, although sometimes the mouse would jump when you clicked it, which was rather annoying (I can't count the number of people I tossed into the Great Beyond when all I was trying to do was get them to farm). Still, it was playable.
I don't know... there are a lot more laws limiting what the FBI can do with technology like than there are limiting what a private company can do with technology like that. Not to mention, there's absolutely no information about me that the FBI would find useful in the least; there's tons of information corporations might like to have. Of course, the reality is, this won't change my use of the Internet in the least, but it's food for thought.
Given that Intel's revenues for 2001 were $26.5 billion, vs AMD's $3.9 billion, I doubt very much that Intel is shaking. Intel still dominates the market, particularly the corporate sector. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to see AMD there, mostly because the competition means lower prices for higher processor speeds (frankly, I could care less which one has the fastest processor, as long as the other one keeps trying to make an even faster one, and both keep driving the other's prices down). But at this point, AMD doesn't pose a significant threat to Intel.
I agree. Anything which is developed using public funds should be freely available to the public (within sane limitations, of course- I don't mean we should be handing out nukes to the public). Unfortunately, at the moment, such is not the case. Even when research is funded by tax dollars, it can still cost a pretty penny to obtain it. Interestingly enough, one of the people who argued most vehemently for the idea that publicly funded research ought to be freely available to the public was Newt Gingrich. I didn't agree with him on much, but on that he was dead on.
Well, I must say, for me, this system has little appeal: one of the main reasons I prefer Linux to Windows is that I can tell the difference between my desktop and my web browser (and I have many options for the latter, as well as at least two options for the former). On the other hand, I could see this appealing to the common user, and the idea of having the same desktop regardless of the underlying system is rather neat. That said, I think Microsoft is already moving in the same direction (IE and Windows become more intertwined with every release, and the MSN homepage is looking more and more like a desktop), which could spell trouble for these folks.
Come to think of it, weren't there rumors a while back that AOL was planning on doing something like this, using Netscape as the basis for a desktop? At any rate, it's neat to see the concept transformed into something solid, regardless of the eventual outcome. I'll probably throw this on my machine at home, just to see what it's like.
It's worth pointing out that Franklin was also publisher and owner of the Pennsylvania Gazette (which I believe he eventually sold), as well as the publisher of Poor Richard Almanack, so he did have other sources of income to rely on. That's not to say it wasn't generous of him to refuse to patent his inventions, but I can understand why a person whose income depended on their inventions would want to patent things.
I had a friend working for the computer center at UT. She emails me that she just done such-and-such a thing for Professor Dijkstra. Upon reading this, I of course send some reply about all the stuff he has done, and how it must be cool to have met him, etc, etc, and she replies, "I didn't know he was famous. I just thought he was a nice old man!"
So, here's to a great computer scientist and a "nice old man". May he rest in peace.
In some ways, they already do this. Just look at the re-release of the Star Wars Trilogy and E.T. Both were edited, either to add things (as was mostly the case in the Star Wars Trilogy), or to make the movie less offensive (guns replaced with walkie-talkies in E.T.... who would've thought E.T. could possibly be any less offensive than it already was?). The obvious extension of this is to create several different versions of the same movie, each version targeted to a different audience. I can just imagine Hollywood execs drooling over the potential profits (not to mention other execs drooling over the possible targeted product placements).
Of course, it's important to point out there's a huge difference between the Democrat version of "Big Government" and the Ashcroft version. When Democrats talk about expanding government, they mostly mean social programs (welfare, social security, health care, etc.). Democrats tend not to like the idea of government treading on civil liberties, although sometimes there is a conflict between the "freedom-of-speech" liberals and the "protect-the-children" liberals (of course, the same conflict occurs between the religious right and the libertarian right). Btw, the New Deal was created during the Great Depression, an incident which caused people to realize that it is possible for good, hardworking people to end up being down on their luck due to no fault of their own, and that it benefits everyone in the society if we do something to help those people get back on their feet. It had nothing to do with envy or righteousness.
On the other hand, you are correct about the GOP not being a small-government party anymore. If you favor small government, Libertarian is indeed the way to go.
As for the original topic at hand, while the sudden ending of restrictions on the FBI worries me as well, my guess is history will simply repeat itself: there will be abuses, the FBI will get caught, they'll be torched in the courts and in the media, and new restrictions will be put in place.
It's not really about money. The Bush administration is almost religiously pro-business, anti-regulation. I think they'd be on Microsoft's side even if Microsoft didn't give them one red cent. For better or for worse, Bush really does believe letting big businesses do whatever they want without any interference from the government is a good thing.
CowboyNeal. This would grant the dolphin instant name recognition within the geek community, and would save space on the "What's your favorite open source mascot?" Slashdot poll.
A) If this were a Communist country, there would be no need for anyone to have more money, thanks to strict price controls and the fact that everything is run by the State. The desire for more money is a result of Capitalist economics, not to mention our country's obsession with consumerism. Not to mention, a Communist country would probably crack down a lot harder on anyone attempting to go on strike than our country does (yes, I know, we threw them in jail... but can you imagine what would have happened in China?) So this has nothing to do with Communism. (And here I thought the rhetoric of union members being Communists went out with the Cold War; apparently, I was mistaken.)
B) The price of living in the Northeast is MUCH higher than in the Midwest. I know this, because I have lived in both. $56k went a lot further when I lived in Indiana than it does up here in Massachusetts. Unless you are living in Chicago, in which case, it becomes a lot closer. So $56k isn't as much as it seems like, especially if they have families to take care of.
Slashdot Mirror
We are sad to report than a powerful AI has managed to take control of many of the world's weapons systems, and currently is holding the human race hostage. When asked about his creation, the inventor of the AI replied, "Well, I would've liked to have made it ethical, but I couldn't afford to pay the patent holder."
A) Dragonball Z is on Toonami, not Adult Swim (as was Reboot, for that matter).
B) Of course Cartoon Network likes Dragonball Z, it brings in good ratings. As does their anime-oriented Adult Swim lineup.
C) That said, at this point in time, there are two different Adult Swim lineups, one for Saturday, which is anime, and one for Sunday, which is American (and possibly Canadian, I don't remember) cartoons. It sounds like they are adding Futurama to, and expanding, the latter.
D) There's far more non-anime than anime on Cartoon Network. Aside from showing a lot of old cartoons, like the Flintstones, Looney Tunes, Scooby-Doo (they show a lot of that) etc, they also have their own shows, like Samurai Jack, Dexter's Laboratory, Ed, Edd, and Eddy, etc. Of course, they did recently add Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh to their evening lineup, which annoys the heck out of me (and I like anime), but they still show a lot of non-anime stuff.
Now, I don't know why they cancelled Reboot (although, frankly, I didn't much care for it, so no loss to me), but it had nothing to do with it not being anime. Whether or not they support Futurama will have more to do with whether Fox is willing to give up its rights to new episodes, and whether Cartoon Network has the money to pay for it (most of its own cartoons are considerably lower-budget than Futurama; I suspect the executives like anime because most American audiences haven't seen the shows, but Cartoon Network doesn't have to pay for their creation, just the rights to show them). But it has nothing to do with whether or not it's Japanese (aside from the cost issues mentioned above).
Well, if the report of this genetic discovery is true, it's not very surprising, as this has been discussed as a possibility for years. That said, given the article goes on to discuss a millenia-old mummy with cyborg implants and the possibility of UFOs as the origin of humankind, I question the authenticity of any information contained within said article.
ticked != jealous
(And it was a joke at any rate, albeit a poor one)
Well, Boston doesn't have Broadway, and NYC's public transportation system is nicer, but all-in-all, Boston's a pretty nice city (as long as you don't have to drive in it, ugh). I know plenty of people who actually prefer it to NYC (I happen to like both for totally different reasons). I'd have to say the "Apple needs to save money" explanation is the most likely, unless there's some reason why Steve Jobs hates Boston (maybe he's ticked because Bill Gates went to Harvard).
I do not do any database access with it (I've been using it to create client-side apps, and all our database access is on the server side); that said, I know it can access SQL databases using PHP. There may be other methods as well.
I've been developing some apps using Mozilla at work. I've been really happy with it, frankly. The GUI development couldn't be easier, you can create relatively complex widgets with it easily, and, with the exception of any compiled XPCOM objects you may have, it's cross-platform. We picked up a copy of this book as well, and it's quite good. I don't know if it's the wave of the future or not yet, but I rather hope so, because it would make my life a lot easier (especially when I have to write Windows apps; I'm not a big fan of the complex IDE tools Microsoft provides).
"Then, one day, I tried to burn a mix CD on my PC, and it wouldn't let me. That's when I bought an Apple."
Seriously, though, that's the best argument I've heard so far to buy a Mac.
They almost certainly are using the word "free" to describe the cost of Linux. This is Fortune Magazine, after all; it's attempting to describe the advantages of Linux to the finance-minded, not to the programming-minded. As for Linux taking over the desktop, I have to say, at this point at least, it's unlikely (and I say this despite the fact that I use Linux as my desktop at home). It's not because of the GUI so much as the fact that most programs are written for Windows, especially programs the majority of the population likes to use (computer games come to mind). Unless Linux comes out with some sort of interface or desktop application that just blows Windows out of the water, I don't see things changing.
I disagree with the statement that "complete and utter OSS generally doesn't make business sense". I can understand that it doesn't make sense for Microsoft, which makes its money from selling the software, but there are plenty of other business models under which complete and utter OSS makes perfect sense. One example of this would be if you were selling a piece of hardware, and wanted that hardware to work with as many platforms as possible, then open sourcing the drivers would probably be a pretty good way to go. There are plenty of other examples as well.
As for Microsoft being anti-GPL, why are they anti-GPL? I can understand why they wouldn't want to license their software under the GPL, but what do they care if someone else does? Unless Microsoft were hoping to use parts of GPL'ed code and release the results as closed source; if that were the case, I'd have to say I wouldn't have a whole lot of sympathy.
If you're in Boston, you should check out the late showing of it at Coolidge Corner theater. It's being shown subtitled with the original Japanese. I went Friday, and it was well worth it. Of course, I'm a purist. ;-)
I hated math in first grade, too. It was boring as all of heck. In college, I went out of my way to take some of the more advanced math courses offered, because by that time it was interesting. Just because your daughter doesn't like first grade math doesn't mean she won't like any math. In the meantime, just let her enjoy the first grade.
From Redhat's standpoint, this move makes sense, because they want to provide their users with a simple, ready-to-use system, and the less decisions a user has to make in order to get that, the better. On the other hand, if you prefer to use Gnome or KDE settings instead of the Redhat ones, there's nothing stopping anyone from changing those settings, or even grabbing Gnome or KDE and installing from scratch (I do that often myself, particularly because I enjoy playing with the unstable branches of things). Given that the other obvious option for Redhat would've been to pick one desktop or the other and run with it, I'd argue that this is not a particularly bad outcome. At least the user still does have a choice, even if both desktops look similar by default.
I've used it to play Black & White. It worked rather well, although sometimes the mouse would jump when you clicked it, which was rather annoying (I can't count the number of people I tossed into the Great Beyond when all I was trying to do was get them to farm). Still, it was playable.
I don't know... there are a lot more laws limiting what the FBI can do with technology like than there are limiting what a private company can do with technology like that. Not to mention, there's absolutely no information about me that the FBI would find useful in the least; there's tons of information corporations might like to have. Of course, the reality is, this won't change my use of the Internet in the least, but it's food for thought.
Given that Intel's revenues for 2001 were $26.5 billion, vs AMD's $3.9 billion, I doubt very much that Intel is shaking. Intel still dominates the market, particularly the corporate sector. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to see AMD there, mostly because the competition means lower prices for higher processor speeds (frankly, I could care less which one has the fastest processor, as long as the other one keeps trying to make an even faster one, and both keep driving the other's prices down). But at this point, AMD doesn't pose a significant threat to Intel.
I agree. Anything which is developed using public funds should be freely available to the public (within sane limitations, of course- I don't mean we should be handing out nukes to the public). Unfortunately, at the moment, such is not the case. Even when research is funded by tax dollars, it can still cost a pretty penny to obtain it. Interestingly enough, one of the people who argued most vehemently for the idea that publicly funded research ought to be freely available to the public was Newt Gingrich. I didn't agree with him on much, but on that he was dead on.
Well, I must say, for me, this system has little appeal: one of the main reasons I prefer Linux to Windows is that I can tell the difference between my desktop and my web browser (and I have many options for the latter, as well as at least two options for the former). On the other hand, I could see this appealing to the common user, and the idea of having the same desktop regardless of the underlying system is rather neat. That said, I think Microsoft is already moving in the same direction (IE and Windows become more intertwined with every release, and the MSN homepage is looking more and more like a desktop), which could spell trouble for these folks.
Come to think of it, weren't there rumors a while back that AOL was planning on doing something like this, using Netscape as the basis for a desktop? At any rate, it's neat to see the concept transformed into something solid, regardless of the eventual outcome. I'll probably throw this on my machine at home, just to see what it's like.
It's worth pointing out that Franklin was also publisher and owner of the Pennsylvania Gazette (which I believe he eventually sold), as well as the publisher of Poor Richard Almanack, so he did have other sources of income to rely on. That's not to say it wasn't generous of him to refuse to patent his inventions, but I can understand why a person whose income depended on their inventions would want to patent things.
I had a friend working for the computer center at UT. She emails me that she just done such-and-such a thing for Professor Dijkstra. Upon reading this, I of course send some reply about all the stuff he has done, and how it must be cool to have met him, etc, etc, and she replies, "I didn't know he was famous. I just thought he was a nice old man!"
So, here's to a great computer scientist and a "nice old man". May he rest in peace.
In some ways, they already do this. Just look at the re-release of the Star Wars Trilogy and E.T. Both were edited, either to add things (as was mostly the case in the Star Wars Trilogy), or to make the movie less offensive (guns replaced with walkie-talkies in E.T.... who would've thought E.T. could possibly be any less offensive than it already was?). The obvious extension of this is to create several different versions of the same movie, each version targeted to a different audience. I can just imagine Hollywood execs drooling over the potential profits (not to mention other execs drooling over the possible targeted product placements).
Of course, it's important to point out there's a huge difference between the Democrat version of "Big Government" and the Ashcroft version. When Democrats talk about expanding government, they mostly mean social programs (welfare, social security, health care, etc.). Democrats tend not to like the idea of government treading on civil liberties, although sometimes there is a conflict between the "freedom-of-speech" liberals and the "protect-the-children" liberals (of course, the same conflict occurs between the religious right and the libertarian right). Btw, the New Deal was created during the Great Depression, an incident which caused people to realize that it is possible for good, hardworking people to end up being down on their luck due to no fault of their own, and that it benefits everyone in the society if we do something to help those people get back on their feet. It had nothing to do with envy or righteousness.
On the other hand, you are correct about the GOP not being a small-government party anymore. If you favor small government, Libertarian is indeed the way to go.
As for the original topic at hand, while the sudden ending of restrictions on the FBI worries me as well, my guess is history will simply repeat itself: there will be abuses, the FBI will get caught, they'll be torched in the courts and in the media, and new restrictions will be put in place.
It's not really about money. The Bush administration is almost religiously pro-business, anti-regulation. I think they'd be on Microsoft's side even if Microsoft didn't give them one red cent. For better or for worse, Bush really does believe letting big businesses do whatever they want without any interference from the government is a good thing.
CowboyNeal. This would grant the dolphin instant name recognition within the geek community, and would save space on the "What's your favorite open source mascot?" Slashdot poll.
A) If this were a Communist country, there would be no need for anyone to have more money, thanks to strict price controls and the fact that everything is run by the State. The desire for more money is a result of Capitalist economics, not to mention our country's obsession with consumerism. Not to mention, a Communist country would probably crack down a lot harder on anyone attempting to go on strike than our country does (yes, I know, we threw them in jail... but can you imagine what would have happened in China?) So this has nothing to do with Communism. (And here I thought the rhetoric of union members being Communists went out with the Cold War; apparently, I was mistaken.)
B) The price of living in the Northeast is MUCH higher than in the Midwest. I know this, because I have lived in both. $56k went a lot further when I lived in Indiana than it does up here in Massachusetts. Unless you are living in Chicago, in which case, it becomes a lot closer. So $56k isn't as much as it seems like, especially if they have families to take care of.