The reason we need to focus on world domination is that the world is full of people who would choose a free product over a grossly overpriced one...
iff they could use it as easily as or with only slightly more difficulty than Windows.
Why would anyone pay $1.50 for a quarter-pound hamburger when you can get almost 4 times that amount of meat and bread at the store and make hamburgers for yourself and three friends, exactly the way you wanted them?
Some folks will answer, "I won't pay that much. If I want a hamburger, I'll make one, regardless of hassle, just so I can get extra onions and no mayo without having to say 'extra onions and NO mayo' to the counter clerk four times." These are Linux users at heart.
Others will say, "I don't want to dine: I want to eat, and fast, so I can get to the movies!" These are Windows users.
Now, if you (warm-hearted open-sourcer that you are) made burgers, and recalling the adage that two can use a kernel as cheaply as one, invited your friend to drop by on his way to the movies, and have a burger with you... He'd take the free burger(install Linux), because it was cheap and easy.
Don't get me wrong--this is not a free beer/free speech mix-up... just an analogy to explain why we need to work on ease-of-use.
b.t.w., I'm a Windows user who recently uninstalled Linux because I didn't have time to spend maintaining it. I re-installed Windows in just under three hours. Hate me, but I'll re-install when Linux is easy like Windows.
The debates that never re-e-e-e-eally get settled (like Hellmouth, for example) would be the site of constant debate, with all sides continuing to moderate, meta-moderate, and add to the discussion; new points from current events, old points re-packaged in more concise arguments... one might even be able to come up with an Open Source political platform from the political nature of the grand debates.
Why not set up some comment-farms and get geek opinions on * sexual harassment and gender equality among geeks * best way to run a tech startup * security * best Linux distro (shudder) and more...
-Jurph *
Re:Security 101... Not offered on campus.
on
Linux Lite?
·
· Score: 1
Okay, that's a great solution, but what if your campus is run by morons? I mean, hypothetically.:)
Suppose you're at some campus... M$U, for example. Their NT boxen-farm gets hacked as a waypoint for some script-kiddie, so that they'll be that much harder to trace. Of course he wipes the logs. The problem? He jumps through a Linux box on campus to get to the NT boxen. A Linux box owned by a well-respected (and technically proficient) RA, who missed one security upgrade, because he was out of town for a week. The script-kiddie subscribes to bugtraq, too. The script-kiddie punches in, and eventualy brings the wrath of a foreign nation's intel service down on the college. Apparently the script-kiddie knows his shit, and isn't so "1am3" after all.
What's lame is that the RA gets kicked off campus, ethernet revoked, and a big black mark on his record (remember he was out of town for the week... in the middle of the woods with no internet connection, too). The Luddites on campus get their own security shamans to close all ports numbered higher than 100 or so. Close. Shut Down. SSH, Telnet, and web access, and that's it. No online gaming anymore, no ICQ anymore, no IRC anymore. Firewalls were discussed, and dismissed as "too difficult to implement."
How did the Linux box get broken into? A backdoor having nothing to do with the higher ports. How did the NT box get broken into? Script-kiddie tools very commonly available... I had heard it was BackOrifice.
(I'm sorry, it would have been BackOrifice... if this weren't a totally hypothetical case).
The short of it is: What do you do when your network is run by folks who cut off their arm when they get a papercut on their shin?
Since protesting doesn't work, how can I get full access back without hacking?
Why does such a "big name" school not have "halfway intelligent" sysadmins who can make "well thought out" decisions?
The answer? I'm up a creek until someone comes up with a better way to secure a network, and makes it easy to maintain. Even though most sysadmins are brilliant techies, there are many who are morons. Good security needs to let 99% of the well-meaining morons defend against 99% of the evil geniuses.
Don't forget that Germany is recovering from one of the nastiest historical events in a long time: "free popular democracy" led to the Nazi party. As much as they hate to admit it, they all joined the democratic herd and voted for Hitler and his boot-licking Jew-slaughtering entourage. When the dust and ashes settled, they felt really bad about it. It's like waking up from a hangover, only it's "oh fuck... I just slaughtered 6 million people."
The Germans now have a political system that is censored--you can't form a party based on hate, you can't run certain types of hate groups, etc.
They (the German people) advocate censorship, and trust the stable, hate-free government to protect them from Neo-Nazis and religious nuts. Their entire national attitude toward the Internet would scare the shit out of a civil libertarian from America. Just a little global perspective for y'all.
Let's see... that's 3 references to genocide, I used the words "Neo-Nazi", "fuck", "Hitler", and "shit", and also made a broad generalization or three about Germans. I guess that means I get censored. Well, hey... fuck 'em.
I like that idea a lot, especially given the hairiness of mirroring copyrighted content... one problem, though, is that every time/. mirrors an article, the banner ad that appears with the article is of CmdrTaco's choosing, and not John Q. Webmaster. This amounts to a form of terrorism: "If you don't give us permission to mirror your site, (and thereby steal a share of the advertising revenue) then your site is going to be slashdotted into oblivion." Unless there's a way to flawlessly mirror the entire site--ads and all--so it appears as though the reader is actually at the site. This begins to get server-heavy.
I like your idea, though, and I don't have a better solution. I should shut up now, huh?
I don't know about that. While I enjoy laughing at them as much as the rest of you for their foolishness, they can't be so completely naive and out-of-it that they haven't thought of this (can they?).
I'm betting that they make the SDMI specs absolutely free--perhaps even pay manufacturers to offset the cost of retooling factories--and then let the hammer drop. RIAA catches someone playing pirated music (worry about how later, someone's stupid enough to get caught), finds out what player they're using, and sues the manufacturer as an accomplice. Sounds ridiculous? But the manager was told--amidst a massive publicity campaign--that by adopting this new technology, he/she/it was helping to stop piracy.
It might not stand up (most probably would not stand up) in court in this precise form, but a small manufacturer trying to offer specifically non-SDMI merchandise could be swamped in court costs. Any larger manufacturer, like Sony, is probably already in bed with RIAA (for example, Sony has a record label), and will adopt the SDMI standards without a second thought.
If I can come up with this half-assed plan, a team of power lawyers can certainly come up with better. If "better" is good enough to stand up in court, RIAA could sue non-compliant companies into poverty with
many many one-pirate/one-manufacturer lawsuits filed in different venues simultaneously,
injunctions against manufacturing more non-SDMI devices until it can be determined whether they are illegal, or
lawsuits filed with a purchased judge.
Again, I realize that my specific example would not stand up in court; it's just a thought in the appropriate direction for effect and example.
Let me know if you see some huge hole in this that simply can't be argued around, no matter how many lawyers you have.
I'd like to point out that this well-thought-out debate is healthy. It's good that one person can say, "JonKatz, you're a frappin' loonie, and you don't know from beans." And someone else can then root around and eventually find facts which support Katz's articles. But as a journalist--even an opinion journalist whose medium happens to provide built-in b.s. detection--he has a responsibility to do some fact-checking. His shrinking fan base (and objective thinkers who/.'s flamer club hasn't wooed yet) are covering his butt, the way newsroom editorial staff cover reporters. The difference is that it happens after publication.
Jon--I know you have important things to say, and your opinions, though oft-flamed, are worth reading. But if you don't back them up with solid facts (names of researchers, universities, studies, etc.) then eventually nobody else will back you up either, and you'll be relegated to the ZineWriters' "I-have-a-PC-and-an-ISP-so-I-can-publish-my-opinio ns" graveyard.
Jabbo covered your ass this time. I'd be tempted to help just to prove the power of this medium, but if you keep publishing articles with no solid grounding in reality, then eventually, you'll reap only flames.
As my high school English teacher said-- When in doubt, B.S. : Be Specific.
I hope this doesn't come off as a flame... I truly intend this to help both posters and flamers.
When I read Katz's articles, I often want to see the comments sorted by lowest score first, so I can read what all the Katz-flamers thought right out, and then get to a moderately well-thought-out discussion later (instead of watching a barely coherent discussion digress into "JonKatz sux && he's a luser && I'm l33t!!!!!"
Funny how that's the only sort of article I can conceive of needing this option for.
I agree that Katz has some things mixed up in his article, and I definitely know some geeks who hated the Matrix, but his idea of "Deep Hack Mode" as a place is silly. John Campbell, above, says he has achieved that state of mind, "The Zone," while swinging a broadsword, as well as coding.
I've run into it in a number of things, among which are bodysurfing, rowing, writing poetry, target-shooting, coding, writing lo-o-o-ong papers, and while acting onstage.
The feeling is much the same in every case--no feeling until it's gone. While it may be a figurative 'place' known as The Zone, it is more like ignoring everything, even the action, while the action takes place.
While "The Matrix" really strove for that idea, I think it's much more present in Star Wars (A New Hope), where Luke learns to use his lightsaber blind... or flies an unfamiliar spacecraft down a narrow trench and bulls-eye's a target he's never seen. The emptying of thoughts, the focus on not-focusing all sound very much like Zen Buddhist meditation. Interestingly enough, there's a tie-in to the Matrix: certain martial arts allow the practitioner to do things much faster than a 'normal' human (or with more precision, or more force, or with less effort). Here's where I hand off my comment:
Aikido, or the use of Xi (Ki, Chi) for self-defense, teaches a form of meditation that allows one to enter "Deep Hack Mode," or the Zone, at will, in order to perform defensive throws faster than the human eye can see the reversal. From what I gather, a well-trained Aikidoka can defeat five or more moderately well-trained opponents without breaking a sweat (since the effort is all the opponent's). When the throws are finished, I imagine that seeing one's opponents strewn about and helpless is similar to watching a compiler go error-free after an hour or three of coding nonstop.
I have not taken Aikido, only written a paper comparing it to The Force. If any Aikidoka would like to comment on what relation Chi has to the Force, or the Zone, I'd be glad to supplant my words and Katz's with knowledge gained from experience. Just trying to provoke some thought.
p.s. any hackers with cool Deep Hack Mode tales, feel free to e-mail me.
Hey folks... when I start to stick up for Katz, you know someone's been a real asshole. Here's my reply to the column. It probably could be more coherent, but I think it makes its point.
FLAME Hey VV-- Go look at the responses on slashdot. Think really carefully: did the boys in Littleton decide that they would, ohhh, *make up* this entire fantasy-world where they were the oppressed? Maybe you say yes, and maybe you say no. The fact remains that their reality *was*--emphatically WAS--to them, Reality-with-a-capital-R. Kids don't have historical perspective. Kids don't give a rat's ass if you tell them that "it's all part of social order." Kids DO understand that adults don't, and never have, understood them on their terms. As much as you love to believe that you understand them, you understand them on your terms only. Your terms, which you've learned in the stilted, academic farce that is college sociology, (or perhaps in the hallowed pipes of some media faucet) mean jack shit to these kids. They understand that it hurts. They understand that adults laugh it off when a kid gets pissed on. They understand that you laugh it off because you don't see the bruises. They understand that you laugh because nobody sees the bruises. Just because I'm white middle-class, and because your handy-dandy laminated demographic doodads tell you I'm destined to do wonderfully in the "real world" doesn't mean that in school I won't--didn't--have problems. What's your real world worth to the Columbine kids who died? Shooter or "victim," they never met your real world. So how about you back off a little, go back to reviewing bubblegum pop albums (prediction: the next twenty will *also* get three stars out of four), and work at something you can understand. --J.R. Parsons Jr. /FLAME
I think it's disgusting that a music critic (and yes, it pisses me off that she's female, too) would even dare to presume that she knew jack shit about a boy's life in high school. Especially since she's obviously been through a college program rich in sociology and lacking in psychology. No offense meant to those of you who can keep it in check, but the liberal bullshit that is modern socio-anthropology is a brainwashing funnel. Her article just proved it.
Go ahead, change the focus back to where you want it: media responsibility? gun control? She's attacking the cause of the hatred, saying that we, as geeks, are not entitled to hurt. We aren't allowed to be victims. We have it soooo good in the "real world" that we shouldn't complain about life in school.
Again--her "real world" meant bugger-all to Klebold and Harris. Or to their victims. In their reality--the one that she presumes needs no changing--there is a prison atmosphere. A social order that fosters cruelty. A system whereby the physically strong, in the hunter-gatherer tradition, dominate the tribe.
Maybe in her world, white middle-class males have it great. She's sitting pretty working for the Village Voice, living the trendy life, while pale males all around her rocket through the glass ceiling. The worst torment she can expect is being hit on by the boss at a party. And hey--she can sue!
Like I said to her: back off. Don't write about what you don't know about. I'm not about to suggest that her complaints as a female in a pale-male-dominated workplace are unfounded, because I've never been there. I won't tell a lower-class black that he should just "suck it up" and rise above his ghetto roots. I won't tell a gay man or woman that they've got it easy as long as they stay in cities. Why? Because I'm not gay, I'm not black, I'm not a woman.
I expect the same from other people. Walk a mile in my shoes after Chris Givens has pissed in them as "a little prank." Then you can write a trendy article telling New York how much you know about high schoolers.
...except Leonardo DiCaprio wasn't in "Growing Pains." He wasn't even around then. Growing Pains was the Kirk Cameron show. His little sister was in Full House, which went off the air before Leo ever had a big break.
If you're going to cringe about DiCaprio, talk to a professional casting agent first, and find out if a) he can act and b) Jake Lloyd could ever possibly grow up to look like him. I'm a 21-year-old guy--probably the sector of the population least endeared to him besides the fathers of 14-year-old girls--and I don't hate him. I thought he was great in Romeo and Juliet, especially in terms of his facial expressions. Since Lucas' movies are renowned for cheezy (dare I say bad?) dialogue, it could make or break the movie if his facial expressions can carry the emotions of a Jedi being turned.
I would love to be there for his audition: not to say "hahahaha you punk, go get a life," but to honestly evaluate his ability to play the role.
It's too bad there aren't more Star Wars fans out there who are willing to trust George Lucas to do the same thing.
======= Not that I can't see why you'd automatically dismiss him. I mean, last time he was in a poorly-scripted, special-effects picture with nary a developed character, three things happened: 1) he sucked 2) the movie made a $hitload of money 3) and, of course, he sucked.
I can see why Star Wars fans are afraid of this, especially given the played-up hype comparing the earnings of the two movies. But do any of you have the temerity to suggest that you're a bigger fan of Star Wars than George Lucas? That George is only in it for the money (because he really needs that next hundred million)? That, perhaps, he will turn his own movies into some sick, slick capitalist money-horse? Think about it... the only people who are hyping Phantom Menace right now are the merchandisers and the theatre-owners, and perhaps those "unbiased" media sources that have stock in 20th Century Fox.
So relax. Go watch Phantom Menace a few more times, watch Episodes IV, V, and VI with someone who's never seen them, and listen to them complain about Luke. Or C-3P0. Or the mile-wide gaping plot holes.
"Wait... so this whiny redneck and his pet garbage can just blew up a space station that was practically paved with anti-aircraft weaponry?"
Give Lucas some credit, and don't expect too much from him. In the words of Han Solo,
Wow... seems like a minefield for Gates to traverse, whether he's using Minesweeper or Demineur. Seriously, though: how well would IE-Linux sell? I wouldn't pay for it, and I'm a Linux newbie; Netscrape is still a wee bit crufty, but it's on par with IE-Mac (which has had time to settle down). I would download it for free, but only if I backed up my data first, or had just done a clean install of a new Linux flavor.
But how well it sells and how well it works right out of the box are both, in a way, irrelevant. Doesn't the whole Open Source mantra prevent M$ from selling it? Doesn't it also mean that J. Random Hacker can improve the version at home and clean out the cruft? Obviously, I'm a newbie... but I don't see the menace here.
If it's useful or improvable, Linux users will use and improve it.
If it supports the evil empire or has a tendency to make Linux less stable than NT (a neat trick if Bill can pull it off), then Linux users will abandon it, and it will die.
My only fear is that they will release the Linux version before their DoJ verdicts are in, and massive (but still small vs. Netscape) download stats will allow them to claim that Netscape occupies a "MS-Like" position in the Linux universe. This will allow a flawed (but attractive) argument that "if they can do that to us, why can't we do that to them?" based on a claim that the Linux and Windows are basically equivalent battlefields.
By the way... does anyone know why Netscape for Linux still basically sucks? I work in Windows using IE when I want to use the web because Netscape for Linux is so laggy--and it's the only choice besides Lynx.
I hate to say it, but the competition might get Netscape off its ass to develop a fast, useful browser. Let's just hope that the benefit doesn't outweigh the cost.
But it's so much easier to say, "Jar Jar sucks!!" and hop on the anti-hype bandwagon. Thanks for taking an honest look at a halfway-decent film instead of dismissing it out of hand.
The only thing more hip than being hip is being able to say, "those hip people are really sell-outs"? No. That's just knee-jerk cynical backlash bullshit, and it's an immature reaction to the media's all-pervasive presence these days.
Think about it: does linux become a worse OS every time it gains a percent of the server market? do the Rolling Stones suck because they can now sell tickets to their concerts for 4x the price others charge and still sell out shows? Are "Jumpin Jack Flash" or "Wild Horses" any less good because I (born after 1977) listen to them, too?
Nope. Welcome to a world where media is cheap and reproducible, and the media serpent chews its own tail by creating "buzz" (demand) to generate "hits" ($upply.. and $ale$), and using "hits" to generate "buzz."
None of what they do has to affect how you value product, how you consume it, or how you choose to spread word of it. To say "it didn't live up to the hype" is like saying "I wish my girlfriend were built like Barbie." Wish in one hand, put my 2 cents in the other, and see which hand gets full first.
Okay, fair warning, this has some 'spoiler' stuff--in fact, it's here as a guide to those who want to go again and again, and are looking for "the little things." None of what I'm posting has any real plot relevance, it's just... pretty cool.
* In the Senate, during the vote of "no confidence," look at the various delegations, and keep your eyes on the lower-left of the screen. One particular species of alien should look strangely out-of-place. Hint: the original over-merchandised alien...
* In the pod races, the man standing near Watto and cheering may look familiar... he has had several major roles under Lucas before. The actor is Warwick Davis, and he played "Willow," as well as another over-merchandised character in Jedi.
* Senator Palpatine's bodyguards have very distinctive helmet shapes that a SW fan should recognize in profile from a mile away.
* Underwater, while being pursued by the eel-like creature, pay careful attention to Qui-Gon's dialogue and gestures. There is a comic moment that went totally over the heads of both audiences I saw the film with.
* Stay through to the very very very end of the end-credit music. It's worth it.
That's all I saw... this time.
Oh, and to folks in the D.C. and Baltimore areas, the Senator in Baltimore is the place to see it. They have a special 1st-generation print (vs. 3rd or 4th at most theatres) on an intense hi-quality Kodak flavor of film, in a mixture of 8 channel SDDS and Dolby Surround EX that blew the 900-seat theatre away.
Slashdotters should have a ball with this one... please, correct me, flame me, make me watch "FOX presents: Jar Jar's Naboo Christmas Special".
But tack on some of your own Jedi wisdom, too.
-Jurph
p.s. did anyone see the female (?) Yoda-esque being?
I think that we will certainly be able to resolve this once we see the Jedi Council slaughtered (inevitable...) and have more evidence. Until then, I've got some more raw data for other people to use.
* Obi-Wan did disappear before Darth Vader was able to kill him.
* Yoda, the other disappearing Jedi, did so as he was passing away.
Both Jedi we've seen go *poof* have done so with a moment to prepare (notice that Darth Vader is winded and gives Ben a break... Qui-gon gets no such courtesy from Darth Maul). They were also both hermits, and able to study the Jedi arts for a long time on their own. I think it's safe to assume that Dark Jedi are not permitted this talent; it seems too much like Nirvana or Assumption to be used by the Dark Side. Lastly, of course, remember that as of Episode I, fading from existence is not an option--perhaps during the Clone Wars the Jedi learn how to die more gracefully to aid the surviving Jedi in combat against the Sith... e.g., "Use the Force, Ben!"
Oh, and how much (ironic) fun is it to watch Anakin and Obi-Wan interact with each other as newly-minted friends, knowing that one will kill the other eventually?
------
some other $.02:
did anyone feel that the Droid Control Ship was eerily similar to the Death Star(s) in its function and demise? Did anyone get a feeling of deja vu from the three-in-one scene of
1) a space battle featuring David vs. Goliath odds, 2) a land battle of Natives vs. The Man, and 3) a lightsaber battle between good and evil Jedi?
How about that Podrace--remind anyone of the (now AWOL) scenes of Luke running Beggar's Canyon back home?
Ahhhh, fugeddaboutit. The lightsaber duels were intense, the character development, while not self-contained, set up a beautiful segue into a pair of potentially kickass movies (possibly The Clone Wars and the Fall of the Republic?) I know Natalie Portman will be given better scripting next time, and Jake Lloyd won't be allowed to play a 15-year-old Anakin. Jar-Jar will stay on Naboo, now that he's a local hero, blood debt or no, and we'll get to see 1) Boba Fett & the Mandalorian Army 2) The enslavement of the Wookiees by the rising Empire 3) Some *awesome* large-scale starfighter battles in the Clone Wars
So go see the first one a few more times, enjoy what you like, and ignore what you don't.
Betcha they re-release before Episode II-- let theatres show 'em back-to-back on the same screen!
Good points, all... so what is the likelihood of a nationwide (or worldwide) retina database that business owners can access for a fee? Gov't sponsored registration of all US citizens at birth (or at full retinal development age).
There could be a lock system, implemented at Customs, so that upon entry to the US, you pass through, show your visa, and scan your peepers; this "logs you in" to America and lets you buy things legally--life becomes much more difficult for illegal immigrants.
Sure, you'll have business owners who won't subscribe-- they'll put "cash only" signs in their windows, or an eye in a slashed red circle, and get a reputation for being 'swarthy' and 'unreliable' places; the media could portray them as such, and make a bigger deal out of robberies. To combat this backlash and show that a business has implemented eyeball-based payment, they could put a small picture of an eye on their door or window.
Now, I'm sure the NSA and FBI would love that--tap the machines that read from the database and flag the locations of known criminals. The eyeball could stand for that well-worn phrase about Big Brother's voyeuristic habits.
{{if you haven't read Ender's Game, this probably won't mean much to you.}}
>> * An account with a history of positively moderated posts
Wow. That would have made Val & Peter Wiggin's lives easier. Remember the time they spent creating those personas? Peter's political beliefs gradually became "syndicated" on a few of the Nets. Card couldn't have foreseen the exact structure of the Net (and who's to say that present-day structure is the structure?), but I think it's safe to say that our "major news nets" would include/., cnn.com, and nytimes.com. Card hypothesized syndicated columnists (Jon Katz & Chris Locke both come to mind) whose opinions were posted -- much like Martin Luther's theses -- and debated vehemently. the debate was very public, and the political figures of the day stayed tuned, because the popular opinion in the debates let them know how to adjust their platforms. Val & Peter (Locke and Demosthenes) were so well-known, and made such good points, that they eventually became political figures. So... let's presume a persona comes into being on the Net. Let's say that this persona takes the name "DrTuring" and becomes immediately (and enduringly) popular with the online community. Let's say that a "Write-in DrTuring for President" campaign starts, and takes root. How much would Bill Gates pay the real DrTuring for the keys to that account? How much would Bush, Jr. pay? Are we no longer discussing profits of a few thousand bucks? As more and more people enter the online community, political sites and news-debate sites will grow in power, and that power will have to spill over into the real world.
The entire concept of property (and even identity) is "virtual." Before the Industrial Revolution, you could pay to have documents forged that introduced you as whomever you pleased. With the advent of the photograph, identity became a more tangible thing. And now, with the advent of the "nick," technology has caught up.
another 2 cents from Jurph; penny for your thoughts?
I think you're right on... but why sell it to a government when they can give it to our government in exchange for tax breaks, preferential contractor status, DOJ immunity, and other such freebies?
Not to mention how much No Such Agency or the USAF would enjoy having a satellite that "didn't exist."
Maybe Ikonos is actually a killer satellite, sent to take out foreign sats with a plausible excuse--"Sorry, that must have been our lost satellite..."
Or, um, maybe not...
-jurph
p.s. Why is it that every time someone offers me a penny for my thoughts, I end up giving them two-cents'-worth? A guy could go broke.
I guess this could just as easily be filed under "Think Different." It's my (as always, humble) opinion that the phrase "Think Different" is redundant. Simply by thinking, you are different, especially from the perspective of the herd. In high school, if any of you remember (I almost don't, and it hasn't been that long), the jocks were popular. If you read SlashDot regularly, I'm betting you weren't a jock.
I was lucky. My parents sent me to a private school after 7th and 8th grade. I never complained then, but those were the two worst years of my life, and getting out of the public school system was heaven. Why?
Anti-intellectualism. "Sure," you say, "throw an -ism at the problem." But hear me out.
City geeks--you had big classes, you were probably friends with a number of students of similar interests and intellects. And there still weren't many of you, were there? Compared to them? Do you remember the little war every day in the gym showers? Do you remember learning to shower and dress faster than anyone else to avoid the wrath of an idle jock? Do you remember how good it felt to be one of a few who could laugh at the jocks together, one of the ones who had people to sit with in the cafeteria?
Country geeks--especially from low population density states--How many of you were there? Three? Seven? In a school of how many? You remember what it was like to know that the teachers supported you, when everyone else was fighting them. You remember how you didn't have to study very much, and yet didn't ever have time to go out, either... or maybe nobody ever asked you to go anywhere with them.
Nobody (except my parents, God bless them) ever said "It's okay to be smart. It's okay to learn about computers. You're different from the others, and you know it. When they're mean to you, you have to realize that they're scared of you, of what you can think of, someday."
So, yeah, I was one of you. I was the only one in my school. For two years, I was alone. I had no friends.
Check that--I had a 286 with a 2400 baud modem. I had friends in the BBS'es, and I played MUDs with them (not that I ever called them that).
It's a good thing I never liked sunglasses or trench coats, hmmmmm?
But seriously: I think every geek realizes that, for the first twenty years of his (her) life, s/he will be persecuted. To a twelve-year-old, that's a lifetime. When you're that young, persecution is a thing which has "always" been in your world. School is a trial that may never end. When you have been teased since first grade for being smart, the lesson may sink in eventually: being smart is bad.
Smart people are not wanted. Smart people have no value. Smart people don't have friends. Smart people aren't attractive.
For people that age, when popularity is becoming important, this cuts to the core. Their (Our) entire society says to them, "You will never be the best." It says this to them after they've been told that they *are* the best. It hurts.
I have to stop ranting about this... I'll get to my point.
I think you all recognize some of the emotions above, some of the reactions. The media is quick to blame us for these shootings, and I think what lies at the heart of the accusation is an accusatory, Dark-Ages suspicion of the intelligent ones in any society. We're the modern wizards. We do magic. We write spells in C++. We inscribe symbols too small for the eye to see on mirrored wafers, and use them to conjure daemons. (sorry, couldn't resist).
There is a flawed perception in American thought that "jocks" are good at sports because they practice, and "geeks" are somehow born geniuses. Michael Jordan did not get that good simply by practicing. I was not born with the ability to learn calculus. Our pursuits are not appreciated by anyone who doesn't *need* us, and now that the world has started to need more and more of us, more and more of us are willing to show our faces. As the chances that we "naturally talented" geeks will succeed in life strictly on brains increases, the envy of us increases, and the jealous hatred seeps into pop culture with characters like Milhous, Urkel, and other Nerd stereotypes. The geeks withdraw, become less sociable, and (perhaps) even more skilled at their geeking.
They also grow to hate society.
When I was twelve, a student in my middle school beat me up on the last day of school. My last day in the public school system. He told me it was a "going away present." I waited next to his locker with my pocket knife, ready to stab him for the humiliation. A classmate--a neutral party, the closest thing I had to a friend--told me to put it away. Told me anything I did to retaliate was wasting my time. I'd never see him again. I put away the knife.
I saw him later that day, as we were getting on the buses, and yelled some asshole comment like, "I'll be laughing when you're pumping gas into my limo, [epithet deleted]." I was a prick. A total prick. All because I felt that much hatred for one person.
That was almost 7 years ago. Now there is the Internet. The Internet is the ultimate tree-fort. Geeks of all ages can come and go unmolested, and unlike school, the Internet is a meritocracy. It pumps our egos, lets us feel like we *are* the best. Like we can maybe someday rise above feeling useless.
Geeks have always found hatred at school; elder Slashdotters, back me up here... How many of you toyed with--fantasized about--maybe someday getting revenge?
Geeks can now find the other three keys to a school shooting on the Internet. 1) Empowerment. We are finally allowed to have egos. We have a forum in which we can be proud of ourselves.
2) Violence. It does desensitize us. It lets us pretend that the man in the game is C.S. Holder, or Chris Givens, or maybe the kid whose name you still remember today. It lets us pretend that C.S. is no more important than the man in the game.
3) Information. How to make a bomb. How to buy a gun, cheap. How to make shrapnel for your bomb. Things that once took hours of obsessive research are now available at a whim. A hateful whim.
But the empowerment is good; we all know that. We take pride in checking SlashDot to see how we are shaping tomorrow.
The violence, to some tastes, is just fun. And by the time you're 18, that's all it is... just a little fun.
The information is what makes the Internet great.
We need to curb the hatred. We need to tell kids that being smart is more than okay. We need to let everyone know that just because we're going to be successful when we grow up doesn't mean that they should berate us and try to tear us down now.
Anti-intellectualism made the "Trench-Coat Mafia." The Internet simply let them actualize their fantasies and dreams.
And in the end, the media, rather than discard a handy stereotype, will argue for a censored Internet instead of a society that accepts people for who they are.
{{I apologize for the really long, emotional rant... I guess this has been building up in me for a while now. If you want to tear me down, please, go ahead. If this strikes a chord in you, e-mail me. I'd rather talk it out with every single person on the 'net than see this happen one more time.}}
A friend and I were talking over dinner last night, and his opinion (which I'm shamelessly co-opting) is that if you're trying to convince your boss to switch from NT to Linux, it just won't sink in when you tell him it's free.
It's like a bad Dilbert cartoon: you say to the pointy-haired boss, "We can install Linux. It will save us several thousand dollars, because it's free."
"What's free?"
"Linux."
"For how long?"
"Forever."
"But how much do we have to pay to install it?"
"Nothing."
"But if it's free, we can't get tech support, can we?"
"Yes. Tech support by the geek community at-large. For free."
"Okay, but then we obviously have to pay a fee for upgrades."
You can continue to say "no" at this point, and the boss will be convinced that it's some sort of underhanded budget trick--or worse yet, a joke on him--or you can say:
"Well, yeah... if we buy RedHat."
"What's RedHat?"
"It's the most expensive version of Linux."
"How much?"
...at this point, you basically name a number that doesn't sound too absurd. You want a hundred boxes for the office? tell him $5K. You want to show him amazing savings? Get ten, and tell him $500. You want to see if he'll bite? Get one (so you can have that nifty manual) and say $150, for the whole office. And buy your office some beers with the change.
As my friend said, "Management likes to buy things. If you tell them they can have things (especially expensive things like operating system upgrades) without buying them, they won't ever believe you."
So RedHat is not only not evil, but the fact that somebody is actually selling Linux is making The Suits pay attention, and even though Suits in our little world may be a Bad Thing(tm), there will never come a day when any one company can "own" Linux. Linus saw to that back in the day.
...and, like all too many people, particularly We The [lawsuit-happy] People, they refuse to take the responsibility that comes with living in a world with free speech.
They intend to sue Hollywood because they (the parents) allowed their easily influenced 14-year-old watch an R-rated movie?...To sue id because they (the parents) let him play computer games rated for 18+ due to violent content?...To sue some webmasters because the parents allowed their child to surf X-rated websites? The purpose of the entire ratings system--in any medium--is so that without hampering the free speech we all value so much, children can be protected from images that will de-sensitize them to violence and skew their moral judgement.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but did the kid get the gun at the movies? Did he download it off the internet with a JPG? Did he maybe get a semi-auto nailgun free with QUAKE? I doubt it.
Who bought him the computer game? Who pays his ISP bills? Who probably gave him $10 for a movie ticket, without bothering to ask which movie?
I am not surprised that a lawsuit has been filed; I am only surprised that nobody has accused the parents of negligence. Candidates for plaintiffs abound, I'm sure. With 5 dead children in the tally, I would worry about how our justice system will compensate the victims' families, not the killer's negligent, whining parents.
I already print to a networked printer (as I'm sure a lot of you do), and the owner, my roommate, never knows if/when I'll need it, so he leaves it on for my convenience. Since we're in a T1'ed building, he's password-protected it. Obviously, passwords aren't secure enough for the real world, but doesn't it make sense that an IP filter or permission-from-admin system would help? This requires paying a sysadmin, I know... but the every computer connected to the outside world 24/7 will eventually need a paid sysadmin to monitor that connection, and he can't just be the geeky guy in cubicle 17 who happens to know how to fix them.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason we need to focus on world domination is that the world is full of people who would choose a free product over a grossly overpriced one...
iff they could use it as easily as or with only slightly more difficulty than Windows.
Why would anyone pay $1.50 for a quarter-pound hamburger when you can get almost 4 times that amount of meat and bread at the store and make hamburgers for yourself and three friends, exactly the way you wanted them?
Some folks will answer, "I won't pay that much. If I want a hamburger, I'll make one, regardless of hassle, just so I can get extra onions and no mayo without having to say 'extra onions and NO mayo' to the counter clerk four times." These are Linux users at heart.
Others will say, "I don't want to dine: I want to eat, and fast, so I can get to the movies!" These are Windows users.
Now, if you (warm-hearted open-sourcer that you are) made burgers, and recalling the adage that two can use a kernel as cheaply as one, invited your friend to drop by on his way to the movies, and have a burger with you...
He'd take the free burger(install Linux), because it was cheap and easy.
Don't get me wrong--this is not a free beer/free speech mix-up... just an analogy to explain why we need to work on ease-of-use.
b.t.w., I'm a Windows user who recently uninstalled Linux because I didn't have time to spend maintaining it. I re-installed Windows in just under three hours. Hate me, but I'll re-install when Linux is easy like Windows.
Wow, what a hell of an idea!!
The debates that never re-e-e-e-eally get settled (like Hellmouth, for example) would be the site of constant debate, with all sides continuing to moderate, meta-moderate, and add to the discussion; new points from current events, old points re-packaged in more concise arguments... one might even be able to come up with an Open Source political platform from the political nature of the grand debates.
Why not set up some comment-farms and get geek opinions on
* sexual harassment and gender equality among geeks
* best way to run a tech startup
* security
* best Linux distro (shudder)
and more...
-Jurph
*
Okay, that's a great solution, but what if your campus is run by morons? I mean, hypothetically. :)
Suppose you're at some campus... M$U, for example. Their NT boxen-farm gets hacked as a waypoint for some script-kiddie, so that they'll be that much harder to trace. Of course he wipes the logs. The problem? He jumps through a Linux box on campus to get to the NT boxen. A Linux box owned by a well-respected (and technically proficient) RA, who missed one security upgrade, because he was out of town for a week. The script-kiddie subscribes to bugtraq, too. The script-kiddie punches in, and eventualy brings the wrath of a foreign nation's intel service down on the college. Apparently the script-kiddie knows his shit, and isn't so "1am3" after all.
What's lame is that the RA gets kicked off campus, ethernet revoked, and a big black mark on his record (remember he was out of town for the week... in the middle of the woods with no internet connection, too).
The Luddites on campus get their own security shamans to close all ports numbered higher than 100 or so. Close. Shut Down. SSH, Telnet, and web access, and that's it. No online gaming anymore, no ICQ anymore, no IRC anymore. Firewalls were discussed, and dismissed as "too difficult to implement."
How did the Linux box get broken into? A backdoor having nothing to do with the higher ports. How did the NT box get broken into? Script-kiddie tools very commonly available... I had heard it was BackOrifice.
(I'm sorry, it would have been BackOrifice... if this weren't a totally hypothetical case).
The short of it is:
What do you do when your network is run by folks who cut off their arm when they get a papercut on their shin?
Since protesting doesn't work, how can I get full access back without hacking?
Why does such a "big name" school not have "halfway intelligent" sysadmins who can make "well thought out" decisions?
The answer? I'm up a creek until someone comes up with a better way to secure a network, and makes it easy to maintain. Even though most sysadmins are brilliant techies, there are many who are morons. Good security needs to let 99% of the well-meaining morons defend against 99% of the evil geniuses.
Sigh... sorry about the rant.
-jurph
Don't forget that Germany is recovering from one of the nastiest historical events in a long time: "free popular democracy" led to the Nazi party. As much as they hate to admit it, they all joined the democratic herd and voted for Hitler and his boot-licking Jew-slaughtering entourage. When the dust and ashes settled, they felt really bad about it. It's like waking up from a hangover, only it's "oh fuck... I just slaughtered 6 million people."
The Germans now have a political system that is censored--you can't form a party based on hate, you can't run certain types of hate groups, etc.
They (the German people) advocate censorship, and trust the stable, hate-free government to protect them from Neo-Nazis and religious nuts. Their entire national attitude toward the Internet would scare the shit out of a civil libertarian from America. Just a little global perspective for y'all.
Let's see... that's 3 references to genocide, I used the words "Neo-Nazi", "fuck", "Hitler", and "shit", and also made a broad generalization or three about Germans. I guess that means I get censored. Well, hey... fuck 'em.
-Jurph
I like that idea a lot, especially given the hairiness of mirroring copyrighted content... one problem, though, is that every time /. mirrors an article, the banner ad that appears with the article is of CmdrTaco's choosing, and not John Q. Webmaster. This amounts to a form of terrorism: "If you don't give us permission to mirror your site, (and thereby steal a share of the advertising revenue) then your site is going to be slashdotted into oblivion." Unless there's a way to flawlessly mirror the entire site--ads and all--so it appears as though the reader is actually at the site. This begins to get server-heavy.
I like your idea, though, and I don't have a better solution. I should shut up now, huh?
--jurph
I'm betting that they make the SDMI specs absolutely free--perhaps even pay manufacturers to offset the cost of retooling factories--and then let the hammer drop. RIAA catches someone playing pirated music (worry about how later, someone's stupid enough to get caught), finds out what player they're using, and sues the manufacturer as an accomplice. Sounds ridiculous? But the manager was told--amidst a massive publicity campaign--that by adopting this new technology, he/she/it was helping to stop piracy.
It might not stand up (most probably would not stand up) in court in this precise form, but a small manufacturer trying to offer specifically non-SDMI merchandise could be swamped in court costs. Any larger manufacturer, like Sony, is probably already in bed with RIAA (for example, Sony has a record label), and will adopt the SDMI standards without a second thought.
If I can come up with this half-assed plan, a team of power lawyers can certainly come up with better. If "better" is good enough to stand up in court, RIAA could sue non-compliant companies into poverty with
many many one-pirate/one-manufacturer lawsuits filed in different venues simultaneously,
injunctions against manufacturing more non-SDMI devices until it can be determined whether they are illegal, or
lawsuits filed with a purchased judge.
Again, I realize that my specific example would not stand up in court; it's just a thought in the appropriate direction for effect and example.
Let me know if you see some huge hole in this that simply can't be argued around, no matter how many lawyers you have.
--jurph
I'd like to point out that this well-thought-out debate is healthy. It's good that one person can say, "JonKatz, you're a frappin' loonie, and you don't know from beans." And someone else can then root around and eventually find facts which support Katz's articles. But as a journalist--even an opinion journalist whose medium happens to provide built-in b.s. detection--he has a responsibility to do some fact-checking. /.'s flamer club hasn't wooed yet) are covering his butt, the way newsroom editorial staff cover reporters. The difference is that it happens after publication.
o ns" graveyard.
His shrinking fan base (and objective thinkers who
Jon--I know you have important things to say, and your opinions, though oft-flamed, are worth reading. But if you don't back them up with solid facts (names of researchers, universities, studies, etc.) then eventually nobody else will back you up either, and you'll be relegated to the ZineWriters' "I-have-a-PC-and-an-ISP-so-I-can-publish-my-opini
Jabbo covered your ass this time. I'd be tempted to help just to prove the power of this medium, but if you keep publishing articles with no solid grounding in reality, then eventually, you'll reap only flames.
As my high school English teacher said--
When in doubt, B.S. : Be Specific.
I hope this doesn't come off as a flame... I truly intend this to help both posters and flamers.
That's my 2 cents.
Penny for your thoughts?
jurph
When I read Katz's articles, I often want to see the comments sorted by lowest score first, so I can read what all the Katz-flamers thought right out, and then get to a moderately well-thought-out discussion later (instead of watching a barely coherent discussion digress into "JonKatz sux && he's a luser && I'm l33t!!!!!"
Funny how that's the only sort of article I can conceive of needing this option for.
O well. Necessity is a mother.
I agree that Katz has some things mixed up in his article, and I definitely know some geeks who hated the Matrix, but his idea of "Deep Hack Mode" as a place is silly. John Campbell, above, says he has achieved that state of mind, "The Zone," while swinging a broadsword, as well as coding.
I've run into it in a number of things, among which are bodysurfing, rowing, writing poetry, target-shooting, coding, writing lo-o-o-ong papers, and while acting onstage.
The feeling is much the same in every case--no feeling until it's gone. While it may be a figurative 'place' known as The Zone, it is more like ignoring everything, even the action, while the action takes place.
While "The Matrix" really strove for that idea, I think it's much more present in Star Wars (A New Hope), where Luke learns to use his lightsaber blind... or flies an unfamiliar spacecraft down a narrow trench and bulls-eye's a target he's never seen. The emptying of thoughts, the focus on not-focusing all sound very much like Zen Buddhist meditation. Interestingly enough, there's a tie-in to the Matrix: certain martial arts allow the practitioner to do things much faster than a 'normal' human (or with more precision, or more force, or with less effort). Here's where I hand off my comment:
Aikido, or the use of Xi (Ki, Chi) for self-defense, teaches a form of meditation that allows one to enter "Deep Hack Mode," or the Zone, at will, in order to perform defensive throws faster than the human eye can see the reversal. From what I gather, a well-trained Aikidoka can defeat five or more moderately well-trained opponents without breaking a sweat (since the effort is all the opponent's). When the throws are finished, I imagine that seeing one's opponents strewn about and helpless is similar to watching a compiler go error-free after an hour or three of coding nonstop.
I have not taken Aikido, only written a paper comparing it to The Force. If any Aikidoka would like to comment on what relation Chi has to the Force, or the Zone, I'd be glad to supplant my words and Katz's with knowledge gained from experience. Just trying to provoke some thought.
p.s. any hackers with cool Deep Hack Mode tales, feel free to e-mail me.
Jurph
Hey folks... when I start to stick up for Katz, you know someone's been a real asshole.
Here's my reply to the column. It probably could be more coherent, but I think it makes its point.
FLAME
Hey VV-- Go look at the responses on slashdot. Think really carefully: did the boys in Littleton decide that they would, ohhh, *make up* this entire fantasy-world where they were the oppressed? Maybe you say yes, and maybe you say no. The fact remains that their reality *was*--emphatically WAS--to them, Reality-with-a-capital-R. Kids don't have historical perspective. Kids don't give a rat's ass if you tell them that "it's all part of social order." Kids DO understand that adults don't, and never have, understood them on their terms. As much as you love to believe that you understand them, you understand them on your terms only. Your terms, which you've learned in the stilted, academic farce that is college sociology, (or perhaps in the hallowed pipes of some media faucet) mean jack shit to these kids. They understand that it hurts. They understand that adults laugh it off when a kid gets pissed on. They understand that you laugh it off because you don't see the bruises. They understand that you laugh because nobody sees the bruises. Just because I'm white middle-class, and because your handy-dandy laminated demographic doodads tell you I'm destined to do wonderfully in the "real world" doesn't mean that in school I won't--didn't--have problems. What's your real world worth to the Columbine kids who died? Shooter or "victim," they never met your real world. So how about you back off a little, go back to reviewing bubblegum pop albums (prediction: the next twenty will *also* get three stars out of four), and work at something you can understand. --J.R. Parsons Jr.
/FLAME
I think it's disgusting that a music critic (and yes, it pisses me off that she's female, too) would even dare to presume that she knew jack shit about a boy's life in high school. Especially since she's obviously been through a college program rich in sociology and lacking in psychology. No offense meant to those of you who can keep it in check, but the liberal bullshit that is modern socio-anthropology is a brainwashing funnel. Her article just proved it.
Go ahead, change the focus back to where you want it: media responsibility? gun control? She's attacking the cause of the hatred, saying that we, as geeks, are not entitled to hurt. We aren't allowed to be victims. We have it soooo good in the "real world" that we shouldn't complain about life in school.
Again--her "real world" meant bugger-all to Klebold and Harris. Or to their victims. In their reality--the one that she presumes needs no changing--there is a prison atmosphere. A social order that fosters cruelty. A system whereby the physically strong, in the hunter-gatherer tradition, dominate the tribe.
Maybe in her world, white middle-class males have it great. She's sitting pretty working for the Village Voice, living the trendy life, while pale males all around her rocket through the glass ceiling. The worst torment she can expect is being hit on by the boss at a party. And hey--she can sue!
Like I said to her: back off. Don't write about what you don't know about. I'm not about to suggest that her complaints as a female in a pale-male-dominated workplace are unfounded, because I've never been there. I won't tell a lower-class black that he should just "suck it up" and rise above his ghetto roots. I won't tell a gay man or woman that they've got it easy as long as they stay in cities. Why? Because I'm not gay, I'm not black, I'm not a woman.
I expect the same from other people. Walk a mile in my shoes after Chris Givens has pissed in them as "a little prank." Then you can write a trendy article telling New York how much you know about high schoolers.
...except Leonardo DiCaprio wasn't in "Growing Pains." He wasn't even around then. Growing Pains was the Kirk Cameron show. His little sister was in Full House, which went off the air before Leo ever had a big break.
If you're going to cringe about DiCaprio, talk to a professional casting agent first, and find out if a) he can act and b) Jake Lloyd could ever possibly grow up to look like him. I'm a 21-year-old guy--probably the sector of the population least endeared to him besides the fathers of 14-year-old girls--and I don't hate him. I thought he was great in Romeo and Juliet, especially in terms of his facial expressions. Since Lucas' movies are renowned for cheezy (dare I say bad?) dialogue, it could make or break the movie if his facial expressions can carry the emotions of a Jedi being turned.
I would love to be there for his audition: not to say "hahahaha you punk, go get a life," but to honestly evaluate his ability to play the role.
It's too bad there aren't more Star Wars fans out there who are willing to trust George Lucas to do the same thing.
=======
Not that I can't see why you'd automatically dismiss him. I mean, last time he was in a poorly-scripted, special-effects picture with nary a developed character, three things happened:
1) he sucked
2) the movie made a $hitload of money
3) and, of course, he sucked.
I can see why Star Wars fans are afraid of this, especially given the played-up hype comparing the earnings of the two movies. But do any of you have the temerity to suggest that you're a bigger fan of Star Wars than George Lucas? That George is only in it for the money (because he really needs that next hundred million)? That, perhaps, he will turn his own movies into some sick, slick capitalist money-horse? Think about it... the only people who are hyping Phantom Menace right now are the merchandisers and the theatre-owners, and perhaps those "unbiased" media sources that have stock in 20th Century Fox.
So relax. Go watch Phantom Menace a few more times, watch Episodes IV, V, and VI with someone who's never seen them, and listen to them complain about Luke. Or C-3P0. Or the mile-wide gaping plot holes.
"Wait... so this whiny redneck and his pet garbage can just blew up a space station that was practically paved with anti-aircraft weaponry?"
Give Lucas some credit, and don't expect too much from him. In the words of Han Solo,
"Relax, kid."
Give him some credit; it's his movie, after all.
Wow... seems like a minefield for Gates to traverse, whether he's using Minesweeper or Demineur. Seriously, though: how well would IE-Linux sell? I wouldn't pay for it, and I'm a Linux newbie; Netscrape is still a wee bit crufty, but it's on par with IE-Mac (which has had time to settle down).
I would download it for free, but only if I backed up my data first, or had just done a clean install of a new Linux flavor.
But how well it sells and how well it works right out of the box are both, in a way, irrelevant. Doesn't the whole Open Source mantra prevent M$ from selling it? Doesn't it also mean that J. Random Hacker can improve the version at home and clean out the cruft? Obviously, I'm a newbie... but I don't see the menace here.
If it's useful or improvable, Linux users will use and improve it.
If it supports the evil empire or has a tendency to make Linux less stable than NT (a neat trick if Bill can pull it off), then Linux users will abandon it, and it will die.
My only fear is that they will release the Linux version before their DoJ verdicts are in, and massive (but still small vs. Netscape) download stats will allow them to claim that Netscape occupies a "MS-Like" position in the Linux universe. This will allow a flawed (but attractive) argument that "if they can do that to us, why can't we do that to them?" based on a claim that the Linux and Windows are basically equivalent battlefields.
By the way... does anyone know why Netscape for Linux still basically sucks? I work in Windows using IE when I want to use the web because Netscape for Linux is so laggy--and it's the only choice besides Lynx.
I hate to say it, but the competition might get Netscape off its ass to develop a fast, useful browser. Let's just hope that the benefit doesn't outweigh the cost.
Cheers,
Jurph
Orange marmalade makes everything taste better.
But it's so much easier to say, "Jar Jar sucks!!" and hop on the anti-hype bandwagon. Thanks for taking an honest look at a halfway-decent film instead of dismissing it out of hand.
The only thing more hip than being hip is being able to say, "those hip people are really sell-outs"? No. That's just knee-jerk cynical backlash bullshit, and it's an immature reaction to the media's all-pervasive presence these days.
Think about it: does linux become a worse OS every time it gains a percent of the server market? do the Rolling Stones suck because they can now sell tickets to their concerts for 4x the price others charge and still sell out shows? Are "Jumpin Jack Flash" or "Wild Horses" any less good because I (born after 1977) listen to them, too?
Nope. Welcome to a world where media is cheap and reproducible, and the media serpent chews its own tail by creating "buzz" (demand) to generate "hits" ($upply.. and $ale$), and using "hits" to generate "buzz."
None of what they do has to affect how you value product, how you consume it, or how you choose to spread word of it. To say "it didn't live up to the hype" is like saying "I wish my girlfriend were built like Barbie." Wish in one hand, put my 2 cents in the other, and see which hand gets full first.
-Jurph
Okay, fair warning, this has some 'spoiler' stuff--in fact, it's here as a guide to those who want to go again and again, and are looking for "the little things." None of what I'm posting has any real plot relevance, it's just... pretty cool.
* In the Senate, during the vote of "no confidence," look at the various delegations, and keep your eyes on the lower-left of the screen. One particular species of alien should look strangely out-of-place. Hint: the original over-merchandised alien...
* In the pod races, the man standing near Watto and cheering may look familiar... he has had several major roles under Lucas before. The actor is Warwick Davis, and he played "Willow," as well as another over-merchandised character in Jedi.
* Senator Palpatine's bodyguards have very distinctive helmet shapes that a SW fan should recognize in profile from a mile away.
* Underwater, while being pursued by the eel-like creature, pay careful attention to Qui-Gon's dialogue and gestures. There is a comic moment that went totally over the heads of both audiences I saw the film with.
* Stay through to the very very very end of the end-credit music. It's worth it.
That's all I saw... this time.
Oh, and to folks in the D.C. and Baltimore areas, the Senator in Baltimore is the place to see it. They have a special 1st-generation print (vs. 3rd or 4th at most theatres) on an intense hi-quality Kodak flavor of film, in a mixture of 8 channel SDDS and Dolby Surround EX that blew the 900-seat theatre away.
Slashdotters should have a ball with this one... please, correct me, flame me, make me watch "FOX presents: Jar Jar's Naboo Christmas Special".
But tack on some of your own Jedi wisdom, too.
-Jurph
p.s. did anyone see the female (?) Yoda-esque being?
I think that we will certainly be able to resolve this once we see the Jedi Council slaughtered (inevitable...) and have more evidence. Until then, I've got some more raw data for other people to use.
* Obi-Wan did disappear before Darth Vader was able to kill him.
* Yoda, the other disappearing Jedi, did so as he was passing away.
Both Jedi we've seen go *poof* have done so with a moment to prepare (notice that Darth Vader is winded and gives Ben a break... Qui-gon gets no such courtesy from Darth Maul). They were also both hermits, and able to study the Jedi arts for a long time on their own. I think it's safe to assume that Dark Jedi are not permitted this talent; it seems too much like Nirvana or Assumption to be used by the Dark Side. Lastly, of course, remember that as of Episode I, fading from existence is not an option--perhaps during the Clone Wars the Jedi learn how to die more gracefully to aid the surviving Jedi in combat against the Sith... e.g., "Use the Force, Ben!"
Oh, and how much (ironic) fun is it to watch Anakin and Obi-Wan interact with each other as newly-minted friends, knowing that one will kill the other eventually?
------
some other $.02:
did anyone feel that the Droid Control Ship was eerily similar to the Death Star(s) in its function and demise? Did anyone get a feeling of deja vu from the three-in-one scene of
1) a space battle featuring David vs. Goliath odds,
2) a land battle of Natives vs. The Man, and
3) a lightsaber battle between good and evil Jedi?
How about that Podrace--remind anyone of the (now AWOL) scenes of Luke running Beggar's Canyon back home?
Ahhhh, fugeddaboutit. The lightsaber duels were intense, the character development, while not self-contained, set up a beautiful segue into a pair of potentially kickass movies (possibly The Clone Wars and the Fall of the Republic?) I know Natalie Portman will be given better scripting next time, and Jake Lloyd won't be allowed to play a 15-year-old Anakin. Jar-Jar will stay on Naboo, now that he's a local hero, blood debt or no, and we'll get to see
1) Boba Fett & the Mandalorian Army
2) The enslavement of the Wookiees by the rising Empire
3) Some *awesome* large-scale starfighter battles in the Clone Wars
So go see the first one a few more times, enjoy what you like, and ignore what you don't.
Betcha they re-release before Episode II-- let theatres show 'em back-to-back on the same screen!
I'll shut up now.
Good points, all... so what is the likelihood of a nationwide (or worldwide) retina database that business owners can access for a fee? Gov't sponsored registration of all US citizens at birth (or at full retinal development age).
There could be a lock system, implemented at Customs, so that upon entry to the US, you pass through, show your visa, and scan your peepers; this "logs you in" to America and lets you buy things legally--life becomes much more difficult for illegal immigrants.
Sure, you'll have business owners who won't subscribe-- they'll put "cash only" signs in their windows, or an eye in a slashed red circle, and get a reputation for being 'swarthy' and 'unreliable' places; the media could portray them as such, and make a bigger deal out of robberies. To combat this backlash and show that a business has implemented eyeball-based payment, they could put a small picture of an eye on their door or window.
Now, I'm sure the NSA and FBI would love that--tap the machines that read from the database and flag the locations of known criminals. The eyeball could stand for that well-worn phrase about Big Brother's voyeuristic habits.
Sound fun to anyone?
{{if you haven't read Ender's Game, this probably won't mean much to you.}}
/., cnn.com, and nytimes.com.
>> * An account with a history of positively moderated posts
Wow. That would have made Val & Peter Wiggin's lives easier. Remember the time they spent creating those personas? Peter's political beliefs gradually became "syndicated" on a few of the Nets. Card couldn't have foreseen the exact structure of the Net (and who's to say that present-day structure is the structure?), but I think it's safe to say that our "major news nets" would include
Card hypothesized syndicated columnists (Jon Katz & Chris Locke both come to mind) whose opinions were posted -- much like Martin Luther's theses -- and debated vehemently. the debate was very public, and the political figures of the day stayed tuned, because the popular opinion in the debates let them know how to adjust their platforms.
Val & Peter (Locke and Demosthenes) were so well-known, and made such good points, that they eventually became political figures.
So... let's presume a persona comes into being on the Net. Let's say that this persona takes the name "DrTuring" and becomes immediately (and enduringly) popular with the online community. Let's say that a "Write-in DrTuring for President" campaign starts, and takes root. How much would Bill Gates pay the real DrTuring for the keys to that account? How much would Bush, Jr. pay? Are we no longer discussing profits of a few thousand bucks?
As more and more people enter the online community, political sites and news-debate sites will grow in power, and that power will have to spill over into the real world.
The entire concept of property (and even identity) is "virtual." Before the Industrial Revolution, you could pay to have documents forged that introduced you as whomever you pleased. With the advent of the photograph, identity became a more tangible thing. And now, with the advent of the "nick," technology has caught up.
another 2 cents from
Jurph;
penny for your thoughts?
No, a cool 1GHZ.
And don't call me shirley.
:P
I think you're right on... but why sell it to a government when they can give it to our government in exchange for tax breaks, preferential contractor status, DOJ immunity, and other such freebies?
Not to mention how much No Such Agency or the USAF would enjoy having a satellite that "didn't exist."
Maybe Ikonos is actually a killer satellite, sent to take out foreign sats with a plausible excuse--"Sorry, that must have been our lost satellite..."
Or, um, maybe not...
-jurph
p.s. Why is it that every time someone offers me a penny for my thoughts, I end up giving them two-cents'-worth? A guy could go broke.
I guess this could just as easily be filed under "Think Different."
It's my (as always, humble) opinion that the phrase "Think Different" is redundant. Simply by thinking, you are different, especially from the perspective of the herd. In high school, if any of you remember (I almost don't, and it hasn't been that long), the jocks were popular. If you read SlashDot regularly, I'm betting you weren't a jock.
I was lucky. My parents sent me to a private school after 7th and 8th grade. I never complained then, but those were the two worst years of my life, and getting out of the public school system was heaven. Why?
Anti-intellectualism. "Sure," you say, "throw an -ism at the problem." But hear me out.
City geeks--you had big classes, you were probably friends with a number of students of similar interests and intellects. And there still weren't many of you, were there? Compared to them? Do you remember the little war every day in the gym showers? Do you remember learning to shower and dress faster than anyone else to avoid the wrath of an idle jock? Do you remember how good it felt to be one of a few who could laugh at the jocks together, one of the ones who had people to sit with in the cafeteria?
Country geeks--especially from low population density states--How many of you were there? Three? Seven? In a school of how many? You remember what it was like to know that the teachers supported you, when everyone else was fighting them. You remember how you didn't have to study very much, and yet didn't ever have time to go out, either... or maybe nobody ever asked you to go anywhere with them.
Nobody (except my parents, God bless them) ever said "It's okay to be smart. It's okay to learn about computers. You're different from the others, and you know it. When they're mean to you, you have to realize that they're scared of you, of what you can think of, someday."
So, yeah, I was one of you. I was the only one in my school. For two years, I was alone. I had no friends.
Check that--I had a 286 with a 2400 baud modem. I had friends in the BBS'es, and I played MUDs with them (not that I ever called them that).
It's a good thing I never liked sunglasses or trench coats, hmmmmm?
But seriously: I think every geek realizes that, for the first twenty years of his (her) life, s/he will be persecuted. To a twelve-year-old, that's a lifetime. When you're that young, persecution is a thing which has "always" been in your world. School is a trial that may never end. When you have been teased since first grade for being smart, the lesson may sink in eventually: being smart is bad.
Smart people are not wanted. Smart people have no value. Smart people don't have friends. Smart people aren't attractive.
For people that age, when popularity is becoming important, this cuts to the core. Their (Our) entire society says to them, "You will never be the best." It says this to them after they've been told that they *are* the best. It hurts.
I have to stop ranting about this... I'll get to my point.
I think you all recognize some of the emotions above, some of the reactions. The media is quick to blame us for these shootings, and I think what lies at the heart of the accusation is an accusatory, Dark-Ages suspicion of the intelligent ones in any society. We're the modern wizards. We do magic. We write spells in C++. We inscribe symbols too small for the eye to see on mirrored wafers, and use them to conjure daemons. (sorry, couldn't resist).
There is a flawed perception in American thought that "jocks" are good at sports because they practice, and "geeks" are somehow born geniuses. Michael Jordan did not get that good simply by practicing. I was not born with the ability to learn calculus. Our pursuits are not appreciated by anyone who doesn't *need* us, and now that the world has started to need more and more of us, more and more of us are willing to show our faces.
As the chances that we "naturally talented" geeks will succeed in life strictly on brains increases, the envy of us increases, and the jealous hatred seeps into pop culture with characters like Milhous, Urkel, and other Nerd stereotypes. The geeks withdraw, become less sociable, and (perhaps) even more skilled at their geeking.
They also grow to hate society.
When I was twelve, a student in my middle school beat me up on the last day of school. My last day in the public school system. He told me it was a "going away present." I waited next to his locker with my pocket knife, ready to stab him for the humiliation. A classmate--a neutral party, the closest thing I had to a friend--told me to put it away. Told me anything I did to retaliate was wasting my time. I'd never see him again. I put away the knife.
I saw him later that day, as we were getting on the buses, and yelled some asshole comment like, "I'll be laughing when you're pumping gas into my limo, [epithet deleted]." I was a prick. A total prick. All because I felt that much hatred for one person.
That was almost 7 years ago. Now there is the Internet. The Internet is the ultimate tree-fort. Geeks of all ages can come and go unmolested, and unlike school, the Internet is a meritocracy. It pumps our egos, lets us feel like we *are* the best. Like we can maybe someday rise above feeling useless.
Geeks have always found hatred at school; elder Slashdotters, back me up here... How many of you toyed with--fantasized about--maybe someday getting revenge?
Geeks can now find the other three keys to a school shooting on the Internet.
1) Empowerment. We are finally allowed to have egos. We have a forum in which we can be proud of ourselves.
2) Violence. It does desensitize us. It lets us pretend that the man in the game is C.S. Holder, or Chris Givens, or maybe the kid whose name you still remember today. It lets us pretend that C.S. is no more important than the man in the game.
3) Information. How to make a bomb. How to buy a gun, cheap. How to make shrapnel for your bomb. Things that once took hours of obsessive research are now available at a whim. A hateful whim.
But the empowerment is good; we all know that. We take pride in checking SlashDot to see how we are shaping tomorrow.
The violence, to some tastes, is just fun. And by the time you're 18, that's all it is... just a little fun.
The information is what makes the Internet great.
We need to curb the hatred. We need to tell kids that being smart is more than okay. We need to let everyone know that just because we're going to be successful when we grow up doesn't mean that they should berate us and try to tear us down now.
Anti-intellectualism made the "Trench-Coat Mafia." The Internet simply let them actualize their fantasies and dreams.
And in the end, the media, rather than discard a handy stereotype, will argue for a censored Internet instead of a society that accepts people for who they are.
{{I apologize for the really long, emotional rant... I guess this has been building up in me for a while now. If you want to tear me down, please, go ahead. If this strikes a chord in you, e-mail me. I'd rather talk it out with every single person on the 'net than see this happen one more time.}}
--Jurph
A friend and I were talking over dinner last night, and his opinion (which I'm shamelessly co-opting) is that if you're trying to convince your boss to switch from NT to Linux, it just won't sink in when you tell him it's free.
It's like a bad Dilbert cartoon: you say to the pointy-haired boss, "We can install Linux. It will save us several thousand dollars, because it's free."
"What's free?"
"Linux."
"For how long?"
"Forever."
"But how much do we have to pay to install it?"
"Nothing."
"But if it's free, we can't get tech support, can we?"
"Yes. Tech support by the geek community at-large. For free."
"Okay, but then we obviously have to pay a fee for upgrades."
You can continue to say "no" at this point, and the boss will be convinced that it's some sort of underhanded budget trick--or worse yet, a joke on him--or you can say:
"Well, yeah... if we buy RedHat."
"What's RedHat?"
"It's the most expensive version of Linux."
"How much?"
...at this point, you basically name a number that doesn't sound too absurd. You want a hundred boxes for the office? tell him $5K. You want to show him amazing savings? Get ten, and tell him $500. You want to see if he'll bite? Get one (so you can have that nifty manual) and say $150, for the whole office. And buy your office some beers with the change.
As my friend said, "Management likes to buy things. If you tell them they can have things (especially expensive things like operating system upgrades) without buying them, they won't ever believe you."
So RedHat is not only not evil, but the fact that somebody is actually selling Linux is making The Suits pay attention, and even though Suits in our little world may be a Bad Thing(tm), there will never come a day when any one company can "own" Linux. Linus saw to that back in the day.
-jurph
...and, like all too many people, particularly We The [lawsuit-happy] People, they refuse to take the responsibility that comes with living in a world with free speech.
...To sue id because they (the parents) let him play computer games rated for 18+ due to violent content? ...To sue some webmasters because the parents allowed their child to surf X-rated websites? The purpose of the entire ratings system--in any medium--is so that without hampering the free speech we all value so much, children can be protected from images that will de-sensitize them to violence and skew their moral judgement.
They intend to sue Hollywood because they (the parents) allowed their easily influenced 14-year-old watch an R-rated movie?
Maybe I'm missing something here, but did the kid get the gun at the movies? Did he download it off the internet with a JPG? Did he maybe get a semi-auto nailgun free with QUAKE? I doubt it.
Who bought him the computer game? Who pays his ISP bills? Who probably gave him $10 for a movie ticket, without bothering to ask which movie?
I am not surprised that a lawsuit has been filed; I am only surprised that nobody has accused the parents of negligence. Candidates for plaintiffs abound, I'm sure. With 5 dead children in the tally, I would worry about how our justice system will compensate the victims' families, not the killer's negligent, whining parents.
I already print to a networked printer (as I'm sure a lot of you do), and the owner, my roommate, never knows if/when I'll need it, so he leaves it on for my convenience. Since we're in a T1'ed building, he's password-protected it. Obviously, passwords aren't secure enough for the real world, but doesn't it make sense that an IP filter or permission-from-admin system would help? This requires paying a sysadmin, I know... but the every computer connected to the outside world 24/7 will eventually need a paid sysadmin to monitor that connection, and he can't just be the geeky guy in cubicle 17 who happens to know how to fix them.
IMHO and such...
Jurph