uh, how do you figure? please let me know about your witty ip-address tracing scheme so i can come back and tell you in public how full of shit you are?
Don't get me wrong - I don't want my note to come off as a luddite rant, and I am very much an advocate of extremely rapid technological advancement. What I believe differentiates me from other people is I understand that this rapid advance is going to cost lives and could very well jeopardize our society. My only concern is with people who live with the illusion that we can or will control this stuff.
I was referring to terrorists. They don't have access to the nuclear capabilities that most other countries do.
Who do you think sponsors and supports these terrorists?
The relationship between "rogue" states and terrorists is very interesting - they sponsor them, yet have very little control over them. Its a highly volatile situation.
And yes, many of these terrorists would love to see an atomic device detonated in Central Park.
I'd say that atomic technology has been controlled rather well.
Is that why North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and India have nuclear programs that are either rapidly approaching or have already attained the ability to create an atomic ICBM?
The American government sees nuclear proliferation as one of the highest threats to national security. Your lax attitude is severely out of line with current thinking in international affairs.
it will be only days before Tim Koogle and his friends at Yahoo! are facing extradition to France.
The notion that the US government would hand over a leading tech CEO to the French government for possible incarceration is laughable.
unless Yahoo! can guarantee that the offending content can not be accessed from France then that content will have to be pulled.
This is not a possible outcome either. If it were even possible for the French government to restrict French access to Yahoo (it isn't), French citizens would be in an uproar over the zealous censorship of the surfing.
Frankly, such restrictions don't hurt Yahoo, they hurt the French people.
France is already seen an an Internet laggard. The government won't be taking such Luddite steps anytime soon, although they'll learn a thing or two about the realities of filtering internet content along the way.
The next fifty year are going to be a wild ride. Be prepared for technologies that defy regulation. You're already living through the first such wave, the Internet.
The idea that nanotech can be regulated is quaint, but if we can't regulate the proliferation of atomic technology, what makes us think we can control nanotech?
Biotech, long the best-controlled "viarl" (no pun intended) technology, is about to change drastically, as powerful tools and techniques manifest themselves in the private sphere before the public sphere. Celera beating the HGP to the punch is but one example.
Can't put the genie back in the bottle folks, deal with it.
Poor little protectionist, isolationist France. Even Russia has done a better job of integrating with the growing international market of goods and ideas.
I have to give them credit - the French really made a good go of trying to perfect the 50s version of the nation-state - isolationist, protectionist, and propped up by a utopian social system. Too bad the world has passed them by.
The bottom line is this - around three hundred years ago, the world passed through a formative period of history whereby conflicts were brewing that would determine if most of the white people outside of Europe would end up adopting English culture or French culture. English won. The French have never really recovered.
The poster, and the quote cited from the original article are bang-on - if Intel can come close to Transmeta's power consumption goals, Messrs Ditzel and Torvalds will be shown the door shortly after their requisite fifteen minutes of fame.
Strangely enough, Intel proved that branding can be applied even to something as disconnected form the user as a CPU, the ultimate "black box" that by rights should be brand-neutral from a user/consumer perspective. Nonetheless, the "Intel Inside" branding strategy has been a success, with most PC makers touting the Intel branding on their boxes.
Don't underestimate the stickiness of a brand and a product that people know to work. Transmeta has none of that cachet - in fact, the Trnasmeta cachet is of ".com media darling" - which is probably exactly opposite to what CPU branding should represent.
If Intel can get close to the Transmeta power consumption goals, its game over for Transmeta.
User education isn't the issue - CVS simply lacks adequate functionality.
Major source tree cleanups, as another poster has pointed out, are incredibly painful, and typically result in the admin going into/CVSROOT and just tickling the filesystem directly (which is what any type of database should prevent you from having to do).
CVS is one of those tools in unix-land that simply needs to be taken outside and shot (along with "make" and a few others).
To this day, most usrrs and admins resolve CVS problems by mucking with the/CVSROOT files themselves, and just taking it from scratch. It is incredibly easy to get CVS into a confused state, particularly when removing or moving files.
Once upon a time the notion of a structured namespace was worth pursuing, but blatant abuses of.net and.org have essentially turned this into wishful thinking.
TLDs are a crapshoot from this point forward, and its obvious that ICANN has finally come around to this.
There's a good reason for this - business people are not engineers or coders or admins, they don't think the way we think.
most CEOs of large tech companies started out as programmers (Gates, Ellison). Try doing some basic research before your next post.
Your most foolish statement - the Men In Suits see SCO as someone they've written a cheque to before, someone they may have a support contract with. In other words, a known good (well, adequate) commodity. To a Suit Man, this is a Good Thing TM. Please try to make your way from your dorm room to an accounting or management class next semester, okay?
Thanks for playing - when I read responses like this I know I'm dealing with a certified lightweight.
People on/. seem to treat "business people" as if they were an alien race. Red Hat is a publically traded stock that even your grandmother has heard of. IBM's backing of linux (month's old now) bridged any credibility gap more than adequately (how more "establishment" can you get??).
The "Men with Big Chequebooks" see SCO the same way you do - a has-been looking for a reason to survive.
I would recommend that anyone even remotely interested in this issue read the aforementioned article. I learned a great deal spending an hour or so reading it.
By the way, when the time comes for the trash to step off the web, don't be too far away from the front of the line yourself - your assumption that a network's worth increases as the number of users decreases shows clearly what an idiot you are.
Go out and rent something from Monty Python, Cheech and Chong, or Spinal Tap. You should sample some real comedy before you die, just so you know why UF isn't.
countries such as Russia won't get much in the way of choice
Why not? What are you going to do, force them?
Look at any graph of the net - there is almost no way to cut off a rogue subnetwork without interfering with legitimate traffic, and the degree to which the interconnectedness meshes, crosses, and routes around national boundaries is increasing. These networks are privately owned - none of the "treaties" you've discussed really have any basis or hope of ever being usefully enforced.
Your proposal makes about as much sense as a proposal to block telephone calls from China if we get too many crank calls from one of its citizens.
I believe a recent Bruce Sterling novel emplyes this concept - servers are set up in the People's Republic of China, with virtually all US intellectual property available for free, thus leading to a destabilization of the US economy.
Interesting premise, considering that the interconnectedness of the net these days makes it virtually impossible to isolate a substantial subsection of the internet.
XSL is not, nor is it likely to ever be a full-fledged programming language. XSL is a declarative translation language
You can slice it any way you want, but people who write XSL in one form or another are programming. Sooner or later they will see the need for modularity, reuse, inheritance, assignment, and other features of real programming languages, and the XSL-equivalent solution will likely confuse and confound them.
Bascially, anything you can do in XSL I can do faster, with greater portability, speed, and potential reuse, in another language.
XSL is a solution looking for a problem, exactly what the W3 is serving up these days.
Slashdot Mirror
uh, how do you figure? please let me know about your witty ip-address tracing scheme so i can come back and tell you in public how full of shit you are?
Don't get me wrong - I don't want my note to come off as a luddite rant, and I am very much an advocate of extremely rapid technological advancement. What I believe differentiates me from other people is I understand that this rapid advance is going to cost lives and could very well jeopardize our society. My only concern is with people who live with the illusion that we can or will control this stuff.
Who do you think sponsors and supports these terrorists?
The relationship between "rogue" states and terrorists is very interesting - they sponsor them, yet have very little control over them. Its a highly volatile situation.
And yes, many of these terrorists would love to see an atomic device detonated in Central Park.
silly responder knows not how to make haiku looks like an asshole
Is that why North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and India have nuclear programs that are either rapidly approaching or have already attained the ability to create an atomic ICBM?
The American government sees nuclear proliferation as one of the highest threats to national security. Your lax attitude is severely out of line with current thinking in international affairs.
The notion that the US government would hand over a leading tech CEO to the French government for possible incarceration is laughable.
unless Yahoo! can guarantee that the offending content can not be accessed from France then that content will have to be pulled.
This is not a possible outcome either. If it were even possible for the French government to restrict French access to Yahoo (it isn't), French citizens would be in an uproar over the zealous censorship of the surfing.
Frankly, such restrictions don't hurt Yahoo, they hurt the French people.
France is already seen an an Internet laggard. The government won't be taking such Luddite steps anytime soon, although they'll learn a thing or two about the realities of filtering internet content along the way.
The idea that nanotech can be regulated is quaint, but if we can't regulate the proliferation of atomic technology, what makes us think we can control nanotech?
Biotech, long the best-controlled "viarl" (no pun intended) technology, is about to change drastically, as powerful tools and techniques manifest themselves in the private sphere before the public sphere. Celera beating the HGP to the punch is but one example.
Can't put the genie back in the bottle folks, deal with it.
I have to give them credit - the French really made a good go of trying to perfect the 50s version of the nation-state - isolationist, protectionist, and propped up by a utopian social system. Too bad the world has passed them by.
The bottom line is this - around three hundred years ago, the world passed through a formative period of history whereby conflicts were brewing that would determine if most of the white people outside of Europe would end up adopting English culture or French culture. English won. The French have never really recovered.
Strangely enough, Intel proved that branding can be applied even to something as disconnected form the user as a CPU, the ultimate "black box" that by rights should be brand-neutral from a user/consumer perspective. Nonetheless, the "Intel Inside" branding strategy has been a success, with most PC makers touting the Intel branding on their boxes.
Don't underestimate the stickiness of a brand and a product that people know to work. Transmeta has none of that cachet - in fact, the Trnasmeta cachet is of ".com media darling" - which is probably exactly opposite to what CPU branding should represent.
If Intel can get close to the Transmeta power consumption goals, its game over for Transmeta.
Will the FAQ tell me why CVS is unable to rename files easily?
Once again, the /. group-mentality rears its ugly head.
User education isn't the issue - CVS simply lacks adequate functionality.
Major source tree cleanups, as another poster has pointed out, are incredibly painful, and typically result in the admin going into /CVSROOT and just tickling the filesystem directly (which is what any type of database should prevent you from having to do).
To this day, most usrrs and admins resolve CVS problems by mucking with the /CVSROOT files themselves, and just taking it from scratch. It is incredibly easy to get CVS into a confused state, particularly when removing or moving files.
Gripe mode off.
TLDs are a crapshoot from this point forward, and its obvious that ICANN has finally come around to this.
There is no "us", get over it. Most of the people you hold to be in "your community" wouldn't give you a nickle to save your life.
most CEOs of large tech companies started out as programmers (Gates, Ellison). Try doing some basic research before your next post.
Your most foolish statement - the Men In Suits see SCO as someone they've written a cheque to before, someone they may have a support contract with. In other words, a known good (well, adequate) commodity. To a Suit Man, this is a Good Thing TM. Please try to make your way from your dorm room to an accounting or management class next semester, okay?
Thanks for playing - when I read responses like this I know I'm dealing with a certified lightweight.
The "Men with Big Chequebooks" see SCO the same way you do - a has-been looking for a reason to survive.
If you don't like discussion, why are you at a discussion site?
I would recommend that anyone even remotely interested in this issue read the aforementioned article. I learned a great deal spending an hour or so reading it.
By the way, when the time comes for the trash to step off the web, don't be too far away from the front of the line yourself - your assumption that a network's worth increases as the number of users decreases shows clearly what an idiot you are.
Go out and rent something from Monty Python, Cheech and Chong, or Spinal Tap. You should sample some real comedy before you die, just so you know why UF isn't.
Why not? What are you going to do, force them?
Look at any graph of the net - there is almost no way to cut off a rogue subnetwork without interfering with legitimate traffic, and the degree to which the interconnectedness meshes, crosses, and routes around national boundaries is increasing. These networks are privately owned - none of the "treaties" you've discussed really have any basis or hope of ever being usefully enforced.
Your proposal makes about as much sense as a proposal to block telephone calls from China if we get too many crank calls from one of its citizens.
Interesting premise, considering that the interconnectedness of the net these days makes it virtually impossible to isolate a substantial subsection of the internet.
You can slice it any way you want, but people who write XSL in one form or another are programming. Sooner or later they will see the need for modularity, reuse, inheritance, assignment, and other features of real programming languages, and the XSL-equivalent solution will likely confuse and confound them.
Bascially, anything you can do in XSL I can do faster, with greater portability, speed, and potential reuse, in another language.
XSL is a solution looking for a problem, exactly what the W3 is serving up these days.