I think the difference between our points of view is that I believe that we have to use nature to get by it while your opinion is that we can blow right by it to something better. Do I sound about right?
The real difference is that I'm doing research in distributed computing, so to me anything is an excuse to push a distributed computing effort...:)
Your points are valid, of course, and so is biomimetics-oriented research. My point is simply that, knowing that technological advances usually come much faster than you expect, it's imprudent not to start preparing already, at least in terms of infrastructure, to support future research on what seems to be a very promising field once we have the technology necessary to do it well (i.e., computing systems that are able to simulate real-world conditions with enough detail that it's possible to perform automated selection between different "individuals" based on their performance in the simulation).
There's a lot to be learned from the biological nature of things.
Of course there is. I never disputed that.
The most successful models and robots that have been developed so far mimic things found in the biological world. For example, distributed learning and mechanics is what ants and bees have learned to do. If a single ant or bee finds a source of food or pollen, chances are that in under half an hour, there will be a lot of its friends there. Big clunky walking machines are not the way to go: lightweight machines which have a single joint like the human knee are what works.
I'm aware of all this research. But it all depends on your definition of "successful". So far you've missed my point.
Or, make a robotic model like a cockroac h and you'll find that you can move and get over obstacles better than anywhere else. And if you want to move in water, you should learn to swim like a tuna.
"Better than anywhere else" is subjective. It's good, yeah, but who says that there isn't a much better way to do it that no engineer has yet figured out, but that, say, a distributed computing effort applying an iterative recombination/mutation/selection algorithm over a design for a locomotion system might find really quickly?
This is all practical research done at MIT right now with proven results.
Yes, I'm aware of that.
It's far more promising than trying to engineer something from scratch.
Again, that's questionable.
Nature has millions of years worth of R&D to develop its solutions. Why not tap it?
I didn't say we shouldn't tap it. What I said is that, when designing technology in the future, we should not confine ourselves to the examples provided to us by nature - especially not if we ever intend to move out en masse towards new environments in which natural biological evolution hasn't produced useful design paradigms. Nature may have had millions of years, but nature's iterative cycles are slow, while ours needn't be. With increasing computing power, it's not inconceivable that in a short time we may be able to perfect GA-based systems that spew out completely innovative designs ready for incorporation into new technology - and why not, even entirely artificial machinery nanobuilt directly from computer-generated specs.
So it's not a question of "what research path can produce results?", or of "what has produced the most useable results so far?". It's a question of "what is the most promising path in the long term?" For now, we're still playing catch-up, but eventually, we'll outrun the natural evolutive processes, and then there'll be nothing left to copy.
Although this is a pretty cool engineering feat and will probably eventually become useful, I don't consider it to be very meaningful in the Big Scheme of things. IMNSHO, biomimetics is the result of people getting what is essentially the wrong message from nature.
What I mean is: people look at, e.g., a snake moving around gracefully, and they say "Let's replicate that kind of movement! It'll make for very useful robots!" So they go and study snake physiology for years on end, eventually mapping down the entire motion mechanism. Then comes the hard part: they try to build an artificial motion mechanism that works on the same principles. This proves incredibly frustrating, and it takes a Long Long Time and plenty of irritating compromises before someone comes out with a workable design - which will likely resemble the original in very few aspects. In effect, they're just trying to reverse-engineer a finished product [1], knowing only assembler code and nothing of high-level programming.
Now, I think a much better way to do things is to notice, instead, how incredible it is that such a powerful and versatile, while buggy, mechanism has arisen from just a few organic molecules without external intervention [2], and to concentrate on learning how the evolutionary process works - and to try and mimick/that/. This may not (in fact, it probably will not) produce motion mechanisms that are identical to snakes', but it will at the very least produce systems that are equivalently adapt at moving in the same kind of environment. Not only that, it'll also provide us with an endless source of new ideas for systems and of insight as to how to design better ones. In effect, instead of copying nature's mechanisms, we are learning to program for ourselves.
Of course, I'm aware that many steps have already been taken in this direction (the GA-designed Lego Bridge comes to mind), but GA-based tech is nowhere near as popular a research field as traditional biomimetics.
[1] Yes, I know, nothing in nature is a "finished product". I just used the term for the purpose of analogy.
[2]... which is what is generally thought to be most likely to have happened. Before you try to assert that there was any kind of external (external to the environment - i.e., supernatural) intervention, let me tell you that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and until I see some of it, I'm sticking with the strictly-natural theory.
BTW, I am not the original poster. I do not have any sort of political agenda (actually, I do, but it's not related to this). I just thought you might like to get a little more informed before you go back to stuffing yourself with your beloved overpriced "natural" food. (By the way, how are the endemic species that were dislodged by your expansive and soil-consuming agricultural practices?)
In general, I agree with Katz's analysis of why the intelligentzia's anti-technology stance is ultimately doomed. However, to make his point, he may be getting to wrong conclusions from the survey's results. As he says:
What's striking about the survey is that although Americans expect some problems to worsen, their overall outlook about the future remains optimistic.
Or maybe they just don't think much about the issue, and just get enthusiastic - rapidly sweeping into near-hysterical herd mentality - when both the good and the bad are brought up.
Here's how these pollings often go...
Q: Do you think technology will improve our lives?
(Subject very cheerful, thinking about all the great advances of the 20th century, presumably desiring to make "a good impression" on the poll)
A: Yes! The 21st century will be wonderful! With robots and flying cars and all.
Q: Do you think that {there'll be an epidemic|there'll be a terrorist attack|world hunger will agravate|the environment will go down the drain}?
(Subject suddenly starts to think about all the crappy things that happened in the past, goes into hysteria mode)
A: Yeah! I mean, the global warming... and the Muslims with the nukes... and those poor Ethiopians... and AIDS and Ebola... [et cetera, ad nauseam]
See my point?
Also, Katz displays an amazing amount of Americanocentrism. It's very strange that, times being what they are, a journalist discussing a theme of universal interest in an electronic medium with worldwide reach, takes as universal data that pertains only to about 4% of the world's population. This is a very strong and noticeable tendency in Katz's writing. So travel a bit, Jon.
Um, excuse me, but when did the expression "surf" leave the domain of AOLers and assorted clueless newbies and become acceptable for use by the geek community as a metaphor for using the Internet?
Good point, except that I'm not an American. (This is blatantly obvious from the TLD displayed in my email address, as well as from my signature, which is in Portuguese.)
You know, in a perfect world, you'd be right - if the people decided that a given government wasn't good, it'd be just a matter of voting against them next time.
Obviously, this isn't a perfect world. Representative democracy is a horrible compromise disguised as a solution, which satisfies nobody and causes more trouble than it's worth.
We'll start by inventing a practical assembler technology and forming an underground movement to give everybody in the world access to it. Free assembler technology means virtually infinite resources, which means that everything upon which our current economic model is based upon comes tumbling down. As the human species becomes economy-less, it also gradually becomes politics-less (this is a process we can try to speed up). "Social" crime and violence vanishes, and there is no longer a need for law per se. As governments break, we then make a massive effort to make people conscious of their own freedom - people no longer have economic shackles holding them down, and they should be able to do whatever they want without having Big Brother always breathing down their necks. What this really means is that it no longer is valid for any group of people to try to hold a monopoly on authorized violence (which is the best definition of a government). We also spread the idea of self-regulation - eternal vigilance to guarantee one's own freedom. As life conditions improve drastically, people have no need for a government per se, but only corporations to take care of their bureaucratic needs - life insurance, etc. Because there are no governments and everybody is free, corporations are no longer able to gain power in ways that harm consumers (directly or indirectly). So we have anarchist capitalism.
It's a nice idea, and the only thing upon which it really depends to work is the technology. We'll see what happens in the long run.
The last fellow to proclaim himself independent of the law lived in a compound in Waco, TX. Last I looked, he died, his followers died, and just to be sure, two dozen children died in a fire.
Wow. You know, you're right. Two dozen children died, so we should stop trying to free ourselves from tyranny. Because that's the fate of everyone who attempts to break free - or who questions the morality behind the idea of government.
Maybe you should research the histories of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence. They were killed, their children killed, their homes and farms burned.
Again, is that supposed to scare me or what?
Vigilance? You don't know the meaning of the word.
I don't? Please enlighten me - how do you know that? Are you by any chance familiar with me? In fact, have you ever heard of me except for this post? So how did you come to the conclusion that I don't know the meaning of the word "vigilance"? Probably by the same means through which you found that I am a doormat. Oh well.
Cheap shot, I know, but someone had to say it:) Seriously, when a government decides that it is allowed to get into my personal business without my private authorization, I say it's time to overthrow the government. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
I got "The Letter". To be honest, I had to read it twice before I could even figure out what it was about. (But then again, I just might be stupid.) Sadly enough, being in Brazil, I'm not elegible (sp?). So there goes my chance to get into the stock market. *sigh*
Hell yeah! As more and more people realize that Microsoft is, in fact, the Beast of the Apocalypse [1], the masses rise against their former masters and take back their computing freedom by force!
Seriously, this is a Good Thing - and a good comeback to those who were previously bitching about the government trying to, um, "meddle", in Microsoft's private affairs (motivated by what was it? "jealous" companies like Sun and Netscape). Now it's the people. If they can prove that Microsoft actively and intentionally harmed the consumers, all hell's gonna break lose. (I hope.)
I was about to post the very same thing. I think it's awfully pessimistic of [whoever the poster was] to assume that we'll all be dead before the human species achieves immortality; Slashdot being an essentially technological community, I would have assumed that it was commonly understood by its members that radically new technology usually appears spontaneously (apparently out of thin air) and much sooner than you'd expect it to. (Heavier-than-air flight, anyone?) Therefore, I not only don't rule out the possibility of becoming immortal "by not dying", but expect to actively help make it happen.
In Brazil, the monthly salary in the IT field ranges from R$600 (~$300) as the worst-case scenario for entry-level programmers in small companies, to R$4K to 6K (~$2000-3000) for the best technical jobs in large companies. (Managers may get a lot more than that.) Of course, you don't really want to live here; the economy is floundering, the education and healthcare systems suck majorly, corruption and crime run amok, and the government is little more than a big bloated bunch of incompetent bureaucrats. And all that the average person cares about is beach, soccer, beer and half-naked dancing women. (Oh yeah, that reminds me - none of the aforementioned half-naked dancing women are ever going to go out with you - the average Brazilian woman is a middle-aged illiterate homeless 200-pound hag with three kids who smokes too much.)
Programs are being written to perform the same kind of (largely subconscious) thought processes that drives musicians - i.e., they think like musicians, and will create art just like them. Given that both computer and human are thinking in the same way to create music, and that what the computer does will not be copied or preprogrammed by a human, how can you say that what the human musician does is in any way more real than what the computer does?
Honestly, this just seems to me as one of those things that are "impossible" until the very moment when they are done. It reminds me of the discussions I had when that story about the computer writing contest came out (I won't go looking for a link right now... too lazy). Eventually, artificial minds will think as well as, and then even better than human minds; get over it.
It's likely that I'm not the first to comment on this, but I have to point it out. The article claims that the IBM PC was the first popular personal computer... but it only came out in 1981, when the Apple II had already been around for a full 4 years.
When the Apple II was introduced at the First West Coast Computer Faire, it was an instant hit. It has been popular ever since, with fan pages all over the world. So I think it's fair to say that it was the first popular PC.
... my tastes are ridiculously eclectic. While I do have a fixation on 70's progressive rock (mainly Yes, Genesis, Pink Floyd, Focus, solo Peter Gabriel, Steve Howe and Rick Wakeman albums, although I also like Jethro Tull (which isn't very progressive, when you think about it) and Rush), my tastes are definitely not limited to that: my collection goes from baroque and early romantic classical (J.S. Bach is my favourite), through blues (B.B. King and Muddy Waters) and jazz (Miles Davis and Larry Corryell, but mostly Keith Jarrett, my favourite pianist), seminal 60's London rock (Yardbirds, Jeff Beck, Eric Clapton, and of course Jimi Hendrix), all kinds of 70's hard rock (Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Nazareth), and some of the older heavy metal (Black Sabbath, basically). Most of the later music I actively dislike, with a few exceptions.
I have yet to see any new stuff originating from the OSS community.
Uh, just about all the software written in universities, etc. for a long time was OSS - if you sent them a letter requesting a copy of some program, they'd mail you back a tape. (Case in point: the MIT, from whence came Lisp, emacs, X, etc.)
I think that the reason why so much OSS nowadays is imitation is simply that it's very hard to come up with something that is both innovative and doable, especially in an OSS development scheme; by contrast, people working in corporative environments will write the software or get fired.
Besides, most OSS projects originate in the Linux community, and Linux is itself a Unix clone, so most stuff that comes out of it will probably have an Unix-y feel to it.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the difference between our points of view is that I believe that we have to use nature to get by it while your opinion is that we can blow right by it to something better. Do I sound about right?
:)
The real difference is that I'm doing research in distributed computing, so to me anything is an excuse to push a distributed computing effort...
Your points are valid, of course, and so is biomimetics-oriented research. My point is simply that, knowing that technological advances usually come much faster than you expect, it's imprudent not to start preparing already, at least in terms of infrastructure, to support future research on what seems to be a very promising field once we have the technology necessary to do it well (i.e., computing systems that are able to simulate real-world conditions with enough detail that it's possible to perform automated selection between different "individuals" based on their performance in the simulation).
I disagree.
:)
I knew somebody would...
There's a lot to be learned from the biological nature of things.
Of course there is. I never disputed that.
The most successful models and robots that have been developed so far mimic things found in the biological world. For example, distributed learning and mechanics is what ants and bees have learned to do. If a single ant or bee finds a source of food or pollen, chances are that in under half an hour, there will be a lot of its friends there. Big clunky walking machines are not the way to go: lightweight machines which have a single joint like the human knee are what works.
I'm aware of all this research. But it all depends on your definition of "successful". So far you've missed my point.
Or, make a robotic model like a cockroac h and you'll find that you can move and get over obstacles better than anywhere else. And if you want to move in water, you should learn to swim like a tuna.
"Better than anywhere else" is subjective. It's good, yeah, but who says that there isn't a much better way to do it that no engineer has yet figured out, but that, say, a distributed computing effort applying an iterative recombination/mutation/selection algorithm over a design for a locomotion system might find really quickly?
This is all practical research done at MIT right now with proven results.
Yes, I'm aware of that.
It's far more promising than trying to engineer something from scratch.
Again, that's questionable.
Nature has millions of years worth of R&D to develop its solutions. Why not tap it?
I didn't say we shouldn't tap it. What I said is that, when designing technology in the future, we should not confine ourselves to the examples provided to us by nature - especially not if we ever intend to move out en masse towards new environments in which natural biological evolution hasn't produced useful design paradigms. Nature may have had millions of years, but nature's iterative cycles are slow, while ours needn't be. With increasing computing power, it's not inconceivable that in a short time we may be able to perfect GA-based systems that spew out completely innovative designs ready for incorporation into new technology - and why not, even entirely artificial machinery nanobuilt directly from computer-generated specs.
So it's not a question of "what research path can produce results?", or of "what has produced the most useable results so far?". It's a question of "what is the most promising path in the long term?" For now, we're still playing catch-up, but eventually, we'll outrun the natural evolutive processes, and then there'll be nothing left to copy.
Although this is a pretty cool engineering feat and will probably eventually become useful, I don't consider it to be very meaningful in the Big Scheme of things. IMNSHO, biomimetics is the result of people getting what is essentially the wrong message from nature.
/that/. This may not (in fact, it probably will not) produce motion mechanisms that are identical to snakes', but it will at the very least produce systems that are equivalently adapt at moving in the same kind of environment. Not only that, it'll also provide us with an endless source of new ideas for systems and of insight as to how to design better ones. In effect, instead of copying nature's mechanisms, we are learning to program for ourselves.
... which is what is generally thought to be most likely to have happened. Before you try to assert that there was any kind of external (external to the environment - i.e., supernatural) intervention, let me tell you that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and until I see some of it, I'm sticking with the strictly-natural theory.
What I mean is: people look at, e.g., a snake moving around gracefully, and they say "Let's replicate that kind of movement! It'll make for very useful robots!" So they go and study snake physiology for years on end, eventually mapping down the entire motion mechanism. Then comes the hard part: they try to build an artificial motion mechanism that works on the same principles. This proves incredibly frustrating, and it takes a Long Long Time and plenty of irritating compromises before someone comes out with a workable design - which will likely resemble the original in very few aspects. In effect, they're just trying to reverse-engineer a finished product [1], knowing only assembler code and nothing of high-level programming.
Now, I think a much better way to do things is to notice, instead, how incredible it is that such a powerful and versatile, while buggy, mechanism has arisen from just a few organic molecules without external intervention [2], and to concentrate on learning how the evolutionary process works - and to try and mimick
Of course, I'm aware that many steps have already been taken in this direction (the GA-designed Lego Bridge comes to mind), but GA-based tech is nowhere near as popular a research field as traditional biomimetics.
[1] Yes, I know, nothing in nature is a "finished product". I just used the term for the purpose of analogy.
[2]
Go ahead and back up your proposterous claim that organic farming is somehow more harmful for the environment. This I gotta see.
t ml
http://www.scie nceagogo.com/news/19990109225423data_trunc_sys.sh
BTW, I am not the original poster. I do not have any sort of political agenda (actually, I do, but it's not related to this). I just thought you might like to get a little more informed before you go back to stuffing yourself with your beloved overpriced "natural" food. (By the way, how are the endemic species that were dislodged by your expansive and soil-consuming agricultural practices?)
In general, I agree with Katz's analysis of why the intelligentzia's anti-technology stance is ultimately doomed. However, to make his point, he may be getting to wrong conclusions from the survey's results. As he says:
What's striking about the survey is that although Americans expect some problems to worsen, their overall outlook about the future remains optimistic.
Or maybe they just don't think much about the issue, and just get enthusiastic - rapidly sweeping into near-hysterical herd mentality - when both the good and the bad are brought up.
Here's how these pollings often go...
Q: Do you think technology will improve our lives?
(Subject very cheerful, thinking about all the great advances of the 20th century, presumably desiring to make "a good impression" on the poll)
A: Yes! The 21st century will be wonderful! With robots and flying cars and all.
Q: Do you think that {there'll be an epidemic|there'll be a terrorist attack|world hunger will agravate|the environment will go down the drain}?
(Subject suddenly starts to think about all the crappy things that happened in the past, goes into hysteria mode)
A: Yeah! I mean, the global warming... and the Muslims with the nukes... and those poor Ethiopians... and AIDS and Ebola... [et cetera, ad nauseam]
See my point?
Also, Katz displays an amazing amount of Americanocentrism. It's very strange that, times being what they are, a journalist discussing a theme of universal interest in an electronic medium with worldwide reach, takes as universal data that pertains only to about 4% of the world's population. This is a very strong and noticeable tendency in Katz's writing. So travel a bit, Jon.
Is it just me, or does Hemos have a really bad sense of humour? (No offense, Jeff. I just don't find you very amusing.)
It's sad to see that supposedly intelligent people don't know the difference between the connective "than" and the adverb "then".
(I'm sorry, but I had to say it. If it makes me a pedantic ass, so be it.)
Aaaaaaaaaaah. Now I see.
(And boy, do I feel stupid.)
hint: what rhymes with the first syllable of citizen??
OK, English is not my first language, but I don't get it. What is the nickname anyway? Ottawa Citosine? Am I missing something?
Um, excuse me, but when did the expression "surf" leave the domain of AOLers and assorted clueless newbies and become acceptable for use by the geek community as a metaphor for using the Internet?
No way. We're too cool to say "surf".
Good point, except that I'm not an American. (This is blatantly obvious from the TLD displayed in my email address, as well as from my signature, which is in Portuguese.)
You know, in a perfect world, you'd be right - if the people decided that a given government wasn't good, it'd be just a matter of voting against them next time.
Obviously, this isn't a perfect world. Representative democracy is a horrible compromise disguised as a solution, which satisfies nobody and causes more trouble than it's worth.
Oh well.
And just how do you propose to do this?
We'll start by inventing a practical assembler technology and forming an underground movement to give everybody in the world access to it. Free assembler technology means virtually infinite resources, which means that everything upon which our current economic model is based upon comes tumbling down. As the human species becomes economy-less, it also gradually becomes politics-less (this is a process we can try to speed up). "Social" crime and violence vanishes, and there is no longer a need for law per se. As governments break, we then make a massive effort to make people conscious of their own freedom - people no longer have economic shackles holding them down, and they should be able to do whatever they want without having Big Brother always breathing down their necks. What this really means is that it no longer is valid for any group of people to try to hold a monopoly on authorized violence (which is the best definition of a government). We also spread the idea of self-regulation - eternal vigilance to guarantee one's own freedom. As life conditions improve drastically, people have no need for a government per se, but only corporations to take care of their bureaucratic needs - life insurance, etc. Because there are no governments and everybody is free, corporations are no longer able to gain power in ways that harm consumers (directly or indirectly). So we have anarchist capitalism.
It's a nice idea, and the only thing upon which it really depends to work is the technology. We'll see what happens in the long run.
The last fellow to proclaim himself independent of the law lived in a compound in Waco, TX. Last I looked, he died, his followers died, and just to be sure, two dozen children died in a fire.
Wow. You know, you're right. Two dozen children died, so we should stop trying to free ourselves from tyranny. Because that's the fate of everyone who attempts to break free - or who questions the morality behind the idea of government.
Maybe you should research the histories of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence. They were killed, their children killed, their homes and farms burned.
Again, is that supposed to scare me or what?
Vigilance? You don't know the meaning of the word.
I don't? Please enlighten me - how do you know that? Are you by any chance familiar with me? In fact, have you ever heard of me except for this post? So how did you come to the conclusion that I don't know the meaning of the word "vigilance"? Probably by the same means through which you found that I am a doormat. Oh well.
Cheap shot, I know, but someone had to say it :) Seriously, when a government decides that it is allowed to get into my personal business without my private authorization, I say it's time to overthrow the government. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
I got "The Letter". To be honest, I had to read it twice before I could even figure out what it was about. (But then again, I just might be stupid.) Sadly enough, being in Brazil, I'm not elegible (sp?). So there goes my chance to get into the stock market. *sigh*
Gibson's got nothing. More like Engines of Creation.
Seriously, this is a Good Thing - and a good comeback to those who were previously bitching about the government trying to, um, "meddle", in Microsoft's private affairs (motivated by what was it? "jealous" companies like Sun and Netscape). Now it's the people. If they can prove that Microsoft actively and intentionally harmed the consumers, all hell's gonna break lose. (I hope.)
1.666 Microsoft Way.
I was about to post the very same thing. I think it's awfully pessimistic of [whoever the poster was] to assume that we'll all be dead before the human species achieves immortality; Slashdot being an essentially technological community, I would have assumed that it was commonly understood by its members that radically new technology usually appears spontaneously (apparently out of thin air) and much sooner than you'd expect it to. (Heavier-than-air flight, anyone?) Therefore, I not only don't rule out the possibility of becoming immortal "by not dying", but expect to actively help make it happen.
In Brazil, the monthly salary in the IT field ranges from R$600 (~$300) as the worst-case scenario for entry-level programmers in small companies, to R$4K to 6K (~$2000-3000) for the best technical jobs in large companies. (Managers may get a lot more than that.) Of course, you don't really want to live here; the economy is floundering, the education and healthcare systems suck majorly, corruption and crime run amok, and the government is little more than a big bloated bunch of incompetent bureaucrats. And all that the average person cares about is beach, soccer, beer and half-naked dancing women. (Oh yeah, that reminds me - none of the aforementioned half-naked dancing women are ever going to go out with you - the average Brazilian woman is a middle-aged illiterate homeless 200-pound hag with three kids who smokes too much.)
"All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening."
Illogical morals, stupid laws and inadequate biochemistry.
Care to elaborate on your notion of "real"?
Programs are being written to perform the same kind of (largely subconscious) thought processes that drives musicians - i.e., they think like musicians, and will create art just like them. Given that both computer and human are thinking in the same way to create music, and that what the computer does will not be copied or preprogrammed by a human, how can you say that what the human musician does is in any way more real than what the computer does?
Honestly, this just seems to me as one of those things that are "impossible" until the very moment when they are done. It reminds me of the discussions I had when that story about the computer writing contest came out (I won't go looking for a link right now... too lazy). Eventually, artificial minds will think as well as, and then even better than human minds; get over it.
It's likely that I'm not the first to comment on this, but I have to point it out. The article claims that the IBM PC was the first popular personal computer... but it only came out in 1981, when the Apple II had already been around for a full 4 years.
When the Apple II was introduced at the First West Coast Computer Faire, it was an instant hit. It has been popular ever since, with fan pages all over the world. So I think it's fair to say that it was the first popular PC.
Anyone else get left out? :)
The Anti-hacker: "See? The battle over the name 'hacker' is dead! Get over it!"
The Poll-dweller: "Rob sux!"
The Moderator wannabe: "Rob rulez!"
The Third-world country starving kid might have an insightful comment, but his underprivileged background forces him to remain in silence.
... my tastes are ridiculously eclectic. While I do have a fixation on 70's progressive rock (mainly Yes, Genesis, Pink Floyd, Focus, solo Peter Gabriel, Steve Howe and Rick Wakeman albums, although I also like Jethro Tull (which isn't very progressive, when you think about it) and Rush), my tastes are definitely not limited to that: my collection goes from baroque and early romantic classical (J.S. Bach is my favourite), through blues (B.B. King and Muddy Waters) and jazz (Miles Davis and Larry Corryell, but mostly Keith Jarrett, my favourite pianist), seminal 60's London rock (Yardbirds, Jeff Beck, Eric Clapton, and of course Jimi Hendrix), all kinds of 70's hard rock (Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Nazareth), and some of the older heavy metal (Black Sabbath, basically). Most of the later music I actively dislike, with a few exceptions.
I like to think of my self as a pragmatic person.
Well, good for you.
I have yet to see any new stuff originating from the OSS community.
Uh, just about all the software written in universities, etc. for a long time was OSS - if you sent them a letter requesting a copy of some program, they'd mail you back a tape. (Case in point: the MIT, from whence came Lisp, emacs, X, etc.)
I think that the reason why so much OSS nowadays is imitation is simply that it's very hard to come up with something that is both innovative and doable, especially in an OSS development scheme; by contrast, people working in corporative environments will write the software or get fired.
Besides, most OSS projects originate in the Linux community, and Linux is itself a Unix clone, so most stuff that comes out of it will probably have an Unix-y feel to it.
You can have barraponto when you pry it from my cold dead hands, dammit!
(Wait... did someone just say "no problem"?-- *ack*)