This is something I have never understood. What makes you think they care what you do in your day to day life? And if they did have this apparently top-secret information, what horrible and nefarious purpose do you suppose they'll use it for?
Now, its true that in history that the more privacy a government gives its people is often indicative of the quality of life those citizens enjoy. However, that does not imply that the act of collecting information causes the decline in QoL. I'd argue that the inherant distrust in a government that does invasive monitoriing, such as some of the old Soviet regimes, is the problem; the spying is a symptom.
Personally, if they want to know what I ate for dinner for the past week, they're more than welcome to know.
Furthermore, information about my day-to-day life certainly won't empower such people to lock me away in a gulag in the middle of nowhere to rot and die -- they don't need to know what Ihad for dinner to do that. All they need is the power to actually whisk me away in such a manner (just a car and one or two big guys, really) And this power will come seperate from the ability to know what, precisely, it is Ihad for dinner the night before.
Oh, and as an aside, the esteemed minds at MIT have pointed out recently -- that tinfoil hat of yours will only help them discover the content of your dinner plate the previous evening;-)
I doubt they care. They wouldn't lose thier branding on the hardware. They could, and would, still sell their iMacs with all the lovely "it just works" functionality -- at the insane price premium that comes with buying direct from Apple. They could even offer certain features exclusively to users of Mac hardware for all I care.
Its a simple matter of volume. I'd argue that the current Mac userbase is SO devoted to the brand, that they wouldn't make the jump even if it did save them money. So, what do they have to gain? Thousands of fed up windows users, switching to an pretty and chic OS.
However, I still think they have everything to gain by selling with their OS w/o hardware.
How does reducing their profit margin on hardware equal a reduction of overall profits?
Microsoft certainly didn't build their empire selling hardware -- they built it selling software, an OS in particular.
Now, Apple might be avoiding head-to-head competition with Redmond with this move, since it keeps their OS still in the niche end of the market with hardware sales as a fallback.
However, if they broke down and just sold the OS seperately, they would stand a chance of making it big, as OSX would certainly win over some Windows users (especially if Dell/Gateway/etc picked it up).
Thats what puzzles me about this move, however, its likely they're "easing into the market", and in a few years, they'll be ready to take on the rest of the market.
eh.....Grandma's already mostly blind. She can't tell.
Now, I know thats not a valid marketing slogan. Although, the convienace and "gadget" appeal are VERY strong.
For example, my father in law bought a 2 MP "AOL Digital Camera" for about $400 when a decent 3-4 MP Cannon was the same price, because it was digital. Worse, he instantly stopped using his Kodak 35 mm.
Nerds like the Slashdot crowd might realize that a cellphone is always going to take "cellphone" pictures, but that certainly doesn't mean my father-in-law does.
I seriously doubt that the problem is the security of their code. We're not talking about a program that edits your saved games (ie: like the "trainers" for single-player Diablo). They're trying to prevent programs from hijacking the keyboard/mouse control and automating the game.
Something like that can only be controlled on the operating system level.
Because, when you're in agony dying of radiation poisoning, its really going to make your day a lot better to be assured that somewhere else in the world another person, equally as removed from the political context of the nuclear conflict as you are, will be in just as much agony as you are.
Now, just maybe, the presence of these weapons can be called a deterant, so its possible that possessing them is a necessary evil. However, to be quite honest, if we ever "need" them -- I really do hope they fail to work.
I personally worry much more about the oppressive capability of large corporations than my own government.
Since we live in an elective democracy, its usually in the best interest of your politicians to at least make their shady doings HIDDEN (read: not directly effecting you). Spooks showing up to toss you into a van and throwing you into a hole, really isn't something that benefits anyone in the federal or state government no matter what you did, as those responsible would be quickly out of a job and possibly jailed.
However, while a free market is supposed to be economic democracy, I think that the actions taken by large commercial entities (MS, RIAA, MPAA, etc) are indicative that they really don't care what we think, or they rely very heavily on the vast majority of people not caring/noticing.
Although, since this is Slashdot, someone would have to notice that the spooks took you, so make sure you crawl out of the basement once a day or so and someone know your still down there;-)
If a child is REALLY that determined to get onto an 18+ chat and start using keygens etc then they're probably aware of online pervs and have other legal issues to concern themselves with.
I seriously doubt that. Not everyone that sneaks into an R rated movie is a delinquint, bound to be in and out of "the system" their entire lives.
And even if they were, it certainly does warrant leaving them to the wolves, so to speak.
I find that argument to be a bit flawed. I wonder, has anyone ever considered the fact that the "true" AI bottle neck isn't in hardware, but rather in software?
That is: What if we're not smart enough to code an entity as smart as ourselves?
Oh god! 50,000,000 names in one place! With all their information? What a powerful and destructive tool that would be. The possessor of which could reave havoc nationwide...
I agree my friend, I would NEVER want to be apart of anything like this!::looks at http://www.att.com/directory/::
Yea, in giant black sub-sonic blimps. I don't care if they have a mentally handicapped quadrapeligic in a 1940's Spitfire, he's not going to have one bit of trouble shooting down one of these things. Oh, but it can't be seen by radar! Since when is something that big, slow, and low-flying that hard to spot?
How, exactly, do you know that? Its been my impression that jet technology is pretty much in the same state it was 20 years ago. Sure, now we see Scramjet testing and so on, but nothing using a mysterious "nuclear" power source. Furthermore, our dear tripped-out would-be UFO observer mentions that the craft "disappeared" over the horizon traveling at 20-30 MPH. At a realistic flying height (a few thousand feet) Do you have any idea how long that would take? If was was actually 200 ft above the ground, not too long, but 200 ft above the ground would get it snagged on all sorts of nasty terrain obstacles (at 20-30 MPH, and at that size, manuverability is just about null, so avoiding them would be impossible). This is a farce. You saw a jet, you saw a blimp cast against a similar colored night-sky.
The main problem with compatability isn't with compiling the code. While that is a concern, the most signifigant change would be the JavaVM. Since Java won't run natively on any given platform, the VM is what actually executes the code. A Java3 VM, as he describes it, wouldn't run any Java2 code. Big problems.
I doubt that it would be possible for anyone to fix the entire Java language by themselves. Compilers are tricky things to write, not to mention a fully-featured/multi-platform language like Java.
Several years ago, a simple Pentium 100 would cost you $5000. A few years before that, a 386 would cost you $7000, and a few years before that...and so on. The reason we see all these spiffy case mods and so on is for that precise reason. I can pick up a perfectly good 1Ghz machine for under $400 now. So why not spend an extra hundred and make it a conversation piece? Its not like those beige boxes are gone, you still have the option of buying a plain box.
This is honestly one of the best interviews, or literary pieces I have ever read. He is one of the most though provoking people I've read, and I'd honestly like to meet the man.
However, while Dr. Wallace is obviouslly brilliant and insightful into almost all aspects of the so-called "Human Condition", he really needs to get over himself. Ye gods. Why does he find it necessary to dote on his self-proclaimed "mental health condition". I'm certianly not a psycologist (and personally put very little stock in the field), but I can say that when dealing with the human mind, what a person believes is true about themselves has a particularly nasty tendancy to become true.
As a scientist and as a person in general, Dr. Wallace would lead a much happier personal and professional life if he stopped feeling sorry for himself. So you got shitcanned in the early 90's. Wow. We all have professional setbacks along our ardous life journey. Aside from the young, there are no victims in this life. Learn and live that, and you'll find yourself stronger and better for it.
Slashdot Mirror
This is something I have never understood. What makes you think they care what you do in your day to day life? And if they did have this apparently top-secret information, what horrible and nefarious purpose do you suppose they'll use it for?
;-)
Now, its true that in history that the more privacy a government gives its people is often indicative of the quality of life those citizens enjoy. However, that does not imply that the act of collecting information causes the decline in QoL. I'd argue that the inherant distrust in a government that does invasive monitoriing, such as some of the old Soviet regimes, is the problem; the spying is a symptom.
Personally, if they want to know what I ate for dinner for the past week, they're more than welcome to know.
Furthermore, information about my day-to-day life certainly won't empower such people to lock me away in a gulag in the middle of nowhere to rot and die -- they don't need to know what Ihad for dinner to do that. All they need is the power to actually whisk me away in such a manner (just a car and one or two big guys, really) And this power will come seperate from the ability to know what, precisely, it is Ihad for dinner the night before.
Oh, and as an aside, the esteemed minds at MIT have pointed out recently -- that tinfoil hat of yours will only help them discover the content of your dinner plate the previous evening
I doubt they care. They wouldn't lose thier branding on the hardware. They could, and would, still sell their iMacs with all the lovely "it just works" functionality -- at the insane price premium that comes with buying direct from Apple. They could even offer certain features exclusively to users of Mac hardware for all I care.
Its a simple matter of volume. I'd argue that the current Mac userbase is SO devoted to the brand, that they wouldn't make the jump even if it did save them money. So, what do they have to gain? Thousands of fed up windows users, switching to an pretty and chic OS.
However, I still think they have everything to gain by selling with their OS w/o hardware.
How does reducing their profit margin on hardware equal a reduction of overall profits?
Microsoft certainly didn't build their empire selling hardware -- they built it selling software, an OS in particular.
Now, Apple might be avoiding head-to-head competition with Redmond with this move, since it keeps their OS still in the niche end of the market with hardware sales as a fallback.
However, if they broke down and just sold the OS seperately, they would stand a chance of making it big, as OSX would certainly win over some Windows users (especially if Dell/Gateway/etc picked it up).
Thats what puzzles me about this move, however, its likely they're "easing into the market", and in a few years, they'll be ready to take on the rest of the market.
eh.....Grandma's already mostly blind. She can't tell.
Now, I know thats not a valid marketing slogan. Although, the convienace and "gadget" appeal are VERY strong.
For example, my father in law bought a 2 MP "AOL Digital Camera" for about $400 when a decent 3-4 MP Cannon was the same price, because it was digital. Worse, he instantly stopped using his Kodak 35 mm.
Nerds like the Slashdot crowd might realize that a cellphone is always going to take "cellphone" pictures, but that certainly doesn't mean my father-in-law does.
I seriously doubt that the problem is the security of their code. We're not talking about a program that edits your saved games (ie: like the "trainers" for single-player Diablo). They're trying to prevent programs from hijacking the keyboard/mouse control and automating the game.
Something like that can only be controlled on the operating system level.
Because, when you're in agony dying of radiation poisoning, its really going to make your day a lot better to be assured that somewhere else in the world another person, equally as removed from the political context of the nuclear conflict as you are, will be in just as much agony as you are.
Now, just maybe, the presence of these weapons can be called a deterant, so its possible that possessing them is a necessary evil. However, to be quite honest, if we ever "need" them -- I really do hope they fail to work.
I personally worry much more about the oppressive capability of large corporations than my own government.
;-)
Since we live in an elective democracy, its usually in the best interest of your politicians to at least make their shady doings HIDDEN (read: not directly effecting you). Spooks showing up to toss you into a van and throwing you into a hole, really isn't something that benefits anyone in the federal or state government no matter what you did, as those responsible would be quickly out of a job and possibly jailed.
However, while a free market is supposed to be economic democracy, I think that the actions taken by large commercial entities (MS, RIAA, MPAA, etc) are indicative that they really don't care what we think, or they rely very heavily on the vast majority of people not caring/noticing.
Although, since this is Slashdot, someone would have to notice that the spooks took you, so make sure you crawl out of the basement once a day or so and someone know your still down there
Definition of the word Popular
Widely liked or appreciated: a popular resort.
So, effectively, you're incorrect.
If a child is REALLY that determined to get onto an 18+ chat and start using keygens etc then they're probably aware of online pervs and have other legal issues to concern themselves with.
I seriously doubt that. Not everyone that sneaks into an R rated movie is a delinquint, bound to be in and out of "the system" their entire lives. And even if they were, it certainly does warrant leaving them to the wolves, so to speak.
What, exactly, is so great about growing up anyway?
Personally, I believe I reached the apex of happiness at about 3 covered in cake holding a GI Joe.
And I'd still do that if I wouldn't have to buy the cake and GI Joes with my own money.
(Do they even make GI Joe anymore? God, I hope so.)
Probably satelittes, using the same technology used to measure temperature not on our planet. (Thermal imaging, I beleive)
I find that argument to be a bit flawed. I wonder, has anyone ever considered the fact that the "true" AI bottle neck isn't in hardware, but rather in software?
That is: What if we're not smart enough to code an entity as smart as ourselves?
Oh god! 50,000,000 names in one place! With all their information? What a powerful and destructive tool that would be. The possessor of which could reave havoc nationwide...
::looks at http://www.att.com/directory/::
I agree my friend, I would NEVER want to be apart of anything like this!
DAMN! We're all doomed.
They should be worried about it setting standards for punishing spammers, considering they have entered that market as well.
I run a website. Want to take a stab at the percentage of browsers that hit my site that are IE? 94% You're going to tell me thats not a standard?
Not amps. Read again. Milliamps. 1/1000 of an amp
Yea, in giant black sub-sonic blimps. I don't care if they have a mentally handicapped quadrapeligic in a 1940's Spitfire, he's not going to have one bit of trouble shooting down one of these things. Oh, but it can't be seen by radar! Since when is something that big, slow, and low-flying that hard to spot?
Any idea how much a M1A1 tank weighs? Neither do I, but I can guarentee you that you won't get more than 1 (if that) in a 747.
"but we have the technology."
How, exactly, do you know that? Its been my impression that jet technology is pretty much in the same state it was 20 years ago. Sure, now we see Scramjet testing and so on, but nothing using a mysterious "nuclear" power source. Furthermore, our dear tripped-out would-be UFO observer mentions that the craft "disappeared" over the horizon traveling at 20-30 MPH. At a realistic flying height (a few thousand feet) Do you have any idea how long that would take? If was was actually 200 ft above the ground, not too long, but 200 ft above the ground would get it snagged on all sorts of nasty terrain obstacles (at 20-30 MPH, and at that size, manuverability is just about null, so avoiding them would be impossible). This is a farce. You saw a jet, you saw a blimp cast against a similar colored night-sky.
At any rate, you were mistaken my friend.
The main problem with compatability isn't with compiling the code. While that is a concern, the most signifigant change would be the JavaVM. Since Java won't run natively on any given platform, the VM is what actually executes the code. A Java3 VM, as he describes it, wouldn't run any Java2 code. Big problems.
I doubt that it would be possible for anyone to fix the entire Java language by themselves. Compilers are tricky things to write, not to mention a fully-featured/multi-platform language like Java.
Just because something is legal doesn't mean its right.
Several years ago, a simple Pentium 100 would cost you $5000. A few years before that, a 386 would cost you $7000, and a few years before that...and so on. The reason we see all these spiffy case mods and so on is for that precise reason. I can pick up a perfectly good 1Ghz machine for under $400 now. So why not spend an extra hundred and make it a conversation piece? Its not like those beige boxes are gone, you still have the option of buying a plain box.
opps....looks like we ran his site over its bandwidth limits. Thats not cool....
This is honestly one of the best interviews, or literary pieces I have ever read. He is one of the most though provoking people I've read, and I'd honestly like to meet the man.
However, while Dr. Wallace is obviouslly brilliant and insightful into almost all aspects of the so-called "Human Condition", he really needs to get over himself. Ye gods. Why does he find it necessary to dote on his self-proclaimed "mental health condition". I'm certianly not a psycologist (and personally put very little stock in the field), but I can say that when dealing with the human mind, what a person believes is true about themselves has a particularly nasty tendancy to become true.
As a scientist and as a person in general, Dr. Wallace would lead a much happier personal and professional life if he stopped feeling sorry for himself. So you got shitcanned in the early 90's. Wow. We all have professional setbacks along our ardous life journey. Aside from the young, there are no victims in this life. Learn and live that, and you'll find yourself stronger and better for it.