(though Perl 6 comes as close as a truely compiled language reasonably can)
I can't believe I even read that. Perhaps you are just trolling, but for the sake of those who do not know better, lisp is actually more of a truly compiled language than perl. Perl is interpretted by the perl interpreter (aptly named perl). Lisp is compiled down to machine code.
Secondly, this Exegesis covered Perl6's macro capabilities. It works very much like lisps, actually. Granted, my personal feeling is that it is easier to have a program write a program that is written in s-exps than in Perl 6, but Perl 6 does provide the capability.
The options mentioned in this Exegesis point out that macros in Perl 6 can return either blocks or strings. If a block is returned, its syntax tree is injected into the place occupied by the call to the macro. If a string is returned, it replaces the macro call, and then the resulting expression is parsed and compiled. All of this is done at compile-time, of course.
Secondly, and very interestingly, macros can define their own syntax using Rules (regexps) to pull parameters from free-form program text, rather than relying in the comma-separated Perl6 expression default.
All in all, if this can be implemented as they have described, in an efficient manner, I will be impressed. It seems very lispy to me, they've just moved the parsing code from the programmer's brain (since you are effectively writing parse trees rather than syntax when programming in lisp) to a parsing module within the code.
Remember though folks, if you don't want to deal with this complexity, you don't need to. But if you do need to, its good to know that its there.
I just need to clarify, since it seems a lot of people are making the same mistake. According to SCO, IBM does not have 100 days from today to comply, they had 100 days from March 6th, 2003. That time period expired June 13th, 2003. The 100 day window has passed.
IBM's standpoint is that they have nothing to fear, which is why they took no action (other than readying a substantial legal team, no doubt). They believe that their license cannot be revoked.
I must say, I don't have access to any of the documents or evidence in this case, but I can only imagine that SCO must have something. At least enough to have a good possibility of convincing a judge that IBM has done wrong. Unless their (SCO's) legal team missed something big and are due for a big "DOH!" once IBM's legal team enlightens them, this could get real interesting real quick.
Now granted, open source and free software have different conotations, but free software is not meant to benefit the developer. It is meant to benefit the end user.
This program is obviously meant to benefit the developer, and only the developer. From the article (which is, admittedly, very low-tech), it seems end-users aren't going to have access to the source code. Only device manufacturers and those licensed to sell copies of WinCE. Now, they can alter the code before they sell it, but those alterations must be given back to Microsoft for free.
In fact it was this same clause, that all modifications must be submitted back to the main developer, that were sticklers for free software, and possibly open source software, advocates in the APSL, MPL and other corporate tries at open source licenses.
The real stickler though, is that the one who modifies the code, does not have unrestricted license to distribute their version of WinCE. They must pay Microsoft the same royalty for each copy sold. So, Microsoft makes WinCE look a little more enticing to developers who may want to make changes, gets any modifications for free, and doesn't lose anything on licenses of WinCE...seems like a pretty sweet deal--for Microsoft.
No freedom here folks. Move along. There's nothing left to see.
This is the first post that actually touches on the obvious that everyone else seems to be missing. There is absolutely no need (in this case, at least) for the system to be altered in order to change the interface. Who cares if the filesystem itself allows Letter.txt and letter.txt to be unique. If the file save dialog will not save files with only differences in case, and if searches by filename are by default case-insensitive, etc, then Aunt Granny never needs to worry about whether the filesystem cares about file system case, because her interface doesn't.
Re:XML sucks
on
Perl & XML
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Ok, granted it is generally bad form to respond to trolls, but this one reminded me of a good story that I thought I would share.
Problem: Given a document in Word format containing a table on which various operations must be performed, resulting in an HTML page with a consistent format.
Now, first of, simply saving the document as HTML from within word was far from sufficient. So, what to do? We tried various methods using Microsoft products to do the requisite transformations, all to no avail. We simply didn't have the control we needed.
Solution: Import the file into OpenOffice.org's Writer, save in OOo format (XML based), write a quick one-page perl script using XML::Twig (even though I had never examined OOo XML format prior to this exercise), and voila, problem solved.
This was a great example to me of the power of XML. Sure, XML is verbose, but remember, it is all ASCII text, and compressing ASCII text is basically a solved problem in computer science, so the verbosity needn't create much of a storage hit.
Here's a novel concept. How about if the perpetrator takes responsibility for his actions?
That concept is novel, and based on figuring out who the perpetrator is. If the person offering a public access point doesn't have the required logs available to find any information on who the perpetrator might be (a MAC address would be a good start...), and it could conceivably be any Joe Hacker that was walking on the sidewalk, then I think the person offering the public access point could be charged with something along the lines of neglegence. The couldn't be charged for the actual crime committed, but for fostering an environment in which it was easy to perpetrate such a crime.
Ok, this isn't about free internet. The person who has broadband access is paying for broadband access.
Now, the cable company puts a bandwidth cap on said cable modem, so they don't have a user who is hog all of their upstream bandwidth. Now, why do they have any rights to decide what the consumer does with this bandwidth that he purchased beyond that?
As an example, say I am one of your customers. My friend has no internet service whatsoever. He calls me up (on my second phone line) and asks me to look something up on the internet for him. I do so, and read the page to him over the phone. Do you have any right to tell me not to do so? I would say not. I'm simply doing a favor for a friend.
I see this as no different, except the ISP is bigger, the bandwidth is bigger, the whole process is automated by computer, and those offering public access points call everyone friend, and are willing to share to as many people as they can. Again I don't think the cable company has any right to decide whether or not this is allowed.
Now, if someone does instigate some sort of illegal activity using one of these public access points, I believe that the user who is providing the public access point would be liable, not the cable company. Some would argue this point. They believe that they should be able to host a public access point, and have the cable company be liable for any damages caused...that's completely unjust. If you want to provide such a service, you have to take responsibility for it.
The fact that Google offers a web services-style API is cool, but it's unclear to me exactly how it helps their business.
I would say that Google offering access to a web services-style API for their search engine is a wonderful business move for them. Remember, Google's product isn't the interface to their search engine...it isn't http://www.google.com. It is the search engine itself, as well as their data cache. By making it as easy as possible for users to get access to that data, they increase its appeal for users.
If someone wants to add search engine functionality to their public web site, but doesn't want to go through the hassle of installing and maintaining ht://Dig or something similar, they can simply add a Google search bar to their web site, telling Google to only search within their site.
Then a little further down the road, Google can use this ubiquity as a bargaining position with companies who want to score higher on Google's search result list. "Look, Pointy-hair, you know and I know that everyone is using our search engine. I know the other guys out there will offer you a better price for top placement under these search terms, but lets face it, no one is paying attention to those other guys anymore."
Remember that no matter how innovative and useful a product is, if something else out there is simply easier to use, it most likely will be used. Most people don't want exciting and innovative. They just want to get something done and move on with their lives.
I'm not sure if this is an appropriate forum for this, but I figure the Slashdot Apple community might be able to help me alleviate one concern that is stopping me from buying an iBook:
How easy is it to remap keys in Mac OS X? I know OpenStep 4.2 had a simple keyboard configurator app that allowed me to switch between various keymaps, but in my quick in-store demo of an iBook, it didn't seem that the keyboard control panel had the same functionality. I'm not looking for any huge modifications, but I will not buy a laptop if I cannot have the caps lock button act as control...
The other issues I have I'll have to take up with Apple personally (I don't want to buy an iBook if a new OS is going to come out in a couple months unless I'll get a free upgrade, and I don't want to pay $249 simply for a 3 year hardware warranty).
Re:Slashdot != Professional Journalism
on
KDE 3.0 is Out
·
· Score: 1
The editors have a choice about whether or not to publish a story, and they should be fully aware of the repercussions of those choices, and should act in an ethical matter.
And, whether or not I'm a professional, I should probably preview my posts....
That should read:
...act in an ethical manner.
Re:Slashdot != Professional Journalism
on
KDE 3.0 is Out
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Don't confuse Slashdot with journalism. The site is still run like a college kid's pet project. Sure they're making money and have thousands of readers but that doesn't make the staff qualified journalists/editors. They're geeks with a popular geek web-site -- nothing more.
Even so, those who disseminate information have a responsibility for the information they disseminate. The editors have a choice about whether or not to publish a story, and they should be fully aware of the repercussions of those choices, and should act in an ethical matter. Based on the facts that they know that this release has not been announced, and that web sites posted on slashdot generally get a large amount of traffic (heck, this is so prevalent that they named the phenomenon the Slashdot Effect), they should have chosen to be respectful.
Whether or not the editors are professional journalists (which I believe it could be argued), is rather irrelevant. I don't believe that professionals are the only people that should be expected to be ethical.
Ethics in Journalism?
on
KDE 3.0 is Out
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Is it just me, or does anyone else find this unethical behavior? Granted, the release of KDE 3.0 is News for Nerds, and Stuff that Matters, but is it so important to get the scoop on something like this that you are unwilling to allow time for propogation? For a popular software release like this, I believe the editors should consider it their ethical duty to wait for the official announcement, and post a list (or at least a link to a list) of mirror sites.
The way it stands now, the mirrors may be having difficulty getting a copy of the distribution, as a hoard of eager slashdotters floods the primary ftp site.
Just to recap, I have no problems with someone submitting this story as soon as they see they possibly can, but I believe the editors have a responsibility to be respectful in their decision when to post the story.
Granted, I don't believe it is shipped by default with most linux distributions, and I'm not sure it runs on any non-Unix platform, but I've become quite impressed with this little application.
GNU TeXmacs is a free scientific text editor, which was both inspired by TeX and GNU Emacs. The editor allows you to write structured documents via a wysiwyg (what-you-see-is-what-you-get) and user friendly interface. New styles may be created by the user. The program implements high-quality typesetting algorithms and TeX fonts, which help you to produce professionally looking documents.
Also, you can export your TeXmacs files to LaTeX which gives you access to a wide range of document translation programs. Check it out.
It's time to stop whining, and start doing (like I have). Stop buying the stuff. SIMPLE.
It really isn't that simple. While the educated few could boycott the goods, that isn't going to put much of a dent into the profits of these companies, as the (relatively, and specifically on this point) uneducated majority will continue to happily and ignorantly purchase away.
The single consumer has little power in this system. The only bastion of hope would be to educate the masses, not simply to refuse to buy ourselves. The problem lies in finding a way to get the message across to an apathetic audience. How do you make your average, contented consumer realize that they should shoulder a little bit of discomfort for the good of society? And, more problematic still, how do you get your average American to shoulder a little bit of discomfort for any reason whatsoever, outside of personal gain?
Well, undoubtedly this email address is being flooded with a deluge of flame mail (unless this community has suddenly decided to mind their manners, which, frankly, I doubt), but I hope this message gets through to you.
Now whether you posted this article merely as flamebait, or you actually believe the statements that you are making, I would like to present a very simple argument to the contrary.
Basically, if I get the point of your article correctly (and please correct me if I am in error) you are making the claim that you want open source computing to succeed. And for open source computing to succeed it is important for Linux to concede defeat on the desktop. You make the claim that too much time and energy is going into desktop software for Linux when Linux still only has a 1.5% marketshare in desktop computer shipments. You say that the community should focus its efforts on the server side where they currently hold a 27% market share. You make the basic claim that by supporting an effort that is doing very dismal (and getting worse) in marketshare, they are risking their substantial marketshare in another market. Sure, that is a very valid argument for any corporation. By putting too much resources in a product that is dying, a corporation can sacrifice their flagship product. But the Linux, and the larger open source community isn't a corporation--its a community. Yes, there are companies that are betting their farms on making Linux grab more marketshare, and many, if not most, of these corporations are focusing on Linux on the desktop, but the Linux community doesn't need these corporations to survive. Granted, these corporations and the economic support they offer are a great boon to the community, and I have seen Linux take leaps and bounds forward in the last couple years, much farther than it would have gone without this support, but the community will not die with the corporations. The community isn't about market share, (granted, most people within the community seem to forget this very simple fact, leading to flamewars between the KDE/Gnome camps, etc) it's about choices.
I use Linux. I have been an avid Linux user for over four years. I have only purchased a couple distributions of Linux in that time (most I purchased as gifts for other people). I have never purchased a desktop computer that came installed with Linux...heck, I've never even purchased a desktop computer. I've purchased motherboards, and DIMMs, and CPUs and cases, and fans and 3D graphics cards etc, and I have downloaded gigabytes upon gigabytes of free source code to build compilers, and GUIs, and utilities, etc. Why do I do this? Is it because I'm waging a war against Microsoft, and I am determined to send the company out of business and put Linux on every computer that ships from now on? No. I don't care about what happens to the majority of computers that are shipped. If someone wants to pay for and use Microsoft software, that is their choice. But I refuse, steadfastly refuse, to let the choice of whether or not to use Microsoft software be taken away from me. And there are others with me. Others that refuse to let their choices be taken from them. Others who don't want to accept the lesser of two evils. Others who would rather work on building something good. I want to work on building something good. And, when I am done building, I will give this away to my neighbors, so that they too may benefit from my hard work, and so that they may respect me for my generosity, and for the quality of work that I do. Or they may help me to improve the quality of my work, and allow me to benefit from theirs.
Yes some develop server software, some develop OS software, but many, many these days are writing desktop software. Software meant only to help your average computer user use their computer more simply and effectively. You said all this work doesn't matter. I'm here to tell you it does. It matters to me. It matters to those with me who are doing the work. It enriches our community, opens its doors to new members, and helps free us all from the shackles of corporate doctrine. Will our community necessarily grow to dominate the world? Honestly, I hope so, but it isn't necessary. Whether the world joins with us or not, we will still be here.
I refuse to let my choices be taken from me. I am willing to work to maintain my freedom of choice, and I am willing to allow others to benefit from my work, so that I too may benefit from theirs. But above all, I refuse to let Microsoft convince me that I need them more than they need me. They have no power over me. They are the corporation. They are the ones concerned with growing or shrinking market share. I could care less. I don't need market share. I have a community, and we are already a success.
Already, we have people controlling what we can say/show on television, what we can say on the radio, etc, and now we will have people controlling what information on the Internet is acceptable. This is not a good message to send, especially to children.
Ultimately, I believe, it teaches children that they cannot be trusted to decide what is right and wrong for them. It teaches children to rely on the judgement of others. This must be wrong because I don't have access to it, and vice versa, this must be right because I do have access to it.
We need to teach children what we think is right and wrong, and why, and let them make up their own minds on the subject, and then hold them accountable for their decisions, whether good or bad. If you take that choice away, the choice between right and wrong, then you cannot be proud of a child that does something right, and you cannot be upset with a child who does something wrong, because it was not their decision. We are no longer raising children, who are individuals, but training future citizens, who have to learn to play by the rules.
The only advice I would give on this subject, is let the child steer the course of his own education. If he wants to learn about Java and Assembly, teach him every thing that you know, and point him towards other resources so that he can even learn some stuff that you don't know. Never try to force him to learn something that he isn't interested in. Chances are, sooner or later, he will realize a connection on his own, and have a genuine desire to study anything that you would want to 'steer' him towards. You cannot control the educational process. All you can do is to give him resources, and help him make connections to other areas. For instance, if his curiosity is pointing him towards Java, drop some information about the history of the language, or OOP in general, or the effect that Java has had on Sun's business, or anything else that you can think of that is even remotely connected. If he shows interest, help him find more information. If he doesn't show interest, DO NOT force it on him.
A child's natural hunger for learning is a far better motivator for his growing intellect than any tutor could ever be. Help him read between the lines of raw information, but do not try to choose for him what information he should learn. Do not look at the child as some sort of tool to be used ("Man, if I teach this kid about nanotechnology now, imagine what he could do to the field in 15 years!"), but as a person with a gift. And a great part of that gift is curiosity. The drive to learn is, I would argue, even more important than a raw capacity to retain knowledge. The best things you can teach this child are ways to search out the information he is looking for on his own, and to teach him more abstract things that are difficult to learn from books. Teach him how to see problems and situations from many angles, and teach him to see the connections between different fields of study. Feed his curiosity by showing him things that he doesn't yet have the broad knowledge base to see on his own, but never try to force his direction.
Re:You haven't defended Free Speech until...
on
Freenet 0.3 Released
·
· Score: 1
Well put. That is the crux of the issue, for those with moral compunctions about running a Freenet node. There is a very important (and, thanks to the design of Freenet, technically distinct) difference between supporting everyone's right to disseminate information anonymously (by running a Freenet node) and supporting any specific piece of information (by requesting such data).
Re:You haven't defended Free Speech until...
on
Freenet 0.3 Released
·
· Score: 1
Ok, first off, I'm not saying that Freenet should be modified to accomodate that user's request. Obviously his only option is to not run a Freenet node, that is not the issue at hand.
The issue at hand is that this user was flammed as a communist for simply wanting to control what information he personally disseminates. He was not attacking free speech. He explicitly stated that he did not want that information taken out of the system completely. He merely wanted to protect his own freedom of speech--his freedom to decide what information he does disseminate and what information he doesn't.
Like I said, I don't think the Freenet system could be modified to accomodate moderation like this (since it is against the whole philosophy of the system), but don't accuse someone of trying to take away another's rights when they are just defending their own.
As an analogy, I believe whole-heartedly that the KKK has every right to have congregate and preach about the supremacy of the white race, and I would defend their right to do so, but since I don't agree with what they are saying, I'm not going to help them preach or attend their meetings or even pass out their flyers.
Re:How can I assert my own ethics on FreeNet?
on
Freenet 0.3 Released
·
· Score: 1
The simple answer is that we have written Freenet for people whose ethics include the freedom of speech - even that speech which they do not like.
Since yours obviously do not, the way you can assert your ethics is simply not to run a Freenet node, and maybe by sending some money to one of the organisations who are on your side (MPAA, AFA, the Chinese communist government, etc).
Ok, don't you think you are a little out of line here? Making a personal choice about what information you personally want to help distribute does not equate to a communist mentality. Like the poster said, they do NOT think content they personally object to should be banned from the system, they just don't want to help spread it. Just because a certain behavior is within a person's rights does not mean that I have to condone (and facilitate) that behavior.
There it was, they reported today, in the chest cavity of a dinosaur's fossil skeleton uncovered in South Dakota
I guess they would have more luck finding a dinosaur's heart in a dinosaur's chest cavity. I just hope someone tells Prof. Covington to focus his searches in similar areas...I just don't think he's going to find many dinosaur hearts with the Fraggles...
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, I must clarify a few things:
(though Perl 6 comes as close as a truely compiled language reasonably can)
I can't believe I even read that. Perhaps you are just trolling, but for the sake of those who do not know better, lisp is actually more of a truly compiled language than perl. Perl is interpretted by the perl interpreter (aptly named perl). Lisp is compiled down to machine code.
Secondly, this Exegesis covered Perl6's macro capabilities. It works very much like lisps, actually. Granted, my personal feeling is that it is easier to have a program write a program that is written in s-exps than in Perl 6, but Perl 6 does provide the capability.
The options mentioned in this Exegesis point out that macros in Perl 6 can return either blocks or strings. If a block is returned, its syntax tree is injected into the place occupied by the call to the macro. If a string is returned, it replaces the macro call, and then the resulting expression is parsed and compiled. All of this is done at compile-time, of course.
Secondly, and very interestingly, macros can define their own syntax using Rules (regexps) to pull parameters from free-form program text, rather than relying in the comma-separated Perl6 expression default.
All in all, if this can be implemented as they have described, in an efficient manner, I will be impressed. It seems very lispy to me, they've just moved the parsing code from the programmer's brain (since you are effectively writing parse trees rather than syntax when programming in lisp) to a parsing module within the code.
Remember though folks, if you don't want to deal with this complexity, you don't need to. But if you do need to, its good to know that its there.
I just need to clarify, since it seems a lot of people are making the same mistake. According to SCO, IBM does not have 100 days from today to comply, they had 100 days from March 6th, 2003. That time period expired June 13th, 2003. The 100 day window has passed.
IBM's standpoint is that they have nothing to fear, which is why they took no action (other than readying a substantial legal team, no doubt). They believe that their license cannot be revoked.
I must say, I don't have access to any of the documents or evidence in this case, but I can only imagine that SCO must have something. At least enough to have a good possibility of convincing a judge that IBM has done wrong. Unless their (SCO's) legal team missed something big and are due for a big "DOH!" once IBM's legal team enlightens them, this could get real interesting real quick.
Now granted, open source and free software have different conotations, but free software is not meant to benefit the developer. It is meant to benefit the end user.
This program is obviously meant to benefit the developer, and only the developer. From the article (which is, admittedly, very low-tech), it seems end-users aren't going to have access to the source code. Only device manufacturers and those licensed to sell copies of WinCE. Now, they can alter the code before they sell it, but those alterations must be given back to Microsoft for free.
In fact it was this same clause, that all modifications must be submitted back to the main developer, that were sticklers for free software, and possibly open source software, advocates in the APSL, MPL and other corporate tries at open source licenses.
The real stickler though, is that the one who modifies the code, does not have unrestricted license to distribute their version of WinCE. They must pay Microsoft the same royalty for each copy sold. So, Microsoft makes WinCE look a little more enticing to developers who may want to make changes, gets any modifications for free, and doesn't lose anything on licenses of WinCE...seems like a pretty sweet deal--for Microsoft.
No freedom here folks. Move along. There's nothing left to see.
This is the first post that actually touches on the obvious that everyone else seems to be missing. There is absolutely no need (in this case, at least) for the system to be altered in order to change the interface. Who cares if the filesystem itself allows Letter.txt and letter.txt to be unique. If the file save dialog will not save files with only differences in case, and if searches by filename are by default case-insensitive, etc, then Aunt Granny never needs to worry about whether the filesystem cares about file system case, because her interface doesn't.
Ok, granted it is generally bad form to respond to trolls, but this one reminded me of a good story that I thought I would share.
Problem: Given a document in Word format containing a table on which various operations must be performed, resulting in an HTML page with a consistent format.
Now, first of, simply saving the document as HTML from within word was far from sufficient. So, what to do? We tried various methods using Microsoft products to do the requisite transformations, all to no avail. We simply didn't have the control we needed.
Solution: Import the file into OpenOffice.org's Writer, save in OOo format (XML based), write a quick one-page perl script using XML::Twig (even though I had never examined OOo XML format prior to this exercise), and voila, problem solved.
This was a great example to me of the power of XML. Sure, XML is verbose, but remember, it is all ASCII text, and compressing ASCII text is basically a solved problem in computer science, so the verbosity needn't create much of a storage hit.
Horray for adoption of XML file formats!
Here's a novel concept. How about if the perpetrator takes responsibility for his actions?
That concept is novel, and based on figuring out who the perpetrator is. If the person offering a public access point doesn't have the required logs available to find any information on who the perpetrator might be (a MAC address would be a good start...), and it could conceivably be any Joe Hacker that was walking on the sidewalk, then I think the person offering the public access point could be charged with something along the lines of neglegence. The couldn't be charged for the actual crime committed, but for fostering an environment in which it was easy to perpetrate such a crime.
Ok, this isn't about free internet. The person who has broadband access is paying for broadband access.
Now, the cable company puts a bandwidth cap on said cable modem, so they don't have a user who is hog all of their upstream bandwidth. Now, why do they have any rights to decide what the consumer does with this bandwidth that he purchased beyond that?
As an example, say I am one of your customers. My friend has no internet service whatsoever. He calls me up (on my second phone line) and asks me to look something up on the internet for him. I do so, and read the page to him over the phone. Do you have any right to tell me not to do so? I would say not. I'm simply doing a favor for a friend.
I see this as no different, except the ISP is bigger, the bandwidth is bigger, the whole process is automated by computer, and those offering public access points call everyone friend, and are willing to share to as many people as they can. Again I don't think the cable company has any right to decide whether or not this is allowed.
Now, if someone does instigate some sort of illegal activity using one of these public access points, I believe that the user who is providing the public access point would be liable, not the cable company. Some would argue this point. They believe that they should be able to host a public access point, and have the cable company be liable for any damages caused...that's completely unjust. If you want to provide such a service, you have to take responsibility for it.
The fact that Google offers a web services-style API is cool, but it's unclear to me exactly how it helps their business.
I would say that Google offering access to a web services-style API for their search engine is a wonderful business move for them. Remember, Google's product isn't the interface to their search engine...it isn't http://www.google.com. It is the search engine itself, as well as their data cache. By making it as easy as possible for users to get access to that data, they increase its appeal for users.
If someone wants to add search engine functionality to their public web site, but doesn't want to go through the hassle of installing and maintaining ht://Dig or something similar, they can simply add a Google search bar to their web site, telling Google to only search within their site.
Then a little further down the road, Google can use this ubiquity as a bargaining position with companies who want to score higher on Google's search result list. "Look, Pointy-hair, you know and I know that everyone is using our search engine. I know the other guys out there will offer you a better price for top placement under these search terms, but lets face it, no one is paying attention to those other guys anymore."
Remember that no matter how innovative and useful a product is, if something else out there is simply easier to use, it most likely will be used. Most people don't want exciting and innovative. They just want to get something done and move on with their lives.
I'm not sure if this is an appropriate forum for this, but I figure the Slashdot Apple community might be able to help me alleviate one concern that is stopping me from buying an iBook:
How easy is it to remap keys in Mac OS X? I know OpenStep 4.2 had a simple keyboard configurator app that allowed me to switch between various keymaps, but in my quick in-store demo of an iBook, it didn't seem that the keyboard control panel had the same functionality. I'm not looking for any huge modifications, but I will not buy a laptop if I cannot have the caps lock button act as control...
The other issues I have I'll have to take up with Apple personally (I don't want to buy an iBook if a new OS is going to come out in a couple months unless I'll get a free upgrade, and I don't want to pay $249 simply for a 3 year hardware warranty).
The editors have a choice about whether or not to publish a story, and they should be fully aware of the repercussions of those choices, and should act in an ethical matter.
And, whether or not I'm a professional, I should probably preview my posts....
That should read:
...act in an ethical manner.
Don't confuse Slashdot with journalism. The site is still run like a college kid's pet project. Sure they're making money and have thousands of readers but that doesn't make the staff qualified journalists/editors. They're geeks with a popular geek web-site -- nothing more.
Even so, those who disseminate information have a responsibility for the information they disseminate. The editors have a choice about whether or not to publish a story, and they should be fully aware of the repercussions of those choices, and should act in an ethical matter. Based on the facts that they know that this release has not been announced, and that web sites posted on slashdot generally get a large amount of traffic (heck, this is so prevalent that they named the phenomenon the Slashdot Effect), they should have chosen to be respectful.
Whether or not the editors are professional journalists (which I believe it could be argued), is rather irrelevant. I don't believe that professionals are the only people that should be expected to be ethical.
Is it just me, or does anyone else find this unethical behavior? Granted, the release of KDE 3.0 is News for Nerds, and Stuff that Matters, but is it so important to get the scoop on something like this that you are unwilling to allow time for propogation? For a popular software release like this, I believe the editors should consider it their ethical duty to wait for the official announcement, and post a list (or at least a link to a list) of mirror sites.
The way it stands now, the mirrors may be having difficulty getting a copy of the distribution, as a hoard of eager slashdotters floods the primary ftp site.
Just to recap, I have no problems with someone submitting this story as soon as they see they possibly can, but I believe the editors have a responsibility to be respectful in their decision when to post the story.
From the website:
Also, you can export your TeXmacs files to LaTeX which gives you access to a wide range of document translation programs. Check it out.
It's time to stop whining, and start doing (like I have). Stop buying the stuff. SIMPLE.
It really isn't that simple. While the educated few could boycott the goods, that isn't going to put much of a dent into the profits of these companies, as the (relatively, and specifically on this point) uneducated majority will continue to happily and ignorantly purchase away.
The single consumer has little power in this system. The only bastion of hope would be to educate the masses, not simply to refuse to buy ourselves. The problem lies in finding a way to get the message across to an apathetic audience. How do you make your average, contented consumer realize that they should shoulder a little bit of discomfort for the good of society? And, more problematic still, how do you get your average American to shoulder a little bit of discomfort for any reason whatsoever, outside of personal gain?
Well, undoubtedly this email address is being flooded with a deluge of flame mail (unless this community has suddenly decided to mind their manners, which, frankly, I doubt), but I hope this message gets through to you.
Now whether you posted this article merely as flamebait, or you actually believe the statements that you are making, I would like to present a very simple argument to the contrary.
Basically, if I get the point of your article correctly (and please correct me if I am in error) you are making the claim that you want open source computing to succeed. And for open source computing to succeed it is important for Linux to concede defeat on the desktop. You make the claim that too much time and energy is going into desktop software for Linux when Linux still only has a 1.5% marketshare in desktop computer shipments. You say that the community should focus its efforts on the server side where they currently hold a 27% market share. You make the basic claim that by supporting an effort that is doing very dismal (and getting worse) in marketshare, they are risking their substantial marketshare in another market. Sure, that is a very valid argument for any corporation. By putting too much resources in a product that is dying, a corporation can sacrifice their flagship product. But the Linux, and the larger open source community isn't a corporation--its a community. Yes, there are companies that are betting their farms on making Linux grab more marketshare, and many, if not most, of these corporations are focusing on Linux on the desktop, but the Linux community doesn't need these corporations to survive. Granted, these corporations and the economic support they offer are a great boon to the community, and I have seen Linux take leaps and bounds forward in the last couple years, much farther than it would have gone without this support, but the community will not die with the corporations. The community isn't about market share, (granted, most people within the community seem to forget this very simple fact, leading to flamewars between the KDE/Gnome camps, etc) it's about choices.
I use Linux. I have been an avid Linux user for over four years. I have only purchased a couple distributions of Linux in that time (most I purchased as gifts for other people). I have never purchased a desktop computer that came installed with Linux...heck, I've never even purchased a desktop computer. I've purchased motherboards, and DIMMs, and CPUs and cases, and fans and 3D graphics cards etc, and I have downloaded gigabytes upon gigabytes of free source code to build compilers, and GUIs, and utilities, etc. Why do I do this? Is it because I'm waging a war against Microsoft, and I am determined to send the company out of business and put Linux on every computer that ships from now on? No. I don't care about what happens to the majority of computers that are shipped. If someone wants to pay for and use Microsoft software, that is their choice. But I refuse, steadfastly refuse, to let the choice of whether or not to use Microsoft software be taken away from me. And there are others with me. Others that refuse to let their choices be taken from them. Others who don't want to accept the lesser of two evils. Others who would rather work on building something good. I want to work on building something good. And, when I am done building, I will give this away to my neighbors, so that they too may benefit from my hard work, and so that they may respect me for my generosity, and for the quality of work that I do. Or they may help me to improve the quality of my work, and allow me to benefit from theirs.
Yes some develop server software, some develop OS software, but many, many these days are writing desktop software. Software meant only to help your average computer user use their computer more simply and effectively. You said all this work doesn't matter. I'm here to tell you it does. It matters to me. It matters to those with me who are doing the work. It enriches our community, opens its doors to new members, and helps free us all from the shackles of corporate doctrine. Will our community necessarily grow to dominate the world? Honestly, I hope so, but it isn't necessary. Whether the world joins with us or not, we will still be here.
I refuse to let my choices be taken from me. I am willing to work to maintain my freedom of choice, and I am willing to allow others to benefit from my work, so that I too may benefit from theirs. But above all, I refuse to let Microsoft convince me that I need them more than they need me. They have no power over me. They are the corporation. They are the ones concerned with growing or shrinking market share. I could care less. I don't need market share. I have a community, and we are already a success.
Already, we have people controlling what we can say/show on television, what we can say on the radio, etc, and now we will have people controlling what information on the Internet is acceptable. This is not a good message to send, especially to children.
Ultimately, I believe, it teaches children that they cannot be trusted to decide what is right and wrong for them. It teaches children to rely on the judgement of others. This must be wrong because I don't have access to it, and vice versa, this must be right because I do have access to it.
We need to teach children what we think is right and wrong, and why, and let them make up their own minds on the subject, and then hold them accountable for their decisions, whether good or bad. If you take that choice away, the choice between right and wrong, then you cannot be proud of a child that does something right, and you cannot be upset with a child who does something wrong, because it was not their decision. We are no longer raising children, who are individuals, but training future citizens, who have to learn to play by the rules.
The only advice I would give on this subject, is let the child steer the course of his own education. If he wants to learn about Java and Assembly, teach him every thing that you know, and point him towards other resources so that he can even learn some stuff that you don't know. Never try to force him to learn something that he isn't interested in. Chances are, sooner or later, he will realize a connection on his own, and have a genuine desire to study anything that you would want to 'steer' him towards. You cannot control the educational process. All you can do is to give him resources, and help him make connections to other areas. For instance, if his curiosity is pointing him towards Java, drop some information about the history of the language, or OOP in general, or the effect that Java has had on Sun's business, or anything else that you can think of that is even remotely connected. If he shows interest, help him find more information. If he doesn't show interest, DO NOT force it on him.
A child's natural hunger for learning is a far better motivator for his growing intellect than any tutor could ever be. Help him read between the lines of raw information, but do not try to choose for him what information he should learn. Do not look at the child as some sort of tool to be used ("Man, if I teach this kid about nanotechnology now, imagine what he could do to the field in 15 years!"), but as a person with a gift. And a great part of that gift is curiosity. The drive to learn is, I would argue, even more important than a raw capacity to retain knowledge. The best things you can teach this child are ways to search out the information he is looking for on his own, and to teach him more abstract things that are difficult to learn from books. Teach him how to see problems and situations from many angles, and teach him to see the connections between different fields of study. Feed his curiosity by showing him things that he doesn't yet have the broad knowledge base to see on his own, but never try to force his direction.
Well put. That is the crux of the issue, for those with moral compunctions about running a Freenet node. There is a very important (and, thanks to the design of Freenet, technically distinct) difference between supporting everyone's right to disseminate information anonymously (by running a Freenet node) and supporting any specific piece of information (by requesting such data).
Ok, first off, I'm not saying that Freenet should be modified to accomodate that user's request. Obviously his only option is to not run a Freenet node, that is not the issue at hand.
The issue at hand is that this user was flammed as a communist for simply wanting to control what information he personally disseminates. He was not attacking free speech. He explicitly stated that he did not want that information taken out of the system completely. He merely wanted to protect his own freedom of speech--his freedom to decide what information he does disseminate and what information he doesn't.
Like I said, I don't think the Freenet system could be modified to accomodate moderation like this (since it is against the whole philosophy of the system), but don't accuse someone of trying to take away another's rights when they are just defending their own.
As an analogy, I believe whole-heartedly that the KKK has every right to have congregate and preach about the supremacy of the white race, and I would defend their right to do so, but since I don't agree with what they are saying, I'm not going to help them preach or attend their meetings or even pass out their flyers.
Since yours obviously do not, the way you can assert your ethics is simply not to run a Freenet node, and maybe by sending some money to one of the organisations who are on your side (MPAA, AFA, the Chinese communist government, etc).
Ok, don't you think you are a little out of line here? Making a personal choice about what information you personally want to help distribute does not equate to a communist mentality. Like the poster said, they do NOT think content they personally object to should be banned from the system, they just don't want to help spread it. Just because a certain behavior is within a person's rights does not mean that I have to condone (and facilitate) that behavior.
There it was, they reported today, in the chest cavity of a dinosaur's fossil skeleton uncovered in South Dakota
I guess they would have more luck finding a dinosaur's heart in a dinosaur's chest cavity. I just hope someone tells Prof. Covington to focus his searches in similar areas...I just don't think he's going to find many dinosaur hearts with the Fraggles...