You're mixing a whole bunch of issues here...
on
Date Pagers
·
· Score: 3
The date pager is not meant to dictate your personal appearance kind of taste. It can't do anything about that. Your eyes and such are the only tools that can help; in that way, the date pager, then, can only help you find someone that's more than a skin-deep attraction.
I don't think attraction based on appearance is slimy. I don't think it's correct, either. Attraction, I think, is undefineable; it's appearance, it's behavior, it's pheromones, it's fate. Whatever the reason, it happens. At least, I've not been limited to one type of woman ^^
But I agree on your other posts, about differences. Variety is nice
On the other hand, I don't think I can know myself enough to actually be able to program a date pager to choose more accurately than my own intuition...
When resources and connectivity is what you pay for, and not airtime(like flat rate fees for normal phones) what you can get is a mixed voice activated PDA/cell/thingy
You speak into the phone, it transmits to a processing center, does the appropriate action, and sends you back data.
Of course, this does nothing for privacy, but is loads faster when trying to, say, browse a map, or find a restaurant, etc.
Why put any processing power into a cell phone when it is already a wireless device?
Is this even possible or feasible? What with cards with 64mb+ of memory, 'GPU', etc.
IE, framebuffer and display is no problem. Data would be loaded through a simple, stupid, microprocessor across the AGP bus; all you'd need. I'm sure there are Linux distros that could fit themselves comfortably within 64mb ^^
It's the value of shared experience. It's the rush of being in control. It's the reflexes and timing and response time. It's chatting with other people, and sharing goods. A bunch of other things I can't describe right now.
Playing the game with N other people, trying to keep everyone alive despite hoards of monsters and such. Sorta like Gauntlet. Remember that game? Blizzard just tapped into that play style and architecture, and made it prettier and multiplayer.
Tetris was a big hit, and not fundamentally difficult. Line up blocks!
Gauntlet was a big hit. Run around, grabbing power ups, and shooting every single thing that moved.
Super Mario brothers! All about timing and reflexes and surviving.
What else do you want out of a game? For a lot of people, Diablo was perfect! Not that I played it, but I can see the appeal. If you want something else from a game, find something else!
Implant a wafer thin watch; essentially a electroluminescent LCD display, in which applied voltage gets sections to light up. Insert it below the skin, so that it is still slightly visible. The glowing sections, however, would be readable through your skin, except when you shine bright light directly on it. In which case you'd just put your other hand over, to provide shade.
Ugh, no. No standards on GUI, please. The great thing about using Linux is that there isn't just one way to do something.
At least I think you're misunderstanding the value of stnadard Linux interface. I'm not talking about GUI, as that is more or less a shell and a front end to the UI. GUI can(and should) change with the window manager and the user's tastes. The user interface, however, is a different story. Even GNU stuff has some sort of <em>consistency</em> among their tools, their implementation, their instructions, etc. We do want a standard UI, with the ability to fork and change as taste desires.
By analogy, it would be akin to making sure every car has a steering wheel on the left side. That every car has rear-view and side mirrors. That every car has headlights. That every car has a parking break. That every car has an speedometer. The way each function, operate, and such may differ, but the fundamental usage of a car stays the same across make, build, and brand.
Similarly in Linux, then, I imagine. That way one can hop from one machine to another, with very little in the way of learning curve, as well as from one application to another, one context to another, because they would all have shared features.
-AS
An even better idea...
on
A New DeCSS
·
· Score: 2
If all this DeCSS, RIAA, mp3, MPAA and lawsuit stuff is getting to you, do something about it.
Patronize live bands. Watch a theatre performance. Go to the beach. Take up a musical instrument.
We do not have to live our lives consuming the goods if they don't want us to consume them! If they want to make proprietary closed and encrypted CDs, then don't buy them. Don't buy CDs. Don't pirate them. Just find something else to do!
There are big battles in life, and DeCSS and such may be one of them. But the value of the battle is not just in watching DVDs under Linux. It's the right to do as we see fit, in our own lives.
So go and do so!
-AS
Not *totally* off base...
on
A New DeCSS
·
· Score: 2
One of Ami Ganguli's original examples holds some water with the DeCSS case, however. I am not a historian, though, so my reasoning or thoughts may be incorrect.
The American Revolution
We weren't actually fighting over anything nearly as noble as peace, freedom, intolerance, etc. As far as I know, we were fighting over money and property. The rights of taxation, representation, ownership, etc. And while we won, it wasn't legally, fairly, or nicely. And if we had any right to do it then, as indivduals trying to gain control over our own lives and world vs an empire that wanted none of that, it shouldn't be any different, I don't think, of consumers trying to fight the MPAA or the entertainment industry over control over what we can and cannot do with our DVDs, CDs, music, players, OSes, etc.
You're right in complaining about the other examples, however =)
Upon reading the article, I find myself plagued with a coupld doubts.
They mention opening the source code Windows; not necessarily making it Open Source(tm).
Which could mean several things. You could download and hack and recompile, but it means nothing if it isn't M$ certified, for example. Or it might need to pass some tests or follow some guidelines.
Or you may need to pay some sort of license fee to get to the source; no one said it would be <em>free</em>, just that they would be willing to open the source/make it available.
All 35 million lines of code...
But this does mean one thing. WINE could get a substantial boost, if it were legal to use the source. Which means, perhaps, that Office would run natively on x86 systems, and with some level of emulation on non-x86 systems.
Or an X layer could be grafted into Windows itself, and provided as a modified binary, assuming the code/system was conducive to such an endeavor.
Oh joy, and would the DirectX libraries be included in this deal? Would that mean an OS version, perhaps OpenX libraries, could be provided for x86 Linux, WinNT(finally!), and even non-x86 Linux systems?
Would this mean we could actually remove all traces of IE from Win2k and Win98?
Could we build a WinX layer atop BSD, ala Apple's OS X? Could this be ported to other architectures?
Heck, could we do interesting things with Darwin, WinFreeOS, SGI's JFS and OpenGL?
But I don't see why there is any biological influence at all in working with computers. Or physics. Or English. Or arts.
Maybe girls don't get different treatment. Is this what you imply? That girls get the same treatement as guys?
Lets assume there is no gender bias in our culture. Is that too extreme? That girls and boys don't get treated differently, and that the only difference is biological. In which case, why should there be any difference then in job skills? Since when has computers been a part of our biological makeup? Or cooking? All these skills are learned and taught and passed on through tutelage, not genetics.
I never made the assumption that men are women are biologically identical. Why is that necessary for women to go into technical fields? A difference in treatment is certainly a viable reason for a difference in behavior; it is certainly not the only reason, but I don't think I see why behavior is connected to being skilled in computing!
Of course the only trait isn't gender. Are we assuming, or not, that women are just as qualified as men to be engineers, scientists, and technical workers?
If we are assuming this, then there is no conflict. They will rise and fall according to their ability, just like men. The only sexist thing is the belief that I value women higher than I value men. That's a selfish thing, though, in that I'm a man. That value, however, has nothing to do with skill or ability, and I would not judge the skill of a man or woman based on my preference for males or females. Thats an independent category, and one in which the women would be selected against, no different than men.
But then there are also the unqualified men that we have to work with, too.
But I am of the opinion that not all women are unqualified, and that any effort to bring more women into the field won't and shouldn't bring in unqualified workers. The issue is how to attract women into the right fields and disciplines, and work their way through(no more, no less than a male) etc.
Not unless iMacs and Apple dies. Not unless Sony stops making iLink camcorders, CDRWs, VCRs, digital TVs, and notebooks Not unless Canon, Phillips, et al also stop making Firewire devices
Not unless Intel can push something better and cheaper than Firewire to all the above companies
Fine. Men and women are different. Fine, statistically it didn't interest them.
Why does this make any difference over the fact that I, and other people, want more women in the field?
Just on a purely selfish goal, a building with women in it smell better than if there are only men. Maybe it's that perfume smells better than cologne. Or that there are pheremones involved. Or that my preference is towards women.
Another goal, then, would to have more women around. I just enjoy the company more, no matter how nice a guy is. Again, it could be any of the above reasons(smell better, pheremones, or hormones).
There aren't enough technical workers. Women are an untapped field. Solution, perhaps? It could concievable double the number of technical workers!
All I have is my own personal experience, which may not be representative;
Caltech. 1:3 ratio of women to men, in science in technology.
1:30 ratio of women to men, in CS 1:10 ration of women to men, in EE
So there is some selective pressure at Caltech at least, and at Caltech people are trying to do something about it.
I interpreted this interview's comments in this light. I don't know what it is like for the rest of the Universities; do you have statistics? I know in my workplace, it's a 1:13 ratio of women to men, and this is HP in the bay area.
And I don't understand why making the environment easier won't work in computer science. CS doesn't particularly seem like a flopping fish, to me.
The point of using USB or Firewire is simplicity; only 2 or 3 ports on the back of the PC, maybe the monitor, maybe the keyboard.
Which means, fundamentally, users won't have to figure out cables, converters, passthroughs.
Which means the ordinary user will plug his monitor(maybe) into his USB or Firewire port in the back, and then the keyboard into the monitor, or into the back, if desired, and then the mouse into the keyboard, or the monitor, or whatever. And then plug in the speakers. And the mic. And the modem. And the headphones. And the printer.
All with 2 or 3 ports.
Vs the 8 ports today(2 PS2, 2 USB, 2 parallel, 2 serial)
So just by dropping PS2, parallel, and serial, price goes down.
As does support costs for motherboard design, BIOs, drivers, OSes, and drivers having to deal with all of the above.
Whoever said USB would revolutionize it, anyway? It's an incremental improvement!
Slashdot Mirror
The date pager is not meant to dictate your personal appearance kind of taste. It can't do anything about that. Your eyes and such are the only tools that can help; in that way, the date pager, then, can only help you find someone that's more than a skin-deep attraction.
I don't think attraction based on appearance is slimy. I don't think it's correct, either. Attraction, I think, is undefineable; it's appearance, it's behavior, it's pheromones, it's fate. Whatever the reason, it happens. At least, I've not been limited to one type of woman ^^
But I agree on your other posts, about differences. Variety is nice
On the other hand, I don't think I can know myself enough to actually be able to program a date pager to choose more accurately than my own intuition...
-AS
When resources and connectivity is what you pay for, and not airtime(like flat rate fees for normal phones) what you can get is a mixed voice activated PDA/cell/thingy
You speak into the phone, it transmits to a processing center, does the appropriate action, and sends you back data.
Of course, this does nothing for privacy, but is loads faster when trying to, say, browse a map, or find a restaurant, etc.
Why put any processing power into a cell phone when it is already a wireless device?
-AS
Is this even possible or feasible?
What with cards with 64mb+ of memory, 'GPU', etc.
IE, framebuffer and display is no problem. Data would be loaded through a simple, stupid, microprocessor across the AGP bus; all you'd need. I'm sure there are Linux distros that could fit themselves comfortably within 64mb ^^
Anyone?
-AS
It's the value of shared experience.
It's the rush of being in control.
It's the reflexes and timing and response time.
It's chatting with other people, and sharing goods.
A bunch of other things I can't describe right now.
Playing the game with N other people, trying to keep everyone alive despite hoards of monsters and such. Sorta like Gauntlet. Remember that game? Blizzard just tapped into that play style and architecture, and made it prettier and multiplayer.
Tetris was a big hit, and not fundamentally difficult. Line up blocks!
Gauntlet was a big hit. Run around, grabbing power ups, and shooting every single thing that moved.
Super Mario brothers! All about timing and reflexes and surviving.
What else do you want out of a game? For a lot of people, Diablo was perfect! Not that I played it, but I can see the appeal. If you want something else from a game, find something else!
-AS
^^;
I almost didn't realize, either, until I got to the part where you start insulting the Canadians.
-AS
What would you suggest we do with it, anyway?
-AS
How hard would it be to get consent from the Department of Trade and Commerce?
Just curious...
-AS
Hmmm.
Implant a wafer thin watch; essentially a electroluminescent LCD display, in which applied voltage gets sections to light up. Insert it below the skin, so that it is still slightly visible. The glowing sections, however, would be readable through your skin, except when you shine bright light directly on it. In which case you'd just put your other hand over, to provide shade.
Would this work?
-AS
Ugh, no. No standards on GUI, please. The great thing about using Linux is that there isn't just one way to do something.
At least I think you're misunderstanding the value of stnadard Linux interface. I'm not talking about GUI, as that is more or less a shell and a front end to the UI. GUI can(and should) change with the window manager and the user's tastes. The user interface, however, is a different story. Even GNU stuff has some sort of <em>consistency</em> among their tools, their implementation, their instructions, etc. We do want a standard UI, with the ability to fork and change as taste desires.
By analogy, it would be akin to making sure every car has a steering wheel on the left side. That every car has rear-view and side mirrors. That every car has headlights. That every car has a parking break. That every car has an speedometer. The way each function, operate, and such may differ, but the fundamental usage of a car stays the same across make, build, and brand.
Similarly in Linux, then, I imagine. That way one can hop from one machine to another, with very little in the way of learning curve, as well as from one application to another, one context to another, because they would all have shared features.
-AS
If all this DeCSS, RIAA, mp3, MPAA and lawsuit stuff is getting to you, do something about it.
Patronize live bands. Watch a theatre performance. Go to the beach. Take up a musical instrument.
We do not have to live our lives consuming the goods if they don't want us to consume them! If they want to make proprietary closed and encrypted CDs, then don't buy them. Don't buy CDs. Don't pirate them. Just find something else to do!
There are big battles in life, and DeCSS and such may be one of them. But the value of the battle is not just in watching DVDs under Linux. It's the right to do as we see fit, in our own lives.
So go and do so!
-AS
One of Ami Ganguli's original examples holds some water with the DeCSS case, however. I am not a historian, though, so my reasoning or thoughts may be incorrect.
The American Revolution
We weren't actually fighting over anything nearly as noble as peace, freedom, intolerance, etc. As far as I know, we were fighting over money and property. The rights of taxation, representation, ownership, etc. And while we won, it wasn't legally, fairly, or nicely. And if we had any right to do it then, as indivduals trying to gain control over our own lives and world vs an empire that wanted none of that, it shouldn't be any different, I don't think, of consumers trying to fight the MPAA or the entertainment industry over control over what we can and cannot do with our DVDs, CDs, music, players, OSes, etc.
You're right in complaining about the other examples, however =)
-AS
Upon reading the article, I find myself plagued with a coupld doubts.
They mention opening the source code Windows; not necessarily making it Open Source(tm).
Which could mean several things. You could download and hack and recompile, but it means nothing if it isn't M$ certified, for example. Or it might need to pass some tests or follow some guidelines.
Or you may need to pay some sort of license fee to get to the source; no one said it would be <em>free</em>, just that they would be willing to open the source/make it available.
All 35 million lines of code...
But this does mean one thing. WINE could get a substantial boost, if it were legal to use the source. Which means, perhaps, that Office would run natively on x86 systems, and with some level of emulation on non-x86 systems.
Or an X layer could be grafted into Windows itself, and provided as a modified binary, assuming the code/system was conducive to such an endeavor.
Oh joy, and would the DirectX libraries be included in this deal? Would that mean an OS version, perhaps OpenX libraries, could be provided for x86 Linux, WinNT(finally!), and even non-x86 Linux systems?
Would this mean we could actually remove all traces of IE from Win2k and Win98?
Could we build a WinX layer atop BSD, ala Apple's OS X? Could this be ported to other architectures?
Heck, could we do interesting things with Darwin, WinFreeOS, SGI's JFS and OpenGL?
Perhaps I'm being too optimistic here =)
-AS
Ahead of myself? Perhaps.
But I don't see why there is any biological influence at all in working with computers. Or physics. Or English. Or arts.
Maybe girls don't get different treatment. Is this what you imply? That girls get the same treatement as guys?
Lets assume there is no gender bias in our culture. Is that too extreme? That girls and boys don't get treated differently, and that the only difference is biological. In which case, why should there be any difference then in job skills? Since when has computers been a part of our biological makeup? Or cooking? All these skills are learned and taught and passed on through tutelage, not genetics.
I never made the assumption that men are women are biologically identical. Why is that necessary for women to go into technical fields? A difference in treatment is certainly a viable reason for a difference in behavior; it is certainly not the only reason, but I don't think I see why behavior is connected to being skilled in computing!
-AS
Why is it sexist?
Of course the only trait isn't gender. Are we assuming, or not, that women are just as qualified as men to be engineers, scientists, and technical workers?
If we are assuming this, then there is no conflict. They will rise and fall according to their ability, just like men. The only sexist thing is the belief that I value women higher than I value men. That's a selfish thing, though, in that I'm a man. That value, however, has nothing to do with skill or ability, and I would not judge the skill of a man or woman based on my preference for males or females. Thats an independent category, and one in which the women would be selected against, no different than men.
-AS
I wasn't consideirng unqualified women. My bad.
But then there are also the unqualified men that we have to work with, too.
But I am of the opinion that not all women are unqualified, and that any effort to bring more women into the field won't and shouldn't bring in unqualified workers. The issue is how to attract women into the right fields and disciplines, and work their way through(no more, no less than a male) etc.
-AS
I dunno. 1394 scanners, removeable drives, etc. Think of every place that SCSI was cool or useful, and 1394 fits almost perfectly. And then some.
Will it replace SCSI? On Apple systems, prolly. On PCs? Prolly not.
-AS
Not unless iMacs and Apple dies.
Not unless Sony stops making iLink camcorders, CDRWs, VCRs, digital TVs, and notebooks
Not unless Canon, Phillips, et al also stop making Firewire devices
Not unless Intel can push something better and cheaper than Firewire to all the above companies
-AS
Fine. Men and women are different. Fine, statistically it didn't interest them.
:P
Why does this make any difference over the fact that I, and other people, want more women in the field?
Just on a purely selfish goal, a building with women in it smell better than if there are only men. Maybe it's that perfume smells better than cologne. Or that there are pheremones involved. Or that my preference is towards women.
Another goal, then, would to have more women around. I just enjoy the company more, no matter how nice a guy is. Again, it could be any of the above reasons(smell better, pheremones, or hormones).
There aren't enough technical workers. Women are an untapped field. Solution, perhaps? It could concievable double the number of technical workers!
So there
-AS
All I have is my own personal experience, which may not be representative;
Caltech. 1:3 ratio of women to men, in science in technology.
1:30 ratio of women to men, in CS
1:10 ration of women to men, in EE
So there is some selective pressure at Caltech at least, and at Caltech people are trying to do something about it.
I interpreted this interview's comments in this light. I don't know what it is like for the rest of the Universities; do you have statistics? I know in my workplace, it's a 1:13 ratio of women to men, and this is HP in the bay area.
And I don't understand why making the environment easier won't work in computer science. CS doesn't particularly seem like a flopping fish, to me.
-AS
How about politics? Apple pushes Firewire, Intel pushes USB?
What does that have to do with the cost?
A firewire board costs $80 because of the costs of the PCI board, the drivers, the support, etc.
Imagine, if Intel just put firewire support into their chipset? What would it cost?
How about the cost of just the connectors?
I mean, of course the implementation is what makes firewire cost $80. How much does a add on USB board cost, then?
-AS
The point of using USB or Firewire is simplicity; only 2 or 3 ports on the back of the PC, maybe the monitor, maybe the keyboard.
Which means, fundamentally, users won't have to figure out cables, converters, passthroughs.
Which means the ordinary user will plug his monitor(maybe) into his USB or Firewire port in the back, and then the keyboard into the monitor, or into the back, if desired, and then the mouse into the keyboard, or the monitor, or whatever. And then plug in the speakers. And the mic. And the modem. And the headphones. And the printer.
All with 2 or 3 ports.
Vs the 8 ports today(2 PS2, 2 USB, 2 parallel, 2 serial)
So just by dropping PS2, parallel, and serial, price goes down.
As does support costs for motherboard design, BIOs, drivers, OSes, and drivers having to deal with all of the above.
Whoever said USB would revolutionize it, anyway? It's an incremental improvement!
-AS
May just be an iMac running Linux, then...
I mean, about the only thing missing is the Firewire HDs...
-AS
In which case, perhaps it can be stated that there's a cultural imperative preventing thewe girls from doing the full leap from M&S to CS?
I mean, if they are talented enough and interested enough in M&S, it's not skill or ability that keeps them out of CS!
-AS
It's because until iMacs came about, there was no *reason* to use USB; serial/parallel/PS2 all coexisted.
So Intel didn't push USB very much until after Apple did. You'd think Intel would return the favor by supporting Firewire, just to be fair.
I like Firewire. Unfortunately, the PC support is so poor, my next PC may have to be a Mac!(I have a DV camcorder)
-AS
Apple et all has lowered the cost to $0.25 per system, as opposed to $1 per port
Firewire licensing
So unless you think $0.25 per system is unreasonable(up the wazoo?), perhaps Firewire *does* rock?
-AS