Certainly there would be more information in the 2000 pile but trying to glean an insight into our lives wouldn't be so easy.
well, now you are changing your premise. Before you were worried that the technologies were not long lasting, but now you are worried that too much stuff will last. I presume that you are looking for a technology that will only keep the good stuff. Hint: don't look on Slashcode:)
I think people wring their hands too much. Sure, we lose a lot from the past as we move forward. What makes this story interesting is that Archimedes stuff is rare. If we kept absolutely everything from the past, in the future this story would read:
A librarian [synonymous with human: everyone will be a librarian] has discovered Archmedes's buoyancy memo, misfiled with Gerald Rivera's "Opening Al Capone's Safe" videos. Authorities think a prankster must be at work, probably one of the monks, since previously this same piece had been misfiled with a newsstory called "Market for.com IPO's Remains Buoyant" from 1999.
That would be a boring world. Much better to treasure rare treasures than banning all throwaways. Imagine: everybody runs yardsales all the time as we shuffle all our old stuff around.
An inkjetted page could never be recovered after it's been washed
um... yes, it probably could as there would be residue, etc. I'll bet the FBI does it routinely.
But that aside, your whole premise is flawed, I think. I'd be willing to bet that by far, more information from today will be saved for the future than ever before. Archeologists someday will dig up my laptop and find persistent doubleclick cookies still tracking me:)
so, when you are staring at a bash command line, explain to me how you figure out what kernel is executing your commands... if you like the BSD kernel, wouldn't it be cool if in the linux/boot directory you could have a vmlinuz and a BSD kernel, and use lilo to allow simple switching between them? if that worked, wouldn't more people switch to BSD?
aren't there any people on Slashdot who can abstract a concept? what was the point of my bringing up the Turing test to people who are unable to draw an analogy? an education is worthless if no one else has one.
that's silly. Prices don't "exist" as independent variables. Price is a dependent variable. But anyway, I just think it is stupid to say that some technology costs a lot, but it's not for a technical reason. I don't even know what that means.
...is a correct statement, both grammatically and syntactically (as well as from a content standpoint, for that matter)
your point is (or should have been) that his statement is semantically accurate, and don't make your main point parenthetical. Semantics==meaning, despite the fact that many people use it to mean "definition". And, I stick to my belief that it is completely dumb to say that "the reason we don't all fly spaceships here and there is political and economic, not technical." That's horseshit. If we had the technology, the politics and economics would fall into place.
Second, "economical" is no longer used as a synonym for "economic."
Right, numbnuts, and I didn't use it that way either. "Rather than" no longer means the same as, it means "opposed to".
And I didn't say "suck air out". You used the usage arguement up above: I'll betcha in ordinary speech, 95% of people you ask would find my usage perfectly fine. And confess, you used to say "tisk", didn't you?
*BSD's market share is miniscule compared to linux's, and the likelihood of that changing is low because of all of the infrastructure and network externalities that are falling into place around linux.
if you want BSD to win, you should pitch for strategies for allowing BSD to directly take advantage of the network for linux support. Remember, as I pointed out in my original post, it's just the kernel you need to switch.
BSD has not been as successful as linux in garnering marketshare in the past, right? Well, unfortunately for the BSD lover, that makes it even less likely that BSD will gain share in the future. It's not too hard to see a path to BSD improving its chances, but pay attention to the customer.
The slashdot audience is filled with geeks, and geeks don't quite get it when it comes to understanding why and how other people decide what to buy or install. I don't want to go into gory detail about this, but a good example is a guy a few months back who basically said he was waiting for strongarm chips in the Palm [Pilot] because they are better than the chips in there now. Hello? Is there any device that hides the chips more thoroughly than a Palm? It's sort of a twisted version of the Turing test: can you tell what kind of chip is in there? No? Good!
The reason I bring that example up is that kernels are the same way. If you think some *BSD kernel is great, then give me a "RedHat" distribution that has substituted the kernel you love for the linux kernel (call it "RedHot"). Wouldn't that be cool? I'll believe you that it's better, I'll install it, and it'll run better, and you and I will both be happier. Then, having achieved a beachhead, BSD can start to push deeper into Linux territory.
So, I know you hate the idea, but you can't say I'm not trying. Otherwise, BSD will be the world's best OS to languish in obscurity.
The reasons [that the price is high] are, quite unsurprisingly, much more political and economic than technical.
so, let me get this straight... high prices are "economic", but low prices would be "technical"? Tsk, tsk, tsk, sloppy use of the language.
and BTW, while I'm using it: "tsk" is not pronounced "tisk". It's that little clicking sound you make with your tongue against the alveolar ridge on the roof of your mouth, sort of like making a "t" sound, but sucking air in rather than out.
the guy who wrote the article does not get it, so who cares what he thinks.
Some people, like Richard Stallman, have always tried to keep a bit of this spirit alive - admittedly, it must be like fighting uphill in an avalanche.
what's with the verb tense? Stallman can be nothing but pleased at the linux revolution (yeah, yeah, I know Gnu...) and the way it has taken on a life of its own: linux is not an uphill fight. Linux is the avalanche.
So why hasn't it caught on on the Mac? Open source developers want to work on open source systems. With Linux and BSD (and running on Mac hardware too) why write code for the Mac? Damn things are needlessly more expensive anyway.
But this doesn't mean there will never be opensource on the Mac. Opensource has strong positive network externalities, and if it ever establishes a critical mass of code and coders on the Mac, it would prove to be a highly tenacious subculture that would begin to sweep aside commercial software just the way it's doing in the x86 world.
That's not correct really. If enough people use it, you could call it an "industry standard" or a "de facto standard" but it is not correct to call it a "standard" unless a recognized standards setting body (e.g. IEEE) has recognized it as a standard.
I made a comparison between human infestation of earth and plant infestation of earth. It was funny and insightful. You lack a sense of humor, to be sure, as well as you lack insight. But the truly weird thing is that you've created a series of beliefs for me that I don't hold. Did I say something about progress? Did I say something about natural law? I was just describing what happens. It is you who keeps inserting your value judgements.
First, let me say that I did not word my post very well. Apologies. But I think the thrust is more or less accurate. The inference I drew came from JE saying
Seriously, if this comes as a suprise to anybody then they obviously don't know much about the business world at all. Corporate espionage....
and then you adding
It's a totally common practice in big business... I'm surprised that Oracle were so brazen as to admit...
You are all but saying "this is a negative" and you also say "it's business". My point is (or meant to be:) the opposite: it is not a negative, and it is not business, it's human nature.
It is not negative because the only way to catch dishonesty is to investigate it. Oracle investigated it, and found it, and publicized it. I don't see a negative. And not only do businesses do it, but regular people do too. You can object to my use of the term slimy, fine, pick another one, but I think I captured the gist of what you were saying and I still disagree with it.
...or when Microsoft wanted to include the number of HTTP sessions in amongst the number of NT user licenses:) what a bunch of morons. I get so sick of hearing about how brilliant they are.
yeah, and when the trees first sprouted in Yellowstone, all the lichens complained to the moss about "all these #$*@* towers! And they're taking a lot of good carbon out of the atmosphere, damn it! Next thing you know, we'll have global cooling!"
You'll get used to it, they did. It's all natural.
Why is everybody calling this "business" as if it's some kind of slimy dealing? If reporters go digging to find the truth behind a facade, is that slimy? When the FBI does it? You guys a bunch of wussy crack smokers.
It is slimy to dig for dirt on someone if you do it gratuitously, trying to create news, or to generate ad homenim attacks. It's sort of an innocent till proven guilty thing, basic fairness where people (and companies?) should be entitled to some degree of privacy.
But if you are making public statements that are harmful to your adversary, and your adversary figures out that you were not being completely honest: screw you. It is not illegal to buy and read trash. It's that simple.
Microsoft's testimony has been shown repeatedly to be riddled with lies, and now their PR campaign too. That's the story here. The only scandal is the degree to which the press has lain down on this one. Can anyone think of a single shred of information that the press has uncovered in the entire Microsoft anti-trust action?
I downloaded it and tested it but there must have been a bunch of noise on my cabling: my SETI@Home suddenly reported that it found Beethoven living on some obscure planet. Highly unlikely.
Apart from the fact that your post just repeated what I said as if you just figured it out (gosh, you're a genius) it is fortunately the case that MS did this after the court ruled. It's kind of like trying to leave the country after a court rules you need to go to jail. This would have no effect on the ruling but might serve to convince more judges that Microsoft has no intention of modifying its behavior.
But, the jig's up for Microsoft anyway. The average Joe doesn't even trust them anymore, forget about corporate partners. This is going to be a repeat of eWorld and Microsoft's previous attempts at online communities.
You read into what I wrote something that I wasn't saying. I did not say blacklist advertising company domains. I said blacklist Doubleclick. For future reference, if I call for putting a particular murderer in jail, that does not mean that I'm calling for all people to be put in jail. I think that Doubleclick has gone far beyond ethical boundaries in its pursuit of money.
I separately think that we should take the recent court decisions to treat domain names as "registrations" and not trademarks or property. Thus, why not have multiple registrations? You choose your ISP, I'll choose mine, and partially on the basis of the registry they provide me. I don't see a double standard in that. It's called freedom of choice.
Do you control a DNS? Do you have a small ISP or work at a small company? Add a record to your DNS, or ask the people that control it, to make your nameserver be "authoritative" for doubleclick.net. define the various doubleclick hostnames to be hosts at.... Junkbusters?
...and doubleclick will simply disappear for you and all of your fellow users.
this whole scheme is a blatant attempt by Microsoft to circumvent the breakup order. They're going to start bitching and moaning and whining about how everything is integrated now.
But once again, BillG ("Bilge") will learn that lawyers and judges are (a) not stupid and (b) easily irritated by nerds who think "technicalities" will get them off the hook. Why does he have this reputation for being so smart?
You are absolutely right, Cuthalion! I searched the discussion for "orthogonal" and found your comment. While I was doing it, you got modded right up to the top! so, the hated moderation system does work pretty well on the upside.:)
Anyway, I said "depressingly" in my subject line because there are a whole bunch of people commenting down below who don't see what is so obvious to you. To them, open source means baggy pants, cap on backwards, dissin' the man! You can see that view also in ESR's debate that was up here yesterday, too. Sheesh, folks! Open source is about getting your hands on the source, that's all. It's not about no plans, no deadlines, no testing, just like it's not about more plans, more deadlines and more testing.
That said, let me add one not terribly original point: a system that is tested and certified by lots of committees and agencies, and it is open and open source, and it still passes all the tests and certs, is a system that is probably pretty secure. The various public key encryption systems come to mind as examples.
I hacked my Tevos. I stapled leather all over the upside, and now I have shoes for the price of sandals! And it's so cool, because if I want to watch a scene in a movie again, I just slip them on, walk over to the VCR, hit rewind, and voila! time shifting!
Yes, Windows is filled with cheesey modified hungarian notation, but real hungarian notation totally rocks! it fits C code like a glove, as closely as as the Unix/C matchup listed above.
The hungarian inventor, Charles Simonyi, also created the first WYSIWYG word processor at Xerox PARC... unfortunately, he went over to the dark side and presided over MS Office...:(
Slashdot Mirror
well, now you are changing your premise. Before you were worried that the technologies were not long lasting, but now you are worried that too much stuff will last. I presume that you are looking for a technology that will only keep the good stuff. Hint: don't look on Slashcode :)
I think people wring their hands too much. Sure, we lose a lot from the past as we move forward. What makes this story interesting is that Archimedes stuff is rare. If we kept absolutely everything from the past, in the future this story would read:
That would be a boring world. Much better to treasure rare treasures than banning all throwaways. Imagine: everybody runs yardsales all the time as we shuffle all our old stuff around.um... yes, it probably could as there would be residue, etc. I'll bet the FBI does it routinely.
But that aside, your whole premise is flawed, I think. I'd be willing to bet that by far, more information from today will be saved for the future than ever before. Archeologists someday will dig up my laptop and find persistent doubleclick cookies still tracking me :)
I followed the link from the news page to a site about Archimedes and they had this pretty cool Cattle Puzzle that Archimedes created.
aren't there any people on Slashdot who can abstract a concept? what was the point of my bringing up the Turing test to people who are unable to draw an analogy? an education is worthless if no one else has one.
point taken :) peace.
that's silly. Prices don't "exist" as independent variables. Price is a dependent variable. But anyway, I just think it is stupid to say that some technology costs a lot, but it's not for a technical reason. I don't even know what that means.
your point is (or should have been) that his statement is semantically accurate, and don't make your main point parenthetical. Semantics==meaning, despite the fact that many people use it to mean "definition". And, I stick to my belief that it is completely dumb to say that "the reason we don't all fly spaceships here and there is political and economic, not technical." That's horseshit. If we had the technology, the politics and economics would fall into place.
Second, "economical" is no longer used as a synonym for "economic."
Right, numbnuts, and I didn't use it that way either. "Rather than" no longer means the same as, it means "opposed to".
And I didn't say "suck air out". You used the usage arguement up above: I'll betcha in ordinary speech, 95% of people you ask would find my usage perfectly fine. And confess, you used to say "tisk", didn't you?
if you want BSD to win, you should pitch for strategies for allowing BSD to directly take advantage of the network for linux support. Remember, as I pointed out in my original post, it's just the kernel you need to switch.
The slashdot audience is filled with geeks, and geeks don't quite get it when it comes to understanding why and how other people decide what to buy or install. I don't want to go into gory detail about this, but a good example is a guy a few months back who basically said he was waiting for strongarm chips in the Palm [Pilot] because they are better than the chips in there now. Hello? Is there any device that hides the chips more thoroughly than a Palm? It's sort of a twisted version of the Turing test: can you tell what kind of chip is in there? No? Good!
The reason I bring that example up is that kernels are the same way. If you think some *BSD kernel is great, then give me a "RedHat" distribution that has substituted the kernel you love for the linux kernel (call it "RedHot"). Wouldn't that be cool? I'll believe you that it's better, I'll install it, and it'll run better, and you and I will both be happier. Then, having achieved a beachhead, BSD can start to push deeper into Linux territory.
So, I know you hate the idea, but you can't say I'm not trying. Otherwise, BSD will be the world's best OS to languish in obscurity.
so, let me get this straight... high prices are "economic", but low prices would be "technical"? Tsk, tsk, tsk, sloppy use of the language.
and BTW, while I'm using it: "tsk" is not pronounced "tisk". It's that little clicking sound you make with your tongue against the alveolar ridge on the roof of your mouth, sort of like making a "t" sound, but sucking air in rather than out.
Some people, like Richard Stallman, have always tried to keep a bit of this spirit alive - admittedly, it must be like fighting uphill in an avalanche.
what's with the verb tense? Stallman can be nothing but pleased at the linux revolution (yeah, yeah, I know Gnu...) and the way it has taken on a life of its own: linux is not an uphill fight. Linux is the avalanche.
So why hasn't it caught on on the Mac? Open source developers want to work on open source systems. With Linux and BSD (and running on Mac hardware too) why write code for the Mac? Damn things are needlessly more expensive anyway.
But this doesn't mean there will never be opensource on the Mac. Opensource has strong positive network externalities, and if it ever establishes a critical mass of code and coders on the Mac, it would prove to be a highly tenacious subculture that would begin to sweep aside commercial software just the way it's doing in the x86 world.
That's not correct really. If enough people use it, you could call it an "industry standard" or a "de facto standard" but it is not correct to call it a "standard" unless a recognized standards setting body (e.g. IEEE) has recognized it as a standard.
I made a comparison between human infestation of earth and plant infestation of earth. It was funny and insightful. You lack a sense of humor, to be sure, as well as you lack insight. But the truly weird thing is that you've created a series of beliefs for me that I don't hold. Did I say something about progress? Did I say something about natural law? I was just describing what happens. It is you who keeps inserting your value judgements.
Seriously, if this comes as a suprise to anybody then they obviously don't know much about the business world at all. Corporate espionage ....
and then you adding
It's a totally common practice in big business... I'm surprised that Oracle were so brazen as to admit...
You are all but saying "this is a negative" and you also say "it's business". My point is (or meant to be :) the opposite: it is not a negative, and it is not business, it's human nature.
It is not negative because the only way to catch dishonesty is to investigate it. Oracle investigated it, and found it, and publicized it. I don't see a negative. And not only do businesses do it, but regular people do too. You can object to my use of the term slimy, fine, pick another one, but I think I captured the gist of what you were saying and I still disagree with it.
...or when Microsoft wanted to include the number of HTTP sessions in amongst the number of NT user licenses :) what a bunch of morons. I get so sick of hearing about how brilliant they are.
You'll get used to it, they did. It's all natural.
Why is everybody calling this "business" as if it's some kind of slimy dealing? If reporters go digging to find the truth behind a facade, is that slimy? When the FBI does it? You guys a bunch of wussy crack smokers.
It is slimy to dig for dirt on someone if you do it gratuitously, trying to create news, or to generate ad homenim attacks. It's sort of an innocent till proven guilty thing, basic fairness where people (and companies?) should be entitled to some degree of privacy.
But if you are making public statements that are harmful to your adversary, and your adversary figures out that you were not being completely honest: screw you. It is not illegal to buy and read trash. It's that simple.
Microsoft's testimony has been shown repeatedly to be riddled with lies, and now their PR campaign too. That's the story here. The only scandal is the degree to which the press has lain down on this one. Can anyone think of a single shred of information that the press has uncovered in the entire Microsoft anti-trust action?
I downloaded it and tested it but there must have been a bunch of noise on my cabling: my SETI@Home suddenly reported that it found Beethoven living on some obscure planet. Highly unlikely.
But, the jig's up for Microsoft anyway. The average Joe doesn't even trust them anymore, forget about corporate partners. This is going to be a repeat of eWorld and Microsoft's previous attempts at online communities.
I separately think that we should take the recent court decisions to treat domain names as "registrations" and not trademarks or property. Thus, why not have multiple registrations? You choose your ISP, I'll choose mine, and partially on the basis of the registry they provide me. I don't see a double standard in that. It's called freedom of choice.
...and doubleclick will simply disappear for you and all of your fellow users.
But once again, BillG ("Bilge") will learn that lawyers and judges are (a) not stupid and (b) easily irritated by nerds who think "technicalities" will get them off the hook. Why does he have this reputation for being so smart?
Anyway, I said "depressingly" in my subject line because there are a whole bunch of people commenting down below who don't see what is so obvious to you. To them, open source means baggy pants, cap on backwards, dissin' the man! You can see that view also in ESR's debate that was up here yesterday, too. Sheesh, folks! Open source is about getting your hands on the source, that's all. It's not about no plans, no deadlines, no testing, just like it's not about more plans, more deadlines and more testing.
That said, let me add one not terribly original point: a system that is tested and certified by lots of committees and agencies, and it is open and open source, and it still passes all the tests and certs, is a system that is probably pretty secure. The various public key encryption systems come to mind as examples.
I hacked my Tevos. I stapled leather all over the upside, and now I have shoes for the price of sandals! And it's so cool, because if I want to watch a scene in a movie again, I just slip them on, walk over to the VCR, hit rewind, and voila! time shifting!
The hungarian inventor, Charles Simonyi, also created the first WYSIWYG word processor at Xerox PARC... unfortunately, he went over to the dark side and presided over MS Office... :(