You say he still does real coding, and yet when was the last time we saw anything from him? Like RMS he seems to have become famous whilst only having produced a single piece of well-known code, but at least RMS has something he believes in.
ESR seems to have recently decided that the best interests of Open Source lies in bending over and taking it from as many corporate CTOs as possible. Rather than actually getting down and doing anything (other than maintaining the pointless Jargon File) he spends most of his time either talking to suits or writing his usual arrogant drivel.
ESR is just one cog who got a lucky break and tried to play it for all he was worth. He deserves no more attention than any other open source coder.
Another case of too little, too late?
on
ESR On XML-RPC
·
· Score: 2
It seems as though this otherwise worthwhile project has hit an obstacle - it now conflicts with an alternative, open protocol for remote procedures based on XML. And when you've got two competing systems, the best one will win.
Unfortunately for XML-RPC, SOAP has the backing of a large proportion of the computing world, including both IBM and Microsoft. Whilst XML-RPC may be more in the "Unix spirit" it's a system that will be proprietary to Unix OSes rather than truly open.
And given the amount of backing that SOAP is getting, it seems as though XML-RPC will be left behind and slowly forgotten. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but unless it can offer something that SOAP can, then it will simply lose to a better system. And at the moment, I can't see how it can match SOAP, let alone better it.
Vertical consolidation is a great move for any company looking to increase their profitability, but in VA's case it wasn't even really vertical consolidation, it was, well, "diagonal" consolidation if anything.
It seemed at though they were attempting to go for prestige and "kudos" rather than a sound business model. They had absolutely no need to buy Andover - the two companies were in totally different businesses where the only tenuous link was Linux.
The trouble is is that VA is a hardware company at the end of the day. And their selling point was their Linux expertise. But who were they selling to? The geek market is more likely to be making their own computers and installing their own distros. The large corporate market is likely to have their own staff that can deal with installing and configuring Linux.
This left the dotcom companies as their target market. And given the fickle nature of the dotcom "revolution" this was always going to be risky. The growth period in internet companies is over, and VA are left with a smaller new market, and hence less potential revenue.
Don't blame consolidation, blame a risky business plan. The reason we're seeing so many cuts is that they're attempting to cutback now and avoid even bigger cuts later. It wouldn't suprise me if they did try and sell of OSDN and move back to their core business.
This is not a national Security risk, you could not make bomb of this stuff, you would need to inject it personaly.
How naive. Genetic engineering is done via means of a tailored virus that inserts the modified DNA into someone's chromosomes, this could, with some research, the made into an aitborn virus which spread CD45 blockers throughout a population relatively easily.
And if Saddam wants a bomb to threaten the USA he would be better off with Anthrax or TB.
Both of which are quite difficult to get hold of and not nearly as deadly.
Are you asserting that if our government cuts off funds for this research, then no one in the world is ever going to make inroads along these lines?
No, I'm sure that other countries could manage to develop these things sooner or later, it's just that because America leads the world in terms of free market capitalism it has a much higher amount of money placed into research and development than socialist economies like England or France.
Or are you merely stating that the government should take a hand in what people it funds, in terms of restricting the nationalities of whom these research facilities employ?
Well I suppose only employing American nationals would cut down on security risks, but that wasn't what I meant at all.
Or are you requesting that these sorts of discoveries not be publicized in the media, for fear of researchers being kidnapped by enemy nations, so that their discoveries can be used for destructive goals?
Not kidnapping, no, do you think this is some Third World dictatorship? But if knowledge like this is placed into the public domain we are basically giving away the fruits of our labors, and this is in no way consistent with the sensible capitalist policies that has seen our nation outstrip the rest of the world in every way that counts.
Although I've kept a concerned eye on the risks of biotech as a whole, this advance in the state of scientific knowledge is quite incredibly worrying for anyone considering the wider ramifications of biotechnology. I mean, it's one thing to make a tomato that stays juicy for longer, it's a different thing entirely to play around with the chemical that regulates the immune system!
I mean come on folks, this is getting to the point where there are immense risks to the health of millions. As the article says, mice which couldn't make the protein CD45 died very quickly from cancers and auto-immune diseases. This sounds like a perfect opportunity for nefarious rogue states to develop biological weapons for use against Western targets. I'm sure Saddamn would like to have a "cancer bomb" with which to threaten the US.
Although scientific openness has got us this far, I think that when it comes to developments that are inherently dangerous we need to have a little less self-promotion and a lot more respect for the potential consequences. Government bodies that fund these projects should be a lot stricter about the conditions for which they grant research funds to ensure national security in the face of a world increasingly anatagonistic to our rich culture.
No, real if experimentally proven. And real in the sense of existing independent of human existance.
I think it's pretty clear that if the "laws of physics are really real", then "science is the only way for humans to make sense of the Universe around them."
True. I haven't argued against that.
If you have a hard time accepting rules with exceptions when we describe blackholes, how is it that you can believe laws of physics are really real yet also believe that there is a god?
Yes, where's the contradiction? God created the Universe and thus the laws that define how the Universe works, hence God is real and so are the laws of physics. No problem there.
If the rules of physics do not allow for a blackhole, they do not allow for a god.
*sigh* Nonsense, because God is outside the Universe, black holes are inside it. So the laws of physics cannot say anything about the existance or non-existance of God, but they can about black holes.
i don't think ANY physicist would ever dare to say that.
So you think that no scientist would say that the universe actually exists outside of human conscioussness? I don't think solipsism is the number one philosophy for more physicists...
Well my knowledge of the subject is obviously not cutting-edge, but whilst general relativity has been experimentally proven to be correct there are alternative formulations which give equivalent experimental results but do not include black hole solutions, instead allowing for super-massive stellar objects. In these cases, it would be quite possible to have neutron stars that acted similar to what a "black hole" would appear to.
Godel proved that if you have a formal system with a fixed set of axioms that are sufficient to encode ordinary arithmetic, there will either be an inconsistency, or there will be statements that are undecidable within the system. You can prove that the formal system is internally consistent (cannot prove any pair of contradictory statements) provided you accept that some statements are undecidable.
What does this have to do with anything? There's a difference between abstract mathematical systems and the physical universe, and Godel only talks about one.
"The very laws that the Lord decreed"? Dude, these "laws" are all interpretations based on limited human perception.
So you're a cultural relativist that believes that science is only the latest way for humans to make sense of the Universe around them? Whether you believe in the Lord or not, I think any rational human being should believe that the laws of physics are really real!
The theiving cartoon bear is not someone I'd have thought of as good quoting material, but maybe that's just me...
Black holes certainly do follow basic physical laws; they follow much of the same laws that the rest of the cosmos follows. Inside the event horizon of a black hole, the laws of physics still apply just as they do outside the event horizon.
But they don't do they? Because if black holes existed then we'd end up with singularities at their centre which would violate physical laws by producing infinite discontinuities. Any theory which breaks itself cannot be a valid theory outside of esoteric mathematical journals.
Einstein's theory of relativity is a brilliant stroke of genius, but it is not a complete theory. Forgetting that leads us down a path of scientific hubris, in believing that we've found the One True Law of the Cosmos.
It may not be complete, but it's not wrong is it? Any new theory will have to include Einstein's theory in it, and so my point still stands.
What you say about laws applying everywhere is absolutely meaningless. I can create a list of laws for *any* universe that I can describe, no matter how chaotic it may appear -- there may be a whole lot of non-computable functions in those laws, and the list might not be finite, but that doesn't mean that universe is any less bound by laws.
Strawman. We're not talking about some vague "other universes", we're talking about our Universe. I too could make up a whole set of data to support my point, but that wouldn't make it valid.
What's unusual about the laws in this universe is that there seem to be relatively few of them, and they're relatively simple -- at least compared to what they might be. There's no reason, though, why they *must* be so simple, or must be equally simple everywhere; the fact that we expect them to be is merely more evidence of the simplicity.
Again, how can you say this is "unusual"? Have you been to any of these other universes? And how does our expectations of simplicity constitute evidence of simplicity? If I expect that writing a modern operating system is simple, does that make it so? Of course not, that's another strawman argument.
As for why this Universe is simple enough for us to understand, well I think that's obvious. It was created to be so.
This isn't seeing a black hole, it's seeing certain phenomena that might indicate the presence of a black hole. Until somebody actually sees one of these things, they're still purely speculation, and a somewhat dubious one at that, despite the amount of public attention they have managed to capture.
Surely there's a problem when your theories mean that the topology of the Universe is punctured not just once, but many, many times with points of infinite density? Where the very laws that the Lord decreed cannot be used to determine behaviour? This strikes me as a somewhat flawed design, because if laws apply, they should apply everywhere! And because black holes would mean this was not the case, I personally don't see how they could exist in a well-formed Universe.
I think that when we are able to shed some more light on these areas of the Universe, we'll see some logical explaination for them than holes in the fabric of the Universe.
What a perfect example of the kind of secular thinking that has led Western culture down the road to decadence and immorality. Rather than embracing over two thousand years of our cultural heritage, you're perfectly willing to accept revisionist lies that claim that Christianity is some kind of "myth" rather than being the undoubted Truth of a kind that doesn't exist nowadays.
The Truth is that the Bible teaches us of our place in the Universe and how to live our life in a decent, moral manner, so that all mankind will better itself and rise up to Heaven when they die. But oh no, you'd rather accept concepts like "moral relativism", an excuse for atheists to do what they want without fear of consequence.
History's greatest thinkers have all seen the Truth that the Bible contains - Newton, St Augustine, even Galileo - but people like you think you know better, that science has "proven" that there is no God. Unfortunately, science has said nothing, and indeed can say nothing, about the ultimate Truth of creation. You make me sick.
Sharing files on Napster is no different than lending someone one of your CDs for a day.
No it's not, because you can lend someone a CD and they can listen to it without making a copy, but when you put your files on Napster, people have to make a copy to listen to them.
The only way your analogy would work is if Napster deleted the track from your hard drive when someone downloaded it. Obviously, nobody would use it then.
Let's face it, Napster has taken the concept of online music back ten years with its blatent support of piracy. Whilst the move to digital, downloadable music is inevitable at this point, Napster has made sure that the RIAA will move as slowly as possible whilst aiming for maximum control over every aspect of online music. If I were in the music companies place, I'd have taken Napster to court as well, they deserve whatever they get.
Napster really is not the future of online music, and has merely solidifed the opposition of a lot of artists to making their music available online. You can argue that having stuff available on Napster is likely to encourage people to go out and buy the CD, but this is a fallacious argument in that a) it only applies to a certain group of people - teenagers won't go out and buy a Brittany Spears CD because they downloaded it off of Napster, and they count far more than any tree-hugging Grateful Dead fans, and b) theft is still theft - the artists have not given their permission to do this and so anyone uploading their tracks onto Napster is infringing upon their rights to control what they produce.
So if this company can contribute to the downfall of Napster, then I say good luck to them. I want to enjoy music I can download, and Napster stands in the way of this.
The current wave of devices with embedded Linux as their operating system is going to be a relatively short-lived one IMHO. Not because Linux is particularly bad for this sort of thing, more because Linux isn't particularly good for this sort of thing.
The fact is that no matter how hard you try to cut Linux down it's still too bloated for a device that doesn't require the full functionality that a modern OS provides. What need does my camera have for pre-emptive multitasking or virtual memory? When is my wristwatch going to need a stable threading model or SMP support?
The answer to these questions is of course, they don't. A small, dedicated operating system is easily able to handle controlling these devices, and in a much more compact and efficient manner. Just as Linux is having trouble scaling up to big iron, it has trouble scaling down to small devices.
The real reason Linux is being touted as the solution to hardware manufacturer's problems is simply that it is the flavour of the month in the eyes of the industry. As a succesful IT consultant I'm getting loads of interest in Linux from companies looking to cash in on the tech-savvy image that comes with Linux, rather than focus on the benefits it can bring in certain cases.
Remember, last year it was all Windows CE, this year it's all Linux. Neither was the solution, and neither will last. You can't put a bulldozer to work building sandcastles and expect to get perfect crenellations.
When it comes to a system like Gnutella then the increasing fragmentation that has arisen due to bandwidth problems can only be a bad thing in the long run, because it means that what was originally a resource allowing you to search through a huge amount of material becomes much more limited, encouraging people to stop using it.
Consider a small Gnutella network of about 50 machines. What do you think is going to be on there? Considering most users are leeches who don't want to share their own files, chances are that most of the available content will be popular crap such as Brittany Spears or Metallica. There will only be a very limited selection of minority music, and this will mean that people get fed up pretty quickly.
But when you have a strong, centralised database or a large network then the amount of minority music will be corresponding larger, meaning that everybody has a wider selection of music, making it a more popular service. There's less temptation to give up on it in this case.
It's a general property of this kind of system - smaller, local networks just can't offer the benefits that a larger or more centralised network can in terms of content and diversity. And if Gnutella continues to fragment, it'll reach the point where there won't be any point in using it.
... Communism doesn't work. But in theory if a group of people decided (the key word) to go and live in under a communist society, there's nothing in theory to prevent it working. It's just that current human nature doesn't permit it.
And besides, you have very little choice about what system you live under anyway. I never chose to live in a capitalist society, I was born into it. Where's the choice there?
Because the Debian people do very little coding of their own, they mainly package software written by other people - the Linux kernel, the GNU tools and so on. There's a distinct difference between organising and maintaining a package democratically and writing entire software projects democratically.
This is another one of those ideas, like Communism, which are only really going to work in some mythical fairy-tale land where people are good and work for the benefit of all. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world.
There's a reason why all major open-source projects to date are controlled by a small number of people. It's because it becomes next to possible to get any real direction when you've got to pander to the masses. Instead, you end up with a series of watered-down proposals that offend nobody and excite even less people, and which will make FreeDevelopers.net a hugely dull company that goes nowhere.
And of course there's the fact that the sort of thing which this company might end up being paid for is hugely boring, and open source doesn't do boring. There's no kudos in plugging away at an open source inventory program is there? It sounds far more 31337 to be a kernel hacker, and I can see people drifting away from this project as they get bored with it.
Nice idea, but it's not going to happen. Democratic software development is an ideal that just won't be successfully implented ever.
well, honestly, if they were really expecting a large problem w/it (and it wasn't their master plan;) then there would have been some sort of dismantling or destruction in space...
No they wouldn't. Russia has already proven that they are more concerned with prestige than safety, by keeping Mir up there for so long in the first place. And as for dismantling it, well, they sure as hell don't have the funds to be doing that do they?
No, the reason for this incredibly risky maneuvre is simple - it's the cheapest way they can think of to get rid of Mir.
As admiring as I am of the Russian crew of Mir for putting up with living in that fungus-infested hellhole for as long as they did, I certainly don't believe that the station is in any kind of fit state for a "controlled descent", a euphamism if I've ever heard one.
After all, Russia has already crashed one object on Earth, a satellite onto Canada in 1978, so why should this time be any different? In fact, given that Mir is a hell of a lot bigger and less maneuverable, and that it is in an even worse condition, the chances are that this "controlled descent" could turn into the biggest disaster for decades, as Mir hurtles towards a populated landmass...
The rivalry between the GNOME and KDE people is getting even sillier now that a hint of corporate money has entered the equation. Sure, GNOME was originally created because people didn't like that KDE wasn't "free" enough for them, but it had looked like it was all dying down recently, and talk had even begun of more integration between the two desktops.
And now what happens? GNOME gets some corporate backing and shortly after, KDE follows with this! I can see why KDE felt that they needed to follow this move by GNOME, but at the same time the whole thing stinks of childish rivalry. Are we going to return to the days of sniping and put-downs?
Sure, more choice is generally a good thing, but the ongoing farce of GNOME vs. KDE (which is what they seem to be making it into) is a joke that makes Linux look rediculous. There is plenty of room out there for both desktops, yet they each spend as much time playing games of oneupmanship as they do promoting their own product.
At least some companies have the sense to keep their heads down and stand on the sidelines. Nothing good can come of this antagonistic situation.
Slashdot Mirror
You say he still does real coding, and yet when was the last time we saw anything from him? Like RMS he seems to have become famous whilst only having produced a single piece of well-known code, but at least RMS has something he believes in.
ESR seems to have recently decided that the best interests of Open Source lies in bending over and taking it from as many corporate CTOs as possible. Rather than actually getting down and doing anything (other than maintaining the pointless Jargon File) he spends most of his time either talking to suits or writing his usual arrogant drivel.
ESR is just one cog who got a lucky break and tried to play it for all he was worth. He deserves no more attention than any other open source coder.
I wonder what these people think about SOAP?
It seems as though this otherwise worthwhile project has hit an obstacle - it now conflicts with an alternative, open protocol for remote procedures based on XML. And when you've got two competing systems, the best one will win.
Unfortunately for XML-RPC, SOAP has the backing of a large proportion of the computing world, including both IBM and Microsoft. Whilst XML-RPC may be more in the "Unix spirit" it's a system that will be proprietary to Unix OSes rather than truly open.
And given the amount of backing that SOAP is getting, it seems as though XML-RPC will be left behind and slowly forgotten. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but unless it can offer something that SOAP can, then it will simply lose to a better system. And at the moment, I can't see how it can match SOAP, let alone better it.
Vertical consolidation is a great move for any company looking to increase their profitability, but in VA's case it wasn't even really vertical consolidation, it was, well, "diagonal" consolidation if anything.
It seemed at though they were attempting to go for prestige and "kudos" rather than a sound business model. They had absolutely no need to buy Andover - the two companies were in totally different businesses where the only tenuous link was Linux.
The trouble is is that VA is a hardware company at the end of the day. And their selling point was their Linux expertise. But who were they selling to? The geek market is more likely to be making their own computers and installing their own distros. The large corporate market is likely to have their own staff that can deal with installing and configuring Linux.
This left the dotcom companies as their target market. And given the fickle nature of the dotcom "revolution" this was always going to be risky. The growth period in internet companies is over, and VA are left with a smaller new market, and hence less potential revenue.
Don't blame consolidation, blame a risky business plan. The reason we're seeing so many cuts is that they're attempting to cutback now and avoid even bigger cuts later. It wouldn't suprise me if they did try and sell of OSDN and move back to their core business.
This is not a national Security risk, you could not make bomb of this stuff, you would need to inject it personaly.
How naive. Genetic engineering is done via means of a tailored virus that inserts the modified DNA into someone's chromosomes, this could, with some research, the made into an aitborn virus which spread CD45 blockers throughout a population relatively easily.
And if Saddam wants a bomb to threaten the USA he would be better off with Anthrax or TB.
Both of which are quite difficult to get hold of and not nearly as deadly.
Are you asserting that if our government cuts off funds for this research, then no one in the world is ever going to make inroads along these lines?
No, I'm sure that other countries could manage to develop these things sooner or later, it's just that because America leads the world in terms of free market capitalism it has a much higher amount of money placed into research and development than socialist economies like England or France.
Or are you merely stating that the government should take a hand in what people it funds, in terms of restricting the nationalities of whom these research facilities employ?
Well I suppose only employing American nationals would cut down on security risks, but that wasn't what I meant at all.
Or are you requesting that these sorts of discoveries not be publicized in the media, for fear of researchers being kidnapped by enemy nations, so that their discoveries can be used for destructive goals?
Not kidnapping, no, do you think this is some Third World dictatorship? But if knowledge like this is placed into the public domain we are basically giving away the fruits of our labors, and this is in no way consistent with the sensible capitalist policies that has seen our nation outstrip the rest of the world in every way that counts.
Although I've kept a concerned eye on the risks of biotech as a whole, this advance in the state of scientific knowledge is quite incredibly worrying for anyone considering the wider ramifications of biotechnology. I mean, it's one thing to make a tomato that stays juicy for longer, it's a different thing entirely to play around with the chemical that regulates the immune system!
I mean come on folks, this is getting to the point where there are immense risks to the health of millions. As the article says, mice which couldn't make the protein CD45 died very quickly from cancers and auto-immune diseases. This sounds like a perfect opportunity for nefarious rogue states to develop biological weapons for use against Western targets. I'm sure Saddamn would like to have a "cancer bomb" with which to threaten the US.
Although scientific openness has got us this far, I think that when it comes to developments that are inherently dangerous we need to have a little less self-promotion and a lot more respect for the potential consequences. Government bodies that fund these projects should be a lot stricter about the conditions for which they grant research funds to ensure national security in the face of a world increasingly anatagonistic to our rich culture.
Well, no. The normal laws of physics break down when you get down to quantumn mechanics. Well, so I've read, I'm no expert in it.
So you're saying that quantum mechanics is not part of the laws of physics? I don't think that's what you meant, but still...
And QM provides no solutions either. My point still remains.
Thus, something is real if humans define it?
No, real if experimentally proven. And real in the sense of existing independent of human existance.
I think it's pretty clear that if the "laws of physics are really real", then "science is the only way for humans to make sense of the Universe around them."
True. I haven't argued against that.
If you have a hard time accepting rules with exceptions when we describe blackholes, how is it that you can believe laws of physics are really real yet also believe that there is a god?
Yes, where's the contradiction? God created the Universe and thus the laws that define how the Universe works, hence God is real and so are the laws of physics. No problem there.
If the rules of physics do not allow for a blackhole, they do not allow for a god.
*sigh* Nonsense, because God is outside the Universe, black holes are inside it. So the laws of physics cannot say anything about the existance or non-existance of God, but they can about black holes.
Either way you're trolling.
That would make it easy for you wouldn't it?
i don't think ANY physicist would ever dare to say that.
So you think that no scientist would say that the universe actually exists outside of human conscioussness? I don't think solipsism is the number one philosophy for more physicists...
Well my knowledge of the subject is obviously not cutting-edge, but whilst general relativity has been experimentally proven to be correct there are alternative formulations which give equivalent experimental results but do not include black hole solutions, instead allowing for super-massive stellar objects. In these cases, it would be quite possible to have neutron stars that acted similar to what a "black hole" would appear to.
Godel proved that if you have a formal system with a fixed set of axioms that are sufficient to encode ordinary arithmetic, there will either be an inconsistency, or there will be statements that are undecidable within the system. You can prove that the formal system is internally consistent (cannot prove any pair of contradictory statements) provided you accept that some statements are undecidable.
What does this have to do with anything? There's a difference between abstract mathematical systems and the physical universe, and Godel only talks about one.
"The very laws that the Lord decreed"? Dude, these "laws" are all interpretations based on limited human perception.
So you're a cultural relativist that believes that science is only the latest way for humans to make sense of the Universe around them? Whether you believe in the Lord or not, I think any rational human being should believe that the laws of physics are really real!
The theiving cartoon bear is not someone I'd have thought of as good quoting material, but maybe that's just me...
Black holes certainly do follow basic physical laws; they follow much of the same laws that the rest of the cosmos follows. Inside the event horizon of a black hole, the laws of physics still apply just as they do outside the event horizon.
But they don't do they? Because if black holes existed then we'd end up with singularities at their centre which would violate physical laws by producing infinite discontinuities. Any theory which breaks itself cannot be a valid theory outside of esoteric mathematical journals.
Einstein's theory of relativity is a brilliant stroke of genius, but it is not a complete theory. Forgetting that leads us down a path of scientific hubris, in believing that we've found the One True Law of the Cosmos.
It may not be complete, but it's not wrong is it? Any new theory will have to include Einstein's theory in it, and so my point still stands.
What you say about laws applying everywhere is absolutely meaningless. I can create a list of laws for *any* universe that I can describe, no matter how chaotic it may appear -- there may be a whole lot of non-computable functions in those laws, and the list might not be finite, but that doesn't mean that universe is any less bound by laws.
Strawman. We're not talking about some vague "other universes", we're talking about our Universe. I too could make up a whole set of data to support my point, but that wouldn't make it valid.
What's unusual about the laws in this universe is that there seem to be relatively few of them, and they're relatively simple -- at least compared to what they might be. There's no reason, though, why they *must* be so simple, or must be equally simple everywhere; the fact that we expect them to be is merely more evidence of the simplicity.
Again, how can you say this is "unusual"? Have you been to any of these other universes? And how does our expectations of simplicity constitute evidence of simplicity? If I expect that writing a modern operating system is simple, does that make it so? Of course not, that's another strawman argument.
As for why this Universe is simple enough for us to understand, well I think that's obvious. It was created to be so.
This isn't seeing a black hole, it's seeing certain phenomena that might indicate the presence of a black hole. Until somebody actually sees one of these things, they're still purely speculation, and a somewhat dubious one at that, despite the amount of public attention they have managed to capture.
Surely there's a problem when your theories mean that the topology of the Universe is punctured not just once, but many, many times with points of infinite density? Where the very laws that the Lord decreed cannot be used to determine behaviour? This strikes me as a somewhat flawed design, because if laws apply, they should apply everywhere! And because black holes would mean this was not the case, I personally don't see how they could exist in a well-formed Universe.
I think that when we are able to shed some more light on these areas of the Universe, we'll see some logical explaination for them than holes in the fabric of the Universe.
What a perfect example of the kind of secular thinking that has led Western culture down the road to decadence and immorality. Rather than embracing over two thousand years of our cultural heritage, you're perfectly willing to accept revisionist lies that claim that Christianity is some kind of "myth" rather than being the undoubted Truth of a kind that doesn't exist nowadays.
The Truth is that the Bible teaches us of our place in the Universe and how to live our life in a decent, moral manner, so that all mankind will better itself and rise up to Heaven when they die. But oh no, you'd rather accept concepts like "moral relativism", an excuse for atheists to do what they want without fear of consequence.
History's greatest thinkers have all seen the Truth that the Bible contains - Newton, St Augustine, even Galileo - but people like you think you know better, that science has "proven" that there is no God. Unfortunately, science has said nothing, and indeed can say nothing, about the ultimate Truth of creation. You make me sick.
Sharing files on Napster is no different than lending someone one of your CDs for a day.
No it's not, because you can lend someone a CD and they can listen to it without making a copy, but when you put your files on Napster, people have to make a copy to listen to them.
The only way your analogy would work is if Napster deleted the track from your hard drive when someone downloaded it. Obviously, nobody would use it then.
Let's face it, Napster has taken the concept of online music back ten years with its blatent support of piracy. Whilst the move to digital, downloadable music is inevitable at this point, Napster has made sure that the RIAA will move as slowly as possible whilst aiming for maximum control over every aspect of online music. If I were in the music companies place, I'd have taken Napster to court as well, they deserve whatever they get.
Napster really is not the future of online music, and has merely solidifed the opposition of a lot of artists to making their music available online. You can argue that having stuff available on Napster is likely to encourage people to go out and buy the CD, but this is a fallacious argument in that a) it only applies to a certain group of people - teenagers won't go out and buy a Brittany Spears CD because they downloaded it off of Napster, and they count far more than any tree-hugging Grateful Dead fans, and b) theft is still theft - the artists have not given their permission to do this and so anyone uploading their tracks onto Napster is infringing upon their rights to control what they produce.
So if this company can contribute to the downfall of Napster, then I say good luck to them. I want to enjoy music I can download, and Napster stands in the way of this.
The current wave of devices with embedded Linux as their operating system is going to be a relatively short-lived one IMHO. Not because Linux is particularly bad for this sort of thing, more because Linux isn't particularly good for this sort of thing.
The fact is that no matter how hard you try to cut Linux down it's still too bloated for a device that doesn't require the full functionality that a modern OS provides. What need does my camera have for pre-emptive multitasking or virtual memory? When is my wristwatch going to need a stable threading model or SMP support?
The answer to these questions is of course, they don't. A small, dedicated operating system is easily able to handle controlling these devices, and in a much more compact and efficient manner. Just as Linux is having trouble scaling up to big iron, it has trouble scaling down to small devices.
The real reason Linux is being touted as the solution to hardware manufacturer's problems is simply that it is the flavour of the month in the eyes of the industry. As a succesful IT consultant I'm getting loads of interest in Linux from companies looking to cash in on the tech-savvy image that comes with Linux, rather than focus on the benefits it can bring in certain cases.
Remember, last year it was all Windows CE, this year it's all Linux. Neither was the solution, and neither will last. You can't put a bulldozer to work building sandcastles and expect to get perfect crenellations.
When it comes to a system like Gnutella then the increasing fragmentation that has arisen due to bandwidth problems can only be a bad thing in the long run, because it means that what was originally a resource allowing you to search through a huge amount of material becomes much more limited, encouraging people to stop using it.
Consider a small Gnutella network of about 50 machines. What do you think is going to be on there? Considering most users are leeches who don't want to share their own files, chances are that most of the available content will be popular crap such as Brittany Spears or Metallica. There will only be a very limited selection of minority music, and this will mean that people get fed up pretty quickly.
But when you have a strong, centralised database or a large network then the amount of minority music will be corresponding larger, meaning that everybody has a wider selection of music, making it a more popular service. There's less temptation to give up on it in this case.
It's a general property of this kind of system - smaller, local networks just can't offer the benefits that a larger or more centralised network can in terms of content and diversity. And if Gnutella continues to fragment, it'll reach the point where there won't be any point in using it.
... Communism doesn't work. But in theory if a group of people decided (the key word) to go and live in under a communist society, there's nothing in theory to prevent it working. It's just that current human nature doesn't permit it.
And besides, you have very little choice about what system you live under anyway. I never chose to live in a capitalist society, I was born into it. Where's the choice there?
Because the Debian people do very little coding of their own, they mainly package software written by other people - the Linux kernel, the GNU tools and so on. There's a distinct difference between organising and maintaining a package democratically and writing entire software projects democratically.
This is another one of those ideas, like Communism, which are only really going to work in some mythical fairy-tale land where people are good and work for the benefit of all. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world.
There's a reason why all major open-source projects to date are controlled by a small number of people. It's because it becomes next to possible to get any real direction when you've got to pander to the masses. Instead, you end up with a series of watered-down proposals that offend nobody and excite even less people, and which will make FreeDevelopers.net a hugely dull company that goes nowhere.
And of course there's the fact that the sort of thing which this company might end up being paid for is hugely boring, and open source doesn't do boring. There's no kudos in plugging away at an open source inventory program is there? It sounds far more 31337 to be a kernel hacker, and I can see people drifting away from this project as they get bored with it.
Nice idea, but it's not going to happen. Democratic software development is an ideal that just won't be successfully implented ever.
well, honestly, if they were really expecting a large problem w/it (and it wasn't their master plan ;) then there would have been some sort of dismantling or destruction in space...
No they wouldn't. Russia has already proven that they are more concerned with prestige than safety, by keeping Mir up there for so long in the first place. And as for dismantling it, well, they sure as hell don't have the funds to be doing that do they?
No, the reason for this incredibly risky maneuvre is simple - it's the cheapest way they can think of to get rid of Mir.
As admiring as I am of the Russian crew of Mir for putting up with living in that fungus-infested hellhole for as long as they did, I certainly don't believe that the station is in any kind of fit state for a "controlled descent", a euphamism if I've ever heard one.
After all, Russia has already crashed one object on Earth, a satellite onto Canada in 1978, so why should this time be any different? In fact, given that Mir is a hell of a lot bigger and less maneuverable, and that it is in an even worse condition, the chances are that this "controlled descent" could turn into the biggest disaster for decades, as Mir hurtles towards a populated landmass...
Of course, this could be their master plan...
The rivalry between the GNOME and KDE people is getting even sillier now that a hint of corporate money has entered the equation. Sure, GNOME was originally created because people didn't like that KDE wasn't "free" enough for them, but it had looked like it was all dying down recently, and talk had even begun of more integration between the two desktops.
And now what happens? GNOME gets some corporate backing and shortly after, KDE follows with this! I can see why KDE felt that they needed to follow this move by GNOME, but at the same time the whole thing stinks of childish rivalry. Are we going to return to the days of sniping and put-downs?
Sure, more choice is generally a good thing, but the ongoing farce of GNOME vs. KDE (which is what they seem to be making it into) is a joke that makes Linux look rediculous. There is plenty of room out there for both desktops, yet they each spend as much time playing games of oneupmanship as they do promoting their own product.
At least some companies have the sense to keep their heads down and stand on the sidelines. Nothing good can come of this antagonistic situation.