The last thing I want Lucas to do is change things again. I thought the re-editing of Star Wars trilogy was terrible. Shiny new CGI on top of grainy 70s film stock... changes to the story... I was very let down, and I really, really hope when ever Lucas gets around to finally releasing these on DVD, you can find the orgininal versions.
I can't even find the orgininal versions on VHS anymore.
And yeah, he totally missed the point of the fans reactions. We did'nt hate the young hero because he was a kid, we hated him because of 'Yippeee!'. We did'nt hate jar-jar because he was'nt chewbacca, we hated him because he talked like some sort of retarded jamacian.
I remember Lucas' orgininal reactions to critics. He said something to the effect of "I want to make these movies for the kids.. to appeal to them"
Guess what... I was a little kid when the orgininal star wars came out, and it appealed to me emensly. I vaguly remember the 'but uncle owen.. I want to go down to mos isly to pick up some power-converters' thinking 'Why is this man whining like a little kid?' Kids don't like to see heros acting like little kids. They like to see heros act like heros, regardless of their age.
After the DVD came out, I had the chance to revisit Episode one. It's strange, that when you strip away all the hype, the product tie-ins, the in your face constant advertising, and just go see the movie on it's own merits, it's not really all that bad.
And, for some strange reason, it seems to get better every time you watch it. You notice more of the details and craftsmenship that went into the movie.
Finally, if you can go into the film knowing the annoying parts (Jar-Jar, the announcers at the pod race et.al), you can pretty much tune them out.
When it's all said and done, the hype surrounding TPM hurt it more then the bad filmaking... which shows how media can so dramatically effect our expectations. The article mentions 'The Matrix'.. which I knew nothing about, and was blown away when I first saw it. But the more times I see it, the more it's luster wears off... it actually looses appeal every time I watch it, while TPM, strangly, seems to get better.
So Kudos to lucas for entering into this a little wiser. I don't think you're going to see nearly as many fanatic star wars geeks lining up for months in order to see this movie, you are'nt going to be pounded for weeks on end for advertisments for product tie ins... and in the end when we do go down to the theatre (and we will.. you know it) our expectations will have the chance to be a little more realistic.
I'm pretty dang lucky. I work from home. If I ask for technology, I typically get it.
It makes financial sense. My boss does'nt need to provide office space for me, his overhead is lowered, and I'm happier.
I asked for a wireless network in my home. Out of all the reasons I wanted it, the reality was 'So I can sit at the bar down the street and work while having a beer'. The response: 'Well, don't get too drunk'.
Using technology to accomidate workers, to provide for them a better work envrionment is a no-brainer. I remember one place I worked at.. the boss would see me sitting outside smoking a cigarette. "What are you doing?" 'I'm waiting for a download to finish. Theres really nothing I can do until it's done'. He would'nt buy broadband for the office, and as a result, not only annoyed me, but waisted far more paid man hours then the cost of putting a decent connection and network into the office.
I don't own any pre-recorded VHS tapes, but I do use my VCR to record television programs.
I also have quite a few TV shows that I have missed/forgot to hit record on the VCR in data format (that I got of Kazaa). It has occured to me that I could probably record those shows onto VCD, which would be great considering the cost.
Mind you, these are programs that have been broadcast on television (or cable, which I pay for legally), recorded by somebody else and put into digital format (albeit, usually pretty poor sound/video quality).
Is this legal? Is it legal for me to have a copy of them on my hard drive? Is it legal for me to put them onto media like VCD?
To me, it seems as if it should'nt be. Recording of broadcast televison is legal. Digital recording of broadcast televison is legal (Tivo). Making a tape of a broadcast show and lending it to my freind is legal. So does it become illegal if I personally forgot to program my VCR to record it?
That will never happen. You're right, it would strike a hudge blow to the the DVD backup software, but the DVD manufactuers want it both ways. They don't want you to make backups, and if it breaks, they want you to pay full price to replace it. Hey, whoever said these companies were interested in fairness?
Not to mention the fact that DVDs can go out of print and companies that produce them can go out of business.
We decided to proactively file this lawsuit not only to receive the courts' assurance that we are in compliance with the law but also to raise the broader question of how Americans' First Amendment rights can be protected in this digital age
Sounds silly, does'nt it? You have to sue in order to make sure you're not doing anything wrong. Note they are not seeking any damages.
Can they really be sued for being bullied?
You can sue for any reason you want. I can sue you because I don't like your name. That would probably be thrown out of court.
But what 321 is doing is very clever; if the court throws the case out, and the MPAA seeks damages under the DMCA, they are protected. "We already filed with the court, and the court decided that we were not doing anything wrong... at least to warrent the attention of the court."
Of course, it shows how screwy our legal system is. I can't call up the police and ask 'hey, I'm thinking of doing this.. is it legal?' They won't tell me. But if I do it, and it's illegal, they will arrest me. Laws are written in such a way that half the time people are breaking them not even knowing. It's nice to see a company exploit a loophole like this on the side of good.
I have a lot of DVDs. I have a good A/V system. After seeing the quality of VCD, I'd never make a copy of a DVD onto that format.
I would like to be able to copy the DVDs I own just to have a backup, and personally I think there is nothing wrong/illegal about it. If I spend $30 on a new fancy DVD, and I accidently break it (which has happened.. some of those cases are really poorly designed), I have no recourse. I paid for the content on that DVD.
Of course, this has been said on this and other websites thousands of times. But the part that gets me is, here we have a technology that allows people to make really poor copies of something they OWN. VHS has been around for years doing the same thing (making poor/lesser quality copies). My VCR can make a better copy of a movie (as long as there is'nt any of that annoying copy-protection built in) then a VCD. With the VCR, it's legal, but with the software for something worse, it's illegal?
I really hope this company wins its case. And I hope lawmakers start to sit down and really examine what these laws are saying and doing.
''Obviously, something is being done with those blank CDs,'' says Mike Dreese, owner of the Boston-based Newbury Comics record chain and prophetic coauthor two years ago of a widely distributed essay, ''Disc burning equals death.
Lets see. 100+ CDs I've burned in the last year to distribute reports and large files that were too big for email. 3 CDs I've burned in the last year to make mix-tapes for my freinds.
Sorry to burst that bubble, but from where I sit, a lot of the CD burning that goes on is for legitimate, business applications.
But if you listened to them, the CD burners we have at the office are tools of evil. And.. I'm supposed to pay additional taxes to cover the losses to the recording industry?
"Hey boss... the price of CD-Rs just went up." 'Why?' "Well, aparently our business has to pay Madonna and N'Sync because of some high school kids".
Eventually, would'nt this junk just fall into the atmosphere and burn up?
The main advantage of the net in marketing
on
Dog Bites Website
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Something like a book is the automatic feedback. Not only is Katz getting the word out about his new book, he gets to see hundreds of people respond as to why they would or would not buy his book.
Let me predicate this by saying I am a writer. Not a professional one... I do it as a hobby to entertain myself and my freinds. Someday, I'd like to think what I wrote would be worthy of publication. I have received thousands of emails with comments and ideas from total strangers telling me what's good or bad about my writing.
I've learned that I'm not by far ready to do anything warrenting a book.
That having been said, let me say why I won't buy Katzs' book. To be honest, I can't really understand why Katz is so well known. The best guess I can come up with is that he was one of the first people to write about Internet technologies and explore some of the more far out ideas. But today, those far out ideas are common practice, so there is nothing new.
Over the last few years, I've read a lot of the things he's posted on Slashdot. Increasingly, I find him way off base. It feels as if he's somehow become out of touch with the subject matter he uses. When you come up with a new idea, and bring it to an open forum for dialogue, thats a good thing. But if 99% of the people who read it can only respond with 'no, you're wrong', and tear apart your arguments and your premise, then perhaps it's time to rethink where you're comming from.
If you can get anything from the Internet, Katz, it's that you should stop writing for a while. Your ideas seem vague, poorly thought out, and at times just stupid. Get a job... work for a few years. Take some time to observe first hand the phoenomnea and the community you use as your subject matter. And, even if your ideas ARE good, and you sit in frustration wondering why people just can't see them, then you're probably not explaining them well enough.
You have name reconition, something that is above and beyond what 99% of aspiring writers has. If you use the Internet to help you become better, to get back on track, you can continue to be a good writer... or, you can just become a hack. It's up to you.
You seem to be claiming that religion answers any questions at all
It answers the important questions. Or at least it tries to.
Science answers questions. Religion merely tells you to stop thinking.
If anything religion makes you think more. I can't stop thinking about the nature of the universe, God, and the hows and whys behind it. The conflicting messages, trying to unravel the mysteries... it goes on and on.
Yes, there are zelots out there that take an invintory of beliefs and just stop. Those are the ones who are likely to pass judgement on other people (which is'nt their job), and pretty much ruin the dialogue for the rest of us.
But those same kinds of people live in the scientific world. They take what they know, they stick to it, and they don't move on.
I'm not a scientist, but I've always been interested in it. Not because I want to tear it apart, or even approach it with an agenda, but because to me, it's interesting to see how the rules of the universe work.
Through high school and college, I'd ask lots of questions to my science teachers (especially physics). The one that always got me was 'What causes gravity'. Most of them were not thinking; "It's in your textbook". 'No, it's not.. read it again'. "All it says in the text book is gravity increases in bodies with mass". 'Yes. Thats what causes gravity'. "No, that's a condition of gravity. An explination of it's level in relationship with mass. Why to bodies of mass attract to each other. What are the properities unique to mass that causes that attraction? It outlines in another chapter why and how magnitism works.. I follow that, but nothing is said about gravity... why does'nt gravity receive the same attention as magnitism?'
I'd usually be asked to leave or be quiet. That always bothered me, because here we have an observable phoenomonea that's all around us, we deal with every day, and yet we know so little about it. To me, the scientific mind would be interested in finding out why. But, like the religious fundimentalist, the scientist has found enough answers he needs, and sticks with them. It was'nt until much later when I finally started dealing with more open minded scientists who finally admited 'we don't know. There is some research into that feild, but we really don't know'.
religion is just a theory... "the theory of god" as i call it. excpet in this case, their only available proof is an ancient piece of literature that has been translated and re-translated too many times to count
That's not the point. Religion requires no objective proof. Occasionally many of the more ambitious keepers of the faith will try to find historical accuracies in the bible... but really, in the end it's not needed.
How do I know God exists? I just know. It's simply impossible to define matters of faith in terms of science. Science can only tell us how. Religion trys to tell us why, and to that extent they can contridict each other while both are right. I can see how this would frustrate somebody with a purly analitcal mind because faith can not be measured or displayed in any objective way.
But faith really is'nt concerened with the direction of an atom or DNA. Most Christians I know reconize evolution as the most logical reading of the orgins of life we've got from a scientific standpoint.
But it's a lot harder to take that too liteary, because A: We've never actually seen evolutionary jumps in our lifetime (only mutations), and B: Even if Darwin was exactly right on the nose, it does'nt change the fact that God created us.
... by using faith and a simple view of the world outside.
Take a pair of brand new Porsche sports cars. Give one to a scientist, another to a theologian. Tell them both "Look at this car for the next week, and tell me what you find out"
The scientist will come back after a week and talk about the engineering, the attention to detail in the engine, use of turbochargers for increased performance, and an overall, detailed breakdown of every mechanical system.
The theologian will come back after a week and say "It's very beautiful, and it's fun to drive."
Who's right? Well, both of them are. The scientist will get frustrated with the theologian. "How do you measure this? How can you prove it to me this is fun to drive? Beauty is an objective concept. How do you know this is a good looking car?" The theologian will have to shrug and say 'I just do.'
Two weeks later, the scientist drives up in a new Honda civic. "This car," says the scientist, "has just as much quality engineering as that Porsche. In fact, after 100,000 miles it will be running much better then the Porsche. The only thing that Porsche can do is go faster, which is illegal. Now, would you say that your Porsche is a better car?"
The Theologian will drive the Honda, come back, and say 'no, I still like the Porsche better.' The scientist will become more frustrated, pull out his hair, go into great detail about fuel economy and injection systems, even the breakdown rates of the two vehicles.
The theologian will still claim he likes the Porsche better. "Why? How? Don't you see the evidence? In every measurable way, when you put price into account, the Honda is a better car. Can't you see that?" "Yes, I see what your saying. And your not wrong. But the Porsche is still a better car."
"But what makes it a better car?" 'Like I said from the beginning, it's better looking, and it's more fun to drive'. "But you can't prove this?" 'no, I can't' "And you see all the evidence I've put in front of you" 'Yes, I see it' "And you agree it's correct" 'Yes, it seems in order'.
At this point the scientist will run off to the other scientists muttering about how the theologian is crazy, self delusional, and can't see the hierocracy of his own statements.
Personally, I'd take a Porsche over a Honda, and I can't tell you why in any measurable sense.
Darwin by no means disproves creationism. Evolutionary theory is simply that; a theory that describes things the best way we know how using what we can observe about the world around us.
At the worst, if we find out evolution to be true (and there are some issues with that), it goes in contridiction to a literal interpratation of the bible, but not the spirit.
There are things we don't understand. I'm not saying we should embrace some sort of blind ignorance; at the moment science is the best thing we've got. But science by far does'nt even begin to answer the mysteries of the Universe.
Heck, I know a lot of physcists who still think we can't exceed the speed of light. They cling to that just as strongly as a hard core fundimentalists clings to a perfect literal reading of the bible.
And I have faith that eventually, science will get us going faster then light, because I have faith in the scientific community to find new and different solutions to problems. It's always happened in the past.
Something about that just does'nt sit right. Red hat or Debian typically install with ease.. so does this mean that the hardware is so tricky and propritary they feel they need to charge $250 just to get the thing to work?
I'm not a programmer, but I do spend a great deal of my time sitting in frount of the computer writing (usual technical work) and comming up with client solutions.
A few things I've noticed;
1. A clean desk. I don't know what it is, but a cluttered desk just kills my ability to stay concentrated on anything for an extended period of time.
2. Near darkness. Any bright lights is a distraction. The only light can come from the CRT.
3. Jazz music. For some reason, the jazz on the local NPR station just fits nicely.
4. Unlimited supply of cigarettes. I don't even notice smoking them, but I notice if they are missing. Part of my weird compulsive personality.
5. Night time. 11pm to 5am seem to be the best time. No phone calls, no noise from the city outside. There just seems to be a feeling of being settled in that part of the day.
6. 64oz Thirst Busters from circle K. It's funny, but they usually seem to run out right when I've reached a problem I can't solve. I can walk down to the store in silence, nobody bothering me, and get a new one. While I'm walking I can usually reach a solution.
I'm not sure who I dislike more; idiot people like this who don't know what their talking about bringing computers and religion together in insane ways, or the idiot athiests who look down their noses and say 'See! See what I told you. Look at how silly those closed mided Christians are!'
Darwin was a scientist. He observed phonomonea and came to a conclusion. His findings do not disprove creationism or God. All he has done has provided us with, based on observable phonomonea, the best possible understanding about the development of life on this planet.
It's innane to ignore that in the face of so much compelling evidence. At the same time, athiests take up Darwin's name as a banner with as much fervor, closed mindedness, and compleate lack of a world view as any firebranding preacher.
There is a spirtual side to the Universe. You can ignore it in the lab and get better results, but don't poo-pah people who like to keep it in mind.
Scientology differes from other religions and how they are allowed to act in the U.S. in a few ways.
1. In most religions, you can receive the higest level of spirtual fullfillment for free; If you can afford it, you are asked to donate money, but even if you don't, no church services will be denied to you. In Scientology, you can easily become bankrupt trying to reach any level of spiritual satisfaction.
2. In most religions, you can leave whenever you want. In Scientology, once you're in, they will make it very hard to leave.
3. In most religions, the basic tennents of the religious philosophy can be explained and known to anyone. (i.e., Jesus Christ was God's son sent down to Earth, he died for our sins and saved our souls). I could'nt begin to tell you what that is for scientology, because A: I don't know and I can't afford to find out, and B: If I did know, I could'nt tell you for fear of being sued.
4. In most religions, religious texts are free to distribute to others. In fact, it's encouraged to show the texts to others not in the faith. There is no copywrite on the Bible or the Koran. In Scientology, all religious 'texts' are vigerously protected by copywrites, and just being able to see them requires a great deal of financial expenditure.
Don't get me wrong. Scientology is not compleatly evil. From people I've talked to, including 'ex-Scientologists', the orginization has some pretty sound self-help/life improving methods. (It also has some pretty dangerous ones). But being an (expensive) source of psychological help does not make you a religion. Psychologists, self-help gurus can perform simular services, and yet they are not afforded tax freedom.
I've yet to see Red Hat or SUSE respond to an RFP. That's probably a marketing issue (or it's just that the things I deal with is too small of potateos).
But even if they did start responding, my guess is they would run into a brick wall. 'Liiinnn-Ex?.... is'nt that for hackers or something?' (not my words.. but the assumed words of a procurment department)
You're absolutly right. If a government agency is smart enough, they get the services of a project management firm (I should say this is what my company does). A PM firm will basically act as a member of the agency's staff through all phases of the project, including, and espicaly, procurment.
On the data side, we like to set standards. Often we will get this: "I want X software, or I want X hardware." In my state, this is illegal (but this happens all the time). We are careful to re-write RFPs to include the little line 'or equivilent'. This opens things up to alternitives.
But in the end, most vendors are going to accomidate the perceived wishes of the government agencies, which is pretty much the Microsoft/Office solution. Open source might be better, but it's a wild card that most government orginizations ar'nt willing to consider.
As somebody who works in procurment from time to time, I can say that open source work is'nt something that is too appealing.
Basically, it comes down to accountability. When the RFP responses come back, the government agency needs to see that there is a clearly defined orginization that it can access to resolve issues. If they see 'free' or 'open source', red flags will go up. "You mean anyone can change this? No thanks"
It's a standard way of thinking for government agencies. They will never adopt open source unless it first becomes general practice in the commerical sector.
Slashdot Mirror
for an unbiased opinion you need to ask someone who actually has one before buying
Or go to a review site that does'nt just rehash the promotional lititure (or in this case, copy from the back of the box)
The last thing I want Lucas to do is change things again. I thought the re-editing of Star Wars trilogy was terrible. Shiny new CGI on top of grainy 70s film stock... changes to the story... I was very let down, and I really, really hope when ever Lucas gets around to finally releasing these on DVD, you can find the orgininal versions.
I can't even find the orgininal versions on VHS anymore.
And yeah, he totally missed the point of the fans reactions. We did'nt hate the young hero because he was a kid, we hated him because of 'Yippeee!'. We did'nt hate jar-jar because he was'nt chewbacca, we hated him because he talked like some sort of retarded jamacian.
I remember Lucas' orgininal reactions to critics. He said something to the effect of "I want to make these movies for the kids.. to appeal to them"
Guess what... I was a little kid when the orgininal star wars came out, and it appealed to me emensly. I vaguly remember the 'but uncle owen.. I want to go down to mos isly to pick up some power-converters' thinking 'Why is this man whining like a little kid?' Kids don't like to see heros acting like little kids. They like to see heros act like heros, regardless of their age.
After the DVD came out, I had the chance to revisit Episode one. It's strange, that when you strip away all the hype, the product tie-ins, the in your face constant advertising, and just go see the movie on it's own merits, it's not really all that bad.
And, for some strange reason, it seems to get better every time you watch it. You notice more of the details and craftsmenship that went into the movie.
Finally, if you can go into the film knowing the annoying parts (Jar-Jar, the announcers at the pod race et.al), you can pretty much tune them out.
When it's all said and done, the hype surrounding TPM hurt it more then the bad filmaking... which shows how media can so dramatically effect our expectations. The article mentions 'The Matrix'.. which I knew nothing about, and was blown away when I first saw it. But the more times I see it, the more it's luster wears off... it actually looses appeal every time I watch it, while TPM, strangly, seems to get better.
So Kudos to lucas for entering into this a little wiser. I don't think you're going to see nearly as many fanatic star wars geeks lining up for months in order to see this movie, you are'nt going to be pounded for weeks on end for advertisments for product tie ins... and in the end when we do go down to the theatre (and we will.. you know it) our expectations will have the chance to be a little more realistic.
I'm pretty dang lucky. I work from home. If I ask for technology, I typically get it.
It makes financial sense. My boss does'nt need to provide office space for me, his overhead is lowered, and I'm happier.
I asked for a wireless network in my home. Out of all the reasons I wanted it, the reality was 'So I can sit at the bar down the street and work while having a beer'. The response: 'Well, don't get too drunk'.
Using technology to accomidate workers, to provide for them a better work envrionment is a no-brainer. I remember one place I worked at.. the boss would see me sitting outside smoking a cigarette. "What are you doing?" 'I'm waiting for a download to finish. Theres really nothing I can do until it's done'. He would'nt buy broadband for the office, and as a result, not only annoyed me, but waisted far more paid man hours then the cost of putting a decent connection and network into the office.
I don't own any pre-recorded VHS tapes, but I do use my VCR to record television programs.
I also have quite a few TV shows that I have missed/forgot to hit record on the VCR in data format (that I got of Kazaa). It has occured to me that I could probably record those shows onto VCD, which would be great considering the cost.
Mind you, these are programs that have been broadcast on television (or cable, which I pay for legally), recorded by somebody else and put into digital format (albeit, usually pretty poor sound/video quality).
Is this legal? Is it legal for me to have a copy of them on my hard drive? Is it legal for me to put them onto media like VCD?
To me, it seems as if it should'nt be. Recording of broadcast televison is legal. Digital recording of broadcast televison is legal (Tivo). Making a tape of a broadcast show and lending it to my freind is legal. So does it become illegal if I personally forgot to program my VCR to record it?
Just a thought.
That will never happen. You're right, it would strike a hudge blow to the the DVD backup software, but the DVD manufactuers want it both ways. They don't want you to make backups, and if it breaks, they want you to pay full price to replace it. Hey, whoever said these companies were interested in fairness?
Not to mention the fact that DVDs can go out of print and companies that produce them can go out of business.
We decided to
proactively file this lawsuit not only to receive the courts' assurance that we are in compliance with the law but also to raise the broader question of how Americans' First Amendment rights can be protected in this digital age
Sounds silly, does'nt it? You have to sue in order to make sure you're not doing anything wrong. Note they are not seeking any damages.
Can they really be sued for being bullied?
You can sue for any reason you want. I can sue you because I don't like your name. That would probably be thrown out of court.
But what 321 is doing is very clever; if the court throws the case out, and the MPAA seeks damages under the DMCA, they are protected. "We already filed with the court, and the court decided that we were not doing anything wrong... at least to warrent the attention of the court."
Of course, it shows how screwy our legal system is. I can't call up the police and ask 'hey, I'm thinking of doing this.. is it legal?' They won't tell me. But if I do it, and it's illegal, they will arrest me. Laws are written in such a way that half the time people are breaking them not even knowing. It's nice to see a company exploit a loophole like this on the side of good.
I have a lot of DVDs. I have a good A/V system. After seeing the quality of VCD, I'd never make a copy of a DVD onto that format.
I would like to be able to copy the DVDs I own just to have a backup, and personally I think there is nothing wrong/illegal about it. If I spend $30 on a new fancy DVD, and I accidently break it (which has happened.. some of those cases are really poorly designed), I have no recourse. I paid for the content on that DVD.
Of course, this has been said on this and other websites thousands of times. But the part that gets me is, here we have a technology that allows people to make really poor copies of something they OWN. VHS has been around for years doing the same thing (making poor/lesser quality copies). My VCR can make a better copy of a movie (as long as there is'nt any of that annoying copy-protection built in) then a VCD. With the VCR, it's legal, but with the software for something worse, it's illegal?
I really hope this company wins its case. And I hope lawmakers start to sit down and really examine what these laws are saying and doing.
''Obviously, something is being done with those blank CDs,'' says Mike Dreese, owner of the Boston-based Newbury Comics record chain and prophetic coauthor two years ago of a widely distributed essay, ''Disc burning equals death.
Lets see. 100+ CDs I've burned in the last year to distribute reports and large files that were too big for email. 3 CDs I've burned in the last year to make mix-tapes for my freinds.
Sorry to burst that bubble, but from where I sit, a lot of the CD burning that goes on is for legitimate, business applications.
But if you listened to them, the CD burners we have at the office are tools of evil. And.. I'm supposed to pay additional taxes to cover the losses to the recording industry?
"Hey boss... the price of CD-Rs just went up." 'Why?' "Well, aparently our business has to pay Madonna and N'Sync because of some high school kids".
Lunacy. Pure Lunacy.
How long does it take for LEO orbits to degrade?
Eventually, would'nt this junk just fall into the atmosphere and burn up?
Something like a book is the automatic feedback. Not only is Katz getting the word out about his new book, he gets to see hundreds of people respond as to why they would or would not buy his book.
Let me predicate this by saying I am a writer. Not a professional one... I do it as a hobby to entertain myself and my freinds. Someday, I'd like to think what I wrote would be worthy of publication. I have received thousands of emails with comments and ideas from total strangers telling me what's good or bad about my writing.
I've learned that I'm not by far ready to do anything warrenting a book.
That having been said, let me say why I won't buy Katzs' book. To be honest, I can't really understand why Katz is so well known. The best guess I can come up with is that he was one of the first people to write about Internet technologies and explore some of the more far out ideas. But today, those far out ideas are common practice, so there is nothing new.
Over the last few years, I've read a lot of the things he's posted on Slashdot. Increasingly, I find him way off base. It feels as if he's somehow become out of touch with the subject matter he uses. When you come up with a new idea, and bring it to an open forum for dialogue, thats a good thing. But if 99% of the people who read it can only respond with 'no, you're wrong', and tear apart your arguments and your premise, then perhaps it's time to rethink where you're comming from.
If you can get anything from the Internet, Katz, it's that you should stop writing for a while. Your ideas seem vague, poorly thought out, and at times just stupid. Get a job... work for a few years. Take some time to observe first hand the phoenomnea and the community you use as your subject matter. And, even if your ideas ARE good, and you sit in frustration wondering why people just can't see them, then you're probably not explaining them well enough.
You have name reconition, something that is above and beyond what 99% of aspiring writers has. If you use the Internet to help you become better, to get back on track, you can continue to be a good writer... or, you can just become a hack. It's up to you.
You seem to be claiming that religion answers any questions at all
It answers the important questions. Or at least it tries to.
Science answers questions. Religion merely tells you to stop thinking.
If anything religion makes you think more. I can't stop thinking about the nature of the universe, God, and the hows and whys behind it. The conflicting messages, trying to unravel the mysteries... it goes on and on.
Yes, there are zelots out there that take an invintory of beliefs and just stop. Those are the ones who are likely to pass judgement on other people (which is'nt their job), and pretty much ruin the dialogue for the rest of us.
But those same kinds of people live in the scientific world. They take what they know, they stick to it, and they don't move on.
I'm not a scientist, but I've always been interested in it. Not because I want to tear it apart, or even approach it with an agenda, but because to me, it's interesting to see how the rules of the universe work.
Through high school and college, I'd ask lots of questions to my science teachers (especially physics). The one that always got me was 'What causes gravity'. Most of them were not thinking; "It's in your textbook". 'No, it's not.. read it again'. "All it says in the text book is gravity increases in bodies with mass". 'Yes. Thats what causes gravity'. "No, that's a condition of gravity. An explination of it's level in relationship with mass. Why to bodies of mass attract to each other. What are the properities unique to mass that causes that attraction? It outlines in another chapter why and how magnitism works.. I follow that, but nothing is said about gravity... why does'nt gravity receive the same attention as magnitism?'
I'd usually be asked to leave or be quiet. That always bothered me, because here we have an observable phoenomonea that's all around us, we deal with every day, and yet we know so little about it. To me, the scientific mind would be interested in finding out why. But, like the religious fundimentalist, the scientist has found enough answers he needs, and sticks with them. It was'nt until much later when I finally started dealing with more open minded scientists who finally admited 'we don't know. There is some research into that feild, but we really don't know'.
religion is just a theory... "the theory of god" as i call it. excpet in this case, their only available proof is an ancient piece of literature that has been translated and re-translated too many times to count
That's not the point. Religion requires no objective proof. Occasionally many of the more ambitious keepers of the faith will try to find historical accuracies in the bible... but really, in the end it's not needed.
How do I know God exists? I just know. It's simply impossible to define matters of faith in terms of science. Science can only tell us how. Religion trys to tell us why, and to that extent they can contridict each other while both are right. I can see how this would frustrate somebody with a purly analitcal mind because faith can not be measured or displayed in any objective way.
But faith really is'nt concerened with the direction of an atom or DNA. Most Christians I know reconize evolution as the most logical reading of the orgins of life we've got from a scientific standpoint.
But it's a lot harder to take that too liteary, because A: We've never actually seen evolutionary jumps in our lifetime (only mutations), and B: Even if Darwin was exactly right on the nose, it does'nt change the fact that God created us.
... by using faith and a simple view of the world outside.
Take a pair of brand new Porsche sports cars. Give one to a scientist, another to a theologian. Tell them both "Look at this car for the next week, and tell me what you find out"
The scientist will come back after a week and talk about the engineering, the attention to detail in the engine, use of turbochargers for increased performance, and an overall, detailed breakdown of every mechanical system.
The theologian will come back after a week and say "It's very beautiful, and it's fun to drive."
Who's right? Well, both of them are. The scientist will get frustrated with the theologian. "How do you measure this? How can you prove it to me this is fun to drive? Beauty is an objective concept. How do you know this is a good looking car?" The theologian will have to shrug and say 'I just do.'
Two weeks later, the scientist drives up in a new Honda civic. "This car," says the scientist, "has just as much quality engineering as that Porsche. In fact, after 100,000 miles it will be running much better then the Porsche. The only thing that Porsche can do is go faster, which is illegal. Now, would you say that your Porsche is a better car?"
The Theologian will drive the Honda, come back, and say 'no, I still like the Porsche better.' The scientist will become more frustrated, pull out his hair, go into great detail about fuel economy and injection systems, even the breakdown rates of the two vehicles.
The theologian will still claim he likes the Porsche better. "Why? How? Don't you see the evidence? In every measurable way, when you put price into account, the Honda is a better car. Can't you see that?" "Yes, I see what your saying. And your not wrong. But the Porsche is still a better car."
"But what makes it a better car?" 'Like I said from the beginning, it's better looking, and it's more fun to drive'. "But you can't prove this?" 'no, I can't' "And you see all the evidence I've put in front of you" 'Yes, I see it' "And you agree it's correct" 'Yes, it seems in order'.
At this point the scientist will run off to the other scientists muttering about how the theologian is crazy, self delusional, and can't see the hierocracy of his own statements.
Personally, I'd take a Porsche over a Honda, and I can't tell you why in any measurable sense.
Darwin by no means disproves creationism. Evolutionary theory is simply that; a theory that describes things the best way we know how using what we can observe about the world around us.
At the worst, if we find out evolution to be true (and there are some issues with that), it goes in contridiction to a literal interpratation of the bible, but not the spirit.
There are things we don't understand. I'm not saying we should embrace some sort of blind ignorance; at the moment science is the best thing we've got. But science by far does'nt even begin to answer the mysteries of the Universe.
Heck, I know a lot of physcists who still think we can't exceed the speed of light. They cling to that just as strongly as a hard core fundimentalists clings to a perfect literal reading of the bible.
And I have faith that eventually, science will get us going faster then light, because I have faith in the scientific community to find new and different solutions to problems. It's always happened in the past.
And for that matter, $450 for Win2k?
Something about that just does'nt sit right. Red hat or Debian typically install with ease.. so does this mean that the hardware is so tricky and propritary they feel they need to charge $250 just to get the thing to work?
Or are the marketing people just on something.
I'm not a programmer, but I do spend a great deal of my time sitting in frount of the computer writing (usual technical work) and comming up with client solutions.
A few things I've noticed;
1. A clean desk. I don't know what it is, but a cluttered desk just kills my ability to stay concentrated on anything for an extended period of time.
2. Near darkness. Any bright lights is a distraction. The only light can come from the CRT.
3. Jazz music. For some reason, the jazz on the local NPR station just fits nicely.
4. Unlimited supply of cigarettes. I don't even notice smoking them, but I notice if they are missing. Part of my weird compulsive personality.
5. Night time. 11pm to 5am seem to be the best time. No phone calls, no noise from the city outside. There just seems to be a feeling of being settled in that part of the day.
6. 64oz Thirst Busters from circle K. It's funny, but they usually seem to run out right when I've reached a problem I can't solve. I can walk down to the store in silence, nobody bothering me, and get a new one. While I'm walking I can usually reach a solution.
I'm not sure who I dislike more; idiot people like this who don't know what their talking about bringing computers and religion together in insane ways, or the idiot athiests who look down their noses and say 'See! See what I told you. Look at how silly those closed mided Christians are!'
Darwin was a scientist. He observed phonomonea and came to a conclusion. His findings do not disprove creationism or God. All he has done has provided us with, based on observable phonomonea, the best possible understanding about the development of life on this planet.
It's innane to ignore that in the face of so much compelling evidence. At the same time, athiests take up Darwin's name as a banner with as much fervor, closed mindedness, and compleate lack of a world view as any firebranding preacher.
There is a spirtual side to the Universe. You can ignore it in the lab and get better results, but don't poo-pah people who like to keep it in mind.
Scientology differes from other religions and how they are allowed to act in the U.S. in a few ways.
1. In most religions, you can receive the higest level of spirtual fullfillment for free; If you can afford it, you are asked to donate money, but even if you don't, no church services will be denied to you. In Scientology, you can easily become bankrupt trying to reach any level of spiritual satisfaction.
2. In most religions, you can leave whenever you want. In Scientology, once you're in, they will make it very hard to leave.
3. In most religions, the basic tennents of the religious philosophy can be explained and known to anyone. (i.e., Jesus Christ was God's son sent down to Earth, he died for our sins and saved our souls). I could'nt begin to tell you what that is for scientology, because A: I don't know and I can't afford to find out, and B: If I did know, I could'nt tell you for fear of being sued.
4. In most religions, religious texts are free to distribute to others. In fact, it's encouraged to show the texts to others not in the faith. There is no copywrite on the Bible or the Koran. In Scientology, all religious 'texts' are vigerously protected by copywrites, and just being able to see them requires a great deal of financial expenditure.
Don't get me wrong. Scientology is not compleatly evil. From people I've talked to, including 'ex-Scientologists', the orginization has some pretty sound self-help/life improving methods. (It also has some pretty dangerous ones). But being an (expensive) source of psychological help does not make you a religion. Psychologists, self-help gurus can perform simular services, and yet they are not afforded tax freedom.
Maybe I'm just totally confused, but that argumentation is so stupid in my eyes
Who said people in procurment are smart... or even rational. But, to their credit, they can close html tags.
I've yet to see Red Hat or SUSE respond to an RFP. That's probably a marketing issue (or it's just that the things I deal with is too small of potateos).
But even if they did start responding, my guess is they would run into a brick wall. 'Liiinnn-Ex?.... is'nt that for hackers or something?' (not my words.. but the assumed words of a procurment department)
You're absolutly right. If a government agency is smart enough, they get the services of a project management firm (I should say this is what my company does). A PM firm will basically act as a member of the agency's staff through all phases of the project, including, and espicaly, procurment.
On the data side, we like to set standards. Often we will get this: "I want X software, or I want X hardware." In my state, this is illegal (but this happens all the time). We are careful to re-write RFPs to include the little line 'or equivilent'. This opens things up to alternitives.
But in the end, most vendors are going to accomidate the perceived wishes of the government agencies, which is pretty much the Microsoft/Office solution. Open source might be better, but it's a wild card that most government orginizations ar'nt willing to consider.
As somebody who works in procurment from time to time, I can say that open source work is'nt something that is too appealing.
Basically, it comes down to accountability. When the RFP responses come back, the government agency needs to see that there is a clearly defined orginization that it can access to resolve issues. If they see 'free' or 'open source', red flags will go up. "You mean anyone can change this? No thanks"
It's a standard way of thinking for government agencies. They will never adopt open source unless it first becomes general practice in the commerical sector.
Is working from home. The hardest thing to do is remember to shut the sound off whatever game you're playing when somebody calls.
Why use open source/free software?
1. It's free. That's a no brainer
2. It's open, meaning people who are smarter and who have more time then me are improving it.