There must be examples of people with money who pushed the Y2K nonsense.. Surely there is now an opportunity for a come back by all parties injured. It would be justice. I cannot count the number of documents I have been asked to sigh that attempted to release the other party from obligations that might have occurred if the Y2K bug caused problems. ( which I have quite happily sighed,; bloody idiots;).
I bet there are no documents signed releasing those generating the hysteria from the consequences of their actions. Actions that resulted in people wasting money that could have been put to other uses.
Oh well, now that costs are reasonable again, time to get applications that do have two digit date dependencies fixed up.
Did I mention that the world is coming to and end in 2038.
" Now finally Jim Allchin from MS admitted NT 4.0 was less reliable than 3.51."
Do you think Win2000 will be better. First I'm buying up 12 months worth of NT4.0 so they can't force me to use Win2000 as they forced me to switch from 3.51 to 4.0. I'm not taking the risk. and 2) I am making dam sure NT can be shown the back door.
Brian Harradene is a first order twit, unfortunately he holds the balance of power in the short term. Equally unfortunately western economies are becoming increasingly service based. Even more unfortunate is the fact that governments need money to run, and printing the stuff for such purposes is not a hot idea. We need to tax services. I know there is this perceived problem and that perceived problem, but these are the basic facts.
The real solution is for the democrats to deal with reality, then no one has to pander the Harradene.
I am not sure what George Kuykendal is trying to argue. Is he trying to argue that the enlightenment was not a movement against the excesses of the church of the time? Is he trying to argue that the enlightenment didn't reduce the power of the church? All I saw where references that showed that some great western thinkers believed, or where interested in god. Was not Einstein's argument against quantum mechanics simple "God does not play with dice". If this was the aim of Georges posting I can't argue, but I can't see how such an argument relates to Katz's article.
History cannot be broken down into single events, or even a fight between two ideas, with one idea coming out victorious. History is a river with a direction, some will swim with it, some across, and some against the flow. Most will swim in different directions during their lifetime. To quote single events, or single writings may be useful to support an argument, but it does little to eliminate the period.
Mankind's accumulated knowledge mark the banks of our historical river, how quickly ideas can be disseminated determine the flow.
There can be no argument that the Internet has increased the rate at which ideas flow. Just look at this discussion. Five yours ago it would be a discussion held by students at a university ( perhaps after a few stubbies). Today it is being held between interested parties from around the world on the internet. It is no harder to participate in the discussion than it is to sit at the relevant table in the university canteen.
It can be argued that without printing the enlightenment would never have happened. I think future generations will look back at the internet as an important point in human history. It will not be just university students sitting in the canteen that will argues it's merit but many individuals from around the globe, that will be the heritage the internet will give our children.
If the internet is a important event in human evolution then the the open source movement is an inevitable consequences. Mankind would feel very uneasy if the printing of books was controlled by the Roman Catholic church. If the internet is to become central to how we define our societies, Mankind will feel very uneasy if the internet is controlled by one corporation.
If you look at recent events from this point of view, Microsoft's attempt to dominate the Internet was doomed to failure. I am at a loss to see why anyone would believe microsoft could succeed where the Roman Catholic Church failed.
Microsoft failed to see the importance of the internet ( wasn't it Bill who said "it's just another network"). I believe they got themselves into their current unholy mess by failing to see just how important the internet was even after they realized it could destroy there business if nothing was done.
The Internet was not just another technology to be embraced and extended, it is an idea that has taken several decades to develop and as Katz correctly points out it is an idea that will change society in fundamental ways. The internet is fast becoming a fundamental part of a societies required infrastructure. I am sure this has been seen by people far more powerful then even Mr Gates.
I think Microsoft failed to see just what they were attempting to do when they started down there internet embrace and extend strategy. If they did the should of expected the consequences and if they did I don't think they would have attempted to corrupt the open nature of the structure being built.
Eric wants general acceptance of open source, he sent a private email telling Bruce to pull his head in, for very good reason. Bruce is damaging his cause. Bruce wants a particular model ahead of popularity of any model, for him a public fight is of no consequence. Eric's email is now public.
Personally I have little time for people that make personal mail public without asking if it is ok first, but that my view.
No use complaining that the public fight is limiting the acceptace of open source, it is of no consequence to Bruce.
I think the lesson for Eric is very clear, be very careful of "free radicals". They limit you life span, and it would seem affect ones calm-a.
Slashdot Mirror
There must be examples of people with money who pushed the Y2K nonsense.. Surely there is now an opportunity for a come back by all parties injured. It would be justice. I cannot count the number of documents I have been asked to sigh that attempted to release the other party from obligations that might have occurred if the Y2K bug caused problems. ( which I have quite happily sighed,; bloody idiots;).
I bet there are no documents signed releasing those generating the hysteria from the consequences of their actions. Actions that resulted in people wasting money that could have been put to other uses.
Oh well, now that costs are reasonable again, time to get applications that do have two digit date
dependencies fixed up.
Did I mention that the world is coming to and end in 2038.
What a joke.
The moderators don't get it. I would not drscribe this comment as funny. Insightfull would be closer to the mark.
It is a great pity; but corel have shot themselves in the foot.
We use them extensively in our blemish sorter for fresh fruit; properly applied they give amazing results.
" Now finally Jim Allchin from MS admitted NT 4.0 was less reliable than 3.51."
Do you think Win2000 will be better. First I'm buying up 12 months worth of NT4.0 so they can't force me to use Win2000 as they forced me to switch from 3.51 to 4.0. I'm not taking the risk. and 2) I am making dam sure NT can be shown the back door.
Brian Harradene is a first order twit, unfortunately he holds the balance of power in the
short term. Equally unfortunately western economies are becoming increasingly service
based. Even more unfortunate is the fact that governments need money to run, and printing
the stuff for such purposes is not a hot idea. We need to tax services. I know there is this
perceived problem and that perceived problem, but these are the basic facts.
The real solution is for the democrats to deal with reality, then no one has to pander the
Harradene.
I am not sure what George Kuykendal is trying to argue. Is he trying to argue that the
enlightenment was not a movement against the excesses of the church of the time? Is he
trying to argue that the enlightenment didn't reduce the power of the church? All I saw where
references that showed that some great western thinkers believed, or where interested in god.
Was not Einstein's argument against quantum mechanics simple "God does not play with
dice". If this was the aim of Georges posting I can't argue, but I can't see how such an
argument relates to Katz's article.
History cannot be broken down into single events, or even a fight between two ideas, with
one idea coming out victorious. History is a river with a direction, some will swim with it,
some across, and some against the flow. Most will swim in different directions during their
lifetime. To quote single events, or single writings may be useful to support an argument, but it
does little to eliminate the period.
Mankind's accumulated knowledge mark the banks of our historical river, how quickly ideas
can be disseminated determine the flow.
There can be no argument that the Internet has increased the rate at which ideas flow. Just
look at this discussion. Five yours ago it would be a discussion held by students at a university
( perhaps after a few stubbies). Today it is being held between interested parties from around
the world on the internet. It is no harder to participate in the discussion than it is to sit at the
relevant table in the university canteen.
It can be argued that without printing the enlightenment would never have happened. I think
future generations will look back at the internet as an important point in human history. It will
not be just university students sitting in the canteen that will argues it's merit but many
individuals from around the globe, that will be the heritage the internet will give our children.
If the internet is a important event in human evolution then the the open source movement is
an inevitable consequences. Mankind would feel very uneasy if the printing of books was
controlled by the Roman Catholic church. If the internet is to become central to how we
define our societies, Mankind will feel very uneasy if the internet is controlled by one
corporation.
If you look at recent events from this point of view, Microsoft's attempt to dominate the
Internet was doomed to failure. I am at a loss to see why anyone would believe microsoft
could succeed where the Roman Catholic Church failed.
Microsoft failed to see the importance of the internet ( wasn't it Bill who said "it's just another
network"). I believe they got themselves into their current unholy mess by failing to see just
how important the internet was even after they realized it could destroy there business if
nothing was done.
The Internet was not just another technology to be embraced and extended, it is an idea that
has taken several decades to develop and as Katz correctly points out it is an idea that will
change society in fundamental ways. The internet is fast becoming a fundamental part of a
societies required infrastructure. I am sure this has been seen by people far more powerful
then even Mr Gates.
I think Microsoft failed to see just what they were attempting to do when they started down
there internet embrace and extend strategy. If they did the should of expected the
consequences and if they did I don't think they would have attempted to corrupt the open
nature of the structure being built.
Just my 2c worth.
Eric wants general acceptance of open source, he sent a private email telling Bruce to pull his head in, for very good reason. Bruce is damaging his cause. Bruce wants a particular model ahead of popularity of any model, for him a public fight is of no consequence. Eric's email is now public.
Personally I have little time for people that make personal mail public without asking if it is ok first, but that my view.
No use complaining that the public fight is limiting the acceptace of open source, it is of no consequence to Bruce.
I think the lesson for Eric is very clear, be very careful of "free radicals". They limit you life span, and it would seem affect ones calm-a.