From an extinct mammal's perspective....
on
TigerCloning
·
· Score: 1
I know a bit more about these things, as it's not just esoteric speculation, but a matter of life and death for me.
...to what extent do you repopulate the wild?
As much as possible. As soon as possible.
Do you produce three or four for display in zoos, or do you reproduce millions of them (a la the Passenger Pigeon) to put them back into nature at the levels they once were?
I find it quite insulting that people think of putting wooly mammoths in zoos as some kind of dumb animal. You fools! Once my kind was the ruler of the Siberian wilderness. I would honk, and thousands of reindeer and assorted Russian nomads would scatter in all directions. Those were my days of glory.
Alas, these days I lie in old caves being thawed by hair dryers and endure comments about "wooly mammoth cloning". A mild curiosity for bored geeks, paleontologists and genetic engineers with research grant money and no projects.
This does, of course, assume that the cloning works perfectly.
I hope so, for your sake....
don't worry about killing off endangered animals, because "they" can always make more!
This is supposed to be some kind of clever punchline, right? Another jibe at the old endangered/extinct species.
Oh, pardon me, Mr. human sir, you talk of "they", but exactly how do *you* people "make more"?
It might do more harm than good in that respect.
Based on past history, I think worries about endangered species overbreeding are vastly exagerrated....
In any case, all I'm saying is - give us a chance! Wooly mammoths can be quite amazing and wonderful creatures, which can bring back excitement into this dull post cold war era. Just imagine the merchandising possibilities!
* Cute cuddly wooly mammoth bears will give a run for the money for the stupid Winnie the Pooh monopoly.
* McMammoth Meal - buy one, and bring back a mammoth to life!
* Godzilla vs. Wooly Mammoth.
* Gamera vs. Wooly Mammoth (well, you get the idea).
I sincerely hope you will overcome your fear and/or condescending mild curiosity about cloning extinct mammals. In my case, there are many reasons why it's a good idea. If you still have doubts, what can sum it all up and make it worthwhile to unleash the wooly mammoth? One word - wool.
never had anything that resembled a monitor, let alone an OS.
I'm tired of all of you guys whining about what is or is not an OS. To settle this issue once and for all, I hereby present to you the final definition of an Operating System from a company that knows this shit.
----------------------------------------------
MR. FARBER'S DEFINITION OF AN OPERATING SYSTEM ACTUALLY SUPPORTS THE HARD WORK AND INNOVATION BY THE SOFTWARE INDUSTRY OVER THE PAST 20 YEARS.
Mr. Farber ignores the realities of the marketplace when he tries to define an operating system as "software that controls the execution of programs on computers and may provide low-level ser-vices such as resource allocation, scheduling and input-output control in a form which is suffi-ciently simple and general so that these services are broadly useful to software developers."
In fact, at his deposition, Mr. Farber was unable to name a single commercially available operating sys-tem that fits his extremely narrow definition. Perhaps his definition made sense 25 years ago, but his testimony essentially ignores everything that has occurred in the field of operating system design over the past two decades. The Apple MacOS and Microsoft Windows and Sun Solaris all fall outside Mr. Farber's definition of an operating system, so it's hard to see what relevance his definition has in this case.
What Mr. Farber refuses to recognize is that the ongoing evolution of operating systems has delivered to consumers more powerful and full-featured products that are much easier to use. Such enhancements are often made possible by integrating new features and functionality into an operating system, making it a more capable platform for software developers and a giving it a better user interface for users. All types of Microsoft customers-including hardware manufac-turers, software devel-opers, content developers and users-have come to rely on the fact that Windows is a stable and consistent platform that will run large numbers of applications.
The popularity of Windows is strong evi-dence that nobody wants the sort of rudimentary operating systems Mr. Farber apparently prefers. Microsoft is very good listening to its customers and providing them with technology solutions that meet their needs. Mr. Farber might have preferred that Microsoft create a hobbled version of Windows that had only a small fraction of the useful features contained in Windows 98, but his opinion is not supported by Microsoft's millions of customers worldwide.
----------------------------------------------
Well, that has cleared everything. Now that everyone knows what an operating system is, go back and continue your discussion.:P
Yeah, that was von Neumann. I think the quote you're referring to comes from a time magazine article on him written by Nathan Myrhvold (top 20 inventors of the century or something), search for "godel" and stuff, you'll find it on time's site.
Ultimately, this is a controversial topic. Perhaps the strongest contender would be Konrad Zuse , who developed a programmable computer in the 1940s. Interesting first person notes from an inventor in Nazi germany.
In the ACM archives , there is a paper on "Monitors, an operating system structuring concept" by C.A.R Hoare. Since this is from 1974, I guess it's not too old, but still an interesting paper.
Many have been posting about OS/360 (or 390) but while MVS was a major step in OS history, it wasn't the first. It was released in 1964, too late for the first OS.
Yes, there are some thing which could be improved, but these are minor qualms.
The first thing that struck me was whom it was intended for. My guess is that the actual readership would probably break up as follows:
95% - linux enthusiasts & slashdot readers
2 % - windows supporters
2 % - people who are handed this doc by someone they know who's a linux enthusiast, and who actually read it.
1 % - others (PHBs, ordinary users, curious onlookers).
I can assure you no PHB is going to read a document which devotes an entire page to describing the doc, then goes on into copyright, structural layout of the document, etc. They lose interest after 3 lines (not kidding). What you would need is an executive summary at the top, followed by bullet points describing each myth and dispelling it, in order of myths most popular.
If the audience is to be your next door neighbor or friend who hasn't tried linux and heard these myths, I can just imagine their nonplused response. You see, people with a casual interest in something are not particularly interested in going thru minute analysis of propaganda battles. Imagine how interested you'd be if your bank handed you a brochure with a 20 page feature by feature comparison with its rival.
Newsflash - everyday users are as interested in detailed FUD analysis of OSes as you are in the FUD analysis of banks, tax strategies, hotels, etc. You just want to use it without thinking about it too much. This document is preaching to the choir.
If people shared our passion for debating windows vs. linux, they would already know all this stuff inside out. The whole thing is -1, redundant.
Yes I know you specified the "developed world". And I can show you how the US is near the top there, too. But it would take a while
Go for it.
That's an interesting assertion - especially since the governments of nearly all the current countries of Europe date from events surrounding World War II or later, and their current forms of government were heavily influnced by that of the US.
Govts. didn't appear out of thin air. They are founded on precedents from over centuries. Ever wonder why France and the UK have very similar govts. compared to Japan? It's because the methods and rules followed by a society are based on precedent. For example, divorce law in the US has a history that goes all the way back to ancient Roman law.
Switzerland is an anomaly. You gotta look at averages. A small fraction of dictatorships result in prosperous nations (eg, singapore) but the majority don't. Similarly, the US and Switzerland are only 2 developed countries w/ a high gun ownership, one of which has a positive record and one which ranks poorly in homicide rates and govt. brutality (that would be the US). The rest of the developed world has an excellent record on both counts and a near zero gun ownership rate in comparison. Look at the whole picture, I'm not convinced by exceptions.
No, there are many things that do. Obviously you'll never have a perfect society where everyone is singing songs and skipping happily. But a well established judiciary, free press, and a stable executive founded on democracy makes the difference between a free country and one where citizens don't have much freedom.
Don't take a binary view of "all or nothing". Different countries have different levels of individual freedom. The ones with a very good record are mostly nations following old european precedents (including the US), and 90% of them have no gun culture as a foundation of liberty. Have you wondered how they maintain a good record? And don't quote switzerland. The US and switzerland are 2 exceptions among dozens of nations like France, belgium, luxembourg, netherlands, denmark, iceland, finland, australia, new zealand, UK, portugal, etc. etc. which ensure liberty for its citizens. Ever wonder how they do it? (and don't quote some crap about them spying on your email. Like I said, it's never perfect, but developed democracies ensure liberty for their citizens, by any benchmark their present record is about the best in human history and better than the rest of the planet. Stay in the real world.)
And the revolutionary war was a tea party?
There are several revolutionary wars being fought across the world today, and they aren't tea parties either. That doesn't mean that they are the movements which first founded liberty as a generally followed principle of govt.
The rest of your comments are crap, so I won't bother answering. Hope you don't mind.
* If guns ensure liberty, why does the US have the highest gun ownership and the worst human rights record in the developed world?
* Liberty wasn't first brought by pioneering Americans using guns. Liberty has a long history, starting with the Magna Carta.
* The US is just one of dozens of countries which are founded on liberty. Many of these have been free for centuries longer than the US, gun culture is not a part of these countries, and they have a historically BETTER implementation of liberty than the US. If you ask "when guns are gone, what is left to protect your freedom", I suggest you read a little background on how these countries have protected freedoms longer and better than the US.
* After the founding fathers wrote all those wonderful texts expounding liberty, they felt it fit to deny it to the MAJORITY of the US population (blacks+women > 50%). Next time you slavishly quote Jefferson, ask yourself whom you're impressing with a slave-owner's vision of human liberty.
* As for the US govt. turning your land into a nightmarish hell, go easy on the coffee, chill out, turn off the US media, and get a sound education.:)
* In the US, 51% of the population owns guns, and 40% of the population can't identify their country on the world map. Armed retards are good for population control, but bad at making logical arguments.
I remember reading the story. It made major headlines around the world. The student was just asking for directions, and this dude has just made up a long story, which some gullible moderators have thought fit to reward.
Even if you didn't know the facts, can't you tell from the tone and the fantasy material that it's fabricated? This is the kind of stuff that makes people lose faith in moderation.
And then spaketh the lord, "Let there be unix companies galore, each different from the other, so that the standards can multiply and compete amongst each other."
And the companies thus arose, and they fought each other, with various wondrous types of software, none of which worked with the other. And everyone saw that there was competition, and it was good.
Thus began the ten years of drought, when application developers moaned, "Wherefore am I to write my software? None shall buy it, for each is on his own little island, each separate from the rest." And Gates said to them, "Come to me, ye fools! And ye shall be happy, for all my denizens live under one roof. It leaketh sometimes, but ye shall earn gold selling yer stuff." And the developers all flocked to Gates, and the unix companies continued to fling dung at each other, and it was all as it had always been.
Yeah, the chicken+egg problem gets solved when a major vendor gets behind the software, but what I find odd is how it happens. I mean, linux has >20 million users, which is about 10% of the Windows installed base. Now, if you were a CEO, wouldn't you push your company to support it, thereby gaining 10% more customers and getting an edge over your slower competitors?
From the interview:
Then I started going out on the Net and searching for "Dell and Linux," "Optiplex and Linux" "Dimension and Linux," "Inspiron and Linux," "Precision and Linux," and Boom! You'd see hundreds of thousands of user who had figured out how to use our products with Linux, and we hadn't done anything to help those people either.
In reality, though, (and this is something I find very, very surprising) many/most hardware companies are far slower than Michael Dell at catching on. Recently, I bought a logitech cordless mouse, but only after a frustrating search to find out if it works for linux. Now, logitech could hire a couple of web developers to put that info on their site, and maybe get a couple of their programmers to test stuff for linux. Bingo. You're helping out 20+ million customers you weren't before. Why don't CEOs see this?
My guess is that Michael Dell is probably way ahead of the curve, since he actually bothered looking at the search queries, installing linux himself, etc. Maybe most CEOs wait for a Gartner analyst to draw pie charts and wait for their underlings to draft a business plan before they get the point. Any idea how this works?
(As an aside, it's very revealing that Michael Dell actually saw *hundreds of thousands* of customers helping each other out before the company even realised there were all these customers using Dell on linux. Is it any surprise people prefer looking for product info from other users instead of the "official" company site? )
Actually, the main point is whether people will actually consent to having it implanted. This is the kind of stuff that spawns mass hysteria, but in reality no company in the US can force employees to do it. There are also protective measures like lawsuits which can bankrupt companies that abuse technology or cause negligent harm (eg, GM had to pay millions for faulty tanks).
The main worry is not misuse in the US, since there is enormous media/public scrutiny. Technology like this in the hands of China/Burma/N.Korea or any of America's puppet dictatorships is the dream-come-true of totalitarian regimes, who can do whatever they want. Today, dictators are having a difficult time controlling people yearning for greater freedom and able to evade their rulers. It will be more difficult to avoid being tracked if you are a human cursor wandering around a screen on a govt. computer.
Not sure what kind of business plan this company has. Will American companies - wary of lawsuits - really implant thousands of their employees with a chip? Who will buy this thing?
OTOH, think of how much trouble China or Saudi Arabia is having tracking dissidents or people released from prison. Pop one in, and you can say 'Come to pappa' anytime you like.
Evolution has a very solid backing in scientic fact, and is accepted much like the theory of the sun being fueled by nuclear reaction. In both cases, nobody can recreate the experiment in a lab, but based on scientific studies and extrapolation, it's accepted as fact. In the latest scientific american, a german professor makes the remark that all educated people today accept evolution as a fact. (No offense, but are you a product of the American educational system? In most countries this is not even an issue, except among the functionally illiterate.)
After a theory undergoes considerable scrutiny, it becomes accepted fact, and scientists work on its finer points. This is the path taken by theories on the earth revolving around the sun, cardiovascular circulation, germs causing disease, etc. Proponents of these, incidentally, were furiously opposed by religious scholars and occasionally put to death.
You also need to understand a basic difference b/w evolution and creationism. Creationism has exactly as much evidence as my theory that the universe was created by drunken dung beetles. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Evolution has tons of evidence. If you don't know that, your education is to blame, not the theory.
Many people forget that almost every religion (except perhaps Buddhism) has a colorful story about the origin of the universe.
This brings up the question - why should only Christian theology be taught as an "alternative" to evolution? There is no particular reason why it should be the default creationism among the scores of religious theories.
Islam considers that the universe arose out of vapor, Hinduism posits an infinite recursive loop of creation and destruction, and a cherokee religion proposes that the universe was created by a water beetle.
I have no idea what the creation theories are in Zoroastrianism, shintoism, taoism, confucianism, animism, but I'm pretty sure they're wild and wonderful.
Of course, you might say that the majority of Kansas/american students are christian; but then, does the origin of the universe depend on the population % of your local area? that would be quite a theory indeed.
Since proponents of creationism say that kids should be taught both theories and allowed to decide for themselves, we could agree to teach creationism (of all religions). Let's give them the choice, dammit! So....a typical biology book would now have 30+ chapters to discuss creationism theories, and 1 to discuss evolution.(Many countries do this, but they teach them in a class on "World Religions" instead of "Science"; but nevermind, it's the same content, who cares what the class is called?).
Anyway, this brings up another question - why offer "alternatives to science" only on evolution? Since so many people believe creationism should be taught in schools in *science* class, why not teach the biblical concept of oceans and the earth as an alternative to geology (noah's boat and the parting of the red sea are guaranteed to be crowd pleasers in comparison with boring cross section charts of the earth)? Is there any reason why only evolution should be presented with an alternative? After all, nobody has gone to the center of the earth or the sun and REALLY proved what's there; they are merely theories speculated upon by scientists, and they often turn out to be wrong.
Can some proponent of creationism answer these questions? Thank you.
What exactly is the point of this story? That software companies should hug each other and sing teletubby songs while playing happy games?
Of course companies are going to stab each other and fight it out. It's called capitalism.
In any case, I don't see any relevance to free software or open source, which basically seems the obligatory tag-on to get the story published on/., which succeeded.
As for back handed back stabbing, here's a newsflash - so long as it's legal, anything goes. That's how it's always been. Welcome to the real world.
So why aren't programmers enjoying such a high income in Europe and Asia?
You need to consider the whole scenario. It's far easier for a programmer to form an internet startup and earn money in the US than it is in Europe. And when they make a profit, they hire more programmers, which is why you enjoy a better standard of living.
This applies not just to startups, but to general software companies as well. Which is why they hired you. It's easier to do business in the US and hire skilled immigrants.
Osborn: So, instead of a code completion date, we're looking at a "ready-to-go" date?
Goodhew: Yes, that's right. I think developers will find the release of Visual Studio.Net to be one of the highest quality releases in Microsoft's history.
Regulation in the *operational use* of technology can be a bad thing. Let me give you an example. Some yrs ago the Belgian govt. implemented a tax on computers being used in offices ( the rationale being that they stole jobs people could do, thereby increasing unemployment). Companies had to put stickers on PCs indicating they had paid this tax, and a govt. inspector went around making sure they had done so, or fined them. (This was on ZDNN).
when a govt. regulates operational or technical aspects of a company's business, it damages its ability to compete. Therefore, regulation should only be to prevent harm (eg, slave labor, environmental damage, privacy), not to ensure progress. Big difference between preventing bad things and ensuring good things.
Europe and Japan are *ahead* of us because they don't have all sorts of legacy cruft. All those new whizbang gadgets
These are dramatic exceptions which constitute a very small fraction of inventions/year. Yes, Japan comes out w/ gadgets, and Finland is ahead in mobile. But if you consider the technological-industrial economy as a *whole*, including pharmaceuticals, heavy machinery, electrical appliances, etc., US corporations are dominant in *most* sectors of the industrial economy. The reason for this is that when European companies invent something new and try to market it, they have to comply with far more regulations than American companies (like those stupid French labor laws about not being able to work >40 hrs, mandatory french media content, blah blah). This hampers their ability to compete, and thus they cede ground to US companies.
Just consider internet companies. The US promptly issued a 3 yr. ban on internet taxes to encourage silicon valley, and generally took a hands-off approach (except for senile right wing christian wackos with CDA). In contrast, French laws are being a major pain-in-the-ass for yahoo posting nazi material, Australian govt. is cracking down on internet taxation, and in general, European companies are finding it tougher to compete.
I mean, just take microsoft...they have the whole desktop market cornered. What great "innovation" have we seen
Microsoft is less than 5% of the software industry. I guess it makes for a convenient shooting post to prove practically any point on/.:)
In any case, vigorous competition in the OS arena before MS became a monopoly was better than the *govt* picking a standard OS and instituting a National Commission on Operating Systems to regulate its standards development. Surely you agree that letting OSes fight it out is the best approach? Obviously, you can't guarantee a good result each time. Which is why the DOJ is there.
"Pure" capitalism just replicates the "natural state" we try to avoid by government in the first place.
I didn't suggest pure capitalism. People seem to be incredibly binary re. govt. regulation - either they are against it heavily, or they are for it and hate capitalism. Sure, you need regulation on matters of environment, labor, etc., but NOT on *technical standards*. Let the companies fight it out and the best one win.
It's a commonly made mistake. The Internet is an evolution of various standards/protocols.
The world wide web, OTOH, is a specific protocol specifically invented by one person.
Read this Time magazine article which describes this in greater detail, and explains why he made their top 20 inventors of the century list.
"Unlike so many of the inventions that have
moved the world, this one truly was the work
of one man. Thomas Edison got credit for the
light bulb, but he had dozens of people in his
lab working on it. William Shockley may have
fathered the transistor, but two of his
research scientists actually built it. And if
there ever was a thing that was made by
committee, the Internet--with its protocols
and packet switching--is it. But the World
Wide Web is Berners-Lee's alone. He
designed it. He loosed it on the world. And
he more than anyone else has fought to keep
it open, nonproprietary and free. "
In Europe OTOH they're more used to being told what to do by more socialist governments
Govts. don't have a good reputation for knowing what they're talking about when they make decisions on technology. This pretty much explains why Europe lags behind the US in most technologies.
In almost every case, what you describe as a limitation (being unfettered by govt. regulation) is the key advantage that US business has over the rest of the world. This is indeed why the best minds flock to the US - so that they can do what they want in peace without some bureaucrat telling them what to do.
Of course, there are a few exceptions when the socialist model might seem to be advantageous, but not if you look at the big picture.
With globalization and cheap assembly farming, having an edge in hardware doesn't do much in the long run.
Nobody questions that the japanese have been really good at gadgets and electronics, but over the decades, the shift has been away from the hardware (which becomes a commodity) to the software, which is the key. Apps have been growing more intelligent and complex, and the software that drives them makes the difference. Both Europe and Asia have been far behind the US in software innovation. This is primarily cultural - teenage mavericks are celebrated in the US and viewed with alarm or contempt in traditional, bureaucratic societies like those of Europe or Japan.
When the industry is new, the focus is on who makes innovative, cheap devices. For example, in the early days of the PC industry, the debate was about the IBM clones and who would win the manufacturing marketshare. However, in hindsight, making PCs is a commodity industry, like bottling coke. The key industry became the software.
The handheld/mobile industry is very new, so people are worried about who is making the coolest gadgets, but it's what drives those gadgets that will count in the end. And for some reason, Americans are really good at software. The culture of non-conformity, lack of bureaucracy, unregulated teenage hackers running wild, spawns the most exciting stuff that comes out on the web.
the quality control and solid manufacturing base of Europe and Asia makes it good for hardware/electronics, not software. Kinda like a repeat of the PC era.
Englebart's grand vision was a little too grand to actually implement using the technology of the time, so he never shipped anything useful.
He was a researcher, not a software or hardware manufacturer. Dude, it was a small team that did amazing stuff and lost its funding.
As for other people doing better stuff outside SRI, can you give some details when you make such claims? It's acknowledged by patent records and archives that they were the first in this field. You can't ignore better work going on outside when there isn't any. The big demo w/ mouse+GUI was done in Dec. 1968. It was funded by univ. and govt. money, and suffered the disadvantage of being too good for its time. The grant money was yanked coz nobody felt this was of any use (remember, at that time the big thing was spending $$$ on AI, since the holy grail was a thinking, talking computer. Making personal computers useful was considered pointless).
he was better at self-promotion and grandious claims than at inventing anything concrete.
Quite the reverse. He was so bad at promoting his stuff he lost funding. As for inventing something concrete - mouse, GUI, video conferencing, groupware. These are substantiated by historical records and experts in the field. What more do you want? Magic fairies?
It's really funny how people dismiss Woz, Engelbart, etc. as overrated for not doing anything recently, or not being more successful. Shipping mediocre products successfully isn't as important as groundbreaking innovation.
He invented the mouse and GUI. In Triumph of the Nerds, mention is made of xerox parc, but Engelbart doesn't get credited for singlehandedly inventing much of what we use today - the mouse, hypertext help and linking, groupware, video conferencing, display editing, etc.
Cringely's documentary is considered such a classic (I taped it and told people to watch the show every time it was broadcast), and could have for once given Engelbart credit for changing computer technology.
Scroll thru and check out his inventions. Today, he lives in silicon valley and is unreconized by the millionaires who live off his achievements. Logitech has granted him some research space for inventing the mouse (yes, that thing). But nobody else seems to know of him.
Even though the documentary delved in such depth, why did it fail to include the man who made it all possible?
Even today, few people have heard of him, and it's such a tragedy.
w/m
Umm....a corporation doesn't have emotions
on
Nvidia Apologizes
·
· Score: 2
People speak of "nvidia feeling sorry" or "nvidia doing this or that". There is no sentient entity called nvidia. It's a corporation. Sometimes they hire good PR people who slick things over, sometimes they hire morons. In this case, they hired a moron.
A corporation simply exists to make profits for its shareholders. Stop associating these touchy-feely qualities of niceness and morality with corporations. It's naive and silly.
Sure, sometimes companies donate to charity to improve their image, or sponsor sports and crap like that, but it's still the same thing. Ultimately, it's a big building with cubicles and paid PR people. Don't confuse a company with being good or bad. It's just there to make money. MS, oracle, Sun, napster - they're all there to make money, and they just bitch about justice and morality when it suits them.
Don't be so naive. Being loyal to a company or thinking it's ethical is as silly as like having feelings for your gas station. Even if the company happens to make software/hardware you like.
Slashdot Mirror
I know a bit more about these things, as it's not just esoteric speculation, but a matter of life and death for me.
...to what extent do you repopulate the wild?
As much as possible. As soon as possible.
Do you produce three or four for display in zoos, or do you reproduce millions of them (a la the Passenger Pigeon) to put them back into nature at the levels they once were?
I find it quite insulting that people think of putting wooly mammoths in zoos as some kind of dumb animal. You fools! Once my kind was the ruler of the Siberian wilderness. I would honk, and thousands of reindeer and assorted Russian nomads would scatter in all directions. Those were my days of glory.
Alas, these days I lie in old caves being thawed by hair dryers and endure comments about "wooly mammoth cloning". A mild curiosity for bored geeks, paleontologists and genetic engineers with research grant money and no projects.
This does, of course, assume that the cloning works perfectly.
I hope so, for your sake....
don't worry about killing off endangered animals, because "they" can always make more!
This is supposed to be some kind of clever punchline, right? Another jibe at the old endangered/extinct species.
Oh, pardon me, Mr. human sir, you talk of "they", but exactly how do *you* people "make more"?
It might do more harm than good in that respect.
Based on past history, I think worries about endangered species overbreeding are vastly exagerrated....
In any case, all I'm saying is - give us a chance! Wooly mammoths can be quite amazing and wonderful creatures, which can bring back excitement into this dull post cold war era. Just imagine the merchandising possibilities!
* Cute cuddly wooly mammoth bears will give a run for the money for the stupid Winnie the Pooh monopoly.
* McMammoth Meal - buy one, and bring back a mammoth to life!
* Godzilla vs. Wooly Mammoth.
* Gamera vs. Wooly Mammoth (well, you get the idea).
I sincerely hope you will overcome your fear and/or condescending mild curiosity about cloning extinct mammals. In my case, there are many reasons why it's a good idea. If you still have doubts, what can sum it all up and make it worthwhile to unleash the wooly mammoth? One word - wool.
w/m.
did someone call me?
w/m
never had anything that resembled a monitor, let alone an OS.
:P
I'm tired of all of you guys whining about what is or is not an OS. To settle this issue once and for all, I hereby present to you the final definition of an Operating System from a company that knows this shit.
----------------------------------------------
MR. FARBER'S DEFINITION OF AN OPERATING SYSTEM ACTUALLY SUPPORTS THE HARD WORK AND INNOVATION BY THE SOFTWARE INDUSTRY OVER THE PAST 20 YEARS.
Mr. Farber ignores the realities of the marketplace when he tries to define an operating system as "software that controls the execution of programs on computers and may provide low-level ser-vices such as resource allocation, scheduling and input-output control in a form which is suffi-ciently simple and general so that these services are broadly useful to software developers."
In fact, at his deposition, Mr. Farber was unable to name a single commercially available operating sys-tem that fits his extremely narrow definition. Perhaps his definition made sense 25 years ago, but his testimony essentially ignores everything that has occurred in the field of operating system design over the past two decades. The Apple MacOS and Microsoft Windows and Sun Solaris all fall outside Mr. Farber's definition of an operating system, so it's hard to see what relevance his definition has in this case.
What Mr. Farber refuses to recognize is that the ongoing evolution of operating systems has delivered to consumers more powerful and full-featured products that are much easier to use. Such enhancements are often made possible by integrating new features and functionality into an operating system, making it a more capable platform for software developers and a giving it a better user interface for users. All types of Microsoft customers-including hardware manufac-turers, software devel-opers, content developers and users-have come to rely on the fact that Windows is a stable and consistent platform that will run large numbers of applications.
The popularity of Windows is strong evi-dence that nobody wants the sort of rudimentary operating systems Mr. Farber apparently prefers. Microsoft is very good listening to its customers and providing them with technology solutions that meet their needs. Mr. Farber might have preferred that Microsoft create a hobbled version of Windows that had only a small fraction of the useful features contained in Windows 98, but his opinion is not supported by Microsoft's millions of customers worldwide.
----------------------------------------------
Well, that has cleared everything. Now that everyone knows what an operating system is, go back and continue your discussion.
w/m
Yeah, that was von Neumann. I think the quote you're referring to comes from a time magazine article on him written by Nathan Myrhvold (top 20 inventors of the century or something), search for "godel" and stuff, you'll find it on time's site.
Ultimately, this is a controversial topic. Perhaps the strongest contender would be Konrad Zuse , who developed a programmable computer in the 1940s. Interesting first person notes from an inventor in Nazi germany.
In the ACM archives , there is a paper on "Monitors, an operating system structuring concept" by C.A.R Hoare. Since this is from 1974, I guess it's not too old, but still an interesting paper.
Many have been posting about OS/360 (or 390) but while MVS was a major step in OS history, it wasn't the first. It was released in 1964, too late for the first OS.
Also interesting is a time article on the first computer
All the old stuff is fun to read.
w/m
Yes, there are some thing which could be improved, but these are minor qualms.
The first thing that struck me was whom it was intended for. My guess is that the actual readership would probably break up as follows:
95% - linux enthusiasts & slashdot readers
2 % - windows supporters
2 % - people who are handed this doc by someone they know who's a linux enthusiast, and who actually read it.
1 % - others (PHBs, ordinary users, curious onlookers).
I can assure you no PHB is going to read a document which devotes an entire page to describing the doc, then goes on into copyright, structural layout of the document, etc. They lose interest after 3 lines (not kidding). What you would need is an executive summary at the top, followed by bullet points describing each myth and dispelling it, in order of myths most popular.
If the audience is to be your next door neighbor or friend who hasn't tried linux and heard these myths, I can just imagine their nonplused response. You see, people with a casual interest in something are not particularly interested in going thru minute analysis of propaganda battles. Imagine how interested you'd be if your bank handed you a brochure with a 20 page feature by feature comparison with its rival.
Newsflash - everyday users are as interested in detailed FUD analysis of OSes as you are in the FUD analysis of banks, tax strategies, hotels, etc. You just want to use it without thinking about it too much. This document is preaching to the choir.
If people shared our passion for debating windows vs. linux, they would already know all this stuff inside out. The whole thing is -1, redundant.
w/m
Yes I know you specified the "developed world". And I can show you how the US is near the top there, too. But it would take a while
Go for it.
That's an interesting assertion - especially since the governments of nearly all the current countries of Europe date from events surrounding World War II or later, and their current forms of government were heavily influnced by that of the US.
Govts. didn't appear out of thin air. They are founded on precedents from over centuries. Ever wonder why France and the UK have very similar govts. compared to Japan? It's because the methods and rules followed by a society are based on precedent. For example, divorce law in the US has a history that goes all the way back to ancient Roman law.
Switzerland is an anomaly. You gotta look at averages. A small fraction of dictatorships result in prosperous nations (eg, singapore) but the majority don't. Similarly, the US and Switzerland are only 2 developed countries w/ a high gun ownership, one of which has a positive record and one which ranks poorly in homicide rates and govt. brutality (that would be the US). The rest of the developed world has an excellent record on both counts and a near zero gun ownership rate in comparison. Look at the whole picture, I'm not convinced by exceptions.
w/m
nothing *ensures* liberty
No, there are many things that do. Obviously you'll never have a perfect society where everyone is singing songs and skipping happily. But a well established judiciary, free press, and a stable executive founded on democracy makes the difference between a free country and one where citizens don't have much freedom.
Don't take a binary view of "all or nothing". Different countries have different levels of individual freedom. The ones with a very good record are mostly nations following old european precedents (including the US), and 90% of them have no gun culture as a foundation of liberty. Have you wondered how they maintain a good record? And don't quote switzerland. The US and switzerland are 2 exceptions among dozens of nations like France, belgium, luxembourg, netherlands, denmark, iceland, finland, australia, new zealand, UK, portugal, etc. etc. which ensure liberty for its citizens. Ever wonder how they do it? (and don't quote some crap about them spying on your email. Like I said, it's never perfect, but developed democracies ensure liberty for their citizens, by any benchmark their present record is about the best in human history and better than the rest of the planet. Stay in the real world.)
And the revolutionary war was a tea party?
There are several revolutionary wars being fought across the world today, and they aren't tea parties either. That doesn't mean that they are the movements which first founded liberty as a generally followed principle of govt.
The rest of your comments are crap, so I won't bother answering. Hope you don't mind.
w/m
* If guns ensure liberty, why does the US have the highest gun ownership and the worst human rights record in the developed world?
:)
* Liberty wasn't first brought by pioneering Americans using guns. Liberty has a long history, starting with the Magna Carta.
* The US is just one of dozens of countries which are founded on liberty. Many of these have been free for centuries longer than the US, gun culture is not a part of these countries, and they have a historically BETTER implementation of liberty than the US. If you ask "when guns are gone, what is left to protect your freedom", I suggest you read a little background on how these countries have protected freedoms longer and better than the US.
* After the founding fathers wrote all those wonderful texts expounding liberty, they felt it fit to deny it to the MAJORITY of the US population (blacks+women > 50%). Next time you slavishly quote Jefferson, ask yourself whom you're impressing with a slave-owner's vision of human liberty.
* As for the US govt. turning your land into a nightmarish hell, go easy on the coffee, chill out, turn off the US media, and get a sound education.
* In the US, 51% of the population owns guns, and 40% of the population can't identify their country on the world map. Armed retards are good for population control, but bad at making logical arguments.
I remember reading the story. It made major headlines around the world. The student was just asking for directions, and this dude has just made up a long story, which some gullible moderators have thought fit to reward.
Even if you didn't know the facts, can't you tell from the tone and the fantasy material that it's fabricated? This is the kind of stuff that makes people lose faith in moderation.
And then spaketh the lord, "Let there be unix companies galore, each different from the other, so that the standards can multiply and compete amongst each other."
And the companies thus arose, and they fought each other, with various wondrous types of software, none of which worked with the other. And everyone saw that there was competition, and it was good.
Thus began the ten years of drought, when application developers moaned, "Wherefore am I to write my software? None shall buy it, for each is on his own little island, each separate from the rest." And Gates said to them, "Come to me, ye fools! And ye shall be happy, for all my denizens live under one roof. It leaketh sometimes, but ye shall earn gold selling yer stuff." And the developers all flocked to Gates, and the unix companies continued to fling dung at each other, and it was all as it had always been.
w/m
Yeah, the chicken+egg problem gets solved when a major vendor gets behind the software, but what I find odd is how it happens. I mean, linux has >20 million users, which is about 10% of the Windows installed base. Now, if you were a CEO, wouldn't you push your company to support it, thereby gaining 10% more customers and getting an edge over your slower competitors?
From the interview:
Then I started going out on the Net and searching for "Dell and Linux," "Optiplex and Linux" "Dimension and Linux," "Inspiron and Linux," "Precision and Linux," and Boom! You'd see hundreds of thousands of user who had figured out how to use our products with Linux, and we hadn't done anything to help those people either.
In reality, though, (and this is something I find very, very surprising) many/most hardware companies are far slower than Michael Dell at catching on. Recently, I bought a logitech cordless mouse, but only after a frustrating search to find out if it works for linux. Now, logitech could hire a couple of web developers to put that info on their site, and maybe get a couple of their programmers to test stuff for linux. Bingo. You're helping out 20+ million customers you weren't before. Why don't CEOs see this?
My guess is that Michael Dell is probably way ahead of the curve, since he actually bothered looking at the search queries, installing linux himself, etc. Maybe most CEOs wait for a Gartner analyst to draw pie charts and wait for their underlings to draft a business plan before they get the point. Any idea how this works?
(As an aside, it's very revealing that Michael Dell actually saw *hundreds of thousands* of customers helping each other out before the company even realised there were all these customers using Dell on linux. Is it any surprise people prefer looking for product info from other users instead of the "official" company site? )
w/m
Actually, the main point is whether people will actually consent to having it implanted. This is the kind of stuff that spawns mass hysteria, but in reality no company in the US can force employees to do it. There are also protective measures like lawsuits which can bankrupt companies that abuse technology or cause negligent harm (eg, GM had to pay millions for faulty tanks).
The main worry is not misuse in the US, since there is enormous media/public scrutiny. Technology like this in the hands of China/Burma/N.Korea or any of America's puppet dictatorships is the dream-come-true of totalitarian regimes, who can do whatever they want. Today, dictators are having a difficult time controlling people yearning for greater freedom and able to evade their rulers. It will be more difficult to avoid being tracked if you are a human cursor wandering around a screen on a govt. computer.
Not sure what kind of business plan this company has. Will American companies - wary of lawsuits - really implant thousands of their employees with a chip? Who will buy this thing?
OTOH, think of how much trouble China or Saudi Arabia is having tracking dissidents or people released from prison. Pop one in, and you can say 'Come to pappa' anytime you like.
w/m
Evolution has a very solid backing in scientic fact, and is accepted much like the theory of the sun being fueled by nuclear reaction. In both cases, nobody can recreate the experiment in a lab, but based on scientific studies and extrapolation, it's accepted as fact. In the latest scientific american, a german professor makes the remark that all educated people today accept evolution as a fact. (No offense, but are you a product of the American educational system? In most countries this is not even an issue, except among the functionally illiterate .)
After a theory undergoes considerable scrutiny, it becomes accepted fact, and scientists work on its finer points. This is the path taken by theories on the earth revolving around the sun, cardiovascular circulation, germs causing disease, etc. Proponents of these, incidentally, were furiously opposed by religious scholars and occasionally put to death.
You also need to understand a basic difference b/w evolution and creationism. Creationism has exactly as much evidence as my theory that the universe was created by drunken dung beetles. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Evolution has tons of evidence. If you don't know that, your education is to blame, not the theory.
w/m
Many people forget that almost every religion (except perhaps Buddhism) has a colorful story about the origin of the universe.
This brings up the question - why should only Christian theology be taught as an "alternative" to evolution? There is no particular reason why it should be the default creationism among the scores of religious theories.
Islam considers that the universe arose out of vapor, Hinduism posits an infinite recursive loop of creation and destruction, and a cherokee religion proposes that the universe was created by a water beetle.
I have no idea what the creation theories are in Zoroastrianism, shintoism, taoism, confucianism, animism, but I'm pretty sure they're wild and wonderful.
Of course, you might say that the majority of Kansas/american students are christian; but then, does the origin of the universe depend on the population % of your local area? that would be quite a theory indeed.
Since proponents of creationism say that kids should be taught both theories and allowed to decide for themselves, we could agree to teach creationism (of all religions). Let's give them the choice, dammit! So....a typical biology book would now have 30+ chapters to discuss creationism theories, and 1 to discuss evolution.(Many countries do this, but they teach them in a class on "World Religions" instead of "Science"; but nevermind, it's the same content, who cares what the class is called?).
Anyway, this brings up another question - why offer "alternatives to science" only on evolution? Since so many people believe creationism should be taught in schools in *science* class, why not teach the biblical concept of oceans and the earth as an alternative to geology (noah's boat and the parting of the red sea are guaranteed to be crowd pleasers in comparison with boring cross section charts of the earth)? Is there any reason why only evolution should be presented with an alternative? After all, nobody has gone to the center of the earth or the sun and REALLY proved what's there; they are merely theories speculated upon by scientists, and they often turn out to be wrong.
Can some proponent of creationism answer these questions? Thank you.
w/m
What exactly is the point of this story? That software companies should hug each other and sing teletubby songs while playing happy games?
/., which succeeded.
Of course companies are going to stab each other and fight it out. It's called capitalism.
In any case, I don't see any relevance to free software or open source, which basically seems the obligatory tag-on to get the story published on
As for back handed back stabbing, here's a newsflash - so long as it's legal, anything goes. That's how it's always been. Welcome to the real world.
And the cartoons weren't funny either.
w/m
So why aren't programmers enjoying such a high income in Europe and Asia?
You need to consider the whole scenario. It's far easier for a programmer to form an internet startup and earn money in the US than it is in Europe. And when they make a profit, they hire more programmers, which is why you enjoy a better standard of living.
This applies not just to startups, but to general software companies as well. Which is why they hired you. It's easier to do business in the US and hire skilled immigrants.
w/m
I found this quote to be funnier:
.Net to be one of the highest quality releases in Microsoft's history.
:)
Osborn: So, instead of a code completion date, we're looking at a "ready-to-go" date?
Goodhew: Yes, that's right. I think developers will find the release of Visual Studio
Hmmm....wonder if he'll remember saying that.
w/m
Regulation in the *operational use* of technology can be a bad thing. Let me give you an example. Some yrs ago the Belgian govt. implemented a tax on computers being used in offices ( the rationale being that they stole jobs people could do, thereby increasing unemployment). Companies had to put stickers on PCs indicating they had paid this tax, and a govt. inspector went around making sure they had done so, or fined them. (This was on ZDNN).
/. :)
when a govt. regulates operational or technical aspects of a company's business, it damages its ability to compete. Therefore, regulation should only be to prevent harm (eg, slave labor, environmental damage, privacy), not to ensure progress. Big difference between preventing bad things and ensuring good things.
Europe and Japan are *ahead* of us because they don't have all sorts of legacy cruft. All those new whizbang gadgets
These are dramatic exceptions which constitute a very small fraction of inventions/year. Yes, Japan comes out w/ gadgets, and Finland is ahead in mobile. But if you consider the technological-industrial economy as a *whole*, including pharmaceuticals, heavy machinery, electrical appliances, etc., US corporations are dominant in *most* sectors of the industrial economy. The reason for this is that when European companies invent something new and try to market it, they have to comply with far more regulations than American companies (like those stupid French labor laws about not being able to work >40 hrs, mandatory french media content, blah blah). This hampers their ability to compete, and thus they cede ground to US companies.
Just consider internet companies. The US promptly issued a 3 yr. ban on internet taxes to encourage silicon valley, and generally took a hands-off approach (except for senile right wing christian wackos with CDA). In contrast, French laws are being a major pain-in-the-ass for yahoo posting nazi material, Australian govt. is cracking down on internet taxation, and in general, European companies are finding it tougher to compete.
I mean, just take microsoft...they have the whole desktop market cornered. What great "innovation" have we seen
Microsoft is less than 5% of the software industry. I guess it makes for a convenient shooting post to prove practically any point on
In any case, vigorous competition in the OS arena before MS became a monopoly was better than the *govt* picking a standard OS and instituting a National Commission on Operating Systems to regulate its standards development. Surely you agree that letting OSes fight it out is the best approach? Obviously, you can't guarantee a good result each time. Which is why the DOJ is there.
"Pure" capitalism just replicates the "natural state" we try to avoid by government in the first place.
I didn't suggest pure capitalism. People seem to be incredibly binary re. govt. regulation - either they are against it heavily, or they are for it and hate capitalism. Sure, you need regulation on matters of environment, labor, etc., but NOT on *technical standards*. Let the companies fight it out and the best one win.
w/m
It's a commonly made mistake. The Internet is an evolution of various standards/protocols.
The world wide web, OTOH, is a specific protocol specifically invented by one person.
Read this Time magazine article which describes this in greater detail, and explains why he made their top 20 inventors of the century list.
"Unlike so many of the inventions that have
moved the world, this one truly was the work
of one man. Thomas Edison got credit for the
light bulb, but he had dozens of people in his
lab working on it. William Shockley may have
fathered the transistor, but two of his
research scientists actually built it. And if
there ever was a thing that was made by
committee, the Internet--with its protocols
and packet switching--is it. But the World
Wide Web is Berners-Lee's alone. He
designed it. He loosed it on the world. And
he more than anyone else has fought to keep
it open, nonproprietary and free. "
In Europe OTOH they're more used to being told what to do by more socialist governments
Govts. don't have a good reputation for knowing what they're talking about when they make decisions on technology. This pretty much explains why Europe lags behind the US in most technologies.
In almost every case, what you describe as a limitation (being unfettered by govt. regulation) is the key advantage that US business has over the rest of the world. This is indeed why the best minds flock to the US - so that they can do what they want in peace without some bureaucrat telling them what to do.
Of course, there are a few exceptions when the socialist model might seem to be advantageous, but not if you look at the big picture.
w/m
With globalization and cheap assembly farming, having an edge in hardware doesn't do much in the long run.
Nobody questions that the japanese have been really good at gadgets and electronics, but over the decades, the shift has been away from the hardware (which becomes a commodity) to the software, which is the key. Apps have been growing more intelligent and complex, and the software that drives them makes the difference. Both Europe and Asia have been far behind the US in software innovation. This is primarily cultural - teenage mavericks are celebrated in the US and viewed with alarm or contempt in traditional, bureaucratic societies like those of Europe or Japan.
When the industry is new, the focus is on who makes innovative, cheap devices. For example, in the early days of the PC industry, the debate was about the IBM clones and who would win the manufacturing marketshare. However, in hindsight, making PCs is a commodity industry, like bottling coke. The key industry became the software.
The handheld/mobile industry is very new, so people are worried about who is making the coolest gadgets, but it's what drives those gadgets that will count in the end. And for some reason, Americans are really good at software. The culture of non-conformity, lack of bureaucracy, unregulated teenage hackers running wild, spawns the most exciting stuff that comes out on the web.
the quality control and solid manufacturing base of Europe and Asia makes it good for hardware/electronics, not software. Kinda like a repeat of the PC era.
w/m.
Englebart's grand vision was a little too grand to actually implement using the technology of the time, so he never shipped anything useful.
He was a researcher, not a software or hardware manufacturer. Dude, it was a small team that did amazing stuff and lost its funding.
As for other people doing better stuff outside SRI, can you give some details when you make such claims? It's acknowledged by patent records and archives that they were the first in this field. You can't ignore better work going on outside when there isn't any. The big demo w/ mouse+GUI was done in Dec. 1968. It was funded by univ. and govt. money, and suffered the disadvantage of being too good for its time. The grant money was yanked coz nobody felt this was of any use (remember, at that time the big thing was spending $$$ on AI, since the holy grail was a thinking, talking computer. Making personal computers useful was considered pointless).
he was better at self-promotion and grandious claims than at inventing anything concrete.
Quite the reverse. He was so bad at promoting his stuff he lost funding. As for inventing something concrete - mouse, GUI, video conferencing, groupware. These are substantiated by historical records and experts in the field. What more do you want? Magic fairies?
It's really funny how people dismiss Woz, Engelbart, etc. as overrated for not doing anything recently, or not being more successful. Shipping mediocre products successfully isn't as important as groundbreaking innovation.
Here, look at the evidence.
w/m
He invented the mouse and GUI. In Triumph of the Nerds, mention is made of xerox parc, but Engelbart doesn't get credited for singlehandedly inventing much of what we use today - the mouse, hypertext help and linking, groupware, video conferencing, display editing, etc.
Cringely's documentary is considered such a classic (I taped it and told people to watch the show every time it was broadcast), and could have for once given Engelbart credit for changing computer technology.
Scroll thru and check out his inventions. Today, he lives in silicon valley and is unreconized by the millionaires who live off his achievements. Logitech has granted him some research space for inventing the mouse (yes, that thing). But nobody else seems to know of him.
Even though the documentary delved in such depth, why did it fail to include the man who made it all possible?
Even today, few people have heard of him, and it's such a tragedy.
w/m
People speak of "nvidia feeling sorry" or "nvidia doing this or that". There is no sentient entity called nvidia. It's a corporation. Sometimes they hire good PR people who slick things over, sometimes they hire morons. In this case, they hired a moron.
A corporation simply exists to make profits for its shareholders. Stop associating these touchy-feely qualities of niceness and morality with corporations. It's naive and silly.
Sure, sometimes companies donate to charity to improve their image, or sponsor sports and crap like that, but it's still the same thing. Ultimately, it's a big building with cubicles and paid PR people. Don't confuse a company with being good or bad. It's just there to make money. MS, oracle, Sun, napster - they're all there to make money, and they just bitch about justice and morality when it suits them.
Don't be so naive. Being loyal to a company or thinking it's ethical is as silly as like having feelings for your gas station. Even if the company happens to make software/hardware you like.
w/m