I know I'll be modded down for saying this, but it need to be said anyway: Do we really want sys admins? We rely on sysadmins to keep networks running; to keep computers stable; to protect our data from the script kiddies. But shouldn't we able to do that ourselves?
I don't know about you, but I don't know want some "Big Brother" sysadmin staring over my shoulder. I don't want to have to rely on anyone else to protect my computer.
The Open Source movement has been trying to "take back" users' computers. We've been helping to ensure that users determine what runs on our computer, not some monolithic company like Microsoft or Red Hat. We want people to know how their computer runs and what makes it tick.
So doesn't that whole ideal conflict with the idea of sysadmins? Users should be able to be their own sysadmin; to take care of everything on a network without any outside assistance. If it's not easy enough for the masses to do it yet, we need to make it more accessible. Sure, sysadminning may seem boring and frustrating to someone who just writes e-mail notes to their friends -- but that's just because we've failed to make it easy and fun. Instead of using complicated CLI commands, we need a sysadmin GUI; maybe even a "Sammy the Sysadmin Seal" mascot to help guide novice users.
Sysadmins rely on their arcane knowledge of networking and operating systems to guarantee themselves a job. Let's not make everyone else suffer as a result. We should push to simplify networking and computing so that everyone can be their own sysadmin. I'm tired of having my abilities compromised so that Joe Linux Geek can have a job.
Let's not stop at taking back the computer. Let's take back the network.
Okay, I'll admit: I have really bad handwriting. I doubt any computer could recognize it, which is why I prefer to type on a keyboard. I simply couldn't use a "writing pad"-type controller. And what about people with physical or mental disorders? They definitely couldn't write; that's why they need a keyboard.
I'm sick of people using the name of "progress" to try to justify dictating what you can and can't do. Did we really need a GUI for DOS? Did we really need high-speed Internet access? No, and we don't need handwriting recognition either.
Apple, please keep the needs of all computer users in mind when designing your future notebooks. Some of us prefer to use a keyboard, or are physically / mentally unable to function without out.
Yay. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the entire international space station project is a dead-end project being put on as a public show. There's a lot of more useful things that we could be doing -- exploring other planets, trying to discover a faster means of interstellar travel, searching for artificial intelligence, etc. These advances bring important advances to civilization; they really mean progress. But do we really care about whether geraniums can grow in Zero G?
I mean, so we have an international space station. Big freakin' deal. We've had space stations before -- remember the Skylab disaster? Okay, so this one is "international". That's nice; I suppose this can be a wonderful, useless symbol of how the world can come together and cooperate on building crap.
Seriously, what are we going to do with an international space station? NASA and Gremorg (sp) can conduct experiments to put on a show for the public, but I just don't see any good coming out of the ISS. Sure, it's a good PR boost for the space program, but I bet landing humans on Mars would be an even bigger boost. Let's put our tax dollars to work for something besides NASA's $200 doorknobs.
Um, pardon my asking, but what in the world is a SuperDisk? Is it at all like a Zip disk, or is it just a really big hard drive? Would somebody mind clarifying this for the audiences keeping scoring at home.
Yeah, a lot of people have paid already... but that's because this is so highly publicized. The media is raising a big stink about how King is (gasp!) releasing a book for free. It was even in my local newspaper this morning. Now that Joe Schmoe knows about this, Fred Schmoe doesn't want to look bad by not paying -- otherwise when he's talking to Joe, he's going to have to admit that, hey, he didn't pay for Stephen King's book; he stole it.
But once this becomes commonplace, people are going to stop caring. Remember the shareware model? It worked great at first, earning lots of money for unknown software developers (had anyone heard of Apogee before DOOM?) until people realized that you could just get the stuff for free without registering it. Once everyone is reading King's book, Joe Schmoe will stop paying because it's too commonplace, too widespread.
Don't confuse Stephen King's book release with "open source." It's not an open source book; it's "shareware." We can't modify his book, distribute his book, or whatever. All we can do is read it for free and pay for it if we're honest (and how many Internet users really are?). And we all know what happened to shareware.
Thanks for the free book, Steve, but I don't think you're going to sell too many copies.
Doesn't anyone else think that this PDA craze is getting out of hand? Sure, it's neat to have information in a small, portable form, but do we want to be "connected" 24/7? Don't we want the ability to take a vacation instead of spending our week in Hawaii sending memos to the boss on our shiny new PDA while talking on a cellphone, waiting for our beeper to ring, and coding on a laptop?
I can think of some handy uses for a PDA -- if you were in an accident, for example, you could send a memo to the hospital. Or if you had to take notes during a meeting (but who goes to meeting these days?), you could jot them down on a PDA, assuming you could get it to recognize your handwriting. But who wants to have their address book, e-mail, pager, and ICQ attached to them, like some sort of crippling chain to their job? Unless your entire life revolves around computers and the Internet, I can't think of a reason why you'd want one of these things leeching away your free time.
This may be the Miniturization Age, but believe it or not, we don't need everything smaller and more pervasive. Throw that PDA away and take a vacation. See the world. Stop and smell the roses.
Pardon me for being a party-pooper, but I'm a bit worried about this situation. Do we really want some organization telling third-party developers how to achieve binary compatibility?
Remember, one of the reasons we all switched to Linux from Windows or MacO$ is that Linux doesn't force people to conform to a certian standard -- the way that "Compatible with MacOS" or "MCSE Certified" stickers do. If we start setting a standard for binary compatibility, everyone will start basing their Linux configurations on that standard. And then nobody will achieve commercial success without sticking to that standard.
I'm not trying to say that there's some "conspiracy" out there. I'm sure everyone has the OSS community's best interests at heart -- but the road to hell is lined with good plans. As soon as we introduce specific standards into the Linux community, even by suggestion, developers and retailers will end up adhering to them. No, they don't have to, but economics dictate that they will, or their products won't be able to compete with the "Linux Development Platform Approved" products. And then we end up locked into generic, formulaic garbage, just like Wintels and Macs are.
This reminds me of that graphics card that lets players "cheat."
3-D steroscopic vision sounds cool and all, but, unfortunately, it's still way too early to be used properly -- right now, the technology just doesn't suit home uses.
I had the misfortunate of trying on stereoscopic goggles once during a tour of a university computer lab I took back while I was in high school. As soon as I put them on, I became dizzy and nauseous, and my heart rate and blood pressure increased. The tour guide assured me it was just a passing sensation. What I think he really meant was a "passing out" sensation; I blacked out briefly and had to go to the hospital. Let me tell you, I'm never trying on stereoscopic goggles again.
Later, I looked into the causes of this, and the technicians told me it was due to the 3-D image not being "enveloping" enough; that is, the brain realizes that the vision isn't "real", but can't pick out the "real" part. So unless we're capable of creating completely realistic 3-D images -- and we aren't (yet) -- stereoscopic goggles can be dangerous to large sections of the population. Remember Nintendo's ill-fated Virtual Boy system? A lot of people went into seizures while playing a Pokémon game on it in Japan.
Let me warn you right now: stereoscopic vision is not the future. Stay far away from those damn goggles.
Privacy advocates are going to whine about this, but I think that more information is a step in the right direction -- after all, as the saying go, "data wants to be free." If people want to your address, they're entitled to do so. After all, that's just information, and no one should be able to own a "fact" like an address.
Now, you might argue that this is going to result in a lot of harassment, either from individuals (not too likely) or from spammers and business (likely). But the same argument used against gun control applies here too. If data is outlawed, only outlaws will have data. If everyone has access to information on everyone else's personal lives, nobody will actually make use of it for fear of repercussion. Is DoubleClick annoying you? Post information about the CEO's secret affairs and watch the media jump all over the company!
We can only fear data when it is not available to everyone. Privacy is not a "right"; it is an encumberment to freedom. You can't have both free data and privacy. And when it comes to down to the decision, data can only help us move forward. You can't say that about privacy.
It's frightening to see how paranoid people are these days, letting themselves get worked up over necessary development. The FBI is a law enforcement agency. They serve a necessary function: keeping society in order. Obviously, the FBI needs some kind of tools so that, when they have the proper reasons to, they can apprehend criminals. Carnivore is just one of those tools.
The Slashdoterati seem to favor stripping the FBI (and, presumably, other law enforcement agencies) of all its power. Sounds great, until you realize that this would be a field day for criminals. Everyone could h4x0r a box without fearing repercussion, companies would launch DDoS attacks against competitors, and terrorists would exchange bomb-making plans through the Internet.
Imagine if you removed that kind of power from real-world law enforcement agencies. Cops wouldn't be able to pull over speeders, unarmed SWAT teams would be gunned down by serial killers, and detectives would sit around picking their noses because it would be illegal to gather evidence. We have to hand over some kind of power to law enforcement agencies, or anyone can do anything that want. And then you have criminals running all over your street, dealing in drugs and shooting children.
Obviously, no wants their privacy trampled upon, and I'm not suggesting that the FBI be able to decrypt everyone's e-mail (you do use PGP, right?). But to suggest that the FBI not be allowed to take action when they have the mandate to is nothing short of anarchism.
Now, I agree that regional protection schemes are a poor idea, but isn't this basically cheating the DVDA? Like it or not, DVD manufacuters aren't allowed to make "region-free" DVD, and this is basically a complete reversal of the DVDA's rules. I don't think anyone on Slashdot can think of a legitimate reason for making region-encoded players (aside from getting the MPAA more $), but that doesn't mean manufacturers should go around flaunting their violations of the rules.
If you don't want to play the DVDA's rules, don't. Make your format that isn't DVD. If it's better than DVD, and offers more features, then it will catch on, and it'll beat DVD -- remember VHS versus Betamax? VHS was more popular. It won.
A better solution would be for all the companies and organizations with a grudge against the DVDA (like Apex) to band together and create their own, region-free format. That's the Open Source way.
The DVDA made its rules for making DVDs -- and nobody's forcing anybody to get in line and make DVDs. As Yoda says, "Do. Or do not. Or do not try. There is no 'try.'"
Hold on a second... this ISP is supposed to be non-profit? Then, especially given the current state of Australian Internet access, how do we know that is going to offer anything better?
Under the basic principles of capitalism, for-profit ISPs offer us the assurance of quality. There are many, many ISPs all competing these days, and for the most part, it's a level playing field. No ISP could risk offering a poorer package than its competitors, or all its customers would switch and run the ISP out of business -- this is why "pay per hour" plans died out so quickly. On the other hand, a non-profit ISP isn't out to make money, so why do they care what you think of them?
Now, given that Australia Internet is currently severely restricted by the Telus monopoly (which is, to be certain, idiotic), you might think that is still a improvement. But it seems to me like that this isn't much better -- sure, it might be non-profit, but if it doesn't have incentive to improve, you might wind up stuck using a ridiculously overpriced ISP with terrible customer service. And you know what? They won't care, because they don't want your money.
Not only that, but poor standards for Australian Internet access is only to going to lead to trouble down the line -- people begin to accept what they use as being "the standard", and are reluctant to demand something better. Why do you think people don't care about stuff like the Internet Millennium Copyright Act or M1cr05of7's monopolies? Even dictators can wield power over Third World countries, and no one cares. Because people are used to the way things are now, and don't see things the way they should be. Better isn't always good enough.
I know a question like this is probably old hat (or is that "red hat":P) to you Linux veterans, but as a long-time BeOS user, I've never quite understood why people insist on using static RAM. Everyone knows that the inside of a computer need to be cool and safe -- remember that incident where Pentium chips kept melting down? Static RAM is dangerous; it can't be relied on to not burn out when it really counts.
(Why is that? Everyone know that static energy is actually a form of electricity. And electricity produces heat when it moves, thus causing the interior of the computer case to heat up. See Jager et. al -- subscription required, sorry.)
You may laugh this off as excessive worrying, but this is a serious problem. I've overclocked a few chips, and they've all died pretty quickly -- and that was without static RAM. High-powered memory zapping around would kill the chip even more quickly. And what if that chip is powering some mission critical application like a space shuttle flight or an air traffic controller?
As explicity stated in the Bill of the Rights, the U.S. Patent Office is designed "to promote invention and science in the many States." If people can't make money if their work, they don't have much motivation to create -- remember, we live in a capitalist society, and people do have to make money somehow.
Would Rambus and Amazon.com have any reason to create new technologies if they wouldn't profit from them? If every other retailer immediately instituted One-Click Shopping, then what would have Amazon.com gained? Nothing!
So why do we so people rag on patents? Because they want to use that technology! People want to open-source stuff like Quicktime (and, more importantly, the Indeo codec) -- which would, of course, benefit them. There's nothing wrong with saying that it should be open-sourced, but you have to keep in mind that these people are acting in their own self-interest. They'd benefit from QuickTime being open-sourced, so of course they're going to be against the Indeo patent.
In other words, patents aren't bad. The people trashing patents are largely those who would benefit from claiming that technology for themselves. We have a word for this: JEALOUSY.
I'm getting worried about the sudden surge of the popularity of high-bandwidth connections. In the past year, a lot of mainstream consumers have switched from dial-up to cable or DSL -- high bandwidth isn't just for techies anymore. And the current Internet backbone infrastructure just isn't built up enough to handle all the DNS requests brought on by all these DSL users.
Remember back when DSL wasn't a buzzword like "B2B" and "total management solutions"? DSL lines were reserved for the people who actually needed and could make use of them!
Now, DSL is so popular than it's exceeded cable modems in terms of number of subscribers. I can't get even get my DSL line to function half the time, because there's so many Napster kiddies all bombarding the DSL lines with their w4r3z and MP3 downloads. If someone doesn't come up with a solution to this (I've heard about bandwidth prioritiziers -- maybe those can offer a solution), we're looking at severe Internet congestion. Remember that AOL lawsuit that erupted because consumers couldn't access AOL -- it was always too busy? Expect a lot more of those in the near future.
What's going to be the next refuge for the technological elite? I can't use DSL or cable anymore -- they've been taken over by the 12-year-old hoi polloi. So what's the next big thing going to be? Fiberoptics?
...or are all these emulators really unfair? I mean, Nintendo went to a lot of work to design the Game Boy hardware and all its upgrades (Pocket Game Boy, Game Boy Color, Dolphin), and there's a lot of R&D costs involved in that. Now, when other people start cloning that hardware immediately and producing viable alternatives to Nintendo's hardware, all that R&D is basically "lost". Other companies are making the money from the hardware sales, and Nintendo doesn't get to see any of the rewards. And why would Nintendo want to fund other companies' profit? This is what's known in economics as a "win/lose situation" -- one company loses, and all the other ones win because they ripped the first company off.
I'm not saying that competition is a bad thing. Of course we want to be able to buy our hardware from different vendors and be able to get the best value for our dollar. But the availability of emulators sure makes it hard for companies to justify any kind of innovation, when they know that everything they do will become available for free anyway. Do you want to be stuck with the same game console for the next 20 years because Nintendo, Sega, et. al. can't justify the costs in developing in a new console?
Of course the benchmarks aren't going to match up - there's simply no way to compare the capabilities of two different OSes. If you're running Program A - Windows 98 Version on a Win98 box and Program A - Linux Version on a Red Hat box, then you can't say the Win98 box is better than the Red Hat box, because they're not the same thing. One is a Windows box, and one is a Linux box.
Each operating system has its own strengths. For example, if I like Microsoft Outlook (for some strange reason), I'd use Windows. But if I like stability, I'd use Linux. For people who want the features that Joe Blow Operating System offers, Joe Blow Operating System is the best choice. And no amount of benchmarks can change that.
Let's stop trying to compare operating systems. Every operating system has its strengths and weaknesses, and subjective standards such as "ease of use" can't be measured through benchmarks. Until the majority of consumers choose Linux, there's no grounds for declaring it the "better" OS.
I'll probably get modded down for saying this, but before everyone jumps on the proverbial bandwagon and starts endorsing this idea, don't forget about the ecological issues involved. As we all know, short-sighted developers looking for cheap power have ravaged the Earth's ecosystem in so many ways; from spreading CFCs to burning precious fossil fuels.
True, the moon doesn't have life on it, like the Earth does. But it's still a unique environment, one unlike any other in the universe. (How many other planets can you think of with a single, large moon?) If we charge right onto the moon and try to exploit it, we could damage it as severely as we have the Earth. We never know what we might want to use the moon for in the future -- and disturbing its natural balance might ruin future plans.
Now, this might seem like just another "gloom and doom" prediction. But given all the talk of terraforming in other planets we've heard lately (putting trees on Mars, water on Europa, etc.), it's not too early to start thinking about the repercussions of these plans. Just like in Star Trek, shouldn't our goal be to seek out and explore (and adapt to) strange new worlds instead of pillaging them and warping them to suit our whims?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about you, but I don't know want some "Big Brother" sysadmin staring over my shoulder. I don't want to have to rely on anyone else to protect my computer.
The Open Source movement has been trying to "take back" users' computers. We've been helping to ensure that users determine what runs on our computer, not some monolithic company like Microsoft or Red Hat. We want people to know how their computer runs and what makes it tick.
So doesn't that whole ideal conflict with the idea of sysadmins? Users should be able to be their own sysadmin; to take care of everything on a network without any outside assistance. If it's not easy enough for the masses to do it yet, we need to make it more accessible. Sure, sysadminning may seem boring and frustrating to someone who just writes e-mail notes to their friends -- but that's just because we've failed to make it easy and fun. Instead of using complicated CLI commands, we need a sysadmin GUI; maybe even a "Sammy the Sysadmin Seal" mascot to help guide novice users.
Sysadmins rely on their arcane knowledge of networking and operating systems to guarantee themselves a job. Let's not make everyone else suffer as a result. We should push to simplify networking and computing so that everyone can be their own sysadmin. I'm tired of having my abilities compromised so that Joe Linux Geek can have a job.
Let's not stop at taking back the computer. Let's take back the network.
I'm sick of people using the name of "progress" to try to justify dictating what you can and can't do. Did we really need a GUI for DOS? Did we really need high-speed Internet access? No, and we don't need handwriting recognition either.
Apple, please keep the needs of all computer users in mind when designing your future notebooks. Some of us prefer to use a keyboard, or are physically / mentally unable to function without out.
- vl
I mean, so we have an international space station. Big freakin' deal. We've had space stations before -- remember the Skylab disaster? Okay, so this one is "international". That's nice; I suppose this can be a wonderful, useless symbol of how the world can come together and cooperate on building crap.
Seriously, what are we going to do with an international space station? NASA and Gremorg (sp) can conduct experiments to put on a show for the public, but I just don't see any good coming out of the ISS. Sure, it's a good PR boost for the space program, but I bet landing humans on Mars would be an even bigger boost. Let's put our tax dollars to work for something besides NASA's $200 doorknobs.
Um, pardon my asking, but what in the world is a SuperDisk? Is it at all like a Zip disk, or is it just a really big hard drive? Would somebody mind clarifying this for the audiences keeping scoring at home.
But once this becomes commonplace, people are going to stop caring. Remember the shareware model? It worked great at first, earning lots of money for unknown software developers (had anyone heard of Apogee before DOOM?) until people realized that you could just get the stuff for free without registering it. Once everyone is reading King's book, Joe Schmoe will stop paying because it's too commonplace, too widespread.
Don't confuse Stephen King's book release with "open source." It's not an open source book; it's "shareware." We can't modify his book, distribute his book, or whatever. All we can do is read it for free and pay for it if we're honest (and how many Internet users really are?). And we all know what happened to shareware.
Thanks for the free book, Steve, but I don't think you're going to sell too many copies.
I can think of some handy uses for a PDA -- if you were in an accident, for example, you could send a memo to the hospital. Or if you had to take notes during a meeting (but who goes to meeting these days?), you could jot them down on a PDA, assuming you could get it to recognize your handwriting. But who wants to have their address book, e-mail, pager, and ICQ attached to them, like some sort of crippling chain to their job? Unless your entire life revolves around computers and the Internet, I can't think of a reason why you'd want one of these things leeching away your free time.
This may be the Miniturization Age, but believe it or not, we don't need everything smaller and more pervasive. Throw that PDA away and take a vacation. See the world. Stop and smell the roses.
Remember, one of the reasons we all switched to Linux from Windows or MacO$ is that Linux doesn't force people to conform to a certian standard -- the way that "Compatible with MacOS" or "MCSE Certified" stickers do. If we start setting a standard for binary compatibility, everyone will start basing their Linux configurations on that standard. And then nobody will achieve commercial success without sticking to that standard.
I'm not trying to say that there's some "conspiracy" out there. I'm sure everyone has the OSS community's best interests at heart -- but the road to hell is lined with good plans. As soon as we introduce specific standards into the Linux community, even by suggestion, developers and retailers will end up adhering to them. No, they don't have to, but economics dictate that they will, or their products won't be able to compete with the "Linux Development Platform Approved" products. And then we end up locked into generic, formulaic garbage, just like Wintels and Macs are.
This reminds me of that graphics card that lets players "cheat."
I had the misfortunate of trying on stereoscopic goggles once during a tour of a university computer lab I took back while I was in high school. As soon as I put them on, I became dizzy and nauseous, and my heart rate and blood pressure increased. The tour guide assured me it was just a passing sensation. What I think he really meant was a "passing out" sensation; I blacked out briefly and had to go to the hospital. Let me tell you, I'm never trying on stereoscopic goggles again.
Later, I looked into the causes of this, and the technicians told me it was due to the 3-D image not being "enveloping" enough; that is, the brain realizes that the vision isn't "real", but can't pick out the "real" part. So unless we're capable of creating completely realistic 3-D images -- and we aren't (yet) -- stereoscopic goggles can be dangerous to large sections of the population. Remember Nintendo's ill-fated Virtual Boy system? A lot of people went into seizures while playing a Pokémon game on it in Japan.
Let me warn you right now: stereoscopic vision is not the future. Stay far away from those damn goggles.
...but I posted to it anyway :)
Now, you might argue that this is going to result in a lot of harassment, either from individuals (not too likely) or from spammers and business (likely). But the same argument used against gun control applies here too. If data is outlawed, only outlaws will have data. If everyone has access to information on everyone else's personal lives, nobody will actually make use of it for fear of repercussion. Is DoubleClick annoying you? Post information about the CEO's secret affairs and watch the media jump all over the company!
We can only fear data when it is not available to everyone. Privacy is not a "right"; it is an encumberment to freedom. You can't have both free data and privacy. And when it comes to down to the decision, data can only help us move forward. You can't say that about privacy.
The Slashdoterati seem to favor stripping the FBI (and, presumably, other law enforcement agencies) of all its power. Sounds great, until you realize that this would be a field day for criminals. Everyone could h4x0r a box without fearing repercussion, companies would launch DDoS attacks against competitors, and terrorists would exchange bomb-making plans through the Internet.
Imagine if you removed that kind of power from real-world law enforcement agencies. Cops wouldn't be able to pull over speeders, unarmed SWAT teams would be gunned down by serial killers, and detectives would sit around picking their noses because it would be illegal to gather evidence. We have to hand over some kind of power to law enforcement agencies, or anyone can do anything that want. And then you have criminals running all over your street, dealing in drugs and shooting children.
Obviously, no wants their privacy trampled upon, and I'm not suggesting that the FBI be able to decrypt everyone's e-mail (you do use PGP, right?). But to suggest that the FBI not be allowed to take action when they have the mandate to is nothing short of anarchism.
If you don't want to play the DVDA's rules, don't. Make your format that isn't DVD. If it's better than DVD, and offers more features, then it will catch on, and it'll beat DVD -- remember VHS versus Betamax? VHS was more popular. It won.
A better solution would be for all the companies and organizations with a grudge against the DVDA (like Apex) to band together and create their own, region-free format. That's the Open Source way.
The DVDA made its rules for making DVDs -- and nobody's forcing anybody to get in line and make DVDs. As Yoda says, "Do. Or do not. Or do not try. There is no 'try.'"
Under the basic principles of capitalism, for-profit ISPs offer us the assurance of quality. There are many, many ISPs all competing these days, and for the most part, it's a level playing field. No ISP could risk offering a poorer package than its competitors, or all its customers would switch and run the ISP out of business -- this is why "pay per hour" plans died out so quickly. On the other hand, a non-profit ISP isn't out to make money, so why do they care what you think of them?
Now, given that Australia Internet is currently severely restricted by the Telus monopoly (which is, to be certain, idiotic), you might think that is still a improvement. But it seems to me like that this isn't much better -- sure, it might be non-profit, but if it doesn't have incentive to improve, you might wind up stuck using a ridiculously overpriced ISP with terrible customer service. And you know what? They won't care, because they don't want your money.
Not only that, but poor standards for Australian Internet access is only to going to lead to trouble down the line -- people begin to accept what they use as being "the standard", and are reluctant to demand something better. Why do you think people don't care about stuff like the Internet Millennium Copyright Act or M1cr05of7's monopolies? Even dictators can wield power over Third World countries, and no one cares. Because people are used to the way things are now, and don't see things the way they should be. Better isn't always good enough.
(Why is that? Everyone know that static energy is actually a form of electricity. And electricity produces heat when it moves, thus causing the interior of the computer case to heat up. See Jager et. al -- subscription required, sorry.)
You may laugh this off as excessive worrying, but this is a serious problem. I've overclocked a few chips, and they've all died pretty quickly -- and that was without static RAM. High-powered memory zapping around would kill the chip even more quickly. And what if that chip is powering some mission critical application like a space shuttle flight or an air traffic controller?
Just my two cents,
- vl
Would Rambus and Amazon.com have any reason to create new technologies if they wouldn't profit from them? If every other retailer immediately instituted One-Click Shopping, then what would have Amazon.com gained? Nothing!
So why do we so people rag on patents? Because they want to use that technology! People want to open-source stuff like Quicktime (and, more importantly, the Indeo codec) -- which would, of course, benefit them. There's nothing wrong with saying that it should be open-sourced, but you have to keep in mind that these people are acting in their own self-interest. They'd benefit from QuickTime being open-sourced, so of course they're going to be against the Indeo patent.
In other words, patents aren't bad. The people trashing patents are largely those who would benefit from claiming that technology for themselves. We have a word for this: JEALOUSY.
Remember back when DSL wasn't a buzzword like "B2B" and "total management solutions"? DSL lines were reserved for the people who actually needed and could make use of them!
Now, DSL is so popular than it's exceeded cable modems in terms of number of subscribers. I can't get even get my DSL line to function half the time, because there's so many Napster kiddies all bombarding the DSL lines with their w4r3z and MP3 downloads. If someone doesn't come up with a solution to this (I've heard about bandwidth prioritiziers -- maybe those can offer a solution), we're looking at severe Internet congestion. Remember that AOL lawsuit that erupted because consumers couldn't access AOL -- it was always too busy? Expect a lot more of those in the near future.
What's going to be the next refuge for the technological elite? I can't use DSL or cable anymore -- they've been taken over by the 12-year-old hoi polloi. So what's the next big thing going to be? Fiberoptics?
I'm not saying that competition is a bad thing. Of course we want to be able to buy our hardware from different vendors and be able to get the best value for our dollar. But the availability of emulators sure makes it hard for companies to justify any kind of innovation, when they know that everything they do will become available for free anyway. Do you want to be stuck with the same game console for the next 20 years because Nintendo, Sega, et. al. can't justify the costs in developing in a new console?
Me neither.
Each operating system has its own strengths. For example, if I like Microsoft Outlook (for some strange reason), I'd use Windows. But if I like stability, I'd use Linux. For people who want the features that Joe Blow Operating System offers, Joe Blow Operating System is the best choice. And no amount of benchmarks can change that.
Let's stop trying to compare operating systems. Every operating system has its strengths and weaknesses, and subjective standards such as "ease of use" can't be measured through benchmarks. Until the majority of consumers choose Linux, there's no grounds for declaring it the "better" OS.
True, the moon doesn't have life on it, like the Earth does. But it's still a unique environment, one unlike any other in the universe. (How many other planets can you think of with a single, large moon?) If we charge right onto the moon and try to exploit it, we could damage it as severely as we have the Earth. We never know what we might want to use the moon for in the future -- and disturbing its natural balance might ruin future plans.
Now, this might seem like just another "gloom and doom" prediction. But given all the talk of terraforming in other planets we've heard lately (putting trees on Mars, water on Europa, etc.), it's not too early to start thinking about the repercussions of these plans. Just like in Star Trek, shouldn't our goal be to seek out and explore (and adapt to) strange new worlds instead of pillaging them and warping them to suit our whims?