Although IBM supports Linux, it is not really a Linux company. It is not publicising greatly its Linux capacity, probably because it does not have that great a Linux capacity anyway. IBM shall always primarily be a hardware company.
The Linux model is not a good vehicle for big business because the usenet model of support only works for a couple of dozen computers. We shall never see nationwide installations of Linux in the 10k + range until there is a very large Linux company.
Now, the only way we are going to get such a large Linux company that the corps feel they can trust to fix their problems is if Red Hat, SuSE, Caldera, Corel etc become one. Divided, they are small and weak. Together they are strong. I see this fate as being inevitable, anyway. It is the due process of capitalism. I expect that in ten years, after a struggle between these companies involving bankruptcies, mergers and hostile takeovers there shall emerge one true Linux company, if you like a MS of the Linux world, without quite the same stifling power. Only then will corps be able to make large scale deployments of Linux with the proper assurance and support.
Debian will survive, of course. It shall remain the hobbyists distro. But the commercial companies will be (and are) at each others throats.
The landline companies are unimportant. They have to compete with wireless, mobiles, satellite etc etc
The simple fact is that landlines won't exist in twenty years at all. Nowadays mobility is the key; landlines are clearly archaic. My generation her in Britain doesn't use land-lines at all - everyone has a mobile. They are cheaper and offer higher quality. When 3G liscences arrive, the competition will be annihilated.
I predict that companies such as Vodafone and Erikkson will control the infosphere in the future. They are the ones we should be watching, not 20th century corps like Verizon.
It seems clear that the power companies, who of course have a monopoloy, are not fulfilling their social duty to supply power to those who need it. Companies shouldn't need to build their own power stations to get power. It should be supplied as needed, and if there is not enough it should be imported. How can they demand these companies to reduce the usage the lifeblood of the ecocomy? This is very clearly wrong.
This is one of the few reasons I can be glad I live in a socialist country, I suppose. No one is going to cut off my electricity.
Please don't accuse me of trolling. I am merely raising legitamate concerns, IMO.
Besides, if what you say is true, why didn't MS just lay down the law to get what they want? Without MS, bugtrak is almost redundant. Surely they would jump at MS's whim?
I would guess that MS are using this as a cover for their real motives; to get rid of embarrassing bug reports;)
I can see your point, but I do have one quibble. The majority of hackers are ignorant kiddy types, who don't know the first thing about computers. The people you describe, who would be a threat, are all working as security specialists and making a fortune.
I bet 99% of hackers will be rendered impotent without information of this sort. Removing the source of their power should be a good move, shouldn't it?
Imagine how secure Fort Knox would be if nobody knew where it was.
This situation is similar. After all, nobody but Microsoft can fix the flaws, so whats the point of having people know about it? People will predictably respond in their superior way that SysAdmins need to know the security holes so that they can take them into account and defend against hackers. But the only way the hackers find out is by reading bugtrak!
I honestly think the net effect will be improved security for the great majority of sites.
...for those opposed to the RIP act (in whose numbers I include myself, I hasten to add). The undoubtable fact is that the RIP act will reduce the exploitation of children, fraud, pornography, and more general crimes. So what does one say to the people that decry "You oppose the RIP act, so therefore you support pornography/child abuse/whatever" ?
How does one frame the argument that privacy is worth more than child abuse (to be provocative, for a moment) in a concincing manner to the supporters of RIP, who blather on about 'the children' at every opportunity?
The problem I have is that, Prima Facie, the argument for RIP is a lot more convincing than the argument against.
It seems to me that Malaysia has more legitamate concerns than whether it is online. Surley the most ignorant Malaysian buerocrat realises this?
So why are they taking this action? I would argue that they are being pressurised by the Western Capitalist Countries, especially Singapore and the USA.
It is well known that Singapore would like to be at the centre of a far Eastern e-commerce hub, and so is trying to 'develop' Malaysia, Borneo, Laos and other neighbouring countries.
The dictatorship of Singapore is backed by the USA, of course, and so yet again Human Rights abuses are occuring in the name of capitalism. I would like to see Malaysia left alone to focus its resources as it sees fit, on the poor and needy. Just because it has socialist leanings, this does not mean it is an enemy of the USA & Singapore.
This may seem controversial, I suppose, but I really felt it had to be said.
I estimate that the next big technological development will be the utilisation of organic tissues for our purposes. Why should we use rigid steel and iron, those overrated and inert substances, when we have the ultimate material to hand : flesh itself!
I think that in 100 years time, metal and stone will be dead. We shall be living in fleshy wombs, that can adapt to our every desire. The smell will be a problem, at first, but I'm sure that as a species, we can adapt.
We shall not need to worry about our rubbish or body waste. The house shall eat them as nutrition. This brave new paradigm awaits the bold.
I for one would like this book, for the reason that it is easier to read a typeset hardcopy than CRT text, or even printed text.
I find that half the usefulness of a book is derived from its readability when compared to other media. I could read this curled up in bed if I wanted to, and if I were that wierd. Usually I find better things to do in bed though...
This sets a bad precedent. The DoD is acting to prevent totally unjustified anxiety on the part of millions of Americans. I thought the function of Government Departments was to do what is right, not what people think is right.
In the long run, I think Thrird world countries will benefit from being tardy to take up the internet.Consider the experience of London in the 19th century, when it was the most technologically advanced city on Earth. It meant that it was the first city to deal with the associated problems - pollution, crime, sanitation, desease, transportation etc City's that came after, such as New York, were able to learn from the experience that London had already encountered, and plan accordingly. The problem with being a pioneer is that you don't have any examples to go on when you encounter problems.
Possibly Malaysia, which is I suppose a 'second world' country, will be able to use the lessons of the West to its advantage.
Possibly, as it does not have much of an infrastructure at the moment, when it does get one it will be modern and designed for the internet specifically, in the same way that London's street plan is 'designed' for Victorian times, and consequently Victorian levels of traffic, wheras Los Angeles was designed in the age of the car, and so is a much more pleasant place to drive a car in.
The Internet is like the shadows on the cave wall in Plato's Republic. The IOC would do well to relise this message from ancient Athens.
Why do I say this? Well, the shadows are cast by reality, and the watchers never get to see reality itself. So it is with the Internet - it, like an huge all-encompassing behemoth, is the shadow cast by reality. It knows no censorship, and cannot be curtailed. The IOC will have to deal with it.
And they will have to bring back the amateur spirit as well.
Back in the Eighties, I was a member of many computer clubs and user groups, usually specialising in 8 bit computers such as the Spectrum, of course. They were an excellent place to make friends and learn about computing.
Now though, I find that there are not nearly as many computing clubs to be found, at least where I live. Has the Internet sounded the death knell for computer clubs?
It would seem that old-fashioned face-to-face contact is somehow becoming unfashionable. The Internet does not provide an adequate replacement for physical socialising. I also suspect that the quality of work that gets done over the internet is of an inferior quality. This is to be expected though, given the lack of acceptable criticism that the Internet engenders. Criticism is usually dismissed as 'flaming' and is ignored. In real life such behaviour would be more muted, and would be responded to.
Hopefully, one day, people will realise that the Internet is not a panacea for all of societys Ills, and is not a replacement for society. I hope to see the rise of computer clubs again one day.
Surely each of your examples is a step toward immortality? The problem with improving ourselves in this way is that our culture becomes more & more dead the longer we live. We already have difficulties with the great proportion of our population that is old.
If everyone lived for, say, 400 years, where would the sweeping wind of change come from? Imagine if Elizabeth I were still on the throne and that the entire establishment were ancient - we would become moribund as a species.
To promote greater health is to promote death - the death of ideas and imagination.
The technology we have at the moment is perfectly adequate. It is our solemn duty not to try and live longer. Could someone tell the scientists, please?
It is attitudes such as these that allowed Hitler to gain power.
Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law. The only way to be happy is to do what you feel like doing and be damned to morallity and consequences.
I'm sure ol' Adolf would have agreed! This is Slashdot's dirty secret out in the open now. Libertarianism leads to Fascism - one is only a stones throw away from the other, despite appearances to the contrary.
Your combination of technofetishism and fascism repulses me, although I imagine the average Slashdotter finds it quite attractive.
Were we made less "human" when Jenner worked on smallpox?
I would argue that we were, but just a little. The vaccine that Jenner used came from cows. Many people of the time were shocked by this, and cartoons of the period show children with udders protruding from their stomachs. In the end though, Jenner won, and our morality suffered. Ever since that day we have been on a slippery slope to moral decay and decadence, and the ltest advances in medicine are taking us closer by the day.
We should not be comfortable as a species. Homo Sapiens Sapiens strives in adversity. To become an Ubermenschen, you must disdain the comforts of modern science, or forever be a slave.
I feel that science is increasingly attacking our identities as Human Beings. Advances such as these seem to attack the very basis of humanity. How long before they are grafting mouse ears onto humans? Or inserting foreign pig organs into our body?
I would say that we need to take a step back and consider very carefully what we are doing and what we wish to achieve. Surely advances such as these take something away from us? Most right thinking people don't wantto be immortal. The medical technology we have already is quite good enough, thank you, without sacrificing our ethics in our lust for immortality.
I would like to see this research kept on hold, until we can guarrantee that Human Beings will not have to sacrifice their morality to benefit.
Please don't exaggerate and distort my opinions. Also, I'd be grateful if you refrained from the insults, and also tried to develop a more light-hearted and humourous outlook on life.
Why would a Monarch have more or less impartiality/roundness of decision-making than an elected President with emergency powers?
I don't think that a Monarch is intrinsically superior or anything. But I do think that they attract much greater loyalty, especially from the people who count in these situations - the Army. I think that in the 1930's a Monarch would have been in a much stronger position than a President, for this reason.
Here in Britain, the Army is almost fanatically loyal to the Queen - much more so than the general populace. It's a tradition, and is just the way of the Army.
Speaking for myself, I've always found it rather creepy the way that the President of America is revered. This is from a British perspective of course, but it seems safer to have that kind of reverance reserved for the Queen, who does not exercise power. And then we treat the PM like shit;)
Of course, the American system works perfectly well, it just seems a bit odd. One interesting thing I saw a while ago regarded the statistics of succesful Governing systems around the world. Anyway, the American system was pretty awful, being disastrous everywhere it was implemented except for America itself. Problem was, the Presidents tended to get grandiose ideas and become tyrants, and as the army is loyal to them it's not easy to curtail. I think the parliamentary system was more succesful because it does not rely on a single 'strong man' at the top, or if it does he is more symbolic.
I wonder what the special ingredients are in America that make it succesful there?
1)Yes it would cause a disaster. That is why the only circumstances in which I can envisage the monarch refusing to sign a Bill would be exceptional ones. If the government decided to pass a law calling for the execution of everyone over 65, as an absurd example, I would expect the Queen to overrule it, and not only out of self-interest;) I'm not saying that the Queen should exercise power on a daily basis, merely that she is the ultimate barrier to dangerous laws and tyrants.
2)Not this time;)
4) I don't dislike the French and the Germans, I merely used them as an example of the unstable European system of governance. Yes, they did both have monarchies, but not constitutional parliamentary democracies - their Royal Families actually held and exercised power - a very bad idea - whereas in Britain Parliament has been supreme since Charles II, and achieved total dominance in the early 19th century. The French and Germans did not do this, and so they suffered.
Slashdot Mirror
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
Now, the only way we are going to get such a large Linux company that the corps feel they can trust to fix their problems is if Red Hat, SuSE, Caldera, Corel etc become one. Divided, they are small and weak. Together they are strong. I see this fate as being inevitable, anyway. It is the due process of capitalism. I expect that in ten years, after a struggle between these companies involving bankruptcies, mergers and hostile takeovers there shall emerge one true Linux company, if you like a MS of the Linux world, without quite the same stifling power. Only then will corps be able to make large scale deployments of Linux with the proper assurance and support.
Debian will survive, of course. It shall remain the hobbyists distro. But the commercial companies will be (and are) at each others throats.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
The simple fact is that landlines won't exist in twenty years at all. Nowadays mobility is the key; landlines are clearly archaic. My generation her in Britain doesn't use land-lines at all - everyone has a mobile. They are cheaper and offer higher quality. When 3G liscences arrive, the competition will be annihilated.
I predict that companies such as Vodafone and Erikkson will control the infosphere in the future. They are the ones we should be watching, not 20th century corps like Verizon.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
Anyway, I'm not here to start a socialism v Capitalism flamewar, that would just be *so* tiresome. Both systems have their weaknesses.
Companies cannot operate under the threat of power failure. Above all, they need stability.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
This is one of the few reasons I can be glad I live in a socialist country, I suppose. No one is going to cut off my electricity.
But every system has its drawbacks, I suppose.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
Besides, if what you say is true, why didn't MS just lay down the law to get what they want? Without MS, bugtrak is almost redundant. Surely they would jump at MS's whim?
I would guess that MS are using this as a cover for their real motives; to get rid of embarrassing bug reports ;)
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
I bet 99% of hackers will be rendered impotent without information of this sort. Removing the source of their power should be a good move, shouldn't it?
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
Imagine how secure Fort Knox would be if nobody knew where it was.
This situation is similar. After all, nobody but Microsoft can fix the flaws, so whats the point of having people know about it? People will predictably respond in their superior way that SysAdmins need to know the security holes so that they can take them into account and defend against hackers. But the only way the hackers find out is by reading bugtrak!
I honestly think the net effect will be improved security for the great majority of sites.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
How does one frame the argument that privacy is worth more than child abuse (to be provocative, for a moment) in a concincing manner to the supporters of RIP, who blather on about 'the children' at every opportunity?
The problem I have is that, Prima Facie, the argument for RIP is a lot more convincing than the argument against.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
So why are they taking this action? I would argue that they are being pressurised by the Western Capitalist Countries, especially Singapore and the USA.
It is well known that Singapore would like to be at the centre of a far Eastern e-commerce hub, and so is trying to 'develop' Malaysia, Borneo, Laos and other neighbouring countries.
The dictatorship of Singapore is backed by the USA, of course, and so yet again Human Rights abuses are occuring in the name of capitalism. I would like to see Malaysia left alone to focus its resources as it sees fit, on the poor and needy. Just because it has socialist leanings, this does not mean it is an enemy of the USA & Singapore.
This may seem controversial, I suppose, but I really felt it had to be said.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
I think that in 100 years time, metal and stone will be dead. We shall be living in fleshy wombs, that can adapt to our every desire. The smell will be a problem, at first, but I'm sure that as a species, we can adapt.
We shall not need to worry about our rubbish or body waste. The house shall eat them as nutrition. This brave new paradigm awaits the bold.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
I find that half the usefulness of a book is derived from its readability when compared to other media. I could read this curled up in bed if I wanted to, and if I were that wierd. Usually I find better things to do in bed though...
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
Possibly Malaysia, which is I suppose a 'second world' country, will be able to use the lessons of the West to its advantage.
Possibly, as it does not have much of an infrastructure at the moment, when it does get one it will be modern and designed for the internet specifically, in the same way that London's street plan is 'designed' for Victorian times, and consequently Victorian levels of traffic, wheras Los Angeles was designed in the age of the car, and so is a much more pleasant place to drive a car in.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
Why do I say this? Well, the shadows are cast by reality, and the watchers never get to see reality itself. So it is with the Internet - it, like an huge all-encompassing behemoth, is the shadow cast by reality. It knows no censorship, and cannot be curtailed. The IOC will have to deal with it.
And they will have to bring back the amateur spirit as well.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
Now though, I find that there are not nearly as many computing clubs to be found, at least where I live. Has the Internet sounded the death knell for computer clubs?
It would seem that old-fashioned face-to-face contact is somehow becoming unfashionable. The Internet does not provide an adequate replacement for physical socialising. I also suspect that the quality of work that gets done over the internet is of an inferior quality. This is to be expected though, given the lack of acceptable criticism that the Internet engenders. Criticism is usually dismissed as 'flaming' and is ignored. In real life such behaviour would be more muted, and would be responded to.
Hopefully, one day, people will realise that the Internet is not a panacea for all of societys Ills, and is not a replacement for society. I hope to see the rise of computer clubs again one day.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
If everyone lived for, say, 400 years, where would the sweeping wind of change come from? Imagine if Elizabeth I were still on the throne and that the entire establishment were ancient - we would become moribund as a species.
To promote greater health is to promote death - the death of ideas and imagination.
The technology we have at the moment is perfectly adequate. It is our solemn duty not to try and live longer. Could someone tell the scientists, please?
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law. The only way to be happy is to do what you feel like doing and be damned to morallity and consequences.
I'm sure ol' Adolf would have agreed! This is Slashdot's dirty secret out in the open now. Libertarianism leads to Fascism - one is only a stones throw away from the other, despite appearances to the contrary.
Your combination of technofetishism and fascism repulses me, although I imagine the average Slashdotter finds it quite attractive.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
I would argue that we were, but just a little. The vaccine that Jenner used came from cows. Many people of the time were shocked by this, and cartoons of the period show children with udders protruding from their stomachs. In the end though, Jenner won, and our morality suffered. Ever since that day we have been on a slippery slope to moral decay and decadence, and the ltest advances in medicine are taking us closer by the day.
We should not be comfortable as a species. Homo Sapiens Sapiens strives in adversity. To become an Ubermenschen, you must disdain the comforts of modern science, or forever be a slave.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
I would say that we need to take a step back and consider very carefully what we are doing and what we wish to achieve. Surely advances such as these take something away from us? Most right thinking people don't wantto be immortal. The medical technology we have already is quite good enough, thank you, without sacrificing our ethics in our lust for immortality.
I would like to see this research kept on hold, until we can guarrantee that Human Beings will not have to sacrifice their morality to benefit.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
Thank you for your apology. I also apologise for my rather snide reply to your earlier post.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
Thank You.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
I don't think that a Monarch is intrinsically superior or anything. But I do think that they attract much greater loyalty, especially from the people who count in these situations - the Army. I think that in the 1930's a Monarch would have been in a much stronger position than a President, for this reason.
Here in Britain, the Army is almost fanatically loyal to the Queen - much more so than the general populace. It's a tradition, and is just the way of the Army.
Speaking for myself, I've always found it rather creepy the way that the President of America is revered. This is from a British perspective of course, but it seems safer to have that kind of reverance reserved for the Queen, who does not exercise power. And then we treat the PM like shit ;)
Of course, the American system works perfectly well, it just seems a bit odd. One interesting thing I saw a while ago regarded the statistics of succesful Governing systems around the world. Anyway, the American system was pretty awful, being disastrous everywhere it was implemented except for America itself. Problem was, the Presidents tended to get grandiose ideas and become tyrants, and as the army is loyal to them it's not easy to curtail. I think the parliamentary system was more succesful because it does not rely on a single 'strong man' at the top, or if it does he is more symbolic.
I wonder what the special ingredients are in America that make it succesful there?
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
2)Not this time ;)
4) I don't dislike the French and the Germans, I merely used them as an example of the unstable European system of governance. Yes, they did both have monarchies, but not constitutional parliamentary democracies - their Royal Families actually held and exercised power - a very bad idea - whereas in Britain Parliament has been supreme since Charles II, and achieved total dominance in the early 19th century. The French and Germans did not do this, and so they suffered.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.