NPR is getting the same way. About 6-9 months ago I heard a story on NPR about this very problem. The reason they had to do this was that the gov't cut spending for public broadcasting drastically (like, 50%, although I don't remember the actual numbers). What's really dumb is that it was only a few million dollars--less than the DoD spends on facial tissue.
However, there are two mitigating factors:
1) Ads on public broadcasting (TV or radio) still can't promote a product, just an entity (like the company, corporation, foundation, etc). So you might see ads like "WalMart--Promoting Consumerism Through Shoddy Products" but you won't see "WalMart--We've Put TeleTubby Action Figures On Sale". They have other guidelines about content, format, etc. That's why you got the "soft sell" impression.
2) The fact that I heard a story on NPR critical of NPR and its advertisers says that the public broadcasting system, whatever its faults, works way better than the private sector. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
I can't believe Linus allowed "sponsored by MP3.com" to be applied to the master source tree. I won't if he'd take a patch removing it... -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
The real issue is Microsoft's mis-prioritization of temporary marketshare and short-term profits over the usefulness of the software to the end user (which is the way to maximize profits long-term. cf DOJ v MS). -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Sure, an XML file would be easier to edit by hand and could be made to conform to a DTD. Heck, why even use XML? Why not straight ASCII? I don't give a flying fig how my docs are formatted, as long as they are accurate and complete.
But that's not your problem. There are plenty of proprietary file formats that don't have the problems that Office file formats have. The real issue is Microsoft's mis-prioritization of marketshare and profits over the usefulness of the software to the end user.
There is no (technical) reason in the world that the various versions of Word have to be mutually incompatible, nor is there any (technical) excuse for its touchiness regarding formatting. But one of these has business value (lock-in and upgrade treadmill effect) and the other has a business reason (feature bloat, poor documentation, etc).
So go ahead and create an XML word processor file format. But it won't go anywhere until the MS drones adopt it--which won't happen until MS does. Which won't happen until Office split off from MS (if then). -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
First, a big thank-you. You've made a lasting contribution to "our" culture (or should that be "culture"?)
I first read HGttG in my early teens. I doubled over laughing the whole time. I read and reread the entire series, bought both Dirk Gently books AND Last Chance to See. Loved them all and wouldn't trade having read them for anything. (btw, the first mental ward scene in Long Dark Teatime is a no-foolin', all-time classic.)
However, a few years ago I was talking to a (then) classmate. Very smart, philosophy-major type. He said (paraphrased) "I thought that HGttG was depressing. Such nihilism." At the time I thought "Hmmm...I didn't SEE a black beret on his head....". But every reading of the series since then his comment has struck me as more true--especially in the case of Arthur Dent. In fact, far from being funny, I now find Dent's character depressing--he's not just a loser, he literally has no control over his life at all (except in So Long for a while). And the control he does have does him no good (e.g. Earth is destroyed while he's trying to save his house.)
So my question is: When you were writing these books did you feel you were being gaily whimsical or did you instead feel frustrated and cynical? -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"I believe that [induction] works, and will probably continue to believe so until presented with evidence otherwise."
So you've generalized from a bunch of different cases where induction worked and decided that induction will always work? Congratulations, you've just provided an excellent example of "begging the question". You can't use induction to prove that induction is valid. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
2) Just because the planet CAN hold that many doesn't mean we'd want it to (I, for one, would like more than 700 calories/day)
3) The population increases because the birth rate is higher than the death rate. If the rate of population growth is slows (or "levels off"), that means one (or both) of two things has happened:
a) The death rate has risen to meet or exceed the birth rate (through famine, plague, war or euthanasia) b) The birth rate has fallen (through famine, plague or the efforts of ZPG)
Of the 5 unique causes above, only ZPG is at all to my taste. How about yours? -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Please take a "philosophy of science" class
on
Thus Spake Stallman
·
· Score: 1
You don't have any faith? Is that so?
So what PROOF can you offer that induction (which all of science is based on) is a valid method for the acquisition of new knowledge? What PROOF can you offer that your senses aren't being manipulated by Descarte's "evil genius"? None, because these things aren't provable.
Everyone has faith in some set of principles. One of the main differences between science and religion is that science tries to make this set as small as possible. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Omniscience is "all-knowing", end of story, no alternate meanings. Comprehension is "knowing what something means", therefore it is a kind of knowledge. Therefore, an omniscient diety also has full comprehension (they know everything AND they know what it all means).
I'm not saying such an entity exists, I'm just making an existing definition clear to those who clearly haven't read about it. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"The more people we have on the planet, the better."
Is this a troll?
So you are saying that 100 billion billion trillion people trying to live on Earth would be better than a mere 10 billion? There wouldn't be enough room within Earth's core to pack them in, let alone feed them.
And this isn't just a stupid example. It points out that, even if your "more workers" argument holds water (which it might not once AI becomes sufficiently powerful) it only works up to a point. And that point is where overpopulation becomes a problem. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Great interview! The change from biz-speak droids (like Augustin turned out to be) to speak-your-mind RMS is like a breath of fresh air.
Maybe I should mark the below as offtopic, but...
The problem isn't religious fundamentalism. It's religious fundamentalists. I have (and presumably RMS has) no problem with people who want to handle snakes, or whatever. The problem comes in when they try to force you to do the same. I assume RMS's comment was shorthand for this.
The other item was the end comment about atheism. "No being no matter how powerful can be certain about ethical matters." (emphasis mine and this was paraphrased.
I'm not a "believer". However, even I can see that if you define Entity E as "omniscient" then clearly they must be certain about ethical matters--by definition.
I wouldn't make such a big deal about a logical nicety, except that RMS seems to be basing arguments on this fallacy. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Go up to the blurb. Cut the part that says "Good job, Iowa". Paste it in a response to this comment.
I know the word "Iowa" appears in the blurb. My point is "why have we only heard about states that support UCITA and nothing about those opposed". And why, when it is mentioned, is it only in passing? -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Re:Rome wasn't burned in a day
on
Fighting UCITA
·
· Score: 2
People in America have computers,
True.
they need software for many reasons.
True.
This means there has to be a local software industry to supply their local specific needs.
How does that follow? I don't use software from "a local software industry". I use Free Software.
But even that is beside the point. You are saying that "the US software industry will not decline because it is currently making so much money". Terrible, terrible logic. At one point railroads made a lot of money too--have they declined? What about car makers? Computer hardware, for crying out loud. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Rome wasn't burned in a day
on
Fighting UCITA
·
· Score: 1
see subj -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
I guess Slashdot only cares about BAD news nowadays. What about a "Good job, Iowa!" for not only not passing UCITA, but actively trying to work against it? -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Again, I see a LOT of comments about "great, now we'll have a streamlined monopoly". Most of these arguments depend on an assumption of collusion between the Baby Bills. But I see no reasoning to back up this assumption.
Can ANYONE give me ANY reason why (and how) the Baby Bills could cooperate to continue the MS Monopoly into a Baby Bill Cartel?
Inconvenient facts you'll have to explain away:
1) As soon as Office is free of Windows, Linux will be a MAJOR draw for a porting effort. 2) As soon as the OS company doesn't need to keep the hidden APIs/changing features to force software adoption, all of these resource-hogging, stability-threatening items can go away--making other (standards compliant) software work a lot better. 3) The Feds will be looking over everyone's shoulder.
Remember, it's not enough to just say "MS is evil, therefore the Baby Bills will collude." -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
First of all, I'm not a "LISP person". I have no investment in it (meaning I didn't invent it, I don't use it, etc). However, I HAVE learned (the bare essentials of) Scheme and Guile, which are both LISP dialects.
LISP is very elegant. Because of the simplicity, it is an easy language to do proofs in (and for). Also, because "everything's a list", data and program are easy to merge, making things like AI much easier to do (for instance, you want to change a procedure on the fly and then pass it as data--no problem).
If you've never used LISP/Scheme/Guile, I suggest you try it--it's a great experience.
However, I agree with your main point: There's nothing special about using Emacs that makes a person a coding god (or vice versa). -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
I totally believed you were serious and sincere and then I got to the punchline "Stop anonymity now!" Classic! -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Yes. It doesn't matter how big the alleged perp is not how bad the alleged crime. The first step is ALWAYS "determine the facts". In this case, we need to determine:
Is the software Abit is distributing GPL'd (vs, say LGPL'd)? Has that software been modified? Is it being distributed publicly? What does Abit say to the above and about the situation in general?
Some of these questions probably already have answers. That's not the point. The point is: Did we ask them BEFORE starting an email "campaign"? -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
This guy wraps all his questions in "fully-qualified yada yada yada (hence AC)". Think about if for a second and you'll realize this is total nonsense.
Go back and read some other stories at -1 and you'll find him again. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
It's got MP3, color LCD screen, digital video, etc and it runs on a single 1.5V battery? I've heard ARMs were low wattage, but come on! How long is that battery expected to last?
Also, I note that by "weight" they have "225" (no units). I hope that's not pounds... -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Now we just need to get Garth Brooks to sue Napster. Then we'll have the 3 lamest "forms of music" all lined up like idiots trying to stuff a genie back in his bottle.
On the other hand, do country music listeners even know what 'nturnet is? -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Slashdot Mirror
NPR is getting the same way. About 6-9 months ago I heard a story on NPR about this very problem. The reason they had to do this was that the gov't cut spending for public broadcasting drastically (like, 50%, although I don't remember the actual numbers). What's really dumb is that it was only a few million dollars--less than the DoD spends on facial tissue.
However, there are two mitigating factors:
1) Ads on public broadcasting (TV or radio) still can't promote a product, just an entity (like the company, corporation, foundation, etc). So you might see ads like "WalMart--Promoting Consumerism Through Shoddy Products" but you won't see "WalMart--We've Put TeleTubby Action Figures On Sale". They have other guidelines about content, format, etc. That's why you got the "soft sell" impression.
2) The fact that I heard a story on NPR critical of NPR and its advertisers says that the public broadcasting system, whatever its faults, works way better than the private sector.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Whoops, my fingers got a little distracted...
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
I can't believe Linus allowed "sponsored by MP3.com" to be applied to the master source tree. I won't if he'd take a patch removing it...
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
What I probably should have said was:
The real issue is Microsoft's mis-prioritization of temporary marketshare and short-term profits over the usefulness of the software to the end user (which is the way to maximize profits long-term. cf DOJ v MS).
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Sure, an XML file would be easier to edit by hand and could be made to conform to a DTD. Heck, why even use XML? Why not straight ASCII? I don't give a flying fig how my docs are formatted, as long as they are accurate and complete.
But that's not your problem. There are plenty of proprietary file formats that don't have the problems that Office file formats have. The real issue is Microsoft's mis-prioritization of marketshare and profits over the usefulness of the software to the end user.
There is no (technical) reason in the world that the various versions of Word have to be mutually incompatible, nor is there any (technical) excuse for its touchiness regarding formatting. But one of these has business value (lock-in and upgrade treadmill effect) and the other has a business reason (feature bloat, poor documentation, etc).
So go ahead and create an XML word processor file format. But it won't go anywhere until the MS drones adopt it--which won't happen until MS does. Which won't happen until Office split off from MS (if then).
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
First, a big thank-you. You've made a lasting contribution to "our" culture (or should that be "culture"?)
I first read HGttG in my early teens. I doubled over laughing the whole time. I read and reread the entire series, bought both Dirk Gently books AND Last Chance to See. Loved them all and wouldn't trade having read them for anything. (btw, the first mental ward scene in Long Dark Teatime is a no-foolin', all-time classic.)
However, a few years ago I was talking to a (then) classmate. Very smart, philosophy-major type. He said (paraphrased) "I thought that HGttG was depressing. Such nihilism." At the time I thought "Hmmm...I didn't SEE a black beret on his head....". But every reading of the series since then his comment has struck me as more true--especially in the case of Arthur Dent. In fact, far from being funny, I now find Dent's character depressing--he's not just a loser, he literally has no control over his life at all (except in So Long for a while). And the control he does have does him no good (e.g. Earth is destroyed while he's trying to save his house.)
So my question is: When you were writing these books did you feel you were being gaily whimsical or did you instead feel frustrated and cynical?
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"I believe that [induction] works, and will probably continue to believe so until presented with evidence otherwise."
So you've generalized from a bunch of different cases where induction worked and decided that induction will always work? Congratulations, you've just provided an excellent example of "begging the question". You can't use induction to prove that induction is valid.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
1) Who are these "most demographers"?
2) Just because the planet CAN hold that many doesn't mean we'd want it to (I, for one, would like more than 700 calories/day)
3) The population increases because the birth rate is higher than the death rate. If the rate of population growth is slows (or "levels off"), that means one (or both) of two things has happened:
a) The death rate has risen to meet or exceed the birth rate (through famine, plague, war or euthanasia)
b) The birth rate has fallen (through famine, plague or the efforts of ZPG)
Of the 5 unique causes above, only ZPG is at all to my taste. How about yours?
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
You don't have any faith? Is that so?
So what PROOF can you offer that induction (which all of science is based on) is a valid method for the acquisition of new knowledge? What PROOF can you offer that your senses aren't being manipulated by Descarte's "evil genius"? None, because these things aren't provable.
Everyone has faith in some set of principles. One of the main differences between science and religion is that science tries to make this set as small as possible.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Omniscience is "all-knowing", end of story, no alternate meanings. Comprehension is "knowing what something means", therefore it is a kind of knowledge. Therefore, an omniscient diety also has full comprehension (they know everything AND they know what it all means).
I'm not saying such an entity exists, I'm just making an existing definition clear to those who clearly haven't read about it.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"The more people we have on the planet, the better."
Is this a troll?
So you are saying that 100 billion billion trillion people trying to live on Earth would be better than a mere 10 billion? There wouldn't be enough room within Earth's core to pack them in, let alone feed them.
And this isn't just a stupid example. It points out that, even if your "more workers" argument holds water (which it might not once AI becomes sufficiently powerful) it only works up to a point. And that point is where overpopulation becomes a problem.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Great interview! The change from biz-speak droids (like Augustin turned out to be) to speak-your-mind RMS is like a breath of fresh air.
Maybe I should mark the below as offtopic, but...
The problem isn't religious fundamentalism. It's religious fundamentalists. I have (and presumably RMS has) no problem with people who want to handle snakes, or whatever. The problem comes in when they try to force you to do the same. I assume RMS's comment was shorthand for this.
The other item was the end comment about atheism. "No being no matter how powerful can be certain about ethical matters." (emphasis mine and this was paraphrased.
I'm not a "believer". However, even I can see that if you define Entity E as "omniscient" then clearly they must be certain about ethical matters--by definition.
I wouldn't make such a big deal about a logical nicety, except that RMS seems to be basing arguments on this fallacy.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
I can't down load movies of Eros all over the Internet...
(only funny to those who know Greek)
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
For those of us who don't have a yen for learning exchange rates (ha ha):
Today 108 yen = 1 USD.
So 8000-9000 yen = $74-$83
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Go up to the blurb. Cut the part that says "Good job, Iowa". Paste it in a response to this comment.
I know the word "Iowa" appears in the blurb. My point is "why have we only heard about states that support UCITA and nothing about those opposed". And why, when it is mentioned, is it only in passing?
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
People in America have computers,
True.
they need software for many reasons.
True.
This means there has to be a local software industry to supply their local specific needs.
How does that follow? I don't use software from "a local software industry". I use Free Software.
But even that is beside the point. You are saying that "the US software industry will not decline because it is currently making so much money". Terrible, terrible logic. At one point railroads made a lot of money too--have they declined? What about car makers? Computer hardware, for crying out loud.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
see subj
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
I guess Slashdot only cares about BAD news nowadays. What about a "Good job, Iowa!" for not only not passing UCITA, but actively trying to work against it?
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Again, I see a LOT of comments about "great, now we'll have a streamlined monopoly". Most of these arguments depend on an assumption of collusion between the Baby Bills. But I see no reasoning to back up this assumption.
Can ANYONE give me ANY reason why (and how) the Baby Bills could cooperate to continue the MS Monopoly into a Baby Bill Cartel?
Inconvenient facts you'll have to explain away:
1) As soon as Office is free of Windows, Linux will be a MAJOR draw for a porting effort.
2) As soon as the OS company doesn't need to keep the hidden APIs/changing features to force software adoption, all of these resource-hogging, stability-threatening items can go away--making other (standards compliant) software work a lot better.
3) The Feds will be looking over everyone's shoulder.
Remember, it's not enough to just say "MS is evil, therefore the Baby Bills will collude."
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
First of all, I'm not a "LISP person". I have no investment in it (meaning I didn't invent it, I don't use it, etc). However, I HAVE learned (the bare essentials of) Scheme and Guile, which are both LISP dialects.
LISP is very elegant. Because of the simplicity, it is an easy language to do proofs in (and for). Also, because "everything's a list", data and program are easy to merge, making things like AI much easier to do (for instance, you want to change a procedure on the fly and then pass it as data--no problem).
If you've never used LISP/Scheme/Guile, I suggest you try it--it's a great experience.
However, I agree with your main point: There's nothing special about using Emacs that makes a person a coding god (or vice versa).
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
I totally believed you were serious and sincere and then I got to the punchline "Stop anonymity now!" Classic!
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
FascDot agreeing with Taco?? Can this be?
Yes. It doesn't matter how big the alleged perp is not how bad the alleged crime. The first step is ALWAYS "determine the facts". In this case, we need to determine:
Is the software Abit is distributing GPL'd (vs, say LGPL'd)?
Has that software been modified?
Is it being distributed publicly?
What does Abit say to the above and about the situation in general?
Some of these questions probably already have answers. That's not the point. The point is: Did we ask them BEFORE starting an email "campaign"?
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
This guy wraps all his questions in "fully-qualified yada yada yada (hence AC)". Think about if for a second and you'll realize this is total nonsense.
Go back and read some other stories at -1 and you'll find him again.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
It's got MP3, color LCD screen, digital video, etc and it runs on a single 1.5V battery? I've heard ARMs were low wattage, but come on! How long is that battery expected to last?
Also, I note that by "weight" they have "225" (no units). I hope that's not pounds...
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Now we just need to get Garth Brooks to sue Napster. Then we'll have the 3 lamest "forms of music" all lined up like idiots trying to stuff a genie back in his bottle.
On the other hand, do country music listeners even know what 'nturnet is?
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?