so this is what costs so much...
on
Home Improvement
·
· Score: 1
I have to say that whilst ppl's posts have generally been humourous (note the "u"), all that occured to me is the terrific amount of money that is sent in space projects, and how much of a waste of money it must be if astronauts have time to go constructing tables and other assorted "luxuries" for their time in space. Projects like these cost millions of pounds, but it appears that the astronauts must have so little to do that they have to occupy themselves in tasks such as these.
I have to disagree. Mr Majumder states that his life is now meaningless. I would like to suggest that this means his son means everything to him. Losing a child is a terrible thing to happen to anyone, and it is simply wrong to dissect and draw conclusions from what he says so soon after his son's death. If anything can be drawn from it, I suspect that he tried so hard to do everything possible for his son, not that he was strict and wanted his son to be perfect.
Granted, perhaps Shinjan was afraid of what his father would say, but wouldn't anyone be in the same situation, particularly given how much his father appears to have done for him. This is no fault of his father's whatsoever and I think it very harsh to put blame on his father for the tragedy. Pressure to do well is ultimately from yourself, and not your parents. His apparent extra curriclar success would indeed suggest that he had a self determination to do well. Suspension meant that he had failed, and had let himself down. He had not let his father down. You commit suicide for yourself, not for others. It is tragic in all circumstances, but I do not believe it arose from fear of his father finding out.
I'm always fond of the pure ridiculous nature of the Hitchhiker's books, which I first read when I was ten and found laugh-out-loud funny even though I didn't understand half of the jokes. Recently I came across his book "Last Chance to See" which I found both fascinating and typically humourous. I would highly recommend it to anyone who is a fan of Adams but only previously read the Hitchhikers.
I think you have a really harsh view on things to be honest- yes whilst infertility is of course part of nature, why if you are happy to stop disease, another part of nature, are you not happy to cure infertility? I'm not sure where I stand on genetic manipulation, but should it take place I do feel very strongly that it's unfair to discriminate on these grounds.
I don't think there is any difference in curing disease as to curing infertility. By curing disease you are also unnaturally increasing the population, and the average age of the population. I certainly do not think it is right to distinguish between disease and infertility.
It is also human nature to want to have children, and to want to reproduce- where would we be if this were not the case? Many people in solid relationships have problems with infertility, and it is unfair to say that they should not have the chance to have children because it's nature's way of limitting our population, when you suggest that diseases, for example downs syndrome, could be cured thus increasing our population.
I cannot agree that you can distinguish between infertility and disease- both are intended to keep our population under control. One is not more "natural" than the other, and so if genetic manipulation is to take place in order to overcome such problems, infertility should be treated alongside other genetic diseases equally.
I'm a 16yo school student, and after long and arduous calculations I've worked out I do 54 hours at school, excluding travelling and homework (which I never do so I'm not going to pretend I spend an extra three hours a day working on top of that). Of course we do have lunch (an hour) and breaks (totalling 45 minutes between the two) so it's not quite that much.
And all you guys do 40 hours a week! I thought school was meant to be the easy option...
it's not addiction, its simply a dual reality
on
Virtual Addiction
·
· Score: 1
I'm perhaps not your average slashdotter, being female, 16 and running doze (no... don't go, please read my post...!). But I'm the same as anyone else who is *addicted* to the internet. It takes over my studies, I miss it desperately when I'm not on a computer at school etc etc- all the classic symptoms. But I'm not going to bore you with that. I've just a few thoughts on the matter which I thought were worth sharing:
The internet and my computer, for me at least, is like a parallel life. This and *reality* don't always mix too well, but on the whole they're kept pretty separate. So I'm wondering why one life should be seen as an addiction, whilst the other one is just normal?
For normal people, it seems perfectly obvious to them that I'm a geek, I'm different and I live a different life to them- I'm known in my village as "dotcom", the girl who nobody has ever seen. But why should my second life be seen as an addiction? It's no more an addiction than a real life- people in the *real* world need to go out, go shopping, etc etc, and people don't view this behavious as addictive. What I offer as an idea is that the net should be seen as parallel to reality, and not something one becomes addicted to. One simply has two existences. One isn't an addiction- it's every bit as real as the normal life.
When I creep down at 3 in the morning because I can't sleep and need to see who's online, I shouldn't be made to feel that this need is any more addictive than normal people's need to find out the local gossip about Mr Brown up the road who has....etc etc.
Whilst I realise that perhaps the two worlds don't coincide terribly well, I don't think my internet life should be seen as an addiction whilst my real life is normal.
I'm pleased you've earnt lots of money but I didnt intend my post to be a complaint about my lack of money. I was trying to point out that an average family like my own does not need the latest hardware and computers. I know it seems kind of obvious and perhaps my post was saying the obvious, but I thought I'd point it out anyway.
Justifying my money situation, I am 15 and still at school, which incidentally is a boarding school and so I cannot work during term time. Asides from this, I'm doing twice as many subjects as is the norm for my age and so have inordinate amounts of prep to do. Holiday jobs are not easily available as I live in a really remote area with no public transport services, a mother who refuses to be my taxi, or a 6 mile bike ride to the most remote station where trains only stop once every two hours or so. Additionally I am female so farming isn't really up my street. However I just wanted to make clear that my post wasn't intended to be simply whining and moaning, and what I really meant to say, although I admit I put the point across badly, is that normal hardware is more than sufficient for the jobs which most people want to use computers for.
<P>How many times have I pleaded to my mother that we need a better computer, a larger hd, more memory? And how many times have I won? Never. I am a teenager living in a standard family of average wealth and one family computer. We run doze simply because my mother doesn't trust me to wreck the computer installing linux as I've seriously broken it so many times. I've suffered for 3 years with a P2, 233mhz computer with a measely 2gb hd. I can't afford an upgrade for anything at all, and so it is down to me to convince my parents that we <i>need</i> to get more memory, a bigger hd, a faster processor, a better graphics card etc. And surprisingly I have failed in all my pleas as computers do the jobs they are designed to do perfectly well.
<P>My family as a whole is perfectly happy with the computer as they can use it for invoices, school work, formal letters and the occasional email and online shop. There is nothing more they need to do on it, and it performs those tasks quite sufficiently. It is only really the power users that require the latest hardware, and these users are in the minority. Ordinary hardware does the ordinary jobs more than happily and there is no real need to get any better.
<P>My tale does have a slightly better ending- we managed to fry everything in my computer so now (after pushing the limits all I could) I have an AMD k6 500mhz with 64mb memory. Unfortunately I'm still stuck on doze and the 2gb hard drive, and I am left to only dream of when I can get my own linux box.
Cire has a very valid point- perhaps the police are targetting the wrong thing. From other posts the general consensus appears to be that even if laws were passed, they would be virtually inenforceable as the net has just grown too large and complex. So perhaps instead of targetting the users, if the servers and services were made with stricter security and patches made more available to the every day user, as opposed to the slightly more advanced user who understands how to carry out downloading patches etc, then the problems surrounding individual users could be more easily overcome. We cannot start to hunt for individual users until there is a much more efficient way of narrowing down the "suspects" and this can only be done by ensuring the safety of the servers and equipment which everone uses.
One could easily say the same of mail order catalogues- there is no reason to presume that they will be any better, and yet thousands of people use them with success every day. Part of the problems of online shops is the ideas surrounding them. As the internet is so well known for its freedom, the everyday user is extremely sceptical about the reputation of any online business whatsoever.
One only to do a simply search to come up with thousands of people trying to set up an online business, mostly without success. It's easy to see which have a reputable name after experience of visiting many websites. But the average shopper is not a hardcore geek who wants to spend hours online. There is a huge distrust of online shopping from the general public simply because it is so easy to be conned, give out credit card details and never hear from them again. It's the worry of this that is causing companies to fail.
Unfortunately the internet and internet businesses have had extremely bad press as far as security is concerned- far worse than any mail order catalogue company has suffered.
I am more than happy to buy clothes and books online whenever I can- I'm somewhat restricted being under 18 and therefore only having an english debit card not accepted by most of the sites from which I wish to buy. The return process should not be a problem- no more than mail order catalogues. It is the stigma surrounding internet businesses and the lack of trust created by bad press that has caused so many companies to fail. Naturally some should due to poor business plans and management, however many of the businesses which have plummeted and failed are due to the huge hype originally surrounding them followed by the disappointment of the public that it's not quite so easy and simple as "one click", coupled with the poor publicity concerning safety of credit card details being given over the net.
This is actually a very insightful post. It epitomises the aspects of technology which really are quite ridiculous- do I really need to have my house warm before I get home so that I dont have to wait 10 minutes for the heating to warm up? I can't see this being beneficial to society in any way. Whilst it seems quite nice to have light switches on and off, doors opening for you and other such luxuries, it surely can't lead to a good society.
General politeness would simply cease to exist as everything is done for you, and we become entrapped in a system where you are served upon by technology to such an extent that you become its slave. We are already today a complacent and lazy nation- microwave meals, slouching in front of the box, we expect everything to be there ready for us. Whilst it all seems very fun and trivial, the long term implications of living in a system completely controlled by computer extend far beyond the technology itself but into the nature of society itself.
I completely agree with this comment. It's useless simply flaming about which gui is best. So long as both continue to develop and advance then its up to you as a user to decide which suits your needs best.
<P>I am however very pleased to see the advancements made in the QT3, giving us an altogether better environment in which to work should we choose to adopt it. What is fundamental however is that we have a choice of what we use. It is this choice and flexibility which is so attractive in OSs like linux. We can choose from different distros, guis, softwares etc etc, and that is what is the fundamental difference between choosing an OS like linux or BSD over doze.
Whilst it is sensible to draw awareness to the issues of writing your own software under the employment of other people, the notion to never write software for your own purposes whilst under these conditions seems slightly too opinionated.
He does not really suggest any proper solution to the problem of writing your own software- don't do it for yourself, don't do it for the company you work for... one can only assume he expects us to all start our own companies. However the idea of a company is to join together a group of people so that (usually) a product is produced more effectively and quickly- it is a joint effort rather than one by yourself.
However his second point is against funding. How are we meant to start these companies of our own if we can't fund them? Unless we already have a large capital it is nearly impossible to start one's own business without it.
I understand that clearly what has happened is unfortunate, but the guidelines set seem somewhat irrational given the realities it is trying to overcome.
Whilst the criticism you have made is of course accurate, you have to bear in mind that the subtle nature of hacking would not easily be portrayed in a film, whereas the the more brutal but obvious thrill of cracking is easily portrayed in films. There simply isn't time in a standard length film to show to the average person (ie not a hacker) the difference between the two, and the excitement and ethics of hacking as opposed to cracking. If there is to be a decent plot, an audience will be more excited by the malicious nature of cracking as opposed to hacking which, not to sound too terrible, is an elitist pleasure.
I would like to further extend the fluke. Whilst all comments appear to fully justify their opinions with economics and predictions, the industry is simply still too young to be able to say for certain if there is a link between the two. There is nothing to suggest that free software would suffer in a boom, or do particularly well in a depression. I think it seems inappropriate at this young stage to make definitive links between the two.
<P>It is possible to say that as the general economy suffers, there is more need for free software. Equally even in a booming economy, a company will go for whichever option is best suited to its needs, which basic sums will tell us is the cheaper one.
<P>It is therefore simply impossible to create a correlation between the two without making ill-informed judgements.
<p>I would suggest that instead of waiting for companies to call you, go round and show people what you can offer them. You'll be amazed how easily a company will create a job if you are good enough to persuade them that they need you. Find a business you are interested in and ask them if they have any room for an additional star to their team.
<P>I know this is not amazingly tech-orientated advice but getting tech jobs is not a problem. Just show them you are available. If a company don't need you they'll most probably recommend you to another company and so on.
<P>Good luck anyway and I hope your search proves successful
With 533 comments now posted I doubt whether mine will make much difference, and my views will most probably have been stated somewhere else, nevertheless I find the concept interesting enough to write a reply to.
Whilst most posts appear to be based on how we would go about rebuilding computers, they seem to forget that as computers now have become a fundamental part of business, we would be able to possibly develop a whole new type of computer with these objectives in mind. Having had our first "trial run" , we know the capabilities of computers and technology in modern society. We also know where it runs into problems, and where it can be improved. The system now is in a messy mixture and it could be much more successful by a uniformity throughout in order to progress faster. Take on the "end part" of technology the problems now surrounding HTML, javascript, CSS, XML and all that. We had a post about two weeks ago about how they were trying to eliminate problems in this by encouraging people to use up to date codes specific only for newer browsers. Whilst I realise this point is on the very end part of technology- the programming behind web pages, as opposed to the hardware itself, I think the example could most probably be spread throughout the system.
Do we really need so many different ways to store data? Floppy disks are unreliable, CDs, DVDs, etc etc...
I realise I'm very much picking at small points. Basically I'm trying to say that things would not be "just as they were before". We would have the opportunity to take great steps forward as a result of the apparent catastrophe. It would not be a disaster. It would be a truly great opportunity for us to start again with the knowledge of how to progress.
And, I also think it would do us all some good! Computers and technology have taken over our lives, and perhaps it would be good to realise what life is like without them- both the good things and bad things of living with and without them. It's something we don't have the opportunity to truly assess, and something I think would be good for society as a whole, not only the heavy users of technology such as ourselves.
Without technology, our lives are pretty much turned upside down. But this might not be such a bad thing. It would give society as a whole a chance to reflect and see how they truly want their lives to be lead, how they want technology to dictate modern advances or otherwise. And just maybe I might go and do the maths degree I chose not to do because I went down this path instead...
I believe you view web advertisements in the wrong way. Yes ads brandish "click here" all over them, and for those that have them on their websites it does tend to be on a clicks for payment type method, however the basic principles between the two types are the same.
For example, take the ThinkGeek advertisement we see so often at the top of this very website. ThinkGeek have the reputation they now have in part due to the repetitive nature of their advertisement. We all recognise an advert by them, and whilst it will most probably not result in thinking "Oh I absolutely must buy that new coffee mug", its reputation as a fair and good company is enhanced by the continuity of advertisements. This equates to the same measures by which you measure television advertisements.
Granted some advertiments appear to be completely random to the page on which they are viewed, and these can only be looked down upon. Advertisments showing relevent information however must be viewed in as positive a light as any television commercials. We don't especially like them, no, but they are there nevertheless. Occasionally they prove useful, occasionally provide light entertainment, and at the very least give you just cause to moan about the speed of the page loading!
<parent>aww, never mind dear, we'll get you another one. comforts small child
At least it didn't go floating off, eh? What one would you like this time? Winnie the Pooh?
<child>sobbing I wanted that one
<parent>It was a complete rip off. It said it was "ultra long duration". And it was far too big. I don't know how we were meant to take it on the bus home being the size of a football field. Jolly impracticle altogether if you ask me...
<child>still sobbing Its not fair...
<parent>I'm sorry dear, I don't know what NASA were thinking by making it. How about a normal size one next time eh?
Nice to know Slashdot is right up there at the forefront of all tech news. 1995 and 1997...
Nah, I'm not complaining really. I wish they'd have set it out so it was slightly easier to follow if you were wishing to do it yourself. The way it is written in such a long essay form makes it almost impossible to extract the relevant bits of information. Yes it's nice to know why and how the various parts work, but perhaps the explanation should have come after the rough description of how to construct it.
Re:Can you Americans take anything seriously ?
on
Web-Based Comics
·
· Score: 1
Whilst I imagine many of your comments are along these lines from the nature of your nick and signature, I would have to say such a narrow minded viewpoint is not in any way helpful to promoting the ideas our British nation puts forward.
Granted, the concept of adults following a child's cartoon strip somewhat fanatically seems immature. However if you cannot generalise all cartoons to be written for children. Userfriendly for example is most certainly not directed at children. It is for the "hardcore geek", that is, you.
It seems a pity that a nation such as Great Britain is let down and classed as pompous due to persons such as yourself giving such a narrow minded viewpoint. Admittedly, I realise much of what you have to say is written with a dry sense of humour, however we have become a respected nation for our tolerance and acceptance of the "other person's point of view". Perhaps you should look beyond the first few links, and note that not all cartoons are for children. We ourselves have cartoons in the broadsheet newspapers. One surely cannot expect a five year old to understand a cartoon such as this one's political slant and humour.
Whilst I agree that the term "art" is misunderstood, I don't think this is a better definition. I know this sounds like flame, but code isn't art. Art is paintings and drawings and being creative. Don't get me wrong, code is creative, but it also follows fixed rules. Art is a reflection of how one feels, it is emotive and personal. Code is not. It is not a reflection of how one feels. It is an accomplishment of what one knows, and seeing a new way to get around a specific problem.
It is something I feel very strongly about, and I feel that those that call code an "art" are just too "up themselves" if you'll excuse the phase. Yes we might see it as "beautiful", in the same way as we might see some of the intricacies of maths as beautiful.
But under no circumstances can we call it to be on the same level as true arts like music. Yes, it does its job, it is beautiful, obviously we love it, we wouldn't do it otherwise, but it is no more art than the balance between inflation and interest rate! Code is not art, it is not a way of expressing yourself in the same way as Rachmaninov composing his piano concertos is. If you don't know it, go and download the slow movement of his second piano concerto, and this is art. No code in the world can compare.
We use the term "art" in the wrong sense completely. Yes, it is obviously open to interpretation, but I do truly believe you use it in the wrong sense. I am proud when I produce good code, I most probably would refer to it as a work of art, but I use it in the wrong sense of the word. Be proud of your work, yes, and admire others too, but don't be so short sighted as to call it "art". Admire it, find it beautiful, find it intriguing, perfect, serenely clear, whatever you like, but it is not art.
Sorry this is a bit off topic, but I don't think the analogy works. Everyone instantly fills up the cabs yes, but nobody actually buys an umbrella because they already have one at home, and are too stingy to go and buy a second one just because they forgot it. So maybe in fact it does work but not in the way they intended it to...
Slashdot Mirror
I have to say that whilst ppl's posts have generally been humourous (note the "u"), all that occured to me is the terrific amount of money that is sent in space projects, and how much of a waste of money it must be if astronauts have time to go constructing tables and other assorted "luxuries" for their time in space. Projects like these cost millions of pounds, but it appears that the astronauts must have so little to do that they have to occupy themselves in tasks such as these.
Granted, perhaps Shinjan was afraid of what his father would say, but wouldn't anyone be in the same situation, particularly given how much his father appears to have done for him. This is no fault of his father's whatsoever and I think it very harsh to put blame on his father for the tragedy. Pressure to do well is ultimately from yourself, and not your parents. His apparent extra curriclar success would indeed suggest that he had a self determination to do well. Suspension meant that he had failed, and had let himself down. He had not let his father down. You commit suicide for yourself, not for others. It is tragic in all circumstances, but I do not believe it arose from fear of his father finding out.
I'm always fond of the pure ridiculous nature of the Hitchhiker's books, which I first read when I was ten and found laugh-out-loud funny even though I didn't understand half of the jokes. Recently I came across his book "Last Chance to See" which I found both fascinating and typically humourous. I would highly recommend it to anyone who is a fan of Adams but only previously read the Hitchhikers.
This all links up quite nicely with the Karl Marx idea that "all property is theft". The concept speaks for itself.
I don't think there is any difference in curing disease as to curing infertility. By curing disease you are also unnaturally increasing the population, and the average age of the population. I certainly do not think it is right to distinguish between disease and infertility.
It is also human nature to want to have children, and to want to reproduce- where would we be if this were not the case? Many people in solid relationships have problems with infertility, and it is unfair to say that they should not have the chance to have children because it's nature's way of limitting our population, when you suggest that diseases, for example downs syndrome, could be cured thus increasing our population.
I cannot agree that you can distinguish between infertility and disease- both are intended to keep our population under control. One is not more "natural" than the other, and so if genetic manipulation is to take place in order to overcome such problems, infertility should be treated alongside other genetic diseases equally.
I'm a 16yo school student, and after long and arduous calculations I've worked out I do 54 hours at school, excluding travelling and homework (which I never do so I'm not going to pretend I spend an extra three hours a day working on top of that). Of course we do have lunch (an hour) and breaks (totalling 45 minutes between the two) so it's not quite that much.
And all you guys do 40 hours a week! I thought school was meant to be the easy option...
The internet and my computer, for me at least, is like a parallel life. This and *reality* don't always mix too well, but on the whole they're kept pretty separate. So I'm wondering why one life should be seen as an addiction, whilst the other one is just normal?
For normal people, it seems perfectly obvious to them that I'm a geek, I'm different and I live a different life to them- I'm known in my village as "dotcom", the girl who nobody has ever seen. But why should my second life be seen as an addiction? It's no more an addiction than a real life- people in the *real* world need to go out, go shopping, etc etc, and people don't view this behavious as addictive. What I offer as an idea is that the net should be seen as parallel to reality, and not something one becomes addicted to. One simply has two existences. One isn't an addiction- it's every bit as real as the normal life.
When I creep down at 3 in the morning because I can't sleep and need to see who's online, I shouldn't be made to feel that this need is any more addictive than normal people's need to find out the local gossip about Mr Brown up the road who has....etc etc.
Whilst I realise that perhaps the two worlds don't coincide terribly well, I don't think my internet life should be seen as an addiction whilst my real life is normal.
I'm pleased you've earnt lots of money but I didnt intend my post to be a complaint about my lack of money. I was trying to point out that an average family like my own does not need the latest hardware and computers. I know it seems kind of obvious and perhaps my post was saying the obvious, but I thought I'd point it out anyway.
Justifying my money situation, I am 15 and still at school, which incidentally is a boarding school and so I cannot work during term time. Asides from this, I'm doing twice as many subjects as is the norm for my age and so have inordinate amounts of prep to do. Holiday jobs are not easily available as I live in a really remote area with no public transport services, a mother who refuses to be my taxi, or a 6 mile bike ride to the most remote station where trains only stop once every two hours or so. Additionally I am female so farming isn't really up my street. However I just wanted to make clear that my post wasn't intended to be simply whining and moaning, and what I really meant to say, although I admit I put the point across badly, is that normal hardware is more than sufficient for the jobs which most people want to use computers for.
<P>How many times have I pleaded to my mother that we need a better computer, a larger hd, more memory? And how many times have I won? Never. I am a teenager living in a standard family of average wealth and one family computer. We run doze simply because my mother doesn't trust me to wreck the computer installing linux as I've seriously broken it so many times. I've suffered for 3 years with a P2, 233mhz computer with a measely 2gb hd. I can't afford an upgrade for anything at all, and so it is down to me to convince my parents that we <i>need</i> to get more memory, a bigger hd, a faster processor, a better graphics card etc. And surprisingly I have failed in all my pleas as computers do the jobs they are designed to do perfectly well.
<P>My family as a whole is perfectly happy with the computer as they can use it for invoices, school work, formal letters and the occasional email and online shop. There is nothing more they need to do on it, and it performs those tasks quite sufficiently. It is only really the power users that require the latest hardware, and these users are in the minority. Ordinary hardware does the ordinary jobs more than happily and there is no real need to get any better.
<P>My tale does have a slightly better ending- we managed to fry everything in my computer so now (after pushing the limits all I could) I have an AMD k6 500mhz with 64mb memory. Unfortunately I'm still stuck on doze and the 2gb hard drive, and I am left to only dream of when I can get my own linux box.
It's the link placings that really does it I think- over the word "huge" for example :)
Cire has a very valid point- perhaps the police are targetting the wrong thing. From other posts the general consensus appears to be that even if laws were passed, they would be virtually inenforceable as the net has just grown too large and complex. So perhaps instead of targetting the users, if the servers and services were made with stricter security and patches made more available to the every day user, as opposed to the slightly more advanced user who understands how to carry out downloading patches etc, then the problems surrounding individual users could be more easily overcome. We cannot start to hunt for individual users until there is a much more efficient way of narrowing down the "suspects" and this can only be done by ensuring the safety of the servers and equipment which everone uses.
One only to do a simply search to come up with thousands of people trying to set up an online business, mostly without success. It's easy to see which have a reputable name after experience of visiting many websites. But the average shopper is not a hardcore geek who wants to spend hours online. There is a huge distrust of online shopping from the general public simply because it is so easy to be conned, give out credit card details and never hear from them again. It's the worry of this that is causing companies to fail.
Unfortunately the internet and internet businesses have had extremely bad press as far as security is concerned- far worse than any mail order catalogue company has suffered.
I am more than happy to buy clothes and books online whenever I can- I'm somewhat restricted being under 18 and therefore only having an english debit card not accepted by most of the sites from which I wish to buy. The return process should not be a problem- no more than mail order catalogues. It is the stigma surrounding internet businesses and the lack of trust created by bad press that has caused so many companies to fail. Naturally some should due to poor business plans and management, however many of the businesses which have plummeted and failed are due to the huge hype originally surrounding them followed by the disappointment of the public that it's not quite so easy and simple as "one click", coupled with the poor publicity concerning safety of credit card details being given over the net.
General politeness would simply cease to exist as everything is done for you, and we become entrapped in a system where you are served upon by technology to such an extent that you become its slave. We are already today a complacent and lazy nation- microwave meals, slouching in front of the box, we expect everything to be there ready for us. Whilst it all seems very fun and trivial, the long term implications of living in a system completely controlled by computer extend far beyond the technology itself but into the nature of society itself.
I completely agree with this comment. It's useless simply flaming about which gui is best. So long as both continue to develop and advance then its up to you as a user to decide which suits your needs best.
<P>I am however very pleased to see the advancements made in the QT3, giving us an altogether better environment in which to work should we choose to adopt it. What is fundamental however is that we have a choice of what we use. It is this choice and flexibility which is so attractive in OSs like linux. We can choose from different distros, guis, softwares etc etc, and that is what is the fundamental difference between choosing an OS like linux or BSD over doze.
He does not really suggest any proper solution to the problem of writing your own software- don't do it for yourself, don't do it for the company you work for... one can only assume he expects us to all start our own companies. However the idea of a company is to join together a group of people so that (usually) a product is produced more effectively and quickly- it is a joint effort rather than one by yourself.
However his second point is against funding. How are we meant to start these companies of our own if we can't fund them? Unless we already have a large capital it is nearly impossible to start one's own business without it.
I understand that clearly what has happened is unfortunate, but the guidelines set seem somewhat irrational given the realities it is trying to overcome.
Whilst the criticism you have made is of course accurate, you have to bear in mind that the subtle nature of hacking would not easily be portrayed in a film, whereas the the more brutal but obvious thrill of cracking is easily portrayed in films. There simply isn't time in a standard length film to show to the average person (ie not a hacker) the difference between the two, and the excitement and ethics of hacking as opposed to cracking. If there is to be a decent plot, an audience will be more excited by the malicious nature of cracking as opposed to hacking which, not to sound too terrible, is an elitist pleasure.
I would like to further extend the fluke. Whilst all comments appear to fully justify their opinions with economics and predictions, the industry is simply still too young to be able to say for certain if there is a link between the two. There is nothing to suggest that free software would suffer in a boom, or do particularly well in a depression. I think it seems inappropriate at this young stage to make definitive links between the two.
<P>It is possible to say that as the general economy suffers, there is more need for free software. Equally even in a booming economy, a company will go for whichever option is best suited to its needs, which basic sums will tell us is the cheaper one.
<P>It is therefore simply impossible to create a correlation between the two without making ill-informed judgements.
<p>I would suggest that instead of waiting for companies to call you, go round and show people what you can offer them. You'll be amazed how easily a company will create a job if you are good enough to persuade them that they need you. Find a business you are interested in and ask them if they have any room for an additional star to their team.
<P>I know this is not amazingly tech-orientated advice but getting tech jobs is not a problem. Just show them you are available. If a company don't need you they'll most probably recommend you to another company and so on.
<P>Good luck anyway and I hope your search proves successful
With 533 comments now posted I doubt whether mine will make much difference, and my views will most probably have been stated somewhere else, nevertheless I find the concept interesting enough to write a reply to.
Whilst most posts appear to be based on how we would go about rebuilding computers, they seem to forget that as computers now have become a fundamental part of business, we would be able to possibly develop a whole new type of computer with these objectives in mind. Having had our first "trial run" , we know the capabilities of computers and technology in modern society. We also know where it runs into problems, and where it can be improved. The system now is in a messy mixture and it could be much more successful by a uniformity throughout in order to progress faster. Take on the "end part" of technology the problems now surrounding HTML, javascript, CSS, XML and all that. We had a post about two weeks ago about how they were trying to eliminate problems in this by encouraging people to use up to date codes specific only for newer browsers. Whilst I realise this point is on the very end part of technology- the programming behind web pages, as opposed to the hardware itself, I think the example could most probably be spread throughout the system.
Do we really need so many different ways to store data? Floppy disks are unreliable, CDs, DVDs, etc etc...
I realise I'm very much picking at small points. Basically I'm trying to say that things would not be "just as they were before". We would have the opportunity to take great steps forward as a result of the apparent catastrophe. It would not be a disaster. It would be a truly great opportunity for us to start again with the knowledge of how to progress.
And, I also think it would do us all some good! Computers and technology have taken over our lives, and perhaps it would be good to realise what life is like without them- both the good things and bad things of living with and without them. It's something we don't have the opportunity to truly assess, and something I think would be good for society as a whole, not only the heavy users of technology such as ourselves.
Without technology, our lives are pretty much turned upside down. But this might not be such a bad thing. It would give society as a whole a chance to reflect and see how they truly want their lives to be lead, how they want technology to dictate modern advances or otherwise. And just maybe I might go and do the maths degree I chose not to do because I went down this path instead...
For example, take the ThinkGeek advertisement we see so often at the top of this very website. ThinkGeek have the reputation they now have in part due to the repetitive nature of their advertisement. We all recognise an advert by them, and whilst it will most probably not result in thinking "Oh I absolutely must buy that new coffee mug", its reputation as a fair and good company is enhanced by the continuity of advertisements. This equates to the same measures by which you measure television advertisements.
Granted some advertiments appear to be completely random to the page on which they are viewed, and these can only be looked down upon. Advertisments showing relevent information however must be viewed in as positive a light as any television commercials. We don't especially like them, no, but they are there nevertheless. Occasionally they prove useful, occasionally provide light entertainment, and at the very least give you just cause to moan about the speed of the page loading!
<parent>aww, never mind dear, we'll get you another one. comforts small child At least it didn't go floating off, eh? What one would you like this time? Winnie the Pooh?
<child>sobbing I wanted that one
<parent>It was a complete rip off. It said it was "ultra long duration". And it was far too big. I don't know how we were meant to take it on the bus home being the size of a football field. Jolly impracticle altogether if you ask me...
<child>still sobbing Its not fair...
<parent>I'm sorry dear, I don't know what NASA were thinking by making it. How about a normal size one next time eh?
Nice to know Slashdot is right up there at the forefront of all tech news. 1995 and 1997... Nah, I'm not complaining really. I wish they'd have set it out so it was slightly easier to follow if you were wishing to do it yourself. The way it is written in such a long essay form makes it almost impossible to extract the relevant bits of information. Yes it's nice to know why and how the various parts work, but perhaps the explanation should have come after the rough description of how to construct it.
Granted, the concept of adults following a child's cartoon strip somewhat fanatically seems immature. However if you cannot generalise all cartoons to be written for children. Userfriendly for example is most certainly not directed at children. It is for the "hardcore geek", that is, you.
It seems a pity that a nation such as Great Britain is let down and classed as pompous due to persons such as yourself giving such a narrow minded viewpoint. Admittedly, I realise much of what you have to say is written with a dry sense of humour, however we have become a respected nation for our tolerance and acceptance of the "other person's point of view". Perhaps you should look beyond the first few links, and note that not all cartoons are for children. We ourselves have cartoons in the broadsheet newspapers. One surely cannot expect a five year old to understand a cartoon such as this one's political slant and humour.
It is something I feel very strongly about, and I feel that those that call code an "art" are just too "up themselves" if you'll excuse the phase. Yes we might see it as "beautiful", in the same way as we might see some of the intricacies of maths as beautiful.
But under no circumstances can we call it to be on the same level as true arts like music. Yes, it does its job, it is beautiful, obviously we love it, we wouldn't do it otherwise, but it is no more art than the balance between inflation and interest rate! Code is not art, it is not a way of expressing yourself in the same way as Rachmaninov composing his piano concertos is. If you don't know it, go and download the slow movement of his second piano concerto, and this is art. No code in the world can compare.
We use the term "art" in the wrong sense completely. Yes, it is obviously open to interpretation, but I do truly believe you use it in the wrong sense. I am proud when I produce good code, I most probably would refer to it as a work of art, but I use it in the wrong sense of the word. Be proud of your work, yes, and admire others too, but don't be so short sighted as to call it "art". Admire it, find it beautiful, find it intriguing, perfect, serenely clear, whatever you like, but it is not art.
Sorry this is a bit off topic, but I don't think the analogy works. Everyone instantly fills up the cabs yes, but nobody actually buys an umbrella because they already have one at home, and are too stingy to go and buy a second one just because they forgot it. So maybe in fact it does work but not in the way they intended it to...