What about the genome?
In my more FUD/Luddite moments, I wonder what all or the radiation will do to society over time.
By the time you've got all of the electronics and wireless LAN crap installed, what is it _really_ doing to you?
Could it be that this technology will be to us as lead piping was to Rome?
Even if harmful long-term effects were demonstrated in enough studies, would it matter? <lights up a cigarette>;)
Stop, or I'll say 'stop' again...
I don't mind paying to keep Joe Satriani in guitars...and I guess these lawyers deserve to eat, too.
How can I pay Satch to keep jamming, feed the lawyers, and drop a MOAB on the RIAA? One good FLAB (Four Letter Acronym Bit) deserves another, right?
I don't think we'll have serious applications in bioware in the next decade.
The sequencing work done to date is phenomenal. Not trying to sell anyone short. However, the complexity when you move from the genome to the proteome can be fairly described as staggering, so I'm weighing in on the conservative side on this one.
I know of one APL user, and he's rather a fanatic.
I've heard it said that the APL people were too fanatic about the language definition purity and the licensing, and thus the language never reached 'academia escape velocity'.
Clearly, a wide-character language would require a GUI to take the pain out of the symbology.
Most data structures exist because of speed. For example, many languages today have both strings and lists. Semantically, strings are more or less a subset of lists in which the elements are characters. So why do you need a separate data type? You don't, really. Strings only exist for efficiency.
Your tool should fit the problem. The remark about nails and hammers applies.
A better question might be, what sort of problems do we anticipate tackling in 100 years, and what sort of languages might support them?
The answer the following question is backwards compatibility, but let me ask anyway:
Why not use the greater symbol space of multi-byte characters to create a language from scratch that avoids some of the baroque syntax of current offerings (apologies to Larry)?
Far from it. Paid for an Athlon chip and motherboard.
Paid for a (student) MSDN Universal subscription. Microsoft cures a lot of issues, while arguably raising bigger ones.
As the market demands the capacity to mix products from various vendors, choice and quality improve, and cost migrates where it should, cartels notwithstanding.
The simplicity and transparent nature of Linux is great. The agony of trying to find a PCI NIC, driver and configuration that work with my cable modem belie an accusation of being too cheap to pay for stuff. Paying myself for the time involved, I could've dropped in a cutting-edge wireless setup. Guess I'm not a representative sample.
...continue to buy competing chips that conform to standardized pin-outs, and blow non-conforming hardware right the fsck off.
No whining about businesses trying to control markets through proprietary hardware and software. The logic for so doing is clear.
Just say 'no' to the proprietary pusher-man.
...be helped by this?
Understood, user choice certainly improves, but the benefits of a variety of different platforms are lost on the newbie.
The real benefactor of fragmentation in the Open Source community is Redmond...
My stuff is so Mickey-Mouse that, regardless of common sense, the intent of the framers of the Constitution, and Lawrence Lessig, I'm just going to have to buy enough legal artillery to keep it out of the public domain.
The WordPerfect angle is interesting. I used to think it had some crazy keyboard gymnastics, until I tried emacs.;)
Props and an HB to RMS nevertheless...
But is there any parallel between the shift from
a) professional scribes and illiterate masses to
publishing and literate populations, and
b) the shift from Big Software and general users to Open Source and smarter users? Clearly, we're in the early stages (even though RMS started the thing decades ago). Probably take another couple of decades for the clouds to part, but you see where its going.
The Marxism charge is laughable. Making smart transactions is what America is all about. Starting a business, minimizing software licensing costs maximizes shareholder value. The millions of shares of MSFT in circulation, like an economic flywheel, will sustain his Majesty Satanic for a good time to come. But smarter money will keep BeelzeBill's vice grips off its naughty bits.
Thus, all claims that Open Source==Marxism should really read: Open Source threatens my revenue stream. Even further out in the ozone: does the fact that software fuels disintermediation imply that Big Software, itself, will be disintermediated? The apocalyptic (in the non-Perl sense), draconian mumblings about Longhorn might well underscore one aspect of Big Software's attempt to avoid disintermediation...
Good point. I suppose I'm thinking of the extreme ends of the individual verses the organization.
And, in a way, RMS is a good friend of capitalism.
His IT-socialist views are an immensely potent feedback signal driving the economic system.
OK, in the long run, Big IT specifically loses, but I think the economy as a whole benefits when code is like speech.
Wonder if there is a parallel between RMS's efforts and, say, early printers, who popularized books at the expense of the professional scribes...
Re:How many CIOs own Microsoft stock?
on
CIOs Looking At OSS
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Carry that a step further.
epiphany: market realizes OS software is the future. Critical mass required.
sell-off: NASDAQ chopped in half when Warren Buffet says: "Bill, I love to golf with you, but this is business".
market goes into Microsoft post-partum depression.
Could I afford a portfolio, I doubt there would be any Microsoft in there...
Like Ralph Nader and Jello Biafra. One need not like him to appreciate that every spectrum needs to have extreme ends.
Dunno how he calls himself an atheist on stallman.org. Clearly worships his ideas...
You're right.
I like the Stroustrup point that 'proof by analogy is fraud'.
The idea is that every technology shift has leading and lagging groups.
A little lag is good, so we don't adopt bogus ones willy-nilly,
but too often the laggers turn to underhanded means to prolong their living-on-borrowed-time existence.
You raise an excellent QA point.
Could become some major FUD, though, Elmer.
You figure that your first outing or two might well have some flaws, and are certainly not ready for enterprise usage.
So you get the hang of it on some little implementations before you go for a big one.
Sort of the way you start up a little software test project and make sure you understand all of the header, object, and API issues for that shiny new library you just got off of SourceForge before you try to integrate something new with what you're _really_ working on.
As a business strategy, FUD is great. If we can keep people convinced that they _can't_ do it themselves, they're more likely to hire us at phat consulting rates.
Steam propulsion will revolutionize the sea.
You can keep building your clipper ships; we'll admire that intersection of form and function for years to come, to be sure.
Ultimately, smart money will evacuate the market before it is crushed by better technology.
Dumb money will stand around whining, or, worse still for all, attempt to prop up its impotence with lawsuits.
Easy for me to say; it's not my career.
Nevertheless, let common sense and long-term planning be your guide.
Hogwash! The market deserves to die if it buys the stuff. Those making the purchasing decisions must hoist the middle finger. And don't say BeelzeBill made you buy it, either.
how long is it going to take for something on linux to do what installshield does on windows?
Put vital information in a byzantine binary database?
I grow to appreciate the unadorned simplicity of Linux more and more.
t0ny, you have a point in terms of the general user, but, for the power user, the "I've got a secret" installer is unappealing.
Slashdot Mirror
What about the genome? ;)
In my more FUD/Luddite moments, I wonder what all or the radiation will do to society over time.
By the time you've got all of the electronics and wireless LAN crap installed, what is it _really_ doing to you?
Could it be that this technology will be to us as lead piping was to Rome?
Even if harmful long-term effects were demonstrated in enough studies, would it matter? <lights up a cigarette>
Stop, or I'll say 'stop' again...
I don't mind paying to keep Joe Satriani in guitars...and I guess these lawyers deserve to eat, too.
How can I pay Satch to keep jamming, feed the lawyers, and drop a MOAB on the RIAA? One good FLAB (Four Letter Acronym Bit) deserves another, right?
I don't think we'll have serious applications in bioware in the next decade.
The sequencing work done to date is phenomenal. Not trying to sell anyone short. However, the complexity when you move from the genome to the proteome can be fairly described as staggering, so I'm weighing in on the conservative side on this one.
ingest? No, not hungry.
You very, very ducked up man!
is fraud, but consider that the genes are really instruments in an orchestra pit, merely supporting the symphony of life.
/.ers could be so kind as to reply with the name of the establishment...
Those surprised at the low number of instruments ought to study the problem a bit.
There is a bar in Maastricht, Netherlands with the following motto on the wall (in Dutch):
"Suddenly I realized just how complex the situation really was."
Perhaps one of the continental
I know of one APL user, and he's rather a fanatic.
I've heard it said that the APL people were too fanatic about the language definition purity and the licensing, and thus the language never reached 'academia escape velocity'.
Clearly, a wide-character language would require a GUI to take the pain out of the symbology.
VisualJavaC++.Net# v6.0 Premium XP Gold
Your tool should fit the problem. The remark about nails and hammers applies.
A better question might be, what sort of problems do we anticipate tackling in 100 years, and what sort of languages might support them?
The answer the following question is backwards compatibility, but let me ask anyway:
Why not use the greater symbol space of multi-byte characters to create a language from scratch that avoids some of the baroque syntax of current offerings (apologies to Larry)?
Far from it. Paid for an Athlon chip and motherboard.
Paid for a (student) MSDN Universal subscription. Microsoft cures a lot of issues, while arguably raising bigger ones.
As the market demands the capacity to mix products from various vendors, choice and quality improve, and cost migrates where it should, cartels notwithstanding.
The simplicity and transparent nature of Linux is great. The agony of trying to find a PCI NIC, driver and configuration that work with my cable modem belie an accusation of being too cheap to pay for stuff.
Paying myself for the time involved, I could've dropped in a cutting-edge wireless setup. Guess I'm not a representative sample.
...continue to buy competing chips that conform to standardized pin-outs, and blow non-conforming hardware right the fsck off.
No whining about businesses trying to control markets through proprietary hardware and software. The logic for so doing is clear.
Just say 'no' to the proprietary pusher-man.
...be helped by this?
Understood, user choice certainly improves, but the benefits of a variety of different platforms are lost on the newbie.
The real benefactor of fragmentation in the Open Source community is Redmond...
My stuff is so Mickey-Mouse that, regardless of common sense, the intent of the framers of the Constitution, and Lawrence Lessig, I'm just going to have to buy enough legal artillery to keep it out of the public domain. ;)
The WordPerfect angle is interesting. I used to think it had some crazy keyboard gymnastics, until I tried emacs.
Props and an HB to RMS nevertheless...
You could be next...
But is there any parallel between the shift from
a) professional scribes and illiterate masses to
publishing and literate populations, and
b) the shift from Big Software and general users to Open Source and smarter users?
Clearly, we're in the early stages (even though RMS started the thing decades ago).
Probably take another couple of decades for the clouds to part, but you see where its going.
The Marxism charge is laughable. Making smart transactions is what America is all about.
Starting a business, minimizing software licensing costs maximizes shareholder value.
The millions of shares of MSFT in circulation, like an economic flywheel, will sustain his Majesty Satanic for a good time to come.
But smarter money will keep BeelzeBill's vice grips off its naughty bits.
Thus, all claims that Open Source==Marxism should really read: Open Source threatens my revenue stream.
Even further out in the ozone: does the fact that software fuels disintermediation imply that Big Software, itself, will be disintermediated?
The apocalyptic (in the non-Perl sense), draconian mumblings about Longhorn might well underscore one aspect of Big Software's attempt to avoid disintermediation...
...the actor's guild on strike against beings that do not exist.
That will be a triumph of surreal/dada-ism.
Good point. I suppose I'm thinking of the extreme ends of the individual verses the organization.
And, in a way, RMS is a good friend of capitalism.
His IT-socialist views are an immensely potent feedback signal driving the economic system.
OK, in the long run, Big IT specifically loses, but I think the economy as a whole benefits when code is like speech.
Wonder if there is a parallel between RMS's efforts and, say, early printers, who popularized books at the expense of the professional scribes...
Could I afford a portfolio, I doubt there would be any Microsoft in there...
Like Ralph Nader and Jello Biafra. One need not like him to appreciate that every spectrum needs to have extreme ends.
Dunno how he calls himself an atheist on stallman.org. Clearly worships his ideas...
You're right.
I like the Stroustrup point that 'proof by analogy is fraud'.
The idea is that every technology shift has leading and lagging groups.
A little lag is good, so we don't adopt bogus ones willy-nilly,
but too often the laggers turn to underhanded means to prolong their living-on-borrowed-time existence.
You raise an excellent QA point.
Could become some major FUD, though, Elmer.
You figure that your first outing or two might well have some flaws, and are certainly not ready for enterprise usage.
So you get the hang of it on some little implementations before you go for a big one.
Sort of the way you start up a little software test project and make sure you understand all of
the header, object, and API issues for that shiny new library you just got off of SourceForge
before you try to integrate something new with what you're _really_ working on.
As a business strategy, FUD is great. If we can keep people convinced that they _can't_ do it themselves, they're more likely to hire us at phat consulting rates.
Steam propulsion will revolutionize the sea.
You can keep building your clipper ships; we'll admire that intersection of form and function for years to come, to be sure.
Ultimately, smart money will evacuate the market before it is crushed by better technology.
Dumb money will stand around whining, or, worse still for all, attempt to prop up its impotence with lawsuits.
Easy for me to say; it's not my career.
Nevertheless, let common sense and long-term planning be your guide.
Hogwash! The market deserves to die if it buys the stuff.
Those making the purchasing decisions must hoist the middle finger.
And don't say BeelzeBill made you buy it, either.
how long is it going to take for something on linux to do what installshield does on windows?
Put vital information in a byzantine binary database?
I grow to appreciate the unadorned simplicity of Linux more and more.
t0ny, you have a point in terms of the general user, but, for the power user, the "I've got a secret" installer is unappealing.
You're right, but there is a tension between the subjective for you and the objective most ethical .
You clearly frame the real-world question.
Nevertheless, the human mind is capable of rationalizing anything <insert historical example here>.
What sort of feedback loop monitors the conscience?