They should have the Battle Bot people outbid one another to have the privledge of cutting it up in the Battle Bot competition only a few blocks away on Machinery Hill.
Imagine that--the home-constructed battle bots competing to smash the butter PDA to bits. Butter everywhere, bots covered in butter, the fans covered in butter, the bots beating one another up.
Alas, I couldn't see anything at the Battle Bot competion because it was too crowded. Oh well.
Also, consult with professionals in psychological description (clinical psychologists, psychiatrists, personality psychologists, affective psychologists) on this topic.
I am a graduate student who specializes in psychological description and classification (or tries to at least!), and I can say that at least with regard to certain things, this markup language could be heading into dangerously foggy territory.
As I tried to note in a another post, if you're interested in the ML for virtual reality, whatever, fine. Figure out what those people need, and implement it. I know nothing about such things, but it would probably be useful and feasible.
However, if you're interested in this being something more broadly useful, say for psychological classification of actual human beings, realize that no one really agrees on any system of classification yet. The DSM, one of the most widely used systems for classifying psychopathology, has certain problems that I suspect will lead to changes in the next decade or so; it's a moving target not good for a standard markup language. Affective psychologists have more consensus, but not complete consensus. Personality psychologists don't have much of a consensus, except with regard to a few (but important) things.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that whatever you came up with probably would probably be rejected by much of the psychological community, unless you had them _heavily_ involved. Even if that were the case, however, it would probably still be rejected my large segments because the psychometric community doesn't currently agree on a lot of things--at least not enough to adopt a standard markup language.
Psychologists largely think in terms of specific measures or tests, and while you could develop XML for each test, I think you'd have a more difficult time talking about fundamental psychological characteristics.
In any case, if all you want to do is develop a good system of describing people for virtual reality, or games, or whatever, I still recommend consulting psychologists. It might be interesting and useful (e.g., I certainly wish the designers of the Sims had consulted a psychologist or read reviews before coming up with traits to use in the game! I would have really appreciated it, and it might have made for a more complex gaming experience.)
The last thing we need is some technology body reifying poor descriptive models of psychological state and trait.
One of the biggest problems right now in psychology is determining how to accurately describe psychological variation. There really currently isn't any system for describing human psychological variation that is consensually accepted by psychologists. The only exception to this is affective description, where most seem content to admit there are two orthogonal dimensions people can be described by, positivity and negativity, but even that isn't accepted by everyone (some prefer to prefer to describe affect by arousal and valence).
Any attempt to codify anything will probably have to be changed eventually if it's to be used by behavioral professionals. My guess is that the best thing for them to do is to over describe, provide more descriptors than is necessary.
I hope they really talk to experts on behavioral classification before they go forward with this. And I don't mean neuroscientists--I mean clinical psychologists and psychiatrists, personality psychologists, etc., those who specialize in phenotypic description. This could be really useful for a number of groups, but only if they do it right.
Of course, at this point, they can't, cause even the psychologists don't know what's going on. Anything that would be settled on right now would be rejected by huge segments. So maybe the best thing for them to do is to make their own markup language for virtual reality modeling or whatever, and leave the professionals to their own markup language when they're ready.
So what's my point? They're walking into a psychological quagmire. I hope they don't have too many ambitions for it.
I'm sorry, I don't know anything about game programming.
But I can't help making an association between discussions of cross-platform gaming and things I read on the Java/C++ postings a couple of days ago.
I number of individuals pointed out then that Java is increasingly being considered and used as a game programming language, that the speed on Java-programmed games is rather impressive. A number of individuals gave posts to stories about Java-programmed games: Java ports of Quake, Java interest by Id, a Java-coded FPS called Jamid which was played at Quakecon recently. They also pointed out Java versions of OpenGL and full-screen Java support in Java 1.4.
I'm very interested in the potential use of Java as a gaming language. Does anyone with experience know how likely it is that Java will used in the future? With Java-programmed games you get [practically] instant portability, after all.
It probably is true that action games require different areas of the brain than thinking games.
However, this does not mean:
(1) The frontal lobe isn't getting stimulated through other sources, like trying to figure out homework.
(2) Lack of stimulation through games is stunting development of frontal cortex. Nonsense.
(3) The frontal cortex is some monolithic structure responsible for abstract thought _and_ self control. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that different areas of the prefrontal cortex are differentially involved in problem solving, attention, and inhibition. Psychosis is related in some ways to frontal function. Does this mean Unreal is going to cause these kids to become schizophrenic? I don't think so!
This is one of the worst examples of totally misinterpreting results that I've ever seen. I don't know if it's coming from the researchers or Guardian, or what, but it's nonsense.
My reading of the marriage literature is that the marriage/divorce statistics are actually quite accurate, and mean what most think they mean.
Many would argue that the percent of marriages ending in divorce is what you want to know. Say you are getting married this year. Not knowing anything about your personal characteristics, what is the chance of your marriage ending in divorce?
Information about your personal/psychological characteristics will change that prediction. One factor increasing your risk is if you have had a divorce in the past. People who get one divorce are more likely to get other divorces. However, the number of multidivorcees, so to speak, isn't big enough to account for that much of the divorce rate.
What is more misleading in my mind, is a failure to emphasize that your risk of divorce changes somewhat dramatically with various characteristics. The risk of divorce is much lower in certain demographic groups, geographical regions, etc.
The other mischaracterization, I think, is how marriages ending in divorce end. Most marriages that end end within the first couple of years or so. That is, the divorce epidemic is not an epidemic of individuals being married for years, having kids, and divorcing, its an epidemic of individuals getting married and then divorcing six months later. That is, the epidemic isn't an epidemic of marriages ending per se, it's an epidemic of bad marriages starting.
Actually, the samples in a genetic algorithm don't have to be of functions: genetic algorithms are quite useful for solving any sort of combinatorial (?) problem--optimally sorting things into groups, etc. I'm not really as familiar with genetic programming, although it sounds fascinating. I've read in a few places that simulated annealing, MCMC, GA, evolutionary algorithms are all related in approaching optimization by sampling a solution space, so to speak--they just differ in their rules on how to create samples, how to shift in focus from one area of the space to another, etc. Thus, it seemed like they might be able to be treated in a unifed text.
I would really really like to see a text that treats algorithms such as markov chain monte carlo, simulated annealing, evolutionary algorithms, genetic algorithms, etc. in one volume. They all seem related in some way, and it would be nice to see a book treat them all comprehensively in a way that is still useful for application. Does anyone know of such a text? I guess maybe it's better to buy separate texts on each topic.
Doesn't the letter start out with something to the effect of "linking to something infringing on patent is the same infringing on patent"? Even if Dolby has some patent on some spec that's entirely legit, isn't linking to the page offering the unlicensed implementation a free speech issue?
E.g., I could link to it here in this slashdot post. Is that the same?
I really didn't get a chance to read much before I lost the connection and then couldn't get back. Sorry if this is completely offbase.
While we're discussing GNOME...
on
KDE 2.2 Tagged
·
· Score: 1
Where's the Mandrake 8.0 release of Ximian GNOME?
I really REALLY like Ximian GNOME, but have been waiting for the Mandrake 8.0 release to put it on my desktop.
Yes 95, will run on those machines, so might 98, but it's a bitch and a half to develop on those platforms. Try writing a perl script to iterate a numerical routine with long filenames and witness the horrifying spectacle that results. Try accessing console histories in 95 and 98. Those things aren't a problem in Linux.
W2000 represents a wonderful balance of UI and system power. What I wonder is if there is ever point at which UI and system complexity will balance out. Is it W2000? Will Win XP and later increase resource consumption for useless UI improvements? Will Linux with, e.g., KDE 3.0 have the same beautiful balance of power and UI ease of use as W2000? And at that point, will Linux have better performance? Windows has been playing system catchup, now Linux is playing UI catchup. Three years ago or so, I would have said Linux was better for development and performance-critical tasks. Now I might say W2000. Maybe the tide will turn again. Will there be a point at which they will be comparable in quality? And after that point, will MS add bloat to the point of being unusable? This is the history of MS, and the potential benefits of Linux the parent post was noting.
Damnit, all I want to do is develop numerical analysis routines easily in an environment without (1) worrying about ease of use and support and (2) without worrying about privacy, proprietary standards, and resource hogging. Is that such a problem? Why can't this OS crap get itself worked out? Why can't all these companies and organizations get together, go to a standards body, and release an ANSI/ISO/ECMA/whatever standard OS?
I have to agree that 00 is an improvement over 98, 95, etc. It's much easier to develop on, the increase in bloat isn't too extreme, it seems rather nice. A good balance.
I've played around with an XP beta, but not in any detail. It seems bloated and unecessarily memory-hungry. I've often wondered if XP is starting the Windows-quality-pendulum swinging the other way, and MS is off into crappiness in a whole 'nother direction, so to speak.
I'm very curious if three years from now, if I get over my increasing MS paranoia once again, I'll conclude that XP really is an improvement. This is what has happened for me in the past: I hesitated to upgrade from DOS to 95 because it seemed like unstable bloat, I hesitated to upgrade to 98 because it seemed like just bloat, I hesitated to upgrade to 2000 because it seemed like even more bloat. In all the cases I eventually upgraded, because after I had enough exposure to them, I decided there were justifiable increases in quality.
But will I think the same with XP? Or will this be the first time I think that the new OS really is just unecessary bloat? Will MS ever stabilize Windows?
I think this is the thing that scares me about MS--I don't know where they're headed, and I can't tell if the new product is for performance improvements or just revenue enhancement.
Can someone explain what will be the focus of the next round of court hearings--i.e., those that the Justice Department wanted to speed up?
Does this mean that splitting MS in two is off the table, or that the remedy merely has to be reconsidered from a blank slate, so to speak? If splitting is out of consideration, does anyone have any guess as to the other likely remedy options?
And what are the other aspects of the judge's decision that have to be reconsidered, according to CNN? Are they of any practical significance?
I suppose I could look for this somewhere, but I'm lazy and thought I'd ask in case someone already knew.
Does anyone know how e.g., IBM plans to approach C#/CLI? For example, are there plans on the part of IBM to create JIT compilers for the framework as they have with Java?
Is their name--"Mono". At least it's not G.NET or Portable.NET or Opensource.NET or Somethingelse.NET.
The name might seem like a lame reason, but to me it makes all the difference in the world..NET is a huge cloud of MS initiatives, some of which I am interested in, others of which I consider dangerous.
The choice of name, as far as I'm concerned, says a lot about the mission and mindset of a project. I'm much more interested in a project with a function goal than an emulation goal. "Mono", to me, would beg the question, "what are they trying to do"? X.NET would beg the question "how are they trying to copy.NET?"
Trying to emulate.NET as a vague entity, I believe, will fail.
Trying to emulate or provide alternatives to elements of the.NET initiative, on the other hand, might work well. A good open source CLI implementation, for example, seems great. So does a good authentication system. But trying to do everything at once in one project I have problems with.
Maybe I'm wrong here, and maybe I really don't know enough about the projects (I _know_ I don't know enough about the projects, actually). But I'd rather see one project trying to accomplish X, another trying to accomplish Y, etc. than one huge project trying to copy MSs latest vision of world domination.
I for one would like to see more discussion of C#/CLI as a development/language platform, and less discussion of how it might or might not further MS's monopolies into authentication.
Can we pretend for a moment that MS didn't release C#/CLI, that it was developed by Dr. X and his band of graduate students at the University of Y? Is it possible to have a discussion of how C#/CLI and Java compare as language platforms?
I would like to see a Slashdot discussion just on the merits of C#/CLI versus Java as technologies, in much the same vein as Perl/Python/Ruby.
Yes, I get the heeby-jeebies everytime I think about MS. But I would like to be able to evaluate the standards-submitted C#/CLI on its merits alone, at least briefly. At some level, if C#/CLI doesn't compare with Java, then we can all go home, or at least I can, because at some level, that's what matters.
I say we stop calling Mono.NET and start calling it Mono or a C#/CLI implementation.
.NET is a vague MS marketing term, and referring to Mono as.NET only adds to MSs advertising. It also associates C#/CLI with authentication services.
If C#/CLI standards are adopted, they're just that: standards. MS doesn't have to stand by the standard, but it will be there.
I for one think there's a lot to C#/CLI, and would like to see it compete as a technology. Referring to it as a.NET clone mires it in all this Passport crap that doesn't necessarily have to do anything with C#/CLI (although for MS, it does).
So what if C#/CLI standards are adopted, and MS ignores them? We might still one a hell of a platform without MS, and the truth is, we would never know if we didn't try. If C#/CLI standards aren't adopted, then there you go. Case closed, everyone go home.
It seems to me it's time we start talking about C#/CLI in a way that recognizes it could be different from the rest of MS's.NET plans.
However, while I have a fair amount of experience coding in perl, I have zero web programming experience per se. So I'm not sure I would be of much help. Maybe some, but not much in the nuts and bolts department.
I'd say I agree with the first three, and it all depends on the situation.
I often feel that, given the presence of a monopoly, open source is often in the public's best interest because it is frequently the only source of competition or alternatives. If you are the monopoly, open source is not necessarily in your best interest because it is your only competition.
Without a monopoly, or in areas where monopoly isn't as strong, an open-source source approach (creating open source, that is) might be in your interest as a business strategy because it affords certain benefits (no/low cost, encouraging widespread adoption, security, etc.).
If open-source advocates seem to change their position from time to time, it's because the situation changes from time to time and from area to area.
I often wonder what would happen if Microsoft's monopoly were nonexistent (e.g., Microsoft Office for Linux, BeOS, etc; much larger shares of Mac/Linux/others). I don't think open source would seem as crucial, because competition would, in fact, probably provide alternatives.
I think open source is always in the public interest. Whether it is always in business's interests depends on the economic climate and which business you are speaking of.
You're right. As some of the other posters have pointed out, you'd probably have to modify the existing code somewhat to scrutinize reputation or trustworthiness a bit more.
I like some of the suggestions that a certain group of individuals are granted immediate trustiworthiness and/or their identities are verified externally by some means. This "inner circle" has special moderation status--e.g., their votes are weighted more or some such thing. Unverified individuals can still moderate, but their votes weigh less, at least initially.
When I talk to colleagues about online publication archives or some such thing, the first thing they always say is "I don't always have time to filter everything myself". A modifed slashdot/k5 format might not be perfect, but it would solve the problems somewhat.
A second thing to keep in mind is that existing peer-review is far from perfect as it is! I've seen some pretty ridiculous reviews of papers that might as well been done by lay individuals.
Finally, meta-moderation might address some of your concerns. If a 15-yr old's posts are indistinguishable from those of real lawyers, and the real laywers think the 15-yr old is a lawyer, then either the laywers are a bit overrated in their abilities, or the 15-yr old is rather talented. The quality of the posts, after all, is what's important, not the source.
I've often wondered if it weren't possible to modify slash code or whatever kuro5hin uses to start an online web site.
If you think about it, kuro5hin's model is very similar to that of scientific publishing: peer-reviewed submissions. If you replace "news stories" with "papers" you get a peer-reviewed online journal. Make posts abstracts, include a link to html/ps/pdf forms of papers, and there you go.
Slashdot Mirror
They should have the Battle Bot people outbid one another to have the privledge of cutting it up in the Battle Bot competition only a few blocks away on Machinery Hill.
Imagine that--the home-constructed battle bots competing to smash the butter PDA to bits. Butter everywhere, bots covered in butter, the fans covered in butter, the bots beating one another up.
Alas, I couldn't see anything at the Battle Bot competion because it was too crowded. Oh well.
The MN state fair is so awesome...
Also, consult with professionals in psychological description (clinical psychologists, psychiatrists, personality psychologists, affective psychologists) on this topic.
I am a graduate student who specializes in psychological description and classification (or tries to at least!), and I can say that at least with regard to certain things, this markup language could be heading into dangerously foggy territory.
As I tried to note in a another post, if you're interested in the ML for virtual reality, whatever, fine. Figure out what those people need, and implement it. I know nothing about such things, but it would probably be useful and feasible.
However, if you're interested in this being something more broadly useful, say for psychological classification of actual human beings, realize that no one really agrees on any system of classification yet. The DSM, one of the most widely used systems for classifying psychopathology, has certain problems that I suspect will lead to changes in the next decade or so; it's a moving target not good for a standard markup language. Affective psychologists have more consensus, but not complete consensus. Personality psychologists don't have much of a consensus, except with regard to a few (but important) things.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that whatever you came up with probably would probably be rejected by much of the psychological community, unless you had them _heavily_ involved. Even if that were the case, however, it would probably still be rejected my large segments because the psychometric community doesn't currently agree on a lot of things--at least not enough to adopt a standard markup language.
Psychologists largely think in terms of specific measures or tests, and while you could develop XML for each test, I think you'd have a more difficult time talking about fundamental psychological characteristics.
In any case, if all you want to do is develop a good system of describing people for virtual reality, or games, or whatever, I still recommend consulting psychologists. It might be interesting and useful (e.g., I certainly wish the designers of the Sims had consulted a psychologist or read reviews before coming up with traits to use in the game! I would have really appreciated it, and it might have made for a more complex gaming experience.)
I'll stop ranting now and get back to work.
The last thing we need is some technology body reifying poor descriptive models of psychological state and trait.
One of the biggest problems right now in psychology is determining how to accurately describe psychological variation. There really currently isn't any system for describing human psychological variation that is consensually accepted by psychologists. The only exception to this is affective description, where most seem content to admit there are two orthogonal dimensions people can be described by, positivity and negativity, but even that isn't accepted by everyone (some prefer to prefer to describe affect by arousal and valence).
Any attempt to codify anything will probably have to be changed eventually if it's to be used by behavioral professionals. My guess is that the best thing for them to do is to over describe, provide more descriptors than is necessary.
I hope they really talk to experts on behavioral classification before they go forward with this. And I don't mean neuroscientists--I mean clinical psychologists and psychiatrists, personality psychologists, etc., those who specialize in phenotypic description. This could be really useful for a number of groups, but only if they do it right.
Of course, at this point, they can't, cause even the psychologists don't know what's going on. Anything that would be settled on right now would be rejected by huge segments. So maybe the best thing for them to do is to make their own markup language for virtual reality modeling or whatever, and leave the professionals to their own markup language when they're ready.
So what's my point? They're walking into a psychological quagmire. I hope they don't have too many ambitions for it.
I'm sorry, I don't know anything about game programming.
But I can't help making an association between discussions of cross-platform gaming and things I read on the Java/C++ postings a couple of days ago.
I number of individuals pointed out then that Java is increasingly being considered and used as a game programming language, that the speed on Java-programmed games is rather impressive. A number of individuals gave posts to stories about Java-programmed games: Java ports of Quake, Java interest by Id, a Java-coded FPS called Jamid which was played at Quakecon recently. They also pointed out Java versions of OpenGL and full-screen Java support in Java 1.4.
I'm very interested in the potential use of Java as a gaming language. Does anyone with experience know how likely it is that Java will used in the future? With Java-programmed games you get [practically] instant portability, after all.
It probably is true that action games require different areas of the brain than thinking games.
However, this does not mean:
(1) The frontal lobe isn't getting stimulated through other sources, like trying to figure out homework.
(2) Lack of stimulation through games is stunting development of frontal cortex. Nonsense.
(3) The frontal cortex is some monolithic structure responsible for abstract thought _and_ self control. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that different areas of the prefrontal cortex are differentially involved in problem solving, attention, and inhibition. Psychosis is related in some ways to frontal function. Does this mean Unreal is going to cause these kids to become schizophrenic? I don't think so!
This is one of the worst examples of totally misinterpreting results that I've ever seen. I don't know if it's coming from the researchers or Guardian, or what, but it's nonsense.
I've been wondering about this, and I'm not so sure Java will even stay out of the "optimized stuff" for long, either. E.g., COLT JavaNumerics
My reading of the marriage literature is that the marriage/divorce statistics are actually quite accurate, and mean what most think they mean.
Many would argue that the percent of marriages ending in divorce is what you want to know. Say you are getting married this year. Not knowing anything about your personal characteristics, what is the chance of your marriage ending in divorce?
Information about your personal/psychological characteristics will change that prediction. One factor increasing your risk is if you have had a divorce in the past. People who get one divorce are more likely to get other divorces. However, the number of multidivorcees, so to speak, isn't big enough to account for that much of the divorce rate.
What is more misleading in my mind, is a failure to emphasize that your risk of divorce changes somewhat dramatically with various characteristics. The risk of divorce is much lower in certain demographic groups, geographical regions, etc.
The other mischaracterization, I think, is how marriages ending in divorce end. Most marriages that end end within the first couple of years or so. That is, the divorce epidemic is not an epidemic of individuals being married for years, having kids, and divorcing, its an epidemic of individuals getting married and then divorcing six months later. That is, the epidemic isn't an epidemic of marriages ending per se, it's an epidemic of bad marriages starting.
Anyway, just my observation.
Thanks for the info.
Actually, the samples in a genetic algorithm don't have to be of functions: genetic algorithms are quite useful for solving any sort of combinatorial (?) problem--optimally sorting things into groups, etc. I'm not really as familiar with genetic programming, although it sounds fascinating. I've read in a few places that simulated annealing, MCMC, GA, evolutionary algorithms are all related in approaching optimization by sampling a solution space, so to speak--they just differ in their rules on how to create samples, how to shift in focus from one area of the space to another, etc. Thus, it seemed like they might be able to be treated in a unifed text.
I would really really like to see a text that treats algorithms such as markov chain monte carlo, simulated annealing, evolutionary algorithms, genetic algorithms, etc. in one volume. They all seem related in some way, and it would be nice to see a book treat them all comprehensively in a way that is still useful for application. Does anyone know of such a text? I guess maybe it's better to buy separate texts on each topic.
Doesn't the letter start out with something to the effect of "linking to something infringing on patent is the same infringing on patent"? Even if Dolby has some patent on some spec that's entirely legit, isn't linking to the page offering the unlicensed implementation a free speech issue?
E.g., I could link to it here in this slashdot post. Is that the same?
I really didn't get a chance to read much before I lost the connection and then couldn't get back. Sorry if this is completely offbase.
Where's the Mandrake 8.0 release of Ximian GNOME?
I really REALLY like Ximian GNOME, but have been waiting for the Mandrake 8.0 release to put it on my desktop.
Will the releases for Mandrake 7, 7.2 work?
If not, when are they planned?
Yes 95, will run on those machines, so might 98, but it's a bitch and a half to develop on those platforms. Try writing a perl script to iterate a numerical routine with long filenames and witness the horrifying spectacle that results. Try accessing console histories in 95 and 98. Those things aren't a problem in Linux.
:)
W2000 represents a wonderful balance of UI and system power. What I wonder is if there is ever point at which UI and system complexity will balance out. Is it W2000? Will Win XP and later increase resource consumption for useless UI improvements? Will Linux with, e.g., KDE 3.0 have the same beautiful balance of power and UI ease of use as W2000? And at that point, will Linux have better performance? Windows has been playing system catchup, now Linux is playing UI catchup. Three years ago or so, I would have said Linux was better for development and performance-critical tasks. Now I might say W2000. Maybe the tide will turn again. Will there be a point at which they will be comparable in quality? And after that point, will MS add bloat to the point of being unusable? This is the history of MS, and the potential benefits of Linux the parent post was noting.
Damnit, all I want to do is develop numerical analysis routines easily in an environment without (1) worrying about ease of use and support and (2) without worrying about privacy, proprietary standards, and resource hogging. Is that such a problem? Why can't this OS crap get itself worked out? Why can't all these companies and organizations get together, go to a standards body, and release an ANSI/ISO/ECMA/whatever standard OS?
Why can't we all just get along?
I have to agree that 00 is an improvement over 98, 95, etc. It's much easier to develop on, the increase in bloat isn't too extreme, it seems rather nice. A good balance.
I've played around with an XP beta, but not in any detail. It seems bloated and unecessarily memory-hungry. I've often wondered if XP is starting the Windows-quality-pendulum swinging the other way, and MS is off into crappiness in a whole 'nother direction, so to speak.
I'm very curious if three years from now, if I get over my increasing MS paranoia once again, I'll conclude that XP really is an improvement. This is what has happened for me in the past: I hesitated to upgrade from DOS to 95 because it seemed like unstable bloat, I hesitated to upgrade to 98 because it seemed like just bloat, I hesitated to upgrade to 2000 because it seemed like even more bloat. In all the cases I eventually upgraded, because after I had enough exposure to them, I decided there were justifiable increases in quality.
But will I think the same with XP? Or will this be the first time I think that the new OS really is just unecessary bloat? Will MS ever stabilize Windows?
I think this is the thing that scares me about MS--I don't know where they're headed, and I can't tell if the new product is for performance improvements or just revenue enhancement.
Very good laugh.
Can someone explain what will be the focus of the next round of court hearings--i.e., those that the Justice Department wanted to speed up?
Does this mean that splitting MS in two is off the table, or that the remedy merely has to be reconsidered from a blank slate, so to speak? If splitting is out of consideration, does anyone have any guess as to the other likely remedy options?
And what are the other aspects of the judge's decision that have to be reconsidered, according to CNN? Are they of any practical significance?
I suppose I could look for this somewhere, but I'm lazy and thought I'd ask in case someone already knew.
Does anyone know how e.g., IBM plans to approach C#/CLI? For example, are there plans on the part of IBM to create JIT compilers for the framework as they have with Java?
Is their name--"Mono". At least it's not G.NET or Portable.NET or Opensource.NET or Somethingelse.NET.
.NET is a huge cloud of MS initiatives, some of which I am interested in, others of which I consider dangerous.
.NET?"
.NET as a vague entity, I believe, will fail.
.NET initiative, on the other hand, might work well. A good open source CLI implementation, for example, seems great. So does a good authentication system. But trying to do everything at once in one project I have problems with.
The name might seem like a lame reason, but to me it makes all the difference in the world.
The choice of name, as far as I'm concerned, says a lot about the mission and mindset of a project. I'm much more interested in a project with a function goal than an emulation goal. "Mono", to me, would beg the question, "what are they trying to do"? X.NET would beg the question "how are they trying to copy
Trying to emulate
Trying to emulate or provide alternatives to elements of the
Maybe I'm wrong here, and maybe I really don't know enough about the projects (I _know_ I don't know enough about the projects, actually). But I'd rather see one project trying to accomplish X, another trying to accomplish Y, etc. than one huge project trying to copy MSs latest vision of world domination.
Methinks the soft drink companies paid the programmers to develop the worm and name it Code Red.
I always thought internet advertising would bring down the net, but I didn't expect something of this magnitude.
I for one would like to see more discussion of C#/CLI as a development/language platform, and less discussion of how it might or might not further MS's monopolies into authentication.
Can we pretend for a moment that MS didn't release C#/CLI, that it was developed by Dr. X and his band of graduate students at the University of Y? Is it possible to have a discussion of how C#/CLI and Java compare as language platforms?
I would like to see a Slashdot discussion just on the merits of C#/CLI versus Java as technologies, in much the same vein as Perl/Python/Ruby.
Yes, I get the heeby-jeebies everytime I think about MS. But I would like to be able to evaluate the standards-submitted C#/CLI on its merits alone, at least briefly. At some level, if C#/CLI doesn't compare with Java, then we can all go home, or at least I can, because at some level, that's what matters.
You make some interesting points here.
.NET and start calling it Mono or a C#/CLI implementation.
.NET only adds to MSs advertising. It also associates C#/CLI with authentication services.
.NET clone mires it in all this Passport crap that doesn't necessarily have to do anything with C#/CLI (although for MS, it does).
.NET plans.
I say we stop calling Mono
.NET is a vague MS marketing term, and referring to Mono as
If C#/CLI standards are adopted, they're just that: standards. MS doesn't have to stand by the standard, but it will be there.
I for one think there's a lot to C#/CLI, and would like to see it compete as a technology. Referring to it as a
So what if C#/CLI standards are adopted, and MS ignores them? We might still one a hell of a platform without MS, and the truth is, we would never know if we didn't try. If C#/CLI standards aren't adopted, then there you go. Case closed, everyone go home.
It seems to me it's time we start talking about C#/CLI in a way that recognizes it could be different from the rest of MS's
I would love to see something like this happen.
However, while I have a fair amount of experience coding in perl, I have zero web programming experience per se. So I'm not sure I would be of much help. Maybe some, but not much in the nuts and bolts department.
I'd say I agree with the first three, and it all depends on the situation.
I often feel that, given the presence of a monopoly, open source is often in the public's best interest because it is frequently the only source of competition or alternatives. If you are the monopoly, open source is not necessarily in your best interest because it is your only competition.
Without a monopoly, or in areas where monopoly isn't as strong, an open-source source approach (creating open source, that is) might be in your interest as a business strategy because it affords certain benefits (no/low cost, encouraging widespread adoption, security, etc.).
If open-source advocates seem to change their position from time to time, it's because the situation changes from time to time and from area to area.
I often wonder what would happen if Microsoft's monopoly were nonexistent (e.g., Microsoft Office for Linux, BeOS, etc; much larger shares of Mac/Linux/others). I don't think open source would seem as crucial, because competition would, in fact, probably provide alternatives.
I think open source is always in the public interest. Whether it is always in business's interests depends on the economic climate and which business you are speaking of.
Yea- I saw that after I posted. An offline website wouldn't be very useful, I suppose. Even slash code couldn't fix that problem.
You're right. As some of the other posters have pointed out, you'd probably have to modify the existing code somewhat to scrutinize reputation or trustworthiness a bit more.
I like some of the suggestions that a certain group of individuals are granted immediate trustiworthiness and/or their identities are verified externally by some means. This "inner circle" has special moderation status--e.g., their votes are weighted more or some such thing. Unverified individuals can still moderate, but their votes weigh less, at least initially.
When I talk to colleagues about online publication archives or some such thing, the first thing they always say is "I don't always have time to filter everything myself". A modifed slashdot/k5 format might not be perfect, but it would solve the problems somewhat.
A second thing to keep in mind is that existing peer-review is far from perfect as it is! I've seen some pretty ridiculous reviews of papers that might as well been done by lay individuals.
Finally, meta-moderation might address some of your concerns. If a 15-yr old's posts are indistinguishable from those of real lawyers, and the real laywers think the 15-yr old is a lawyer, then either the laywers are a bit overrated in their abilities, or the 15-yr old is rather talented. The quality of the posts, after all, is what's important, not the source.
I've often wondered if it weren't possible to modify slash code or whatever kuro5hin uses to start an online web site.
If you think about it, kuro5hin's model is very similar to that of scientific publishing: peer-reviewed submissions. If you replace "news stories" with "papers" you get a peer-reviewed online journal. Make posts abstracts, include a link to html/ps/pdf forms of papers, and there you go.