Nuclear is prohibitively expensive to build these days because it takes a decade to get through all the lawsuits and other expensive delaying tactics of the aginners. The root problem is neither technical nor financial.
Sounds good so far. Maybe we can begin ignoring those for whom antinuclearity is a religion, when they point to _The China Syndrome_, and move on.
I *would* like to suggest that, in a setting with such grave consequences for error, engineers tell themselves daily that "meltdown-proof" really means "all failure modes are unknown." I think that would lead to a healthier attitued toward the whole thing.
"Observers expect that the company will use Windows or the bundled Windows Media Player to gain a competitive advantage over other services...."
In other words I won't be buying music from Microsoft because I can't use their wares (since WMP won't run on my system). I can't say I'm terribly upset by that, as long as other vendors still exist.
"I don't need a media player with the operating system, just an operating system."
Hear, hear. I have a raft of servers on which Media Player has no function, since servers don't have multimedia hardware (duuh). However, since installation of the OS installed the player *anyway*, I have to keep applying patches to it to shut up the security tools. Since it's a system file I probably can't even delete it, even if I did ferret out all the little pieces of it; Windows File Protection will put the useless thing right back.
(The latest insult is that the update tools keep whining about a patch that doesn't apply to the original player version, so I actually have to *upgrade* a useless program so that I can apply a patch I shouldn't need for a product that can't work on my machines and should never have been installed at all.)
On the one hand: cool idea, glad to see someone still thinks.
On the other hand: would somebody please kick the marketing genius who decided to say "one-speaker" when what he really meant is "one-cabinet (with a whole lotta speakers inside)".
"try explaining the good side of open-source programs to people who have never written a program in their life..."
Okay: the good side of open-source programs is that you can get programs which meet your need but could never make it to market because the number of people with such a need is too small to make it profitable.
"This is the big problem with current Open Source world, IMO -- the current Open Source world seems oriented toward DIY'ers creating code for other DIY'ers."
You say that as if it were a bad thing. Why do you feel this is a problem? I find it to be a solution.
If the purpose of any program it to be useful, then this is great. If the purpose of any program is to sell a billion units, then I suppose this would be a problem.
"Is configuring a computer really the best use of your time?"
Quite often, yes. It's the best use of my time if down the road it helps me accomplish something in the real world better or faster, or simply entertains me when I've nothing more pressing.
It's also a lot more enjoyable than pushing a wordprocessor or accounts-receivable program, and since I can get other people to do those gruntwork jobs for me, why shouldn't I do what fits my brain best?
Wrong split. *A few of* the DIY crowd will have the vision to create something generally useful, and the drive to see it to market. The "just make it work" crowd will reward them with money. The rest of the DIYers (the onlookers) will be divided into those who say, "cool, the good guys are winning" and those who are hurt that *their* nifty ideas go unappreciated.
Oh, yeah, some of the "good guys" will discover such a talent for making their businesses grow that they'll forget their original motivations and turn into "bad guys".:-(
Uh, the quote makes it sound like you agree with me, contradicting your Subject: line. Part of my argument is exactly that the machines actively fight error, such as failure to print the start state or incorrectly setting the party lever in a primary. This is one of the things which makes them far, far better than, for example, the ridiculous schemes formerly employed in Florida. Similarly it is *impossible* to spoil a ballot or otherwise cast an invalid vote, using these machines, if they are set up correctly.
Fraud is still possible, but the machine is not the only component of vote security. All of the parties send out monitors to each polling place who watch the equipment and will scream "FRAUD" at the barest hint that there was an opportunity which they did not witness. One of the not so nice but usable things about the party system is that it is quite safe to set *two* foxes to guard a henhouse, if the foxes' hatred of each other is 100 times as strong as their hunger for chicken: either one will gladly die to prevent the other one getting in.
The machines are inherently trustworthy; it's the people who bear watching.
"screw up" in the sense of inadvertent, not intentional, miscounting. Like, you know, counting 144,000 votes in an area with 1/8 that many registered voters.
Indianapolis uses those now, unfortunately. I still think the old mechanical monsters were better. No way to enter too many votes for an N-way office, no need to ask for another form if you make a mistake, no need to carry your no-longer-secret ballot across the room in the open....
Reminds me of that story (by Asimov?) about an interstellar war in which the losing side was defeated by its *own* superior technology. (Their new spacewarp drive fouled up the radios and they were cut to pieces before they could regroup.)
I said many times that the old lever machines were better. Best UI of any vote-gathering system I ever saw, easier to debug, and way harder to screw up. Luckily this failure was so enormous that it was obvious. I wonder how many aren't?
Yeah, Captain, we camouflaged the tank. We rented a parking lot on a treeless plain and parked the tank in the middle of it. The enemy will never recognize it, since the lot belongs to someone else.
Hmmm, isn't there some sort of law to deal with someone who offers a service, collects the fee, then runs the service in such a way as to make it worth substantially less than the customer was led to believe? That is, couldn't there be legal means of breaking a contract with an ISP that operates in a manner that devalues its own services?
Or maybe there's something to address the act of knowingly harboring a public nuisance actually created by another party? Humph, there's at least one law permitting a passenger in a private auto to be fined for "allowing a violation" by the driver, so isn't there some slightly less jaw-dropping application of this theory?
"loosing" is quite grammatically correct, as that word is also a gerund in this setting. I don't see why SCO would sue their lawyers for setting their case in motion (setting loose, setting free, commencing) but it's law so why should I expect it to make sense?:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Nuclear is prohibitively expensive to build these days because it takes a decade to get through all the lawsuits and other expensive delaying tactics of the aginners. The root problem is neither technical nor financial.
Sounds good so far. Maybe we can begin ignoring those for whom antinuclearity is a religion, when they point to _The China Syndrome_, and move on.
I *would* like to suggest that, in a setting with such grave consequences for error, engineers tell themselves daily that "meltdown-proof" really means "all failure modes are unknown." I think that would lead to a healthier attitued toward the whole thing.
"Observers expect that the company will use Windows or the bundled Windows Media Player to gain a competitive advantage over other services...."
In other words I won't be buying music from Microsoft because I can't use their wares (since WMP won't run on my system). I can't say I'm terribly upset by that, as long as other vendors still exist.
"I don't need a media player with the operating system, just an operating system."
Hear, hear. I have a raft of servers on which Media Player has no function, since servers don't have multimedia hardware (duuh). However, since installation of the OS installed the player *anyway*, I have to keep applying patches to it to shut up the security tools. Since it's a system file I probably can't even delete it, even if I did ferret out all the little pieces of it; Windows File Protection will put the useless thing right back.
(The latest insult is that the update tools keep whining about a patch that doesn't apply to the original player version, so I actually have to *upgrade* a useless program so that I can apply a patch I shouldn't need for a product that can't work on my machines and should never have been installed at all.)
For an interesting model of a *complete* gift economy, read _Voyage from Yesteryear_ by Hogan. It's approximately what you described.
...a use for the Segway, or part of it anyway.
On the one hand: cool idea, glad to see someone still thinks.
On the other hand: would somebody please kick the marketing genius who decided to say "one-speaker" when what he really meant is "one-cabinet (with a whole lotta speakers inside)".
"try explaining the good side of open-source programs to people who have never written a program in their life..."
Okay: the good side of open-source programs is that you can get programs which meet your need but could never make it to market because the number of people with such a need is too small to make it profitable.
Simple enough?
"This is the big problem with current Open Source world, IMO -- the current Open Source world seems oriented toward DIY'ers creating code for other DIY'ers."
You say that as if it were a bad thing. Why do you feel this is a problem? I find it to be a solution.
If the purpose of any program it to be useful, then this is great. If the purpose of any program is to sell a billion units, then I suppose this would be a problem.
"Is configuring a computer really the best use of your time?"
Quite often, yes. It's the best use of my time if down the road it helps me accomplish something in the real world better or faster, or simply entertains me when I've nothing more pressing.
It's also a lot more enjoyable than pushing a wordprocessor or accounts-receivable program, and since I can get other people to do those gruntwork jobs for me, why shouldn't I do what fits my brain best?
Wrong split. *A few of* the DIY crowd will have the vision to create something generally useful, and the drive to see it to market. The "just make it work" crowd will reward them with money. The rest of the DIYers (the onlookers) will be divided into those who say, "cool, the good guys are winning" and those who are hurt that *their* nifty ideas go unappreciated.
:-(
Oh, yeah, some of the "good guys" will discover such a talent for making their businesses grow that they'll forget their original motivations and turn into "bad guys".
Uh, the quote makes it sound like you agree with me, contradicting your Subject: line. Part of my argument is exactly that the machines actively fight error, such as failure to print the start state or incorrectly setting the party lever in a primary. This is one of the things which makes them far, far better than, for example, the ridiculous schemes formerly employed in Florida. Similarly it is *impossible* to spoil a ballot or otherwise cast an invalid vote, using these machines, if they are set up correctly.
Fraud is still possible, but the machine is not the only component of vote security. All of the parties send out monitors to each polling place who watch the equipment and will scream "FRAUD" at the barest hint that there was an opportunity which they did not witness. One of the not so nice but usable things about the party system is that it is quite safe to set *two* foxes to guard a henhouse, if the foxes' hatred of each other is 100 times as strong as their hunger for chicken: either one will gladly die to prevent the other one getting in.
The machines are inherently trustworthy; it's the people who bear watching.
"screw up" in the sense of inadvertent, not intentional, miscounting. Like, you know, counting 144,000 votes in an area with 1/8 that many registered voters.
Duuh, if you are IBM, *nobody* has deep pockets.
Anyway, why would an honest investor or analyst feel intimidated by an opportunity to help get at the truth?
"And even if they wern't, it would be putting money back into the economy which is never a bad thing."
Unlike letting us keep our money to spend it on food and shelter -- that doesn't put money back into the economy. No, wait....
"...vote on those bubble sheets...."
Indianapolis uses those now, unfortunately. I still think the old mechanical monsters were better. No way to enter too many votes for an N-way office, no need to ask for another form if you make a mistake, no need to carry your no-longer-secret ballot across the room in the open....
Reminds me of that story (by Asimov?) about an interstellar war in which the losing side was defeated by its *own* superior technology. (Their new spacewarp drive fouled up the radios and they were cut to pieces before they could regroup.)
I said many times that the old lever machines were better. Best UI of any vote-gathering system I ever saw, easier to debug, and way harder to screw up. Luckily this failure was so enormous that it was obvious. I wonder how many aren't?
...and waited for the fire department to tell them where the craft had gone.
No?
Yeah, Captain, we camouflaged the tank. We rented a parking lot on a treeless plain and parked the tank in the middle of it. The enemy will never recognize it, since the lot belongs to someone else.
So the disk will still work on real CD players, and I won't miss all the byproducts and floor sweepings shoveled into session 2. Good enough.
Hmmm, isn't there some sort of law to deal with someone who offers a service, collects the fee, then runs the service in such a way as to make it worth substantially less than the customer was led to believe? That is, couldn't there be legal means of breaking a contract with an ISP that operates in a manner that devalues its own services?
Or maybe there's something to address the act of knowingly harboring a public nuisance actually created by another party? Humph, there's at least one law permitting a passenger in a private auto to be fined for "allowing a violation" by the driver, so isn't there some slightly less jaw-dropping application of this theory?
"...how many lines of C would you say a master programmer can output in two to three days? "
The studies say 20-30 lines.
Forget *BSD; does AIX count? :-}
'It's "losing", not "loosing"...'
:-)
"loosing" is quite grammatically correct, as that word is also a gerund in this setting. I don't see why SCO would sue their lawyers for setting their case in motion (setting loose, setting free, commencing) but it's law so why should I expect it to make sense?