While I certainly agree with the sentiment of the news article, isn't it a little premature to link to an article that only announces a real report. I am interested in the details and how they obtain the 24% mark. My estimate would be more in the 10% range.
Considering the earlier article regarding OpenOffice, it might make sense to calculate [expensive license] - free = savings. But where does that leave cheap academic licensing?
It seems like it's more a general/historical overview than much of a guide. But that's what you get with covering such a wide spectrum, I suppose. And yes.. I fondly remember my Atari 2600 gane console:-)
As I understand, subversion was more or less designed to be the successor (and replacement) of CVS. It's not a big surprise then that switching is a major issue. The users are already used to its methodology (contrary to e.g. linux kernel developers).
Palamida charges $50,000 to $250,000 for an annual subscription to IP Amplifier. Cost depends upon the size of the customer's development environment.
That seems rather steep. Are they doing something really complicated or is this something that a well-maintained (open-source?) project could do? Of course they are storing a major amount of information (i.e. all of sourceforge/freshmeat). This might in fact be a feature that sourceforge might want to implement (for a fee): doing a search in their database.
On the other hand, it might make more sense to check against proprietary source, data and images. They are, by their nature, harder to find.
Also: when outsourcing parts of a project, wouldn't a contract have to state explicitly conditions such as not stealing/borrowing code from elsewhere? It would be a minimum requirement that the licensing of any (sub-)code would have to fit the overall product.
Is the any indication if their proposed format is entirely free of patent issues? Given the office format patents that MS has applied for recently, that could be an issue.
My Linux servers usually have uptimes in the order of a few months at most as kernel upgrades do require reboots (still). Did Novell servers not have such issues with kernel-level patches?
Slashdot effect minor compared to .tar downloads
on
The Linux Kernel Archives
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
It doesn't surprise me that being linked from slashdot is just a minor effect. A kernel package is tens of megabytes, while a single visit will likely consume less than 100KB.
I think that at some point, an organization as big as a country's government should consider itself in a good position not to accept vendor lock-in, where the cost savings are just part of the equation. So yes, it will probably catch on. This demand is already being recognized by vendors, considering MS' shared-source program.
I'm assuming that you can detect which computers are flooding or somehow clogging the network (this can be done without viruses too, of course). How about limiting their bandwidth to, say, 100kbit/s or less if they trigger some preset criteria? That way, they will be able to do whatever work they need to do and they won't bother other people too much. If they don't mind a slow computer, then they shouldn't mind a slow connection either.
On the other hand... you do have some responsibility for (cracking) attacks emanating from your network, so shutting them off is not that bad.
What kind of fee will they be charging once it's commercial? Also, wouldn't it make sense to require people to register a free account so that the migration will be more structured?
With all the advances in 3D (gaming) technology, I suppose that the hype has worn off. It's just not newsworthy anymore to be able to simulate a virtual environment.
One area in which Virtual Reality has been generating very positive effects is, unexpectedly (?), therapy against phobias and traumas. An example is fear of heights where people can confront their fears in a simulated (and thus controlled) environment and gradually let go of them.
So yes, I'd say that Virtual Reality does improve people's lives in at least one way that doesn't involve shooting at things.
The basis of democracy likes in the combination of key factors: on the one hand, the "will" of the majority counts, but on the other hand the rights of everyone - also of a minority on an issue - have to be protected. That's why people don't get thrown in prison or murdered simply because the majority wants it. So, no, in a strict sense, appeasing the majority would not be a requirement for standing up for one's right. But.. it does help.
I find your critical stance interesting. How do you view the conflicting accounts of the different gospels regarding e.g. the resurrection?
From my point of view (someone who is not religious), you do believe things you've been told to some extent... without ability to really check them out. The only entity to be an authority is the god figure, yet that figure goes out of its way to only communicate in vague ways.
I thought creationism pretty much equals religion?
That is... in all conversations with creationists, they very quickly fast-forward to plugging their religion. It raises some red flags with me that they first attempt to make the point that things didn't happen by chance and then they entirely glance over any possibilities involving multiple deities, an uninterested deity (not that unlikely) or that we humans are simply some fun experiment for aliens. Also, the existence of a deity does not even imply that there is a heaven or hell or that this deity requires worship.
How can you defend creation "science" if you are aware that this science it motivated by utter bias or a priori conclusions? And yes, I find it fair to say that someone who believes in an eternal life of joy & happiness as a result of their ideology being true is biased.
The thing that bugs me about creationism being portrayed as real science is that it has a priori conclusion motivated by a priori beliefs. Do non-religious creationists even exist? (believing in a creator does not require being religious IMO) In practically every discussion I've had with a creationist, they often fast-forward from the "evidence" to plugging their religion. That bothers me, because they seem to be glancing over a whole realm of possibilities even if their initial claims are true.
To me, that indicates a lot of bias on their part... certainly much more than a biologist who studies living creatures much more closely than any of us does. Creationists are inherently more biased since (from their view), being right means potentially having an eternal life. For them, there is much more at stake.
You are right in a sense about the scientific method: scientists are always looking for ways to improve or replace theories. We hold on to theories because they provide the best possible explanation and (quantifiable) prediction of phenomena. If a better theory comes along, that doesn't mean previous ones are entirely invalidated. Usually (as with the theory of relativity), you will see that they are more accurate in certain ranges (e.g. very high speeds). You can still use Newton's theories for a whole range of applications.
How much do you actually scrutinize the holy book of your religion? Crucial events described in your book are rather vague or conflicting. Who are the authors? How did they come by the information? Can they be trusted? Who controls the exact translations and makes sure their (subtle) meaning stays intact? That's just some examples of critical questions you could ask if you weren't so eager to accept the conclusion.
To come back to the non-religious creationist thing: even if you can make a scientific case that things were designed by a super-natural force, that still does not mean that this force is the same as classical views of deities dictate, but rather an entity or group of entities outside our reality. Whether or not this entity is directly involved in humanity or its destiny is then the next major hurdle... and maybe even a bigger one. Certainly one that a true critical thinker would be interested in.
I'm interested in hearing your view on these points.
That's an odd line of thinking. The opposite of being religious is not being atheistic. I consider myself fairly agnostic... I just have to reject the mainstream religions as false. If there is indeed a god out there, I believe he/she/it is not properly represented by today's religions.
Regarding Lee Strobel.. unfortunately he did not interview any critics or give a balanced account of what 'the other side' was thinking. Yes, if you only hear arguments in favour of one view, it will be quite convincing... especially if you already hold that view.
I have read it and I have unfortunately had to reject it and its claims. The same goes for the Koran. What they describe do not fit with my ideas regarding freedom of speech, freedom of religion, human rights and human dignity. Just see what were to happen if its claims were actually true: a humanitarian catastrophe on an unprecedented scale is a result where - even if all christians go to heaven - 2/3 of the current world's population will suffer a fate far worse than death.
I find the works of philosophers and real thinkers a lot more inspiring than a translation of a translation of what some people allegedly heard a guy with a major ego say and do 2000 years ago. I find it baffling how people can have such high regard for a book that romanticizes human rights violations by an entity that supposedly loves us?
Doesn't it ring a bell when the highest sin in a teaching is to doubt the teaching or criticize or.. move on to another theory? Are humans so modest that they cannot see that human values and everything we appreciate is right there with us and in us?
How do you view the fact that "creationism" exists mainly to make one specific religion's claims more acceptable, rather than be an independent scientific field on its own?
If claims of creationism are true, then it's still a loooong shot from christianity being true. After all, even if we could someone prove a creator, then it still doesn't mean we humans were directly created by this being. We could also be some experiment by some alien species. Does that sound far-fetched? Not much more than a hypothetical super-being. It just seems like one is trying to conduct "science" with the desired conclusion already known in advance.
When I look at creationism arguments, they often seem to fast-forward to "so there is a god --> so MY religion is true". I have a sort of allergic reaction to people plugging their religion.
I'm curious about this... maybe my assumptions are wrong. I'd like to hear the other perspective on it.
The point is not about under-representing a certain point of view, but rather about blocking other "undesirable" viewpoints. While it may be interesting to mention various creation myths in a scientific film for the sake of cultural reference, the whole point of a scientific film is to present the findings of science, not of religion.
If I'm interested in religious explanation of how we came into being, I'll go to a church, mosque, etc... not a science movie.
I consider closing of unnecessary ports (that is: unnecessary for any remote use) to be reasonable security practice. However, to have it be the only layer of protection is of course rather dubious.
I doubt that "intentional" is correct, but when a security hole is so blatant, the term does come to mind.
I don't really see a problem with a municipality creating/maintaining the base architecture and having other companies provide service on top of that. That was, it is certain that the access will be there even if it would be commercially unattractive or risky to do so for companies.
Slashdot Mirror
While I certainly agree with the sentiment of the news article, isn't it a little premature to link to an article that only announces a real report. I am interested in the details and how they obtain the 24% mark. My estimate would be more in the 10% range.
Considering the earlier article regarding OpenOffice, it might make sense to calculate [expensive license] - free = savings. But where does that leave cheap academic licensing?
It seems like it's more a general/historical overview than much of a guide. But that's what you get with covering such a wide spectrum, I suppose. And yes.. I fondly remember my Atari 2600 gane console :-)
As I understand, subversion was more or less designed to be the successor (and replacement) of CVS. It's not a big surprise then that switching is a major issue. The users are already used to its methodology (contrary to e.g. linux kernel developers).
Palamida charges $50,000 to $250,000 for an annual subscription to IP Amplifier. Cost depends upon the size of the customer's development environment.
That seems rather steep. Are they doing something really complicated or is this something that a well-maintained (open-source?) project could do? Of course they are storing a major amount of information (i.e. all of sourceforge/freshmeat).
This might in fact be a feature that sourceforge might want to implement (for a fee): doing a search in their database.
On the other hand, it might make more sense to check against proprietary source, data and images. They are, by their nature, harder to find.
Also: when outsourcing parts of a project, wouldn't a contract have to state explicitly conditions such as not stealing/borrowing code from elsewhere? It would be a minimum requirement that the licensing of any (sub-)code would have to fit the overall product.
Is the any indication if their proposed format is entirely free of patent issues? Given the office format patents that MS has applied for recently, that could be an issue.
My Linux servers usually have uptimes in the order of a few months at most as kernel upgrades do require reboots (still). Did Novell servers not have such issues with kernel-level patches?
It doesn't surprise me that being linked from slashdot is just a minor effect. A kernel package is tens of megabytes, while a single visit will likely consume less than 100KB.
Seeing as google has thousands of boxes, my estimate would be that the combined google services pump out over 10Gb/s, rather than just 1Gb/s.
I think that at some point, an organization as big as a country's government should consider itself in a good position not to accept vendor lock-in, where the cost savings are just part of the equation. So yes, it will probably catch on. This demand is already being recognized by vendors, considering MS' shared-source program.
I'm assuming that you can detect which computers are flooding or somehow clogging the network (this can be done without viruses too, of course). How about limiting their bandwidth to, say, 100kbit/s or less if they trigger some preset criteria? That way, they will be able to do whatever work they need to do and they won't bother other people too much. If they don't mind a slow computer, then they shouldn't mind a slow connection either.
On the other hand... you do have some responsibility for (cracking) attacks emanating from your network, so shutting them off is not that bad.
Great post. I salute you.
What kind of fee will they be charging once it's commercial? Also, wouldn't it make sense to require people to register a free account so that the migration will be more structured?
With all the advances in 3D (gaming) technology, I suppose that the hype has worn off. It's just not newsworthy anymore to be able to simulate a virtual environment.
One area in which Virtual Reality has been generating very positive effects is, unexpectedly (?), therapy against phobias and traumas. An example is fear of heights where people can confront their fears in a simulated (and thus controlled) environment and gradually let go of them.
So yes, I'd say that Virtual Reality does improve people's lives in at least one way that doesn't involve shooting at things.
The basis of democracy likes in the combination of key factors: on the one hand, the "will" of the majority counts, but on the other hand the rights of everyone - also of a minority on an issue - have to be protected. That's why people don't get thrown in prison or murdered simply because the majority wants it. So, no, in a strict sense, appeasing the majority would not be a requirement for standing up for one's right. But.. it does help.
Well, that is certainly easier to read than all that science mumbo-jumbo with gluons and what not ;-)
I find your critical stance interesting. How do you view the conflicting accounts of the different gospels regarding e.g. the resurrection?
From my point of view (someone who is not religious), you do believe things you've been told to some extent... without ability to really check them out. The only entity to be an authority is the god figure, yet that figure goes out of its way to only communicate in vague ways.
I thought creationism pretty much equals religion?
That is... in all conversations with creationists, they very quickly fast-forward to plugging their religion. It raises some red flags with me that they first attempt to make the point that things didn't happen by chance and then they entirely glance over any possibilities involving multiple deities, an uninterested deity (not that unlikely) or that we humans are simply some fun experiment for aliens. Also, the existence of a deity does not even imply that there is a heaven or hell or that this deity requires worship.
How can you defend creation "science" if you are aware that this science it motivated by utter bias or a priori conclusions? And yes, I find it fair to say that someone who believes in an eternal life of joy & happiness as a result of their ideology being true is biased.
Actually, his documented views are closer to pantheism that what we call ID today. You will see that when you google for "einstein pantheism".
Maybe you can give a reference for your claim.
The thing that bugs me about creationism being portrayed as real science is that it has a priori conclusion motivated by a priori beliefs. Do non-religious creationists even exist? (believing in a creator does not require being religious IMO) In practically every discussion I've had with a creationist, they often fast-forward from the "evidence" to plugging their religion. That bothers me, because they seem to be glancing over a whole realm of possibilities even if their initial claims are true.
To me, that indicates a lot of bias on their part... certainly much more than a biologist who studies living creatures much more closely than any of us does. Creationists are inherently more biased since (from their view), being right means potentially having an eternal life. For them, there is much more at stake.
You are right in a sense about the scientific method: scientists are always looking for ways to improve or replace theories. We hold on to theories because they provide the best possible explanation and (quantifiable) prediction of phenomena. If a better theory comes along, that doesn't mean previous ones are entirely invalidated. Usually (as with the theory of relativity), you will see that they are more accurate in certain ranges (e.g. very high speeds). You can still use Newton's theories for a whole range of applications.
How much do you actually scrutinize the holy book of your religion? Crucial events described in your book are rather vague or conflicting. Who are the authors? How did they come by the information? Can they be trusted? Who controls the exact translations and makes sure their (subtle) meaning stays intact? That's just some examples of critical questions you could ask if you weren't so eager to accept the conclusion.
To come back to the non-religious creationist thing: even if you can make a scientific case that things were designed by a super-natural force, that still does not mean that this force is the same as classical views of deities dictate, but rather an entity or group of entities outside our reality. Whether or not this entity is directly involved in humanity or its destiny is then the next major hurdle... and maybe even a bigger one. Certainly one that a true critical thinker would be interested in.
I'm interested in hearing your view on these points.
That's an odd line of thinking. The opposite of being religious is not being atheistic. I consider myself fairly agnostic... I just have to reject the mainstream religions as false. If there is indeed a god out there, I believe he/she/it is not properly represented by today's religions.
Regarding Lee Strobel.. unfortunately he did not interview any critics or give a balanced account of what 'the other side' was thinking. Yes, if you only hear arguments in favour of one view, it will be quite convincing... especially if you already hold that view.
I have read it and I have unfortunately had to reject it and its claims. The same goes for the Koran. What they describe do not fit with my ideas regarding freedom of speech, freedom of religion, human rights and human dignity. Just see what were to happen if its claims were actually true: a humanitarian catastrophe on an unprecedented scale is a result where - even if all christians go to heaven - 2/3 of the current world's population will suffer a fate far worse than death.
I find the works of philosophers and real thinkers a lot more inspiring than a translation of a translation of what some people allegedly heard a guy with a major ego say and do 2000 years ago. I find it baffling how people can have such high regard for a book that romanticizes human rights violations by an entity that supposedly loves us?
Doesn't it ring a bell when the highest sin in a teaching is to doubt the teaching or criticize or.. move on to another theory? Are humans so modest that they cannot see that human values and everything we appreciate is right there with us and in us?
How do you view the fact that "creationism" exists mainly to make one specific religion's claims more acceptable, rather than be an independent scientific field on its own?
If claims of creationism are true, then it's still a loooong shot from christianity being true. After all, even if we could someone prove a creator, then it still doesn't mean we humans were directly created by this being. We could also be some experiment by some alien species. Does that sound far-fetched? Not much more than a hypothetical super-being. It just seems like one is trying to conduct "science" with the desired conclusion already known in advance.
When I look at creationism arguments, they often seem to fast-forward to "so there is a god --> so MY religion is true". I have a sort of allergic reaction to people plugging their religion.
I'm curious about this... maybe my assumptions are wrong. I'd like to hear the other perspective on it.
The point is not about under-representing a certain point of view, but rather about blocking other "undesirable" viewpoints. While it may be interesting to mention various creation myths in a scientific film for the sake of cultural reference, the whole point of a scientific film is to present the findings of science, not of religion.
If I'm interested in religious explanation of how we came into being, I'll go to a church, mosque, etc... not a science movie.
I consider closing of unnecessary ports (that is: unnecessary for any remote use) to be reasonable security practice. However, to have it be the only layer of protection is of course rather dubious.
I doubt that "intentional" is correct, but when a security hole is so blatant, the term does come to mind.
I don't really see a problem with a municipality creating/maintaining the base architecture and having other companies provide service on top of that. That was, it is certain that the access will be there even if it would be commercially unattractive or risky to do so for companies.