It's difficult to imagine human populations in the few thousands somehow wiping out large indigenous species through over hunting. On the other hand, introduction of new diseases can be disastrous very rapidly. The article gives a brief mention of this possiblity, but it seems intent on promoting the concept of the inherent destructiveness of humanity.
Bob Bakker, the off-beat paleontologist, has been promoting disease scenarios for years as a primary cause of mass dinosaur extinctions. It seems a more probable cause in these cases of large mammalian extinctions as well.
"* Powerful and logical system management functions? It's true that Unix let's you customize a server to your heart's content, but I for one prefer Event Log over/var, Administrative Tools over/etc and Services Control panel over rc.d. And *anything* over linuxconf. Yes, the Windows *implementation* may leave a few things to be desired (fewer and fewer with every iteration of NT) but the design is sound. Unix may be powerful but it's far from logical."
I'm sorry, but as one who has hacked around in more registries than I care to think about, the ease of dealing with ANY.conf file is infinitely greater than screwing with NT's (or any other Windows OS) registry.
M$ claimed that the registry simplified life by doing away with.ini files. Right. And de-regulation lowered energy costs in California.
"Really? I have never heard this one. Got a reference? "
_The Double Helix_ was the name of the book that describes the process (and the incident). It was later made into a (made for tv?) film that starred Jeff Goldblum as Watson.
I certainly agree with Linus Torvald's comments in general, but his use of Newton's quote as an example of humility and appreciation of what has gone before is misplaced.
Newton was, in fact, responding sarcastically to claims that he had stolen ideas from either Leibnitz or Hooke (I forget which).
Furthermore, Linus' science analogy is not the best one to use because the history of scientific research is filled with examples of closed-mindedness, hoarding of information, and general nastiness.
The classic example, of course, is Watson and Cricke (sp?) celebrating the error of another Linus, Pauling in this case, when he announced that the structure of DNA was a triple helix. Pauling had made a simple calculation mistake, which thanks to Pauling's son they were aware of. Rather than notify Pauling prior to his publishing his information, they kept quiet and continued on their own researches.
Hopefully, the Open Source movement won't stoop to such levels.
This is really a Dilbert joke, isn't it?
on
Why UDDI Will Work
·
· Score: 1
After reading through http://www.uddi.org/about.html, which is filled with recursive definitions and buzzwords (use of the word "synergy" should be made a violation of international law), I have come to the conclusion that Scott Adams is behind this. His next book: "Welcome to UDDIville".
No, but you can RCONSOLE and run an NCF script that would do the same thing. Of course, a REALLY good network OS would have been sending SNMP traps saying, "HEY, I'M STUCK BEHIND THIS WALL!"
I understand that it isn't Open Source any more. But I'm troubled that someone coming out of an Open Source background is jumping on the litigation bandwagon.
I'm old enough to remember when people made money by selling products and services, not by suing everybody in sight.
Certainly, this is an important fossil find, but I was somewhat amused to see that the Leakeys were quick to raise the issue that this might replace Lucy as the direct ancestor to homo sapiens.
Richard Leakey has been arguing this with Donald Johanssen (I hope I've spelled that correctly) almost since the moment Johanssen's group discovered Lucy and the First Family fossils. It seems that any discovery of Leakey's points to a new origin for modern humans.
I genuinely respect the Richard Leakey and his brilliant family; they've generated amazing finds. But it seems very premature to be issuing statements (even 50-50 probability ones)about one find displacing another as a human ancestor.
Of course, such claims will make the National Geographic special on Public TV that much more impressive.
This is timed to coincide with the little-known (and even littler-cared-about) anniversary of Tsar Nicholas' admission that his way of describing the pending revolution:
In the latest issue of Maximum Linux (which, unfortunately, I left at home, so I can't quote directly), there is an op-ed piece about Corel. Now, due to the lag time for preparing print media, this article was written before the announcement of Corel spinning off their Linux. What's sad about the article is the optimism that Corel wouldn't do that. As proof, they pointed out that Burney was to be attending a Linux show (I believe in Paris, but it could have been LinuxWorld in NY) along with other Corel personnel.
I presume he's attending to spread the new "sort-of-open-but-not-open-source" philosophy.
On first blush, this sounds like a wonderful concept, but it begs two questions:
1) Is the Internet service itself provided by the government?
2) Are they providing the communications lines to the poor for free as well?
If the answer to (1) is yes, one wonders what constraints the government might put on the ability to visit sites that the powers deem "inappropriate". If the answer to (2) is no, then the government is providing door stops.
(If these questions were answered in the article, I apologize in advance, since I don't read Portugese.)
I have a vision of some sort of similar program in the U.S. First, there would be the scandal over the bribes paid by whoever got the contract to supply the systems. Then, there would be the conservatives up in arms over the government providing a service that allows people to go to (gasp!) PORN sites (alternatively, the liberals would be fuming over the government censorship due to the presence of cyber-nanny software).
Besides, given the state of government computing systems, the systems provided would be 80286's running 1200 Kbs modems.
A great many years ago (more than I care to mention), I was looking for my first job. I went to an employment service and got interviewed for an insurance/securities sales job. I was told I had done brilliantly on the interview and got hired, paying the headhunter's fee based on potential earnings (what can I say? I was inexperienced and stupid).
Fast forward about a year. Turns out that the so-called insurance company and the headhunters were in cahoots. I got scammed out of a fee, never earned a dime of commissions, but learned a heck of a lesson about jobs that sound too good to be true.
The only thing missing in the Linuxgruven deal is the headhunter's office. They're just cutting out the middle man.
Slashdot Mirror
It's difficult to imagine human populations in the few thousands somehow wiping out large indigenous species through over hunting. On the other hand, introduction of new diseases can be disastrous very rapidly. The article gives a brief mention of this possiblity, but it seems intent on promoting the concept of the inherent destructiveness of humanity.
Bob Bakker, the off-beat paleontologist, has been promoting disease scenarios for years as a primary cause of mass dinosaur extinctions. It seems a more probable cause in these cases of large mammalian extinctions as well.
"* Powerful and logical system management functions? It's true that Unix let's you customize a server to your heart's content, but I for one prefer Event Log over /var, Administrative Tools over /etc and Services Control panel over rc.d. And *anything* over linuxconf. Yes, the Windows *implementation* may leave a few things to be desired (fewer and fewer with every iteration of NT) but the design is sound. Unix may be powerful but it's far from logical."
.conf file is infinitely greater than screwing with NT's (or any other Windows OS) registry.
.ini files. Right. And de-regulation lowered energy costs in California.
I'm sorry, but as one who has hacked around in more registries than I care to think about, the ease of dealing with ANY
M$ claimed that the registry simplified life by doing away with
"Really? I have never heard this one. Got a reference? "
_The Double Helix_ was the name of the book that describes the process (and the incident). It was later made into a (made for tv?) film that starred Jeff Goldblum as Watson.
I certainly agree with Linus Torvald's comments in general, but his use of Newton's quote as an example of humility and appreciation of what has gone before is misplaced.
Newton was, in fact, responding sarcastically to claims that he had stolen ideas from either Leibnitz or Hooke (I forget which).
Furthermore, Linus' science analogy is not the best one to use because the history of scientific research is filled with examples of closed-mindedness, hoarding of information, and general nastiness.
The classic example, of course, is Watson and Cricke (sp?) celebrating the error of another Linus, Pauling in this case, when he announced that the structure of DNA was a triple helix. Pauling had made a simple calculation mistake, which thanks to Pauling's son they were aware of. Rather than notify Pauling prior to his publishing his information, they kept quiet and continued on their own researches.
Hopefully, the Open Source movement won't stoop to such levels.
After reading through http://www.uddi.org/about.html, which is filled with recursive definitions and buzzwords (use of the word "synergy" should be made a violation of international law), I have come to the conclusion that Scott Adams is behind this. His next book: "Welcome to UDDIville".
No, but you can RCONSOLE and run an NCF script that would do the same thing. Of course, a REALLY good network OS would have been sending SNMP traps saying, "HEY, I'M STUCK BEHIND THIS WALL!"
As I read this article, it seemed that I had heard of this sort of thing before. Here's a link:
5 93 651,00.html
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2
I grant that this isn't embedded in a "gui", but there's not much gui-looking about a Xerox "X" that looks more like ASCII art.
I understand that it isn't Open Source any more. But I'm troubled that someone coming out of an Open Source background is jumping on the litigation bandwagon.
I'm old enough to remember when people made money by selling products and services, not by suing everybody in sight.
" 'I'm very disappointed,' Ylonnen said after the meeting. 'What will I do next? Consult my lawyers.' "
Is this what Open Source is coming to?
Certainly, this is an important fossil find, but I was somewhat amused to see that the Leakeys were quick to raise the issue that this might replace Lucy as the direct ancestor to homo sapiens.
Richard Leakey has been arguing this with Donald Johanssen (I hope I've spelled that correctly) almost since the moment Johanssen's group discovered Lucy and the First Family fossils. It seems that any discovery of Leakey's points to a new origin for modern humans.
I genuinely respect the Richard Leakey and his brilliant family; they've generated amazing finds. But it seems very premature to be issuing statements (even 50-50 probability ones)about one find displacing another as a human ancestor.
Of course, such claims will make the National Geographic special on Public TV that much more impressive.
2001-03-23 14:32:56
This is timed to coincide with the little-known (and even littler-cared-about) anniversary of Tsar Nicholas' admission that his way of describing the pending revolution:
SERFS' UP, DUDESKIS!!
was indeed an awful joke.
In the latest issue of Maximum Linux (which, unfortunately, I left at home, so I can't quote directly), there is an op-ed piece about Corel. Now, due to the lag time for preparing print media, this article was written before the announcement of Corel spinning off their Linux. What's sad about the article is the optimism that Corel wouldn't do that. As proof, they pointed out that Burney was to be attending a Linux show (I believe in Paris, but it could have been LinuxWorld in NY) along with other Corel personnel.
I presume he's attending to spread the new "sort-of-open-but-not-open-source" philosophy.
So this is why there are so many variations of Unix and Linux--species splitting!
On first blush, this sounds like a wonderful concept, but it begs two questions:
1) Is the Internet service itself provided by the government?
2) Are they providing the communications lines to the poor for free as well?
If the answer to (1) is yes, one wonders what constraints the government might put on the ability to visit sites that the powers deem "inappropriate". If the answer to (2) is no, then the government is providing door stops.
(If these questions were answered in the article, I apologize in advance, since I don't read Portugese.)
I have a vision of some sort of similar program in the U.S. First, there would be the scandal over the bribes paid by whoever got the contract to supply the systems. Then, there would be the conservatives up in arms over the government providing a service that allows people to go to (gasp!) PORN sites (alternatively, the liberals would be fuming over the government censorship due to the presence of cyber-nanny software).
Besides, given the state of government computing systems, the systems provided would be 80286's running 1200 Kbs modems.
A great many years ago (more than I care to mention), I was looking for my first job. I went to an employment service and got interviewed for an insurance/securities sales job. I was told I had done brilliantly on the interview and got hired, paying the headhunter's fee based on potential earnings (what can I say? I was inexperienced and stupid). Fast forward about a year. Turns out that the so-called insurance company and the headhunters were in cahoots. I got scammed out of a fee, never earned a dime of commissions, but learned a heck of a lesson about jobs that sound too good to be true. The only thing missing in the Linuxgruven deal is the headhunter's office. They're just cutting out the middle man.