Distributors like the MS monopoly.(***Calm down! Don't blow up just yet. Give me a chance to explain!)
Think about the job of a distributor. They collect widgets from manufactures, and take them to widget stores. In between they have to store and monitor inventory on widgets from each manufacturer. If there are 10 manufactures, each producing 10 types for widgets, the distributer must maintain sufficient inventory on 100 items. If there are 10 manufactures, each producing 10 types for widgets for each of 10 types of widget boxes, the distributer must now maintain sufficient inventory on 1000 items.
How much do you stock for manufacturer x, of widget y for box z (denoted x.y.z)? What happens when the 100 people that wanted x.y.z switch to box z~ and your left holding 50 units of x.y.z?
It is in the distributors interest to keep everyone locked into MS. It keeps their inventory and maintainance headaches down by a factor of 2. If Linux catches on and people discover that there are alternate OSs out there, the distributor will have to 1)stock everything available or 2) continually tail people "We don't carry widget y for box z, but you could try widget n for box l and modify it." (of course, that would never happen since it requires some knowledge of the marketplace other than sales volume).
The RIAA has been in the same situation for years. How many CD's of various genres will fit in a store? If you put every conceivable genre into a music superstore, how many would you end up warehousing year after year with nary a sale? RIAA's solution is to control what's played over the radio (subtlely controlling choice) and limit the number of people they give contracts to. The purpose in rock 'superstars' is to be able to have one item that runs off the shelf. You only have to inventory one item, and customers will by it or nothing else (choice be damned).
What should we do? RIAA doesn't get a dime of my money. I listen to the music I like, because I enjoy the choice of downloading mp3 from the net. The artist gets my money, and I get to like what I'm listening to (Of course, my wife irritates me with "Can't you get anything popular off the net?", eg. "Can't you download the same inane sh*t that me and all the other sheep are allowed by RIAA to hear?" It's funny how people always seem to clamour to have an aristocracy rule over them.)
I'll do the same with my software, thank you. Tell Epic, et.al., that you would be glad to buy a copy of the game from them, but you will not go through a restrictive bottleneck like GT. They are an unnecessary and expensive dinosaur of a leech in today's networked world. Like the RIAA, their profit is secured by categorizing and limiting consumer choice through a defunct business model. Damn the model and any company that chooses to live by it.
Epic, if you're game is any good, you could be much more profitable selling direct to customers. You don't get the store exposure, but you don't need it if you're good, and you keep all the money.
A more significant beef about PG is that it is centralized and dominated by one person, who does not share the philosophy of Open Source production that most of us do.
I'll have to concur on this point. Several years ago I wrote a small hack that would convert the PG's version of the King James Bible to html. It broke each book down into a seperate directory and then created a different file for each page. It created a table of contents as index.html and I even added a truly exhaustive concordance before loosing interest in the project. I contacted PG contact person via email to make a gift of my work to the project, but he was reluctant to try the program because it created sub-directories. He felt that sub-directories were to difficult to remove.
You don't get a throng of people wanting to join your project with this sort of not-invented-here attitude.
Ok so I wrote a small program that converts an mpg into a format suitable for XCDRoast (including the information file). I'd like to give others access, but I don't want to trudge through CVS and all of the other administrivia. Where can I drop a small hack for the rest of the world to pick it up?
I keep hearing about the 'idiots at the patent office', but I don't understand the attitude. A group of under-paid civil-servants are ordered by Congress and the courts to do the impossible, efficiently judge that which they know nothing about. They have lawyers screaming in their face to let a patent through. When they do, they have the whole (cyber) world laughing at them, but at least the pressure is gone. How many software engineers who know enough about the industry to make reasonable decision would work at the patent office?
Is it possible to release patents for open review before they are granted, or is the process to keep them secret? Could Slashdot offer a forum for patent review? Maybe the patent office could issue RFPAs (Request For Prior Art) on the web. Then Rob et.al. could pull in the abstracts that related somehow to News for Nerds and Stuff That Matters and post them here on Slashdot.
PREMISE: Providing aid and comfort to the enemy during time of war is considered treason and is punishable by death.
QUESTION: A farmer providing food to an enemy soldier is providing aid. A dry-cleaner washing his uniform is providing comfort. Are these acts punishable? Why or why not? What about factory workers who build attack jets? Package MREs? Bullets? Cruise missiles? What about railroad workers who transport troops?
One of the reasons for the increased ratio of civilian vs military casualties is the more recent wars is the increased involvement of civilians in the war process. The classification of civilian/military is a feudalistic concept that breaks down with modern warfare and the mass mobilization of entire societies.
I worked at an AT&T plant a few years ago in Whitsett, NC as a tester. We produced telephone encryption devices which sold mostly to the government. If you watch Air Force One, the large telephone that Indiana Jones uses in the plane's control room after he was captured by the terrorist was produced by us.
We produced a device that had similar function except that it was about the size of a Palm Pilot and could work with any normal telephone. You just plugged the hand jack into it and then plug it into the base. What happened to this device?
I got to help with the job of opening everyone of them up and installing a extra IC so that your friendly US Uncle could listen in on them. Does anyone remember 'Clipper'. I've actually handled those ICs. The rumor was that the FBI paid millions for us to do this (basically bought all the units we had produced). Needless to say, production of the unit ceased almost immediately. And the unit was very quickly fogotten by most.
There are no large corporations that can go up against the Feds and win. The executives know this and won't even try.
I didn't say the Chinese people thought their government was protecting the people's best interest.
But it is true. Many of the Chinese people feel that the government is most concerned with the peoples welfare. I had an opportunity to speak to an exchange student from China a short while after Tienamen Square (sp?)
Her viewpoint: China is changing quickly -- becoming more capitalist. What is the correct rate of change? As in most social upheavels, some people get left out -- note the western Industrial Revolution that brought poor peasant farmers to live in urban squalor. How do you insure improvement for EVERYBODY, not just the rich/smart/strong? Note that nearly every revolution in history only occurs as a large group of people begin to improve their standard of living, but don't feel that it's improving fast enough. The strong/smart from the previously oppressed group become leaders that seek to overthrow the previous oppressors, not so much to provide a better life for the oppressed masses as much as for themselves. Things may eventually improve, but revolutions aren't for making things better for people, they're for making people feel better about things.
This students view, which she stated was shared by a large percentage of her compatriots, is that the leaders are trying to affect a change to a capitalist economy slowly and carefully, making sure no one gets left behind, and no one gets abused. Improvements come slowly, but without the social upheavels and pain associated with most revolutions.
She liked the idea of freedom of speech in the west, but decried the chaos that has arisen from it. Her question was basically, at what price freedom?
Is she right? Who are we as swashbuckling westerners to judge a closed, highly paternalistic society that is completely foreign to us? China's history, culture, outlook and development is so different from ours. Were the people at Tienamen Square fighting for the rights of all Chinese, or did they just want to have THEIR say in how things should progress. Before answering, there have been several documentaries that were critical of the organization of the protest where several groups proclaimed themselves the leaders which led to a lot of infighting. Yes they shot and jailed people, but in a country of a billion people, what do you do to keep a powder keg from going off?
Do I agree with her? Let's just say that I'm glad that I'm not the one responsible for the welfare of a billion people. I do see the selection of Linux as the official OS as fitting in with her view of the leadership. They are pragmatic leaders looking for what's best for their country. They don't give a hair off of a rat's ass about the west or Microsoft. Billy Gates went in preaching intellectual property rights and had the US government do the same. The Chinese leaders said screw you, here's something that works better, which we don't have to worry about hidden snoops in (does anyone believe that we don't have spies over there), and which we don't have to fork over billions to an Imperialist for. (We call them Communist, the call us Imperialist). I seriously doubt that Linux's debatable communist origins had anything to do with the decision.
And let's not forget the 'innovation' of a different file format that consumes 12k for an empty document but otherwise can't save any information that the previous format didn't. How does this do anthing other than break the compatibility of competing products?
How about modifying 'hidden' API's in ways that only break competitors products? Is this 'innovative'?
I think the judge erred on wording because there really isn't a word for what Microsoft does. Maybe the judge should have said something like,
"Microsoft makes too many trivial modification to their software which breaks the compatibility of competitors products without enhancing the value of the software from a customer's perspective."
No, in wartime you never bomb the hospitals. Hospitals represent a drain on the enemy resources. Did you know that the M16 rifle (the main weapon carried by US infantry) is not designed to kill? It is designed to maim. It is much easier for an enemy soldier to fight when surrounded by dead friends than when surrounded by wounded friends who are crying out in pain. The poor soldier has to make a decision to keep fighting or to try to save his wounded comrade. If he chooses the former, he will have a sneaking suspicion in the back of his head that someone will pay him the same honor. If he chooses the latter and carries his wounded comrade off the battlefield, you've reduced the enemy's number by two and the enemy now has a wounded soldier that it must heal. A dead comrade is a martyr, and the only burden on the enemy is that they have to dig some holes.
(I hope I spelled that right) This is completely ridiculous. When you declare war, you have decided that you're going to go to another country and kill their people. THAT IS A CRIME. 'but it's OK if we only kill soldiers, but they are fighting back' What's the difference between a guy who will shoot you and a guy who will try to help the guy who will shoot you by providing him with food, shelter, ammunition, medical care, etc? If I kill the farmer that feeds the soldier, want that make it easier to kill the soldier by demorallizing him? It's war, and it's not meant to be pretty. That's why I get pissed off that our lame Congress allows that President to conduct war without their formal declaration of war. If war cannot be justified to enough people in Congress, it shouldn't be carried out. If it is justifiable, then everything the enemy has is a target. Pandering around the enemy so that people at home aren't upset by what they see on TV only gets our men killed. War is the ultimate sanction. It is ugly and unwarranted in almost every case. (The Balkan crises could have been solved much better by using the billions spent on bombs to build cities for the displaced refugees. The groups are seperated, and the aggressors look silly as they are left out of the windfall.) However, once war is decided upon every method available should be used to hurt the enemy in order to save our men. Anything else is tatamount to treason.
As is customary in the Senat, this will be completed by auditions and everything will be examined with a sense of responsibility, rigorousness and analysis of the various consequences. This conforms the tradition of the role to the Senat at the heart of the French Parliament.
This sure is different than here in the good ol' US where this sentence would read:
As is customary in the Senate, this will be completed by auction and everything will be examined with an eye toward campaign contributions and rigorous analysis of the likelihood of landing a cushy consultancy job after my political stint. This confirms the tradition of the role of the Senate as a receivership of graft and corruption.
Let's not use technology to identify and quantify the qualities that would tend to make someone violent. Instead, let's depend upon underpaid civil servants with their superhuman impartiallity to pick out the problem cases. Then the teachers (who, by the way, are at the root of all student evils to begin with) can suggest to parents that there may be something wrong happening their precious child.
My brother has a child whose teacher has repeatedly stated that the child needs professional attention. My brother's solution? He is going to homeschool. "There ain't nothin' wrong with my child. The stupid teacher don't know what she's talkin' about." (Yes people, I started life as a redneck.) Imagine his reaction when the teacher informs him that in her professional opinion, his child has the potential to be deadly violent. And remember no matter how well trained she is, without documented facts it is still just an opinion. I found the quote from the principal justified. He can now say, "I teachers think your kid might be violent, and we have a computer profile to back us up. Now, get the child help, or we will!"
>>The second suggestion is more intruging. It seems to suggest that there is a causal link between level of education and birth rate. Indeed higher education levels have all sorts of good effects like spurring the economy and generally improves the standard of living.
Oh, give us a friggin' break. And the timing of the rooster crow seems to suggest that there is a causal link between its crow and the sun rising. Now does the rooster make the sun rise, or does the sun rising make the rooster crow? Isn't it much more likely that greater affluence allows for increased education?
If a couple has to scrape dirt with blunt sticks in order to grow enough food to survive, how are they going to afford an education? And what the hell would they do with it after they have it? (Son, I know you're hungry, but look that this cool website I've designed. Ain't Perl great.)
One poster claims that Linux and the Internet will raise the world out of poverty. WHAT? If we could just get this fertilizer to the poor farmers... People who live by subsistence farming are a long way from needing ANYTHING the internet provides.
I know some people will find this statement blasphemous, but COMPUTERS AND THE INTERNET DID NOT MAKE THE US A WORLD POWER. If any one thing could take credit, it would be the internal combustion engine. Give the 3rd world decent tractors so that they can farm more than an acre per man. This removes the need to have six kids as a retirement plan, and frees up people to move into other specializations. Very soon, the society moves to a state where education becomes useful, SELF actualization becomes important, children become more of a burden, and THEN population will decrease.
So the UN goes to the 3rd world, passes out condoms, and tells everyone the world is going to blow up if they keep having babies. The people still need that retirement plan. Why don't they pass out a few cheap deisel powered tractors, and see what happens. One man can do the work of 100s, people move off the farms into the cities, and population drops.
After that, maybe the Internet will become useful.
Attempting to use NT on any system not configured by Microsoft or with any software not written by Microsoft or in any way not specifically condoned by Microsoft.
Any user with a lick of sense knows that you should only install NT on a MS certified system, install MS Office Sh^Huite, and never touch the thing until it is time to upgrade to W2004 (released in 2006 of course).
Heh, as an aside, did MS call NT 'W2K' so that when they get around to releasing it late next year, they can claim that it is actually 47 years early. (1K=1024 in computerland)
How about NEVER having to buy a CRT again (anyone here care to estimate the environmental damage cause by melting this much glass and coating it with phosphors as compared to making these disposable displays?)
I would like a display as big as my desk (with a resolution of 1Megx1Meg). The software should have handwriting recognition. Then I could look at lots of documents at once which I could move and write on the way I find most natural (with a pen).
Since amorphous silicon is also used in solar cells, could the back of a PDA also be a power supply? Charges a small battery and runs the unit when in bright light; the unit runs off the battery when in the dark.
Make the display wireless, with my server sitting in a closet. I can then read and work while laid out on the couch. This is possible now, but is prohibited by price. With such a cheap technology for the display, money can be spent on other parts of the unit.
There isn't a computer big enough to handle all the meta-data for every user rating every page of conten on the net, but do we really need that?
I have my content filtered through Slashdot. Yes, that's right. I don't have time to search the web for interesting news, so I let the like minded people here help me.
The NRA or RIAA also have websites where I can find information that each think is important. Yahoo also has something similar, but they call theirs a 'portal'.
This proposal seems to be an answer to a problem that is already solved. It boils down to a proposal to wrap-up all of the existing portals into one big portal.
>>This never could have happened under the Watsons or Akers, BTW.
I have to agree with this whole heartedly. IBM now has a CEO who is not in love with technology. He is not interested in creating proprietary standards. His only driving force is delivering 'solutions' to customers.
He is a man who became frustrated with IS companies who only wanted to talk about how fast their latest gizmo was. He didn't care. He wants to know how it can help him do his job better. That (not so) subtle point has revitalized this company. The 'not invented here' syndrome is gasping for its last dying breath within IBM. It's not about where it came from, it's about "how can we use this to enhance our customer's business."
Open Source and Linux fit well in with this new ideology. IBM can twist OS in all different directions to better support customers; whereas, they can't touch Windows without consent from Microsoft.
One of the inhibitors of widespread use of new wireless phones in America is the fact that everyone is so dispersed. What is the coverage of a cell phone base station? Around 10 miles under optimal conditions? Let's say France is a 200 mile square (numbers simplified to protect the mind of the author). It would only take 400 or so base stations to cover everyone in the country (I worked on a wireless product once. The hardest part in expanding service is getting permits for new base stations. Not only do people consider them 'ugly' and fight against having them around, but the FCC is very careful about not interfering with other types of communications).
Now, consider America. 400 stations might cover my home state of North Carolina. But I want it to work everywhere I go. Bell South's digital service worked between Charlotte, Greensboro, and Raleigh. But what happens when I visit my brother in Ashboro, or I take a trip to the beach. The phone becomes useless.
For those people who complain that America has a hodgepodge of standards, remember that the coverage area of Bell South approximates that of most of Europe. If the whole country had to use one technology at the same time, I doubt that we would ever advance. (Is the best technology used for the heavily populated northeast the same for the barely inhabitted southwest?)
As for the question of whether you reall want to have your PDA and phone integrated: eyeglass displays with an earphone at the end of they eyeglass' arm, and a drop-down mic. The PDA itself would resemble one of those mouse replacement touchpads -- a couple of buttons and a little pad. The wire could run under clothing with the PDA resting in a pocket until needed. It's not all that hard to imagine graceful integration.
I had a wrestling coach in college who asked his class who the three participants in a match are.
Three?! There's only two, dangit -- the two wrestlers. But there are three he insist. Ok, I guess, the two wrestlers and the referee? No, the ref is just a scorekeeper.
Finally, we all give up. The answer...the two wrestlers and the MAT. The mat can be friend or foe depending upon which wrestler is smart enough to use it to their advantage.
I've taken that lesson to heart in recent years. In any battle there are three participants, one being the environment in which the battle occurs. Native americans fought invading settlers much more effectively than their numbers because they used the environment to their advantage. The settlers did the same against the English in the Revolutionary war.
These experiments were nothing more than an attempt to turn the sea into a destructive force to use against the Japanese. Nothing really spectacular.
For the people all concerned about giving whales headaches, BWHAHAAAHAAA... Think about it. We were at war. The intent in war is to KILL the enemy (or at least severly wound them so that they are a burden and help demoralize their compatriats (sp?)), so that you don't get killed yourself. If a few whales (hell, a lot of whales) must be sacrificed in that goal, then so be it.
"Let the other guy [and his whale] die for his country." General George F. Patton.
As someone else has commented, in the UK we don't have a problem with stabbings in schools (one incident this decade), so people arent going to make a switch to alternative weapons.
UK != US
Countries have character, and each is different. That character is derived from generations of culture. A big part of the US character comes from the "wild-west" romances of a big guy with a big gun beating all the big bullies. We romanticise (sp?) the Revolution, where we threw off the mantle of a paternalistic king and stood on our own two feet. The UK on the other hand is still steeped in the traditions of obeyance to the ruler (though, I'm to understand that that aspect is changing rather quickly). Europeans are much more prone to obey and follow leaders. In America it is often considered manly to make a fool of oneself by obstinately resisting leadership of any kind.
It also has a lot to do with the countries size. There is a lot more public transportation in Europe, because the people are closer together. Saying that Americans should use as much public transportation as the Europeans is ridiculous. Is a giant double-decker bus supposed to drive 10 miles down a country road to get remotely close to my house so that it can pick up only one passenger? It is much more economical for me to get in my little car and drive that 10 miles myself.
Just as transportation choices don't port between countries, neither do crime control choices. Most countries are fairly homogeneous collections for people with a clear hereditity. There is often a sense of community and responsibility. In America, it is every man for himself, and we're damn proud of it. This has the unfortunate side effect that people find it easier to justify taking someone else's property, because 'they deserve it'. Combine the natural inclination toward higher crime with the size of the country and you have problems. Police will never be able to aid you (they can't be everywhere at once). If you don't protect yourself, your fodder.
So you can't say that we do such-n-such in the UK and it's Utopia. Columbine isn't in the UK.
,but for different reasons. Where does most of the development occur on Linux? Where there is an itch. How many people have an itch to run one of the Big3 IRC servers on Linux? Now compare that to the number of people and companies that use the multitudes of smaller systems that have been scratching for years to get rid of the fiberglass necktie that is Microsoft.
Most of the coders for Linux do it in their free time on their own equipment. Most of those coders don't run superhuge servers of any type, can't afford such systems, and if they did they would most likely be happier to pay someone big bucks for a solution rather than hack it themselves. But a $199 system...aahh, now that is what I call hackable. Everyone can afford one, and go hacking on the kernel. Before long, it works better on the cheap system than anywhere else.
Is anyone suprised by this? Development on Linux will take the path of least resistance. Lack of access is a big impediment; therefore, Linux will shine more and more on cheap systems. That doesn't imply that it will shine less on large ones, though. People there still itch, they'd just rather pay someone else to scratch for them.
Katz and most of the respondents to his meanderings are full of themselves. First of all, politicians don't have all day to cruise chat rooms and read Slashdot like college students. Second, even if they did spend all day online, MOST of the VOTING public isn't online. Have you ever gone to vote? Take a day off work to stand in a long line. Your vote counts? Yeah, but as much as a days pay. VOTING has become the province of RETIRED citizens. Why do you think social security is a sacred cow?
As for 'net politicians' not having view on moral legislation -- all laws are about morality. When you finally wake up, you'll realize that. Laws are nothing more that the formalized coding of a societies mores. You may not like the mores some politicians are fighting for, but guess what, a large portion of the VOTING public does. That's why those politicians have a voice.
You say you still don't like the fact that a large portion of the population didn't want an adulterous liar for a president. Well, you can go out and shoot all the STUPID people so that they can't vote or have a say in how the country is run, but that would be against the law because it is immoral isn't it.
Everyone believes that the world would be perfect if only I could be king for a day. The net will not change that. Most people will still be lazy and vote for: 1) who the preacher likes 2) who Larry King likes 3) who the wacko environmentalist leader likes 4) whoever promises more social-security 5) whoever is black 6) whoever is not black ...
My Mom voted straight Democrat one year, because she had voted straight Republican previously. I begged her not to vote anymore, but would campaigning on the net have any effect?
Putting more information online only helps if people actually look for it there.
Oh boy, here we go off the deep end. If you clone a body, you have to wait for it to be born and grow. At that point, it is an individual. You can't just murder someone so that you can live longer. You could just teach all you know to the youngster, but we already have a formalized system for that. It's call SCHOOL!
Or what if we could take the heads of dying people (say, heart attack victims who are falling over the edge) and mount them on a rack system. Then we could network them and have a helluva beowulf cluster.
What would be involved in porting Linux to the human mind? Damn, no device drivers! Do you think we could mail-bomb God's email server and convince him to open-source the code to a mouth or eye driver?
Why should I have to change my behavior or dress to conform to someone else's ideal? Why should I be beat up for being different? Why should I be forced to adapt to anti-social behavior?
Read what I said. A smart animal will change itself or its environment to suit its needs. Keep wearing the trenchcoat if you want to be defiant, but if your still getting beat-up for it, you're not very smart. To me, defiance is only gratifying when I win. Then I get to sneer and kick the jerkoff while he/she is down. Bwhahahaa!
Read some sci-fi once, can remember the book or author (Childhood's End, maybe), but one twist of the plot was some extremely gifted children who hid their intelligence. They tried very hard to look average. They were smart enough to realize that life would be much easier if they didn't appear to be different.
Now here is a clue for anyone who must deal with a group socially. Humans are pack animals. Watch every show you can about wolves, and look for the similarity between them and humans. Note that you won't necessarily have to be the strongest one in the pack to be the leader, you'll just have to make the others believe that you're the strongest. If you're so damn smart, figure out how to look stronger, trenchcoat or not.
Slashdot Mirror
to how the world works.
Distributors like the MS monopoly.(***Calm down! Don't blow up just yet. Give me a chance to explain!)
Think about the job of a distributor. They collect widgets from manufactures, and take them to widget stores. In between they have to store and monitor inventory on widgets from each manufacturer. If there are 10 manufactures, each producing 10 types for widgets, the distributer must maintain sufficient inventory on 100 items. If there are 10 manufactures, each producing 10 types for widgets for each of 10 types of widget boxes, the distributer must now maintain sufficient inventory on 1000 items.
How much do you stock for manufacturer x, of widget y for box z (denoted x.y.z)? What happens when the 100 people that wanted x.y.z switch to box z~ and your left holding 50 units of x.y.z?
It is in the distributors interest to keep everyone locked into MS. It keeps their inventory and maintainance headaches down by a factor of 2. If Linux catches on and people discover that there are alternate OSs out there, the distributor will have to 1)stock everything available or 2) continually tail people "We don't carry widget y for box z, but you could try widget n for box l and modify it." (of course, that would never happen since it requires some knowledge of the marketplace other than sales volume).
The RIAA has been in the same situation for years. How many CD's of various genres will fit in a store? If you put every conceivable genre into a music superstore, how many would you end up warehousing year after year with nary a sale? RIAA's solution is to control what's played over the radio (subtlely controlling choice) and limit the number of people they give contracts to. The purpose in rock 'superstars' is to be able to have one item that runs off the shelf. You only have to inventory one item, and customers will by it or nothing else (choice be damned).
What should we do? RIAA doesn't get a dime of my money. I listen to the music I like, because I enjoy the choice of downloading mp3 from the net. The artist gets my money, and I get to like what I'm listening to (Of course, my wife irritates me with "Can't you get anything popular off the net?", eg. "Can't you download the same inane sh*t that me and all the other sheep are allowed by RIAA to hear?" It's funny how people always seem to clamour to have an aristocracy rule over them.)
I'll do the same with my software, thank you. Tell Epic, et.al., that you would be glad to buy a copy of the game from them, but you will not go through a restrictive bottleneck like GT. They are an unnecessary and expensive dinosaur of a leech in today's networked world. Like the RIAA, their profit is secured by categorizing and limiting consumer choice through a defunct business model. Damn the model and any company that chooses to live by it.
Epic, if you're game is any good, you could be much more profitable selling direct to customers. You don't get the store exposure, but you don't need it if you're good, and you keep all the money.
A more significant beef about PG is that it is centralized and dominated by one person, who does not share the philosophy of Open Source production that most of us do.
I'll have to concur on this point. Several years ago I wrote a small hack that would convert the PG's version of the King James Bible to html. It broke each book down into a seperate directory and then created a different file for each page. It created a table of contents as index.html and I even added a truly exhaustive concordance before loosing interest in the project. I contacted PG contact person via email to make a gift of my work to the project, but he was reluctant to try the program because it created sub-directories. He felt that sub-directories were to difficult to remove.
You don't get a throng of people wanting to join your project with this sort of not-invented-here attitude.
Ok so I wrote a small program that converts an mpg into a format suitable for XCDRoast (including the information file). I'd like to give others access, but I don't want to trudge through CVS and all of the other administrivia. Where can I drop a small hack for the rest of the world to pick it up?
I keep hearing about the 'idiots at the patent office', but I don't understand the attitude. A group of under-paid civil-servants are ordered by Congress and the courts to do the impossible, efficiently judge that which they know nothing about. They have lawyers screaming in their face to let a patent through. When they do, they have the whole (cyber) world laughing at them, but at least the pressure is gone. How many software engineers who know enough about the industry to make reasonable decision would work at the patent office?
Is it possible to release patents for open review before they are granted, or is the process to keep them secret? Could Slashdot offer a forum for patent review? Maybe the patent office could issue RFPAs (Request For Prior Art) on the web. Then Rob et.al. could pull in the abstracts that related somehow to News for Nerds and Stuff That Matters and post them here on Slashdot.
PREMISE: Providing aid and comfort to the enemy during time of war is considered treason and is punishable by death.
QUESTION: A farmer providing food to an enemy soldier is providing aid. A dry-cleaner washing his uniform is providing comfort. Are these acts punishable? Why or why not? What about factory workers who build attack jets? Package MREs? Bullets? Cruise missiles? What about railroad workers who transport troops?
One of the reasons for the increased ratio of civilian vs military casualties is the more recent wars is the increased involvement of civilians in the war process. The classification of civilian/military is a feudalistic concept that breaks down with modern warfare and the mass mobilization of entire societies.
I worked at an AT&T plant a few years ago in Whitsett, NC as a tester. We produced telephone encryption devices which sold mostly to the government. If you watch Air Force One, the large telephone that Indiana Jones uses in the plane's control room after he was captured by the terrorist was produced by us.
We produced a device that had similar function except that it was about the size of a Palm Pilot and could work with any normal telephone. You just plugged the hand jack into it and then plug it into the base. What happened to this device?
I got to help with the job of opening everyone of them up and installing a extra IC so that your friendly US Uncle could listen in on them. Does anyone remember 'Clipper'. I've actually handled those ICs. The rumor was that the FBI paid millions for us to do this (basically bought all the units we had produced). Needless to say, production of the unit ceased almost immediately. And the unit was very quickly fogotten by most.
There are no large corporations that can go up against the Feds and win. The executives know this and won't even try.
I didn't say the Chinese people thought their government was protecting the people's best interest.
But it is true. Many of the Chinese people feel that the government is most concerned with the peoples welfare. I had an opportunity to speak to an exchange student from China a short while after Tienamen Square (sp?)
Her viewpoint: China is changing quickly -- becoming more capitalist. What is the correct rate of change? As in most social upheavels, some people get left out -- note the western Industrial Revolution that brought poor peasant farmers to live in urban squalor. How do you insure improvement for EVERYBODY, not just the rich/smart/strong? Note that nearly every revolution in history only occurs as a large group of people begin to improve their standard of living, but don't feel that it's improving fast enough. The strong/smart from the previously oppressed group become leaders that seek to overthrow the previous oppressors, not so much to provide a better life for the oppressed masses as much as for themselves. Things may eventually improve, but revolutions aren't for making things better for people, they're for making people feel better about things.
This students view, which she stated was shared by a large percentage of her compatriots, is that the leaders are trying to affect a change to a capitalist economy slowly and carefully, making sure no one gets left behind, and no one gets abused. Improvements come slowly, but without the social upheavels and pain associated with most revolutions.
She liked the idea of freedom of speech in the west, but decried the chaos that has arisen from it. Her question was basically, at what price freedom?
Is she right? Who are we as swashbuckling westerners to judge a closed, highly paternalistic society that is completely foreign to us? China's history, culture, outlook and development is so different from ours. Were the people at Tienamen Square fighting for the rights of all Chinese, or did they just want to have THEIR say in how things should progress. Before answering, there have been several documentaries that were critical of the organization of the protest where several groups proclaimed themselves the leaders which led to a lot of infighting. Yes they shot and jailed people, but in a country of a billion people, what do you do to keep a powder keg from going off?
Do I agree with her? Let's just say that I'm glad that I'm not the one responsible for the welfare of a billion people. I do see the selection of Linux as the official OS as fitting in with her view of the leadership. They are pragmatic leaders looking for what's best for their country. They don't give a hair off of a rat's ass about the west or Microsoft. Billy Gates went in preaching intellectual property rights and had the US government do the same. The Chinese leaders said screw you, here's something that works better, which we don't have to worry about hidden snoops in (does anyone believe that we don't have spies over there), and which we don't have to fork over billions to an Imperialist for. (We call them Communist, the call us Imperialist). I seriously doubt that Linux's debatable communist origins had anything to do with the decision.
And let's not forget the 'innovation' of a different file format that consumes 12k for an empty document but otherwise can't save any information that the previous format didn't. How does this do anthing other than break the compatibility of competing products?
How about modifying 'hidden' API's in ways that only break competitors products? Is this 'innovative'?
I think the judge erred on wording because there really isn't a word for what Microsoft does. Maybe the judge should have said something like,
"Microsoft makes too many trivial modification to their software which breaks the compatibility of competitors products without enhancing the value of the software from a customer's perspective."
Naw, doesn't sound technical enough.
No, in wartime you never bomb the hospitals. Hospitals represent a drain on the enemy resources.
Did you know that the M16 rifle (the main weapon carried by US infantry) is not designed to kill? It is designed to maim. It is much easier for an enemy soldier to fight when surrounded by dead friends than when surrounded by wounded friends who are crying out in pain. The poor soldier has to make a decision to keep fighting or to try to save his wounded comrade. If he chooses the former, he will have a sneaking suspicion in the back of his head that someone will pay him the same honor. If he chooses the latter and carries his wounded comrade off the battlefield, you've reduced the enemy's number by two and the enemy now has a wounded soldier that it must heal. A dead comrade is a martyr, and the only burden on the enemy is that they have to dig some holes.
(I hope I spelled that right) This is completely ridiculous. When you declare war, you have decided that you're going to go to another country and kill their people. THAT IS A CRIME. 'but it's OK if we only kill soldiers, but they are fighting back' What's the difference between a guy who will shoot you and a guy who will try to help the guy who will shoot you by providing him with food, shelter, ammunition, medical care, etc? If I kill the farmer that feeds the soldier, want that make it easier to kill the soldier by demorallizing him? It's war, and it's not meant to be pretty. That's why I get pissed off that our lame Congress allows that President to conduct war without their formal declaration of war. If war cannot be justified to enough people in Congress, it shouldn't be carried out. If it is justifiable, then everything the enemy has is a target. Pandering around the enemy so that people at home aren't upset by what they see on TV only gets our men killed. War is the ultimate sanction. It is ugly and unwarranted in almost every case. (The Balkan crises could have been solved much better by using the billions spent on bombs to build cities for the displaced refugees. The groups are seperated, and the aggressors look silly as they are left out of the windfall.) However, once war is decided upon every method available should be used to hurt the enemy in order to save our men. Anything else is tatamount to treason.
As is customary in the Senat, this will be completed by auditions and everything will be examined with a sense of responsibility, rigorousness and analysis of the various consequences. This conforms the tradition of the role to the Senat at the heart of the French Parliament.
This sure is different than here in the good ol' US where this sentence would read:
As is customary in the Senate, this will be completed by auction and everything will be examined with an eye toward campaign contributions and rigorous analysis of the likelihood of landing a cushy consultancy job after my political stint. This confirms the tradition of the role of the Senate as a receivership of graft and corruption.
Let's not use technology to identify and quantify the qualities that would tend to make someone violent. Instead, let's depend upon underpaid civil servants with their superhuman impartiallity to pick out the problem cases. Then the teachers (who, by the way, are at the root of all student evils to begin with) can suggest to parents that there may be something wrong happening their precious child.
My brother has a child whose teacher has repeatedly stated that the child needs professional attention. My brother's solution? He is going to homeschool. "There ain't nothin' wrong with my child. The stupid teacher don't know what she's talkin' about." (Yes people, I started life as a redneck.) Imagine his reaction when the teacher informs him that in her professional opinion, his child has the potential to be deadly violent. And remember no matter how well trained she is, without documented facts it is still just an opinion. I found the quote from the principal justified. He can now say, "I teachers think your kid might be violent, and we have a computer profile to back us up. Now, get the child help, or we will!"
>>The second suggestion is more intruging. It seems to suggest that there is a causal link between level of education and birth rate. Indeed higher education levels have all sorts of good effects like spurring the economy and generally improves the standard of living.
Oh, give us a friggin' break. And the timing of the rooster crow seems to suggest that there is a causal link between its crow and the sun rising. Now does the rooster make the sun rise, or does the sun rising make the rooster crow? Isn't it much more likely that greater affluence allows for increased education?
If a couple has to scrape dirt with blunt sticks in order to grow enough food to survive, how are they going to afford an education? And what the hell would they do with it after they have it? (Son, I know you're hungry, but look that this cool website I've designed. Ain't Perl great.)
One poster claims that Linux and the Internet will raise the world out of poverty. WHAT? If we could just get this fertilizer to the poor farmers... People who live by subsistence farming are a long way from needing ANYTHING the internet provides.
I know some people will find this statement blasphemous, but COMPUTERS AND THE INTERNET DID NOT MAKE THE US A WORLD POWER. If any one thing could take credit, it would be the internal combustion engine. Give the 3rd world decent tractors so that they can farm more than an acre per man. This removes the need to have six kids as a retirement plan, and frees up people to move into other specializations. Very soon, the society moves to a state where education becomes useful, SELF actualization becomes important, children become more of a burden, and THEN population will decrease.
So the UN goes to the 3rd world, passes out condoms, and tells everyone the world is going to blow up if they keep having babies. The people still need that retirement plan. Why don't they pass out a few cheap deisel powered tractors, and see what happens. One man can do the work of 100s, people move off the farms into the cities, and population drops.
After that, maybe the Internet will become useful.
(besides buying it in the first place)
Attempting to use NT on any system not configured by Microsoft or with any software not written by Microsoft or in any way not specifically condoned by Microsoft.
Any user with a lick of sense knows that you should only install NT on a MS certified system, install MS Office Sh^Huite, and never touch the thing until it is time to upgrade to W2004 (released in 2006 of course).
Heh, as an aside, did MS call NT 'W2K' so that when they get around to releasing it late next year, they can claim that it is actually 47 years early. (1K=1024 in computerland)
How about NEVER having to buy a CRT again (anyone here care to estimate the environmental damage cause by melting this much glass and coating it with phosphors as compared to making these disposable displays?)
I would like a display as big as my desk (with a resolution of 1Megx1Meg). The software should have handwriting recognition. Then I could look at lots of documents at once which I could move and write on the way I find most natural (with a pen).
Since amorphous silicon is also used in solar cells, could the back of a PDA also be a power supply? Charges a small battery and runs the unit when in bright light; the unit runs off the battery when in the dark.
Make the display wireless, with my server sitting in a closet. I can then read and work while laid out on the couch. This is possible now, but is prohibited by price. With such a cheap technology for the display, money can be spent on other parts of the unit.
There isn't a computer big enough to handle all the meta-data for every user rating every page of conten on the net, but do we really need that?
I have my content filtered through Slashdot. Yes, that's right. I don't have time to search the web for interesting news, so I let the like minded people here help me.
The NRA or RIAA also have websites where I can find information that each think is important. Yahoo also has something similar, but they call theirs a 'portal'.
This proposal seems to be an answer to a problem that is already solved. It boils down to a proposal to wrap-up all of the existing portals into one big portal.
>>This never could have happened under the Watsons or Akers, BTW.
I have to agree with this whole heartedly. IBM now has a CEO who is not in love with technology. He is not interested in creating proprietary standards. His only driving force is delivering 'solutions' to customers.
He is a man who became frustrated with IS companies who only wanted to talk about how fast their latest gizmo was. He didn't care. He wants to know how it can help him do his job better. That (not so) subtle point has revitalized this company. The 'not invented here' syndrome is gasping for its last dying breath within IBM. It's not about where it came from, it's about "how can we use this to enhance our customer's business."
Open Source and Linux fit well in with this new ideology. IBM can twist OS in all different directions to better support customers; whereas, they can't touch Windows without consent from Microsoft.
One of the inhibitors of widespread use of new wireless phones in America is the fact that everyone is so dispersed. What is the coverage of a cell phone base station? Around 10 miles under optimal conditions? Let's say France is a 200 mile square (numbers simplified to protect the mind of the author). It would only take 400 or so base stations to cover everyone in the country (I worked on a wireless product once. The hardest part in expanding service is getting permits for new base stations. Not only do people consider them 'ugly' and fight against having them around, but the FCC is very careful about not interfering with other types of communications).
Now, consider America. 400 stations might cover my home state of North Carolina. But I want it to work everywhere I go. Bell South's digital service worked between Charlotte, Greensboro, and Raleigh. But what happens when I visit my brother in Ashboro, or I take a trip to the beach. The phone becomes useless.
For those people who complain that America has a hodgepodge of standards, remember that the coverage area of Bell South approximates that of most of Europe. If the whole country had to use one technology at the same time, I doubt that we would ever advance. (Is the best technology used for the heavily populated northeast the same for the barely inhabitted southwest?)
As for the question of whether you reall want to have your PDA and phone integrated: eyeglass displays with an earphone at the end of they eyeglass' arm, and a drop-down mic. The PDA itself would resemble one of those mouse replacement touchpads -- a couple of buttons and a little pad. The wire could run under clothing with the PDA resting in a pocket until needed. It's not all that hard to imagine graceful integration.
I had a wrestling coach in college who asked his class who the three participants in a match are.
Three?! There's only two, dangit -- the two wrestlers. But there are three he insist. Ok, I guess, the two wrestlers and the referee? No, the ref is just a scorekeeper.
Finally, we all give up. The answer...the two wrestlers and the MAT. The mat can be friend or foe depending upon which wrestler is smart enough to use it to their advantage.
I've taken that lesson to heart in recent years. In any battle there are three participants, one being the environment in which the battle occurs. Native americans fought invading settlers much more effectively than their numbers because they used the environment to their advantage. The settlers did the same against the English in the Revolutionary war.
These experiments were nothing more than an attempt to turn the sea into a destructive force to use against the Japanese. Nothing really spectacular.
For the people all concerned about giving whales headaches, BWHAHAAAHAAA... Think about it. We were at war. The intent in war is to KILL the enemy (or at least severly wound them so that they are a burden and help demoralize their compatriats (sp?)), so that you don't get killed yourself. If a few whales (hell, a lot of whales) must be sacrificed in that goal, then so be it.
"Let the other guy [and his whale] die for his country." General George F. Patton.
As someone else has commented, in the UK we don't have a problem with stabbings in schools (one incident this decade), so people arent going to make a switch to alternative weapons.
UK != US
Countries have character, and each is different. That character is derived from generations of culture. A big part of the US character comes from the "wild-west" romances of a big guy with a big gun beating all the big bullies. We romanticise (sp?) the Revolution, where we threw off the mantle of a paternalistic king and stood on our own two feet. The UK on the other hand is still steeped in the traditions of obeyance to the ruler (though, I'm to understand that that aspect is changing rather quickly). Europeans are much more prone to obey and follow leaders. In America it is often considered manly to make a fool of oneself by obstinately resisting leadership of any kind.
It also has a lot to do with the countries size. There is a lot more public transportation in Europe, because the people are closer together. Saying that Americans should use as much public transportation as the Europeans is ridiculous. Is a giant double-decker bus supposed to drive 10 miles down a country road to get remotely close to my house so that it can pick up only one passenger? It is much more economical for me to get in my little car and drive that 10 miles myself.
Just as transportation choices don't port between countries, neither do crime control choices. Most countries are fairly homogeneous collections for people with a clear hereditity. There is often a sense of community and responsibility. In America, it is every man for himself, and we're damn proud of it. This has the unfortunate side effect that people find it easier to justify taking someone else's property, because 'they deserve it'. Combine the natural inclination toward higher crime with the size of the country and you have problems. Police will never be able to aid you (they can't be everywhere at once). If you don't protect yourself, your fodder.
So you can't say that we do such-n-such in the UK and it's Utopia. Columbine isn't in the UK.
,but for different reasons. Where does most of the development occur on Linux? Where there is an itch. How many people have an itch to run one of the Big3 IRC servers on Linux? Now compare that to the number of people and companies that use the multitudes of smaller systems that have been scratching for years to get rid of the fiberglass necktie that is Microsoft.
Most of the coders for Linux do it in their free time on their own equipment. Most of those coders don't run superhuge servers of any type, can't afford such systems, and if they did they would most likely be happier to pay someone big bucks for a solution rather than hack it themselves. But a $199 system...aahh, now that is what I call hackable. Everyone can afford one, and go hacking on the kernel. Before long, it works better on the cheap system than anywhere else.
Is anyone suprised by this? Development on Linux will take the path of least resistance. Lack of access is a big impediment; therefore, Linux will shine more and more on cheap systems. That doesn't imply that it will shine less on large ones, though. People there still itch, they'd just rather pay someone else to scratch for them.
Katz and most of the respondents to his meanderings are full of themselves. First of all, politicians don't have all day to cruise chat rooms and read Slashdot like college students. Second, even if they did spend all day online, MOST of the VOTING public isn't online. Have you ever gone to vote? Take a day off work to stand in a long line. Your vote counts? Yeah, but as much as a days pay. VOTING has become the province of RETIRED citizens. Why do you think social security is a sacred cow?
As for 'net politicians' not having view on moral legislation -- all laws are about morality. When you finally wake up, you'll realize that. Laws are nothing more that the formalized coding of a societies mores. You may not like the mores some politicians are fighting for, but guess what, a large portion of the VOTING public does. That's why those politicians have a voice.
You say you still don't like the fact that a large portion of the population didn't want an adulterous liar for a president. Well, you can go out and shoot all the STUPID people so that they can't vote or have a say in how the country is run, but that would be against the law because it is immoral isn't it.
Everyone believes that the world would be perfect if only I could be king for a day. The net will not change that. Most people will still be lazy and vote for:
1) who the preacher likes
2) who Larry King likes
3) who the wacko environmentalist leader likes
4) whoever promises more social-security
5) whoever is black
6) whoever is not black
...
My Mom voted straight Democrat one year, because she had voted straight Republican previously. I begged her not to vote anymore, but would campaigning on the net have any effect?
Putting more information online only helps if people actually look for it there.
Oh boy, here we go off the deep end. If you clone a body, you have to wait for it to be born and grow. At that point, it is an individual. You can't just murder someone so that you can live longer. You could just teach all you know to the youngster, but we already have a formalized system for that. It's call SCHOOL!
Or what if we could take the heads of dying people (say, heart attack victims who are falling over the edge) and mount them on a rack system. Then we could network them and have a helluva beowulf cluster.
What would be involved in porting Linux to the human mind? Damn, no device drivers! Do you think we could mail-bomb God's email server and convince him to open-source the code to a mouth or eye driver?
That your wife was also the valedictorian of your graduating class
Aah, if it could only have been. But alas, she had a love of France and none of me. No matter, she will always remain an angel in my mind.
Why should I have to change my behavior or dress to conform to someone else's ideal? Why should I be beat up for being different? Why should I be forced to adapt to anti-social behavior?
Read what I said. A smart animal will change itself or its environment to suit its needs. Keep wearing the trenchcoat if you want to be defiant, but if your still getting beat-up for it, you're not very smart. To me, defiance is only gratifying when I win. Then I get to sneer and kick the jerkoff while he/she is down. Bwhahahaa!
Read some sci-fi once, can remember the book or author (Childhood's End, maybe), but one twist of the plot was some extremely gifted children who hid their intelligence. They tried very hard to look average. They were smart enough to realize that life would be much easier if they didn't appear to be different.
Now here is a clue for anyone who must deal with a group socially. Humans are pack animals. Watch every show you can about wolves, and look for the similarity between them and humans. Note that you won't necessarily have to be the strongest one in the pack to be the leader, you'll just have to make the others believe that you're the strongest. If you're so damn smart, figure out how to look stronger, trenchcoat or not.