"Perhaps 99 per cent of all the men who have ever lived have known only need; they have been driven by necessity and have not been allowed the luxury of choice, In the future, this will no longer be true."
And that:
"the entire human race, without exception, must reach the literacy level of the average college graduate -within the next 50 years."
How do these two statements fit together? If technologyis to replace need with choice, how can it also require everyone have a college level education?
Shouldn't having our needs cared for by machines enable the individual who chooses to live as he pleases, possibly without the need to understand the technology?
Could the artist live and create works that the rest of enjoy without concern for the machines that grow her food?
I guess it seems to me that if technology is to free us from need (which I belive it can) shouldn't those of us who create it allow do so in a way that dosn't create more need, and dosn't create absolute dependence (All systems are imperfect, interdependencies between systems brings an increased chance of failure)
Any number of tricks could get around a problem like this, for instance lightweight encryption (minimal size increse etc..)would make an mp3 unrecognizable to any program looking to prevent it from being blocked by, say... Netscape or Windows2000, and a nicely modular mp3 player like winamp would easily pick up the ability to play the file.
Of course I dont see consumers letting this happen to begin with..
Beware one distrabution...
on
NOS Crossroads
·
· Score: 2
I'm tired, but in the linux review linked to from this article something along the lines of "Comercial software vendors would be wise to standerdise on a particular distrabution."
This seems like quite a bad idea to me. It would fragment OS further if, for example, your enterprise word processing app only ran on Caldera but the remote administration package you needed was RedHat only.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems to me faith is inversely proportional to education and intelegence?
I mean, the more I think about it the more god seems like a bad idea.
What use would we be to them?
Clarke says:
And that:
How do these two statements fit together? If technologyis to replace need with choice, how can it also require everyone have a college level education?
Shouldn't having our needs cared for by machines enable the individual who chooses to live as he pleases, possibly without the need to understand the technology?
Could the artist live and create works that the rest of enjoy without concern for the machines that grow her food?
I guess it seems to me that if technology is to free us from need (which I belive it can) shouldn't those of us who create it allow do so in a way that dosn't create more need, and dosn't create absolute dependence (All systems are imperfect, interdependencies between systems brings an increased chance of failure)
Hmm.. Last time an app crashed and dumped core it didnt bring all my other processes to a halt untill I hit return or bring the machine down...
My complaint is that the OS allows this to happen (in the case of BO2k), and that the OS maker is doing very little to help.
You ask "How many checks like this does BO2K do?" shouldnt we ask why dosnt Windows do any checks like this?
Oh, and did I forget to mention:
"Power Bus - 13 Pin (four plus, four minus, 1 ground, 4 control (on, off, clear, init/test)"
Not that I make stuff like this but I think I'd do better than 'plus' and 'minus'
Agreed, its the pictures and phrases like
'future "set top boxes" used in future film rental system'
make me doubt it something feirce. Too bad, eh?
Ex: when I only visited slashdot
Any number of tricks could get around a problem like this, for instance lightweight encryption (minimal size increse etc..)would make an mp3 unrecognizable to any program looking to prevent it from being blocked by, say... Netscape or Windows2000, and a nicely modular mp3 player like winamp would easily pick up the ability to play the file.
Of course I dont see consumers letting this happen to begin with..
I'm tired, but in the linux review linked to from this article something along the lines of "Comercial software vendors would be wise to standerdise on a particular distrabution."
This seems like quite a bad idea to me. It would fragment OS further if, for example, your enterprise word processing app only ran on Caldera but the remote administration package you needed was RedHat only.
You have to admit that we are, if nothing else, funny. Maybe I'm a cynic.