Yep, I can see that. What the hell happened to you, Slashdot? I leave for a couple years, 'cause I've been busy, and now you're giving this opportunist a Q&A? Not only that, but throwing her softball questions so she can push her professional victim schtick, and downvoting people who point this out?
Personally, the only reason I watched sometimes was Kari Byron. I'll keep an eye on what she does next.
I do wish Hyneman and Savage luck. I like them, really, just not enough to actively follow what they do. If they come up with something interesting and get people talking, I'll check it out. But I feel the Mythbusters are about to bust the myth that people will watch a programme that lets go of their young and winsome cast members.
Oh yes, mineshafts, I love that one, let's do that as well, sign me up. What's the required men to women ratio, again, doc?
So what you're saying is, it would be (1) more boring than ISS, and (2) quite a bit more dangerous. I'm sure both are true - discovery and exploration have always been very risky, and this would be unprecedented so I'm sure it won't be a walk in the park. I'm not sure, but I don't think it would be boring and dangerous enough to be impossible. I am sure, though, that that hasn't stopped us before.
A colony on Mars won't be self-sufficient for a very long time, even if they get their water from the planet, and produce their own oxygen and grow their vegetables and stuff. It may take a century or more, if we ever manage to have factories there, to produce parts and things they'll need. But to use your own words: "It would take infinitely long if you never start."
What I don't get is why you seem to assume that it's one thing or the other. It seems to me that you're implying that, if we send a manned mission to Mars, we won't develop better technology here. We can do both. It could be that we will solve the transport issue before we solve self-sufficiency away from Earth, or it can happen the other way around, I don't think you, me, or anyone else can predict now how it'll play out. So predicating the solution of a hard problem on solving another first, that may be less or maybe much more difficult, does seem a tad self-defeating. Especially when I don't see a hard dependency, both problems can be tackled at the same time, without waiting.
Anyroad, gotta get to work. Some quick notes I thought of while reading your post, that I have no time now to edit into a proper reply: * You get used to email, really, and you don't need low latency to stay in touch with friends, and get movies and videogames. Or, radical notion here, books. * It could be that very earthly jobs, like in the military or law enforcement or what you have, are riskier anyway, it's not as if we don't take risks every day (we as a species, I mean.. felt embarrassed and a bit ashamed about that "we", from the comfort of my safe living room). * It's not about repopulating Earth, it's about survival of the species by any means necessary, even if it means evolving to live elsewhere and that we can't go back. Mars is certainly harder than Earth, it probably won't be viable, but we'll want to try other places eventually. Out there, away from the solar system. And hey, we have to start somewhere, and Mars seems easy enough. Considering. * Good luck with PETA letting you send a couple monkeys. Mark me words, it'll be easier to send humans anyway. Heh. * To the AC asking why should we care... that doesn't even deserve an answer. We'll get extinct one day, guaranteed, but we're going to go down fighting, because that's who we are. Humanity ftw.
Um. Alright. I wasn't really commenting on Tito's plan, but rather on MichaelSmith's notion of a one-way trip, at the start of this thread (which, btw, has been proposed, seriously). But sure, let's get serious if you want.
I do see a point in sending meatbags to Mars. Not for the sake of a flyby, or that joke about the flag, but ultimately to attempt to live in Mars for extended periods of time. Staying in Mars, in some sort of habitat, establish a permanent presence in another planet. I think achieving this should be considered a more pressing issue than it actually seems to be. I'll come back to this in a minute. But a flyby may be useful, to assess what exactly it takes to get there.
First though, I'm not sure you've got your numbers right. Valeri Polyakov stayed 14 months aboard that tin can, Mir. Sergei Krikalev (who's spent 800+ days in space) stayed 10 months while the USSR dissolved. Aleksandr Kaleri has spent almost as long - he was in the ISS couple years ago (and the man is 56 btw). And so on. Now of course there have been side effects, both physiological and psychological, but, to my knowledge none incapacitating, and none permanente in the long-term. So I'm not quite sure, when you say "Humans cannot sit in a tin can for two years and retain sanity", what are you basing this opinion on? I'm not an expert, but given these numbers, well. To me, it sounds very hard alright, but not impossible, or even unrealistic.
You also said, "We already had ground simulations of the flight, and they were generally unsatisfactory". Could you elaborate? I only know of Mars-500, an experiment conducted by a few years ago where they isolated a crew to simulate a trip to Mars. I recall they all completed the experiment, no one went bonkers aboard and started killing the others, really. I seem to recall there were issues concerning lack of sleep, which of course is serious and needs addressing. It may be part of the reason why ISS astronauts take sleeping pills now. In any case, experiments like Mars-500, valuable as they are, can't simulate microgravity or what I think will be the worst issue, radiation. So I do see a point in those lab rats in a tin can, harsh as the whole notion is.
I hear you on that part about research, that's always a necessity. But I don't think there's a reason why it must be one or the other, we could have a manned mission *and* research into new technologies. Thing is, and again I may be misinformed, but I don't think we're even close to develop technology that could cut the flight time substantially. I mean, we don't even have the science, the theoretical groundwork, on which to base such a technology. Travel to Mars in a day or two, you say? Come on, man, get real. That's going to take a very, very long time to achieve, and I don't think we should wait that long.
The reason why I see this is a pressing matter is: I think it's paramount for us, as a species, to hedge our bets, as it were. To make living in another planet, if not economical or practical, at least feasible. Because we don't know when the next Chixculub rock is going to hit, we don't know when we'll face a pandemic that wipes life on Earth, it can happen any time. And I think it would be immensely valuable to know that such a scenario wouldn't necessarily mean the extinction of the species.
Yes, but if the whole point is to learn how to keep people alive up there, the dead are rather limited use. Not very photogenic either, for the obligatory shot of some guy planting a flag.
I think the point is, if you're going to put people on a rocket and shoot them to Mars, in the understanding that, no matter what happens, they're going to die there, won't ever see Earth again, it might just be easier to find takers, and generally to sell this idea to the public, if you aim for 60+ aged who already lived their lives here.
I know people that age who are still in great shape, and maybe some would be willing to set off for one last adventure. Who knows. Tough one, that.
I'm not being a jerk here, I want to know why you think it was so bad.
Look, any programming tool requiring 50M of virtual memory to run Hello World is just wrong. And don't say peep about memory being cheap and such -- I'm talking wrong on general principle. Morally wrong.
Yes yes, I am being a jerk here. But I do dislike Java. With intensity.
I think there's nothing wrong with learning java as long as you get some real experience with C/C++ and assembler before you graduate so that you understand what the high level languages are doing for you behind the scenes (character arrays, memory allocation, pointers, for starters).
Slight disclaimer: I did assembler in college, and C on an OpenVMS VAX (isn't government work awesome?) prior to becoming a java developer.
After that stuff, Java is easy.
All kidding aside, I think Java as a learning language is not a bad choice. Yeah it makes you sloppy with resources, but it makes you write clean code, which is more important. Much like Pascal, it forces good coding practices on you by making it hard if not impossible to avoid adopting them.
However, I think J2EE, or whatever it's called these days, is pedagogically toxic. It encourages that sort of hazy understanding of how and why your app runs at all... no really, look at them kids deal with problems: by checking every available checkbox and option until behavior changes. And I don't blame them: those Java frameworks are so huge and convoluted it's just impossible to completely understand them, so you end up debugging by trial and error. Or copying and pasting snippets and hoping for the best.
I don't think I'm being biased here, I honestly think that's not a very good way to learn this trade.
Re:It's Called "Mob Mentality"
on
Censorship By Glut
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Better go for informative; I'm sure a lot of people does that, or something much like it. It wont be healthy for you to be frightened every time.
Look, it's not even malicious... or not necessarily at least. Take me for instance: I don't do it to "get ahead" in a group, I do it because I'm very introverted and geeky and wouldn't fit among my friends and relatives if I didn't do some "cultural shaping" so I don't come through like a fucking alien. Not to mention I really like girls, and when you approach a random cute girl at the coffee shop, chances are she won't be or like introverted and geeky (read: shy).
So what do you do? Sulk, stay lonely? Sure, you can do that. Or, if you're smart and analytical, you can learn to determine what people expect from other people they like, and then adapt yourself so you're closer to the appropriate model (which is different for different circles and environments). And you know what? It's exactly what "naturally" popular people do, only difference is doing it unconsciously vs. deliberately.
As the OP said, the tricky part is not losing your own identity in the process. But if you're smart enough to pull this off, you probably won't need to worry about that either. You'll just let you "be yourself" and go back to the lab and the crypto or AI algorithms or whatever it is that you do for fun, when you don't feel like human company, that's all.
Atheistic logic? What on earth do you mean by that?
Anyway, I would say that trying to prove the existence of a deity with plain logic, meaning by inference within a formal system (you know, consistent, complete, etc.), is bound to fail. Of course, compelling arguments in a less formal framework can and have been made. Personally, I find that just wanking around with rhetoric, but hey, that's just me.
As to the "apparent need of atheists to convert those who do not share their views"... I resent that, just a bit. See I don't really care what people choose to believe in their hearts and their churches, honest, as long as it's kept in there. And by that I mean, away from policy, government, public affairs. But when I see creationists pushing irrationality right into the source of progress, into public education, or when I see politicians appealing to faith to get elected, rather than reason... well, it does scare the bejesus out of me. I see it as a concerted effort to erode rationality, to devolve into obscurantism.
I'm done with dark ages, dude. I really believe we as a species have come a long way since Enlightenment, and I plan on doing whatever is in my power to keep things that way. If that sounds as "zealotry" to you... sigh, we're probably not going to get along well. But I hope at least you can appreciate this not exactly religious zealotry. And do take comfort that my stance against religion is strictly defensive -- and I want to believe that's the stance of many if not most secular/rationalist types. Cheers.
Well the way you put it sounds mean-spirited and controlling... but yeah, I'd say you're reading correctly. Except it's not about "empowering people" and never has been, where ever did you pick up that funny idea? The FSF? Yeah that must be it. Look they're very decent folks but sometimes a bit too idealistic IMO.
Anyway. Writing software for free is about having fun, not helping people. Sure, if you can help people while having fun, hey that's fantastic and probably what makes linux and open source in general so appealing. But coding for Windows is not fun. That's work indeed, all the way. I mean, they actually intend you to pay money for development tools! They don't let you look at the source code for the kernel and libraries! They want you to work with closed boxes and figure out their quirks by trial and error? What kind of joke is that?
Oh, and windows devs are all anonymous, you don't even know who wrote this bit or that.. there's no social status to earn, no cred, no one to blame for the buggy bits. That's boring man.
So no, I don't see a "community" helping microsoft out of this hole. But hey, they've got a lot of cash right? They can pay for that drudge.
Hear hear. I've been using Linux since 97 or so, pretty much exclusively, and I liked the Gates+Seinfeld ads. Mind, I don't intend to switch to Microsoft any time soon (whoa shiver!), but they did surprise me pleasantly. They probably would have improved my overall negative view of the company, subconsciously, a bit, had they keep it going. As in hey, so Microsoft is not just boring, mindless, afraid-to-take-risks, middle-manager wares! They have a weird, creative, experimental streak too!
And yeah, I am aware this is just a manufactured image, like Apple's and everyone else. But it works. The human mind falls for this every time. And you know what? I actually appreciate Microsoft showing some effort trying to get a slice of my mind.
Anyway, now this "I'm a PC" junk? Back to the same old lame, unoriginal, safe stuff. They didn't even come up with a concept, they took a tried one from Apple!
Speaking for myself, this is fail. If I was charitative, I'd say I'm so far away from their market it was bound to fail for me, and perhaps someone in their market segment would find this appealing. But that would make this preaching to the choir, pointless anyway.
Thanks dude. It was pretty freaky indeed. I somehow kept my cool during the whole thing, I think I even cracked a joke at some point... maybe that's why they gave me back my paperwork and stuff. But after I got home, I did freak out, bad. To the point of deciding to quit my job and move to another city, right then and there heh.
Heh, no, I was actually born here, and I love living in Mexico. Yeah, that tale about the mugging probably gives off a different impression, but considering it's pretty much the only time I've been mugged in almost 40 years, I think that's not a bad record. In fact, I think Guadalajara is a remarkably nice place to live, though I don't think I can explain the "attraction". I could hardly be objective about it anyway.
I've got American and British friends who live here (as you may know, there's a big expat community in Guadalajara, and in Ajijic near lake Chapala). I've never asked them about this, but I will now. What I can tell you now is, I don't think there's any particular objective advantage. I mean, neither luxury homes nor sex are cheap (I assume you meant good looking hookers there). Beer probably is, though, heh. Look, I'm not really up to date on the cost of living in the States. I guess Mexico may be a bit cheaper, but I'm sure it's not much cheaper.
I also don't think there are serious disadvantages: we've got all the utilities and public services you're used to in the US, from highways to sanitation to very decent health care. You'll find all the amenities too, say shops, restaurants, entertainment... in fact, most are the same chains and brands, only a bit cheaper perhaps. And of course we've got broadband everywhere, which is probably the most important thing for/. people.
So I guess it boils down to personal taste. Some people just like it. Maybe it's the locations, or the weather, or the slower pace. Perhaps healthier and tastier food? You know, we're famous for that shit. Or meeting friendly people with an interesting culture. Who knows?
Oh, and about that last item: there certainly are gringo haters. From your experience, it seems that's the kind of people you've been meeting here. I'm sorry 'bout that, fwiw. There's also gringo lovers, that goddamn malinchista pricks, I find them really annoying, haha. But I've got to say, I'm convinced that most of the population is just sensible people no worse or better than in the US or elsewhere, and you can probably make good friends if you give them (and yourself) a chance.
Say, if you ever find yourself stranded in Guadalajara, bored enough to overcome the natural distrust, drop me an email, I'll take you to a couple cantinas, and perhaps the lucha libre. And if you really behave yourself I may introduce you to some ladies. Maybe then you'll get the "vibe" or whatever it is. Or maybe you won't, but you'll probably have a laugh anyway. And no, I won't give you any shit about dumb gringo chumps, but I won't take any shit about smelly beaners either.
I think the story is wrong. This company, "Xega" (website, in Spanish) seems to be offering two different products. One is the "Verichip", which seems to be a subcutaneous RFID chip intended for identification. Like for (very paranoid) access control, or medical emergencies.
The other product is called "VIP" and seems to be a GPS + GPRS device. You press a button on that thing and it transmits your current position to some server.
I see no indication that both gadgets are related in any way. Well, the website is all fluff, so I can't really say, but I think the story is mixing them up.
Still, that "VIP" thing does strike me as rather useless, since the first thing a kidnapper does is point a gun at you and make sure you stay still, with your hands in view. And the second thing is emptying your pockets.
And yes, I live in Mexico, and I've been kidnapped... well, just a couple hours, while I was being mugged. See I got off from work around midnight, hailed a cab in the street and boarded it. The driver took off, I even chatted with that fucker. But once we were in a dark-ish, lonely street, he suddendly stopped the car, pointed a gun at me, and two men from another car that was following us quickly got into the cab. One of them pressed a knife against my stomach and ordered me to "act naturally". They took me for the "ATM ride" (cash withdrawals from different ATM machines all over town, until all the cards were dry). They also got the cash I was carrying on me, of course, as well as my laptop (powerbook 5300... shit, I miss that ugly brick). They gave me back my wallet with my IDs, and some papers from work I asked them to take out of the laptop case. They dropped me off at a Metro station.
This was back in '97 I think, in Mexico City. A month later I was living in Guadalajara, and haven't had any such experiences since.
You say South Koreans prefer having Americans there, rather than being invaded, and that Germans are happy to have you even if you're not needed "as much as it used to" (which I read as still needed, just not as much). And then you go on about your "job" in Iraq, whatever that is. I didn't really get that part, I blame that on my poor English.
I won't argue the merits of those statements --- I mildly disagree with you, more strongly on the notion that you have any "job" in Iraq whatsoever, but that's not the point I want to make. I want you to note the underlying assumption in these statements, because I'm not sure you are aware you're making it. It is that other countries can't defend themselves, or manage their own affairs, without your "help". It's making you sound like a really annoying and arrogant prick.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't mean to sound ungrateful or anything, I think we all know how worthy and helpful America has been, and still is. I'm sure South Koreans and Germans like you there. I mean, who doesn't like a friend who comes through when needed? When you ask for help to fix something at your place, and this friend comes over and bears the grunt with you... man, that's the kind of guy we all like to share a beer with afterwards, and help back whenever we can.
When that friend stays in your house for days, and weeks, and months, in case you need their help again... well, it's not that great, to be honest with you. But c'mon, he's a good friend, you have a spare room, he chips in for the rent. But when the guy starts crowing about how you need him there to fix your problems, with the underlying assumption of how great he is and how useless you are... ah crap, we're friends and everything, but that shit is annoying. And I mean: Really. Annoying.
And when the guy starts picking fights with everyone, owes money all over the town, and even has a booze and drugs problem that's starting to make it really embarrasing to hang around with him... that's probably when you start having second thoughts about this friendship, no mather how helpful he's been in the past. But let's not get carried away with the metaphor.
All I'm saying is, you may wan't to think about this if you're noticing some friends seem less than thrilled with you recently. This can probably be phrased as, "buddy, take a hint, please".
In that suit Merkey also named Slashdot as a defendant, along with a number of posters from several SCO-related public forums. One of those was Al Petrofsky, the guy who runs SCOfacts.org and right now, bless his heart, is making himself a pain in the ass for SCO in their bankruptcy case. The Merkey suit is thoroughly documented at SCOfacts, under Jeff Merkey, Litigious Lunatic.
The Encyclopædia Dramatica has an, ahem, interesting entry on this Merkey character.
Merkey is a kook AND an asshat. Being sued by him seems to actually be a voucher for one's credibility. Sad, really.
Here's a comparative definition I scrapped from some 'nerdiness test' in a social networking site:
A nerd is someone who is passionate about learning, being smart, academia.
A geek is someone who is passionate about some particular area or subject, often an obscure or difficult one.
A dork is someone who has difficulty with common social expectations/interactions.
I think these are useful distinctions. Of course, most nerds/geeks I know are also dorky, though I fancy myself a nerdy geek with very little dork (yeah, right). Certainly not every dork is geeky, let alone nerdy.
Yeah, real nice social skills there, Mr. Rod-Up-My-Ass Suitguy.
Hey, we're proud to be surly know-it-all geeks, you insensitive clod!
Re:When appeals are exhausted . . .
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 1
But they are out of money right now. Way, way into the red.
The judge ruled Novell is entitled to the money SCO took from Microsoft and Sun on account of that mysterious licensing deals. I think the precise amount SCO owes Novell was not specified, but those contracts were worth over 30 million, IIRC. That's way more cash than SCO has right now. I think they are effectively bankrupt.
Of course, they can appeal... but the money will probably go into a "constructive trust"... which would be the same as being bankrupt for all practical purposes, no?
Utter destruction
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 5, Informative
"To our utter destruction," remember that one? That was how far dear Ralphie Yarro was ready to go, to "take on" Linux.
So nice to see his plan working out just right.
Re:I do believe that this qualifies
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 1
So Microsoft gave you a certificate which ENABLED you to receive a copy of SLES from Novell. Seems pretty clear-cut to me. They didn't distribute, but they ENABLED distribution.
With due respect and all, but it seems to me that you are the one who doesn't get it. The language in the new GPL is irrelevant, it does not matter what the GPL says, unless Microsoft is bound by it. The only way Microsoft can be bound by the GPL is if they distributed GPLed software, where "distributing" is defined by copyright law, not the GPL itself.
Microsoft didn't distribute GPLed software, just vouchers. As such, and as I said, I believe the only way Microsoft could be held to have distributed, as far as copyright law goes, is under some theory of contributory infringement, where Novell is a direct infringer. In other words, if you get sued by Microsoft for patent infringement, and you intend to use GPLv3 as a defense, then you must argue that Novell is infringing copyright, because otherwise the GPL doesn't bind Microsoft.
Or, in yet another form: if Novell does not infringe, then Microsoft can't be contributing to any infringement, hence it is not distributing and is not bound by the GPL. No matter how and how many times the GPL defines "conveyance" or whatever.
You're completely alone in that feeling, as I'm sure a significant number of slashdot'ers are about to confirm.
Well, I certainly wish Novell no ill, what with all their contributions, both technical and otherwise (they probably will be the ones that finally crush SCO, before IBM gets a chance from that judge).
But it seems PJ and many people here is hoping Microsoft will be found to have distributed copyrighted works on account of those vouchers. As I see things, the only possible way one could argue the vouchers are distribution would be under some sort of contributory infringement theory---the kind of liability you would have if, for instance, you distribute coupons that some pal of yours will redeem for pirated software. You're liable even if you're not distributing, because you're contributing to the infringement by your pirate friend.
Under US law, contributory infringement requires direct infringement by some other party. So, in this case I think Microsoft can only be held liable is Novell is liable too. The direct infringement would be Novell's, and Microsoft would be contributing to it. That sounds like an awfully weak theory to me, but never mind that, my point is that hoping Microsoft will be infringing copyright implies that Novell will be in an even worse position. Which is effectively "hoping Microsoft drags Novell down into the muck", as the GP said.
Now, I don't give a rat's ass about Microsoft patents, so Novell taking some millions from them to "license" those to their customers is perfectly fine with me. More power to them, who cares. But people here seems to be implying that Novell's covenant was a big fucking sin, so ugly and despicable that we shouldn't feel any kind of gratitude for them, that there's nothing morally wrong if they get hurt, backstabbed by the very community that Novell is protecting from SCO.
I think that is disgusting. But hey, this is probably just me.
First of all, thank you again. It's been refreshing discussing these things with you. It's becoming rare to find someone willing to talk in a civilized manner, across this GPL schism.
Yes, I've heard of EFI, and I'm sure many industry (and government) gits would love to turn every PC into a TiVo. And yes, I think that will never work, precisely because of market forces, and activism to some extent, and because DRM is a stupid concept to begin with. I appreciate your concern, of course, and respect your position; however, I think mine is more reasonable. For starters, I can change my position, if that ever becomes a real problem. Meanwhile, we all have a useable operating system for gadgets and computers and supercomputers, that probably would have become even more popular than now is, and thus would have more leverage to actually push against the industry if then Linux is switched to GPLv3 or something like that. And if, as I expect, there's no problem at all, then Linux will not have restricted its user base unnecesarily. Win-win.
Concerning the changes from GPLv2 to v3, and whether I understand them, well of course you may be right. Fwiw, I've tried my best to wrap my head around them. The ones you mention explicitly ("[e]xpiration, notices of termination, ambiguities, undefined terms, ties to U.S. law") I could accept, over my dislike of the hideous language they introduce, if they were the only changes. I'd accept them not because I really can see and understand these fixes are actually needed, but simply out of trust in Moglen's judgement. As I said, I can't read legalese, I've given up fooling myself thinking I can, after reading every filing in SCO vs IBM and all that.
But those are not the only changes, and the ones I do understand, are unpalatable. So we are at an impasse.
As of the "mainstream of the free software camp" (nice term, that one), well, that's funny, I think it's you, along with most FSF advocates, who are a bit disconnected from certain realities of the software world, particularly regarding competition against big software makers for the favor of the unwashed masses. But let's not argue about this. It seems that (sadly) we'll see who's right soon enough.
Finally (because I think we look very weird, arguing in a days-old buried Slashdot thread:-), I beg you, please don't lose all faith in Linux, Linus and the other developers, and people like myself. Speaking for myself, but thinking I'm not alone in this: we are not that far from your ideals (then we'd be using BSD or Apache or CDDL or whatever), and we are not unreasonable (if you recall, in my very first response to you I said a GPLv3 ZFS would be a good reason to consider GPLv3 for Linux; I do believe that... hell, a GPLv3 Java could be enough reason to rethink some things). It's not that we think Stallman's "four freedoms" are not a noble and desirable ideal, it's just that we don't agree with his methods, nor his priorities.
(Oh, and as for the bet, heh, I think I'd have a harder time than you to collect. But hey, I'll take it that we're on, even if just for a symbolic virtual pint:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Well the moron mods are out in force.
Yep, I can see that. What the hell happened to you, Slashdot? I leave for a couple years, 'cause I've been busy, and now you're giving this opportunist a Q&A? Not only that, but throwing her softball questions so she can push her professional victim schtick, and downvoting people who point this out?
This is just sad.
Hopefully.
Personally, the only reason I watched sometimes was Kari Byron. I'll keep an eye on what she does next.
I do wish Hyneman and Savage luck. I like them, really, just not enough to actively follow what they do. If they come up with something interesting and get people talking, I'll check it out. But I feel the Mythbusters are about to bust the myth that people will watch a programme that lets go of their young and winsome cast members.
Oh yes, mineshafts, I love that one, let's do that as well, sign me up. What's the required men to women ratio, again, doc?
So what you're saying is, it would be (1) more boring than ISS, and (2) quite a bit more dangerous. I'm sure both are true - discovery and exploration have always been very risky, and this would be unprecedented so I'm sure it won't be a walk in the park. I'm not sure, but I don't think it would be boring and dangerous enough to be impossible. I am sure, though, that that hasn't stopped us before.
A colony on Mars won't be self-sufficient for a very long time, even if they get their water from the planet, and produce their own oxygen and grow their vegetables and stuff. It may take a century or more, if we ever manage to have factories there, to produce parts and things they'll need. But to use your own words: "It would take infinitely long if you never start."
What I don't get is why you seem to assume that it's one thing or the other. It seems to me that you're implying that, if we send a manned mission to Mars, we won't develop better technology here. We can do both. It could be that we will solve the transport issue before we solve self-sufficiency away from Earth, or it can happen the other way around, I don't think you, me, or anyone else can predict now how it'll play out. So predicating the solution of a hard problem on solving another first, that may be less or maybe much more difficult, does seem a tad self-defeating. Especially when I don't see a hard dependency, both problems can be tackled at the same time, without waiting.
Anyroad, gotta get to work. Some quick notes I thought of while reading your post, that I have no time now to edit into a proper reply:
* You get used to email, really, and you don't need low latency to stay in touch with friends, and get movies and videogames. Or, radical notion here, books.
* It could be that very earthly jobs, like in the military or law enforcement or what you have, are riskier anyway, it's not as if we don't take risks every day (we as a species, I mean.. felt embarrassed and a bit ashamed about that "we", from the comfort of my safe living room).
* It's not about repopulating Earth, it's about survival of the species by any means necessary, even if it means evolving to live elsewhere and that we can't go back. Mars is certainly harder than Earth, it probably won't be viable, but we'll want to try other places eventually. Out there, away from the solar system. And hey, we have to start somewhere, and Mars seems easy enough. Considering.
* Good luck with PETA letting you send a couple monkeys. Mark me words, it'll be easier to send humans anyway. Heh.
* To the AC asking why should we care... that doesn't even deserve an answer. We'll get extinct one day, guaranteed, but we're going to go down fighting, because that's who we are. Humanity ftw.
Laters.
Um. Alright. I wasn't really commenting on Tito's plan, but rather on MichaelSmith's notion of a one-way trip, at the start of this thread (which, btw, has been proposed, seriously). But sure, let's get serious if you want.
I do see a point in sending meatbags to Mars. Not for the sake of a flyby, or that joke about the flag, but ultimately to attempt to live in Mars for extended periods of time. Staying in Mars, in some sort of habitat, establish a permanent presence in another planet. I think achieving this should be considered a more pressing issue than it actually seems to be. I'll come back to this in a minute. But a flyby may be useful, to assess what exactly it takes to get there.
First though, I'm not sure you've got your numbers right. Valeri Polyakov stayed 14 months aboard that tin can, Mir. Sergei Krikalev (who's spent 800+ days in space) stayed 10 months while the USSR dissolved. Aleksandr Kaleri has spent almost as long - he was in the ISS couple years ago (and the man is 56 btw). And so on. Now of course there have been side effects, both physiological and psychological, but, to my knowledge none incapacitating, and none permanente in the long-term. So I'm not quite sure, when you say "Humans cannot sit in a tin can for two years and retain sanity", what are you basing this opinion on? I'm not an expert, but given these numbers, well. To me, it sounds very hard alright, but not impossible, or even unrealistic.
You also said, "We already had ground simulations of the flight, and they were generally unsatisfactory". Could you elaborate? I only know of Mars-500, an experiment conducted by a few years ago where they isolated a crew to simulate a trip to Mars. I recall they all completed the experiment, no one went bonkers aboard and started killing the others, really. I seem to recall there were issues concerning lack of sleep, which of course is serious and needs addressing. It may be part of the reason why ISS astronauts take sleeping pills now. In any case, experiments like Mars-500, valuable as they are, can't simulate microgravity or what I think will be the worst issue, radiation. So I do see a point in those lab rats in a tin can, harsh as the whole notion is.
I hear you on that part about research, that's always a necessity. But I don't think there's a reason why it must be one or the other, we could have a manned mission *and* research into new technologies. Thing is, and again I may be misinformed, but I don't think we're even close to develop technology that could cut the flight time substantially. I mean, we don't even have the science, the theoretical groundwork, on which to base such a technology. Travel to Mars in a day or two, you say? Come on, man, get real. That's going to take a very, very long time to achieve, and I don't think we should wait that long.
The reason why I see this is a pressing matter is: I think it's paramount for us, as a species, to hedge our bets, as it were. To make living in another planet, if not economical or practical, at least feasible. Because we don't know when the next Chixculub rock is going to hit, we don't know when we'll face a pandemic that wipes life on Earth, it can happen any time. And I think it would be immensely valuable to know that such a scenario wouldn't necessarily mean the extinction of the species.
Yes, but if the whole point is to learn how to keep people alive up there, the dead are rather limited use. Not very photogenic either, for the obligatory shot of some guy planting a flag.
I think the point is, if you're going to put people on a rocket and shoot them to Mars, in the understanding that, no matter what happens, they're going to die there, won't ever see Earth again, it might just be easier to find takers, and generally to sell this idea to the public, if you aim for 60+ aged who already lived their lives here.
I know people that age who are still in great shape, and maybe some would be willing to set off for one last adventure. Who knows. Tough one, that.
What's wrong with learning Java?
I'm not being a jerk here, I want to know why you think it was so bad.
Look, any programming tool requiring 50M of virtual memory to run Hello World is just wrong. And don't say peep about memory being cheap and such -- I'm talking wrong on general principle. Morally wrong.
Yes yes, I am being a jerk here. But I do dislike Java. With intensity.
I think there's nothing wrong with learning java as long as you get some real experience with C/C++ and assembler before you graduate so that you understand what the high level languages are doing for you behind the scenes (character arrays, memory allocation, pointers, for starters).
Slight disclaimer: I did assembler in college, and C on an OpenVMS VAX (isn't government work awesome?) prior to becoming a java developer.
After that stuff, Java is easy.
All kidding aside, I think Java as a learning language is not a bad choice. Yeah it makes you sloppy with resources, but it makes you write clean code, which is more important. Much like Pascal, it forces good coding practices on you by making it hard if not impossible to avoid adopting them.
However, I think J2EE, or whatever it's called these days, is pedagogically toxic. It encourages that sort of hazy understanding of how and why your app runs at all... no really, look at them kids deal with problems: by checking every available checkbox and option until behavior changes. And I don't blame them: those Java frameworks are so huge and convoluted it's just impossible to completely understand them, so you end up debugging by trial and error. Or copying and pasting snippets and hoping for the best.
I don't think I'm being biased here, I honestly think that's not a very good way to learn this trade.
Better go for informative; I'm sure a lot of people does that, or something much like it. It wont be healthy for you to be frightened every time.
Look, it's not even malicious... or not necessarily at least. Take me for instance: I don't do it to "get ahead" in a group, I do it because I'm very introverted and geeky and wouldn't fit among my friends and relatives if I didn't do some "cultural shaping" so I don't come through like a fucking alien. Not to mention I really like girls, and when you approach a random cute girl at the coffee shop, chances are she won't be or like introverted and geeky (read: shy).
So what do you do? Sulk, stay lonely? Sure, you can do that. Or, if you're smart and analytical, you can learn to determine what people expect from other people they like, and then adapt yourself so you're closer to the appropriate model (which is different for different circles and environments). And you know what? It's exactly what "naturally" popular people do, only difference is doing it unconsciously vs. deliberately.
As the OP said, the tricky part is not losing your own identity in the process. But if you're smart enough to pull this off, you probably won't need to worry about that either. You'll just let you "be yourself" and go back to the lab and the crypto or AI algorithms or whatever it is that you do for fun, when you don't feel like human company, that's all.
Atheistic logic? What on earth do you mean by that?
Anyway, I would say that trying to prove the existence of a deity with plain logic, meaning by inference within a formal system (you know, consistent, complete, etc.), is bound to fail. Of course, compelling arguments in a less formal framework can and have been made. Personally, I find that just wanking around with rhetoric, but hey, that's just me.
As to the "apparent need of atheists to convert those who do not share their views"... I resent that, just a bit. See I don't really care what people choose to believe in their hearts and their churches, honest, as long as it's kept in there. And by that I mean, away from policy, government, public affairs. But when I see creationists pushing irrationality right into the source of progress, into public education, or when I see politicians appealing to faith to get elected, rather than reason... well, it does scare the bejesus out of me. I see it as a concerted effort to erode rationality, to devolve into obscurantism.
I'm done with dark ages, dude. I really believe we as a species have come a long way since Enlightenment, and I plan on doing whatever is in my power to keep things that way. If that sounds as "zealotry" to you... sigh, we're probably not going to get along well. But I hope at least you can appreciate this not exactly religious zealotry. And do take comfort that my stance against religion is strictly defensive -- and I want to believe that's the stance of many if not most secular/rationalist types. Cheers.
Well the way you put it sounds mean-spirited and controlling... but yeah, I'd say you're reading correctly. Except it's not about "empowering people" and never has been, where ever did you pick up that funny idea? The FSF? Yeah that must be it. Look they're very decent folks but sometimes a bit too idealistic IMO.
Anyway. Writing software for free is about having fun, not helping people. Sure, if you can help people while having fun, hey that's fantastic and probably what makes linux and open source in general so appealing. But coding for Windows is not fun. That's work indeed, all the way. I mean, they actually intend you to pay money for development tools! They don't let you look at the source code for the kernel and libraries! They want you to work with closed boxes and figure out their quirks by trial and error? What kind of joke is that?
Oh, and windows devs are all anonymous, you don't even know who wrote this bit or that.. there's no social status to earn, no cred, no one to blame for the buggy bits. That's boring man.
So no, I don't see a "community" helping microsoft out of this hole. But hey, they've got a lot of cash right? They can pay for that drudge.
Hear hear. I've been using Linux since 97 or so, pretty much exclusively, and I liked the Gates+Seinfeld ads. Mind, I don't intend to switch to Microsoft any time soon (whoa shiver!), but they did surprise me pleasantly. They probably would have improved my overall negative view of the company, subconsciously, a bit, had they keep it going. As in hey, so Microsoft is not just boring, mindless, afraid-to-take-risks, middle-manager wares! They have a weird, creative, experimental streak too!
And yeah, I am aware this is just a manufactured image, like Apple's and everyone else. But it works. The human mind falls for this every time. And you know what? I actually appreciate Microsoft showing some effort trying to get a slice of my mind.
Anyway, now this "I'm a PC" junk? Back to the same old lame, unoriginal, safe stuff. They didn't even come up with a concept, they took a tried one from Apple!
Speaking for myself, this is fail. If I was charitative, I'd say I'm so far away from their market it was bound to fail for me, and perhaps someone in their market segment would find this appealing. But that would make this preaching to the choir, pointless anyway.
Thanks dude. It was pretty freaky indeed. I somehow kept my cool during the whole thing, I think I even cracked a joke at some point... maybe that's why they gave me back my paperwork and stuff. But after I got home, I did freak out, bad. To the point of deciding to quit my job and move to another city, right then and there heh.
Heh, no, I was actually born here, and I love living in Mexico. Yeah, that tale about the mugging probably gives off a different impression, but considering it's pretty much the only time I've been mugged in almost 40 years, I think that's not a bad record. In fact, I think Guadalajara is a remarkably nice place to live, though I don't think I can explain the "attraction". I could hardly be objective about it anyway.
I've got American and British friends who live here (as you may know, there's a big expat community in Guadalajara, and in Ajijic near lake Chapala). I've never asked them about this, but I will now. What I can tell you now is, I don't think there's any particular objective advantage. I mean, neither luxury homes nor sex are cheap (I assume you meant good looking hookers there). Beer probably is, though, heh. Look, I'm not really up to date on the cost of living in the States. I guess Mexico may be a bit cheaper, but I'm sure it's not much cheaper.
I also don't think there are serious disadvantages: we've got all the utilities and public services you're used to in the US, from highways to sanitation to very decent health care. You'll find all the amenities too, say shops, restaurants, entertainment... in fact, most are the same chains and brands, only a bit cheaper perhaps. And of course we've got broadband everywhere, which is probably the most important thing for /. people.
So I guess it boils down to personal taste. Some people just like it. Maybe it's the locations, or the weather, or the slower pace. Perhaps healthier and tastier food? You know, we're famous for that shit. Or meeting friendly people with an interesting culture. Who knows?
Oh, and about that last item: there certainly are gringo haters. From your experience, it seems that's the kind of people you've been meeting here. I'm sorry 'bout that, fwiw. There's also gringo lovers, that goddamn malinchista pricks, I find them really annoying, haha. But I've got to say, I'm convinced that most of the population is just sensible people no worse or better than in the US or elsewhere, and you can probably make good friends if you give them (and yourself) a chance.
Say, if you ever find yourself stranded in Guadalajara, bored enough to overcome the natural distrust, drop me an email, I'll take you to a couple cantinas, and perhaps the lucha libre. And if you really behave yourself I may introduce you to some ladies. Maybe then you'll get the "vibe" or whatever it is. Or maybe you won't, but you'll probably have a laugh anyway. And no, I won't give you any shit about dumb gringo chumps, but I won't take any shit about smelly beaners either.
Cheers.
I think the story is wrong. This company, "Xega" (website, in Spanish) seems to be offering two different products. One is the "Verichip", which seems to be a subcutaneous RFID chip intended for identification. Like for (very paranoid) access control, or medical emergencies.
The other product is called "VIP" and seems to be a GPS + GPRS device. You press a button on that thing and it transmits your current position to some server.
I see no indication that both gadgets are related in any way. Well, the website is all fluff, so I can't really say, but I think the story is mixing them up.
Still, that "VIP" thing does strike me as rather useless, since the first thing a kidnapper does is point a gun at you and make sure you stay still, with your hands in view. And the second thing is emptying your pockets.
And yes, I live in Mexico, and I've been kidnapped... well, just a couple hours, while I was being mugged. See I got off from work around midnight, hailed a cab in the street and boarded it. The driver took off, I even chatted with that fucker. But once we were in a dark-ish, lonely street, he suddendly stopped the car, pointed a gun at me, and two men from another car that was following us quickly got into the cab. One of them pressed a knife against my stomach and ordered me to "act naturally". They took me for the "ATM ride" (cash withdrawals from different ATM machines all over town, until all the cards were dry). They also got the cash I was carrying on me, of course, as well as my laptop (powerbook 5300... shit, I miss that ugly brick). They gave me back my wallet with my IDs, and some papers from work I asked them to take out of the laptop case. They dropped me off at a Metro station.
This was back in '97 I think, in Mexico City. A month later I was living in Guadalajara, and haven't had any such experiences since.
May I give you an observation?
You say South Koreans prefer having Americans there, rather than being invaded, and that Germans are happy to have you even if you're not needed "as much as it used to" (which I read as still needed, just not as much). And then you go on about your "job" in Iraq, whatever that is. I didn't really get that part, I blame that on my poor English.
I won't argue the merits of those statements --- I mildly disagree with you, more strongly on the notion that you have any "job" in Iraq whatsoever, but that's not the point I want to make. I want you to note the underlying assumption in these statements, because I'm not sure you are aware you're making it. It is that other countries can't defend themselves, or manage their own affairs, without your "help". It's making you sound like a really annoying and arrogant prick.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't mean to sound ungrateful or anything, I think we all know how worthy and helpful America has been, and still is. I'm sure South Koreans and Germans like you there. I mean, who doesn't like a friend who comes through when needed? When you ask for help to fix something at your place, and this friend comes over and bears the grunt with you... man, that's the kind of guy we all like to share a beer with afterwards, and help back whenever we can.
When that friend stays in your house for days, and weeks, and months, in case you need their help again... well, it's not that great, to be honest with you. But c'mon, he's a good friend, you have a spare room, he chips in for the rent. But when the guy starts crowing about how you need him there to fix your problems, with the underlying assumption of how great he is and how useless you are... ah crap, we're friends and everything, but that shit is annoying. And I mean: Really. Annoying.
And when the guy starts picking fights with everyone, owes money all over the town, and even has a booze and drugs problem that's starting to make it really embarrasing to hang around with him... that's probably when you start having second thoughts about this friendship, no mather how helpful he's been in the past. But let's not get carried away with the metaphor.
All I'm saying is, you may wan't to think about this if you're noticing some friends seem less than thrilled with you recently. This can probably be phrased as, "buddy, take a hint, please".
That is all. Carry on.
Bravo! Clap clap clap.
This from a Linux user... but even from here I can appreciate the poignancy of it all. Cheers!
In that suit Merkey also named Slashdot as a defendant, along with a number of posters from several SCO-related public forums. One of those was Al Petrofsky, the guy who runs SCOfacts.org and right now, bless his heart, is making himself a pain in the ass for SCO in their bankruptcy case. The Merkey suit is thoroughly documented at SCOfacts, under Jeff Merkey, Litigious Lunatic.
The Encyclopædia Dramatica has an, ahem, interesting entry on this Merkey character.
Merkey is a kook AND an asshat. Being sued by him seems to actually be a voucher for one's credibility. Sad, really.
Here's a comparative definition I scrapped from some 'nerdiness test' in a social networking site:
I think these are useful distinctions. Of course, most nerds/geeks I know are also dorky, though I fancy myself a nerdy geek with very little dork (yeah, right). Certainly not every dork is geeky, let alone nerdy.
Hey, we're proud to be surly know-it-all geeks, you insensitive clod!
But they are out of money right now. Way, way into the red.
The judge ruled Novell is entitled to the money SCO took from Microsoft and Sun on account of that mysterious licensing deals. I think the precise amount SCO owes Novell was not specified, but those contracts were worth over 30 million, IIRC. That's way more cash than SCO has right now. I think they are effectively bankrupt.
Of course, they can appeal... but the money will probably go into a "constructive trust"... which would be the same as being bankrupt for all practical purposes, no?
"To our utter destruction," remember that one? That was how far dear Ralphie Yarro was ready to go, to "take on" Linux. So nice to see his plan working out just right.
Hear hear... Cheers!
With due respect and all, but it seems to me that you are the one who doesn't get it. The language in the new GPL is irrelevant, it does not matter what the GPL says, unless Microsoft is bound by it. The only way Microsoft can be bound by the GPL is if they distributed GPLed software, where "distributing" is defined by copyright law, not the GPL itself.
Microsoft didn't distribute GPLed software, just vouchers. As such, and as I said, I believe the only way Microsoft could be held to have distributed, as far as copyright law goes, is under some theory of contributory infringement, where Novell is a direct infringer. In other words, if you get sued by Microsoft for patent infringement, and you intend to use GPLv3 as a defense, then you must argue that Novell is infringing copyright, because otherwise the GPL doesn't bind Microsoft.
Or, in yet another form: if Novell does not infringe, then Microsoft can't be contributing to any infringement, hence it is not distributing and is not bound by the GPL. No matter how and how many times the GPL defines "conveyance" or whatever.
Well, I certainly wish Novell no ill, what with all their contributions, both technical and otherwise (they probably will be the ones that finally crush SCO, before IBM gets a chance from that judge).
But it seems PJ and many people here is hoping Microsoft will be found to have distributed copyrighted works on account of those vouchers. As I see things, the only possible way one could argue the vouchers are distribution would be under some sort of contributory infringement theory---the kind of liability you would have if, for instance, you distribute coupons that some pal of yours will redeem for pirated software. You're liable even if you're not distributing, because you're contributing to the infringement by your pirate friend.
Under US law, contributory infringement requires direct infringement by some other party. So, in this case I think Microsoft can only be held liable is Novell is liable too. The direct infringement would be Novell's, and Microsoft would be contributing to it. That sounds like an awfully weak theory to me, but never mind that, my point is that hoping Microsoft will be infringing copyright implies that Novell will be in an even worse position. Which is effectively "hoping Microsoft drags Novell down into the muck", as the GP said.
Now, I don't give a rat's ass about Microsoft patents, so Novell taking some millions from them to "license" those to their customers is perfectly fine with me. More power to them, who cares. But people here seems to be implying that Novell's covenant was a big fucking sin, so ugly and despicable that we shouldn't feel any kind of gratitude for them, that there's nothing morally wrong if they get hurt, backstabbed by the very community that Novell is protecting from SCO.
I think that is disgusting. But hey, this is probably just me.
First of all, thank you again. It's been refreshing discussing these things with you. It's becoming rare to find someone willing to talk in a civilized manner, across this GPL schism.
Yes, I've heard of EFI, and I'm sure many industry (and government) gits would love to turn every PC into a TiVo. And yes, I think that will never work, precisely because of market forces, and activism to some extent, and because DRM is a stupid concept to begin with. I appreciate your concern, of course, and respect your position; however, I think mine is more reasonable. For starters, I can change my position, if that ever becomes a real problem. Meanwhile, we all have a useable operating system for gadgets and computers and supercomputers, that probably would have become even more popular than now is, and thus would have more leverage to actually push against the industry if then Linux is switched to GPLv3 or something like that. And if, as I expect, there's no problem at all, then Linux will not have restricted its user base unnecesarily. Win-win.
Concerning the changes from GPLv2 to v3, and whether I understand them, well of course you may be right. Fwiw, I've tried my best to wrap my head around them. The ones you mention explicitly ("[e]xpiration, notices of termination, ambiguities, undefined terms, ties to U.S. law") I could accept, over my dislike of the hideous language they introduce, if they were the only changes. I'd accept them not because I really can see and understand these fixes are actually needed, but simply out of trust in Moglen's judgement. As I said, I can't read legalese, I've given up fooling myself thinking I can, after reading every filing in SCO vs IBM and all that.
But those are not the only changes, and the ones I do understand, are unpalatable. So we are at an impasse.
As of the "mainstream of the free software camp" (nice term, that one), well, that's funny, I think it's you, along with most FSF advocates, who are a bit disconnected from certain realities of the software world, particularly regarding competition against big software makers for the favor of the unwashed masses. But let's not argue about this. It seems that (sadly) we'll see who's right soon enough.
Finally (because I think we look very weird, arguing in a days-old buried Slashdot thread :-), I beg you, please don't lose all faith in Linux, Linus and the other developers, and people like myself. Speaking for myself, but thinking I'm not alone in this: we are not that far from your ideals (then we'd be using BSD or Apache or CDDL or whatever), and we are not unreasonable (if you recall, in my very first response to you I said a GPLv3 ZFS would be a good reason to consider GPLv3 for Linux; I do believe that... hell, a GPLv3 Java could be enough reason to rethink some things). It's not that we think Stallman's "four freedoms" are not a noble and desirable ideal, it's just that we don't agree with his methods, nor his priorities.
(Oh, and as for the bet, heh, I think I'd have a harder time than you to collect. But hey, I'll take it that we're on, even if just for a symbolic virtual pint :-)
Cheers.