I find it interesting that a distributed culture is trying to protest using traditional methods. One which requires the culture to come together.
Why don't we use distributed tactics: Email writing and the like?
I'd love to see that too, but let's face it, we're fighting a traditional, legacy culture: the US Legislature. We all know how clued in to the digital age they are, don't we? Using distributed tactics to influence the thoughts and opinions of that segment of the population wouldn't be very effective.
It doesn't take a whole lot of effort to write an email. I suspect most legislators therefore probably give a physical letter snail-mailed more consideration than email. Physically getting up and going to protest requires even more effort, implying how important the issue is for those voters doing the protesting. Hence it should, in ideality, carry even more weight in the minds of those whom the protestors are trying to influence.
Sadly, I don't think we'll see our distributed culture being able to use native methods of communication to make their presence felt in our Republic for quite some time. Hence, we probably won't be a noticable factor in the political landscape until at least another ten years has gone by. Just look how long after World War II it took for a member of the post-WWII generation, aka the "baby boom" generation to become elected to President.
Besides opening up cable lines to different ISPs, regulations should be put in place to ensure that consumers subscribing to broadband can run the major network services if they want, such as Telnet, FTP, and HTTP. If someone has something they want to publish to the world, then they should be able to host their website on their own box if they want. Of course there are businesses which sell webhosting, but then one is still at the mercy of the hosting site's decisions to pull your pages at their whim. As we've seen in the news of late, companies who provide webhosting are not going to stand up and fight for the poster's rights.
This sounds like pretty good news to me. I've been attempting to push the use of FreeBSD within a certain gargantuan Financial Services company which I work for. My main stumbling block has been the lack of a corporate entity from which we could purchase the software and support. The corporate-type managers whom I have to convince to let me do this are very stubborn on that point.
At the same time, as a personal user of FreeBSD, I'm a bit apprehensive of this. Because I work in Corporate America, I have a healthy fear of companies and their motives. At the same time, however, I have faith in Hubbard, Lehey, and the rest of the FreeBSD team. They've worked long and hard, and I don't see how FreBSD could change from being open-source or free (beer, speech, take your pick). It would alienate their core user-base, and go against the grain of the thirty-year history of BSD UNIX.
This article looks almost as disgusting as this one which a co-worker emailed me with the subject "Don't read this after eating your lunch...you might lose it".
I can't decide if Microsoft is just that ignorant to computer history, or if they are that uncaring about the facts. Considering marketdrones run that place, my money is on the latter...
If someone has spare time on their hands, maybe they could disassmble the bugger. Or, they could run this binaries on a sacrificial box in an isolated 10.0.0.0 network, with sniffers running everywhere to see if this thing tries to phone home...
Please enlighten me...just HOW is this MP3 craze really helping artists? Musicians are already getting screwed by the industry at large, they DON'T need to be doubly screwed by people pirating their music this way.
MP3s actually empower the artists, allowing the musicians to circumvent the record labels and go straight to the consumer. The corporations who sell CDs are only interested in artist that are going to sell *MILLIONS* of copies. They are interested in $dollars$ and thus have to mass-market. It's the lowest common denominator rule. Some of the more creative or original artists are never going to get in the front door at most record companies. MP3s and the Internet give these artists a chance. Once they have a following, they can sell CDs on their own or have a demand for being in concert.
I'd like to see some REAL EXAMPLES of it and see if the artists are REALLY PROFITING from MP3's For examples, just go to MP3.com and see how many small artists post their own music.
NCSA 0.47% CnG 0.34% BESTWWWD 0.34% Concentric 0.29% Roxen Challenger 0.20% Red Hat 0.17% mod_perl 0.16% tigershark/0.9.8-IC 0.13%
Since when is RedHat a webserver and not a distribution? I'd like to know the method these guys used to get these stats, and why they listed Redhat as a server.
The ideal geek ticket would be Al Gore for president, because he invented the Internet. Clearly, he is an uber-geek. If that doesn't convince you of his technological savvy, consider that he also made his campaign website open-source. So he's an innovator and he's an open-source proponent. Maybe he should go on a speaking tour with ESR and Linus.
As for the veep, who cares? Since Gore is obviously Superman/Clark Kent in disguise, we don't need to worry about him dying or anything-just as long as he doesn't get near any kryptonite (or impeachment hearings)...
My background is in Quantum Chemistry, and it's pretty clear to me that this guy is a fraud. I don't have the background of the physicists who were quoted, I'll let them speak for their part of it since I don't understand String Theory or other such grand physics stuff.
What I do understand, however, is quantum mechanics. I have problems with two of Mills' assertions:
A central part of Mills's theory explains the basis of the traditional, and paradoxical, "duality" concept of the electron as both a particle and a wave with a model where electrons are charges that travel as two-dimensional disks and wrap around nuclei like fluctuating soap bubbles. He calls them "orbitspheres."
First, this interesting concept does absolutely nothing to address the fact that photons also have both particle and wave-like behavior. Second, his idea of orbitspheres is completely incompatible with atomic and molecular orbital theory. For those who don't know, orbitals are areas of probability where the electron is likely to be found in an atom or molecule. This theory can be used to explain, qualitatively, chemical reactions and their mechanisms. This brings me to my second quible with his claims:
BlackLight Power boosters scoff that they've seen no practical application of quantum theory since the atomic bomb and nuclear power, and say they have little time for theorists who call Mills a charlatan while teaching that the fundamental mechanics of cause and effect are subverted at the subatomic level. Mills's camp responds: Fraud? Let's talk about fraud. Quantumists have us living in myriad dimensions filled with "probability waves" and unobservable "virtual particles" that flit in and out of existence
I have a number of problems with this. First, all the quantum theory which he's dismissing in so cavalier a manner has actually proven itself, countless times. Using the same theories which he dismisses, quantum chemists and solid state physicists have been able to predict the results of untried chemical reactions. This is achieved by computer modeling which implements the mathematical formulas that make up the "fraud" Quantumists are "guilty of".
Second, let's not forget who won the Nobel Prize last year for Chemistry. It was the people who concieved of and implemented DFT, one of the more powerful quantum theories which I mentioned above.
Lastly, I'd like to comment that this guy's speculation is all well and good, but where are the mathematics to back it up? Quantum theory is largely supported by extensive mathetmatical formulae. I took an Advanced Quantum Class, learning the nitty-gritty of that stuff, and even wrote code for a program which implemented it. I ported a Fortran implementation of it to C, and added some stuff. I've seen how it works at a fundamental level. If his theory undoes all of that stuff, I want to see the mathematics which support it. I doubt, however, that he has any.
So, it seems to me that this guy is out to bamboozle stupid people with a lot of money. I just wish he wasn't trying to do it with junk science.
With viruses available for downloading from the Web, extensive computer language knowledge is no longer needed
Hmm...sounds like they're talking about script kiddies to me. I find it interesting that ABC focuses on the the 3vi1 h@x0rz as opposed to the lack of responsible security measures on the part of those who get cracked. Maybe these companies "making $18 million dollars a day" should shell out a few bucks for some decent firewalls, intrusion detection, and the IT people to run that show.
Keep your servers patched up, run them on UNIX boxen with extra security measures, and for god's sake, don't short-change your people for equipment or personel. It's really not that difficult.
Might this program be a violation of a few items from the Bill of Rights?
From the fifth amendment: ...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;...
From the sixth amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Or, just maybe, the sacred first: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
What's everyone else's thoughts on this? Any lawyers out there care to comment?
This comment left me a little unsettled. I wonder if it could really happen? Would we really want it to happen? Obviously, if it's going to happen, it'll happen whether or not we want it to. However, I find it rather unlikely.
I fear that "going mainstream" might just amount to people doing everything they can to look like a geek, rather than actually be one. They'll install Redhat, Caldera, or Mandrake, run Enlightenment, and hang out in some #channel, being k00l d00ds. They'll wear Copyleft t-shirts, talk about what Linus or Raymond said lately, and use the Linux credit card. (Well, at least that'll bring more capital into the Community for furthering development!!;)
Yet as we all know, being a geek takes so much time and effort...and study. I have gained the impression that this amount of learning is just not something that non-geeks are interested in. People are more concerned with office gossip, the latest styles, or the sports page. They won't "have time" for debugging their code, compiling the latest library to support whatever, or making sure their box on the Net is patched up and "secure" (as secure as things can be;)
Whatever happens, it will be interesting to see. The Community will continue to affect mainstream culture...but just how much, and in what way, is a mystery to me.
Here's a simple cshell script I wrote to keep my cookie file clean. Just throw it in cron.
#!/bin/csh
#copy yesterday's cookie file. We put it in tmp for now, because we want to #compare it later with the last cookie file cp ~/.netscape/cookies/tmp/cookies.`date +%y%.%m%.%d`
#collect what we will allow to be kept in the cookie file #We can trust Malda, right?;) grep slashdot ~/.netscape/cookies >/tmp/cookies.new #That silly free-registration stuff grep nytimes ~/.netscape/cookies >>/tmp/cookies.new #Do you, uh, Yahoo!? grep yahoo ~/.netscape/cookies >>/tmp/cookies.new #And whatever else you want to add. You get the idea, I think....
#make the new cookie file cp/tmp/cookies.new ~/.netscape/cookies
#look for new stuff put in the old cookie file diff/tmp/cookies.`date +%y%.%m%.%d` `find ~/.netscape/old/|tail -1` > \ ~/.netscape/old/cookie.`date +%y%.%m%.%d`.diff
#add yesterday's cookie file to the old ones cp/tmp/cookies.`date +%y%.%m%.%d` ~/.netscape/old/cookies.`date +%y%.%m%.%d`
The easy one is to just give it to them without explaination and let them muddle through. This is a bad move in the short term, as they're still ignorant and now they have the power to damage things. The better way is to educate them. It's not as easy in the short term, but it pays off over time.
The problem I have with this is that people don't appreciate something that is given to them as much as they appreciate something they have to (l)earn with their own blood, sweat, and tears. Moreover, if people are spoonfed knowledge early, they'll always expect it. They won't gain critical thinking skills or the ability to learn the solution to their problems on their own. All they'll know how to do is go to #linux and say "Can someone please help me do this?"
* Sure it's not the most elegant soloution, but most importantly it's good for the purpose.
* Two other things in it's favour, any monkey can learn it, and the support is great. Both reducing the cost of maintenance
On the surface, that sounds just rosy. Quick & dirty, just get the job done, right?!?
Wrong. Where I've work, things have been done "quick & dirty" in VB. Six months later, as matters scale, suddenly those easy and perfect solutions become a nightmare to support, change, or extend. Management has now sworn off VB. I have the pleasure of producing solutions in Python.
Why? Because as a scripting langauge, it's relatively quick to develop. While VB may be faster in the short-run, Python has the strength of being a real programming language which has marked similarities to the proven principles behind C/C++. As a pure language, not some GUI-bastard, it also allows a person to see everything the program does in a series of text files, or even hard-copy. Code is better than pretty little gawgads which abstract things so "any monkey can do it". Basically, it comes down to the old principal of "You can pay now, or you can pay later."
Don't forget, we're at the begining of the Information Age, not the end. Things will continue to change, and scale, and because of that, development tools need to be easy to maintain and support in the long run. Thus smart business will use UNIX/Linux solutions, which have the advantage of 30 years of Academic thoughtful design and Industrial trial-by-fire refining.
Time will do the Darwin on MS tools, it's just a matter of when.
I'll one-up you on this. How about make it Slashdot versus the world? Everyone who has a registered Slashdot account when the game starts is eligible to vote for/.'s move, and the rest of the world casts their vote through Anonymous Coward. Or, perhaps a special account could be set up to prevent stuffing.
Either way, I'd find that more exciting that/. v/.
I'm something of an amature historian, with a particular interest in WWII. As such, I'm already very familiar with Jane's well-earned spotless reputation. They publish a vast array of highly detailed, accurate books on naval ships, aircraft, and other military equipment. The armed forces of the US and others have long looked to them as an authority on everyone's hardware. Historians even used their sources even more often. I find it no surprise that Jane's made the right decision to go with the input from here, rather than that strange article they posted. It fits their pattern.
Jane's has this incredible knack for doing things right, and keeping their facts straight. Too bad Mr. Cringley doesn't understand this.
It's quite simple, actually. Either we control the technolgy or it controls us. One does not have to sacrifice quiet or personal time to control the technology, either. So what if a person isn't on the bleeding edge? What's the rush? Use technology as your situation and life demands it. Just be sure you're educated in the fundamentals so you can quickly and easily bend it to your will.
As Benjamin Franklin said, "All things in moderation".
another point about hard science is the amount of time it takes to study up to the leading edge of fields like physics, chemistry and (most importantly, IMHO, astronomy). the study of science is a parabolic venture, the farther you get along the harder it is to discover new things.
I don't think it is any harder now at the front lines of scientific research than it was before. The only difference is that now, there's more foundational knowledge to learn than there was, say, a hundred years ago. The methods and means of learning unknown facets of the Natural World, however, remain unchanged from whence they were when Galilleo turned his telescope to the stars.
Perhaps it is but a parabolic adventure, but the rewards at the end of the parabola are more than worth the effort to climb the steep slope. I just finished a Masters in Quantum Chemistry. It was incredibly hard work, but to actually understand what makes the universe work is a thrilling experience. Moreover, some of the most fascinating people in the world are in Academia. While most of us can't hope to match them, just having known them and having worked with them is a pleasure worth the effort of the study.
I knew a German at the University I attended who fits this mold. He was a great guy, and was also tremendously intelligent. He had a PhD in mathematics and was concluding his second post-doctorate. He was working on various projetcts with phycists, and doing some neat stuff with the EE department.
I had the good fortune to spend time with this fellow in the capacity of a student. He was doing me the good favor of tutoring me with my Quantum Mechanics, as I was struggling. On his own initiative, he went out and bought the textbook we were studying, and in three weeks covered the same material which the classs had spent the last three months trying to slog through. Then with infinite patience, he explained each concept to me until I understood it. Not only was he tremendously intelligent, but he was a fabulous teacher.
My expereiences with this fine mathematician, and the other people I knew at graduate school, showed me the marvelous way in which mathetmatics, physics, and chemistry entwine together. In no other environment could I have recieved such insight into the physical world, and how it works.
The foundation laid by the five years I spent studying chemistry for my B.S. were equally enlightening in their own right. There is no other way for most people to truly understand the Scientific Method. One can look it up, and learn what people say it is, but until you have a problem to apply it to, which will take possibly years of hard work in research, you will never truly understand it.
However, after all my experiences, I am now in an IT job. I am quite happy, but I would not trade my physical science background for the world. With my experience in Theoretical Chemistry (Quantum) I can now do theoretical research on Linux boxes. Thankfully enough, my switch from Academia to Coorporate has not ended my forays into the remarkable world of Chemsitry. As for the work I do now, it is challenging, and I've always had a passion for computers. But my true love has always been, and always will be, science. For it is in science that we may learn some of the most basic truths of the world which we have found ourselves. It is within science where we may find absolute truth.
They've been trying ever since the browser wars, with no success. Remember MSN? Neither do I. Then there's Hotmail, (what security hole?) and Ebay (sinusoidal behavior makes its debut on the Internet). The big players to be taken seriously on the Internet do not include Microsoft. They've failed miserably because the rules of the game have changed, and they're stuck with what made them what they are.
As Cringley's well-written article points out, the MS strategy no longer applies. Close standards which take advantage of market forces (PCs becoming the dominant hardware standard) is one thing when the technology is a stand-alone box. When the technology hinges upon the Internet, ie communication between many people, closed standards will always be ignored for open ones. It's simply the nature of the environment.
For MS to reinvent itself enough to survive in the Internet Age, they must inevitably abandon all that has made them profitable. Money is the only thing keeping the company in the game, it certainly isn't technological or innovative prowess. Their current dominance in office productivity software will not save them, Star Office being offered free will do to them what they did to Netscape (what sweet irony it is). Even better yet, a coordinated triumverate between StarOffice, WordPerfect Suite, and Applixware will but speed up the process. It is simply a matter of time before the Darwinian nature of the industry makes Microsoft the dinosaur of the PC industry.
Re:What's the uptime? Better than NT.
on
911 Calls Linux
·
· Score: 1
I'm sick of the arguments for Linux stability when Linux apps themselves are so poor when it comes to stability...and NT's windowing system won't crash nearly as much as GNOME or AfterStep.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. I've been using FreeBSD and Linux for almost two years now, and the only apps that have crashed on me have been Enlightenment, Gnome, and sometimes Netscape. Nothing else ever has. I've used Afterstep and Windowmaker for windowmanagers and both are rock solid, even when I have over 50 windows open, and the CPU is groaning at a 4+ job level and 100% CPU usage.
So what if Gnome crashes once in a while? I've never had KDE crash on me. So since you have a choice (I realize that concept is foriegn to the AC who posted this nonesense) choose the app that's solid, rather than the eye candy one.
Say what you want about Word, but it won't crash nearly as much as WordPerfect on Linux.
That's a lot of crap. It's obvious you never use Linux, if you do, why be an Anonymous Coward? I use Wordperfect for Linux regularly, I have ever since it was released in Jan/Feb and it has never core dumped on me. It has all the great features Word doesn't have, like Shadowcursor, which allows you to drop a cursor anywhere in the page at any time, or Smartmenus, which change the menubars to fit your context in the document (outline, graphic object, etc.) Get a clue before you start spouting.
Re: Eterm is a bloated monster, use Aterm
on
Some KDE news
·
· Score: 1
I've used Eterm, and I've used Aterm. A quick study will show you how Aterm uses less than half the memory Eterm does. It does the same stuff, too. You can go get it at this link
Slashdot Mirror
I'd love to see that too, but let's face it, we're fighting a traditional, legacy culture: the US Legislature. We all know how clued in to the digital age they are, don't we? Using distributed tactics to influence the thoughts and opinions of that segment of the population wouldn't be very effective.
It doesn't take a whole lot of effort to write an email. I suspect most legislators therefore probably give a physical letter snail-mailed more consideration than email. Physically getting up and going to protest requires even more effort, implying how important the issue is for those voters doing the protesting. Hence it should, in ideality, carry even more weight in the minds of those whom the protestors are trying to influence.
Sadly, I don't think we'll see our distributed culture being able to use native methods of communication to make their presence felt in our Republic for quite some time. Hence, we probably won't be a noticable factor in the political landscape until at least another ten years has gone by. Just look how long after World War II it took for a member of the post-WWII generation, aka the "baby boom" generation to become elected to President.
Besides opening up cable lines to different ISPs, regulations should be put in place to ensure that consumers subscribing to broadband can run the major network services if they want, such as Telnet, FTP, and HTTP. If someone has something they want to publish to the world, then they should be able to host their website on their own box if they want. Of course there are businesses which sell webhosting, but then one is still at the mercy of the hosting site's decisions to pull your pages at their whim. As we've seen in the news of late, companies who provide webhosting are not going to stand up and fight for the poster's rights.
This sounds like pretty good news to me. I've been attempting to push the use of FreeBSD within a certain gargantuan Financial Services company which I work for. My main stumbling block has been the lack of a corporate entity from which we could purchase the software and support. The corporate-type managers whom I have to convince to let me do this are very stubborn on that point.
At the same time, as a personal user of FreeBSD, I'm a bit apprehensive of this. Because I work in Corporate America, I have a healthy fear of companies and their motives. At the same time, however, I have faith in Hubbard, Lehey, and the rest of the FreeBSD team. They've worked long and hard, and I don't see how FreBSD could change from being open-source or free (beer, speech, take your pick). It would alienate their core user-base, and go against the grain of the thirty-year history of BSD UNIX.
All in all, I'd say this is a Good Thing(TM)
AIEEE is *SO* cool! It finally reveals the most hidden secret which CmdrTaco and Hemos have, that Slashdot stands for:
Small Linear Asymmetric Systems Hardware Direct Output Technology
This article looks almost as disgusting as this one which a co-worker emailed me with the subject "Don't read this after eating your lunch...you might lose it".
I can't decide if Microsoft is just that ignorant to computer history, or if they are that uncaring about the facts. Considering marketdrones run that place, my money is on the latter...
...ever say anything in less than five paragraphs?
(or better yet, less than two...)
If someone has spare time on their hands, maybe they could disassmble the bugger. Or, they could run this binaries on a sacrificial box in an isolated 10.0.0.0 network, with sniffers running everywhere to see if this thing tries to phone home...
the Freedom of Information Act
Please enlighten me...just HOW is this MP3 craze really helping artists? Musicians are already getting screwed by the industry at large, they DON'T need to be doubly screwed by people pirating their music this way.
MP3s actually empower the artists, allowing the musicians to circumvent the record labels and go straight to the consumer. The corporations who sell CDs are only interested in artist that are going to sell *MILLIONS* of copies. They are interested in $dollars$ and thus have to mass-market. It's the lowest common denominator rule. Some of the more creative or original artists are never going to get in the front door at most record companies. MP3s and the Internet give these artists a chance. Once they have a following, they can sell CDs on their own or have a demand for being in concert.
I'd like to see some REAL EXAMPLES of it and see if the artists are REALLY PROFITING from MP3's
For examples, just go to MP3.com and see how many small artists post their own music.
Since when is RedHat a webserver and not a distribution? I'd like to know the method these guys used to get these stats, and why they listed Redhat as a server.
The ideal geek ticket would be Al Gore for president, because he invented the Internet. Clearly, he is an uber-geek. If that doesn't convince you of his technological savvy, consider that he also made his campaign website open-source. So he's an innovator and he's an open-source proponent. Maybe he should go on a speaking tour with ESR and Linus.
As for the veep, who cares? Since Gore is obviously Superman/Clark Kent in disguise, we don't need to worry about him dying or anything-just as long as he doesn't get near any kryptonite (or impeachment hearings)...
What I do understand, however, is quantum mechanics. I have problems with two of Mills' assertions:
First, this interesting concept does absolutely nothing to address the fact that photons also have both particle and wave-like behavior. Second, his idea of orbitspheres is completely incompatible with atomic and molecular orbital theory. For those who don't know, orbitals are areas of probability where the electron is likely to be found in an atom or molecule. This theory can be used to explain, qualitatively, chemical reactions and their mechanisms. This brings me to my second quible with his claims:
I have a number of problems with this. First, all the quantum theory which he's dismissing in so cavalier a manner has actually proven itself, countless times. Using the same theories which he dismisses, quantum chemists and solid state physicists have been able to predict the results of untried chemical reactions. This is achieved by computer modeling which implements the mathematical formulas that make up the "fraud" Quantumists are "guilty of".
Second, let's not forget who won the Nobel Prize last year for Chemistry. It was the people who concieved of and implemented DFT, one of the more powerful quantum theories which I mentioned above.
Lastly, I'd like to comment that this guy's speculation is all well and good, but where are the mathematics to back it up? Quantum theory is largely supported by extensive mathetmatical formulae. I took an Advanced Quantum Class, learning the nitty-gritty of that stuff, and even wrote code for a program which implemented it. I ported a Fortran implementation of it to C, and added some stuff. I've seen how it works at a fundamental level. If his theory undoes all of that stuff, I want to see the mathematics which support it. I doubt, however, that he has any.
So, it seems to me that this guy is out to bamboozle stupid people with a lot of money. I just wish he wasn't trying to do it with junk science.
With viruses available for downloading from the Web, extensive computer language knowledge is no longer needed
Hmm...sounds like they're talking about script kiddies to me. I find it interesting that ABC focuses on the the 3vi1 h@x0rz as opposed to the lack of responsible security measures on the part of those who get cracked. Maybe these companies "making $18 million dollars a day" should shell out a few bucks for some decent firewalls, intrusion detection, and the IT people to run that show.
Keep your servers patched up, run them on UNIX boxen with extra security measures, and for god's sake, don't short-change your people for equipment or personel. It's really not that difficult.
Might this program be a violation of a few items from the Bill of Rights?
...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;...
From the fifth amendment:
From the sixth amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Or, just maybe, the sacred first:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
What's everyone else's thoughts on this? Any lawyers out there care to comment?
...as geek culture goes mainstream.
;)
;)
This comment left me a little unsettled. I wonder if it could really happen? Would we really want it to happen? Obviously, if it's going to happen, it'll happen whether or not we want it to. However, I find it rather unlikely.
I fear that "going mainstream" might just amount to people doing everything they can to look like a geek, rather than actually be one. They'll install Redhat, Caldera, or Mandrake, run Enlightenment, and hang out in some #channel, being k00l d00ds. They'll wear Copyleft t-shirts, talk about what Linus or Raymond said lately, and use the Linux credit card. (Well, at least that'll bring more capital into the Community for furthering development!!
Yet as we all know, being a geek takes so much time and effort...and study. I have gained the impression that this amount of learning is just not something that non-geeks are interested in. People are more concerned with office gossip, the latest styles, or the sports page. They won't "have time" for debugging their code, compiling the latest library to support whatever, or making sure their box on the Net is patched up and "secure" (as secure as things can be
Whatever happens, it will be interesting to see. The Community will continue to affect mainstream culture...but just how much, and in what way, is a mystery to me.
Here's a simple cshell script I wrote to keep my cookie file clean. Just throw it in cron.
/tmp/cookies.`date +%y%.%m%.%d`
;) /tmp/cookies.new /tmp/cookies.new /tmp/cookies.new
/tmp/cookies.new ~/.netscape/cookies
/tmp/cookies.`date +%y%.%m%.%d` `find ~/.netscape/old/|tail -1` > \
/tmp/cookies.`date +%y%.%m%.%d` ~/.netscape/old/cookies.`date +%y%.%m%.%d`
#!/bin/csh
#copy yesterday's cookie file. We put it in tmp for now, because we want to
#compare it later with the last cookie file
cp ~/.netscape/cookies
#collect what we will allow to be kept in the cookie file
#We can trust Malda, right?
grep slashdot ~/.netscape/cookies >
#That silly free-registration stuff
grep nytimes ~/.netscape/cookies >>
#Do you, uh, Yahoo!?
grep yahoo ~/.netscape/cookies >>
#And whatever else you want to add. You get the idea, I think....
#make the new cookie file
cp
#look for new stuff put in the old cookie file
diff
~/.netscape/old/cookie.`date +%y%.%m%.%d`.diff
#add yesterday's cookie file to the old ones
cp
The easy one is to just give it to them without explaination and let them muddle through. This is a bad move in the short term, as they're still ignorant and now they have the power to damage things. The better way is to educate them. It's not as easy in the short term, but it pays off over time.
The problem I have with this is that people don't appreciate something that is given to them as much as they appreciate something they have to (l)earn with their own blood, sweat, and tears. Moreover, if people are spoonfed knowledge early, they'll always expect it. They won't gain critical thinking skills or the ability to learn the solution to their problems on their own. All they'll know how to do is go to #linux and say "Can someone please help me do this?"
* Sure it's not the most elegant soloution, but most importantly it's good for the purpose.
* Two other things in it's favour, any monkey can learn it, and the support is great. Both reducing the cost of maintenance
On the surface, that sounds just rosy. Quick & dirty, just get the job done, right?!?
Wrong. Where I've work, things have been done "quick & dirty" in VB. Six months later, as matters scale, suddenly those easy and perfect solutions become a nightmare to support, change, or extend. Management has now sworn off VB. I have the pleasure of producing solutions in Python.
Why? Because as a scripting langauge, it's relatively quick to develop. While VB may be faster in the short-run, Python has the strength of being a real programming language which has marked similarities to the proven principles behind C/C++. As a pure language, not some GUI-bastard, it also allows a person to see everything the program does in a series of text files, or even hard-copy. Code is better than pretty little gawgads which abstract things so "any monkey can do it". Basically, it comes down to the old principal of "You can pay now, or you can pay later."
Don't forget, we're at the begining of the Information Age, not the end. Things will continue to change, and scale, and because of that, development tools need to be easy to maintain and support in the long run. Thus smart business will use UNIX/Linux solutions, which have the advantage of 30 years of Academic thoughtful design and Industrial trial-by-fire refining.
Time will do the Darwin on MS tools, it's just a matter of when.
I'll one-up you on this. How about make it Slashdot versus the world? Everyone who has a registered Slashdot account when the game starts is eligible to vote for /.'s move, and the rest of the world casts their vote through Anonymous Coward. Or, perhaps a special account could be set up to prevent stuffing.
/. v /.
Either way, I'd find that more exciting that
I'm something of an amature historian, with a particular interest in WWII. As such, I'm already very familiar with Jane's well-earned spotless reputation. They publish a vast array of highly detailed, accurate books on naval ships, aircraft, and other military equipment. The armed forces of the US and others have long looked to them as an authority on everyone's hardware. Historians even used their sources even more often. I find it no surprise that Jane's made the right decision to go with the input from here, rather than that strange article they posted. It fits their pattern.
Jane's has this incredible knack for doing things right, and keeping their facts straight. Too bad Mr. Cringley doesn't understand this.
It's quite simple, actually. Either we control the technolgy or it controls us. One does not have to sacrifice quiet or personal time to control the technology, either. So what if a person isn't on the bleeding edge? What's the rush? Use technology as your situation and life demands it. Just be sure you're educated in the fundamentals so you can quickly and easily bend it to your will.
As Benjamin Franklin said, "All things in moderation".
I don't think it is any harder now at the front lines of scientific research than it was before. The only difference is that now, there's more foundational knowledge to learn than there was, say, a hundred years ago. The methods and means of learning unknown facets of the Natural World, however, remain unchanged from whence they were when Galilleo turned his telescope to the stars.
Perhaps it is but a parabolic adventure, but the rewards at the end of the parabola are more than worth the effort to climb the steep slope. I just finished a Masters in Quantum Chemistry. It was incredibly hard work, but to actually understand what makes the universe work is a thrilling experience. Moreover, some of the most fascinating people in the world are in Academia. While most of us can't hope to match them, just having known them and having worked with them is a pleasure worth the effort of the study.
I knew a German at the University I attended who fits this mold. He was a great guy, and was also tremendously intelligent. He had a PhD in mathematics and was concluding his second post-doctorate. He was working on various projetcts with phycists, and doing some neat stuff with the EE department.
I had the good fortune to spend time with this fellow in the capacity of a student. He was doing me the good favor of tutoring me with my Quantum Mechanics, as I was struggling. On his own initiative, he went out and bought the textbook we were studying, and in three weeks covered the same material which the classs had spent the last three months trying to slog through. Then with infinite patience, he explained each concept to me until I understood it. Not only was he tremendously intelligent, but he was a fabulous teacher.
My expereiences with this fine mathematician, and the other people I knew at graduate school, showed me the marvelous way in which mathetmatics, physics, and chemistry entwine together. In no other environment could I have recieved such insight into the physical world, and how it works.
The foundation laid by the five years I spent studying chemistry for my B.S. were equally enlightening in their own right. There is no other way for most people to truly understand the Scientific Method. One can look it up, and learn what people say it is, but until you have a problem to apply it to, which will take possibly years of hard work in research, you will never truly understand it.
However, after all my experiences, I am now in an IT job. I am quite happy, but I would not trade my physical science background for the world. With my experience in Theoretical Chemistry (Quantum) I can now do theoretical research on Linux boxes. Thankfully enough, my switch from Academia to Coorporate has not ended my forays into the remarkable world of Chemsitry. As for the work I do now, it is challenging, and I've always had a passion for computers. But my true love has always been, and always will be, science. For it is in science that we may learn some of the most basic truths of the world which we have found ourselves. It is within science where we may find absolute truth.
They've been trying ever since the browser wars, with no success. Remember MSN? Neither do I. Then there's Hotmail, (what security hole?) and Ebay (sinusoidal behavior makes its debut on the Internet). The big players to be taken seriously on the Internet do not include Microsoft. They've failed miserably because the rules of the game have changed, and they're stuck with what made them what they are.
As Cringley's well-written article points out, the MS strategy no longer applies. Close standards which take advantage of market forces (PCs becoming the dominant hardware standard) is one thing when the technology is a stand-alone box. When the technology hinges upon the Internet, ie communication between many people, closed standards will always be ignored for open ones. It's simply the nature of the environment.
For MS to reinvent itself enough to survive in the Internet Age, they must inevitably abandon all that has made them profitable. Money is the only thing keeping the company in the game, it certainly isn't technological or innovative prowess. Their current dominance in office productivity software will not save them, Star Office being offered free will do to them what they did to Netscape (what sweet irony it is). Even better yet, a coordinated triumverate between StarOffice, WordPerfect Suite, and Applixware will but speed up the process. It is simply a matter of time before the Darwinian nature of the industry makes Microsoft the dinosaur of the PC industry.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. I've been using FreeBSD and Linux for almost two years now, and the only apps that have crashed on me have been Enlightenment, Gnome, and sometimes Netscape. Nothing else ever has. I've used Afterstep and Windowmaker for windowmanagers and both are rock solid, even when I have over 50 windows open, and the CPU is groaning at a 4+ job level and 100% CPU usage.
So what if Gnome crashes once in a while? I've never had KDE crash on me. So since you have a choice (I realize that concept is foriegn to the AC who posted this nonesense) choose the app that's solid, rather than the eye candy one.
That's a lot of crap. It's obvious you never use Linux, if you do, why be an Anonymous Coward? I use Wordperfect for Linux regularly, I have ever since it was released in Jan/Feb and it has never core dumped on me. It has all the great features Word doesn't have, like Shadowcursor, which allows you to drop a cursor anywhere in the page at any time, or Smartmenus, which change the menubars to fit your context in the document (outline, graphic object, etc.) Get a clue before you start spouting.
I've used Eterm, and I've used Aterm. A quick study will show you how Aterm uses less than half the memory Eterm does. It does the same stuff, too. You can go get it at this link