I want to respond in general to all the people who are transferring the "save the planet" ideas over to the moon. If we eventually settle on the moon and make a big mess what would be the loss? On the earth there is something special (i.e. life) but on the moon there is nothing! We are way off in the bonnies in the universe and I don't think where going to get a ticket if we throw a few bottles out the window. Get real people!
Just one correction (as the guy from SGI who was quoted by Linux World): XFS is a 64 bit file system, meaning that it uses 64 bit offsets everywhere to allow lots of space for files. It does not require a 64 bit OS; XFS is supported on our O2 systems which run a 32 bit version of IRIX. Oh, and as I read the terms of Open Source licenses it's clear that we don't get to decide that XFS is only for Linux. Not that we would want to discriminate against FreeBSDers or other deserving souls. Heck, if Sun wants to GPL Solaris we might even enjoy having them use it!
Thanks for having the journalistic integrity to add the disclaimer! You guys are learning! 8^) -- "Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
They aren't paid to surf the cruise the mailing lists all day. Set up a company yourself and you'll find out in about a week that the web can be a major productivity killer.
Anyway, ll they make is PC clones. What are they supposed to add? It's not like their computers have any custom hardware. Every part can be bought down at Fry's.
Is it me or are people stupid? I've got ADSL, and I use Linux and Win98. What does the ISP care? Tell them you're going to use Windows. When I configure my PC (Linux or Win) for ADSL, I just treat it like I'm connecting to a regular network through a router. So it doesn't matter what OS I use. Or are all xDSLs different?
There is a *huge* difference between helping a collection of slug neurons stumble upon the idea that 1 + 1 = 2, but it is another thing entirely to create truly intelligant "machines". I am no expert but the capabilities of this biological form of AI are probabley inferior to our digital technology.
I spend a large portion of my time thinking about this very scenario. It is a danger when dealing with a thinking machine of any type, biological or sillicon. The major questions we face are
1. Will it view us as a threat? 2. Will it attempt to defend itself? 3. Is it capable of adapting rapidly to the uncertainty of battle? 4. Can we "pull the plug"? 5. Can it stop us from "pulling the plug? 6. Can we "kill" it?
To create a thinking thing requires an addittional level of responsibility. Like it is a parent's responsibility to correct a child when that child goes atray, it is the creators responsibility to correct, or possibly even destroy that creation when it causes more harm than good.
I am actually more afraid of a combination between a biological and sillicon computer. Think of it in terms of a miniature cluster. The biological portion develops questions, and the electronic parts get answers. That type of architecture, while we will probably never live to see it, would have the benefits of both of it's parents. The adaptability of a biological organism, with the raw number crunching power of a machine.
Imagine a soldier who can endure a 100 degree week-long heatwave. And when his target approaches he can calculate the distance between him and the target, the average kinetic energy of bullets of a particular weight and caliber fired from his weapon, wind, humidity, the rate of motion of the target, the recoil of the weapon, wind resistance and which part of the target's body would most likely result in either a killing or maiming shot in a few nanoseconds.
I don't see this as paranoia. Paranoia is unfounded, every type of new technological advance is exploited by those who wish to gain wealth, poer, or both. Every advance we've made as a species has been used to kill people. The boat, the airplane, the automobile, the firearm, nuclear energy, the rocket, ad infinitum. Being afraid that self aware machines will be next, is not paranoia in my book.
"A promised peice of software or feature is not vapourware if it ever emerges."
A promised piece of software is vaporware UNTIL it emerges since there's no way to predict if it ever will emerge until it does. -- "Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
Linux 2.4 (3.0?) is vaporware. 2.3 is real since it is downloadable.
Same with NT. W2k is vaporware. W2k-BetaX is real since it is downloadable.
The thing to keep in mind is that any individual feature-disparity can be vaporware, too. For instance, a journaling filesystem for Linux is vaporware for any kernel version number. Same with a lot of the promised features of W2k. -- "Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
Its no troll, just a question. Look at the Lab Report. I would truely like to know why I should use Linux, NT or Solaris when Server is 7 times faster than NT.
Why bother with OS X Server? Recent tests have shown NT is slightly faster than Linux. Though these tests have met with some disbelief, the fact remains that NT and Linux are fairly equally matched. The report at NewMedia shows that OS X is 7 times faster than NT (& 3 times faster than Solaris too), and therefore its quite reasonable to assume that it's faster than Linux. It also puts the NT/Linux debate into some context.
Judge Pennfield Jackson doesn't have to understand that open standards are the key. He would only have to understand that due to the penetration of MS technology it could be declared an essential facility. Microsoft's marketing lit should provide enough detail to get this to happen. If this is done, the opening of standards and source code is the logical remedy. This is how the DOJ got Ma Bell years ago.
Of course, this actually presents what MS has been searching for which is a new revenue source of not inconsiderable size. You see, they would probably get to charge for access.
Believe me, MS will win no matter what the outcome. AT&T is stronger than ever today.
I am confused by BJH's discussion of CJK characters and Unicode. I am sure s/he is correct, but I just don't understand it.
How does the fact that a Chinese-based character appear differently in a different font differ from the fact the the Roman "A" appears differently in TimesRoman than in Helvetica? Would not the solution to DTP in Chinese-based languages simply be to install multiple Unicode fonts on a system, and choose the correct font based on the context (much like one does in DTP for Roman-based alphabets/fonts)?
If this could some day be done to alter the human brain (obviously without causing death, pain, and such), to the extent where we could fully utilize every portion of it, or at least much more than we can now, and in addition, use our memory directly for storage of some sort, we wouldn't need PC's.
We could just dock our "plugs" (of course we'd need some way to network ourselves), into the station we would be working at.
Hell, we'd have all the processor power we could need, as with storage. Even better, we'd have such a higher basis for learning (since we would be more apt at using our brains), that we could easily further all forms of technologies, and who knows where civilization would go from there.
Slashdot Mirror
Posted by kenmcneil:
I want to respond in general to all the people who are transferring the "save the planet" ideas over to the moon. If we eventually settle on the moon and make a big mess what would be the loss? On the earth there is something special (i.e. life) but on the moon there is nothing! We are way off in the bonnies in the universe and I don't think where going to get a ticket if we throw a few bottles out the window. Get real people!
Posted by Hank Shiffman:
Just one correction (as the guy from SGI who was quoted by Linux World): XFS is a 64 bit file system, meaning that it uses 64 bit offsets everywhere to allow lots of space for files. It does not require a 64 bit OS; XFS is supported on our O2 systems which run a 32 bit version of IRIX. Oh, and as I read the terms of Open Source licenses it's clear that we don't get to decide that XFS is only for Linux. Not that we would want to discriminate against FreeBSDers or other deserving souls. Heck, if Sun wants to GPL Solaris we might even enjoy having them use it!
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
Thanks for having the journalistic integrity to add the disclaimer! You guys are learning! 8^)
--
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
Posted by d106ene5:
They aren't paid to surf the cruise the mailing lists all day. Set up a company yourself and you'll find out in about a week that the web can be a major productivity killer.
Anyway, ll they make is PC clones. What are they supposed to add? It's not like their computers have any custom hardware. Every part can be bought down at Fry's.
Posted by stodge:
Is it me or are people stupid? I've got ADSL, and I use Linux and Win98. What does the ISP care? Tell them you're going to use Windows. When I configure my PC (Linux or Win) for ADSL, I just treat it like I'm connecting to a regular network through a router. So it doesn't matter what OS I use. Or are all xDSLs different?
Posted by Fleeno:
I've had very good luck from US West. They didn't know what Linux was, but they didn't care.
I opted for the "user installation," so they just sent me the router and I was up and running. Yay!
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
If it is aware of what it is, it can choose to change for the better.
I don't understand the term TK ability. Please elaborate.
LK
Posted by kenmcneil:
There is a *huge* difference between helping a collection of slug neurons stumble upon the idea that 1 + 1 = 2, but it is another thing entirely to create truly intelligant "machines". I am no expert but the capabilities of this biological form of AI are probabley inferior to our digital technology.
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
...but that sounds like good news. 8^)
--
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
I spend a large portion of my time thinking about this very scenario. It is a danger when dealing with a thinking machine of any type, biological or sillicon. The major questions we face are
1. Will it view us as a threat?
2. Will it attempt to defend itself?
3. Is it capable of adapting rapidly to the uncertainty of battle?
4. Can we "pull the plug"?
5. Can it stop us from "pulling the plug?
6. Can we "kill" it?
To create a thinking thing requires an addittional level of responsibility. Like it is a parent's responsibility to correct a child when that child goes atray, it is the creators responsibility to correct, or possibly even destroy that creation when it causes more harm than good.
I am actually more afraid of a combination between a biological and sillicon computer. Think of it in terms of a miniature cluster. The biological portion develops questions, and the electronic parts get answers. That type of architecture, while we will probably never live to see it, would have the benefits of both of it's parents. The adaptability of a biological organism, with the raw number crunching power of a machine.
Imagine a soldier who can endure a 100 degree week-long heatwave. And when his target approaches he can calculate the distance between him and the target, the average kinetic energy of bullets of a particular weight and caliber fired from his weapon, wind, humidity, the rate of motion of the target, the recoil of the weapon, wind resistance and which part of the target's body would most likely result in either a killing or maiming shot in a few nanoseconds.
I don't see this as paranoia. Paranoia is unfounded, every type of new technological advance is exploited by those who wish to gain wealth, poer, or both. Every advance we've made as a species has been used to kill people. The boat, the airplane, the automobile, the firearm, nuclear energy, the rocket, ad infinitum. Being afraid that self aware machines will be next, is not paranoia in my book.
LK
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
"A promised peice of software or feature is not vapourware if it ever emerges."
A promised piece of software is vaporware UNTIL it emerges since there's no way to predict if it ever will emerge until it does.
--
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
Posted by ChristianC:
You might be interested to know that there is a version of Samba 2 for OS X Server here
Posted by Dr Evil:
:)
THAT is what he is good at, being right. Even when he is wrong, he is right.
However, I personally think he will go off to be a television evangelist.
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
Linux 2.4 (3.0?) is vaporware. 2.3 is real since it is downloadable.
Same with NT. W2k is vaporware. W2k-BetaX is real since it is downloadable.
The thing to keep in mind is that any individual feature-disparity can be vaporware, too. For instance, a journaling filesystem for Linux is vaporware for any kernel version number. Same with a lot of the promised features of W2k.
--
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
Posted by Dr Evil:
I thought he was hired by Intel?
Posted by ChristianC:
Its no troll, just a question. Look at the Lab Report. I would truely like to know why I should use Linux, NT or Solaris when Server is 7 times faster than NT.
Posted by ChristianC:
Why bother with OS X Server? Recent tests have shown NT is slightly faster than Linux. Though these tests have met with some disbelief, the fact remains that NT and Linux are fairly equally matched. The report at NewMedia shows that OS X is 7 times faster than NT (& 3 times faster than Solaris too), and therefore its quite reasonable to assume that it's faster than Linux. It also puts the NT/Linux debate into some context.
Posted by Lothario:
Judge Pennfield Jackson doesn't have to understand that open standards are the key. He would only have to understand that due to the penetration of MS technology it could be declared an essential facility. Microsoft's marketing lit should provide enough detail to get this to happen. If this is done, the opening of standards and source code is the logical remedy. This is how the DOJ got Ma Bell years ago.
Of course, this actually presents what MS has been searching for which is a new revenue source of not inconsiderable size. You see, they would probably get to charge for access.
Believe me, MS will win no matter what the outcome. AT&T is stronger than ever today.
Posted by ChristianC:
Here's a direct quote from the lab report - 'for 100 users, the Mac served over three times more pages than the Sun, and over seven times the NT'
Posted by |ZigZag|:
;)
I bet he too has been sold to AOL.
Posted by ChristianC:
:)
why so defensive?
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
Unless the product is actually on the shelf, it is vaporware.
--
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
Posted by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters:
I am confused by BJH's discussion of CJK characters and Unicode. I am sure s/he is correct, but I just don't understand it.
How does the fact that a Chinese-based character appear differently in a different font differ from the fact the the Roman "A" appears differently in TimesRoman than in Helvetica? Would not the solution to DTP in Chinese-based languages simply be to install multiple Unicode fonts on a system, and choose the correct font based on the context (much like one does in DTP for Roman-based alphabets/fonts)?
Posted by ChristianC:
Why bother with Linux, NT or Solaris when OS X Server is 7 times faster than NT and 3 times faster than Solaris? See the Lab report at NewMedia
Posted by .stab.:
If this could some day be done to alter the human brain (obviously without causing death, pain, and such), to the extent where we could fully utilize every portion of it, or at least much more than we can now, and in addition, use our memory directly for storage of some sort, we wouldn't need PC's.
We could just dock our "plugs" (of course we'd need some way to network ourselves), into the station we would be working at.
Hell, we'd have all the processor power we could need, as with storage. Even better, we'd have such a higher basis for learning (since we would be more apt at using our brains), that we could easily further all forms of technologies, and who knows where civilization would go from there.
Or maybe I just think ahead too far...