OK, so what do you propose that these nanites do with the snot and other body waste that accumulates on your body?
Burn it into its constituent atoms, of course.
Oh, come on! Think practical! Where can the nanites put all that excess mucous?
What normally happens to the mucous in your nose? Yes, yes, you blow your nose and it comes out, or maybe it drips out a little. But where else does it normally go? Come on now, I know you know the answer, as much as it might make your stomach churn (literally)...
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
Now here's a use for nanites that every geek would love.
Don't you hate having to stop programming and web-surfing to do those mundane chores like showering, blowing your nose, etc.? Wouldn't it be great to have nanites invading every part of your body, taking care of all the drudgery for you?
That's what I really want. Nanites up my nose. I'm sick of having to keep a box of Facial Tissues handy at all times.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
Amiga was recently spun-off from Gateway, if I remember correctly. Gateway is a big customer of Microsoft. If Gateway does anything to make MS upset, their software costs could go up.
Microsoft realizes what a threat Open Source is becoming. I think they'd either buy Amiga to stop them from releasing the OS as open source, or if Gateway still owns a majority stake in Amiga, they would put pressure on Gateway to stop it from happening.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
Its not that easy. You have to consider aerodynamics, shock waves, etc (either in the gun, or when you exit the barrel)
As the poster said, all of these issues are simply matters of engineering. I'm sure every gun manufacturer has dealt with them. There is no really new technology here.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
For all those people who are for legal abortions but against genetic engineering, I want you to think long and hard about the difference between the two.
Abortion allows us to perform genetic engineering at a crude level - it allows you to "accept" or "reject" a child. Genetic engineering merely gives us "finer-grained" control of the child's genetic makeup.
I'm not saying that this is a good or bad thing (I have my opinion, but I'm keeping it to myself). I'm just saying that the ethics of genetic engineering are pretty much equivalent to the ethics of abortion.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
I'm glad Intel is investing in Linux companies. The financial support should help Linux to develop and spread.
However, what I'd really like to see Intel do is to put some of their engineering resources into developing better compilers (or at least, x86 optimizations). Not only would this help every free operating system, and anything else compiled using GCC, but it would also make Intel's processors "seem" faster in benchmarks.
I think the egcs/gcc developers have been doing a wonderful job, but I'm sure there are Intel engineers who have a better understanding of X86 optimizations.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
And I think ESR should definitely get out of his little hole and check what Marxism and socialism really are. He is deeply confused with the Stalinist application of Communism. All in all, this vision is very american, on the redneck side.
And you should endeavor to learn more about ESR's political philosophy, known as Libertarianism.
In a nutshell, it is a philosophy that believes in the freedom of the individual before all else.
If you understood this, then you would understand that ESR isn't just attacking Stalinist Marxism - he's attacking pure, ideal Marxism as well. The marxist (socialist) approach is to have government control everything to make sure that everyone gets their fair share.
This is in direct conflict with a Libertarian's ideals and goals, and would therefore be viewed as evil.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
I started reading firstmonday's article, and when I reached the section entitled "Cathedral and Bazaar" Postulates, I noticed numerous factual errors right off the bat. Among the so-called Postulates that Nikolai states he found in Eric's paper are:
Open source is a completely new progressive phenomenon (bright future of mankind) with no analogs in history.
I find nothing within CatB that suggests this. As a matter of fact, I found the following which would seem to refute it:
Not all of these are things I first learned in the Linux world, but we'll see how the Linux world gives them particular point.
Strike one
All open source projects are the same and employ the so-called "bazaar model"
CatB definitely does not say this. Here's a quote:
It's fairly clear that one cannot code from the ground up in bazaar style ``''. One can test, debug and improve in bazaar style, but it would be very hard to originate a project in bazaar mode.
That is, no open-source project ever starts out being developed in bazaar style. In fact, just about every project starts out as the work of a single individual. Eric recognized this, but this Nikolai person somehow misinterpreted the paper.
Strike two
Microsoft needs to be destroyed.
I searched CatB for the term Microsoft. Not once is it mentioned that Microsoft needs to be destroyed.
Strike three
I couldn't read any further. If his entire paper is based on the fact that he somehow attributes these "postulates" to Eric's paper, then his entire paper is based on flawed assumptions.
Either this character really dislikes ESR (why did he say Eric had a "vulgar Marxist" interpretation of the phenomenon?), or he's simply attacking a famous person to whip up some publicity of his own (very likely).
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
Does this mean that the interests of Microsoft and its employees and shareholders have no weight at all? That's correct.
To turn your argument on its head, what about the interests of all of Microsoft's competitors who were put out of business or had their businesses severely impacted by (alleged) anti-competitive practices by Microsoft?
The problem is with Monopolies. Anyone who has taken a first-year Econ class has learned that a natural monopoly causes the "free-market" model to break down, resulting in high cost to the consumer.
So government usually steps in when a market creates a natural monopoly. Now, it can do something drastic, like run the business (the U.S. Post Office, for example). It can "regulate" the business (U.S. cable companies). But, it would be best if the market could simply be made back into a naturally competitive market (phone systems, after the invention of microwave transmitters).
I don't believe that open-sourcing MS's operating system would kill them. But I think it would make the NON-OS software market more competitive, since Microsoft would no longer be able to leverage Operating System dominance into dominance in other software markets.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
Microsoft's "embrace and extend" method of ridding themselves of competition has always centered on their operating system. If you want to kill Netscape, make a browser part of the OS, etc.
What if the government simply forced them to make only their operating system open source? Well, I think you'll see them doing an about-face on saying IE is part of the OS.
But this would also prevent Microsoft from using their OS dominance to kill off competing products.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
G++ only fairly recently has started to be both "reliable," "correct," and "nearly completely conformant to standard."
The gyrations between GCC and EGCS, which has recently become GCC, did not help.
I disagree strongly. The creation of the splintered-off EGCS compiler is what gave us the "reliable," "correct," and "nearly completely conformant to standard" compiler! If the old maintainers of GCC were left to their own devices, we would still be worlds away from having a free standards-compliant compiler.
The fact that the two groups have re-merged and adopted the EGCS compiler as the standard GNU one just shows how well the Darwin model of free software development works. Again, the ability to temporarily fragment the code base allowed the code base as a whole to become better and more reliable than it otherwise would have.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
I've heard that you're a libertarian, so I'm interested in hearing your views on this subject. Although you'll probably have to put on the asbestos undies before responding:
With the recent shootings at schools across America, people are calling for further bans on guns. Many people would like to see all guns made illegal. Please discuss your views on this subject.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
Quite frankly, I do not see embedded linux being able to run inside a doorknob anytime soon, there's a lot of work still to be done. eCos already has that ability,
Cool! Where can I buy one of these doorknobs?
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
Compare the stats of how many (armed) US police officers per capita who get shot each year to how many (unarmed)UK police officers get shot each year; if there's less guns in circulation, there's less murder...
What's interesting is to compare the number of crimes committed with a firearm in Washington DC and New York City (where it is illegal to own a gun), to other large US cities where it is legal. You'll see that the rate of crimes committed with a firearm are much greater in DC and NY. The reason is simple - the criminals know they don't have to worry about any law-abiding citizens shooting them.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
But I don't think it takes a genius to work out who could kill more people, the person with a knife, or the person with an automatic pistol.
Two points: First, the person has to want to kill someone. Most people don't want to kill other people, and therefore it doesn't matter if they own a gun or not - they won't kill anyone either way.
Second, even if guns are illegal, criminals will still find ways of killing people. Usually by obtaining an illegal gun. But there are many other ways to effectively & easily kill people. Bombs, automobiles, food poisoning, bow & arrow, etc. A gun is just a tool. Like any tool, it can be used for good or evil.
What's really scary are the number of mass killings that could have easily been prevented if one of the victims had been in possession of a gun.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
Here's another article talking about Warwick. And here's a quote from the article:
During a recent radio interview with a station in Texas, he suggested that the chip might keep track of gun owners and warn police of their imminent arrival, a comment that provoked the wrath of some gun lobbyists in the Lone Star State.
And well it should.
This will not keep people from shooting up schools. All the "law abiding" gun-owners would have the chips in their arms, but they aren't the ones who are going to shoot up a school. The potential murderers would find a way to remove the chips or acquire illegal guns (and therefore not get a chip) and shoot up the school anyway.
So implanting a chip is not the solution to this problem. But worse than that, it allows your privacy to be invaded even easier than it already is! Can you imagine - we already have the technology to track cell phones so that they continue to work when you move. The government/stalkers/etc. could track you easily if you had one of these chips implanted.
Very scary stuff.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
In my case, DSL DSLAM is tied directly to PacBell's OC-45 ATM network. The ISP connects to this network and "bridges" the gap to the internet. But the OC-45 is so much faster than most internet backbones, I'm not worried about the bandwidth.
But I doubt the DSLAM itself is hooked into the network at OC-48 speeds. It is most likely an OC-3 or OC-12 connection. That would (potentially) be your bottleneck.
Don't get me wrong - I don't think you're actually going to hit this limit. The phone company would increase their pipes when they got close to the limit. But a cable company can increase their bandwidth just as easily.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
As far as bandwidth goes, I think it is pretty short sighted for him to pooh-pooh the fact that you are sharing your bandwidth...
He's not "pooh-poohing" it. He's explaining why it's a vacuous argument.
It's simple. With cable modems, you're on a shared lan. With DSL, you have a dedicated line with dedicated bandwidth, but the first thing they do is to connect all those lines together into a common shared trunk!
What, did you think you were really getting your own personal 400kb connection to the internet? Who cares at what point it gets shared, the bandwidth is always shared eventually.
The solution to congestion in both cases is pretty similar. For DSL, the company gets more trunks, or a fatter trunk. For Cable, you split the LAN into two segments.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
With dial-up connections at least you were a moving target - the IP changed and you weren't connected for a long period of time.
No, not really. Each ISP has a block of IP addresses that it keeps re-using for each dial-up connection. So even though the particular address used by your machine keeps changing, it is still one of several known addresses.
All a cracker needs to do is to keep checking these IP addresses. As soon as it gets a response from one of them, you're toast.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
Until my connection reaches my ISP's outbound link from my phone company, my line is my own, and the bandwidth is shared with no one.
Ok, I hear this argument over and over again. Listen, even though that particular link isn't shared, the first thing they do with all those links is trunk them together! So you're still limited by the bandwidth of the trunk, regardless of how much bandwidth your link can take.
The only real bad thing about using cable, as you pointed out, is that others on the LAN can potentially sniff packets. That's when SSH and PPTP come in handy.:^)
Ok, Mr. Smarty, then what happens when your ISP's connection gets clogged? What then?! Simple. Change ISPs.
And there's nothing stopping me, as a cable modem user, from switching to DSL if the cable company's lines get "clogged" too. So far, I haven't had a problem. It's fast!
For $22.95/mo plus $32.50 for the line (768/128)
That's $55.45/mo for the mathematically impaired.
For $39.95/mo I get 3 email address, 5MB web space for each email address, access to a loaded news server, and a single static IP address (thank goodness for IP Masquerading!). This is through TCI. They had a $150 installation fee, but they were running a special - free installation and one month free. I couldn't pass it up.
Not quite as much freedom as you have, but the price is better and the performance is comparable if not better.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
Is it true that I can't setup a web server on my PC if I use a cable modem? I would only let a few people use it.
It depends on your cable company. I have TCI (AT&T now), and they don't allow it. Technically, however, there's nothing stopping me.
I would guess that they determine whether you're running a web server by whether there are connections being made to port 80 on your machine. So if you setup your web server to talk on some other, non-standard port, they'll never know what's going on (as long as you don't have high traffic, that is).
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
We can use this same strategy! If the Wine project ever gets far enough along to run all of MS Office, then Linux would be even one step better, since it would offer actual binary compatibility with windows!
Unfortunately, wine seems to be taking forever. I'm sure the ever-changing and expanding and undocumented Windows API's have a lot to do with this.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
Remember, the linux kernel itself might not be very good at SMP, but multi-threaded applications will work very well.
The mindcraft benchmarks took advantage of the fact that the kernel's networking code was pretty much single-threaded, while NT's networking code was not. Indeed, the NT kernel was even able to bind each CPU to its own Ethernet port!
This result is good because it shows how lightweight the Linux kernel is. Once we add the same multithreading to the kernel that NT possesses, Linux should be able to blow the pants of NT in a rematch.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
If the compiler results in a 30%+ preformance boost in the binaries, and 30% faster hardware would cost $2,000 more, you can bet your pants that people will be ready to pay $500 for a commercial compiler.
But Compaq is missing the point. Why does a hardware company write software? The answer: to sell more hardware.
A better free compiler would help Compaq sell more Alphas (since benchmarks done by 3rd parties would show Alphas as being even faster compared to Intel processors). Intel seems to understand this. Compaq better learn it soon before the Alpha dies.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again...
Slashdot Mirror
The only group that gets hurt are the companies that only know how to sell products based on Intellectual Property or trade secrets.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
What normally happens to the mucous in your nose? Yes, yes, you blow your nose and it comes out, or maybe it drips out a little. But where else does it normally go? Come on now, I know you know the answer, as much as it might make your stomach churn (literally)...
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
Don't you hate having to stop programming and web-surfing to do those mundane chores like showering, blowing your nose, etc.? Wouldn't it be great to have nanites invading every part of your body, taking care of all the drudgery for you?
That's what I really want. Nanites up my nose. I'm sick of having to keep a box of Facial Tissues handy at all times.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
Amiga was recently spun-off from Gateway, if I remember correctly. Gateway is a big customer of Microsoft. If Gateway does anything to make MS upset, their software costs could go up.
Microsoft realizes what a threat Open Source is becoming. I think they'd either buy Amiga to stop them from releasing the OS as open source, or if Gateway still owns a majority stake in Amiga, they would put pressure on Gateway to stop it from happening.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
Abortion allows us to perform genetic engineering at a crude level - it allows you to "accept" or "reject" a child. Genetic engineering merely gives us "finer-grained" control of the child's genetic makeup.
I'm not saying that this is a good or bad thing (I have my opinion, but I'm keeping it to myself). I'm just saying that the ethics of genetic engineering are pretty much equivalent to the ethics of abortion.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
However, what I'd really like to see Intel do is to put some of their engineering resources into developing better compilers (or at least, x86 optimizations). Not only would this help every free operating system, and anything else compiled using GCC, but it would also make Intel's processors "seem" faster in benchmarks.
I think the egcs/gcc developers have been doing a wonderful job, but I'm sure there are Intel engineers who have a better understanding of X86 optimizations.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
In a nutshell, it is a philosophy that believes in the freedom of the individual before all else.
If you understood this, then you would understand that ESR isn't just attacking Stalinist Marxism - he's attacking pure, ideal Marxism as well. The marxist (socialist) approach is to have government control everything to make sure that everyone gets their fair share.
This is in direct conflict with a Libertarian's ideals and goals, and would therefore be viewed as evil.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
Open source is a completely new progressive phenomenon (bright future of mankind) with no analogs in history.
I find nothing within CatB that suggests this. As a matter of fact, I found the following which would seem to refute it:
Strike oneAll open source projects are the same and employ the so-called "bazaar model"
CatB definitely does not say this. Here's a quote:
That is, no open-source project ever starts out being developed in bazaar style. In fact, just about every project starts out as the work of a single individual. Eric recognized this, but this Nikolai person somehow misinterpreted the paper.Strike two
Microsoft needs to be destroyed.
I searched CatB for the term Microsoft. Not once is it mentioned that Microsoft needs to be destroyed.
Strike three
I couldn't read any further. If his entire paper is based on the fact that he somehow attributes these "postulates" to Eric's paper, then his entire paper is based on flawed assumptions.
Either this character really dislikes ESR (why did he say Eric had a "vulgar Marxist" interpretation of the phenomenon?), or he's simply attacking a famous person to whip up some publicity of his own (very likely).
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
To turn your argument on its head, what about the interests of all of Microsoft's competitors who were put out of business or had their businesses severely impacted by (alleged) anti-competitive practices by Microsoft?
The problem is with Monopolies. Anyone who has taken a first-year Econ class has learned that a natural monopoly causes the "free-market" model to break down, resulting in high cost to the consumer.
So government usually steps in when a market creates a natural monopoly. Now, it can do something drastic, like run the business (the U.S. Post Office, for example). It can "regulate" the business (U.S. cable companies). But, it would be best if the market could simply be made back into a naturally competitive market (phone systems, after the invention of microwave transmitters).
I don't believe that open-sourcing MS's operating system would kill them. But I think it would make the NON-OS software market more competitive, since Microsoft would no longer be able to leverage Operating System dominance into dominance in other software markets.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
What if the government simply forced them to make only their operating system open source? Well, I think you'll see them doing an about-face on saying IE is part of the OS.
But this would also prevent Microsoft from using their OS dominance to kill off competing products.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
The fact that the two groups have re-merged and adopted the EGCS compiler as the standard GNU one just shows how well the Darwin model of free software development works. Again, the ability to temporarily fragment the code base allowed the code base as a whole to become better and more reliable than it otherwise would have.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
With the recent shootings at schools across America, people are calling for further bans on guns. Many people would like to see all guns made illegal. Please discuss your views on this subject.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
Second, even if guns are illegal, criminals will still find ways of killing people. Usually by obtaining an illegal gun. But there are many other ways to effectively & easily kill people. Bombs, automobiles, food poisoning, bow & arrow, etc. A gun is just a tool. Like any tool, it can be used for good or evil.
What's really scary are the number of mass killings that could have easily been prevented if one of the victims had been in possession of a gun.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
This will not keep people from shooting up schools. All the "law abiding" gun-owners would have the chips in their arms, but they aren't the ones who are going to shoot up a school. The potential murderers would find a way to remove the chips or acquire illegal guns (and therefore not get a chip) and shoot up the school anyway.
So implanting a chip is not the solution to this problem. But worse than that, it allows your privacy to be invaded even easier than it already is! Can you imagine - we already have the technology to track cell phones so that they continue to work when you move. The government/stalkers/etc. could track you easily if you had one of these chips implanted.
Very scary stuff.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
Don't get me wrong - I don't think you're actually going to hit this limit. The phone company would increase their pipes when they got close to the limit. But a cable company can increase their bandwidth just as easily.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
It's simple. With cable modems, you're on a shared lan. With DSL, you have a dedicated line with dedicated bandwidth, but the first thing they do is to connect all those lines together into a common shared trunk!
What, did you think you were really getting your own personal 400kb connection to the internet? Who cares at what point it gets shared, the bandwidth is always shared eventually.
The solution to congestion in both cases is pretty similar. For DSL, the company gets more trunks, or a fatter trunk. For Cable, you split the LAN into two segments.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
All a cracker needs to do is to keep checking these IP addresses. As soon as it gets a response from one of them, you're toast.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
The only real bad thing about using cable, as you pointed out, is that others on the LAN can potentially sniff packets. That's when SSH and PPTP come in handy. :^)
And there's nothing stopping me, as a cable modem user, from switching to DSL if the cable company's lines get "clogged" too. So far, I haven't had a problem. It's fast! That's $55.45/mo for the mathematically impaired.For $39.95/mo I get 3 email address, 5MB web space for each email address, access to a loaded news server, and a single static IP address (thank goodness for IP Masquerading!). This is through TCI. They had a $150 installation fee, but they were running a special - free installation and one month free. I couldn't pass it up.
Not quite as much freedom as you have, but the price is better and the performance is comparable if not better.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
I would guess that they determine whether you're running a web server by whether there are connections being made to port 80 on your machine. So if you setup your web server to talk on some other, non-standard port, they'll never know what's going on (as long as you don't have high traffic, that is).
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
Unfortunately, wine seems to be taking forever. I'm sure the ever-changing and expanding and undocumented Windows API's have a lot to do with this.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
The mindcraft benchmarks took advantage of the fact that the kernel's networking code was pretty much single-threaded, while NT's networking code was not. Indeed, the NT kernel was even able to bind each CPU to its own Ethernet port!
This result is good because it shows how lightweight the Linux kernel is. Once we add the same multithreading to the kernel that NT possesses, Linux should be able to blow the pants of NT in a rematch.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
A better free compiler would help Compaq sell more Alphas (since benchmarks done by 3rd parties would show Alphas as being even faster compared to Intel processors). Intel seems to understand this. Compaq better learn it soon before the Alpha dies.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...