Common Core is not perfect. Not much is. But the language used in this post was well and truly slanted. I suggest that, in the future, you avoid politicking in your posting, and instead be an objective reporter of facts. Words like "acknowledge" strongly imply an associated guilt. Likewise, the rest of the OP's slant.
I just wasn't pulling them on 12/31/99, which is the date I think of when I think of "Party like it's 1999." 'Cause everyone *else* (except a few closet survivalists) that I knew was out having fun. I got to work until roughly 4:00 a.m. (1:00 a.m. PST, but I was east coast) to make sure that Cisco wasn't experiencing systemic Y2K issues. And... it didn't. The rest of the time, I was Joe Sysadmin, pulling cables, bitching about Windows, and trying (successfully, as it turned out) to get Cisco to accept Linux.
My "party" in '99 was sitting in a room with two other engineers, eating Chinese food, playing video games, and seeing if the internal Cisco infrastructure suddenly up and died.
It didn't.
That being said, your UID is perilously close to mine; might wanna watch who you hit with the "old timer" stick.;-)
WTF did Larry do to "ruin" Slashdot? I'm pretty sure Rob loved working for Larry. Or with your UID of four bajillion, do you remember stuff I seem to have forgotten?
Dude -- EVERYONE believed in Linux at the time, as well as The Internet. Bright-eyed investors who jumped at a Linux-associated hardware company made that happen, not Larry. Larry just happened to be the best-known Linux-associated hardware vendor at the time. I'd say his timing was awesome for the spike, but I think Larry would have been happier than just about anyone to see the stock price stay up where it started.
If you bought in at $320/share, and have sour grapes... well, that's your fault. "Caveat Emptor." See: "dot bomb".
one of the names that we all felt some sort of kinship with back in the early Linux commercialization days. He started VA Reasearch -- which had the biggest one-day spike on IPO, ever, managing a front-page story in the WSJ, and an incredibly sanctimonious public letter from ESR -- and forever popularized blue LEDs on servers (you can thank or blame him as you see fit). Since then, he's gone off to do some venture capital stuff, and help out with Sugar CRM. While I've never met him, I certainly owe him for both his contribution to the community as a whole, as well as more explicitly for opening up the IPO to common folks like me.
By all accounts, he's a good guy, and someone I was glad was in our corner during those heady-but-tumultuous times.
Hey, Larry -- you don't know me (shocker), but I've been a fan since back in the day -- indeed, VA's IPO helped buy me my first LCD monitor. (Go, SGI 1600SW.) Anyway, Linux, open source, the web, and technology itself has certainly seen lots of change since the "olden" days of the mid-90's; which parts do you reflect on most fondly, which parts have surprised you the most, and, of course, the proverbial: "If you could do it over again, what would you do differently?" (I realize that technically, that's three questions, but I think it's really three questions in search of one answer.)
It permeates everything you write: the moral assuredness that You Are Right. I'm all in favor of positing that a position someone takes is the right one -- that's human nature. But your whole "I speak for the hackers" tone, wherein you seem to feel the need to put your views forward as representing others', puzzles me. I give, as a case-in-point, your "Sex Tips for Geeks" as exhibit A, but, really, most any of your writings -- most definitely including your handling of The Jargon File, as well as your stance on homosexuality -- qualify. Care to comment?
I might even be tempted to stretch that to education, as well. Kind of ironic that those who should be willing to teach are often those most scared of learning.
I've had teachers for whom that was not true, and those were the ones who really shone. But most of my technology-related teachers/professors would have been terrified.
Given the circumstances, you'd think testing would be a bit easier than they're making it out to be. I was asleep in a tent; it was about an hour before sunrise: just enough light to tell that there *was* light, but not to see anything. The sleeping back was a little too short for me -- had one arm at my side, and the other sprawled outward. I tried to pull it back in to the sleeping bag, where it was warm... and it wouldn't come. Which kinda freaked me out. I reached out for it with my other arm -- and it wasn't there. Which really freaked me out. Finally -- assuming I hadn't missed a truly traumatic bear attack in my sleep -- I decided it must still be attached to my body, so with my other arm, I went to my shoulder, and felt on down, only to discover it was completely *under* me, and 100% asleep.
A couple of years later, I read in Scientific American about how scientists were able to simulate phantom limb syndrome by doing essentially the same thing. So with that being said, you'd think simply putting folks' limbs to sleep would really assist in testing this stuff, instead of having a sample size of freaking *one*.
Is that the whole reason a service like this exists, when essentially all those users already have FB accounts, is because it *ISN'T LIKE* Facebook. It's uncluttered, and straightforward. It's the un-facebook. And they'll just break it by trying to monetize it.
Wow. You are truly don't do research. Yes, FiOS. No, they aren't deploying it any more, but that doesn't negate the expenditure and infrastructure that's already in-place. As for their partnership, go read the fine print: 1) It elapses sometime in the next several years 2) This is from *Verizon Wireless*, not Verizon, themselves; I know it's easy to conflate the two, but for right now, they are not one and the same -- Verizon only has a 55% stake in Verizon Wireless, and Verizon Wireless a) doesn't offer broadband, and b) bought cellular spectrum from Comcast in exchange for advertising their (non-competing) wired broadband. Maybe *you*, Mr. ill-informed, should check your facts a bit better. Read more about it here, and note the 2016 sunset.
None of which negates my point about DSL, either.
P.S. I enjoyed your broken link to verizon wireless. Might wanna strip the trailing slash off the next time you incorrectly paste.
Comcast *does* compete with Verizon -- directly. Their FiOS and DSL options are direct competition for both TV and high-speed Internet -- in the *same* geographic region -- that Comcast offers. There's no way in Hell the gov't would approve an acquisition or merger of those two.
I don't really know how I feel about the acquisition. I think some of the things Krugman talks about -- e.g., no incentive to upgrade networks -- certainly has validity; I also know that we *HATE* network congestion, and just in my unit, alone, spend tens of millions a year to avoid it. Of course, without incentive, that's just 'cause we feel like doing that, not because we have to.
The one that has me really, truly worried, though, is Net Neutrality. I am *STRONGLY* in favor of the FCC saying "F*** you all: it's time," and pushing it out. I think that neutrality, combined with the rise (and eventual commoditization) of cellular networks, as well as good ol' Ma Bell and DSL, will be able to offer competing solutions. Of course, then there's satellite, as well, but the inherent latency makes that a poorer option by definition.
Comcast is, however, essentially right: they don't compete with other cable companies because of the infrastructure; one thing that might be interesting -- though I have a sneaking suspicion Republicans would cry foul about over-regulation all day long -- would be if the gov't enforced a move akin to the telecom and power companies: if cable companies could offer the landline connection, but you were able to get service from anyone. That would go a great way toward leveling the playing field.
Have you ever played a grandmaster? I imagine Bill Gates and I are probably on par, chess-wise. As an anecdote, I won my town's chess championship at the age of 15. (Population: 10K.) I'm not USCF rated, though I've considered it, and I generally run roughshod over my friends.
My grandfather was a grandmaster. Until his faculties started to fail him, I *never* beat him. And we played regularly. I always seemed to be a move behind, no matter who started. It was this vice that just closed in. And if we played quickly, well, it just happened that much the faster.
I *do* think that the content was better back then. I really felt like Rob not only had a vested interest, but really put part of himself into the site. I strongly feel that Roblimo's entrance was a direct correlation with a diminishment in fun. I can't put my finger on it, but something about the guy just rubs me the wrong way -- though if I'm honest, it probably started with the Alex Chiu story (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/01/06/01/1250257/ask-internet-icon-alex-chiu). And damn, but that was 2001.
I thought the story was a reasonable one. While I do miss the pre-Dice days, the days I really miss are the pre-Y2K days. Taco commentary, movie reviews, "quickies," Hemos, Cowboy Neal poll options... I just enjoyed the by-the-seat-of-their-pants feel. And that has been gone for quite some time. Certainly before you registered.;-)
But, while ESR is likely right, my kneejerk response is to say, "No!" Why? Because ESR is such a freaking windbag, who's so damn convinced of his own moral and intellectual superiority. His whole schtick gets really tiresome after a while.
I don't see why he's contrasting things that, instead, worked together with synergy. Strikes me as a really short-sighted way to approach the success of Open Source software.
10 years ago really wasn't that big a deal. By 2003, VPN (IPSec and OpenVPN) was fairly robust, and widely supported. PPTP was on the way out for being insecure. Internet was most everywhere, and at decent-if-not-great throughput. Go back five or ten years before *that*, and things were much more difficult: connectivity was almost always over a modem; remote offices *might* be on a BRI ISDN connection (128 kb/s), probably using some sort of on-demand technology to avoid being billed out the wazoo due to US telcos doing this bizarre, per-channel surcharge for ISDN. PPP was finally supplanting (the oh, so evil) SLIP, which made things better, assuming your OS even supported TCP/IP, which was not yet clearly the victor -- leading to multiple stacks to include MS and Novell protocols.
All in all, 2003 was about when things were finally getting pretty good. Leading up to 2000 had been a tough row to how. And let's just not even go before that -- a mishmash of TCP/IP, SNA, SAA, 3270, RS-232, VT100, completely incompatible e-mail protocols, network protocol bridges, massive routing tables for SAPpy, stupid protocols... a 100% nightmare. Very, very glad to have left those days behind.
Slashdot Mirror
Common Core is not perfect. Not much is. But the language used in this post was well and truly slanted. I suggest that, in the future, you avoid politicking in your posting, and instead be an objective reporter of facts. Words like "acknowledge" strongly imply an associated guilt. Likewise, the rest of the OP's slant.
I just wasn't pulling them on 12/31/99, which is the date I think of when I think of "Party like it's 1999." 'Cause everyone *else* (except a few closet survivalists) that I knew was out having fun. I got to work until roughly 4:00 a.m. (1:00 a.m. PST, but I was east coast) to make sure that Cisco wasn't experiencing systemic Y2K issues. And... it didn't. The rest of the time, I was Joe Sysadmin, pulling cables, bitching about Windows, and trying (successfully, as it turned out) to get Cisco to accept Linux.
P.D. Se habla español?
My "party" in '99 was sitting in a room with two other engineers, eating Chinese food, playing video games, and seeing if the internal Cisco infrastructure suddenly up and died.
It didn't.
That being said, your UID is perilously close to mine; might wanna watch who you hit with the "old timer" stick. ;-)
I don't think VA was *embarrassing*, so much as, maybe, unfortunate.
And ESR being an embarrassment hasn't really been relegated to history. Fortunately, most of his involvement with OSS has.
He kill your dog, break your guitar, and steal your woman and truck? WTF?
WTF did Larry do to "ruin" Slashdot? I'm pretty sure Rob loved working for Larry. Or with your UID of four bajillion, do you remember stuff I seem to have forgotten?
Dude -- EVERYONE believed in Linux at the time, as well as The Internet. Bright-eyed investors who jumped at a Linux-associated hardware company made that happen, not Larry. Larry just happened to be the best-known Linux-associated hardware vendor at the time. I'd say his timing was awesome for the spike, but I think Larry would have been happier than just about anyone to see the stock price stay up where it started.
If you bought in at $320/share, and have sour grapes... well, that's your fault. "Caveat Emptor." See: "dot bomb".
one of the names that we all felt some sort of kinship with back in the early Linux commercialization days. He started VA Reasearch -- which had the biggest one-day spike on IPO, ever, managing a front-page story in the WSJ, and an incredibly sanctimonious public letter from ESR -- and forever popularized blue LEDs on servers (you can thank or blame him as you see fit). Since then, he's gone off to do some venture capital stuff, and help out with Sugar CRM. While I've never met him, I certainly owe him for both his contribution to the community as a whole, as well as more explicitly for opening up the IPO to common folks like me.
By all accounts, he's a good guy, and someone I was glad was in our corner during those heady-but-tumultuous times.
Hey, Larry -- you don't know me (shocker), but I've been a fan since back in the day -- indeed, VA's IPO helped buy me my first LCD monitor. (Go, SGI 1600SW.) Anyway, Linux, open source, the web, and technology itself has certainly seen lots of change since the "olden" days of the mid-90's; which parts do you reflect on most fondly, which parts have surprised you the most, and, of course, the proverbial: "If you could do it over again, what would you do differently?" (I realize that technically, that's three questions, but I think it's really three questions in search of one answer.)
It permeates everything you write: the moral assuredness that You Are Right. I'm all in favor of positing that a position someone takes is the right one -- that's human nature. But your whole "I speak for the hackers" tone, wherein you seem to feel the need to put your views forward as representing others', puzzles me. I give, as a case-in-point, your "Sex Tips for Geeks" as exhibit A, but, really, most any of your writings -- most definitely including your handling of The Jargon File, as well as your stance on homosexuality -- qualify. Care to comment?
I might even be tempted to stretch that to education, as well. Kind of ironic that those who should be willing to teach are often those most scared of learning.
I've had teachers for whom that was not true, and those were the ones who really shone. But most of my technology-related teachers/professors would have been terrified.
Given the circumstances, you'd think testing would be a bit easier than they're making it out to be. I was asleep in a tent; it was about an hour before sunrise: just enough light to tell that there *was* light, but not to see anything. The sleeping back was a little too short for me -- had one arm at my side, and the other sprawled outward. I tried to pull it back in to the sleeping bag, where it was warm... and it wouldn't come. Which kinda freaked me out. I reached out for it with my other arm -- and it wasn't there. Which really freaked me out. Finally -- assuming I hadn't missed a truly traumatic bear attack in my sleep -- I decided it must still be attached to my body, so with my other arm, I went to my shoulder, and felt on down, only to discover it was completely *under* me, and 100% asleep.
A couple of years later, I read in Scientific American about how scientists were able to simulate phantom limb syndrome by doing essentially the same thing. So with that being said, you'd think simply putting folks' limbs to sleep would really assist in testing this stuff, instead of having a sample size of freaking *one*.
$.02...
Is that the whole reason a service like this exists, when essentially all those users already have FB accounts, is because it *ISN'T LIKE* Facebook. It's uncluttered, and straightforward. It's the un-facebook. And they'll just break it by trying to monetize it.
Wow. You are truly don't do research. Yes, FiOS. No, they aren't deploying it any more, but that doesn't negate the expenditure and infrastructure that's already in-place. As for their partnership, go read the fine print:
1) It elapses sometime in the next several years
2) This is from *Verizon Wireless*, not Verizon, themselves; I know it's easy to conflate the two, but for right now, they are not one and the same -- Verizon only has a 55% stake in Verizon Wireless, and Verizon Wireless a) doesn't offer broadband, and b) bought cellular spectrum from Comcast in exchange for advertising their (non-competing) wired broadband. Maybe *you*, Mr. ill-informed, should check your facts a bit better. Read more about it here, and note the 2016 sunset.
None of which negates my point about DSL, either.
P.S. I enjoyed your broken link to verizon wireless. Might wanna strip the trailing slash off the next time you incorrectly paste.
Comcast *does* compete with Verizon -- directly. Their FiOS and DSL options are direct competition for both TV and high-speed Internet -- in the *same* geographic region -- that Comcast offers. There's no way in Hell the gov't would approve an acquisition or merger of those two.
I don't really know how I feel about the acquisition. I think some of the things Krugman talks about -- e.g., no incentive to upgrade networks -- certainly has validity; I also know that we *HATE* network congestion, and just in my unit, alone, spend tens of millions a year to avoid it. Of course, without incentive, that's just 'cause we feel like doing that, not because we have to.
The one that has me really, truly worried, though, is Net Neutrality. I am *STRONGLY* in favor of the FCC saying "F*** you all: it's time," and pushing it out. I think that neutrality, combined with the rise (and eventual commoditization) of cellular networks, as well as good ol' Ma Bell and DSL, will be able to offer competing solutions. Of course, then there's satellite, as well, but the inherent latency makes that a poorer option by definition.
Comcast is, however, essentially right: they don't compete with other cable companies because of the infrastructure; one thing that might be interesting -- though I have a sneaking suspicion Republicans would cry foul about over-regulation all day long -- would be if the gov't enforced a move akin to the telecom and power companies: if cable companies could offer the landline connection, but you were able to get service from anyone. That would go a great way toward leveling the playing field.
Have you ever played a grandmaster? I imagine Bill Gates and I are probably on par, chess-wise. As an anecdote, I won my town's chess championship at the age of 15. (Population: 10K.) I'm not USCF rated, though I've considered it, and I generally run roughshod over my friends.
My grandfather was a grandmaster. Until his faculties started to fail him, I *never* beat him. And we played regularly. I always seemed to be a move behind, no matter who started. It was this vice that just closed in. And if we played quickly, well, it just happened that much the faster.
Well played, sir. Well played.
I *do* think that the content was better back then. I really felt like Rob not only had a vested interest, but really put part of himself into the site. I strongly feel that Roblimo's entrance was a direct correlation with a diminishment in fun. I can't put my finger on it, but something about the guy just rubs me the wrong way -- though if I'm honest, it probably started with the Alex Chiu story (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/01/06/01/1250257/ask-internet-icon-alex-chiu). And damn, but that was 2001.
Time's flying.
I thought the story was a reasonable one. While I do miss the pre-Dice days, the days I really miss are the pre-Y2K days. Taco commentary, movie reviews, "quickies," Hemos, Cowboy Neal poll options... I just enjoyed the by-the-seat-of-their-pants feel. And that has been gone for quite some time. Certainly before you registered. ;-)
Granted, it had a name change, but it's been around since "Mac days."
But, while ESR is likely right, my kneejerk response is to say, "No!" Why? Because ESR is such a freaking windbag, who's so damn convinced of his own moral and intellectual superiority. His whole schtick gets really tiresome after a while.
$.02.
I don't see why he's contrasting things that, instead, worked together with synergy. Strikes me as a really short-sighted way to approach the success of Open Source software.
$.02, etc.
-Slarty
10 years ago really wasn't that big a deal. By 2003, VPN (IPSec and OpenVPN) was fairly robust, and widely supported. PPTP was on the way out for being insecure. Internet was most everywhere, and at decent-if-not-great throughput. Go back five or ten years before *that*, and things were much more difficult: connectivity was almost always over a modem; remote offices *might* be on a BRI ISDN connection (128 kb/s), probably using some sort of on-demand technology to avoid being billed out the wazoo due to US telcos doing this bizarre, per-channel surcharge for ISDN. PPP was finally supplanting (the oh, so evil) SLIP, which made things better, assuming your OS even supported TCP/IP, which was not yet clearly the victor -- leading to multiple stacks to include MS and Novell protocols.
All in all, 2003 was about when things were finally getting pretty good. Leading up to 2000 had been a tough row to how. And let's just not even go before that -- a mishmash of TCP/IP, SNA, SAA, 3270, RS-232, VT100, completely incompatible e-mail protocols, network protocol bridges, massive routing tables for SAPpy, stupid protocols... a 100% nightmare. Very, very glad to have left those days behind.
If it's "genetically identical" to a polar bear, well... doesn't that mean it's a polar bear?