Energy gathering, asteroid mining, making materials maybe too complicated to do in a planet, or just manufacturing with the resources gathered up there, thats a more direct and shorter term return of investment, if you could do things that would please both people that care about knowledge and people that care about money, then better. And could ease things for future moon missions.
OSS is not about getting paid or not for writting it. Is about not getting a black box that you don't really own, on which you must give blind trust, you can't modify/extend/adapt to your exact needs and that you are limited in the ways you can use it. Is about freedom, not about getting or not money, and there are in fact a lot of people and companies that do their living writting, adapting, or giving services around open source software.
Hey, but US have the right to invade any country, they are freeing people or at least resources from surely evil regimes there, no? And put in the arsenal of cybeweapons social engineering too, if everything else fails, you can make enough people of that country to ask to be invaded.
The problem is how distingishable was most of it from background noise just outside the solar system, or 20 light years away, even if you are trying to focus what comes from here specifically.
Anyway, if what we send away are our tv shows, they will conclude that here there isn't intelligent life too.
A good move? Starting a arms race in a field where you are the most vulnerable player? Is isn't a nuclear thermonuclear one, but in this one the best move is not to play too.
Check growing rate, specially comparing the areas where intensive gaming and watching porn is more common, vs the ones where gaming, porn and even internet and computers are rare or at least not as widelty used. It won't be a cause of extintion, just of evolution.
We didnt reach artificial intelligence yet...
on
Where's HAL 9000?
·
· Score: 0
but instead we got plenty of natural stupidity. Idiocracy is a better prediction of the future than 2001.
Same should go for WebOS or Tizen, there the browser is the interface. Or Android for languages, where it is meant to run java apps. But in both cases you can still run core OS apps, and/or apps not from the included market. So don't rule that out from Chrome OS itself.
Anyway, ruling out the browser choice in that context have no meaning. It is a browser based OS, not an OS where the browser is just another app. The choice would be given if you could install in those devices a full OS, or i.e. Mozilla's B2G
Don't think so. But won't be surprised if get saved by some donation of a "neutral" party, with no connection with the things that caused those actions to fail, that will enable to keep running the company, after a few changes on policies. Facebook's user base is an asset that should not be lost, just need to be driven in the right direction.
Treaty are between nations. Any individual, or group of individuals, in any or several parts of the world, can make a "cyberweapon", no expensive or controllable resources needed to build something that could qualify as such. And for them to believe that they control that means handling them in a silver plate the privacy and basically freedom, of everyone and every organization in any part of the world, except the prepared enough individuals that could do that "weapons".
In the other hand, nations already started cyberwar, like with all probability Israel and/or USA government agencies making Stuxnet. The bomb has already been dropped, and will be used as excuse by those very countries to push laws to avoid people doing that, killing their privacy, while at the same time keep producing those weapons when they think it should be necessary, and probably blaming individuals or "terrorist" organizations and reinforcing restrictions for everyone each time. Won't be the first time that something of that kind happens.
Internet eventually will split, either logically or physically, one with full government surveillance and intervention, other with ensured hard encryption, privacy and anonimity, and countries networks where all relevant services are enclosed by and for them.
I see a "avoid pirating tax" forcing to pay for BSA associated company software just for owning a computing device (no matter for which use or what will have installed), so won't be an anticompetitive measure of Microsoft, but Congress mandate this time. And then an obligatory agent that must be installed everywhere to be sure that you aren't using any pirated (or competing, or alternative) software. And is just time till they add national security, terrorism and "think on the children" to the mix.
The problem with patents is that it at the core cuts one human freedom, the freedom to think, and open source is all about freedom. Given one problem, you won't be able to solve it in the ways you think if those paths are being taken by patents all around the field. If i want to go to the second floor, i could build stairs, or an elevator, climb, and a few more options, if all those solutions (or close/similar enough) are patented, you can't solve that problem, no matter how you indepently got that solution.
There are a point in attribute the authorship of an idea to the first one that got it or published it, but that should not limit others to get that idea too. Getting it verbatim and trying to make a profit from someone's else idea is one thing, reaching the same conclusion indepently or even evolving/improving it is another. And if that attibution is "being able to make profit" that should not stop open source to implement that idea for no profit.
The future isnt somewhere out there waiting for us. Will be no way to get there if we don't build it.
We will run out of space, of food, of resources in general, at the current rate, and we still have no options of what to do when that happens. We can optimize things, like turning deserts into usable land, or making better use of oceans, or better recycling, but that just will slow down the process, not stop it.
Of course, we can kill, directly or indirectly, half or the majority of mankind to have just some of those resources back (you can put a lot of wars as wars for resources, specially the very recent ones, and thousands to millons of people died on or around them), but then the cost will be far higher than 1T.
Not just probes, resource gathering/mining, in place analysis, reacting on time. You need a lot more than just mars rover clones. But i would bet on asteroid mining and space factories long before trying to build big ships.
The search engine parallel applies well for google. Google didnt just did "another search engine" back in the time, it redefined it, improved the whole concept. Wasnt just a bit more than a cosmetic improvement like Apple's iP*, was a deep functional one. Gmail? spam filtering that worked, and gigabytes of storage when most if not all offered megabytes? Yes, i call that innovation.
In the other hand Microsoft buys (even the ms-dos was bought by them), ties to their own platform, and if someone makes an alternatives, excludes it by hardcoding (like with dr-dos), adding non standard things that break that competitor functionality or forces vendors to not sell competing software or products with it installed. The only breaking innovative thing that Microsoft did was its aggresive marketing model, taking out of market usually better alternatives.
The day that Google services block people using anything except Chrome or Android, that day Google will start to look a bit like Microsoft. Until then the similarities will have to wait for very long.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically that was the idea of that project: cpu, projector and a camera for input. Check here
When was the last time a Microsoft used a proxy to attack a rival in the past? Well, at least Nokia have more letters than SCO to complain about.
People from OLPC may disagree with you, and at least the experience in my country, 5 years after it got implemented, seem to be positive.
But maybe would consider putting Sugar (i.e. from here) as environment instead of a "normal" desktop and/or distribution
Tought that they were becoming widely used in Greece instead of euros, at least were a lot of talk about it... bitcoins werent even under the radar.
Money is losing its original meaning, going back to barter could have some sense.
Energy gathering, asteroid mining, making materials maybe too complicated to do in a planet, or just manufacturing with the resources gathered up there, thats a more direct and shorter term return of investment, if you could do things that would please both people that care about knowledge and people that care about money, then better. And could ease things for future moon missions.
OSS is not about getting paid or not for writting it. Is about not getting a black box that you don't really own, on which you must give blind trust, you can't modify/extend/adapt to your exact needs and that you are limited in the ways you can use it. Is about freedom, not about getting or not money, and there are in fact a lot of people and companies that do their living writting, adapting, or giving services around open source software.
Hey, but US have the right to invade any country, they are freeing people or at least resources from surely evil regimes there, no? And put in the arsenal of cybeweapons social engineering too, if everything else fails, you can make enough people of that country to ask to be invaded.
Used OS/2, Maemo and WebOS, had the same kind of fate.
There isnt a better way than going hunting to the past and killing a butterfly.
The problem is how distingishable was most of it from background noise just outside the solar system, or 20 light years away, even if you are trying to focus what comes from here specifically.
Anyway, if what we send away are our tv shows, they will conclude that here there isn't intelligent life too.
and then they say "all your jokes are belong to us"
A good move? Starting a arms race in a field where you are the most vulnerable player? Is isn't a nuclear thermonuclear one, but in this one the best move is not to play too.
it isn't called "League of the Extraordinary Websites".
Check growing rate, specially comparing the areas where intensive gaming and watching porn is more common, vs the ones where gaming, porn and even internet and computers are rare or at least not as widelty used. It won't be a cause of extintion, just of evolution.
but instead we got plenty of natural stupidity. Idiocracy is a better prediction of the future than 2001.
Same should go for WebOS or Tizen, there the browser is the interface. Or Android for languages, where it is meant to run java apps. But in both cases you can still run core OS apps, and/or apps not from the included market. So don't rule that out from Chrome OS itself.
Anyway, ruling out the browser choice in that context have no meaning. It is a browser based OS, not an OS where the browser is just another app. The choice would be given if you could install in those devices a full OS, or i.e. Mozilla's B2G
Don't think so. But won't be surprised if get saved by some donation of a "neutral" party, with no connection with the things that caused those actions to fail, that will enable to keep running the company, after a few changes on policies. Facebook's user base is an asset that should not be lost, just need to be driven in the right direction.
Treaty are between nations. Any individual, or group of individuals, in any or several parts of the world, can make a "cyberweapon", no expensive or controllable resources needed to build something that could qualify as such. And for them to believe that they control that means handling them in a silver plate the privacy and basically freedom, of everyone and every organization in any part of the world, except the prepared enough individuals that could do that "weapons".
In the other hand, nations already started cyberwar, like with all probability Israel and/or USA government agencies making Stuxnet. The bomb has already been dropped, and will be used as excuse by those very countries to push laws to avoid people doing that, killing their privacy, while at the same time keep producing those weapons when they think it should be necessary, and probably blaming individuals or "terrorist" organizations and reinforcing restrictions for everyone each time. Won't be the first time that something of that kind happens.
Internet eventually will split, either logically or physically, one with full government surveillance and intervention, other with ensured hard encryption, privacy and anonimity, and countries networks where all relevant services are enclosed by and for them.
Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics, and BSA Statistics.
I see a "avoid pirating tax" forcing to pay for BSA associated company software just for owning a computing device (no matter for which use or what will have installed), so won't be an anticompetitive measure of Microsoft, but Congress mandate this time. And then an obligatory agent that must be installed everywhere to be sure that you aren't using any pirated (or competing, or alternative) software. And is just time till they add national security, terrorism and "think on the children" to the mix.
The problem with patents is that it at the core cuts one human freedom, the freedom to think, and open source is all about freedom. Given one problem, you won't be able to solve it in the ways you think if those paths are being taken by patents all around the field. If i want to go to the second floor, i could build stairs, or an elevator, climb, and a few more options, if all those solutions (or close/similar enough) are patented, you can't solve that problem, no matter how you indepently got that solution.
There are a point in attribute the authorship of an idea to the first one that got it or published it, but that should not limit others to get that idea too. Getting it verbatim and trying to make a profit from someone's else idea is one thing, reaching the same conclusion indepently or even evolving/improving it is another. And if that attibution is "being able to make profit" that should not stop open source to implement that idea for no profit.
Since War Games we know that the only winning move is not to play
The future isnt somewhere out there waiting for us. Will be no way to get there if we don't build it.
We will run out of space, of food, of resources in general, at the current rate, and we still have no options of what to do when that happens. We can optimize things, like turning deserts into usable land, or making better use of oceans, or better recycling, but that just will slow down the process, not stop it.
Of course, we can kill, directly or indirectly, half or the majority of mankind to have just some of those resources back (you can put a lot of wars as wars for resources, specially the very recent ones, and thousands to millons of people died on or around them), but then the cost will be far higher than 1T.
Not just probes, resource gathering/mining, in place analysis, reacting on time. You need a lot more than just mars rover clones. But i would bet on asteroid mining and space factories long before trying to build big ships.
You don't need FTL to go to the closest star. But anyway, don't think that ship would be safe going there unless try to do it at night.
The search engine parallel applies well for google. Google didnt just did "another search engine" back in the time, it redefined it, improved the whole concept. Wasnt just a bit more than a cosmetic improvement like Apple's iP*, was a deep functional one. Gmail? spam filtering that worked, and gigabytes of storage when most if not all offered megabytes? Yes, i call that innovation.
In the other hand Microsoft buys (even the ms-dos was bought by them), ties to their own platform, and if someone makes an alternatives, excludes it by hardcoding (like with dr-dos), adding non standard things that break that competitor functionality or forces vendors to not sell competing software or products with it installed. The only breaking innovative thing that Microsoft did was its aggresive marketing model, taking out of market usually better alternatives.
The day that Google services block people using anything except Chrome or Android, that day Google will start to look a bit like Microsoft. Until then the similarities will have to wait for very long.