I've attempted several diet methods without exercise. However, statistically, you greatly improve your chances of maintaining the loss when you add exercise. I may have indicated a bias toward the exercise, but my philosophy is more of a moderate change on both diet and exercise rather than a drastic change on either one alone. Diet changes alone, unfortunately, do really funky things to your metabolism. The body is adaptive, so when you drop from 2500 calories per day to 2000 calories per day, it just gets more efficient. However, if you increase your body's demand for calories, it won't just slow down. It'll burn fat and add muscle. I've only been doing this thing, including exercise, for 2-3 months. Before that, I, too was exceedingly sedentary. I spent 10-12 hours a day in front of the computer, 2 hours per day in front of the TV with printouts, and the rest of the day in bed. I decided that I needed a change and forced one into my schedule. Now, instead of getting on the bus that goes straight home, I get on the one that goes to the community center, I work out for a while and then go home. Funny thing is, I still get about the same amount done, I need less sleep, I crave better foods and I feel better. The reduction in sleep alone compensates for the time I exercise. I find that time on the treadmill is great design and problem solving time. I tend to think things through more and then try solutions when I get home.
On the exercise making you eat more . . . when I wrote down my dietary habits, and revealed the patterns, I used that as a guide for eating after exercise. If my habit before starting the exercise was 1 chicken breast, 1 baked potato and some corn, I don't eat 2 chicken breasts, 2 baked potatoes and some corn after exercising. Had I not tracked my patterns, I probably would just eat more after exercise.
Eating less and doing less is just telling your body to buckle down and use the few calories you are giving it more efficiently, turning more into fat. Eating more and doing more will likely at least increase your endurance, your heart will get better, etc., but it's still not a great plan. You leave yourself open to overeating. The best plan is the one doctors the world over have recommended: eating less and doing more. Study after study indicates that the other methods have astronomically high failure rates. After all, as a hacker, aren't you after your highest probability of success?
One of the biggest flaws I see in it is his view of exercise. He lists the caloric expenditure for several aerobic activities and then says that it's too much work compared to the amount of food it amounts to. This seems to fly in the face of the entire rest of the book. After all, he's advocating a daily deficit of 500 calories per day. If 200-300 can come from treadmill, biking, etc., that means a smaller change in your diet. You only need to change your diet the other 200-300 per day.
I'm using his mathematical principles and creating my own version. Rather than planning out meals, I make changes for each meal. I started out by writing down what I eat for 2 weeks or so. That was as long as it took to detect patterns. In those patterns I looked for ways to cut 200-300 calories per day. It ended up being pretty simple. For example, I typically eat a sub sandwich and a cup of soup with a 20oz Coke every day for lunch. How to cut from that? Well, I started drinking water with lunch. There's a couple of hundred down already. I also looked at the soup and noticed that I eat 8 or so Saltines with it every time. That's 60-80 calories or so (I don't have the real numbers in front of me right now). I eat at McD's once a week or so. By switching from the large fries to small fries is 230 calories alone. Basically, this has resulted in the following philosophy on food, "Is there any way I can cut calories from this meal?" Cutting butter, sour cream, mayo, etc. are good ways to still eat where you want, what you want.
I weigh myself every day and measure my neck, chest, waist, hips and one thigh every 7 days. I walk on a treadmill, lift weights and other exercise as well as taking the 6 flights of stairs at work.
I use his "trend" weight concept on my weight and chart it. I then use the measurements, both keeping general track of them in a trend and using the waist measurement to determine lean body mass and fat percentage, and approximate needed calories.
Extra Calories Burned Per Day = (Monthly loss in pounds x 3500)/days in month
Lean Body Mass = (Trend weight x 1.082) - (Waist measurement in inches X 4.15) + 98.42
I use the trend weight on the day of measurement.
Fat Percentage = (Trend weight - Lean Body Mass)/Trend weight
Base Metabolic Rate = Lean Body Mass * 13.83
That's the number of calories needed daily to sustain your weight.
I chart weight and fat percentage. As long as fat percentage is going down, you're losing fat. Weight can go up when gaining muscle. And, since one pound of muscle burns 50 calories per day just sitting around, adding muscle is a good thing. I put it all in a spreadsheet that prints out on one piece of paper. Works pretty slick. I've been using this for about a month and I'm losing about a pound a week.
I saw him on CSPAN-2 a couple of weeks ago. He was talking about his book. Many of the people in attendance were teachers. I think he might make an interesting interview here on/. as well. He has a really interesting perspective and his delivery is entertaining and energetic. It was fun to watch someone dig in their backpack for visual aids. I'll check to see if they are planning to reair it. I know they sometimes do.
LetterJ
MS Word Smartquotes HOWTO
on
Apocalypse Not
·
· Score: 0
To avoid the problem in the first place:
From the Tools menu, choose Autocorrect.
Click the "Autoformat As You Type" tab.
In the "Replace as you type" section, clear the "Straight quotes with smart quotes" check box.
Click OK.
To fix it in an existing document:
Do the above.
From the Edit menu, choose Replace.
In both the "Find What" and "Replace with" text boxes, type '.
Wasn't there a story on/. about a company that was putting changing adverts in syndicated shows and sporting events. For example, I think they were digitally putting in a logo on a soccer field so it looked like it was painted on the field, but in the stadium it wasn't there. I think another example was that if Rachel was drinking a soda on Friends, it could be changed digitally to be a different brand every time the episode ran. They were claiming to be able to put advertising just about anywhere like changing the scenery outside of windows etc.
There's also no indication that the number was obtained electronically.
Hello, my name is Jacques, here's your bill for dinner. Would you like me to take your credit card in the back room and come back in 5 minutes?
3 weeks later Jacques is in Colombia living the good life and the customer thinks that the number was stolen on the Internet because he ordered a book and people on the Internet steal credit card numbers. Of course he totally forgot the fact that Jacques and countless others during the month had access not only to the number, but the physical card, number, and signature, sometimes with pretty good privacy during access. LetterJ Writing Geek/Pixel Pusher jwynia@earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~jwynia
I think of this idea like this. Imagine I live in a small town with one doctor/pharmacist. He is the only accessible medical professional. Now imagine that the whole town gets a mildly irritating rash. Not deadly, not even really a problem, just irritating. The doc might not stock calamine(sp) lotion . . . that is until he gets the rash. Then the itch hits him. The problem is that the whole town could be itching, but until he gets the rash, nothing is done about it.
That's kind of the way that OSS works now. There can be tons of people who have an itch: easy install, simple modem config, etc., but until someone with the skill is added to the group wanting it, nothing can be done about it. LetterJ Writing Geek/Pixel Pusher jwynia@earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~jwynia
I'd like to design a T-shirt that supports the little web guy and freedom of Intellectual Property.
I've got a couple of ideas and would like suggestions.
A generic front graphic with a slogan: Stop the IP bigots or First Come, First Served. I'd like suggestions on the logo.
A back logo of the Domains or projects that have been stomped or kicked by these types of law suits.
A different back logo for a specific site.
What I'd like to do is create the images, put them under an Open/Free license and when a project is getting assaulted, they can use the images and get them printed by a place like Iprint.com to raise funds, awareness etc. LetterJ Writing Geek/Pixel Pusher jwynia@earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~jwynia
I was amazed at the number of comments that advocating starting a complete company, building arrays of servers, setting up massive bandwidth all at once, before getting the first hit.
That really suprised me given the opensource/free software slant of most users of this site. That kind of buildup is the much like many of the vapourware sites/companies that get torched here on/.. ESR's statement that good software comes from an itch that gets scratched is paraded around frequently. Note he doesn't say to amputate the limb with the itch, he says to scratch it. Do the basic work: get a domain ($70), some 3rd party hosting with unlimited bandwidth ($10-20/month), and set up the site. If it is a wild success, you haven't had any extreme charges for bandwidth, you know it is a good idea, you have the domain, and you've only spend $200 plus your time. You can then move the data and operations to a colocate or your own server, you've got the traffic logs to show to advertisers and VC's, and the transfer to new hardware/bandwidth can be done transparently to the users.
If 8 out of 10 startup's fail (stated above and fairly reasonable stat), why is everyone suggesting blasting away from both barrels from the beginning? LetterJ Writing Geek/Pixel Pusher jwynia@earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~jwynia
Perhaps you need to take a good Myth and Legend class or Fiction class. You'll realize that there really aren't any new messages. EVERYTHING is a 2000 year old rehash. If your criteria for a "deep philosophical message" is that you've never seen anything like it before, you're not going to find a "deep philosophical message" in any story, movie, novel or other form of narrative.
What usually makes for a good narrative is a unique or compelling expression of one of the rehashed ideas. As far as that goes, The Matrix was a fairly good expression of the "the universe as we know it might not exist" idea. Gave me more of a think toward (insert Greek philosopher's name I can't remember right now and would rather make a disclaimer than insert the wrong name and get flamed)'s shadows on the wall reality idea than, say Total Recall. LetterJ Writing Geek/Pixel Pusher jwynia@earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~jwynia
GPL doesn't require "publishing" source code. It does require making the source available to those you made the binaries available to. In that case, because they restricted the number of beta testers, and are going to give the GPL'd code modifications to those folks, they are doing exactly what the license requires. If you are not a registered beta tester, you have no legal right to access the source code. When the binaries are available on an FTP site, or they start selling CD's, then they have to make the source to all GPL software included in said distribution available. LetterJ Writing Geek/Pixel Pusher jwynia@earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~jwynia
Re: A little perspective - *nix culture
on
WinLinux 2000
·
· Score: 1
Most definitely. The "rite of passage issue" is at the root of these attitudes. However, I feel that intentionally keeping the bar artificially high is an attempt to fight off the inevitable. While humans have always had those rites, they have changed as technology advances. The old computer rite of passage was the ability to write in bytcode, punch cards etc. For those programmers, who spent their time in the trenches learning how to program low level stuff, the bar to programming was lowered when the compiler was introduced.
While there can be the loss of identity in the original group, they will often regroup and form a new identity with a barrier of entry of its own. When Linus first released the kernel the barrier was getting to even run on your machine. Eventually, the barrier was to build a complete system with the kernel, then it changed to being able to get a distribution up and running, then to being able to properly tune the "best" distribution. These things change. I think that rather than foam at the mouth as they see the bar lowered, hackers should be seeking their new identity. Not just as being able to hack "a Linux system together", but to hack a system targeted at a particular need or some other identity. LetterJ Writing Geek/Pixel Pusher jwynia@earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~jwynia
As I write this, I'm sure that a pile of shocked, righteous posts are piling up. Most will assault the very concept of running Linux in conjunction with Windows, others will wax nostalgic about their entry into the world of UNIX while preaching that because it was difficult for me it should be difficult for others, some will be lamenting the fact that it isn't "real" Linux, while still others will pound on the performance issues of using the UMSDOS file system.
The fundamental problem with those attacks is that they all assume that those who will use WinLinux have the same goals, purposes, ideals and reasons for using Linux in the first place.
The first type assumes that by the time a person has decided to use or try Linux, they are already a zealot. That is simply not the case. There are a great many Linux users who secretly hid their Windows usage from other geeks while they climbed the learning curve. The simple fact is that many people's entry into home computing follows the MS path. Once those people have a PC (with Win installed), they may discover Linux and want to try it. One of their primary reasons for wanting to try it? It can be provided free. But, to those people, is a possible disaster ruining an already functioning machine (most people consider their Windows boxes to function) free? Is buying a dedicated box for Linux when they aren't sure they'll like it free? No. Along comes a flavor of Linux which allows you to try it without doing much to your system. Why wouldn't that be good?
Enter attack 2. UNIX/Linux was hard for me, it should be hard for you. I always wonder why I have to hear this one. Particularly from folks who hated it when their parents used this logic on them. Remember, "Walked to school in the snow" or "I worked 3 jobs to finish college"? Science is based on building on the work of others. Sure, you still need to learn how it fits together, but you don't have to recreate all of scientific history. There SHOULD be a way to learn Linux without having to kill one's entire outside life. It may be simplified, it may be limited, but when a beginner hits those walls, sees the potential in someone else's system, then they will move on.
Attack 3. "It isn't real Linux". Because it doesn't reside on its own set of partitions? Because it relies on Windows for driver information? Or because it isn't the same as YOUR Linux? It has a Linux kernel. I think of a parallel in photography. Most people, including most Slashdot readers take the few pictures they do with a point and shoot camera. Hardcore amateur photographers and professionals would say that you aren't going to get good pictures with that type of camera, and some would go so far as to say that unless you are using a high-end medium format or 35mm camera with ultra-fast lenses, you aren't using a real camera. But it has a lens and holds film doesn't it? That makes it a camera. Your point and shoot fits your basic photography needs, and WinLinux fits the basic learning/experimentation Linux needs of many users.
Attack 4. It won't be as high performance as "pure" Linux on SCSI hardware. I guess I always thought one of the benefits of Linux was that it would run on cheap hardware that you already had around. Why doesn't this idea extend to cheap filesystems you already have around?
Sorry to have rambled on and for any lack of clarity in my statements. Flame away. LetterJ Writing Geek/Pixel Pusher jwynia@earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~jwynia
Escalating processing power does not have to result in "intelligence".
An example. 30 years ago, slide rules and nimble brains dominated mathematical circles. Eventually someone invented a small calculator which would add, subtract, multiply and divide. This helped out those who had difficulty multiplying 4 and 5 digit numbers in their head and could do it more quickly than most humans. (Note that in the example, we already have a machine that is superior to the vast majority of human brains in one aspect: simple arithmetic). These calculators were added to, soon including square root functions and other higher level math. A college student studying math was now not required to be able to do many of these functions manually. If you look at current calculators, they are able to do much of what is required in a college mathematics course. Following your extrapolation, because these calculators have been able to perform an increasing percentage of the requirements of college mathematics courses, eventually, the calculators would be able to get a college education.
Surpassing the computing power of the human brain != simulating said brain.
I would also like to note that I don't recall many documented predictions which were able to accurately describe society even 10-20 years out, much less 70 years. Even those predictions which included some things which came to pass were missing the big picture and tons of important details.
You mean like this? http://www.adbusters.org/uncom mercials/product/index.html LetterJ Writing Geek/Pixel Pusher jwynia@earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~jwynia
It takes a general population and media using a term generically to weaken the trademark to the point that another company can use it as a generic noun.
If only you decide to call PC's "dells", then, no, Dell as a trademark isn't in danger. However, if you, and a vast majority of the population, media etc. picks up on it, then some guy building PC's in his garage will say he is building and selling Dells. That would be a clear cut case of trademark infringement given the current usage of "Dell". However, in this hypothetical, because the term is used generically by most people, the company Dell would have a hard time proving that they defended their trademark.
It takes the "idiots" nominalizing trademark adjectives in order to open the legal door for the store brand tissue to call itself "Safeway kleenexes." LetterJ Writing Geek/Pixel Pusher jwynia@earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~jwynia
Actually, due to the stipulations of TM law, they ARE selling "RedHat Linux". You can't trademark a noun. Kleenex® brand tissues, Pentium® processors, etc. The trademark is the adjective, but must be used with the generic noun or, in this case another trademark. The use of the trademark as a noun is the first step toward losing the trademark. Kleenes is one that is on its downward slide. People are now referring to kleenexes instead of tissues. If that continues, Kleenex may cease to be a defensible trademark. The proper use of the Linux trademark would be LinuxTM operating system or LinuxTM operating system kernel.
"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."
Slashdot Mirror
On the exercise making you eat more . . . when I wrote down my dietary habits, and revealed the patterns, I used that as a guide for eating after exercise. If my habit before starting the exercise was 1 chicken breast, 1 baked potato and some corn, I don't eat 2 chicken breasts, 2 baked potatoes and some corn after exercising. Had I not tracked my patterns, I probably would just eat more after exercise.
Eating less and doing less is just telling your body to buckle down and use the few calories you are giving it more efficiently, turning more into fat. Eating more and doing more will likely at least increase your endurance, your heart will get better, etc., but it's still not a great plan. You leave yourself open to overeating. The best plan is the one doctors the world over have recommended: eating less and doing more. Study after study indicates that the other methods have astronomically high failure rates. After all, as a hacker, aren't you after your highest probability of success?
LetterJ
I'm using his mathematical principles and creating my own version. Rather than planning out meals, I make changes for each meal. I started out by writing down what I eat for 2 weeks or so. That was as long as it took to detect patterns. In those patterns I looked for ways to cut 200-300 calories per day. It ended up being pretty simple. For example, I typically eat a sub sandwich and a cup of soup with a 20oz Coke every day for lunch. How to cut from that? Well, I started drinking water with lunch. There's a couple of hundred down already. I also looked at the soup and noticed that I eat 8 or so Saltines with it every time. That's 60-80 calories or so (I don't have the real numbers in front of me right now). I eat at McD's once a week or so. By switching from the large fries to small fries is 230 calories alone. Basically, this has resulted in the following philosophy on food, "Is there any way I can cut calories from this meal?" Cutting butter, sour cream, mayo, etc. are good ways to still eat where you want, what you want.
I weigh myself every day and measure my neck, chest, waist, hips and one thigh every 7 days. I walk on a treadmill, lift weights and other exercise as well as taking the 6 flights of stairs at work.
I use his "trend" weight concept on my weight and chart it. I then use the measurements, both keeping general track of them in a trend and using the waist measurement to determine lean body mass and fat percentage, and approximate needed calories.
Math: done in pounds
Trend weight = (Today's weight - Yesterday's trend)/10
Round that number to one decimal place.
Monthly loss = Initial Trend - Final Trend
Extra Calories Burned Per Day = (Monthly loss in pounds x 3500)/days in month
Lean Body Mass = (Trend weight x 1.082) - (Waist measurement in inches X 4.15) + 98.42
I use the trend weight on the day of measurement.
Fat Percentage = (Trend weight - Lean Body Mass)/Trend weight
Base Metabolic Rate = Lean Body Mass * 13.83
That's the number of calories needed daily to sustain your weight.
I chart weight and fat percentage. As long as fat percentage is going down, you're losing fat. Weight can go up when gaining muscle. And, since one pound of muscle burns 50 calories per day just sitting around, adding muscle is a good thing. I put it all in a spreadsheet that prints out on one piece of paper. Works pretty slick. I've been using this for about a month and I'm losing about a pound a week.
LetterJ
KEYBOARD DEBATE
DECEMBER 27, 1995
TRANSCRIPT - Interview with Stoll.
A documentary transcript with bits from Stoll.
An interview with him on his book "The Cuckoo's Egg: Tracking a Spy Through the Maze of Computer Espionage"
LetterJ
I saw him on CSPAN-2 a couple of weeks ago. He was talking about his book. Many of the people in attendance were teachers. I think he might make an interesting interview here on /. as well. He has a really interesting perspective and his delivery is entertaining and energetic. It was fun to watch someone dig in their backpack for visual aids. I'll check to see if they are planning to reair it. I know they sometimes do.
LetterJ
To fix it in an existing document:
LetterJ
PHPslash distribution.
LetterJ
Wasn't there a story on /. about a company that was putting changing adverts in syndicated shows and sporting events. For example, I think they were digitally putting in a logo on a soccer field so it looked like it was painted on the field, but in the stadium it wasn't there. I think another example was that if Rachel was drinking a soda on Friends, it could be changed digitally to be a different brand every time the episode ran. They were claiming to be able to put advertising just about anywhere like changing the scenery outside of windows etc.
LetterJ
Umm. Asimov is dead. I highly doubt he's in it for the money.
LetterJ
"If you ride the fence, you get slivers in your ass."
-Me
LetterJ
There's also no indication that the number was obtained electronically.
Hello, my name is Jacques, here's your bill for dinner. Would you like me to take your credit card in the back room and come back in 5 minutes?
3 weeks later Jacques is in Colombia living the good life and the customer thinks that the number was stolen on the Internet because he ordered a book and people on the Internet steal credit card numbers. Of course he totally forgot the fact that Jacques and countless others during the month had access not only to the number, but the physical card, number, and signature, sometimes with pretty good privacy during access.
LetterJ
Writing Geek/Pixel Pusher
jwynia@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jwynia
I think of this idea like this. Imagine I live in a small town with one doctor/pharmacist. He is the only accessible medical professional. Now imagine that the whole town gets a mildly irritating rash. Not deadly, not even really a problem, just irritating. The doc might not stock calamine(sp) lotion . . . that is until he gets the rash. Then the itch hits him. The problem is that the whole town could be itching, but until he gets the rash, nothing is done about it.
That's kind of the way that OSS works now. There can be tons of people who have an itch: easy install, simple modem config, etc., but until someone with the skill is added to the group wanting it, nothing can be done about it.
LetterJ
Writing Geek/Pixel Pusher
jwynia@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jwynia
I've got a couple of ideas and would like suggestions.
What I'd like to do is create the images, put them under an Open/Free license and when a project is getting assaulted, they can use the images and get them printed by a place like Iprint.com to raise funds, awareness etc.
LetterJ
Writing Geek/Pixel Pusher
jwynia@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jwynia
What about GoVideo type dual deck VCR's?
LetterJ
Writing Geek/Pixel Pusher
jwynia@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jwynia
I was amazed at the number of comments that advocating starting a complete company, building arrays of servers, setting up massive bandwidth all at once, before getting the first hit.
/.. ESR's statement that good software comes from an itch that gets scratched is paraded around frequently. Note he doesn't say to amputate the limb with the itch, he says to scratch it. Do the basic work: get a domain ($70), some 3rd party hosting with unlimited bandwidth ($10-20/month), and set up the site. If it is a wild success, you haven't had any extreme charges for bandwidth, you know it is a good idea, you have the domain, and you've only spend $200 plus your time. You can then move the data and operations to a colocate or your own server, you've got the traffic logs to show to advertisers and VC's, and the transfer to new hardware/bandwidth can be done transparently to the users.
That really suprised me given the opensource/free software slant of most users of this site. That kind of buildup is the much like many of the vapourware sites/companies that get torched here on
If 8 out of 10 startup's fail (stated above and fairly reasonable stat), why is everyone suggesting blasting away from both barrels from the beginning?
LetterJ
Writing Geek/Pixel Pusher
jwynia@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jwynia
Perhaps you need to take a good Myth and Legend class or Fiction class. You'll realize that there really aren't any new messages. EVERYTHING is a 2000 year old rehash. If your criteria for a "deep philosophical message" is that you've never seen anything like it before, you're not going to find a "deep philosophical message" in any story, movie, novel or other form of narrative.
What usually makes for a good narrative is a unique or compelling expression of one of the rehashed ideas. As far as that goes, The Matrix was a fairly good expression of the "the universe as we know it might not exist" idea. Gave me more of a think toward (insert Greek philosopher's name I can't remember right now and would rather make a disclaimer than insert the wrong name and get flamed)'s shadows on the wall reality idea than, say Total Recall.
LetterJ
Writing Geek/Pixel Pusher
jwynia@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jwynia
No, but a front yard on a busy street could be.
LetterJ
Writing Geek/Pixel Pusher
jwynia@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jwynia
Cool. Mine too.
LetterJ
Writing Geek/Pixel Pusher
jwynia@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jwynia
GPL doesn't require "publishing" source code. It does require making the source available to those you made the binaries available to. In that case, because they restricted the number of beta testers, and are going to give the GPL'd code modifications to those folks, they are doing exactly what the license requires. If you are not a registered beta tester, you have no legal right to access the source code. When the binaries are available on an FTP site, or they start selling CD's, then they have to make the source to all GPL software included in said distribution available.
LetterJ
Writing Geek/Pixel Pusher
jwynia@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jwynia
Most definitely. The "rite of passage issue" is at the root of these attitudes. However, I feel that intentionally keeping the bar artificially high is an attempt to fight off the inevitable. While humans have always had those rites, they have changed as technology advances. The old computer rite of passage was the ability to write in bytcode, punch cards etc. For those programmers, who spent their time in the trenches learning how to program low level stuff, the bar to programming was lowered when the compiler was introduced.
While there can be the loss of identity in the original group, they will often regroup and form a new identity with a barrier of entry of its own. When Linus first released the kernel the barrier was getting to even run on your machine. Eventually, the barrier was to build a complete system with the kernel, then it changed to being able to get a distribution up and running, then to being able to properly tune the "best" distribution. These things change. I think that rather than foam at the mouth as they see the bar lowered, hackers should be seeking their new identity. Not just as being able to hack "a Linux system together", but to hack a system targeted at a particular need or some other identity.
LetterJ
Writing Geek/Pixel Pusher
jwynia@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jwynia
As I write this, I'm sure that a pile of shocked, righteous posts are piling up. Most will assault the very concept of running Linux in conjunction with Windows, others will wax nostalgic about their entry into the world of UNIX while preaching that because it was difficult for me it should be difficult for others, some will be lamenting the fact that it isn't "real" Linux, while still others will pound on the performance issues of using the UMSDOS file system.
The fundamental problem with those attacks is that they all assume that those who will use WinLinux have the same goals, purposes, ideals and reasons for using Linux in the first place.
The first type assumes that by the time a person has decided to use or try Linux, they are already a zealot. That is simply not the case. There are a great many Linux users who secretly hid their Windows usage from other geeks while they climbed the learning curve. The simple fact is that many people's entry into home computing follows the MS path. Once those people have a PC (with Win installed), they may discover Linux and want to try it. One of their primary reasons for wanting to try it? It can be provided free. But, to those people, is a possible disaster ruining an already functioning machine (most people consider their Windows boxes to function) free? Is buying a dedicated box for Linux when they aren't sure they'll like it free? No. Along comes a flavor of Linux which allows you to try it without doing much to your system. Why wouldn't that be good?
Enter attack 2. UNIX/Linux was hard for me, it should be hard for you. I always wonder why I have to hear this one. Particularly from folks who hated it when their parents used this logic on them. Remember, "Walked to school in the snow" or "I worked 3 jobs to finish college"? Science is based on building on the work of others. Sure, you still need to learn how it fits together, but you don't have to recreate all of scientific history. There SHOULD be a way to learn Linux without having to kill one's entire outside life. It may be simplified, it may be limited, but when a beginner hits those walls, sees the potential in someone else's system, then they will move on.
Attack 3. "It isn't real Linux". Because it doesn't reside on its own set of partitions? Because it relies on Windows for driver information? Or because it isn't the same as YOUR Linux? It has a Linux kernel. I think of a parallel in photography. Most people, including most Slashdot readers take the few pictures they do with a point and shoot camera. Hardcore amateur photographers and professionals would say that you aren't going to get good pictures with that type of camera, and some would go so far as to say that unless you are using a high-end medium format or 35mm camera with ultra-fast lenses, you aren't using a real camera. But it has a lens and holds film doesn't it? That makes it a camera. Your point and shoot fits your basic photography needs, and WinLinux fits the basic learning/experimentation Linux needs of many users.
Attack 4. It won't be as high performance as "pure" Linux on SCSI hardware. I guess I always thought one of the benefits of Linux was that it would run on cheap hardware that you already had around. Why doesn't this idea extend to cheap filesystems you already have around?
Sorry to have rambled on and for any lack of clarity in my statements. Flame away.
LetterJ
Writing Geek/Pixel Pusher
jwynia@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jwynia
What makes this really funny is that www.thelettern.com is registered to the Sesame Street folks.
Registrant:
Children's Television Workshop (THELETTERN-DOM)
1 Lincoln Plaza
New York, NY 10023
US
Domain Name: THELETTERN.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Peterkin, Arden (AP3118) arden.peterkin@CTW.ORG
212 875 6297 (FAX) 212 875 6089
Billing Contact:
Arena, Louis (LA1410) louis.arena@CTW.ORG
212 875-6387 (FAX) 212 875-6089
Record last updated on 09-Apr-98.
Record created on 09-Apr-98.
Database last updated on 19-Sep-99 07:43:34 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
AUTH02.NS.UU.NET 198.6.1.82
AUTH60.NS.UU.NET 198.6.1.181
LetterJ
Writing Geek/Pixel Pusher
jwynia@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jwynia
Escalating processing power does not have to result in "intelligence".
An example. 30 years ago, slide rules and nimble brains dominated mathematical circles. Eventually someone invented a small calculator which would add, subtract, multiply and divide. This helped out those who had difficulty multiplying 4 and 5 digit numbers in their head and could do it more quickly than most humans. (Note that in the example, we already have a machine that is superior to the vast majority of human brains in one aspect: simple arithmetic). These calculators were added to, soon including square root functions and other higher level math. A college student studying math was now not required to be able to do many of these functions manually. If you look at current calculators, they are able to do much of what is required in a college mathematics course. Following your extrapolation, because these calculators have been able to perform an increasing percentage of the requirements of college mathematics courses, eventually, the calculators would be able to get a college education.
Surpassing the computing power of the human brain != simulating said brain.
I would also like to note that I don't recall many documented predictions which were able to accurately describe society even 10-20 years out, much less 70 years. Even those predictions which included some things which came to pass were missing the big picture and tons of important details.
LetterJ
Writing Geek/Pixel Pusher
jwynia@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jwynia
You mean like this?
http://www.adbusters.org/uncom mercials/product/index.html
LetterJ
Writing Geek/Pixel Pusher
jwynia@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jwynia
It takes a general population and media using a term generically to weaken the trademark to the point that another company can use it as a generic noun.
If only you decide to call PC's "dells", then, no, Dell as a trademark isn't in danger. However, if you, and a vast majority of the population, media etc. picks up on it, then some guy building PC's in his garage will say he is building and selling Dells. That would be a clear cut case of trademark infringement given the current usage of "Dell". However, in this hypothetical, because the term is used generically by most people, the company Dell would have a hard time proving that they defended their trademark.
It takes the "idiots" nominalizing trademark adjectives in order to open the legal door for the store brand tissue to call itself "Safeway kleenexes."
LetterJ
Writing Geek/Pixel Pusher
jwynia@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jwynia
Actually, due to the stipulations of TM law, they ARE selling "RedHat Linux". You can't trademark a noun. Kleenex® brand tissues, Pentium® processors, etc. The trademark is the adjective, but must be used with the generic noun or, in this case another trademark. The use of the trademark as a noun is the first step toward losing the trademark. Kleenes is one that is on its downward slide. People are now referring to kleenexes instead of tissues. If that continues, Kleenex may cease to be a defensible trademark. The proper use of the Linux trademark would be LinuxTM operating system or LinuxTM operating system kernel.
"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."
LetterJ
Writing Geek/Pixel Pusher
jwynia@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jwynia