Email and IM simply do not have the bandwidth of face-to-face communication.
No they don't, but not everybody needs to communicate with face-to-face level of bandwidth continuously throughout the day. Also, there is still this thing called a telephone, which provides more bandwidth than e-mail and IM, and is sometimes useful when telecommuting. It might not be reasonable to run a company based 100% on telecommuting, but to suggest that it (telecommuting) is a dumb idea in general flies in the face of a lot of experience that suggests otherwise. It just has be be applied properly, like any other tool.
I used to work in a company that had remote offices that we would work with - using phone and email as the primary communication conduits. It sucked. It's much easier to work with people in your office than people you don't see face-to-face.
I'm sorry, but I have lots of practical experience that says that telecommuting is crap. We'd do that from time to time for a *break* from routine, but as a standard work practice, it's not at all very good.
Yes, Faramir was not at the council, so didn't get the job, but once Frodo was in the his grasp and he recognised the ring, it became posible that Faramir could carry the ring. Which is my point.
Tolkien's perfect Faramir is a neat character, PJ's human Faramir is also pretty cool IMO. They're both different and both good in the story they exist it.
Zealotism and fanboyism....which you could say about any community - Mac fans, XBox360/PS3 fans, Sports fans yadda, yadda...
All you're saying is that groups of F/OSS people are just like other groups of people.
PJ's explanation of his treatment of Faramir was simply that the character makes no sense. If he's strong, noble, a warrior and "he wouldn't pick [the ring] up if [he] found it lying in the road", then why the hell doesn't HE take it into Mordor? He's the perfect warrior, he's immune to the Ring's influence and he's not a measly Hobbit.
By having him tempted by the ring, it makes sense that he would see that Frodo is better equipped to bear the ring than he.
Now, I don't know if you agree with that reasoning or not, but it was hardly just random destruction of the book's characters, it was attempting to make a character work on screen. I think that PJ's Faramir is one hell of a lot more believable than Tolkien's.
I am utterly sick to death of those Tolkien fans who expect the films to be exactly like the book. It's NOT POSSIBLE you whiny buggers! Films are not books, they work differently, things aren't explained in the same way in films, some things that are easy in a book are entirely different in film.
For Christ's sake, call it "Peter Jackson's Lord of The Rings" if you prefer and QUIT WHINING! Clearly, a huge number of people DID enjoy it (including myself, a life-long Tolkien fan (I even enjoyed the Silmarilion!))
Inevitably, ANY filming of the book will change things and you whingers would complain no matter what. If you don't like it, go film your own version, or even better, just enjoy the fucking books and get a life.
No. He wasn't "right". He had a theory which had explanatory power that the opposing viewpoint did not. Scientifically its a better theory, but there's no guarantee that better theories still may not come to light (although, it seems unlikely)
The whole point of science is that consensus will change when better theories come along. Consensus represents the best of what we've got so far until a better idea comes along. Therefore, consensus is not "a big pile of horse-shit".
This article is just a description of the F/OSS world - it *is* a Bazaar, so it *is* anarchistic and that's *why* people stay interested and contribute - if they can and they want to, they do.
It's true that better leaders help projects produce things faster, but F/OSS has never been strong because of DEVELOPMENT SPEED, F/OSS has been strong because of diversity and the LACK of an authoritarian view. The community (warts and all) is precisely WHY F/OSS has succeeded.
The article author assumes that there is one direction we all want to go in and we should just get there as quick as possible. This is not how we got to where we are now, and it's not required for the future. Certain projects are chugging along with speed with a vision, others are meandering along to the sound of their own drums. These are all good. No need to panic, certainly no need to criticise the VERY WELLSPRING from which this world arose.
2008 is the earliest that Kyoto measures need to be met - they go through to 2012. That's six years to make a difference. Some nations probably won't met their quotas, but claiming that they definitely have missed 6 years in advance of the deadline is a tad premature, no?
Exactly. All that science can give you is models that work better than the previous ones. Models with explanatory power, models which haven't yet been falsified.
Science cannot tell you the truth - we don't have a viewpoint where we see what scientists say and another one where we see the way the world "really is". If we did, we could compare one with the other and tell you if a theory was truth. Without that "view from nowhere" truth is something that we will never know. We might, in fact, have theories which are actually true, but we will never know that to be the case - we'll just know that the theory hasn't been disproved yet.
Consensus is not proof, but it's the best Science can give you. Nothing in Science is EVER proved. All you can ever do is show that you have theory with better explanatory power than what you had previously.
If you want proof, play with algebra or logic, but forget trying to do empirical science. You are ENTIRELY wrong if you believe that Science yields theories that can be proved. Witness Newton's physics then Einstein's physics - neither was "wrong" neither is entirely "right" but the latter is clearly superior and the former was better than what existed before it.
Quit criticising what you clearly don't understand.
Applets in Java were ahead of their time. They ran poorly on the CPUs and VMs of a decade ago. They're pretty good now (check out ThinkFree).
A current issue with Applets is the delay to start, but a Java application launched from within an already running VM launches pretty much instantaneously - which points towards the solution, no?
If not Java - something exactly like Java:o) You need a VM so that you have a well known target that allows content to run cross platforms. You need security and you need a full-featured API over the top of that.
The web should be inverted - all browsers should be Java VMs so they can run content directly and quickly and HTML content should be handled as a special case. Doing apps in HTML and Javascript is *really* dumb.
Given that Peter Jackson part founded Weta (not WETA by the way - it's not an acronym), it's unlikely that they would go along with it if PJ were not involved.
No, there is a huge problem with this. Real world problems almost always come down to balancing conflicting needs and wants against each other (Economy vs Environment, Tax vs Health Care etc). Just bitching about something with no concept of the context in which that issue exists is moronic. The only way that a democracy can sensibly work is with an informed populace and that requires that (amongst other things) people know the cost of the things that they're asking for.
Just whining about everything you don't like is stupid: "I don't want to pay taxes! I want free health care! I want power supply! I don't want power production near me!" yadda yadda. The reality is that the world is more complex than people making these kinds of infantile demands can see, and they need to have this pointed out to, not to be pandered to by increasingly sensationalistic media.
Dude, I've been here longer than you as well (according to ID#, anyway) , but I happen to agree with you 100% Zonk is a fucking arsehole, and if it weren't for the fact that Digg's comment system still sucks, I'd be out of here myself. Slashdot used to be full of interesting discussion, now it's full of reactionary fan-boy shit. Unfortunately, this appears to originate with the editors who abuse slashdot's design to foister their opinion on the site and ignore what the community thinks (Kuro5hin and Digg are both superior in this regard)
The reality is that most posters agree with you. It's Zonk abusing his editorial position as his own personal soap-box which is the problem here. Slashdot needs to change to allow user choice on what gets to the front page. Enough with making us put up with BS editor's bias.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit - either Eclipse or Netbeans hooked up to the Java docs (and the docs of any of your pet libraries) is better than MSDN.
Not to mention that both of those IDEs feature refactoring support that VS users can only dream of.
In conclusion, DIAF. All you new slashdotters that missed him, be glad. He used this website as his personal soapbox.
~WxRather like Zonk?
Email and IM simply do not have the bandwidth of face-to-face communication.
No they don't, but not everybody needs to communicate with face-to-face level of bandwidth continuously throughout the day. Also, there is
still this thing called a telephone, which provides more bandwidth than e-mail and IM, and is sometimes useful when telecommuting. It might
not be reasonable to run a company based 100% on telecommuting, but to suggest that it (telecommuting) is a dumb idea in general flies in the
face of a lot of experience that suggests otherwise. It just has be be applied properly, like any other tool.
I used to work in a company that had remote offices that we would work with - using phone and email as the primary communication conduits. It sucked. It's much easier to work with people in your office than people you don't see face-to-face.
I'm sorry, but I have lots of practical experience that says that telecommuting is crap. We'd do that from time to time for a *break* from routine, but as a standard work practice, it's not at all very good.
I worked in an open plan office with 30 other people and it was fine - I liked it.
I think you vastly overestimate the inteligence of the average movie-goer.
Yes, Faramir was not at the council, so didn't get the job, but once Frodo was in the his grasp and he recognised the ring, it became posible that Faramir could carry the ring. Which is my point.
Tolkien's perfect Faramir is a neat character, PJ's human Faramir is also pretty cool IMO. They're both different and both good in the story they exist it.
PJ's explanation of his treatment of Faramir was simply that the character makes no sense. If he's strong, noble, a warrior and "he wouldn't pick [the ring] up if [he] found it lying in the road", then why the hell doesn't HE take it into Mordor? He's the perfect warrior, he's immune to the Ring's influence and he's not a measly Hobbit.
By having him tempted by the ring, it makes sense that he would see that Frodo is better equipped to bear the ring than he.
Now, I don't know if you agree with that reasoning or not, but it was hardly just random destruction of the book's characters, it was attempting to make a character work on screen. I think that PJ's Faramir is one hell of a lot more believable than Tolkien's.
I am utterly sick to death of those Tolkien fans who expect the films to be exactly like the book. It's NOT POSSIBLE you whiny buggers! Films are not books, they work differently, things aren't explained in the same way in films, some things that are easy in a book are entirely different in film.
For Christ's sake, call it "Peter Jackson's Lord of The Rings" if you prefer and QUIT WHINING! Clearly, a huge number of people DID enjoy it (including myself, a life-long Tolkien fan (I even enjoyed the Silmarilion!))
Inevitably, ANY filming of the book will change things and you whingers would complain no matter what. If you don't like it, go film your own version, or even better, just enjoy the fucking books and get a life.
No. He wasn't "right". He had a theory which had explanatory power that the opposing viewpoint did not. Scientifically its a better theory, but there's no guarantee that better theories still may not come to light (although, it seems unlikely)
The whole point of science is that consensus will change when better theories come along. Consensus represents the best of what we've got so far until a better idea comes along. Therefore, consensus is not "a big pile of horse-shit".
This article is just a description of the F/OSS world - it *is* a Bazaar, so it *is* anarchistic and that's *why* people stay interested and contribute - if they can and they want to, they do.
It's true that better leaders help projects produce things faster, but F/OSS has never been strong because of DEVELOPMENT SPEED, F/OSS has been strong because of diversity and the LACK of an authoritarian view. The community (warts and all) is precisely WHY F/OSS has succeeded.
The article author assumes that there is one direction we all want to go in and we should just get there as quick as possible. This is not how we got to where we are now, and it's not required for the future. Certain projects are chugging along with speed with a vision, others are meandering along to the sound of their own drums. These are all good. No need to panic, certainly no need to criticise the VERY WELLSPRING from which this world arose.
2008 is the earliest that Kyoto measures need to be met - they go through to 2012. That's six years to make a difference. Some nations probably won't met their quotas, but claiming that they definitely have missed 6 years in advance of the deadline is a tad premature, no?
Yeah - that's why Google is so slow, all their Java really makes them crawl.
Servlets are fast. Very fast. You didn't mean applets, did you?
...which is why Science disagreed with Copernicus UNTIL his ideas got enough momentum to build concensus. QED.
Exactly. All that science can give you is models that work better than the previous ones. Models with explanatory power, models which haven't yet been falsified.
Science cannot tell you the truth - we don't have a viewpoint where we see what scientists say and another one where we see the way the world "really is". If we did, we could compare one with the other and tell you if a theory was truth. Without that "view from nowhere" truth is something that we will never know. We might, in fact, have theories which are actually true, but we will never know that to be the case - we'll just know that the theory hasn't been disproved yet.
Consensus is not proof, but it's the best Science can give you. Nothing in Science is EVER proved. All you can ever do is show that you have theory with better explanatory power than what you had previously.
If you want proof, play with algebra or logic, but forget trying to do empirical science. You are ENTIRELY wrong if you believe that Science yields theories that can be proved. Witness Newton's physics then Einstein's physics - neither was "wrong" neither is entirely "right" but the latter is clearly superior and the former was better than what existed before it.
Quit criticising what you clearly don't understand.
Given that it's not 2008 yet, how can you come to that conclusion?
Java servlets are powering half the web you moron
Applets in Java were ahead of their time. They ran poorly on the CPUs and VMs of a decade ago. They're pretty good now (check out ThinkFree).
A current issue with Applets is the delay to start, but a Java application launched from within an already running VM launches pretty much instantaneously - which points towards the solution, no?
It's already there!
:o) You need a VM so that you have a well known target that allows content to run cross platforms. You need security and you need a full-featured API over the top of that.
If not Java - something exactly like Java
The web should be inverted - all browsers should be Java VMs so they can run content directly and quickly and HTML content should be handled as a special case. Doing apps in HTML and Javascript is *really* dumb.
Given that Peter Jackson part founded Weta (not WETA by the way - it's not an acronym), it's unlikely that they would go along with it if PJ were not involved.
No, there is a huge problem with this. Real world problems almost always come down to balancing conflicting needs and wants against each other (Economy vs Environment, Tax vs Health Care etc). Just bitching about something with no concept of the context in which that issue exists is moronic. The only way that a democracy can sensibly work is with an informed populace and that requires that (amongst other things) people know the cost of the things that they're asking for.
Just whining about everything you don't like is stupid: "I don't want to pay taxes! I want free health care! I want power supply! I don't want power production near me!" yadda yadda. The reality is that the world is more complex than people making these kinds of infantile demands can see, and they need to have this pointed out to, not to be pandered to by increasingly sensationalistic media.
Hey, there's fuck all else to get excited about down here so leave us our little thrills ;o)
Dude, I've been here longer than you as well (according to ID#, anyway) , but I happen to agree with you 100% Zonk is a fucking arsehole, and if it weren't for the fact that Digg's comment system still sucks, I'd be out of here myself. Slashdot used to be full of interesting discussion, now it's full of reactionary fan-boy shit. Unfortunately, this appears to originate with the editors who abuse slashdot's design to foister their opinion on the site and ignore what the community thinks (Kuro5hin and Digg are both superior in this regard)
The reality is that most posters agree with you. It's Zonk abusing his editorial position as his own personal soap-box which is the problem here. Slashdot needs to change to allow user choice on what gets to the front page. Enough with making us put up with BS editor's bias.