Maybe the local News station told him he had a face for radio, the radio guys said he had a bad voice, and the newspaper guys read an article of his and said "Okay.. You restated your point ten times, now show us some supporting arguments."
This left poor JonKatz no choice but to work at pseudo-media sites such as Wired and Slashdot.
On the bright side, he has learned to put in a couple supporting arguments in the past couple years that I've been reading his articles. It's also nice to have some original content at this site to show us why there isn't more.
Maybe he could get off on a charge of negligence, maybe not. Either way, six months is the maximum sentence. There is no minimum. Mitigating circumstances, anyone?
Let me say first that I see no problem whatsoever with the implications of this amendment by the National Assembly. While there are a couple problems in the implementation, most notably for free webservers in the Geocities vein, I have nothing against the alleged loss of privacy in this case.
It all comes down to the balance between accountability and anonymity. Despite this change, the French are not restricting free speech in any fashion. They are simply stating that if you need to say something stupid, you need to put your name on the bottom of it. Rather than use the cliched child-porn example, let's use hate group websites. I don't know what France's laws against the promoting of hatred are like, but I assume they are stronger than Canada's by virtue of having been on the doorstep of the Holocaust. I don't believe that having such a site on the web has any redeeming qualities but for educating people in the effects of hysteria. What this new law says, is that if someone is hosting such a site, they are fully responsible by law for facing the consequences unless they have a proven identity onto which they can pass the buck, so to speak.
This simplifies things greatly and in fact makes things more "free" (libre) for the providers. They are allowed to host anything whatsoever. All that this does is clearly state their responsibility for content.
Recently (in the last couple years), there was a great deal of attention given to a similar situation with a web-hosting company in southern British Columbia. A site was hosting several hate sites, and the maintainer refused to give the identities of the American based clients. I never did hear what the Supreme Court of Canada decided on this case, but throughout the lower court proceedings, the host had been ordered to take the sites down on several occasions, and the order was blocked by appeal in all attempts. Free Speech in Canada is almost -too- unrestricted.
Anyway, it was an interesting proceeding to watch. All that this new French law does is make the line clear between the service and content providers.
This (very, very anonymous) website claims that they are ("serious") and are working towards aquiring the satellites. Whatever.
Look at their survey. "Do you have some ideas for what could be done with 66 orbiting satellites, (besides a $7 billion meteor shower)?"
Seeing as this is under the Space topic, not the Humour one, I think that some critical thinking skills are required on the part of the alleged many submitters and Hemos.
"It says open-source!! Let's post it!!" is a losing policy.
In another reply, someone was calling Windows 2000 a flop and someone else replied that it had sold a million copies right away, so it couldn't be that bad of a flop...
I have no idea whether this is terribly common or not, but through family and work, I know of at least 6 businesses (a couple are quite large) who have purchased full licenses for Windows 2000, but will not install them as they are running legacy software that runs in a console. I myself don't know the full extent of what Microsoft has done to DOS support, but I gather that the corporation could easily be shooting itself in the foot by dropping this.
Many people tend, stupidly IMO, to upgrade to the latest version of software even when they have absolutely no need to. Look at the people who are running Windows 2000 at home. It's just silly. However, doing something like dropping support for console-based programs prevents people like this from upgrading under many different circumstances. Microsoft shouldn't want this. It strikes me as inevitable that the legacy applications will be updated/rewritten, but in the meanwhile, it is hurting Microsoft's bottom line.
Whether you support Microsoft or not (I'm not rabid either way), this should concern you somewhat if you are involved in any business using computers whatsoever. Why? Relatives asking what's wrong with their computers. (Why won't my dos-based poker game work?)
As to the early version slipping out.. I love Microsoft's "pay us money so you can have the privilege of doing our beta-testing for us". I suppose the only way of justifying this thing "spreading like wildfire", as the article says, is teenage "hackers" wanting a preview of the next version so they can be elite or whatever.
A while back, I had one Windows 2000 preview site bookmarked because it was simply comical. "TOP SECRET" gif's all over the place. Screenshot's titled with "Secret shot of _______". "Lookatthis!! Top Secret Stuff!!" (The comments on Betanews provide many such links to people's websites.)
May I reiterate the previous poster's challenge to you to list what you consider some "good" science fiction/fantasy books? It may very well be that I agree with you, but I am interested in hearing what you have to say nonetheless.
Nobody asked for it, but I'll write another mini-review of _Dune: House Atreides_ here simply because I feel that those who read it without reading the other books (Especially the final two, which many people seem to not have ever read - Heretics of Dune, Chapterhouse: Dune) may come away wondering why the series is among, if not in fact, the best that science fiction has to offer.
The new book, supposed prequel to _Dune_, by Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson (of Star Wars book fame) isn't exactly a great work of literature. However, if you're just looking for more "real Dune stuff" (KJA actually referred to the book as such), you may as well give it a read.
The novel itself, though, is rife with contraditions of the later books, extremely poorly developed characters, excessive verbiage, a simple plot which derives a major gimmick from a Star Trek movie, and a tendacy to leave no action unexplained. What is wrong with the latter, you may ask. The simple fact is that the books by Frank Herbert required you to think. The prequel does not. This is akin to why _The Great Gatsby_ is considered such a great work. Many characters are portrayed vastly different from what the earlier books demand. Fenring, as a blood-thirsty murderer, rather than a cultured assassin. Paul's grandfather as a doting old man, rather than the steel-hard leader who is implied. Nevermind the Ixians who did not necessarily exist at this time, the Tleilaxu whose faith seems common knowledge, the Harkonnen as evil. The last is simply wrong. The Harkonnen were ruthless, but not evil. Frank Herbert liked shades of grey, no matter what the surface appearence. Why else did he spend the second book tearing Paul down from the pedestal. My whole point is that _Dune: House Atreides_ detracts from the series by Frank Herbert, and its only genuine redeeming point is that it will cause some number of those who read it to pick up the other books in the Dune Chronicals.
I encourage you to read Amazon.com's customer reviews if you're interested in more. Some love the book, bur you see the others who are critical of it for many of the same reasons as myself. Also note that there is both a newsgroup and mailing list where serious discussion is welcome.
I post fairly regularly on a couple newsgroups in the alt. hierarchy, with an unmangled email address.
So long as you filter your email by the To: header, you'll get very little spam. Anything that's not specifically to one of my email addresses or an endorsed mailing list is automatically bounced. Only a couple pieces of email make it through this in a month. A couple hundred messages (across a few addresses) bounce. If a -lot- of spam makes it through this, which isn't too likely since spammers rarely use bcc, you could go so far as to only allow posts in if they have keywords.
Filters, though.. If you don't/won't set them up, you deserve what you get.
(Does someone pay off Hotmail to not allow filtering by the To: header? Use Netaddress for your throwaway accounts instead.
The fact of the matter is that the work is copyright and redistributing it, even if it was initally broadcast, is illegal.
Not illegal in Canada, and iCraveTV is based out of Ontario.
My favorite part of the article is where it mentions that the NFL was desperate to get it taken off the air before the Super Bowl. (Because after all - People *want* to watch the Super Bowl on a small, low quality picture. Not only that, but if iCrave was still up, non-Canadians would get to see how rather than allowing us to see these multi-million dollar commercials, the local stations replace them with ads from used car dealers, Canadian Tire, Zellers, etc.
I wonder if the heavy publicity of the site on Slashdot contributed much to the temporary shutdown of the site. It seems likely, seeing as the first suits were brought against them the day after it was first mentioned here, after several months of operation.
People seem to be forgetting that the thing might actually give really damn good backrubs.
$47k, for a lifetime of wicked backrubs sounds okay to me.. Only problem would be tinking with my Robie Jr. until he could handle the thing on its own.
I really don't like either this article or the previous one. I think that Jon is doing nothing more than writing paragraphs of drivel whining about being flamed by some AC. I know I can't wait to see part three. (I wonder what percentage of the people who see this comment actually read Jon's article in its entirety.)
Yes, I can filter him out, and no, I don't want to. The comments on his articles are usually a good read. Barring, of course, the 200 comment religious flamewar on his last -real- article. (Re: God hates fags, or does he?)
In part one, he took issue with some anonymous person asking him to "Please Die". Well, I'm not anonymous, and this may only be my opinion, but Jon... If this is the best you can do, -please- go away, find a corner, and curl up in it. If you choose to die at this time, press 1. If you choose to live, press 2. You must be using a true touch tone phone. Thank you for calling the talking yellow pages.
Linus does mention it in passing, but since people seem so obsessed over it, the Transmeta website has been updated to say that the real content will go live at noon (pacific) today.
Maybe some of you care? I don't think it's that offtopic.
First off, why the heck don't the arrow keys work to scroll up/down? When I'm looking at a story someplace, it's habit to just nonchalantly press the "down arrow" key a couple of times -- having to grab the mouse, mouse over to the sidebar and either click in the arrow or grab the scroll thingie is really annoying.
On both linux and windows, both arrow-key and mousewheel scrolling work fine.
All you need to do is click on the frame/window you want to scroll to give it focus. You may or may not be able to use tab to get focus. I'm not sure.
Of the books you listed, I've only read Cobra Event... Herbert's book is far, FAR superior while dealing with a nearly identical concept. In his, though, the bioterrorist succeeds and the majority of the book deals with the aftermath in a very believable manner.
However, a member of the intellectual elite would generally not spend their free time writing software. They would spend every last minute of it learning newer things.
That sentence, written by yours truly, doesn't stand very well on its own, although alone is exactly how I left it in the original post. Including yours, three replies have been directed at it. It is simply a weak statement when given with nothing to back it up. Nothing here will do so either, because although I typed those words, they do not accurately express what I intended to say. My apologies.
The following is directed more at Midnight Coder's reply than Wah's. I did not mean to imply that you can not continue learning the whole while as you program. It was more that the dedication and specialization that some give it is not necessarily a good thing. Both RMS and ESR are interviewed due to their philosophies more than their coding works. This gives them balance. They still do code, but the interest is focused elsewhere. Other people play musical instruments, or dance with trees in the forest. (link for latter)
It is when the other interests include philosophy and a desire to have one's voice heard (coinciding with others' desire to hear it) that the 'intellectual elite' are decided. This does exclude all those who are very intelligent but not into politics, but who said life was fair? It is just the way it works. Though the word of focus' definition is much broader, it is used more commonly to point at, and sometimes pidgeonhole, those who debate about one's set of beliefs with regards to how the world should work.
I think that Bruce Perens' Technocrat.net would be worth pointing to as a site that attempts to give rise to an internet-based intelligentsia. Whether it will succeed or not is anyone's call.
You seem to have missed the point of my name dropping. It was to provide an example of the intelligentsia, not to promote some half-assed Voltaire as 'Man of the Millennium' movement.
Steven Hawking, Einstein, Leonardo daVinci, whoever else. I don't argue that their celebrity status is from anything but their accomplishments. Again, your beef is not with me. Jeff Bezos... Someone else could've, should've, but didn't. He did. Is he a genius? It doesn't matter. He is/was successful.
As to the portrait of J. Random Hacker, why do you bring it up? If anything, it confirms the fact that no small number of computer hackers would detest the politics and philosphy that is prerequisite to being considered a member of the intelligentsia. (Someone else mentioned it, and it is true - A major in Medieval Studies or Chemistry is less likely to be heavily involved in philosophy than some sort of Liberal Arts or Political Science graduate.)
You're a software engineer. Fine. Once you're no longer working, do you continue to 'work'? Or, more likely, do you take some time to relax? By reading a book perhaps, maybe going swimming/hiking/whatever, or possibly spending some time with family. Reading Slashdot compulsively, posting often and early, maybe.
You don't reply to others' posts with arguments very often. Is there further argument with me, or were you simply seizing on an opportunity to state your opinion on the omnipresent lists of "Greatest (noun) of the (period of time)"?
I'll finish by mentioning that Voltaire was probably the greatest (known) mind of the previous millennium and I doubt that you could find a better example than he of the intelligentsia. If you can, please put the name forward.
I don't really consider computer hackers as the intelligentsia, and I don't know that many would. That is not to say that a fair number would be out of place among them, but lumping the whole group together like that can only get you in trouble. (This hobbit guy, say)
Remembering that software developers really are overglorified engineers (unpopular opinion around here, no doubt), we must notice that the definition of intelligentsia actually makes reference to its members being well educated. A provost at some university is without doubt a member of the intelligentsia, while the people who authored say, ICQ, are not. Again, they may be very intelligent people or they may not. I really don't know. However, a member of the intellectual elite would generally not spend their free time writing software. They would spend every last minute of it learning newer things.
Programming is a new thing. It's fairly handy to learn. Looking at it as anything more than a tool though, is IMNSHO foolish.
As I find myself too short of time to write a long diatribe on this, I'll finish by mentioning that Voltaire was probably the greatest (known) mind of the millennium, and that I doubt you could find a better example than he of the intelligentsia, please put the name forward.
Apologies in advance for the length of this post, but then.. If you have an account, you can set up a max comment length of only a couple kilobytes and you won't see more than the first few paragraphs without clicking "See the rest of this comment" or something similar. Without any further ado, here's the full document.
----------------------
Why are you printing this page? Wasting paper isn't Viridian! This document is located at: http://www.bespoke.org/viridian/index.asp?t=140
Viridian Note 124 : The Manifesto of January 3, 2000
Bruce Sterling bruces@well.com http://www.well.com/conf/mirrorshades/
IDEOLOGICAL FREEWARE: DISTRIBUTE AT WILL
The Manifesto of January 3, 2000
In 1914, the lamps went out all over Europe. Life during the rest of the twentieth century was like crouching under a rock.
But human life is not required to be like the twentieth century. That wasnt fate, it was merely a historical circumstance. In this new Belle Epoque, this delightful era, we are experiencing a prolonged break in the last centurys even tenor of mayhem. The time has come to step out of those shadows into a different cultural reality.
We need a sense of revived possibility, of genuine creative potential, of unfeigned joie de vivre. We have a new economy, but we have no new intelligentsia. We have massive flows of information and capital, but we have a grave scarcity of meaning. We know what we can buy, but we dont know what we want.
The twentieth century featured any number of -isms. They were fatally based on the delusion that philosophy trumps engineering. It doesnt. In a world fully competent to command its material basis, ideology is inherently flimsy. "Technology" in its broad sense: the ability to transform resources, the speed at which new possibilities can be opened and exploited, the multiple and various forms of command-and-control -- technology, not ideology, is the twentieth centurys lasting legacy. Technology broke the gridlock of the five-decade Cold War. It made a new era thinkable. And, finally, technology made a new era obvious.
But too many twentieth-century technologies are very like twentieth-century ideologies: rigid, monolithic, poisonous and non-sustainable.
We need clean, supple, healthy means of support for a crowded world. We need recyclable technologies, industries that dont take themselves with that Stalinesque seriousness that demands the brutal sacrifice of millions. In order to make flimsy, supple technologies thinkable, and then achievable, then finally obvious, we need an ideology that embraces its own obsolescence.
The immediate future wont be a period suitable for building monuments, establishing thousand-year regimes, creating new-model citizens, or asserting leaden certainties about anything whatsoever. The immediate future is about picking and choosing among previously unforeseen technical potentials.
Our time calls for intelligent fads. Our time calls for a self-aware, highly temporary array of broad social experiments, whose effects are localized, non-lethal and reversible -- yet transparent, and visible to all parties who might be persuaded to look.
The Internet is the natural test-bed for this fast-moving, fast-vanishing, start-up society. Because the native technology of the coming years is not the 19th century "machine" or the 20th century "product." It is the 21st century "gizmo."
A gizmo is a device with so many features and so many promises that it can never be mastered within its own useful lifetime. A gizmo is flimsy, cheap, colorful, friendly, intriguing, easily disposable, and unlikely to harm the user. The gizmos purpose is not to efficiently perform some function or effectively provide some service. A gizmo exists to snag the users attention, and to engage the user in a vast unfolding nexus of interlinked experience.
The gizmo in its manifold aspects is the beau ideal for contemporary design and engineering. Because that is what our culture will be like, at its heart, in its bones, in its organs. A gizmo culture. We will go in so many directions at once that most of them will never see fulfillment. And then they will be gone.
This is confusing and seems lacking in moral seriousness -- but only only by the rigid standards of the past century, bitterly obsessed with ultimate efficiencies and malignant final solutions. We need opportunities now, not efficiencies. We need inspired improvisation, not solutions. Technology can no longer bind us in a vast tonnage of iron, barbed wire and brick. We will stop heaving balky machines uphill. Instead, we begin judging entire techno-complexes as they virtually unfold, judging them by standards that are, in some very basic sense, aesthetic.
Henceforth, it is humans and human flesh that lasts out the years, not the mechanical infrastructure. Our bodies outlast our machines, and our bodies outlast our beliefs. People will outlive this "revolution" -- if spared an apocalypse, human individuals will outlive every "technology" that we are capable of deploying. Waves of techno-change will come faster and faster, and with less and less permanent consequence. Waves will be arriving with the somnolent regularity of Waikiki breakers. This "revolution" does not replace one social order with another. It replaces social order with an array of further possible transformations.
Since gizmos are easily outmoded and inherently impermanent, their most graceful form is as disposable consumer technology. We should embrace those gizmos that are pleasing, abject, humble, and closest to the human body. We should spurn those that are remote, difficult, threatening, poisonous and brittle.
Most of all, we must never, ever again feel awestruck wonder about any manufactured device. They dont last, and are not worthy of that form of respect.
We must engage with technology in a new way, from a fresh perspective. The arts traditionally hold this critical position. The arts are in a position today to inspire a burst of cultural vitality across the board. The times are very propitious for the arts. Theres a profound restlessness, theres money loose, there are new means of display and communication, and the nouveau riche have nothing to wear and nothing that suits their walls. Its a golden opportunity for techno-dandyism.
Artists, dont be afraid of commercialization. The sovereign remedy for commercialization is not for artists to hide from commerce. That cant be done any more, and in any case, hiding never wins and strong artists dont live in fear.
Instead, we have a new remedy available. The aggressive counter-action to commodity totalitarianism is to give things away. Not other peoples property -- that would be, sad to say, "piracy" -- but the products of your own imagination, your own creative effort.
This is the time to be thoughtful, be expressive, be generous. Be "taken advantage of." The channels exist now to give creativity away, at no cost, to millions. Never mind if you make large sums of money along the way. If you successfully seize attention, nothing is more likely. In a start-up society, huge sums can fall on innocent parties, almost by accident. That cannnot be helped, so dont worry about it any more. Henceforth, artistic integrity should be judged, not by ones classic bohemian seclusion from satanic mills and the grasping bourgeoisie, but by what one creates and gives away. That is the only scale of noncommercial integrity that makes any sense now.
Freedom has to be won, and, more importantly, the consequences of freedom have to be lived. You do not win freedom of information by filching data from a corporate warehouse, or begging the authorities to kindly abandon their monopolies, copyrights and patents. You have to create that freedom by a deliberate act of will, think it up, assemble it, sacrifice for it, make it free to others who have a similar will to live that freedom.
Ivory towers are no longer in order. We need ivory networks. Today, sitting quietly and thinking is the worlds greatest generator of wealth and prosperity. Moguls spend their lives sitting in chairs, staring into screens, and occasionally clicking a mouse. Though we didnt expect it, were all on the same net. We no longer need feudal shelters to protect us from the swords and torches of barbarian ignorance. So show them words and images: make it obvious, let them look. If theyre interested, fine; if not, go pick another website.
The structure of human intellectual achievement should be reformatted, so that any human being with a sincere interest can learn as much as possible, as rapidly as their abilities allow. The Internet is the greatest accomplishment of the twentieth centurys scientific community, and the Internet has made a new intelligentsia possible.
Like the scientific method, the Internet is a genuine, workable, verifiable means of intellectual liberation. Dont worry if its not universal. Awareness cant be doled out like soup, or sold like soap. Intellectual vitality is an inherently internal, self- actualizing process. The net must make this possible for people, not by blasting flags and gospel at the masses, but by opening doors for individual minds, who will then pursue their own interests.
This can be made to happen. It is quite near to us now, the trends favor it. The consequences of genuine intellectual freedom are literally and rightfully unimaginable. But the unimaginable is the right thing to do. The unimaginable is far better than perfection, because perfection can never be achieved, and it would kill us if it were. Whereas the "unimaginable" is, at its root, merely a healthy measure of our own limitations.
Human beings are imperfect and imperfectable, and their networks even more so. We should probably be happy for the noise and disruption in the channel, since so much of what we think we know, and love to teach, are mistakes and lies. But nevertheless, we can achieve progress here. We can remove some modicum of the fatal, choking constraints that throughout centuries have bent people double.
A human mind in pursuit of self-actualization should be allowed to go as far and as fast as our means allow. There is nothing utopian about this program; because there no timeless justice or perfect stability to be found in this vision. This practice will not lead us toward any dream, any City on a Hill, any phony form of static bliss. On the contrary, it will lead us into closer and closer, into more and more immediate contact, with the issues that really bedevil us.
Before many more decades pass, the human race will begin to obtain what it really wants. Then we will find ourselves confronted, in our bedrooms, streets, and breakfast tables, with real-world avatars of those Faustian visions of power and ability that have previously existed only in myth. Our aspirations will become consequences. Thats when our *real* trouble starts.
However, that is not a contemporary problem. The problems we face today are not those somber, long-term problems. On the contrary, we very clearly exist in a highly fortunate time with very minor problems.
The so-called human condition wont survive the next hundred years. That fate is written on the forehead of the 21st century in letters of fire. That fate can be wisely shaped, or somewhat postponed, or brutally annihilated, but it cannot be denied. It is coming because we want it. Its not an alien imposition; it is borne from the inchoate depths of our own desires. But were not beyond the limits of humanity, suffering that, exulting in that. Were just going there, visibly moving closer to it. Once we get there, well find no rest there. The appetite of divine discontent always grows by the feeding.
This dire knowledge makes todays scene seem quite playful and delightful by faux-retrospect. Our worst problems, which may seem so large, diffuse, and morbid, are mere teenage angst compared to the conundrums were busily preparing for some other generation.
Sober assessment of the contemporary scene makes it crystal-clear that a carnival atmosphere is in order. We exist in a highly disposable civilization that is hell- bent on outmoding itself. The pace of change is melting former physical restraints into a maelstrom of reformattable virtualities. Thats here, its real, it is truly our situation. We should live as if we know this is true. This is where our own sincerity and authenticity are to be found: in the strong conviction that the contemporary is temporary.
We need to live in these conditions in good faith. We need to re-imagine life and make the new implications clear. Its a murky situation, but we must not flinch from it; we must drench all of it in light. Because this is our home. We have no other. Our children live here. The mushroom clouds of the twentieth century have parted. We find ourselves on a beach, with wave after frothy wave of transformation. We have means, motive, and opportunity. Spread the light.
Henceforth, it will make more and more sense to base our deepest convictions around a hands-on confrontation with the consequences of technology. Thats where the action is. On January 3, 2000, thats what its about. The deepest resources of human creativity have a vital role there. Its where inspiration is most needed, its the place to make a difference. Come out. Stand up. Shine.
Slashdot Mirror
Why so angry Jon?
Maybe the local News station told him he had a face for radio, the radio guys said he had a bad voice, and the newspaper guys read an article of his and said "Okay.. You restated your point ten times, now show us some supporting arguments."
This left poor JonKatz no choice but to work at pseudo-media sites such as Wired and Slashdot.
On the bright side, he has learned to put in a couple supporting arguments in the past couple years that I've been reading his articles. It's also nice to have some original content at this site to show us why there isn't more.
------
Why is RedHat only using Linux 6.2, when both Slackware and Mandrake use Linux 7.0?
I use Linux 7.0 from Slackware. (amazingly simple install, btw) Who needs this old fashioned Linux 6.x stuff?
------
Poor newbie sysadmin.
Maybe he could get off on a charge of negligence, maybe not. Either way, six months is the maximum sentence. There is no minimum. Mitigating circumstances, anyone?
------
Let me say first that I see no problem whatsoever with the implications of this amendment by the National Assembly. While there are a couple problems in the implementation, most notably for free webservers in the Geocities vein, I have nothing against the alleged loss of privacy in this case.
It all comes down to the balance between accountability and anonymity. Despite this change, the French are not restricting free speech in any fashion. They are simply stating that if you need to say something stupid, you need to put your name on the bottom of it. Rather than use the cliched child-porn example, let's use hate group websites. I don't know what France's laws against the promoting of hatred are like, but I assume they are stronger than Canada's by virtue of having been on the doorstep of the Holocaust. I don't believe that having such a site on the web has any redeeming qualities but for educating people in the effects of hysteria. What this new law says, is that if someone is hosting such a site, they are fully responsible by law for facing the consequences unless they have a proven identity onto which they can pass the buck, so to speak.
This simplifies things greatly and in fact makes things more "free" (libre) for the providers. They are allowed to host anything whatsoever. All that this does is clearly state their responsibility for content.
Recently (in the last couple years), there was a great deal of attention given to a similar situation with a web-hosting company in southern British Columbia. A site was hosting several hate sites, and the maintainer refused to give the identities of the American based clients. I never did hear what the Supreme Court of Canada decided on this case, but throughout the lower court proceedings, the host had been ordered to take the sites down on several occasions, and the order was blocked by appeal in all attempts. Free Speech in Canada is almost -too- unrestricted.
Anyway, it was an interesting proceeding to watch. All that this new French law does is make the line clear between the service and content providers.
------
Does this seem a little silly to anybody but me?
This (very, very anonymous) website claims that they are ("serious") and are working towards aquiring the satellites. Whatever.
Look at their survey. "Do you have some ideas for what could be done with 66 orbiting satellites, (besides a $7 billion meteor shower)?"
Seeing as this is under the Space topic, not the Humour one, I think that some critical thinking skills are required on the part of the alleged many submitters and Hemos.
"It says open-source!! Let's post it!!" is a losing policy.
------
I don't disagree.
------
"No one is install Win2k so I guess..."
In another reply, someone was calling Windows 2000 a flop and someone else replied that it had sold a million copies right away, so it couldn't be that bad of a flop...
I have no idea whether this is terribly common or not, but through family and work, I know of at least 6 businesses (a couple are quite large) who have purchased full licenses for Windows 2000, but will not install them as they are running legacy software that runs in a console. I myself don't know the full extent of what Microsoft has done to DOS support, but I gather that the corporation could easily be shooting itself in the foot by dropping this.
Many people tend, stupidly IMO, to upgrade to the latest version of software even when they have absolutely no need to. Look at the people who are running Windows 2000 at home. It's just silly. However, doing something like dropping support for console-based programs prevents people like this from upgrading under many different circumstances. Microsoft shouldn't want this. It strikes me as inevitable that the legacy applications will be updated/rewritten, but in the meanwhile, it is hurting Microsoft's bottom line.
Whether you support Microsoft or not (I'm not rabid either way), this should concern you somewhat if you are involved in any business using computers whatsoever. Why? Relatives asking what's wrong with their computers. (Why won't my dos-based poker game work?)
As to the early version slipping out.. I love Microsoft's "pay us money so you can have the privilege of doing our beta-testing for us". I suppose the only way of justifying this thing "spreading like wildfire", as the article says, is teenage "hackers" wanting a preview of the next version so they can be elite or whatever.
A while back, I had one Windows 2000 preview site bookmarked because it was simply comical. "TOP SECRET" gif's all over the place. Screenshot's titled with "Secret shot of _______". "Lookatthis!! Top Secret Stuff!!" (The comments on Betanews provide many such links to people's websites.)
It boggles my mind.
------
May I reiterate the previous poster's challenge to you to list what you consider some "good" science fiction/fantasy books? It may very well be that I agree with you, but I am interested in hearing what you have to say nonetheless.
------
Nobody asked for it, but I'll write another mini-review of _Dune: House Atreides_ here simply because I feel that those who read it without reading the other books (Especially the final two, which many people seem to not have ever read - Heretics of Dune, Chapterhouse: Dune) may come away wondering why the series is among, if not in fact, the best that science fiction has to offer.
The new book, supposed prequel to _Dune_, by Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson (of Star Wars book fame) isn't exactly a great work of literature. However, if you're just looking for more "real Dune stuff" (KJA actually referred to the book as such), you may as well give it a read.
The novel itself, though, is rife with contraditions of the later books, extremely poorly developed characters, excessive verbiage, a simple plot which derives a major gimmick from a Star Trek movie, and a tendacy to leave no action unexplained. What is wrong with the latter, you may ask. The simple fact is that the books by Frank Herbert required you to think. The prequel does not. This is akin to why _The Great Gatsby_ is considered such a great work. Many characters are portrayed vastly different from what the earlier books demand. Fenring, as a blood-thirsty murderer, rather than a cultured assassin. Paul's grandfather as a doting old man, rather than the steel-hard leader who is implied. Nevermind the Ixians who did not necessarily exist at this time, the Tleilaxu whose faith seems common knowledge, the Harkonnen as evil. The last is simply wrong. The Harkonnen were ruthless, but not evil. Frank Herbert liked shades of grey, no matter what the surface appearence. Why else did he spend the second book tearing Paul down from the pedestal. My whole point is that _Dune: House Atreides_ detracts from the series by Frank Herbert, and its only genuine redeeming point is that it will cause some number of those who read it to pick up the other books in the Dune Chronicals.
I encourage you to read Amazon.com's customer reviews if you're interested in more. Some love the book, bur you see the others who are critical of it for many of the same reasons as myself. Also note that there is both a newsgroup and mailing list where serious discussion is welcome.
------
I wonder if CmdrTaco's seen a koala. That 'roo line sounds like an evasion.
(No, this isn't a first post.. Maybe 3rd or 4th)------
ANon is a good thing Read Aesop you ASS
Oh. I agree with you entirely. After all... If I could post anonymously, I could call you a trolling jackass and get away with it. Hey.. I just did.
------
I post fairly regularly on a couple newsgroups in the alt. hierarchy, with an unmangled email address.
So long as you filter your email by the To: header, you'll get very little spam. Anything that's not specifically to one of my email addresses or an endorsed mailing list is automatically bounced. Only a couple pieces of email make it through this in a month. A couple hundred messages (across a few addresses) bounce. If a -lot- of spam makes it through this, which isn't too likely since spammers rarely use bcc, you could go so far as to only allow posts in if they have keywords.
Filters, though.. If you don't/won't set them up, you deserve what you get.
(Does someone pay off Hotmail to not allow filtering by the To: header? Use Netaddress for your throwaway accounts instead.
------
The fact of the matter is that the work is copyright and redistributing it, even if it was initally broadcast, is illegal.
Not illegal in Canada, and iCraveTV is based out of Ontario.
My favorite part of the article is where it mentions that the NFL was desperate to get it taken off the air before the Super Bowl. (Because after all - People *want* to watch the Super Bowl on a small, low quality picture. Not only that, but if iCrave was still up, non-Canadians would get to see how rather than allowing us to see these multi-million dollar commercials, the local stations replace them with ads from used car dealers, Canadian Tire, Zellers, etc.
I wonder if the heavy publicity of the site on Slashdot contributed much to the temporary shutdown of the site. It seems likely, seeing as the first suits were brought against them the day after it was first mentioned here, after several months of operation.
------
People seem to be forgetting that the thing might actually give really damn good backrubs.
$47k, for a lifetime of wicked backrubs sounds okay to me.. Only problem would be tinking with my Robie Jr. until he could handle the thing on its own.
------
I really don't like either this article or the previous one. I think that Jon is doing nothing more than writing paragraphs of drivel whining about being flamed by some AC. I know I can't wait to see part three. (I wonder what percentage of the people who see this comment actually read Jon's article in its entirety.)
Yes, I can filter him out, and no, I don't want to. The comments on his articles are usually a good read. Barring, of course, the 200 comment religious flamewar on his last -real- article. (Re: God hates fags, or does he?)
In part one, he took issue with some anonymous person asking him to "Please Die". Well, I'm not anonymous, and this may only be my opinion, but Jon... If this is the best you can do, -please- go away, find a corner, and curl up in it. If you choose to die at this time, press 1. If you choose to live, press 2. You must be using a true touch tone phone. Thank you for calling the talking yellow pages.
(Posted with my +1 for the hell of it.)
------
Linus does mention it in passing, but since people seem so obsessed over it, the Transmeta website has been updated to say that the real content will go live at noon (pacific) today.
Maybe some of you care? I don't think it's that offtopic.
------
On both linux and windows, both arrow-key and mousewheel scrolling work fine.
All you need to do is click on the frame/window you want to scroll to give it focus. You may or may not be able to use tab to get focus. I'm not sure.
------
Read _The White Plague_, by Frank Herbert.
Of the books you listed, I've only read Cobra Event... Herbert's book is far, FAR superior while dealing with a nearly identical concept. In his, though, the bioterrorist succeeds and the majority of the book deals with the aftermath in a very believable manner.
--
It's a trap!
X-Files enthusiasts, it is here we must make our united stand against diabolic government tricks.
------
I think that a better way to resolve domain name disputes would be an online voting booth with the bandwidth of kernel.org.
We could even have a new slashdot section called 'Domain Jihad', where every article would be about some domain, somewhere that needs our help.
(Did I mention that the online voting booth wouldn't require cookies?)
------
That sentence, written by yours truly, doesn't stand very well on its own, although alone is exactly how I left it in the original post. Including yours, three replies have been directed at it. It is simply a weak statement when given with nothing to back it up. Nothing here will do so either, because although I typed those words, they do not accurately express what I intended to say. My apologies.
The following is directed more at Midnight Coder's reply than Wah's. I did not mean to imply that you can not continue learning the whole while as you program. It was more that the dedication and specialization that some give it is not necessarily a good thing. Both RMS and ESR are interviewed due to their philosophies more than their coding works. This gives them balance. They still do code, but the interest is focused elsewhere. Other people play musical instruments, or dance with trees in the forest. (link for latter)
It is when the other interests include philosophy and a desire to have one's voice heard (coinciding with others' desire to hear it) that the 'intellectual elite' are decided. This does exclude all those who are very intelligent but not into politics, but who said life was fair? It is just the way it works. Though the word of focus' definition is much broader, it is used more commonly to point at, and sometimes pidgeonhole, those who debate about one's set of beliefs with regards to how the world should work.
I think that Bruce Perens' Technocrat.net would be worth pointing to as a site that attempts to give rise to an internet-based intelligentsia. Whether it will succeed or not is anyone's call.
------
You seem to have missed the point of my name dropping. It was to provide an example of the intelligentsia, not to promote some half-assed Voltaire as 'Man of the Millennium' movement.
Steven Hawking, Einstein, Leonardo daVinci, whoever else. I don't argue that their celebrity status is from anything but their accomplishments. Again, your beef is not with me. Jeff Bezos... Someone else could've, should've, but didn't. He did. Is he a genius? It doesn't matter. He is/was successful.
As to the portrait of J. Random Hacker, why do you bring it up? If anything, it confirms the fact that no small number of computer hackers would detest the politics and philosphy that is prerequisite to being considered a member of the intelligentsia. (Someone else mentioned it, and it is true - A major in Medieval Studies or Chemistry is less likely to be heavily involved in philosophy than some sort of Liberal Arts or Political Science graduate.)
You're a software engineer. Fine. Once you're no longer working, do you continue to 'work'? Or, more likely, do you take some time to relax? By reading a book perhaps, maybe going swimming/hiking/whatever, or possibly spending some time with family. Reading Slashdot compulsively, posting often and early, maybe.
You don't reply to others' posts with arguments very often. Is there further argument with me, or were you simply seizing on an opportunity to state your opinion on the omnipresent lists of "Greatest (noun) of the (period of time)"?
------
Guess I should preview...
The last sentence should read:
I'll finish by mentioning that Voltaire was probably the greatest (known) mind of the previous millennium and I doubt that you could find a better example than he of the intelligentsia. If you can, please put the name forward.
------
Intelligentsia...
I don't really consider computer hackers as the intelligentsia, and I don't know that many would. That is not to say that a fair number would be out of place among them, but lumping the whole group together like that can only get you in trouble. (This hobbit guy, say)
Remembering that software developers really are overglorified engineers (unpopular opinion around here, no doubt), we must notice that the definition of intelligentsia actually makes reference to its members being well educated. A provost at some university is without doubt a member of the intelligentsia, while the people who authored say, ICQ, are not. Again, they may be very intelligent people or they may not. I really don't know. However, a member of the intellectual elite would generally not spend their free time writing software. They would spend every last minute of it learning newer things.
Programming is a new thing. It's fairly handy to learn. Looking at it as anything more than a tool though, is IMNSHO foolish.
As I find myself too short of time to write a long diatribe on this, I'll finish by mentioning that Voltaire was probably the greatest (known) mind of the millennium, and that I doubt you could find a better example than he of the intelligentsia, please put the name forward.
------
Apologies in advance for the length of this post, but then.. If you have an account, you can set up a max comment length of only a couple kilobytes and you won't see more than the first few paragraphs without clicking "See the rest of this comment" or something similar. Without any further ado, here's the full document.
----------------------
Why are you printing this page? Wasting paper isn't Viridian!
This document is located at:
http://www.bespoke.org/viridian/index.asp?t=140
Viridian Note 124 : The Manifesto of January 3, 2000
Bruce Sterling
bruces@well.com
http://www.well.com/conf/mirrorshades/
IDEOLOGICAL FREEWARE: DISTRIBUTE AT WILL
The Manifesto of January 3, 2000
In 1914, the lamps went out all over Europe.
Life during the rest of the twentieth century was
like crouching under a rock.
But human life is not required to be like the
twentieth century. That wasnt fate, it was merely
a historical circumstance. In this new Belle Epoque,
this delightful era, we are experiencing a prolonged break
in the last centurys even tenor of mayhem. The time has
come to step out of those shadows into a different
cultural reality.
We need a sense of revived possibility, of genuine
creative potential, of unfeigned joie de vivre. We have a
new economy, but we have no new intelligentsia. We have
massive flows of information and capital, but we have a
grave scarcity of meaning. We know what we can buy, but
we dont know what we want.
The twentieth century featured any number of -isms.
They were fatally based on the delusion that philosophy
trumps engineering. It doesnt. In a world fully
competent to command its material basis, ideology is
inherently flimsy. "Technology" in its broad sense:
the ability to transform resources, the speed at which new
possibilities can be opened and exploited, the multiple
and various forms of command-and-control -- technology,
not ideology, is the twentieth centurys lasting legacy.
Technology broke the gridlock of the five-decade Cold War.
It made a new era thinkable. And, finally, technology
made a new era obvious.
But too many twentieth-century technologies
are very like twentieth-century ideologies: rigid,
monolithic, poisonous and non-sustainable.
We need clean, supple, healthy means of support for
a crowded world. We need recyclable technologies,
industries that dont take themselves with that
Stalinesque seriousness that demands the brutal sacrifice
of millions. In order to make flimsy, supple technologies
thinkable, and then achievable, then finally obvious, we
need an ideology that embraces its own obsolescence.
The immediate future wont be a period suitable for
building monuments, establishing thousand-year regimes,
creating new-model citizens, or asserting leaden
certainties about anything whatsoever. The immediate
future is about picking and choosing among previously
unforeseen technical potentials.
Our time calls for intelligent fads. Our time calls
for a self-aware, highly temporary array of broad social
experiments, whose effects are localized, non-lethal and
reversible -- yet transparent, and visible to all parties
who might be persuaded to look.
The Internet is the natural test-bed for this
fast-moving, fast-vanishing, start-up society. Because
the native technology of the coming years is not the 19th
century "machine" or the 20th century "product." It is
the 21st century "gizmo."
A gizmo is a device with so many features and so
many promises that it can never be mastered within its
own useful lifetime. A gizmo is flimsy, cheap, colorful,
friendly, intriguing, easily disposable, and unlikely to
harm the user. The gizmos purpose is not to
efficiently perform some function or effectively provide
some service. A gizmo exists to snag the users
attention, and to engage the user in a vast
unfolding nexus of interlinked experience.
The gizmo in its manifold aspects is the beau ideal
for contemporary design and engineering. Because that is
what our culture will be like, at its heart, in its bones,
in its organs. A gizmo culture. We will go in so many
directions at once that most of them will never see
fulfillment. And then they will be gone.
This is confusing and seems lacking in moral
seriousness -- but only only by the rigid standards of
the past century, bitterly obsessed with ultimate
efficiencies and malignant final solutions. We need
opportunities now, not efficiencies. We need inspired
improvisation, not solutions. Technology can no longer
bind us in a vast tonnage of iron, barbed wire and brick.
We will stop heaving balky machines uphill. Instead, we
begin judging entire techno-complexes as they virtually
unfold, judging them by standards that are, in some very
basic sense, aesthetic.
Henceforth, it is humans and human flesh that lasts
out the years, not the mechanical infrastructure. Our
bodies outlast our machines, and our bodies outlast our
beliefs. People will outlive this "revolution" -- if
spared an apocalypse, human individuals will outlive every
"technology" that we are capable of deploying. Waves of
techno-change will come faster and faster, and with less
and less permanent consequence. Waves will be arriving
with the somnolent regularity of Waikiki breakers. This
"revolution" does not replace one social order with
another. It replaces social order with an array of further
possible transformations.
Since gizmos are easily outmoded and inherently
impermanent, their most graceful form is as disposable
consumer technology. We should embrace those gizmos that
are pleasing, abject, humble, and closest to the human
body. We should spurn those that are remote, difficult,
threatening, poisonous and brittle.
Most of all, we must never, ever again feel awestruck
wonder about any manufactured device. They dont last,
and are not worthy of that form of respect.
We must engage with technology in a new way, from a
fresh perspective. The arts traditionally hold this
critical position. The arts are in a position today to
inspire a burst of cultural vitality across the board.
The times are very propitious for the arts. Theres a
profound restlessness, theres money loose, there are new
means of display and communication, and the nouveau riche
have nothing to wear and nothing that suits their walls.
Its a golden opportunity for techno-dandyism.
Artists, dont be afraid of commercialization. The
sovereign remedy for commercialization is not for artists
to hide from commerce. That cant be done any more, and
in any case, hiding never wins and strong artists dont
live in fear.
Instead, we have a new remedy available. The
aggressive counter-action to commodity totalitarianism is
to give things away. Not other peoples property -- that
would be, sad to say, "piracy" -- but the products of your
own imagination, your own creative effort.
This is the time to be thoughtful, be expressive, be
generous. Be "taken advantage of." The channels exist
now to give creativity away, at no cost, to millions.
Never mind if you make large sums of money along the way.
If you successfully seize attention, nothing is more
likely. In a start-up society, huge sums can fall on
innocent parties, almost by accident. That cannnot be
helped, so dont worry about it any more. Henceforth,
artistic integrity should be judged, not by ones classic
bohemian seclusion from satanic mills and the grasping
bourgeoisie, but by what one creates and gives away.
That is the only scale of noncommercial integrity that
makes any sense now.
Freedom has to be won, and, more importantly, the
consequences of freedom have to be lived. You do not win
freedom of information by filching data from a corporate
warehouse, or begging the authorities to kindly abandon
their monopolies, copyrights and patents. You have to
create that freedom by a deliberate act of will, think it
up, assemble it, sacrifice for it, make it free to others
who have a similar will to live that freedom.
Ivory towers are no longer in order. We need ivory
networks. Today, sitting quietly and thinking is the
worlds greatest generator of wealth and prosperity.
Moguls spend their lives sitting in chairs, staring into
screens, and occasionally clicking a mouse. Though we
didnt expect it, were all on the same net. We no longer
need feudal shelters to protect us from the swords and
torches of barbarian ignorance. So show them words and
images: make it obvious, let them look. If theyre
interested, fine; if not, go pick another website.
The structure of human intellectual achievement
should be reformatted, so that any human being with a
sincere interest can learn as much as possible, as rapidly
as their abilities allow. The Internet is the greatest
accomplishment of the twentieth centurys scientific
community, and the Internet has made a new intelligentsia
possible.
Like the scientific method, the Internet is a
genuine, workable, verifiable means of intellectual
liberation. Dont worry if its not universal. Awareness
cant be doled out like soup, or sold like soap.
Intellectual vitality is an inherently internal, self-
actualizing process. The net must make this possible
for people, not by blasting flags and gospel at the
masses, but by opening doors for individual minds, who
will then pursue their own interests.
This can be made to happen. It is quite near to us
now, the trends favor it. The consequences of genuine
intellectual freedom are literally and rightfully
unimaginable. But the unimaginable is the right thing to
do. The unimaginable is far better than perfection,
because perfection can never be achieved, and it would
kill us if it were. Whereas the "unimaginable" is, at
its root, merely a healthy measure of our own limitations.
Human beings are imperfect and imperfectable, and
their networks even more so. We should probably be happy
for the noise and disruption in the channel, since so much
of what we think we know, and love to teach, are mistakes
and lies. But nevertheless, we can achieve progress
here. We can remove some modicum of the fatal, choking
constraints that throughout centuries have bent people
double.
A human mind in pursuit of self-actualization should
be allowed to go as far and as fast as our means allow.
There is nothing utopian about this program; because
there no timeless justice or perfect stability to be found
in this vision. This practice will not lead us toward
any dream, any City on a Hill, any phony form of static
bliss. On the contrary, it will lead us into closer and
closer, into more and more immediate contact, with the
issues that really bedevil us.
Before many more decades pass, the human race will
begin to obtain what it really wants. Then we will find
ourselves confronted, in our bedrooms, streets, and
breakfast tables, with real-world avatars of those
Faustian visions of power and ability that have previously
existed only in myth. Our aspirations will become
consequences. Thats when our *real* trouble starts.
However, that is not a contemporary problem. The
problems we face today are not those somber, long-term
problems. On the contrary, we very clearly exist in a
highly fortunate time with very minor problems.
The so-called human condition wont survive the
next hundred years. That fate is written on the forehead
of the 21st century in letters of fire. That fate can be
wisely shaped, or somewhat postponed, or brutally
annihilated, but it cannot be denied. It is coming
because we want it. Its not an alien imposition; it is
borne from the inchoate depths of our own desires.
But were not beyond the limits of humanity, suffering
that, exulting in that. Were just going there, visibly
moving closer to it. Once we get there, well find no
rest there. The appetite of divine discontent always
grows by the feeding.
This dire knowledge makes todays scene seem quite
playful and delightful by faux-retrospect. Our worst
problems, which may seem so large, diffuse, and morbid,
are mere teenage angst compared to the conundrums were
busily preparing for some other generation.
Sober assessment of the contemporary scene makes it
crystal-clear that a carnival atmosphere is in order. We
exist in a highly disposable civilization that is hell-
bent on outmoding itself. The pace of change is melting
former physical restraints into a maelstrom of
reformattable virtualities. Thats here, its real,
it is truly our situation. We should live as
if we know this is true. This is where our own sincerity
and authenticity are to be found: in the strong
conviction that the contemporary is temporary.
We need to live in these conditions in good faith.
We need to re-imagine life and make the new implications
clear. Its a murky situation, but we must not flinch
from it; we must drench all of it in light. Because this
is our home. We have no other. Our children live here.
The mushroom clouds of the twentieth century have parted.
We find ourselves on a beach, with wave after frothy
wave of transformation. We have means, motive, and
opportunity. Spread the light.
Henceforth, it will make more and more sense to
base our deepest convictions around a hands-on
confrontation with the consequences of technology.
Thats where the action is. On January 3, 2000, thats
what its about. The deepest resources of human
creativity have a vital role there. Its where
inspiration is most needed, its the place to make a
difference. Come out. Stand up. Shine.
Turn the lamps on all over the world.
The Viridian Archive is hosted by bespoke.org
------