Leave the hatch alone; no good can come from it. Either we make Grissom out for a liar, or it turns out that every Mercury astronaut was in far greater danger than previously believed. While I'm not a supporter of "ignorance is bliss", I do believe in "let sleeping dogs lie". Recovering it to find out if Grissom lied is right up there with watching "Real Stories of the Highway Patrol" to get the local gossip...:)
Yeah, maybe you could explore one or two stories in a little more depth, or perhaps cover a few stories that didn't quite make it to/. itself. Right now, it's basically just covering ground that most/.ers have already read.
Wired homes watch an average of 13% less TV -- about one hour daily -- than others...
The article further states:
Gary Gabelhouse of Fairfield Research sees an information-hungry consumer evolving. The Lincoln, Neb., firm found TV viewing down from 4 1/2 hours daily in 1995 to about two hours in a June survey of 1,000 U.S. adults.
Two hours, while not the same as 70 minutes, is closer than 7.7 minutes, which fits the statement Additionally, from a purely grammatical viewpoint, the first comment would normally be interpreted as being equivalent to "Wired homes watch an average of about one hour daily, or 13% less TV, than others..." Admittedly, none of this is as clear as it could be.
Can anyone dig up the AOL/Nielsen study itself? That would eliminate any and all ambiguity.
If the household watches 13% less, that doesn't mean they're watching 13% as much TV: they're watching 87% as much TV. IOW, the average family supposedly watches ~70 minutes a day, which actually strikes me as a little low.
Not yet, they aren't. There's still the matter of providing e-mail and news (>95% of Internet users probably would not know how to do this on their own). Support (yes, handholding) is important too.
That being said, the role of the ISP could in fact change pretty drastically. Companies could provide combined e-mail/support services, with different levels of service: For example, I don't need much tech support, but I would want a DNS entry. My mother needs the tech support, and a DNS entry does her no good.
ISP's aren't anachronistic, but broadband could morph them into an entirely new kind of entity.
A lot of the comments in this forum seem to reflect a fundamental misunderstanding about open access, similar to that of open source: the Open Net Coalition wants free access to the cable network as in free speech, not free beer. That is, they would be willing to pay the same rates for access to the network as, say, @Home. This is very similar to the phone companies, who must charge the same rates to their own ISP arm as to any other ISP. If they do this, then they get nearly the same ROI, and thus the incentive to invest is still there.
AT&T basically just wants to maintain complete control. No wonder they have the Death Star for their logo...:)
I don't know about a "grudge" against Katz, and I don't speak for everyone, but this is why I have problems with his writing:
Essentially, he is a technological "me-tooer". That is, while I'm all for non-technical people getting involved in geekspace -- everyone started out somewhere -- I am not for such individuals choosing to remain non-technical, and just morphing their "wow! lookee! tech!" attitude into a self-righteous, "This is the way it should be because this is the way I want it to be" philosophy.
As for having your opinions read by other people: Anybody with some communication skills (and that doesn't necessarily mean good grammar, as evidenced by many/. posts, including mine:) ) and a reasonably well-thought-out opinion can find an audience on the Net. If you feel strongly about something, write it up. Send it to/., post it to your own website and submit the link to search engines, etc. That's what the Net definitely does do: make free speech a reality for everyone.
I strongly support Katz' right to vocalize his opinions, and I appreciate the fact that many of the features he posts generate discussion, because that's what democracy should be all about. I just don't usually agree with him -- and that's also what democracy is about.
Everyone is out to get me. Good things in life are just cover-ups for bad things. Good things that do happen are rare, and only happen to other people.
So keep worrying and lock yourself in your nice, safe backyard bomb shelter.
I'm not saying that the Net won't change the world -- it already has in many ways, and it will continue to do so. And I'm all for it remaining socioethically distinct from most of our society. But one of the basic tenets of the Net always has been, and always should be, freedom. Not unmitigated freedom (spam and malicious cracking are great examples of unmitigated freedom gone bad), but freedom to explore and try new things that don't harm your neighbor. This includes running a company in such a way as you believe will make a profit.
Capitalism has progressed to the point where heavy-handed treatment of customers or completely despicable business ethics are (eventually) borne out. Microsoft, Nike, and numerous manufacturing concerns are all examples of this. But widening your business model so that you become a "one-stop shop" instead of a specialized destination doesn't violate anybody else's freedom or any ethical principle that I can think of.
Now if Amazon were selling user information to widen their business model, or erasing user comments that reflected unfavorably upon them, then that would be a problem. Then we could vote with our feet in the latter case, or pursue other avenues for redress in the former. Personally, I use Amazon when they have the lowest price on what I'm looking for (usually books or DVD's), just as I comparison shop for other hardware. The fact that they sell toys doesn't change that -- in fact, it's just one more alternative to consider when I want to buy my little sister a present.
If a sufficiently large number of people really dislike this current model of super-mall e-commerce, then eventually that desire will be reflected. That's how the Net will change business and much of the world as we know it: it's much easier to start to compete with the big boys (ref: Linux). I personally prefer small local shops or specialized websites (well-designed!) myself, but I'm not going to do so at large additional expense. That's what the new capitalism should be about.
Really, I think we're mostly on the same page. I just think some individuals (and Katz is one of those) take their own personal preferences too far, claiming that anyone who has different preferences or wants to do something in a way that they don't approve of is a "sell-out" or some other denigrating name. Slashdot starting to sell preferential editorial treatment would be a sell-out. A store (online or otherwise) expanding its offerings is not.
This article was nothing more than a collection of paranoiac statements by either (a) dyed-in-the-wool conspiracy theorists or (b) those who stand to gain politically from the vilification of current power holders -- in this case, Republican congressmen (and you can bet the Dems would do the same thing if the seats were reversed).
Community breakdown? If we have it, it will be a short-lived panic by the militantly ignorant. If you're that worried about it, take a two-week cruise over 1/1/2000 or go sit on a beach somewhere. By the time you get back, life will be normal -- and there won't be a bunch of troops marching through the streets.
Evidently, if it's not "new media" and "trendy digital lifestyle", then it's a "sell-out" and "tacky". Frankly, this general anti-capitalist attitude and "old = bad" is driving me crazy. Bezos is not beholden to anyone except his shareholders and customers. Amazon is not a religious movement, nor a non-profit organization. Let's face it, Amazon is there to make money. Like most successful businesses, they realize that the best way to do that is to make customers feel good about the entire experience, from service to aesthetics to pricing.
Katz' articles regularly annoy and frustrate me, since he tends to espouse the outlook of "the Net will change the world completely, and it should follow my ethical outlook". It's a tool, not a religion.
Sure, they're unified now -- making life that much easier for those of us who don't usually buy prebuilt Linux computers. But will the database "live"? That is, will they be aggressive in keeping the database as current as possible?
Be mindful of the future, but not at the expense of the present. Yeah, it'll make life easier in the present -- not having to search several places -- but let's see what the future holds.
Then again, it can't possibly cause any more fragmentation than we already have.
I'm not sure that the stated goal of 'destroying Microsoft' is a good thing. I'm not defending MS at all; my point is that the goal of Linux users (including myself) should be to provide an alternative to Windows, not to replace it.
Let's be realistic here: Microsoft isn't going out of business anytime soon. Trying to destroy it completely is as futile as those two peasants who died in their revolution. But provide an alternative, and now you have something. After all, the problem with Microsoft is not that it exists, but that it doesn't have any real competition to increase value, whether that be in price competition or feature competition.
The author made one caveat that cast the rest of the article into serious doubt: that he had never tried installing Windows on a blank PC.
I have (as have many/.ers, I suspect). This weekend, I installed Win2Kbeta3 (yes, I know a beta is not the same, but bear with me). It took a LOT longer to install from a basic DOS prompt (mostly due to it's need to copy files that took FOREVER). Additionally, one must factor in the time to install all the applications -- most distros do this FOR you. Yes, the process was fairly smooth -- but then, installing RH (5.1, 5.2, and 6.0) on the SAME system was just as smooth -- it auto-detected nearly everything. I basically had to choose the video mode I wanted, and Win2K doesn't let you do that until it's installed and you go change it. I recall Win95/98/NT4 doing the same thing.
My point is that by now, I'd rate the two installation processes very similar, with perhaps a slight edge to Linux because for standard desktop or even low-end server usage, most everything (apps, server daemons) is installed from the get-go. Some server stuff requires tweaking (as expected), but for the desktop side (the author's focus), I can have StarOffice, Netscape, e-mail, networking, and most anything else running in less than half an hour from the start. Can't say the same for any version of Windows.
This is true, since in reality, the country itself should be called "Nippon". I don't remember the whole story, but that is also the explanation behind the name "NEC" ("Nippon Electronics Corporation"). "Japan" is just an Americanization, "Nippon" is the correct name.
This is right down the alley with those "facts" about how the average human uses 5-10% of the capability of his brain. Where does that measurement come from? How do we know the "theoretical limit" on human brain capability?
Technically, "censorship" is defined as "government restriction of information dissemination". It's not really censorship if CmdrTaco, hemos, or any of the rest decide what to put on their own site, since it's their site. But if they were the webmasters for, say, the Supreme Court, and decided that the evidence for their decision regarding Carlin's Seven Dirty Words didn't belong on the website, that would be. (It would also probably be illegal, but that's another story...)
BTW, I wonder if that decision would be have to be filtered out?
Heinlein must be rolling over in his grave right now. The whole concept of democracy is founded on the notion that no one is capable or qualified to decide what others should think. And yes, controlling what information is freely disseminated leads to the same thing.
As independent-thinking adults (whoops! danger! danger!), we see the inherent danger in such a situation. From here, it's just another generation to Nehemiah Scudder. But the average Joe for some reason thinks, "Hey, yeah, I don't want my kids reading that stuff!" And that's fine. But Joe doesn't realize that "that stuff" can include quite a bit. It's just like religion and morals: There are many religious-minded people who want their kids to learn those thing, but not in school. That is the responsibility of the family. And once kids reach adulthood, it's completely their decision.
The most ironic portion of all this is the inconsistency with the information the government already has available. And I'm not just talking about the Starr Report -- what about the Library of Congress? Anyone who cares enough to take the time can easily figure out how to build, say, a nuclear weapon through materials available there. And no one objects to that. Why? Because it takes effort for someone to find it, so there's less danger. Now if someone wants access to information, it's easily accessible. And that should never be allowed in a free society.
At the rate this is going, Cuba will be freer than the US in a few years.
Slashdot Mirror
Babelfish is cool and everything, but I am getting really tired of having to do this...
Yeah, but the AirCards themselves won't work in a PC notebook -- they can just interchange data with any IEEE 802.11 compliant card in an x86.
Leave the hatch alone; no good can come from it. Either we make Grissom out for a liar, or it turns out that every Mercury astronaut was in far greater danger than previously believed. While I'm not a supporter of "ignorance is bliss", I do believe in "let sleeping dogs lie". Recovering it to find out if Grissom lied is right up there with watching "Real Stories of the Highway Patrol" to get the local gossip... :)
Yeah, maybe you could explore one or two stories in a little more depth, or perhaps cover a few stories that didn't quite make it to /. itself. Right now, it's basically just covering ground that most /.ers have already read.
The article further states:
Two hours, while not the same as 70 minutes, is closer than 7.7 minutes, which fits the statement Additionally, from a purely grammatical viewpoint, the first comment would normally be interpreted as being equivalent to "Wired homes watch an average of about one hour daily, or 13% less TV, than others..." Admittedly, none of this is as clear as it could be.
Can anyone dig up the AOL/Nielsen study itself? That would eliminate any and all ambiguity.
If the household watches 13% less, that doesn't mean they're watching 13% as much TV: they're watching 87% as much TV. IOW, the average family supposedly watches ~70 minutes a day, which actually strikes me as a little low.
Not yet, they aren't. There's still the matter of providing e-mail and news (>95% of Internet users probably would not know how to do this on their own). Support (yes, handholding) is important too.
That being said, the role of the ISP could in fact change pretty drastically. Companies could provide combined e-mail/support services, with different levels of service: For example, I don't need much tech support, but I would want a DNS entry. My mother needs the tech support, and a DNS entry does her no good.
ISP's aren't anachronistic, but broadband could morph them into an entirely new kind of entity.
A lot of the comments in this forum seem to reflect a fundamental misunderstanding about open access, similar to that of open source: the Open Net Coalition wants free access to the cable network as in free speech, not free beer. That is, they would be willing to pay the same rates for access to the network as, say, @Home. This is very similar to the phone companies, who must charge the same rates to their own ISP arm as to any other ISP. If they do this, then they get nearly the same ROI, and thus the incentive to invest is still there.
:)
AT&T basically just wants to maintain complete control. No wonder they have the Death Star for their logo...
Try eBay (if they're up... :) ) and search on "palm iii"... It's possible they have a category for PDA's, but I haven't checked lately.
I don't know about a "grudge" against Katz, and I don't speak for everyone, but this is why I have problems with his writing:
/. posts, including mine :) ) and a reasonably well-thought-out opinion can find an audience on the Net. If you feel strongly about something, write it up. Send it to /., post it to your own website and submit the link to search engines, etc. That's what the Net definitely does do: make free speech a reality for everyone.
Essentially, he is a technological "me-tooer". That is, while I'm all for non-technical people getting involved in geekspace -- everyone started out somewhere -- I am not for such individuals choosing to remain non-technical, and just morphing their "wow! lookee! tech!" attitude into a self-righteous, "This is the way it should be because this is the way I want it to be" philosophy.
As for having your opinions read by other people: Anybody with some communication skills (and that doesn't necessarily mean good grammar, as evidenced by many
I strongly support Katz' right to vocalize his opinions, and I appreciate the fact that many of the features he posts generate discussion, because that's what democracy should be all about. I just don't usually agree with him -- and that's also what democracy is about.
That, and his use of "phenomena" as a singular noun...
Now you repeat this:
Everyone is out to get me.
Good things in life are just cover-ups for bad things.
Good things that do happen are rare, and only happen to other people.
So keep worrying and lock yourself in your nice, safe backyard bomb shelter.
I'm not saying that the Net won't change the world -- it already has in many ways, and it will continue to do so. And I'm all for it remaining socioethically distinct from most of our society. But one of the basic tenets of the Net always has been, and always should be, freedom. Not unmitigated freedom (spam and malicious cracking are great examples of unmitigated freedom gone bad), but freedom to explore and try new things that don't harm your neighbor. This includes running a company in such a way as you believe will make a profit.
Capitalism has progressed to the point where heavy-handed treatment of customers or completely despicable business ethics are (eventually) borne out. Microsoft, Nike, and numerous manufacturing concerns are all examples of this. But widening your business model so that you become a "one-stop shop" instead of a specialized destination doesn't violate anybody else's freedom or any ethical principle that I can think of.
Now if Amazon were selling user information to widen their business model, or erasing user comments that reflected unfavorably upon them, then that would be a problem. Then we could vote with our feet in the latter case, or pursue other avenues for redress in the former. Personally, I use Amazon when they have the lowest price on what I'm looking for (usually books or DVD's), just as I comparison shop for other hardware. The fact that they sell toys doesn't change that -- in fact, it's just one more alternative to consider when I want to buy my little sister a present.
If a sufficiently large number of people really dislike this current model of super-mall e-commerce, then eventually that desire will be reflected. That's how the Net will change business and much of the world as we know it: it's much easier to start to compete with the big boys (ref: Linux). I personally prefer small local shops or specialized websites (well-designed!) myself, but I'm not going to do so at large additional expense. That's what the new capitalism should be about.
Really, I think we're mostly on the same page. I just think some individuals (and Katz is one of those) take their own personal preferences too far, claiming that anyone who has different preferences or wants to do something in a way that they don't approve of is a "sell-out" or some other denigrating name. Slashdot starting to sell preferential editorial treatment would be a sell-out. A store (online or otherwise) expanding its offerings is not.
This article was nothing more than a collection of paranoiac statements by either (a) dyed-in-the-wool conspiracy theorists or (b) those who stand to gain politically from the vilification of current power holders -- in this case, Republican congressmen (and you can bet the Dems would do the same thing if the seats were reversed).
Community breakdown? If we have it, it will be a short-lived panic by the militantly ignorant. If you're that worried about it, take a two-week cruise over 1/1/2000 or go sit on a beach somewhere. By the time you get back, life will be normal -- and there won't be a bunch of troops marching through the streets.
Evidently, if it's not "new media" and "trendy digital lifestyle", then it's a "sell-out" and "tacky". Frankly, this general anti-capitalist attitude and "old = bad" is driving me crazy. Bezos is not beholden to anyone except his shareholders and customers. Amazon is not a religious movement, nor a non-profit organization. Let's face it, Amazon is there to make money. Like most successful businesses, they realize that the best way to do that is to make customers feel good about the entire experience, from service to aesthetics to pricing.
Katz' articles regularly annoy and frustrate me, since he tends to espouse the outlook of "the Net will change the world completely, and it should follow my ethical outlook". It's a tool, not a religion.
Sure, they're unified now -- making life that much easier for those of us who don't usually buy prebuilt Linux computers. But will the database "live"? That is, will they be aggressive in keeping the database as current as possible?
Be mindful of the future, but not at the expense of the present. Yeah, it'll make life easier in the present -- not having to search several places -- but let's see what the future holds.
Then again, it can't possibly cause any more fragmentation than we already have.
Acutally, Clarke conceived the communications satellite (especially geosynchronous).
I haven't used it personally, but I've heard good things about redir.
Check it out here.
Let's be realistic here: Microsoft isn't going out of business anytime soon. Trying to destroy it completely is as futile as those two peasants who died in their revolution. But provide an alternative, and now you have something. After all, the problem with Microsoft is not that it exists, but that it doesn't have any real competition to increase value, whether that be in price competition or feature competition.
I have (as have many
My point is that by now, I'd rate the two installation processes very similar, with perhaps a slight edge to Linux because for standard desktop or even low-end server usage, most everything (apps, server daemons) is installed from the get-go. Some server stuff requires tweaking (as expected), but for the desktop side (the author's focus), I can have StarOffice, Netscape, e-mail, networking, and most anything else running in less than half an hour from the start. Can't say the same for any version of Windows.
This is true, since in reality, the country itself should be called "Nippon". I don't remember the whole story, but that is also the explanation behind the name "NEC" ("Nippon Electronics Corporation"). "Japan" is just an Americanization, "Nippon" is the correct name.
Actually, asides from the (possible) use of "which", it's correct as stands. It's not two separate statements, but really means
(A == !(!A))
This is right down the alley with those "facts" about how the average human uses 5-10% of the capability of his brain. Where does that measurement come from? How do we know the "theoretical limit" on human brain capability?
BTW, I wonder if that decision would be have to be filtered out?
As independent-thinking adults (whoops! danger! danger!), we see the inherent danger in such a situation. From here, it's just another generation to Nehemiah Scudder. But the average Joe for some reason thinks, "Hey, yeah, I don't want my kids reading that stuff!" And that's fine. But Joe doesn't realize that "that stuff" can include quite a bit. It's just like religion and morals: There are many religious-minded people who want their kids to learn those thing, but not in school. That is the responsibility of the family. And once kids reach adulthood, it's completely their decision.
The most ironic portion of all this is the inconsistency with the information the government already has available. And I'm not just talking about the Starr Report -- what about the Library of Congress? Anyone who cares enough to take the
time can easily figure out how to build, say, a nuclear weapon through materials available there. And no one objects to that. Why? Because it takes effort for someone to find it, so there's less danger. Now if someone wants access to information, it's easily accessible. And that should never be allowed in a free society.
At the rate this is going, Cuba will be freer than the US in a few years.