I worked for a start-up last summer called ElderVision. Our product was, in brief, an online community of seniors accessed through an Internet appliance w/o keyboard or mouse - just touch screen, and a very simplified interface of our own design. Seniors adapted very well to it and were up and on their way to successfully using various web services and email.
Only one problem. Our success was cut short by the fact that venture capitalists didn't seem to think we were a company with a valuable service. Go figure.
If you'd like, I can put you in touch with Jeff Pepper, the man with the vision (no pun). Send email to silicon@compsci.duq.edu. Maybe he can provide you with more information.
The problem with this is that we are giving the evil aliens the blueprints of our species. There is the chance, however unlikely, that they might find a weakness... and exploit it.
We've heard of plenty other ventures from big
corps shouting "we're going to invest in Linux
big time". Nothing usually pans out. At least
nothing that the community can really respect or
enjoy. However, this case could be different.
Consider how Sony reacted to the petition to get
Linux ported to the PSX2. They didn't say, "oh,
we'll that's something we may consider." They
just went ahead and did it after a big show of
support from the crowd. Even if they're not
making "fun" applications (banking software:),
this could be a honest, guine, injection of life
that open source software could greatly benefit
from. The only downside I see is more corporate
involvement. *shrug*
So, um, as a twelve year old, looking at naked women filled you with a white hot burning passion to read a book? Okay. But honestly, when I was twelve, it filled me with a desire to masturbate.
Pfft. Certainly it's exciting, but in your case, you never once thought to ask 'why'? I guess I wasn't as advanced in my sexuality as you were at 12. *chuckle*
While I agree with your conclusion, your argument is completely invalid. When I was a boy, I secretly borrowed my father's gun and went off into a remote area and fired it, cleaned it, and returned it. I did this several different times. I never hurt myself, or anyone else. I never got caught. I didn't become a murdurer. By your logic, that means it is safe for children to handle firearms.
You call fault to my logic and provide a complete irrelevant example to support yourself. What I was trying to show is a case example where exposure to pornography did not cause me to become a degenerate. Logic as follows: young boy sees pornography. Porn does not necessarily degerate someone. Young boy is not a degenerate. Porn did not degerate the boy. Therefore, the statement "porn does not necessarily degerate someone" is logically sound.
The real problem most people have with pornography is that they share your obvious discomfort with the subject matter.
How does choosing not to condone make me uncomfortable. *sigh* No wonder you posted anonymously. You're an idiot!:-)
I was first exposed to the sight of a naked woman when I was 12 years old (though the use of a computer no less! a low-res, 16 color bitmap. heheh). Today, I do not condone pornography, and otherwise, I am 99.9% (+/-.1%) sure that it did not have any harmful effects on me. I remember the experience. Checking my pulse, I would have found it hightened. I was a little excited. The effect triggered more of a desire to be educated than anything else. What our law makers wouldn't believe is... I didn't go rampaging through my highschool with a machine gun. I am not a drug abuser. I am nothing else that society should deam highly unacceptable (aside from being a computer wiz). The only thing it did to me was cause a little spark that made me think that girls weren't so "ewwh, gross" afterall. Since today I am not a viewer of pornography (aside from catching a flick and bearing witness to some actress' silicone sacks), and my life isn't in shambles (it's going quite nicely if you ask me:)... why should it be much different for the rest of the population? Why sink so much money into more useless crap that doesn't really protect anyone especially when it's the parent's responsibility to care for their children. *sigh*
An on-going study would be really useful.
on
Kernel Benchmarks
·
· Score: 3
It would be nice to see updates to the data here as new versions of the kernel are released. For example, some users are not particularly concerned with newer versions of the kernel unless there are significant improvements. Consider this example: you're concerned mostly with performance aspects of the kernel. A new version is released that shows no improvement (or a decrease) in performance. No sense in upgrading immediately (of course, you may be one of those people who actually looks for and reports bugs) and you can wait until you see a downward trend in the graph before taking your time. There are other potential uses for "live" data such as this. I think it'd be nice if these guys would keep maintaining it.:)
I've been running Debian on my server5 for well over a year now. My longest uptime was about 200 days (rebooted because I had to move the box), so it's wonderfully stable. It's benchmarks plaster those of Solaris on the same machine. I've had no trouble supporting hardware.
I have no idea where you get the idea that Linux support for SPARC is failing. It's stronger than ever - especially on Ultra's (just try it on a Sun Blade - you'll be very pleased).
Your problem is that you're sticking with a brand of Linux that's mean for the casual/mainstream/business users. Anyone who is installing Linux on a Sun box is likely to be an enthusiast. You really aughta use the Debian SPARC port. Or hell, even Slackware runs very nicely. The net install of Debian is particularly nice.
Reconsider here, OKay? It's kind of ridiculous that this would even get posted as an Ask/., but hey, it's something that'll fire people up and it raises what somebody appearaly *thinks* is a "controversial issue". It's not.
If Linus really wanted to, he could make himself a bundle off the phenomenon that he triggered in a way. But he chooses not to. You cannot blame the guy for taking a very decent position with Transmeta, for example.
Linus' response itself is an icon of the open source ideology. Mundie's argument was clearly a myopic fabrication, drawing only from Microsoft's own reality. A limited, unsubstantiated view, lacking in a foundation.
Linus does not even try to sound like any of his argument is even his 'own'. No-no, it's simply a continuation of the principles created by former great thinkers.
Linus himself, a giant to us, stands upon many others. His response is genuine in every sense. Its elegance, hopefully, will generate more thought amongst the masses than Microsoft's tiring, confused argument.
and instructions designed to improve internet connect speed to their Pentium 4
The Pentium4 is your modem or NIC now? So bascially, I can just screw DSL and stick with my 28.8 and get faster internet access? Jesus, you're a retard!
AMD's practice of brute force processing is innefficient and wasteful.
Wow, I guess we no longer need faster processors, Beowulf clusters, and distributed computing since you say they're innefficient and wasteful.
It requires more power, and outputs more heat.
Uh no, we're talking about less power and less heat... smaller chips, smaller fabication...
Not only that, but AMD processors don't even have built-in thermal protection, so if their processor gets TOO hot, you'll end up burning out your processor.
Oh yes, it's more efficient to kill off clock cycles waiting for your processor to cool instead of making a chip that produces less heat or to use a... DAH-DUM-DADA... HEATSINK.
At my university, which shall remain anonymous considering the content here, basketball players are treated like gods over the student population. They're trained to be agressive. They've developed these superior attitudes over the rest of the student body. Some of them are responsible for rapes but have been let go with a slap on the wrist by the school (and brag about it). They vandalize university property without punishment. They make violent threats against people they don't like without consequence. They completely neglect their academic work. Their team even sucks, but their 'team' has a history of playing good basketball.
What do they get for this kind of behavior? More and more encouragement from the school. A free ride. Constant recognition for being basketball players. Just two days ago, an alumnis association bought ALL of them DVD players as gifts. The list goes on.
We can see this in almost every school, to varying degrees of intensity. What's the outcome? Violent, immature, stupid people going around doing whatever they want to whoever and whatever they choose entirely without consequence - especially when it comes to taunting. This causes Columbines.
Yes, movie makers produce much more realistic violence, but they do not make killers. Do you think Spielberg should be sued for the realistic violence in Schindler's List? Saving Private Ryan? I think not.
Everyone who participates in entertainment containing violent content knows that it's an illusion. They know it's not real. However, if they choose to act upon this, there were problems there to begin with. Either they have a mental disability in comprehending or they have deep seated emotional problems. One way or the other, the entertainment wasn't the catalyst.
In the face of tragedy, lots of blame is passed around. Often times, people forget their blame and let the matter rest. However, in some cases, people refuse to let go of their blame and try to find some way to profit from it.
This pathetic act shows that the families of the slain teachers are more interested in profiting from the deaths rather than healing. Why? They're reopening old wounds. They're relentlessly milking the situation. They're searching for a scapegoat.
How can these people claim that they're moral in the face of the 'evil game companies' when they're teaching so many young minds involved in the situation that finding ways to profit from tragedy are top priority?
To the families doing the suing:
You fools. Don't you realize that two very, very frustrated and angry young children murdered your loved ones? You should not place blame on innocents for the past deeds of the guilty and now dead. Neither computer games nor goth music are responsible for this. The issue is far more complex. With this ridiculously selfish act, you're showing where some of the real problems in American society truly lie.
Good, we're almost in sync with SimCity 2000...
on
First Arcology?
·
· Score: 2
Since I doubt we'll see these structures for about another 25-40 years, I think that we may just be in sync with SimCity 2000. I remember how much excitement I felt as I approached the year when Arcologies were first available.:-) They had better be sure they build lots of police stations around these massive structures. With such dense population, crime is sure to increase and public opinion will go down, hence reducing the score.
Quick, everybody write their own distributed P2P file sharing client and everybody use everybody elses' to share copyrighted content. Eventually, the RIAA & MPAA will run out of money for their legal fund attacking everyone!
I am guessing that you where still watching the Smurfs in 95 so you are excused for being so ignorant of the facts.
Please. Insults are the recourse of a simplistic mind. Besides, the Smurfs rock so shut your hole.
Anyway this seems to be a trademark case, and those are somewhat scary, as Trademarks are required to be defended, or else they can be lost. That facts should be more clear before accusations are bandied about.
This is my whole point! They took up patents on theming related concepts! Give me a break. These kinds of patents are the bane of OSS and if Apple was willing to take out such nonsense patents, they're clearly out to take and not give. Look at what they did to the FreeType project. How is it that a company that supposedly supports OSS attacks a very important OSS project?
My original point stands and is correct. They don't want acceptance, they just want to attract attention. It's very simple. The problem is they don't want to play fair, which is what Open is all about.
Apple was never trying to get the OSS community's acceptance or approval. They're just a big corporation that is using industry buzzwords to draw attention to themselves. It's cool to say, "we're built on open standards", "we use something that came out of CMU." Apple's not interesting in helping OSS and they never were. It's not surprising that Apple would make an attack at something that utilizes their private technologies. They don't want to be open, they just want to say they're open to help improve their profit margin.
I was quickly becoming an Apple fan when the whole MacOS X thing began. "Yes, Darwin is open source! We're thinking forward. Here, have our source!" It didn't take long to realize that this was all nonsense. Their motivations are the same as any other large corporate entity: they want to have things their way and they are not going to give an inch.
And here they are, stomping their feet and pouting. "We don't want anyone to change our interface! It's our interface, leave it alone! *pouting* Oh, and themes were our idea!" Is it any surprise?
The only thing that disappoints me about this article is the myopia inherent in it. Mr. Campbell only attended this 2600 meeting, and no others. This kind of skews his viewpoint and he's being too harsh by only looking at a tiny subset of the 'hacker' population.
I've been to dozens of 2600 meetings, with varying degrees of appreciation for them. The first meeting I went to (over in Monroeville, PA) was decent. We mostly sat around and ate, trading stories, interesting tidbits, etc. I had a great time and acquired a lot of new material. Interestingly enough, there wasn't a single computer there. This was about 4 years ago. The next meeting I went to was a disaster. Yes, it was just like that described by the author here and I left almost immediately. I quickly figured out what type of people were there. After that, they've been better - no continuous decline in quality or people. It depends on when and where you're attending the meetings. Every region has different people with different goals and I think Mr. Campbell has to realize this.
I think we've seen geek subculture come out of the ethers and into the light because of our goals as geeks. What is that we do? We come up with new ideas that lead to new/better technologies. I think that's pretty much a given. I mean, look at this thing sitting on our desks.
This direction surely leads to the way of commercialism. It cannot be helped and it's even necessary for any of these ideas the geek cults to be noticed and utilized. What good is an idea if it gets buried and never to be seen again? Geeks don't want their time to be wasted, so they turn to corporations with their thoughts so they can become mainstream.
Assimilation into mainstream culture was only a matter of time.
However, another school of thought is that it hasn't really gotten too out of hand. Most of my peers (I go to a rather ungeeky college - nothing like CMU or MIT) don't really understand me. In my OS class, I was working with a couple people who were just baffled by my personality. "So what, you don't mind being called a geek?" "No, it's a compliment to me. Geeks are some of the more intelligent members of society. It's about thinking outside the box. Taking a self-realized perspective on the world." *strange look*
Now, this campus happens to have a very homogenous population. You're most likely a trendy character with American Eagle clothes on, so there's not a lot of diversity or tolerance here. Even though this is a small cross section, I've seen these attitudes everywhere.
So basically, my argument follows that the distance geek subculture has gone into mainstream is minimal, but has still produced some useful results. Also, do not forget that we still have a lot of space between our normal and Society's Normal.
Yes, governments (militaries) have always sought out science as the provider of more lethal weapons and more efficient ways of killing people.
But what is this exactly? Fuel cell technology is a revolutionary concept that can change the world for the better in so many ways. It's incredibly frustrating to see it most eagerly developed for use in powering means to more accurrately destroy stuff.
Can't anything be done by people who believe in promoting peace and improving the human condition against this kind of crap? Is there any way to hinder the "science of war?"
It seems to me that USB is the type of protocol that was originally intended to NOT be a high-bandwidth solution. It was not originally intended for heavy lifting - mostly just for small peripherals like scanners, mice, PDA cradles, etc. Now FireWire on the otherhand, is a means for handling the heavy lifting. External hard drives, digital video, etc. I think they're two different tools for two completely different jobs.
This brings into question the USB 2.0 standard. The goal is to create a higher bandwidth connection - but from the specs I've seen, it's not going to be as fast as FireWire (unless this has changed). Why bother? Why not mature the existing standard (USB devices still have tons of bugs - a lot of them aren't at the driver level) and expanding the functionality rather than drop it and move to something else when we already have a solution for heavier work?
Perhaps this is Microsoft's motivation behind not supporting it initially. I know that I'd like to see more support for FireWire rather than a souped up USB 2.0. FireWire is already and industry standard with applications everywhere. Same with USB 1.0. We have a hammer and a screw driver. Why add another hammer to the kit?
I'm sorry, but this demands a rant. We've seen half a dozen of these kinds of 'news' articles on/. this year alone. Now while I'm all for questioning existing models, I think our posters need to realize this only serves to fire people up. Here's why I think this is just a ridiculous thing to post.
If you're going to ask questions like these, you have to say, "well, is any security really secure?" And the answer to that is of course "no". "You almost certainly don't own a secure computing system with physical access controls, TEMPEST shielding, "air wall" network security, and other protections." DUH! How is this insightful? How does this lead to any meaningful solution to the problem? So what, just stop using encryption? So what, just stop assigning a root password?
This Ask/. implies that it doesn't work at all and that we aughta just stop using it. Why? Because there's no answer - there's no solution. You can't just have everyone shield their PC's from TEMPEST - and of course, exactly how many people are getting scanned in the first place? Not everyone is willing to drop their PC into a vat of concrete with no net connection to keep people from sitting at it to gain access.
So what's my bottom line here? "Is encryption really secure?" Well, as I mentioned, nothing is really secure, so the answer is "no". Of course then again, security works 99% of the time (or a little less), so let's just keep using it and not ask stupid questions like these. They've been thought about before.
You're being treated incredibly unfairly and without the contract, they'd have lost your patronage a long time ago. Since companies deplore a bad image, go farther than informing the/. community. Create a site that explains the history in detail of your situation and post links to it on newsgroups and message boards. Go far as you can, just short of slander.
You might want to check out cr0wbar's rant against Safe Audit when they screwed him over. The more you let people know about this kind of nonsense, the more likely it is said business will think twice about screwing you over.
We've seen this reaction all over the place. Any time people are treated unfairly in any situation, cry out publically about it. This does change things.
This story CLEARLY indicates wrong doing on their part. For example, anyone who has ever dealt with phone companies fixing their service knows that service providers are responsible for fixing problems with their own systems. When I got my second line installed, they had problems with line at a distro station. They didn't charge me to fix the problems there. If they had, I would have raised hell. But they didn't. They're responsible for it. End of story.
Perfectly clear glass is not possible. Photons are at least scattered as they undergo the "gulp-burp" process. Hell, even earth's atmosphere (air) blocks a great deal of light. How do you think we're not bombarded with deadly doses of solar radiation? Also, don't forget the cause of refraction.
Take even the "best" glass (that which distorts and blocks the least amount of light) will appear to be opaque if you make it thick enough. Look at a large pane of glass lenght wise. It may be clear through the thin section, but not down the length.
Therefore, Glass != Dark Matter since glass blocks light and dark matter does not.
Slashdot Mirror
Only one problem. Our success was cut short by the fact that venture capitalists didn't seem to think we were a company with a valuable service. Go figure.
If you want to know more about this, you can check out ElderVision's web site (a minimal version is still online) at http://www.eldervision.net. You can jump straight to our product description here.
If you'd like, I can put you in touch with Jeff Pepper, the man with the vision (no pun). Send email to silicon@compsci.duq.edu. Maybe he can provide you with more information.
The problem with this is that we are giving the evil aliens the blueprints of our species. There is the chance, however unlikely, that they might find a weakness... and exploit it.
We've heard of plenty other ventures from big corps shouting "we're going to invest in Linux big time". Nothing usually pans out. At least nothing that the community can really respect or enjoy. However, this case could be different. Consider how Sony reacted to the petition to get Linux ported to the PSX2. They didn't say, "oh, we'll that's something we may consider." They just went ahead and did it after a big show of support from the crowd. Even if they're not making "fun" applications (banking software :),
this could be a honest, guine, injection of life
that open source software could greatly benefit
from. The only downside I see is more corporate
involvement. *shrug*
Pfft. Certainly it's exciting, but in your case, you never once thought to ask 'why'? I guess I wasn't as advanced in my sexuality as you were at 12. *chuckle*
While I agree with your conclusion, your argument is completely invalid. When I was a boy, I secretly borrowed my father's gun and went off into a remote area and fired it, cleaned it, and returned it. I did this several different times. I never hurt myself, or anyone else. I never got caught. I didn't become a murdurer. By your logic, that means it is safe for children to handle firearms.
You call fault to my logic and provide a complete irrelevant example to support yourself. What I was trying to show is a case example where exposure to pornography did not cause me to become a degenerate. Logic as follows: young boy sees pornography. Porn does not necessarily degerate someone. Young boy is not a degenerate. Porn did not degerate the boy. Therefore, the statement "porn does not necessarily degerate someone" is logically sound.
The real problem most people have with pornography is that they share your obvious discomfort with the subject matter.
How does choosing not to condone make me uncomfortable. *sigh* No wonder you posted anonymously. You're an idiot! :-)
I was first exposed to the sight of a naked woman when I was 12 years old (though the use of a computer no less! a low-res, 16 color bitmap. heheh). Today, I do not condone pornography, and otherwise, I am 99.9% (+/- .1%) sure that it did not have any harmful effects on me. I remember the experience. Checking my pulse, I would have found it hightened. I was a little excited. The effect triggered more of a desire to be educated than anything else. What our law makers wouldn't believe is... I didn't go rampaging through my highschool with a machine gun. I am not a drug abuser. I am nothing else that society should deam highly unacceptable (aside from being a computer wiz). The only thing it did to me was cause a little spark that made me think that girls weren't so "ewwh, gross" afterall. Since today I am not a viewer of pornography (aside from catching a flick and bearing witness to some actress' silicone sacks), and my life isn't in shambles (it's going quite nicely if you ask me :)... why should it be much different for the rest of the population? Why sink so much money into more useless crap that doesn't really protect anyone especially when it's the parent's responsibility to care for their children. *sigh*
It would be nice to see updates to the data here as new versions of the kernel are released. For example, some users are not particularly concerned with newer versions of the kernel unless there are significant improvements. Consider this example: you're concerned mostly with performance aspects of the kernel. A new version is released that shows no improvement (or a decrease) in performance. No sense in upgrading immediately (of course, you may be one of those people who actually looks for and reports bugs) and you can wait until you see a downward trend in the graph before taking your time. There are other potential uses for "live" data such as this. I think it'd be nice if these guys would keep maintaining it. :)
I have no idea where you get the idea that Linux support for SPARC is failing. It's stronger than ever - especially on Ultra's (just try it on a Sun Blade - you'll be very pleased).
Your problem is that you're sticking with a brand of Linux that's mean for the casual/mainstream/business users. Anyone who is installing Linux on a Sun box is likely to be an enthusiast. You really aughta use the Debian SPARC port. Or hell, even Slackware runs very nicely. The net install of Debian is particularly nice.
Reconsider here, OKay? It's kind of ridiculous that this would even get posted as an Ask /., but hey, it's something that'll fire people up and it raises what somebody appearaly *thinks* is a "controversial issue". It's not.
SPARC is the ideal Linux platform.
If Linus really wanted to, he could make himself a bundle off the phenomenon that he triggered in a way. But he chooses not to. You cannot blame the guy for taking a very decent position with Transmeta, for example.
Linus does not even try to sound like any of his argument is even his 'own'. No-no, it's simply a continuation of the principles created by former great thinkers.
Linus himself, a giant to us, stands upon many others. His response is genuine in every sense. Its elegance, hopefully, will generate more thought amongst the masses than Microsoft's tiring, confused argument.
and instructions designed to improve internet connect speed to their Pentium 4
The Pentium4 is your modem or NIC now? So bascially, I can just screw DSL and stick with my 28.8 and get faster internet access? Jesus, you're a retard!
AMD's practice of brute force processing is innefficient and wasteful.
Wow, I guess we no longer need faster processors, Beowulf clusters, and distributed computing since you say they're innefficient and wasteful.
It requires more power, and outputs more heat.
Uh no, we're talking about less power and less heat... smaller chips, smaller fabication...
Not only that, but AMD processors don't even have built-in thermal protection, so if their processor gets TOO hot, you'll end up burning out your processor.
Oh yes, it's more efficient to kill off clock cycles waiting for your processor to cool instead of making a chip that produces less heat or to use a... DAH-DUM-DADA... HEATSINK.
Your email address is a hotmail.com. No wonder.
What do they get for this kind of behavior? More and more encouragement from the school. A free ride. Constant recognition for being basketball players. Just two days ago, an alumnis association bought ALL of them DVD players as gifts. The list goes on.
We can see this in almost every school, to varying degrees of intensity. What's the outcome? Violent, immature, stupid people going around doing whatever they want to whoever and whatever they choose entirely without consequence - especially when it comes to taunting. This causes Columbines.
Yes, movie makers produce much more realistic violence, but they do not make killers. Do you think Spielberg should be sued for the realistic violence in Schindler's List? Saving Private Ryan? I think not.
Everyone who participates in entertainment containing violent content knows that it's an illusion. They know it's not real. However, if they choose to act upon this, there were problems there to begin with. Either they have a mental disability in comprehending or they have deep seated emotional problems. One way or the other, the entertainment wasn't the catalyst.
When will people understand this?
This pathetic act shows that the families of the slain teachers are more interested in profiting from the deaths rather than healing. Why? They're reopening old wounds. They're relentlessly milking the situation. They're searching for a scapegoat.
How can these people claim that they're moral in the face of the 'evil game companies' when they're teaching so many young minds involved in the situation that finding ways to profit from tragedy are top priority?
To the families doing the suing:
You fools. Don't you realize that two very, very frustrated and angry young children murdered your loved ones? You should not place blame on innocents for the past deeds of the guilty and now dead. Neither computer games nor goth music are responsible for this. The issue is far more complex. With this ridiculously selfish act, you're showing where some of the real problems in American society truly lie.
Since I doubt we'll see these structures for about another 25-40 years, I think that we may just be in sync with SimCity 2000. I remember how much excitement I felt as I approached the year when Arcologies were first available. :-) They had better be sure they build lots of police stations around these massive structures. With such dense population, crime is sure to increase and public opinion will go down, hence reducing the score.
i said settle down beavis
Quick, everybody write their own distributed P2P file sharing client and everybody use everybody elses' to share copyrighted content. Eventually, the RIAA & MPAA will run out of money for their legal fund attacking everyone!
Please. Insults are the recourse of a simplistic mind. Besides, the Smurfs rock so shut your hole.
Anyway this seems to be a trademark case, and those are somewhat scary, as Trademarks are required to be defended, or else they can be lost. That facts should be more clear before accusations are bandied about.
This is my whole point! They took up patents on theming related concepts! Give me a break. These kinds of patents are the bane of OSS and if Apple was willing to take out such nonsense patents, they're clearly out to take and not give. Look at what they did to the FreeType project. How is it that a company that supposedly supports OSS attacks a very important OSS project?
My original point stands and is correct. They don't want acceptance, they just want to attract attention. It's very simple. The problem is they don't want to play fair, which is what Open is all about.
I was quickly becoming an Apple fan when the whole MacOS X thing began. "Yes, Darwin is open source! We're thinking forward. Here, have our source!" It didn't take long to realize that this was all nonsense. Their motivations are the same as any other large corporate entity: they want to have things their way and they are not going to give an inch.
And here they are, stomping their feet and pouting. "We don't want anyone to change our interface! It's our interface, leave it alone! *pouting* Oh, and themes were our idea!" Is it any surprise?
This is simply marketing hype.
I've been to dozens of 2600 meetings, with varying degrees of appreciation for them. The first meeting I went to (over in Monroeville, PA) was decent. We mostly sat around and ate, trading stories, interesting tidbits, etc. I had a great time and acquired a lot of new material. Interestingly enough, there wasn't a single computer there. This was about 4 years ago. The next meeting I went to was a disaster. Yes, it was just like that described by the author here and I left almost immediately. I quickly figured out what type of people were there. After that, they've been better - no continuous decline in quality or people. It depends on when and where you're attending the meetings. Every region has different people with different goals and I think Mr. Campbell has to realize this.
This direction surely leads to the way of commercialism. It cannot be helped and it's even necessary for any of these ideas the geek cults to be noticed and utilized. What good is an idea if it gets buried and never to be seen again? Geeks don't want their time to be wasted, so they turn to corporations with their thoughts so they can become mainstream.
Assimilation into mainstream culture was only a matter of time.
However, another school of thought is that it hasn't really gotten too out of hand. Most of my peers (I go to a rather ungeeky college - nothing like CMU or MIT) don't really understand me. In my OS class, I was working with a couple people who were just baffled by my personality. "So what, you don't mind being called a geek?" "No, it's a compliment to me. Geeks are some of the more intelligent members of society. It's about thinking outside the box. Taking a self-realized perspective on the world." *strange look*
Now, this campus happens to have a very homogenous population. You're most likely a trendy character with American Eagle clothes on, so there's not a lot of diversity or tolerance here. Even though this is a small cross section, I've seen these attitudes everywhere.
So basically, my argument follows that the distance geek subculture has gone into mainstream is minimal, but has still produced some useful results. Also, do not forget that we still have a lot of space between our normal and Society's Normal.
Relax, we're still 'outcasts'. :-)
But what is this exactly? Fuel cell technology is a revolutionary concept that can change the world for the better in so many ways. It's incredibly frustrating to see it most eagerly developed for use in powering means to more accurrately destroy stuff.
Can't anything be done by people who believe in promoting peace and improving the human condition against this kind of crap? Is there any way to hinder the "science of war?"
This brings into question the USB 2.0 standard. The goal is to create a higher bandwidth connection - but from the specs I've seen, it's not going to be as fast as FireWire (unless this has changed). Why bother? Why not mature the existing standard (USB devices still have tons of bugs - a lot of them aren't at the driver level) and expanding the functionality rather than drop it and move to something else when we already have a solution for heavier work?
Perhaps this is Microsoft's motivation behind not supporting it initially. I know that I'd like to see more support for FireWire rather than a souped up USB 2.0. FireWire is already and industry standard with applications everywhere. Same with USB 1.0. We have a hammer and a screw driver. Why add another hammer to the kit?
If you're going to ask questions like these, you have to say, "well, is any security really secure?" And the answer to that is of course "no". "You almost certainly don't own a secure computing system with physical access controls, TEMPEST shielding, "air wall" network security, and other protections." DUH! How is this insightful? How does this lead to any meaningful solution to the problem? So what, just stop using encryption? So what, just stop assigning a root password?
This Ask /. implies that it doesn't work at all and that we aughta just stop using it. Why? Because there's no answer - there's no solution. You can't just have everyone shield their PC's from TEMPEST - and of course, exactly how many people are getting scanned in the first place? Not everyone is willing to drop their PC into a vat of concrete with no net connection to keep people from sitting at it to gain access.
So what's my bottom line here? "Is encryption really secure?" Well, as I mentioned, nothing is really secure, so the answer is "no". Of course then again, security works 99% of the time (or a little less), so let's just keep using it and not ask stupid questions like these. They've been thought about before.
You might want to check out cr0wbar's rant against Safe Audit when they screwed him over. The more you let people know about this kind of nonsense, the more likely it is said business will think twice about screwing you over.
We've seen this reaction all over the place. Any time people are treated unfairly in any situation, cry out publically about it. This does change things.
This story CLEARLY indicates wrong doing on their part. For example, anyone who has ever dealt with phone companies fixing their service knows that service providers are responsible for fixing problems with their own systems. When I got my second line installed, they had problems with line at a distro station. They didn't charge me to fix the problems there. If they had, I would have raised hell. But they didn't. They're responsible for it. End of story.
Take even the "best" glass (that which distorts and blocks the least amount of light) will appear to be opaque if you make it thick enough. Look at a large pane of glass lenght wise. It may be clear through the thin section, but not down the length.
Therefore, Glass != Dark Matter since glass blocks light and dark matter does not.