Yah, this purity test is a little poorly-engineered...
For instance, it GIVES you a point for having to go to your user page to look up your karma score. REAL Karma Whores check up on that all day every day, and wouldn't have to make a special trip to their page to find out.
There's a bunch of examples of that, adding a point for the more newbie-esque behavior. Ah, well. All in fun, I suppose.
VMware is VERY cool, but like DOSemu, they seem not to have figured out how to make sound work for an emulated DOS environment, even in this 2.0 release. Apparently you can get sound to work at least moderately well with a Win32 client OS, and sometimes with a Unix-ish client OS, but not with a DOS client OS...
Bochs makes sound work correctly, and is astoundingly cool, but Bochs is really really really slow.
Meaning there's STILL no complete and accurate way to play Ultima 7 under Linux, sigh.
Don't further the myth that eating sugar causes diabetes. It's no more true than saying that thinking gives you Alzheimer's disease.
Diabetes is actually one of two diseases:
Type I (formerly "juvenile diabetes") is caused by an autoimmune response that destroys most or all of the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas (actual cause unknown, viral infection suspected), and requires that the person take insulin shots regularly for the rest of their life, barring medical breakthroughs. This is the type of diabetes I have.
Type II (formerly "adult-onset diabetes") is caused by a desensitizing of the body's cells' insulin receptors, and is often associated with aging and obesity. It can often be treated with changes in diet and exercise habits and oral medication, but occasionally requires supplemental insulin if these therapies fail. My father recently developed this form of diabetes. It's more common than Type I at about a 9:1 ratio.
(There's also 'gestational diabetes,' which is a cousin of Type II....)
Eating sugar has nothing to do with the onset of either of these diseases. I only go out on a limb and talk about this because public misinformation about what diabetes is, and how it works, could potentially kill me (see the movie "Con Air" for a REALLY REALLY bad example of horrible diametrically-opposite incorrect possibly-fatal misconceptions about diabetes).
And, to be moderately on-topic, it's ASTOUNDINGLY cool that the authors are giving this money to diabetes research; diabetes is the nations's fourth-largest killer disease, and largely goes undiagnosed for over 50% of the people who have it. Get your blood sugar checked if ANYTHING seems weird in your health. It can't hurt, and might save your life.
It's totally a matter of preference. I have large hands, long fingers. The 2100 is just the right size for me. The fact that I can't get something with that much screen real estate any more without also getting a hard drive irks me to no end.
And really, the 2100 can fit with just a little struggle into a jeans back pocket. More to the point, I have a pouch in the front-center of my bike-messenger-style bag that fits it _perfectly_, and that bag goes with me everywhere I go.
I don't think the larger screen is for everyone, but I'm frustrated that currently if I had to replace my 2100, I'd have to get another 2100 somewhere, because getting a Palm or WinCE device would be like buying a 15" monitor to replace my aging 20" one....
Once again, the Palm platform gets capabilities that were available 2-3 years ago on the Newton. (*sigh, brush away tear)
Now that there's rudimentary OpenGL, all Palm needs is: -- text-to-speech integrated with all text displaying widgets -- handwriting recognition that doesn't make you write in martian and that works all over the screen at any angle -- a screen big enough to read more than a paragraph at a time -- an animation player for QT-style movies (these might exist fpr Palm, but I haven't seen them) -- a Web browser with GIF and JPG support -- a 200+ MHz processor
...and then we'd have reinvented the MessagePad 2100, and we could start THINKING about improving on the state of the art, circa 1997.
(*sigh) Newton, we barely knew ye... Although someone knew ye well enough to make an OpenGL port in '98 or so.
That's right, folks, welcome to 2000: The Third Annual Year Linux Will Really Be Ready For The Desktop.
Highlighted events include: -- presentations by two more vendors with GPLed hardware drivers. -- discussion of why StarOffice is, in fact, a perfect and complete replacement for Microsoft Office. -- announcements from the Gnome and KDE teams about further slavish aping of existing WIMP interfaces. -- side seminar from old-school devotees: "Why Dumbing Down Linux for the Desktop User is a Bad Thing." -- hundreds of anecdotes about Linux-using grandmothers and girlfriends.
...and, to close out the year, we have the standard recap planned: "What Linux still needs in order to be a desktop OS."
Be there early to make your reservations for our next event, "2001: The Fourth Annual Year Linux Will Really Be Ready For The Desktop."
>On the other hand, if everyone adopts your scheme, the result would be the ad absurdum >situation where everyone wins all the time; surely the market cannot function in such a fashion.
Au contraire, that's exactly what the market is for. The "someone wins, someone loses" mentality about the market is common among lay folks (like myself, I Am Not An Economist), especially those of a scientific bent, as it plays to a certain hypothetical Principle of Conservation of Wealth.
But economics simply doesn't work that way. If that were the case, then taking that concept ad absurdam, we'd all still be having to share the same meager wealth that the first few thousand proto-humans had a few million years ago, among the six billion of us.
Markets exist to generate wealth, not simply to redistribute it. It could be theoretically possible to have an everyone-wins-always market, but your point about uncertainty is valid -- there's just too much chaos there to predict with any more accuracy than, say, the weather.
Heh. If that's the best story you end up having to give your grandkids, I think your primary regret will be "I should have left the house occasionally..."
(*grin)
--
Re:Alice Cooper on Muppet Show..
on
Muppets Sold
·
· Score: 2
I imagine Alice Cooper was pushing for this.
In an interview with Henson that I saw some many years ago, he alleged that just about every personality of consequence was lining up at the door to get a shot at being a guest star, so much so that they were having to turn away some pretty big lights for entire seasons.
The Alice Cooper one was a good one, truly very very strange, but the show that most sticks out in my mind was the Star Wars 'crossover' with Luke, C3PO, R2D2, and if I recall correctly, Mark Hammill also appearing as himself. Angus McGonnagle the Argyle Gargoyle -- THAT was good humor, folks.
The man seems intelligent, well-spoken, and thoughtful. Just because you or I or the Andover editorial staff disagree with him is no reason to resort to character assassination. That's the argument ad hominem, it was discounted as invalid as long ago as the Greeks. Slashdot certainly should know better.
Mr. Valenti has a good head on his shoulders, and all SORTS of clues. It's just that his universe rests on different assumptions than this community's, assumptions about the superiority of propriety and profiteering over freedom and sharing. This man seems to be very clueful at working with these assumptions to come to conclusions that are clearly thought out, self-consistant, and intelligent. And totally disagreeable to this crowd.
If you want to change the man's mind, work on changing his assumptions.
If you want to call him names, feel free, but don't expect anything to come of it.
The preamble to the GPL isn't the GPL. And so isn't part of the licensing terms. Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but that particular pseudo-legalism doesn't help.
>A church is a place where you go to worship and reaffirm your beliefs
No, that's a church BUILDING. Don't confuse the university with the campus. Churches, universities, and research facilities, all exist independantly of their physical location. A church is not a place.
>With scientific faith you know, if push came to shove, that you could take it upon yourself to >get your own data and either prove or disprove what others have written. Does religion give you >this ability to figure out new commandments or gospels on your own?
Your assumption is that empiricism is the only valid way to appropriate information. All churches teach a method of aquiring truths, be they prayer, meditation, bed of nails, or scientific method. Saying that religion is inferior because it doesn't allow for empiricism is like saying science is inferior because you can't pray for data. It's begging the question -- it's assuming that the method you adhere to is Somehow Completely Right, and judging all other methods based on that UNPROVABLE supposition.
Scientific method relies on the twins _unprovable_ assumptions of repeatability: That causality works at all (cf Hume), and that cause-effect relationships are somehow the only valid way to apprehend information.
>Where's the Bible? Why does the Scientific Bible change so often?
Since you ask why it changes so often, you apparently know where it is -- the textbook that the high school student gets. The one that alleges many Truths about the universe, and judges the disciple based on how well he or she memorizes the chapter and verse of the Handed-down Truth.
Why does it change so often? Because that's what Science is about -- fleeting hypotheses that disappear faster than they can be regenerated. It's an honorable mission, but since scientists are still being baffled about how ball lightning and other similar EMPIRICAL phenomena work, it is not possible that the entire field of science might have blinders on in regards to entire sections of universal experience?
Just a few thoughts; this article is long since dead, so I don't expect anyone will ever see this....
> No existing religion is willing to continually challenge and dispute itself in this manner.
Au contraire, mon ami. Almost all major religions are consistanty refining and reworking their beliefs to fit new information. Most Christian denominations, for instance, have annual meetings that, among other orders of business, decide on any 'platform' changes or additions. Just like science, some core truths are relatively stable (gravity, the divinity of Christ), some are slowly retired over time (flat earth, flat earth), and some are still in flux (particle physics, the role of women in the church).
Just because religions' criteria for changing truths is not necessarily based on empirical challenging doesn't mean their methods are demonstrably 'wrong.' Unless you're such a believer in the Church of Science's core tenets of demontrability and repeatability that any other scheme is 'heresy.'
>But if everything is True by Decree....
Again, science is a church. Unless you personally go out and demonstrate each and every scientific truth that you believe, for yourself, with strict application of scientific method and a healthy dose of skepticism, a belief in science IS "Truth by Decree," relying on the proclamations of wiser elders for truth, based on a faith in their higher knowledge of and closer contact with The Truth.
"Peer review" isn't an argument against the above, either. Almost all Christian elders, of any denomination and creed, will back each other up on the divinity of Christ, using the tools of their Church. If "peer review" is a criterion for truth, why don't you believe in those alleged truths?
Unless it's that what your argument boils down to is "if it doesn't work the way science says, I won't believe it." Which, to me, sounds like a belief system based in faith.
As a disclaimer, I, myself, am a Church of Science adherant, and not a religious person of any consequence. But I do see that my Church is just a system of ordered beliefs handed down from power structure to power structure, with a core set of unprovable assumptions, occasional attacks from 'fringe breakaway groups' that either succeed or fail, and with millions of amateur adherants that gobble up things that are sound like dogma and pooh-pooh things that don't, with very little except their incomplete understanding and faith to tell the difference. And just like any other Church, science is anxious to differentiate itself from other Churches by argument of how much better and more valid its ideas are.
The fact that the Church of Science has been the in-fashion flavor for the last few hundred years doesn't mean it's any less a Church, no matter how strongly it tries to redefine itself.
>All I can say is that it is a damn good thing I can't play these things in a telnet session, or I >wouldn't get anything done at work, either. (It's hard enough avoiding "nethack".)
SSH with X forwarding is your friend.... (*evil grin). --
I just saw this, nearly a week later, and have no presuppositions that you will actually see it yourself later, but....
I see where you're headed, and I almost agree.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that _demand_ for such a 'collectible,' the fact that anyone KNOWS the story, is a function of media attention. Yes, the history exists, but there are all SORTS of checks out there with much more interesting stories attached that aren't getting sold on eBay for 10x face value.
Which was the point I was equating back to a "Hype-P-O" -- demand, attention, fame, being artificially inflated around an object due to overattention to its story. It can happen to a company; it can happen to a piece of paper.
Nothing reinforces one's point better than a quote from a fantasy vampire novel, no, really....
In response to your points:
--I get what I pay for.
This typifies the what-can-I-get attitude that's taken over Slashdot and the Open Source universe since it started making news.
I don't just GET from Slashdot. I post here. I am a content generator for the site. I am part of what people come here for. I'm not a mindless content consumer. I help shape this site in my own tiny way, and as such feel entitled to criticize when the site is being misadministered in my opinion.
-- Grab the tarball and start one of my own.
Well, first, the tarball isn't available in any real sense. Second, I don't want to make a fork, I want to contribute positively to the primary tree.
-- Whining doesn't become me.
"Whining" is a lazy man's name for "Bug Reports."
-- Who was the jerk that gave me a +3?
Gasp, shock, horror, someone that thinks that criticism of Slashdot isn't innately bad?
Heh. I wasn't talking about Microsoft. Not even close. But you can make believe I was if you like. When what you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. (*grin)
Correction, it started ON Rob's personal homepage -- it since moved to its own site which is theoretically its own business interest, and Rob maintains a separate personal homepage still (linked from the front of Slashdot, no less) where this kind of thing would seem more appropriate.
To me, at least, but who am I? I mean after all, it's not like this is supposed to be a _Community_ or anything. I keep forgetting that blind-faith hero worship of the infallible editors is not only de riguer here, it's actually heresy to suggest any other way of thinking.
Well, Slashdot has "topics," that we're allowed (nay, encouraged) to filter with user preferences, and when something's posted in a horribly incorrect topic ("news," in this case), the value of the site lessens, because the functionality doesn't work as advertised.
I don't care if Hemos posts pictures of the new pimples on his butt every day, as long as they're not stuck into some topic I'd otherwise be interested in, like 'news' or 'science' or the like. Isn't there a 'geeks in space' topic that this would have been better suited for?
And yes, it's not just "News for Nerds." It's also "Stuff that Matters." Which this story isn't.
Can we get a new topic, "self-aggrandizing non-news for rabid Andover-worshipping fanboyz?"
Just so I could filter it out.
. o O ( Wow, this'll probably get my first flamebait points, fun! Still, this is SUCH non-news or things-that-matter. It's just the editors using Slashdot as a personal homepage. What's next, "Rob's Aibo matures to 'Adult' Level -- click here for cute pix!!!?" )
I agree with everything you say, and still stand by my thought that focussing on the 'women' part of 'smart women' downplays the 'smart' part, and furthers the gender divide by highlighting it.
IMHO, smart girls seeing smart women identified and recognized in the same context as smart men would learn more about equality than if there was a special "Miss Intelligent" contest.
So, yes, traditionally women are terribly under-represented and -recognized in technical fields, but making a separate category of recognition gives the subtle message that the rules are different for different genders, which (I thought) was the message we're trying to avoid.
Slashdot Mirror
Yah, this purity test is a little poorly-engineered...
For instance, it GIVES you a point for having to go to your user page to look up your karma score. REAL Karma Whores check up on that all day every day, and wouldn't have to make a special trip to their page to find out.
There's a bunch of examples of that, adding a point for the more newbie-esque behavior. Ah, well. All in fun, I suppose.
--
VMware is VERY cool, but like DOSemu, they seem not to have figured out how to make sound work for an emulated DOS environment, even in this 2.0 release. Apparently you can get sound to work at least moderately well with a Win32 client OS, and sometimes with a Unix-ish client OS, but not with a DOS client OS...
Bochs makes sound work correctly, and is astoundingly cool, but Bochs is really really really slow.
Meaning there's STILL no complete and accurate way to play Ultima 7 under Linux, sigh.
--
Umn, please, as a diabetic, I beg you...
Don't further the myth that eating sugar causes diabetes. It's no more true than saying that thinking gives you Alzheimer's disease.
Diabetes is actually one of two diseases:
Type I (formerly "juvenile diabetes") is caused by an autoimmune response that destroys most or all of the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas (actual cause unknown, viral infection suspected), and requires that the person take insulin shots regularly for the rest of their life, barring medical breakthroughs. This is the type of diabetes I have.
Type II (formerly "adult-onset diabetes") is caused by a desensitizing of the body's cells' insulin receptors, and is often associated with aging and obesity. It can often be treated with changes in diet and exercise habits and oral medication, but occasionally requires supplemental insulin if these therapies fail. My father recently developed this form of diabetes. It's more common than Type I at about a 9:1 ratio.
(There's also 'gestational diabetes,' which is a cousin of Type II....)
Eating sugar has nothing to do with the onset of either of these diseases. I only go out on a limb and talk about this because public misinformation about what diabetes is, and how it works, could potentially kill me (see the movie "Con Air" for a REALLY REALLY bad example of horrible diametrically-opposite incorrect possibly-fatal misconceptions about diabetes).
And, to be moderately on-topic, it's ASTOUNDINGLY cool that the authors are giving this money to diabetes research; diabetes is the nations's fourth-largest killer disease, and largely goes undiagnosed for over 50% of the people who have it. Get your blood sugar checked if ANYTHING seems weird in your health. It can't hurt, and might save your life.
--
It's totally a matter of preference. I have large hands, long fingers. The 2100 is just the right size for me. The fact that I can't get something with that much screen real estate any more without also getting a hard drive irks me to no end.
And really, the 2100 can fit with just a little struggle into a jeans back pocket. More to the point, I have a pouch in the front-center of my bike-messenger-style bag that fits it _perfectly_, and that bag goes with me everywhere I go.
I don't think the larger screen is for everyone, but I'm frustrated that currently if I had to replace my 2100, I'd have to get another 2100 somewhere, because getting a Palm or WinCE device would be like buying a 15" monitor to replace my aging 20" one....
--
Once again, the Palm platform gets capabilities that were available 2-3 years ago on the Newton. (*sigh, brush away tear)
Now that there's rudimentary OpenGL, all Palm needs is:
-- text-to-speech integrated with all text displaying widgets
-- handwriting recognition that doesn't make you write in martian and that works all over the screen at any angle
-- a screen big enough to read more than a paragraph at a time
-- an animation player for QT-style movies (these might exist fpr Palm, but I haven't seen them)
-- a Web browser with GIF and JPG support
-- a 200+ MHz processor
...and then we'd have reinvented the MessagePad 2100, and we could start THINKING about improving on the state of the art, circa 1997.
(*sigh) Newton, we barely knew ye... Although someone knew ye well enough to make an OpenGL port in '98 or so.
--
That's right, folks, welcome to 2000: The Third Annual Year Linux Will Really Be Ready For The Desktop.
Highlighted events include:
-- presentations by two more vendors with GPLed hardware drivers.
-- discussion of why StarOffice is, in fact, a perfect and complete replacement for Microsoft Office.
-- announcements from the Gnome and KDE teams about further slavish aping of existing WIMP interfaces.
-- side seminar from old-school devotees: "Why Dumbing Down Linux for the Desktop User is a Bad Thing."
-- hundreds of anecdotes about Linux-using grandmothers and girlfriends.
...and, to close out the year, we have the standard recap planned: "What Linux still needs in order to be a desktop OS."
Be there early to make your reservations for our next event, "2001: The Fourth Annual Year Linux Will Really Be Ready For The Desktop."
--
>On the other hand, if everyone adopts your scheme, the result would be the ad absurdum
>situation where everyone wins all the time; surely the market cannot function in such a fashion.
Au contraire, that's exactly what the market is for. The "someone wins, someone loses" mentality about the market is common among lay folks (like myself, I Am Not An Economist), especially those of a scientific bent, as it plays to a certain hypothetical Principle of Conservation of Wealth.
But economics simply doesn't work that way. If that were the case, then taking that concept ad absurdam, we'd all still be having to share the same meager wealth that the first few thousand proto-humans had a few million years ago, among the six billion of us.
Markets exist to generate wealth, not simply to redistribute it. It could be theoretically possible to have an everyone-wins-always market, but your point about uncertainty is valid -- there's just too much chaos there to predict with any more accuracy than, say, the weather.
--
Yes, thank you. Good thing you read the from-the-xxx-department line of this article.
--
Heh. If that's the best story you end up having to give your grandkids, I think your primary regret will be "I should have left the house occasionally..."
(*grin)
--
I imagine Alice Cooper was pushing for this.
In an interview with Henson that I saw some many years ago, he alleged that just about every personality of consequence was lining up at the door to get a shot at being a guest star, so much so that they were having to turn away some pretty big lights for entire seasons.
The Alice Cooper one was a good one, truly very very strange, but the show that most sticks out in my mind was the Star Wars 'crossover' with Luke, C3PO, R2D2, and if I recall correctly, Mark Hammill also appearing as himself. Angus McGonnagle the Argyle Gargoyle -- THAT was good humor, folks.
--
The man seems intelligent, well-spoken, and thoughtful. Just because you or I or the Andover editorial staff disagree with him is no reason to resort to character assassination. That's the argument ad hominem, it was discounted as invalid as long ago as the Greeks. Slashdot certainly should know better.
Mr. Valenti has a good head on his shoulders, and all SORTS of clues. It's just that his universe rests on different assumptions than this community's, assumptions about the superiority of propriety and profiteering over freedom and sharing. This man seems to be very clueful at working with these assumptions to come to conclusions that are clearly thought out, self-consistant, and intelligent. And totally disagreeable to this crowd.
If you want to change the man's mind, work on changing his assumptions.
If you want to call him names, feel free, but don't expect anything to come of it.
--
The preamble to the GPL isn't the GPL. And so isn't part of the licensing terms. Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but that particular pseudo-legalism doesn't help.
--
>A church is a place where you go to worship and
reaffirm your beliefs
No, that's a church BUILDING. Don't confuse the university with the campus. Churches, universities, and research facilities, all exist independantly of their physical location. A church is not a place.
>With scientific faith you know, if push came to shove, that you could take it upon yourself to
>get your own data and either prove or disprove what others have written. Does religion give you
>this ability to figure out new commandments or gospels on your own?
Your assumption is that empiricism is the only valid way to appropriate information. All churches teach a method of aquiring truths, be they prayer, meditation, bed of nails, or scientific method. Saying that religion is inferior because it doesn't allow for empiricism is like saying science is inferior because you can't pray for data. It's begging the question -- it's assuming that the method you adhere to is Somehow Completely Right, and judging all other methods based on that UNPROVABLE supposition.
Scientific method relies on the twins _unprovable_ assumptions of repeatability: That causality works at all (cf Hume), and that cause-effect relationships are somehow the only valid way to apprehend information.
>Where's the Bible? Why does the Scientific Bible change so often?
Since you ask why it changes so often, you apparently know where it is -- the textbook that the high school student gets. The one that alleges many Truths about the universe, and judges the disciple based on how well he or she memorizes the chapter and verse of the Handed-down Truth.
Why does it change so often? Because that's what Science is about -- fleeting hypotheses that disappear faster than they can be regenerated. It's an honorable mission, but since scientists are still being baffled about how ball lightning and other similar EMPIRICAL phenomena work, it is not possible that the entire field of science might have blinders on in regards to entire sections of universal experience?
Just a few thoughts; this article is long since dead, so I don't expect anyone will ever see this....
--
Mmmn, Hemos, drugs are bad, mmn-kay?
First posts? Firsts posts are bad, mmn-kay?
Now you're cured! You can take the rest of the afternoon off for personal reflection, mm-kay? Find your own constructive way to better yourselves!
</ACCENT>
(*sound of thousands of Slashdotters scrambling off to smoke pot and hit 'reload' repeatedly....)
--
> No existing religion is willing to continually challenge and dispute itself in this manner.
Au contraire, mon ami. Almost all major religions are consistanty refining and reworking their beliefs to fit new information. Most Christian denominations, for instance, have annual meetings that, among other orders of business, decide on any 'platform' changes or additions. Just like science, some core truths are relatively stable (gravity, the divinity of Christ), some are slowly retired over time (flat earth, flat earth), and some are still in flux (particle physics, the role of women in the church).
Just because religions' criteria for changing truths is not necessarily based on empirical challenging doesn't mean their methods are demonstrably 'wrong.' Unless you're such a believer in the Church of Science's core tenets of demontrability and repeatability that any other scheme is 'heresy.'
>But if everything is True by Decree....
Again, science is a church. Unless you personally go out and demonstrate each and every scientific truth that you believe, for yourself, with strict application of scientific method and a healthy dose of skepticism, a belief in science IS "Truth by Decree," relying on the proclamations of wiser elders for truth, based on a faith in their higher knowledge of and closer contact with The Truth.
"Peer review" isn't an argument against the above, either. Almost all Christian elders, of any denomination and creed, will back each other up on the divinity of Christ, using the tools of their Church. If "peer review" is a criterion for truth, why don't you believe in those alleged truths?
Unless it's that what your argument boils down to is "if it doesn't work the way science says, I won't believe it." Which, to me, sounds like a belief system based in faith.
As a disclaimer, I, myself, am a Church of Science adherant, and not a religious person of any consequence. But I do see that my Church is just a system of ordered beliefs handed down from power structure to power structure, with a core set of unprovable assumptions, occasional attacks from 'fringe breakaway groups' that either succeed or fail, and with millions of amateur adherants that gobble up things that are sound like dogma and pooh-pooh things that don't, with very little except their incomplete understanding and faith to tell the difference. And just like any other Church, science is anxious to differentiate itself from other Churches by argument of how much better and more valid its ideas are.
The fact that the Church of Science has been the in-fashion flavor for the last few hundred years doesn't mean it's any less a Church, no matter how strongly it tries to redefine itself.
--
>All I can say is that it is a damn good thing I can't play these things in a telnet session, or I
>wouldn't get anything done at work, either. (It's hard enough avoiding "nethack".)
SSH with X forwarding is your friend.... (*evil grin).
--
I think you were looking for:
(RedHat != Linux)
because using your math, we could prove that anything that's not RedHat is Linux....
(Cisco-IOS != RedHat)
(Cisco-IOS == !RedHat)
(Cisco-IOS == (!RedHat == Linux))
(Cisco-IOS == Linux)
QED.
--
I just saw this, nearly a week later, and have no presuppositions that you will actually see it yourself later, but....
I see where you're headed, and I almost agree.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that _demand_ for such a 'collectible,' the fact that anyone KNOWS the story, is a function of media attention. Yes, the history exists, but there are all SORTS of checks out there with much more interesting stories attached that aren't getting sold on eBay for 10x face value.
Which was the point I was equating back to a "Hype-P-O" -- demand, attention, fame, being artificially inflated around an object due to overattention to its story. It can happen to a company; it can happen to a piece of paper.
--
Nothing reinforces one's point better than a quote from a fantasy vampire novel, no, really....
In response to your points:
--I get what I pay for.
This typifies the what-can-I-get attitude that's taken over Slashdot and the Open Source universe since it started making news.
I don't just GET from Slashdot. I post here. I am a content generator for the site. I am part of what people come here for. I'm not a mindless content consumer. I help shape this site in my own tiny way, and as such feel entitled to criticize when the site is being misadministered in my opinion.
-- Grab the tarball and start one of my own.
Well, first, the tarball isn't available in any real sense. Second, I don't want to make a fork, I want to contribute positively to the primary tree.
-- Whining doesn't become me.
"Whining" is a lazy man's name for "Bug Reports."
-- Who was the jerk that gave me a +3?
Gasp, shock, horror, someone that thinks that criticism of Slashdot isn't innately bad?
--
Heh. I wasn't talking about Microsoft. Not even close. But you can make believe I was if you like. When what you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. (*grin)
--
Correction, it started ON Rob's personal homepage -- it since moved to its own site which is theoretically its own business interest, and Rob maintains a separate personal homepage still (linked from the front of Slashdot, no less) where this kind of thing would seem more appropriate.
To me, at least, but who am I? I mean after all, it's not like this is supposed to be a _Community_ or anything. I keep forgetting that blind-faith hero worship of the infallible editors is not only de riguer here, it's actually heresy to suggest any other way of thinking.
--
Well, Slashdot has "topics," that we're allowed (nay, encouraged) to filter with user preferences, and when something's posted in a horribly incorrect topic ("news," in this case), the value of the site lessens, because the functionality doesn't work as advertised.
I don't care if Hemos posts pictures of the new pimples on his butt every day, as long as they're not stuck into some topic I'd otherwise be interested in, like 'news' or 'science' or the like. Isn't there a 'geeks in space' topic that this would have been better suited for?
And yes, it's not just "News for Nerds." It's also "Stuff that Matters." Which this story isn't.
--
Can we get a new topic, "self-aggrandizing non-news for rabid Andover-worshipping fanboyz?"
Just so I could filter it out.
. o O ( Wow, this'll probably get my first flamebait points, fun! Still, this is SUCH non-news or things-that-matter. It's just the editors using Slashdot as a personal homepage. What's next, "Rob's Aibo matures to 'Adult' Level -- click here for cute pix!!!?" )
--
Since K6es aren't SMP-able, your chassis count needs to be == to your processor count, so:
100 * 100 == 10,000.
And I'd imagine you want more than 1.5 fiber net cards per proc? More like 4, at a low estimate?
400 * 150 == 60,000.
And if you can get a MB + case + hd for $100, I have a bridge to sell you. At best:
$150 * 100 = 15,000
So, with your admittedly low RAM counts, thats:
10000 +
60000 +
15000
------
85000 just in hardware....
Knock yrself out....
--
I agree with everything you say, and still stand by my thought that focussing on the 'women' part of 'smart women' downplays the 'smart' part, and furthers the gender divide by highlighting it.
IMHO, smart girls seeing smart women identified and recognized in the same context as smart men would learn more about equality than if there was a special "Miss Intelligent" contest.
So, yes, traditionally women are terribly under-represented and -recognized in technical fields, but making a separate category of recognition gives the subtle message that the rules are different for different genders, which (I thought) was the message we're trying to avoid.
--