Because we and most of the world is not on the gold standard, currency values fluctuate
Even the value of gold fluctuates. I find it interesting that services like e-gold have "alchemy" clauses in their user agreements:
4.8. The Fusion Codicil
Issuer reserves the right to stop issuing additional e-gold by ceasing to accept bailment of additional bullion. This extraordinary provision will be triggered only in the event that lower cost or more efficient physical methods of extraction or transmuting the metals that comprise the reserves of the e-gold system result in subsequent non-scarcity of those elements.
I would tend to agree with your assertion, that unless users are specifically denied the right to transfer ownership of their virtual property, then why not? But that doesn't address the reality that the virtual objects exist at the whim of the operator of the virtual world.
This is not like a governmental entity that merely interjects itself between the affairs of an already existing economy. The operator of the virtual world *is* the creator of it, and is able to control or alter the value, nay the existence even, of anything within. How can users claim the right to prevent him/her from doing so unless the terms of the virtual world are pre-arranged and the rights of property are granted by the operator?
web standards and better browsing experiement for everyone or just for ideology?
That sounds ideal to me.:)
Really, though, I'd love to be able to convince people to *buy* Opera instead of using IE that comes pre-installed on their computers, but it ain't going to happen. IE is free and most people find it works okay. Mozilla is free and it has pop-up blocking. Opera can be had for free and it has pop-up blocking but you have to watch ads. Which one would your Grandma choose?
You forget it was AOL that took Time Warner, not the other way around. Why didn't AOL become a broadband player? Any idiot could have seen five years ago that dial-up was dead.
Wasn't the plan to leverage TW's cable companies to enter the broadband market? Why didn't that happen?
And, of course AOL doesn't have content, that's also why TW was attractive to them. If you ask me, it was the AOL execs who were "taken for a ride".
What makes ClusterKnoppix so cool is that it's usually a huge pain to set up a TFTP/DHCP/NFS server correctly for multiple clients.
It's actually plain-old Knoppix that does all of that magic for you. The regular Knoppix distro is already setup to support PXE LTSP clients, ClusterKnoppix just added OpenMosix support.
I'm currently using a distributed network protocol designed to easily share bandwidth in order to download an operating system designed to easily share processing power.
This is quite possibly the coolest thing I've seen happen in computing in the last ten years, all thanks to Open Source.
You know, I was meta-modding this post and I just have to reply. This is the most utter horse-shit I have ever seen on Slashdot. I can't imagine how it got modded up.
This is a mathematically proven un-solvable thing First off, with the math. I don't know what trade school you went to where they taught you that computers have 'infinite' states, but they don't. Even though there are millions of transistors, they can each be in only one of two states. It is nowhere near 'mathematically proven' that you cannot account for each one of them.
you can never account for every situation If, by this statement, you mean situations whereby asteroids fall from the sky or the computer malfunctions in some way, then, yes... shit happens. No one expects a programmer to compensate for these things. Writing software that is 'perfect', however, is entirely possible irregardless of the imperfections of the computer (or OS) on which it runs.
You can't write a finite-state machine that can detect or correct an infinite number of states. Again, with the math. There aren't an 'infinite number' of states. You can write a finite state machine that will check every bit of your code for logical errors. It is expensive and time consuming, so lazy programmers and fly-by-night companies don't do it.
calculating the "best" route from... I think you've seen the problem with this one, so I won't harp on it. Suffice it to say that maybe you should find a 'CSci' major to explain it to you.
Here it is, folks, the icing on the cake: As revolting as it may sound to the hacker-coders out there, great programmers, software engineering, business processes,... synergy, a business-plan, manager-speak, and other bullshit are NOT key components of successful software...
Great programmers are, preferably some who paid attention in algebra. The OSS movement is the proof of this, producing better software than any of that other crap ever has. Maybe you would know that if you had paid attention to their quality, bug-free code instead of subscribing to the Microsoft "Bugs are inevitable, we must add features at all cost" programming model.
Free software aims to replace the Windows operating system only in-so-far as to create an open, competitive marketplace for desktop applications. If Microsoft had stuck to creating operating systems, Linux would have nowhere near the following it does today. Throughout the 90's, instead of being content with improving Windows, Microsoft ignored the bugs in their OS and concentrated on extending their monopoly vertically into the more profitable applications market, integrating their own products into their OS and giving them inherent, illegal advantages over competitors' products.
Microsoft likes to tout the availability of third-party software for Windows, but the trend in the Windows 'ecosystem' has been for large, profitable products to either be purchased by Microsoft and rebranded as M$ 'innovation' or merely crushed under the weight of the Microsoft integration monopoly. It's shocking how many Microsoft 'patches' just serve to further integrate their applications into the OS and break competitors' products. Lots of businesses in the 'dot-com' era were formed with the sole purpose of being purchased by Microsoft. Now, on Windows, you have the choice of one browser, one word processor, one e-mail client, one media player, and one instant messenger. Using anything else puts you at risk of having your investment in third-party applications and training made obsolete by Microsoft's anti-competitive tactics.
Sadly, those who were most fed up with this situation were the users. The mere fact that there are people so sick of Windows that they are willing to work to build their own OS has given Microsoft the only real competition it has ever had. Had there been no OSS 'Revolution', we would all be running M$ apps on a buggy, Macintosh-like system where everything from mice to CPU's to word processors come only from Redmond. Microsoft is still living in this fantasy world where they can control the entire desktop market in this way.
OSX is probably the best example of an open, capitalistic desktop applications marketplace so far. Apple has smartly placed themselves as a stepping stone between a proprietary OS running one vendor's applications to a free OS capable of attracting proprietary applications developers. They have a thriving third-party software base that hasn't (yet?) been monopolised by the OS developer. Maybe their choice of BSD as a base OS will help to convince more application developers to write for open software targets instead of coding nervously as the Sword of Redmond hangs precariously over their heads.
That's the problem. Thought has nothing to do with it. These days, lawmakers can declare that "orange" means "purple" and judges have to bend over and take it because they are nothing more than the paid bitches of the State.
Forget the separation of powers that you were taught in school. The Judicial branch is now the Executive. The Executive is now in charge of running *other* countries. And the Legislators are the same as always, saying that they're "doing what the masses want" while actually doing what lines their pockets and expands their authority. Bread and circuses for all!
1) It would not be a bad thing for a few hundred square miles of sunlight to be prevented from hitting the earth. To anyone under it, it would seem like just another cloud, and they would probably live a few minutes longer because of it.
2) There would be little 'loss' in the mirror system described above. Even lightweight films can have a reflectivity of up to 95%. Converting the sunlight into electricity, then microwaves, and maintaining such a system in space, however, is sure to have much higher losses. This paper cites a 54% overall dc to dc efficiency for microwave conversion alone, neglecting collection and transmission losses.
some of us 'elders' had to actually sit down with a book, a pen(cil), a calculator and a piece of blah, blah... and he'll be telling the youngsters in twenty years that he had to "type" on a "keyboard" and read "words" on a "screen" instead of just plugging the back of his head directly into the learnin' machine.
Kids have to learn to use computers, because, AFAICT, most adults just use them as overpriced typewriters.
I've always thought that an orbital mirror would be a better idea. Instead of flying heavy solar panels into space and beaming microwaves down, fly aluminum foil into space and just beam down sunlight. It could be concentrated into a small area and used to heat water or scald unsuspecting passers-by or whatever.
There's going to be heat pollution either way, but I have a feeling there'd be less with a mirror. Plus, the collector device on Earth could be upgraded as technologies improve.
The real crime of the software industry in their eyes is that it brought computing to the "unwashed masses".
Free Software does much more to bring software to the "unwashed masses" than Microsoft ever did. Microsoft has only brought to the general public the idea that computers are supposed to crash, are essentially non-programmable, and must be thrown into the landfill every two years and replaced with an even-more-power-hungry model.
Choosing a Linux distro as a desktop for an experienced user is more of a process than a decision. Of course you want the most features available, and you always want it to "just work". Balancing these needs with cost can be difficult. The most important difference between all of them is the means of package distribution. You need to ask yourself "Am I willing to:"
1) Pay for software updates? If so, choose an RPM based distro like RedHat or Mandrake. RPM's aren't available for lots of OSS projects because the developers want to spend their time writing software, not install routines. The advantage of paying for the service is that everything you get just works and installs quickly. The disadvantage is that RedHat still can't package some programs for legal reasons; you're stuck installing those by hand and they don't always play well with RPM-based distros.
2) Use older software in exchange for easy, free updates? This is why Debian Stable rules as a Linux server. It is also why many people are disappointed in Woody as a desktop. Hopefully the many Debian-based desktop distros (Xandros, Lindows, Liberix, Knoppix) and the Debian Desktop Project will help to fix this.
3) Fix problems or put up with instability in newer software in exchange for features and free (as in beer) updates? Gentoo or Debian Testing/Unstable.
The only other real options are SuSE and Slackware, neither of which I've used.
On both tests you are tested on what you know instead of your ability to prepare for the specific test.
Whoa, there, cowboy. The ACT & MCAT are achievement tests, designed specifically to test knowledge. Knowledge is still, AFAIK, something you can acquire and retain almost regardless of your IQ.
The SAT and standard IQ tests, OTOH, are aptitude tests, designed to test a person's ability to solve problems and think critically. This is also something that can be learned, but only to an extent. It is not possible to memorize all of the possible questions on an SAT test, while on an ACT test it is. No matter how much preparation you go through, you cannot teach yourself to be a genius.
You may not be a "genious" at spelling, but you've hit the nail on the head re: deductive reasoning. I'm shocked that logic and deduction are so readily ignored in schools in America. I've had college professors who taught logic and didn't seem to know the first thing about it.
Slashdot Mirror
This 'Linus' Gnome' clearly violates the First Law of Thermodynaics.
Damn Kazaa users, how dare they saturate the network and degrade your Kazaa experience.
Even the value of gold fluctuates. I find it interesting that services like e-gold have "alchemy" clauses in their user agreements:
I would tend to agree with your assertion, that unless users are specifically denied the right to transfer ownership of their virtual property, then why not? But that doesn't address the reality that the virtual objects exist at the whim of the operator of the virtual world.
This is not like a governmental entity that merely interjects itself between the affairs of an already existing economy. The operator of the virtual world *is* the creator of it, and is able to control or alter the value, nay the existence even, of anything within. How can users claim the right to prevent him/her from doing so unless the terms of the virtual world are pre-arranged and the rights of property are granted by the operator?
That sounds ideal to me. :)
Really, though, I'd love to be able to convince people to *buy* Opera instead of using IE that comes pre-installed on their computers, but it ain't going to happen. IE is free and most people find it works okay. Mozilla is free and it has pop-up blocking. Opera can be had for free and it has pop-up blocking but you have to watch ads. Which one would your Grandma choose?
Wasn't the plan to leverage TW's cable companies to enter the broadband market? Why didn't that happen?
And, of course AOL doesn't have content, that's also why TW was attractive to them. If you ask me, it was the AOL execs who were "taken for a ride".
It's actually plain-old Knoppix that does all of that magic for you. The regular Knoppix distro is already setup to support PXE LTSP clients, ClusterKnoppix just added OpenMosix support.
This is quite possibly the coolest thing I've seen happen in computing in the last ten years, all thanks to Open Source.
Microsoft innovation my ass.
YHBT, HAND
'Project Monterey' jacks into Linux
This is a mathematically proven un-solvable thing
First off, with the math. I don't know what trade school you went to where they taught you that computers have 'infinite' states, but they don't. Even though there are millions of transistors, they can each be in only one of two states. It is nowhere near 'mathematically proven' that you cannot account for each one of them.
you can never account for every situation
If, by this statement, you mean situations whereby asteroids fall from the sky or the computer malfunctions in some way, then, yes... shit happens. No one expects a programmer to compensate for these things. Writing software that is 'perfect', however, is entirely possible irregardless of the imperfections of the computer (or OS) on which it runs.
You can't write a finite-state machine that can detect or correct an infinite number of states.
Again, with the math. There aren't an 'infinite number' of states. You can write a finite state machine that will check every bit of your code for logical errors. It is expensive and time consuming, so lazy programmers and fly-by-night companies don't do it.
calculating the "best" route from...
I think you've seen the problem with this one, so I won't harp on it. Suffice it to say that maybe you should find a 'CSci' major to explain it to you.
Here it is, folks, the icing on the cake: ... synergy, a business-plan, manager-speak, and other bullshit are NOT key components of successful software...
As revolting as it may sound to the hacker-coders out there, great programmers, software engineering, business processes,
Great programmers are, preferably some who paid attention in algebra. The OSS movement is the proof of this, producing better software than any of that other crap ever has. Maybe you would know that if you had paid attention to their quality, bug-free code instead of subscribing to the Microsoft "Bugs are inevitable, we must add features at all cost" programming model.
Free software aims to replace the Windows operating system only in-so-far as to create an open, competitive marketplace for desktop applications. If Microsoft had stuck to creating operating systems, Linux would have nowhere near the following it does today. Throughout the 90's, instead of being content with improving Windows, Microsoft ignored the bugs in their OS and concentrated on extending their monopoly vertically into the more profitable applications market, integrating their own products into their OS and giving them inherent, illegal advantages over competitors' products.
Microsoft likes to tout the availability of third-party software for Windows, but the trend in the Windows 'ecosystem' has been for large, profitable products to either be purchased by Microsoft and rebranded as M$ 'innovation' or merely crushed under the weight of the Microsoft integration monopoly. It's shocking how many Microsoft 'patches' just serve to further integrate their applications into the OS and break competitors' products. Lots of businesses in the 'dot-com' era were formed with the sole purpose of being purchased by Microsoft. Now, on Windows, you have the choice of one browser, one word processor, one e-mail client, one media player, and one instant messenger. Using anything else puts you at risk of having your investment in third-party applications and training made obsolete by Microsoft's anti-competitive tactics.
Sadly, those who were most fed up with this situation were the users. The mere fact that there are people so sick of Windows that they are willing to work to build their own OS has given Microsoft the only real competition it has ever had. Had there been no OSS 'Revolution', we would all be running M$ apps on a buggy, Macintosh-like system where everything from mice to CPU's to word processors come only from Redmond. Microsoft is still living in this fantasy world where they can control the entire desktop market in this way.
OSX is probably the best example of an open, capitalistic desktop applications marketplace so far. Apple has smartly placed themselves as a stepping stone between a proprietary OS running one vendor's applications to a free OS capable of attracting proprietary applications developers. They have a thriving third-party software base that hasn't (yet?) been monopolised by the OS developer. Maybe their choice of BSD as a base OS will help to convince more application developers to write for open software targets instead of coding nervously as the Sword of Redmond hangs precariously over their heads.
There's a reason they're called 'royalties'.
Lindows Mobile PC
Well, dead actually. Call the sales number and you get a recording: "The sales hotline is inactive due to the closure of the company."
Forget the separation of powers that you were taught in school. The Judicial branch is now the Executive. The Executive is now in charge of running *other* countries. And the Legislators are the same as always, saying that they're "doing what the masses want" while actually doing what lines their pockets and expands their authority. Bread and circuses for all!
Two things:
1) It would not be a bad thing for a few hundred square miles of sunlight to be prevented from hitting the earth. To anyone under it, it would seem like just another cloud, and they would probably live a few minutes longer because of it.
2) There would be little 'loss' in the mirror system described above. Even lightweight films can have a reflectivity of up to 95%. Converting the sunlight into electricity, then microwaves, and maintaining such a system in space, however, is sure to have much higher losses. This paper cites a 54% overall dc to dc efficiency for microwave conversion alone, neglecting collection and transmission losses.
is like a Monty Python skit. For those who haven't seen it on C-SPAN, I highly recommend finding the next showing and marking it on your calendar.
Kids have to learn to use computers, because, AFAICT, most adults just use them as overpriced typewriters.
There's going to be heat pollution either way, but I have a feeling there'd be less with a mirror. Plus, the collector device on Earth could be upgraded as technologies improve.
description of US college entrance exams.
Free Software does much more to bring software to the "unwashed masses" than Microsoft ever did. Microsoft has only brought to the general public the idea that computers are supposed to crash, are essentially non-programmable, and must be thrown into the landfill every two years and replaced with an even-more-power-hungry model.
Choosing a Linux distro as a desktop for an experienced user is more of a process than a decision. Of course you want the most features available, and you always want it to "just work". Balancing these needs with cost can be difficult. The most important difference between all of them is the means of package distribution. You need to ask yourself "Am I willing to:"
1) Pay for software updates? If so, choose an RPM based distro like RedHat or Mandrake. RPM's aren't available for lots of OSS projects because the developers want to spend their time writing software, not install routines. The advantage of paying for the service is that everything you get just works and installs quickly. The disadvantage is that RedHat still can't package some programs for legal reasons; you're stuck installing those by hand and they don't always play well with RPM-based distros.
2) Use older software in exchange for easy, free updates? This is why Debian Stable rules as a Linux server. It is also why many people are disappointed in Woody as a desktop. Hopefully the many Debian-based desktop distros (Xandros, Lindows, Liberix, Knoppix) and the Debian Desktop Project will help to fix this.
3) Fix problems or put up with instability in newer software in exchange for features and free (as in beer) updates? Gentoo or Debian Testing/Unstable.
The only other real options are SuSE and Slackware, neither of which I've used.
Whoa, there, cowboy. The ACT & MCAT are achievement tests, designed specifically to test knowledge. Knowledge is still, AFAIK, something you can acquire and retain almost regardless of your IQ.
The SAT and standard IQ tests, OTOH, are aptitude tests, designed to test a person's ability to solve problems and think critically. This is also something that can be learned, but only to an extent. It is not possible to memorize all of the possible questions on an SAT test, while on an ACT test it is. No matter how much preparation you go through, you cannot teach yourself to be a genius.
More info
You may not be a "genious" at spelling, but you've hit the nail on the head re: deductive reasoning. I'm shocked that logic and deduction are so readily ignored in schools in America. I've had college professors who taught logic and didn't seem to know the first thing about it.
It's just you idiots who scored less than 1500 who think otherwise ;)