This is not a big deal. BitKeeper was an SCM tool that allowed collaborative development among hundreds of developers, without a reliance on a sole arbiter to determine every update (of say 10,000 updates).
Loss of BitKeeper only means that development proceeds at the pace similar to pre-BitKeeper days. (Good ole 2.2-2.4 days.) Ah yes, the good old days of "Why didn't F**king Linus put in my patch? He LOST IT??? But I resubmitted it 50 times? He put me on his KILL filter?!?!" and "When will 2.3 (development) be committed as 2.4 (stable)? What's the holdup???"
The only two consequences are merely that 1) it will take longer to release new (major) kernel releases and 2) many, many developers may be discouraged from participating in linux kernel development, and some established developers may burn out from spending more time communicating/managing changes, rather than coding.
As for point 1), what's the rush? Principle is always more important than selling your soul for expediency. After all, look at Hurd. They didn't sell out. So what if we'll have to wait another two years before Linus can start development of 2.7?
Point 2), if Torvalds doesn't like going back to scripts, screw him. What a crybaby. So what if his email explodes in resubmissions and carelessly worded missives from impatient developers? If Torvalds, Morton, and Cox at some point can't deal with it anymore, it just means they're old and mentally weak. They need to be replaced with younger, hungrier talent. "Hell, the only reason why I'm not running the whole shebang are these old guys in the way...."
It kills me that with my relative antipathy towards Ayn Rand that her philosophic views could actually come to pass with this fiasco. If there is a Microsoftie fanboy who can comprehend what is happening right now, they must be laughing their asses off. Or at very least, smug in their perceptions of the flaws of amateur software development. (Hmm, need to send a memo to Marketing...)
The only question I have for Trigdell is "Couldn't you have at least waited until there WAS a SUITABLE alternative to BitKeeper"? Oh well. Guess we'll know the answer to that in two years. The only thing proven here is that if you are a zealot that can't adapt to the real world, you can still go f*ck things up for everyone else. And yet, for all their principles, these F/OSS zealots still prefer to focus their efforts on Linux, and ignore the embodiment of F/OSS development philosophy, HURD.
While young kids in American high schools are learning Civics studies etc. Russian kids are already foing advanced Maths.
Its not limited to Russia. My foreign born parents were pretty upset while I was in 2nd grade because they couldn't believe I had not been taught multiplication and division at that point. (Started in 3rd grade). Also, unique to the US, our public school educational system pretty much screws around unproductively. In Europe, everyone is done with primary education by the time they're 17. Then you're either headed to University or a trade school.
We got to hear all those jokes about it, when it was really a creative way to escape a hideously abusive recording contract.
This was my favorite stunt of his. "How can I release a song certain to make the Top 10 and yet make it impossible for the record company to make money off of it?" And then he put out "Sexy M-therF-cker". Just picture the face of that Sony suit, knowing he had a platinum mine on his hands, and yet couldn't cash it in. (To be pedantic: the song rarely could get actual radio play because it had to be so heavily censored.)
Leading computer scientists, such as David Patterson, the head of the ACM are outraged and worried."
Outraged? Perhaps you may be outraged, but you slander individuals when you attribute them for saying things they did not say. Nowhere in the article did I read that anyone was outraged.
The military has decided not to put as much money into basic CS research as they did in the past. "Basic CS research" means theoretical research. By its nature, that means the Pentagon cannot turn around in 3 years and produce a tangible return on its investment. How dare those officials decide to not spend money that's not directly related to killing people or keeping personnel from getting killed! How dare those officials prevent foreign enemies from directly profiting from US funded military research! Why not attack your private sector employer? Most of them have been cutting back funding on basic research.
It certainly is unfortunate. But if you think basic CS research is critical to the US's well being (or more likely, your well being), bitch out your congressman for not funding research, not the military for doing its job. (Good for you for getting a CS degree, but the world does not owe you a living.)
PDAs make awesome portable journals and technical reference libraries. As a systems administrator, I keep many text/howto files for retrieval, notes on a new technical task I've completed, cheatsheets, encrypted password lists, etc. Scientists need to log all their pertinent observations; might as well be on a PDA. Doctors/nurses can store all sorts of patient info and pharmacological references. Even non-tech consultants can use it to log their time, and track their expenses. And regardless of profession, it gives you something to read when you have to cool your heels somewhere.
Laptops are too bulky. You're not going to be able to log your notes into it, when you're reinstalling the OS. Nor are you going to use it to kill time while on public transportation where you can get mugged. And even with "hibernate", it takes too long to boot.
Worst of all are the retards who can't master simple PDA writing. When I first ordered my Handspring Deluxe, I was epitome of the early adopter. Never even seen one firsthand. (I just knew with a programmable device, its was going to be hours of amusement.) Yet I was resigned to the notion I was going to have to expend effort for a few days learning how to write into it. I fired it up; it took less than an hour to master Graphiti. After all, it was 95% similar to writing in block script. I merely needed to memorize a few unique strokes for punctuation. I was astonished at how little effort it took for me to learn how to write into it. But because of retards who can't even figure out why they'd have such a device, the damn manufacturers started putting in those damn thumbboards into the PDA.
Those Europeans may have a point. Can you beat or bore kids into being educated? Why should society subsidize mediocrity by insisting to retain kids that refuse to behave or perform in school? What is accomplished?
I think the key here is recognising while a child has the right to access to education, they lose that right when they disrupt the class, or the right to proceed to the next grade if they do not meet educational requirements.
While you and your friends are screaming about Bush or the collapse of american society, you miss the benefits you take advantage of as an american.
You fail to mention your Federally-guaranteed student loans and cheap mortgages.
Gee, how lucky an American is to get those loans. Until they complete their education and can't get a high enough salary to pay them off. (Particularly when they can thank gov't policy for helping flush the economy down the drain.)
Cheap mortgages is a function of market forces, not being American. Once the world stops buying US treasury bonds, Bush sucessfully privatizes Social Security (again removing capital from US treasury bonds), oil cartels use Euros instead of dollars, and the bills start coming due for Iraq, one of two things is going to happen. Skyrocketing inflation, or skyrocketing interest rates. That means America will not be the land of cheap mortgages. And your platitudes about cheap mortgages does not mean jack for the single mother having two minimum wage jobs, etc. (Are you so f**king stupid that I have to spell out why?)
You don't bitch about the highways that whisk you to your suburban home or the miracle drugs discovered thanks to government research.
No, I bitch about the lack of or shoddy public transportation to whisk me to my suburban home. Because when the economic downcycle hits, people won't be able to either afford or operate cars, or afford houses beyond the reach of their workplaces. What good are miracle drugs to the American when they can't afford to buy them? (When they have to chose between paying the bills or eating, to getting medication, that means you can't afford the medication.) I think its a wash anyway. The pharmaceutical industry has bribed the gov't to approve drugs with little benefit, or health deteriorating side effects, so no point in being able to afford drugs that will end up killing me.
I hate small-minded people. Particularly those who have nothing to do other than criticize and nothing to contribute over hot air. Right-wing, left-wing, a vapid windbag is a vapid windbag.
A concept we appear to share. Its quite obvious if there was such a thing as a utopian state, that's where I'd be headed. But no matter what nation I was a citizen of, I would not support the slaughter of human beings of Arabic descent to protect me from WMD that doesn't exist. Ask me later if we actually grow the balls to invade North Korea. Nor do I think the wellbeing or "freedom" of those Arabs is worth shedding a single drop of American blood (particularly from a reservist coerced into going to Iraq to shed it). Nor am I volunteering to pay the taxes in order to have a military fiasco in Iraq so some rich stockholders in Halliburton can steal my money.
I wish I could get away with shooting people who are so incredibly stupid, they get all their information from a drug addict on the radio, or news agencies which are shills for the military industrial complex, work two jobs, lose their house, and beleive that its all the fault of people who bitch against Bush and Republicans because they are capable of at least using their common sense. You dumbassed punk, you have no idea what hatred is.
Your anecdotal evidence doesn't mean shit. The grandparent didn't say "The best tax-funded road is worse than the worst toll road." What he said was "Toll roads are generally better-maintained than government-run roads," which is true for the same reason any form of private property is generally better maintained than the same property own by the government.
While you're quite right about his anecdotal example is hardly proof, neither is your assertions & rationalizations which aren't based on any evidence either. "Aren't worth shit", to use your words...
Private property owners lose money if their property loses value, hence they have an incentive to keep it well-maintained.
But that rationale is false if those private property owners can get the gov't or some other sucker to bail them out or ignore their fraud (Enron).
By comparison, a bureaucrat isn't going to lose anything (other than MAYBE his job) if the government-owned property he's in charge of loses value.
You may have a point, G. W. Bush is living example of that.
Its called a V-chip, dumbass. Granted, kids probably know more about the management and subversion of the device than parents. But they can't get away scott-free while the parents are at home. Then again, there is a lot to be said for means testing intelligence before allowing parent to have kids.
You are talking out your ass. Did you learn all your "facts" about marxism from web discussion boards? Marx does not discuss a dissolution of the central government into a form of anarchism. Neither does Lenin.
From Wikipedia:
(From the Communism vs Anarchism section)
Both systems want to eliminate private as well as state ownership of the means of production in order to achieve a truly free and democratic society where people have control, not an elite of private or state owners. However, unlike most communists, they do not believe that a stage where the state exists owning and controlling the means of production is needed or desirable between capitalism and the society they want to establish. They wish to implement their system without going through a period of "state socialism" where the state owns and controls the means of production.
(from the Marxism vs Leninism section)
According to Marxism, the class struggle within capitalism will eventually lead to the proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie and establishing socialism. Socialism, in turn, will result in the gradual fading of social classes (as the means of production are made public property), which will lead to the final stage of human society - communism.
The important point here is that Communism and Anarchism all aim to achieve the same endstate. The difference is Marxist Communists beleive there needs to be a centralized system (called State Socialism) in place first to transistion from capitalist entity to local anarchism.
The notable difference here is that I absorbed the gist of the philosophies meaning, while you on the other hand, memorized complete tracts without even understanding what you had read. To me, that is the definition of an idiot.
Also note, you did not contest the most basic premise of my post, which was that China is abandoning communist ideology and changing its economic system, and thus the original poster would be incorrect in asserting that China was going to become the first economically sucessful Communist state. Which makes you a pointless idiot.
Your right though they seem to be evolving to a western socialist state if so. god help us...
I never said *I* beleived they were evolving into a western-style socialist state. That requires decentralization of political power to the masses. China's central committee has shown no such predisposition to do so.
If China in the future does get "too big for its britches" We may meet a power never before delt with in human history.
Who says China will get "too big for its britches"? Perhaps its the United States that has become "too big for its britches". Perhaps the political, economic, and military capital we are expending in Iraq will make it impossible for us to rise to the China challenge in ten to twenty years. Heck, Rome, Britain, USSR, they are all empires we can learn lessons from, if we were intellectually capable of doing so. As for China becoming a international behemoth, its not the first time something like this has happened in history, it won't be the last. As for God, I don't think you should be praying for him to deliver us from China...
they would probably be the first sucessful communist government to succeed in producing a government with a stable economy.
Classic, theoretical communism implies there will be a dissolution of the central gov't into a form of anarchism. Soviet communism (as we currently see communism) bans private ownership of property, and the gov't regulates all operation of all material production. China's economic system currently has "rich" private owners of various enterprises, and looks to divest the gov't of almost all industries. There is even an entrepeneur class that extends beyond Hong Kong. The catch is that almost all the owners of the really important industries happen to also be the highest ranked gov't officials, that the gov't can arbitrarily come down on any private owner at any time, and there are still industries which haven't been privatized by the central gov't.
But once the bulk of industries stop being owned and managed by the central gov't, it stops being communism. What to call it is another dilemna. You could argue its evolving to a western socialist state, or merely into an oligarchy; my problem with China is that it appears to me to be evolving into a fascist gov't, similar to what was seen in post-WWI Germany and Italy.
Tragic that the average slashdotter (and thus, the 1st world citizen) doesn't really understand these distinctions. Perhaps if one phrased the question as "What would have Fascist Germany have been like without Hitler? Lets say, a Fidel Castro or Kim Il Sung", and you might start to appreciate the potential for problems. Even worse, one will still be looking at China as a communist country, when it will be a significantly more efficient economy and better operated. Then kick in 1+ billion people and 20% of their nationalistic, military aged males not able to marry. Interesting times ahead.
I'm not saying he should have been a credentialed member of the White House Press Corp, or should have been in there with no background checks, etc. etc. etc., but if any old blogger is a journalist - indeed, if Kos himself is a "journalist" - then Guckert/Gannon is just the same.
You're absolutely right. There's no difference between a "credentialed" journalist and an "uncredentialed" journalist in the eyes of a partisan idiot. Do *YOU* equate Guckert's journalistic professionalism to be equal to Kos? Or do you feel as long as Guckert's is paid money from some "news organization" that makes him to be a professional journalist, and Kos a partisan amateur to be ignored?
Of course, "professional" organizations seem to be really fascinated about Guckert's background, but not so keen on pointing out why the White House would approve him as a white house reporter. It becomes pretty obvious when he's known for such insightful questions like "Doesn't Joe Wilson owe the President and America an apology for his deception and his own intelligence failure?" Oh, that's the kind of question the White House needs to be asked. Not questions like "Are you aware it was illegal to pay $24K to a journalist to create favorable stories about an administration program proposal...?"
I don't care that Guckert was a bone smuggler. The White House apparently didn't either when they vetted him. It bugs me that the White House tries to frontload their press conferences with right-wing shills. After all, isn't it supposed to be a means by which the President communicates to the general public, and the public gets to ask questions to the White House through professional journalists? But apparently, the neocons neither have shame or integrity. So I lose no sleep here.
But its obvious that the news industry needs to ignore the laws broken by the administration (like bribing journalists, or outing CIA assets), or how the integrity White House press conference process is a lie, and stress that a bone smuggling escort got press credentials. But this is the type of journalism you appear to exalt when it comes from "professional" media, and decry when it comes from a blog.
Bloggers think they're going to be the revolution of the press, and that they'll take the place of the New York Times and Washinton Post, and Newscorp will crumble at their feet.
I don't think that, but I think it will be close. The centralization of commercial news media and its change of priorities to entertainment and cost efficient research methodology (i.e. - make it up), has seriously eroded the influence and significance of the fourth estate. Those trends don't appear to be changing.
What I believe those blogs are becoming is the equivalent of the "daily papers" at the turn of the century. In the early half of the 20th century, there was a plethora of periodicals, particularly in the cities; many of them hawking a particular point (whether it was labor, socialism, political faction, or neighborhood). They also suffered from varying levels of objectivity and journalistic methodology. But they did publicize stories that weren't picked up by the more established news forums, and important, kept the populace informed with a different perspective than what a multimillionaire believed your grandparents should think.
Not as long as they have no problem with their complete and utter lack of accountability of any type, and the vicious, one-sided partisan nature designed solely to incite vitriol in their groupthink audiences.
Agreed. And where were the major news organizations when those clowns from the "Swift Boat Veterans" were spreading their disinformation about Kerry? Or those exemplars of impartiality, the Sinclair Media Group? Wouldn't you just love to get rid of that lying hack Matt Drudge?
But many, particularly political blogs, have no regard for anything but the furtherance of their own agendas, taking things wildly out of context, and going on vindictive missions to build a one-sided case to paint the target of their ire in the worst possible light, without any consideration for any other motivations or other sides of the stories.
Ah, and I should prefer the "accurate" world view of a billionaire and their college educated underlings? The ones that got the WMD story in Iraq wrong? Yet still think we should be liberating people in Iraq rather than putting the President up for impeachment? The ones that failed to point out that the California Energy Shortage of 1999 was manufactured by a conspiracy of energy providers? And fail to point out that electing Arnold Schwartzenneger would mean he would help them keep their ill gotten gains? The ones that vigorously denied the CIA was involved with drug trafficking to the US urban centers back in the 1980's?
No way is USB2 going to satisfy my need for throughput
You know, such blanket statements are quite silly.
Ah, the taunting drivel from an Anonymous Coward. And what is the technical competence of this coward? Why, he looks at manufacturer spec sheets, and concludes my position on firewire/USB2 is silly.
I, on the other hand, defer to the demonstrated reality:
And just to make the point screamingly clear, what I said was that I found firewire performance less than satisfying, thus USB2 wasn't going to be otherwise.
(And those ATA specs sure look disingenuous. I'll have to rip that one apart later...)
What's funny is that I think the Starbuck character in the original series was written to be too effeminate.
I'd have to look at the old series again to see it. Dirk Benedict did sorta have a "pretty" boy air to him; not sure if it was DB being swishy for an actor, or that you're correct about the writing.
But seriously, other than the plot point about Starbuck's relationship with Zach Adama, the character could be played by an actor of either gender. (and maybe even including the relationship with Zach. Maybe homosexuality is not frowned upon on Caprica.). Is that your point?
Nope, thought didn't occur to me, although now it does, with Zach not appearing particularly passionate with the ladies. (Originally, I just wrote him off as the miscast red-headed bastard Irish child of someone of Spanish descent. And not particularly a good actor either, unless the writers/producers wanted to capture the original Apollo's wooden, dorkish, petulant character.)
I tend to look at TV/movies like visual art. (And no, I don't claim to have an eye or affinity for museum art.) I watch it, and if I like it, I presume its good. But I'm kinda weird with watching cinema -- while watching something, I can step out of myself, and pick out details and break it down with a clinical eye, still have the viewer/emotional end running in the background, and still enjoy the picture.
So, a major character is a chick and a lot of minutes is devoted to her. To myself, the definition of sucessful performance is that I like watching the actress act, and that my impression of entertainment quality is that he/she was indispensible to the work.
From a producer/advertiser/me point of view, her writing/casting was a failure. She didn't give me a chubby, she wasn't easy on the eyes, and I didn't really want to spend lots of minutes watching her. She was the epitome of plot machinery to me. Good to great actors have to stand out. They have to make you give a damn about them. Or, have to execute the requirements of the supporting actor role so incisively (and not necesarily stand out or give a damn) that you can only marvel at the performance.
Her performance wasn't anything markedly unrealistic. I find it fascinating that the old BSG centered around two characters that really made up the center of the show. Yet in the new BSG, those two characters seem the least relevant to the plot on the show. Still, if I'm less than happy, its a flaw in my book. I don't claim that my opinion should be the standard upon how all cinema should be judged. I'm just describing how I evaluate quality.
While I agree that women who excel are able to blend in with the guys, I disagree that they always have to be camoflaged to be sucessful. To me, the sucessful ones do not trigger sexual stereotype impressions, but know when to use whatever advantage they can, when they need to.
My problem with the new Starbuck is that she's written so butch, and butch looking, she may as well have been a male. You lose some male bonding dialogue with casting female. I'm inclined to beleive they merely miscast with a weak actress. Or the writers/producers really overdid the Starbuck-as-female concept to the point they couldn't see how it would affect the entertainment quality of the show.
They're okay with eye-candy. They have the blonde Cylon and Boomer. They could even stick in the black chick more. Grace Park would be too much of a chick to be Starbuck, but you get the idea that "you can have an intense job, and still be a chick" could have been better executed.
And yet the new BSG still rocks. Its smart that you stayed an AC, idiot.
*Warning* Subtle spoilers... Stop reading if you can't handle them.
=====
Can't speak for the original poster, but I'm totally siding on the subtle descriptive.
They make Cylons manufactured humans, which in itself not a subtle change, but now the crew has to constantly worry about saboteurs is a nuanced change from the original series.
The Cylons believing in a supernatural deity may seem like a useless or unsubtle change, but it fixes so many problems with the original BSG. Why the frack would you setup a human to run one of your own battle fleets? Why the frack would a human agree to hunt down his own kind?
Already you're wondering what the frack is the Cylons' objectives. My hunch is that they don't even want to destroy the human race, only assimilate them into their culture. Could that be the set of metaphors the writers/producers want to juxtapose with today's world? Or perhaps the Blonde Cylon is merely a renegade, and the machines want to exterminate the human race?
Baltar becomes a much more believable villian, though I'm a little disappointed the Cylons steered him towards politics rather than an antichrist.
The "conflict" in the old BSG was between Starbuck and Apollo, although it was quite hackneyed and lame. With the new BSG, there is a wonderful father/son conflict with Adama & Apollo. I would describe it as subtle, though unsubtle in its effects.
Where in the original BSG did you get to see inner angst like what confronts Boomer? (Or any show, for that matter.)
I hate to plaster my worldview on EVERYTHING, but I get the sneaking feeling that the President/Admiral conflict is more like a metaphor on old school American civics and modern neoconservatism.
Here's subtle. In the old show, the special effects/dogfights were the most important part of the show. In the new show, the special effects/dogfights are incredibly unsatisfying and certainly irrelevant to the quality of each episode. Even though the technical quality of the SE/D must be better...
I really hope they can keep the Boomer character in the show, and not write her off as a robot. Its going to be sheer genius on the writers' part if they can accomplish it.
If you want to insist the new BSG is unsubtle, but with many depths of interpretation, fine. But its not the crappy cartoon-orama of the late 70's that made Star Trek look like high drama.
As a PC user, I find firewire nifty for me. I use an external (120GB) firewire hard drive to share my/home directory between my server and laptop. When I want to run a game that won't run on my laptop, I can boot my laptop to act as my linux server (taking care of downloads and other services), and boot my server to play Half-Life 2. That is also the setup while I'm doing rebuilding work on the server.
I saw it as a way to make large amounts of external storage available if needed. But in my case, I'm not finding "firewire faster" enough, but the opposite. No way is USB2 going to satisfy my need for throughput. Too bad firewire never really caught on in the PC world. Its only $10-$30 to add cards to the server & laptop.
As an aside, I really can not explain how totally and utterly bizarre it is (to me anyway), to go to a friends place with some pals and watch everyone staring blankly at the TV. It's kind of creepy. If you leave the TV off, people will talk, make jokes, share experiences, but when the TV comes on, it's like an intellectual and social ghost town. I usually just leave (not to be an elitist, just because it's so boring).
Of course its creepy. You hang out with friends to socialize. You watch TV to disengage from reality. There's no point in watching TV with other people unless you discuss the program afterwards.
TV exists as a form of narcotic. They have done studies which show physiological and brain activity changes from watching it. When I get back home from my crappy job, it is the easiest way to zone out or change my mood. Reading's nice, but sometimes your just too braindead to enjoy it. Its healthier than getting drunk or taking drugs. But don't discount its effects or undesirable consequences because its not cocaine or alcohol.
...And you've also missed shows like Highlander, Buffy, Angel, Smallville, Stargate SG-1, 24, Deadwood, Farscape, South Park, Lost, Simpsons (I don't watch it), yada yada... (And I know I'm still missing some noteworthy entertainment...)
...But were spared the heartbreak of seeing Cupid (1999) and Firefly killed, or see Ally McBeal or Dawson's Creek crater after the first season...
...And miss being informed by programs like Frontline, 60 Minutes, NOW, those documentary channels (Discovery, History), and primary sources like CSPAN... (Didn't realize how close Canada came to breaking up until I watched it live...)
I honestly don't envy their ability to keep track of the latest shows.
...and why admire someone who can name all the US senators, or the Periodic Table of Elements, or the moons of Jupiter & Saturn (all 93?), or the capitals of all the nations of a continent? If you can't directly apply it, its no different than being able to recall sports statistics, or TV episodes. TV entertainment can be a form of cultural enhancement, just like novels and plays. The trick is finding the worthwhile stuff.
For me, I haven't had cable for years. But as long as I have the Internet and recappers, I'll always be able to enjoy the best of what little TV has to offer...
Here may be a cool topic. What TV episodes actually changed your perspective on how you view or approach life?
For myself, I found ST:TNG Tapestry, Stargate SG-1 Absolute Power left an impression, as did ST:TOS Let This be your Last Battlefield if only that some people really think there's a difference whether you're black on the left side or the right side...
Come to think of it, Americans might have something to learn from ST:TOS Squire of Gothos (Its maturity in action, not absolute power that defines character or refinement), and ST:TOS Devil in the Dark (Think of different cultures as different races; stop looking to destroy or dominate the other).
Now this wounded me. I take great pride in being vicious and cutting when I deign to respond to a post that I perceive is flawed in its reasoning. You accuse me of intent to be nasty based on merely one adjective, "clueless". Trust me, I had no intention to be nasty in my response. It should be screamingly obvious when I *intend* to be nasty in a response.
This is Slashdot, Pookie. If you're going to wilt because I call you clueless in one of your less than stellar responses, stick me in your foes list, and downmod your foes below your viewing threshold. ("You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!") My advice: Grow a slightly thicker skin.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not a big deal. BitKeeper was an SCM tool that allowed collaborative development among hundreds of developers, without a reliance on a sole arbiter to determine every update (of say 10,000 updates).
Loss of BitKeeper only means that development proceeds at the pace similar to pre-BitKeeper days. (Good ole 2.2-2.4 days.) Ah yes, the good old days of "Why didn't F**king Linus put in my patch? He LOST IT??? But I resubmitted it 50 times? He put me on his KILL filter?!?!" and "When will 2.3 (development) be committed as 2.4 (stable)? What's the holdup???"
The only two consequences are merely that 1) it will take longer to release new (major) kernel releases and 2) many, many developers may be discouraged from participating in linux kernel development, and some established developers may burn out from spending more time communicating/managing changes, rather than coding.
As for point 1), what's the rush? Principle is always more important than selling your soul for expediency. After all, look at Hurd. They didn't sell out. So what if we'll have to wait another two years before Linus can start development of 2.7?
Point 2), if Torvalds doesn't like going back to scripts, screw him. What a crybaby. So what if his email explodes in resubmissions and carelessly worded missives from impatient developers? If Torvalds, Morton, and Cox at some point can't deal with it anymore, it just means they're old and mentally weak. They need to be replaced with younger, hungrier talent. "Hell, the only reason why I'm not running the whole shebang are these old guys in the way...."
It kills me that with my relative antipathy towards Ayn Rand that her philosophic views could actually come to pass with this fiasco. If there is a Microsoftie fanboy who can comprehend what is happening right now, they must be laughing their asses off. Or at very least, smug in their perceptions of the flaws of amateur software development. (Hmm, need to send a memo to Marketing...)
The only question I have for Trigdell is "Couldn't you have at least waited until there WAS a SUITABLE alternative to BitKeeper"? Oh well. Guess we'll know the answer to that in two years. The only thing proven here is that if you are a zealot that can't adapt to the real world, you can still go f*ck things up for everyone else. And yet, for all their principles, these F/OSS zealots still prefer to focus their efforts on Linux, and ignore the embodiment of F/OSS development philosophy, HURD.
Its not limited to Russia. My foreign born parents were pretty upset while I was in 2nd grade because they couldn't believe I had not been taught multiplication and division at that point. (Started in 3rd grade). Also, unique to the US, our public school educational system pretty much screws around unproductively. In Europe, everyone is done with primary education by the time they're 17. Then you're either headed to University or a trade school.
We got to hear all those jokes about it, when it was really a creative way to escape a hideously abusive recording contract.
This was my favorite stunt of his. "How can I release a song certain to make the Top 10 and yet make it impossible for the record company to make money off of it?" And then he put out "Sexy M-therF-cker". Just picture the face of that Sony suit, knowing he had a platinum mine on his hands, and yet couldn't cash it in. (To be pedantic: the song rarely could get actual radio play because it had to be so heavily censored.)
Outraged? Perhaps you may be outraged, but you slander individuals when you attribute them for saying things they did not say. Nowhere in the article did I read that anyone was outraged.
The military has decided not to put as much money into basic CS research as they did in the past. "Basic CS research" means theoretical research. By its nature, that means the Pentagon cannot turn around in 3 years and produce a tangible return on its investment. How dare those officials decide to not spend money that's not directly related to killing people or keeping personnel from getting killed! How dare those officials prevent foreign enemies from directly profiting from US funded military research! Why not attack your private sector employer? Most of them have been cutting back funding on basic research.
It certainly is unfortunate. But if you think basic CS research is critical to the US's well being (or more likely, your well being), bitch out your congressman for not funding research, not the military for doing its job. (Good for you for getting a CS degree, but the world does not owe you a living.)
I've seen something like this before. Wow, birth of a new Troll topic/response.
PDAs make awesome portable journals and technical reference libraries. As a systems administrator, I keep many text/howto files for retrieval, notes on a new technical task I've completed, cheatsheets, encrypted password lists, etc. Scientists need to log all their pertinent observations; might as well be on a PDA. Doctors/nurses can store all sorts of patient info and pharmacological references. Even non-tech consultants can use it to log their time, and track their expenses. And regardless of profession, it gives you something to read when you have to cool your heels somewhere.
Laptops are too bulky. You're not going to be able to log your notes into it, when you're reinstalling the OS. Nor are you going to use it to kill time while on public transportation where you can get mugged. And even with "hibernate", it takes too long to boot.
Worst of all are the retards who can't master simple PDA writing. When I first ordered my Handspring Deluxe, I was epitome of the early adopter. Never even seen one firsthand. (I just knew with a programmable device, its was going to be hours of amusement.) Yet I was resigned to the notion I was going to have to expend effort for a few days learning how to write into it. I fired it up; it took less than an hour to master Graphiti. After all, it was 95% similar to writing in block script. I merely needed to memorize a few unique strokes for punctuation. I was astonished at how little effort it took for me to learn how to write into it. But because of retards who can't even figure out why they'd have such a device, the damn manufacturers started putting in those damn thumbboards into the PDA.
Those Europeans may have a point. Can you beat or bore kids into being educated? Why should society subsidize mediocrity by insisting to retain kids that refuse to behave or perform in school? What is accomplished?
I think the key here is recognising while a child has the right to access to education, they lose that right when they disrupt the class, or the right to proceed to the next grade if they do not meet educational requirements.
Gee, how lucky an American is to get those loans. Until they complete their education and can't get a high enough salary to pay them off. (Particularly when they can thank gov't policy for helping flush the economy down the drain.)
Cheap mortgages is a function of market forces, not being American. Once the world stops buying US treasury bonds, Bush sucessfully privatizes Social Security (again removing capital from US treasury bonds), oil cartels use Euros instead of dollars, and the bills start coming due for Iraq, one of two things is going to happen. Skyrocketing inflation, or skyrocketing interest rates. That means America will not be the land of cheap mortgages. And your platitudes about cheap mortgages does not mean jack for the single mother having two minimum wage jobs, etc. (Are you so f**king stupid that I have to spell out why?)
No, I bitch about the lack of or shoddy public transportation to whisk me to my suburban home. Because when the economic downcycle hits, people won't be able to either afford or operate cars, or afford houses beyond the reach of their workplaces. What good are miracle drugs to the American when they can't afford to buy them? (When they have to chose between paying the bills or eating, to getting medication, that means you can't afford the medication.) I think its a wash anyway. The pharmaceutical industry has bribed the gov't to approve drugs with little benefit, or health deteriorating side effects, so no point in being able to afford drugs that will end up killing me.
A concept we appear to share. Its quite obvious if there was such a thing as a utopian state, that's where I'd be headed. But no matter what nation I was a citizen of, I would not support the slaughter of human beings of Arabic descent to protect me from WMD that doesn't exist. Ask me later if we actually grow the balls to invade North Korea. Nor do I think the wellbeing or "freedom" of those Arabs is worth shedding a single drop of American blood (particularly from a reservist coerced into going to Iraq to shed it). Nor am I volunteering to pay the taxes in order to have a military fiasco in Iraq so some rich stockholders in Halliburton can steal my money.
I wish I could get away with shooting people who are so incredibly stupid, they get all their information from a drug addict on the radio, or news agencies which are shills for the military industrial complex, work two jobs, lose their house, and beleive that its all the fault of people who bitch against Bush and Republicans because they are capable of at least using their common sense. You dumbassed punk, you have no idea what hatred is.
Oh really? Tell that to Enron's employees.
While you're quite right about his anecdotal example is hardly proof, neither is your assertions & rationalizations which aren't based on any evidence either. "Aren't worth shit", to use your words...
But that rationale is false if those private property owners can get the gov't or some other sucker to bail them out or ignore their fraud (Enron).
You may have a point, G. W. Bush is living example of that.
Why not? Halliburton.
Its called a V-chip, dumbass. Granted, kids probably know more about the management and subversion of the device than parents. But they can't get away scott-free while the parents are at home. Then again, there is a lot to be said for means testing intelligence before allowing parent to have kids.
From Wikipedia:
(From the Communism vs Anarchism section)
Both systems want to eliminate private as well as state ownership of the means of production in order to achieve a truly free and democratic society where people have control, not an elite of private or state owners. However, unlike most communists, they do not believe that a stage where the state exists owning and controlling the means of production is needed or desirable between capitalism and the society they want to establish. They wish to implement their system without going through a period of "state socialism" where the state owns and controls the means of production.
(from the Marxism vs Leninism section)
According to Marxism, the class struggle within capitalism will eventually lead to the proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie and establishing socialism. Socialism, in turn, will result in the gradual fading of social classes (as the means of production are made public property), which will lead to the final stage of human society - communism.
The important point here is that Communism and Anarchism all aim to achieve the same endstate. The difference is Marxist Communists beleive there needs to be a centralized system (called State Socialism) in place first to transistion from capitalist entity to local anarchism.
The notable difference here is that I absorbed the gist of the philosophies meaning, while you on the other hand, memorized complete tracts without even understanding what you had read. To me, that is the definition of an idiot.
Also note, you did not contest the most basic premise of my post, which was that China is abandoning communist ideology and changing its economic system, and thus the original poster would be incorrect in asserting that China was going to become the first economically sucessful Communist state. Which makes you a pointless idiot.
I never said *I* beleived they were evolving into a western-style socialist state. That requires decentralization of political power to the masses. China's central committee has shown no such predisposition to do so.
Who says China will get "too big for its britches"? Perhaps its the United States that has become "too big for its britches". Perhaps the political, economic, and military capital we are expending in Iraq will make it impossible for us to rise to the China challenge in ten to twenty years. Heck, Rome, Britain, USSR, they are all empires we can learn lessons from, if we were intellectually capable of doing so. As for China becoming a international behemoth, its not the first time something like this has happened in history, it won't be the last. As for God, I don't think you should be praying for him to deliver us from China...
they would probably be the first sucessful communist government to succeed in producing a government with a stable economy.
Classic, theoretical communism implies there will be a dissolution of the central gov't into a form of anarchism. Soviet communism (as we currently see communism) bans private ownership of property, and the gov't regulates all operation of all material production. China's economic system currently has "rich" private owners of various enterprises, and looks to divest the gov't of almost all industries. There is even an entrepeneur class that extends beyond Hong Kong. The catch is that almost all the owners of the really important industries happen to also be the highest ranked gov't officials, that the gov't can arbitrarily come down on any private owner at any time, and there are still industries which haven't been privatized by the central gov't.
But once the bulk of industries stop being owned and managed by the central gov't, it stops being communism. What to call it is another dilemna. You could argue its evolving to a western socialist state, or merely into an oligarchy; my problem with China is that it appears to me to be evolving into a fascist gov't, similar to what was seen in post-WWI Germany and Italy.
Tragic that the average slashdotter (and thus, the 1st world citizen) doesn't really understand these distinctions. Perhaps if one phrased the question as "What would have Fascist Germany have been like without Hitler? Lets say, a Fidel Castro or Kim Il Sung", and you might start to appreciate the potential for problems. Even worse, one will still be looking at China as a communist country, when it will be a significantly more efficient economy and better operated. Then kick in 1+ billion people and 20% of their nationalistic, military aged males not able to marry. Interesting times ahead.
You're absolutely right. There's no difference between a "credentialed" journalist and an "uncredentialed" journalist in the eyes of a partisan idiot. Do *YOU* equate Guckert's journalistic professionalism to be equal to Kos? Or do you feel as long as Guckert's is paid money from some "news organization" that makes him to be a professional journalist, and Kos a partisan amateur to be ignored?
Of course, "professional" organizations seem to be really fascinated about Guckert's background, but not so keen on pointing out why the White House would approve him as a white house reporter. It becomes pretty obvious when he's known for such insightful questions like " Doesn't Joe Wilson owe the President and America an apology for his deception and his own intelligence failure? " Oh, that's the kind of question the White House needs to be asked. Not questions like "Are you aware it was illegal to pay $24K to a journalist to create favorable stories about an administration program proposal...?"
I don't care that Guckert was a bone smuggler. The White House apparently didn't either when they vetted him. It bugs me that the White House tries to frontload their press conferences with right-wing shills. After all, isn't it supposed to be a means by which the President communicates to the general public, and the public gets to ask questions to the White House through professional journalists? But apparently, the neocons neither have shame or integrity. So I lose no sleep here.
But its obvious that the news industry needs to ignore the laws broken by the administration (like bribing journalists, or outing CIA assets), or how the integrity White House press conference process is a lie, and stress that a bone smuggling escort got press credentials. But this is the type of journalism you appear to exalt when it comes from "professional" media, and decry when it comes from a blog.
I don't think that, but I think it will be close. The centralization of commercial news media and its change of priorities to entertainment and cost efficient research methodology (i.e. - make it up), has seriously eroded the influence and significance of the fourth estate. Those trends don't appear to be changing.
What I believe those blogs are becoming is the equivalent of the "daily papers" at the turn of the century. In the early half of the 20th century, there was a plethora of periodicals, particularly in the cities; many of them hawking a particular point (whether it was labor, socialism, political faction, or neighborhood). They also suffered from varying levels of objectivity and journalistic methodology. But they did publicize stories that weren't picked up by the more established news forums, and important, kept the populace informed with a different perspective than what a multimillionaire believed your grandparents should think.
Agreed. And where were the major news organizations when those clowns from the "Swift Boat Veterans" were spreading their disinformation about Kerry? Or those exemplars of impartiality, the Sinclair Media Group? Wouldn't you just love to get rid of that lying hack Matt Drudge?
Ah, and I should prefer the "accurate" world view of a billionaire and their college educated underlings? The ones that got the WMD story in Iraq wrong? Yet still think we should be liberating people in Iraq rather than putting the President up for impeachment? The ones that failed to point out that the California Energy Shortage of 1999 was manufactured by a conspiracy of energy providers? And fail to point out that electing Arnold Schwartzenneger would mean he would help them keep their ill gotten gains? The ones that vigorously denied the CIA was involved with drug trafficking to the US urban centers back in the 1980's?
Ah, the taunting drivel from an Anonymous Coward. And what is the technical competence of this coward? Why, he looks at manufacturer spec sheets, and concludes my position on firewire/USB2 is silly.
I, on the other hand, defer to the demonstrated reality:
From these results we see that Firewire trounced USB2 in two ways. The first was that data was read almost twice as fast as USB2. Writing data occurred at similar speeds using both Firewire and USB2. The second advantage appeared from the CPU utilization. On both computers, Firewire used a significantly less amount of the CPU than USB2 when transferring data. According to these benchmarks, Firewire appears to be the better choice for an external hard drive.
Don't be confused by the rated speeds you see emblazoned across USB 2.0 and FireWire product boxes. Despite USB 2.0's 80 Kbps speed advantage over FireWire, our testing showed that the additional overhead of USB 2.0 made it slower than FireWire. For high-bandwidth devices such as external hard drives, the difference was as high as 70 percent.
And just to make the point screamingly clear, what I said was that I found firewire performance less than satisfying, thus USB2 wasn't going to be otherwise.
(And those ATA specs sure look disingenuous. I'll have to rip that one apart later...)
I'd have to look at the old series again to see it. Dirk Benedict did sorta have a "pretty" boy air to him; not sure if it was DB being swishy for an actor, or that you're correct about the writing.
Nope, thought didn't occur to me, although now it does, with Zach not appearing particularly passionate with the ladies. (Originally, I just wrote him off as the miscast red-headed bastard Irish child of someone of Spanish descent. And not particularly a good actor either, unless the writers/producers wanted to capture the original Apollo's wooden, dorkish, petulant character.)
I tend to look at TV/movies like visual art. (And no, I don't claim to have an eye or affinity for museum art.) I watch it, and if I like it, I presume its good. But I'm kinda weird with watching cinema -- while watching something, I can step out of myself, and pick out details and break it down with a clinical eye, still have the viewer/emotional end running in the background, and still enjoy the picture.
So, a major character is a chick and a lot of minutes is devoted to her. To myself, the definition of sucessful performance is that I like watching the actress act, and that my impression of entertainment quality is that he/she was indispensible to the work.
From a producer/advertiser/me point of view, her writing/casting was a failure. She didn't give me a chubby, she wasn't easy on the eyes, and I didn't really want to spend lots of minutes watching her. She was the epitome of plot machinery to me. Good to great actors have to stand out. They have to make you give a damn about them. Or, have to execute the requirements of the supporting actor role so incisively (and not necesarily stand out or give a damn) that you can only marvel at the performance.
Her performance wasn't anything markedly unrealistic. I find it fascinating that the old BSG centered around two characters that really made up the center of the show. Yet in the new BSG, those two characters seem the least relevant to the plot on the show. Still, if I'm less than happy, its a flaw in my book. I don't claim that my opinion should be the standard upon how all cinema should be judged. I'm just describing how I evaluate quality.
While I agree that women who excel are able to blend in with the guys, I disagree that they always have to be camoflaged to be sucessful. To me, the sucessful ones do not trigger sexual stereotype impressions, but know when to use whatever advantage they can, when they need to.
My problem with the new Starbuck is that she's written so butch, and butch looking, she may as well have been a male. You lose some male bonding dialogue with casting female. I'm inclined to beleive they merely miscast with a weak actress. Or the writers/producers really overdid the Starbuck-as-female concept to the point they couldn't see how it would affect the entertainment quality of the show.
They're okay with eye-candy. They have the blonde Cylon and Boomer. They could even stick in the black chick more. Grace Park would be too much of a chick to be Starbuck, but you get the idea that
"you can have an intense job, and still be a chick" could have been better executed.
And yet the new BSG still rocks. Its smart that you stayed an AC, idiot.
*Warning* Subtle spoilers... Stop reading if you can't handle them.
=====
Can't speak for the original poster, but I'm totally siding on the subtle descriptive.
They make Cylons manufactured humans, which in itself not a subtle change, but now the crew has to constantly worry about saboteurs is a nuanced change from the original series.
The Cylons believing in a supernatural deity may seem like a useless or unsubtle change, but it fixes so many problems with the original BSG. Why the frack would you setup a human to run one of your own battle fleets? Why the frack would a human agree to hunt down his own kind?
Already you're wondering what the frack is the Cylons' objectives. My hunch is that they don't even want to destroy the human race, only assimilate them into their culture. Could that be the set of metaphors the writers/producers want to juxtapose with today's world? Or perhaps the Blonde Cylon is merely a renegade, and the machines want to exterminate the human race?
Baltar becomes a much more believable villian, though I'm a little disappointed the Cylons steered him towards politics rather than an antichrist.
The "conflict" in the old BSG was between Starbuck and Apollo, although it was quite hackneyed and lame. With the new BSG, there is a wonderful father/son conflict with Adama & Apollo. I would describe it as subtle, though unsubtle in its effects.
Where in the original BSG did you get to see inner angst like what confronts Boomer? (Or any show, for that matter.)
I hate to plaster my worldview on EVERYTHING, but I get the sneaking feeling that the President/Admiral conflict is more like a metaphor on old school American civics and modern neoconservatism.
Here's subtle. In the old show, the special effects/dogfights were the most important part of the show. In the new show, the special effects/dogfights are incredibly unsatisfying and certainly irrelevant to the quality of each episode. Even though the technical quality of the SE/D must be better...
I really hope they can keep the Boomer character in the show, and not write her off as a robot. Its going to be sheer genius on the writers' part if they can accomplish it.
If you want to insist the new BSG is unsubtle, but with many depths of interpretation, fine. But its not the crappy cartoon-orama of the late 70's that made Star Trek look like high drama.
As a PC user, I find firewire nifty for me. I use an external (120GB) firewire hard drive to share my /home directory between my server and laptop. When I want to run a game that won't run on my laptop, I can boot my laptop to act as my linux server (taking care of downloads and other services), and boot my server to play Half-Life 2. That is also the setup while I'm doing rebuilding work on the server.
I saw it as a way to make large amounts of external storage available if needed. But in my case, I'm not finding "firewire faster" enough, but the opposite. No way is USB2 going to satisfy my need for throughput. Too bad firewire never really caught on in the PC world. Its only $10-$30 to add cards to the server & laptop.
Of course its creepy. You hang out with friends to socialize. You watch TV to disengage from reality. There's no point in watching TV with other people unless you discuss the program afterwards.
TV exists as a form of narcotic. They have done studies which show physiological and brain activity changes from watching it. When I get back home from my crappy job, it is the easiest way to zone out or change my mood. Reading's nice, but sometimes your just too braindead to enjoy it. Its healthier than getting drunk or taking drugs. But don't discount its effects or undesirable consequences because its not cocaine or alcohol.
...And you've also missed shows like Highlander, Buffy, Angel, Smallville, Stargate SG-1, 24, Deadwood, Farscape, South Park, Lost, Simpsons (I don't watch it), yada yada... (And I know I'm still missing some noteworthy entertainment...)
...But were spared the heartbreak of seeing Cupid (1999) and Firefly killed, or see Ally McBeal or Dawson's Creek crater after the first season...
...And miss being informed by programs like Frontline, 60 Minutes, NOW, those documentary channels (Discovery, History), and primary sources like CSPAN... (Didn't realize how close Canada came to breaking up until I watched it live...)
...and why admire someone who can name all the US senators, or the Periodic Table of Elements, or the moons of Jupiter & Saturn (all 93?), or the capitals of all the nations of a continent? If you can't directly apply it, its no different than being able to recall sports statistics, or TV episodes. TV entertainment can be a form of cultural enhancement, just like novels and plays. The trick is finding the worthwhile stuff.
For me, I haven't had cable for years. But as long as I have the Internet and recappers, I'll always be able to enjoy the best of what little TV has to offer...
Here may be a cool topic. What TV episodes actually changed your perspective on how you view or approach life?
For myself, I found ST:TNG Tapestry, Stargate SG-1 Absolute Power left an impression, as did ST:TOS Let This be your Last Battlefield if only that some people really think there's a difference whether you're black on the left side or the right side...
Come to think of it, Americans might have something to learn from ST:TOS Squire of Gothos (Its maturity in action, not absolute power that defines character or refinement), and ST:TOS Devil in the Dark (Think of different cultures as different races; stop looking to destroy or dominate the other).
No, but I had more of a clue
Now this wounded me. I take great pride in being vicious and cutting when I deign to respond to a post that I perceive is flawed in its reasoning. You accuse me of intent to be nasty based on merely one adjective, "clueless". Trust me, I had no intention to be nasty in my response. It should be screamingly obvious when I *intend* to be nasty in a response.
This is Slashdot, Pookie. If you're going to wilt because I call you clueless in one of your less than stellar responses, stick me in your foes list, and downmod your foes below your viewing threshold. ("You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!") My advice: Grow a slightly thicker skin.