It seems like a standardised pub/sub protocol ought to be cacheable, and everyone has an ISP, and ISPs themselves take feeds from networks - so wouldn't it make sense for every local network to have a proxy-like box which subscribes to feeds requested downstream, and therefore reduce the load on upstream boxes?
An open, fully decentralised infrastructure like that would probably come out looking like Usenet, but secure and for micro-transactions. And that seems like it ought to be a much smarter way of doing things than Twitter.
Its only Apple who takes design over practicality.
There was a day when the word 'design' MEANT 'building things that solve practical problems in efficient ways'. You 'designed an engine' or 'designed a computer'. When you said 'design' it meant 'how a thing works'.
Now it seems to be code for 'putting a thin layer of pretty looks on the top of someone else's actual engineering'. As in 'we need to update our phone's design - red with curved corners is so 2009, don't you think?' With the result that 'design' now seems to be the OPPOSITE of actual design: it doesn't think deeply about the purpose or materials of anything or its place in the world, it doesn't solve practical problems, at the very most it builds user interfaces - but more likely it doesn't even do that, just picks the shade of pixels on the.jpg on the skin on the theme pack.
Can we please stop torturing the English language and get designers who know how to design things (and not just looks) again?
This is definitely true, but it is also true that a lot of criticism for programs are along the lines of:
"Sure it slices bread, but why can't it teleport me to the moon? What a POS!"
More like "sure it slices bread, but every fifth slice the handle comes off and slices my thumb. Oh, and if I use it after midnight on a Thursday it teleports me to the moon." "WONTFIX, NASA uses that feature to maintain the Deep Space Lunar Observatory."
Science had a *huge* positive mind-share during the 20th Century, and the participants basically didn't have much problem with trickle-down to an eager public.
What has changed is that religions out of synch with reality and corporations that don't want to spend the money it takes to deal with reality have been running huge propaganda campaigns
I think actually what changed was World War 2 and particularly the atomic bomb, when it became clear that abstract 'science' could be used equally well for creative and destructive purposes, and that scientific advancement was not only no guarantee of peace or safety or utility, but could even be trending in the opposite direction.
In the next few decades, nuclear war and MAD led the pack as the ultimate embodiment of self-destructive science, but there were also a number of high-profile failures: overpopulation (held at bay only temporarily by the oil-dependent Green Revolution), pollution and species extinction, the corruption and collapse of the commercial nuclear industry, the failure of modernist urban design to produce livable cities (the 'housing projects') and the decades-long failure to find (or motivate) a replacement for fossil fuels. Then the rebirth of neoclassical economics and its 'scientific' models leading to hollowed-out cities, financial bubbles and collapse, and the end of the dream of manned spaceflight.
Criticism of science as an absolute self-justifying system isn't some strange new thing. For those of us who were in school in the 1970s, it's been a long litany of science's broken promises. And this is why there were hippies in the 1960s - the system's self-contradictions were evident even then.
Many scientists need to realize that their goals, ideals, and ethical standards may not be universal.
Especially if the mainstream scientific ethical standard comes down to 'we don't do ethics, we just like building lots of really big bombs, but seriously that technology could be used for peaceful purposes - theoretically I guess - and it's not our concern what happens after the equations leave our desk, it's just a technically sweet problem".
We're still living in the aftershocks of the Cold War.
When the standard for deciding whether a particular individual action is acceptable or not is not whether it infringes on other people's rights, but whether it is beneficial to the "society" in some way, you can say goodbye to liberty.
And why should abstract 'liberty' to act in the absence of compassion for others, be considered a good thing?
It seems to me that action without thought for consequence is the definition of evil and the source of tyranny.
Were does one draw the line between OS and application (and let's not draw libraries into this).
It's simple.
An operating system provides a web browser, search engine, media player, movie editor, Cloud services and weather-reporting gadgets on the desktop.
Low-level access to disk filesystems such as CD-R and ISO is not part of the operating system and is provided by third-party applications which you must purchase separately.
Nope. Exploitation and disclosure are two completely different things.
If you've found an unpatched exploit and you're a black hat, are you going to blog to the whole world about it? Or quietly add it to your botnet kit without telling anyone?
If the second, it's a 0-day. No warning, no defense, no lead time, just blam, click the wrong web page, read the wrong email, or open the wrong PDF and you're rooted without knowing it.
He got the vector, he got the versor He got the scalar, he got the tensor He got the nabla, he got imaginary space In the science of pure time algebra
His math be sweeter than Levi-Civita Gibbs and Heaviside just threw him aside Minkowski went hyperbolic, he couldn't handle him But let's hear it for my homeboy Hamilton
i squared is j squared is k squared is ijk i squared is j squared is k squared is ijk i squared is j squared is k squared is ijk negative one forever baby
I'm sorry, but as soon as I read 'maniacally pro-ink' I started mentally substituting 'tentacle' for 'tattoo' and it just went all Monty Octopus from there.
We're supposed to be logical and have superior reasoning abilities, and there's absolutely nothing logical or reasonable about getting ink permanently injected into your skin.
It's perfectly logical if you've lost your short-term memory and you need to be able to record the name of your sworn enemy you're tracking down to kill.
Now excuse me while I take a Polaroid snapshot of this moment so I can remember to tattoo it.
Why not require criminals to act as human shields?
Because putting violent sociopaths with a history of breaking rules into a situation where they could pick up very powerful weapons is a brilliant idea which could never possibly go wrong?
A company's worth isn't some discretely tangible thing, as much as we'd all like that.
On the contrary, I'd say a company's real worth is exactly the discretely tangible sum of everything it produces that contributes to human and environmental health and happiness.
Everything else is fantasy-football speculation about pretend value - but real worth is exactly what an enterprise does for the good of humans and the Earth, and no more.
If we don't yet use good rigorous measures of real (vs imagined) worth, then it's because we've simply not been paying attention. There are any number of measures such as commodity baskets and the Genuine Progress Indicator. We should be using them, and not stock price, to evaluate real worth.
Not really - two people can value things very differently, but eventually they have to ingest the same amount of protein, calories, oxygen and water to continue playing the game of Life.
At some point reality steps in and stomps all over our notions of perceived value and reminds us that there exists real, absolute value which is not a mere trading fantasy.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, the order is Z, Y, so the next is X. Hence the next prefix is likely to be xona
I think you misspelled 'Xena'.
It seems like a standardised pub/sub protocol ought to be cacheable, and everyone has an ISP, and ISPs themselves take feeds from networks - so wouldn't it make sense for every local network to have a proxy-like box which subscribes to feeds requested downstream, and therefore reduce the load on upstream boxes?
An open, fully decentralised infrastructure like that would probably come out looking like Usenet, but secure and for micro-transactions. And that seems like it ought to be a much smarter way of doing things than Twitter.
Its only Apple who takes design over practicality.
There was a day when the word 'design' MEANT 'building things that solve practical problems in efficient ways'. You 'designed an engine' or 'designed a computer'. When you said 'design' it meant 'how a thing works'.
Now it seems to be code for 'putting a thin layer of pretty looks on the top of someone else's actual engineering'. As in 'we need to update our phone's design - red with curved corners is so 2009, don't you think?' With the result that 'design' now seems to be the OPPOSITE of actual design: it doesn't think deeply about the purpose or materials of anything or its place in the world, it doesn't solve practical problems, at the very most it builds user interfaces - but more likely it doesn't even do that, just picks the shade of pixels on the .jpg on the skin on the theme pack.
Can we please stop torturing the English language and get designers who know how to design things (and not just looks) again?
Crocs are uncool now already? (Checks calendar). Darn.
I really need to get this time machine recalibrated.
I thought the state rock of California was the Eagles.
Vote them all out. It's the only way to be sure.
No, I'm not joking.
And replace them with?
This is definitely true, but it is also true that a lot of criticism for programs are along the lines of:
"Sure it slices bread, but why can't it teleport me to the moon? What a POS!"
More like "sure it slices bread, but every fifth slice the handle comes off and slices my thumb. Oh, and if I use it after midnight on a Thursday it teleports me to the moon." "WONTFIX, NASA uses that feature to maintain the Deep Space Lunar Observatory."
Science had a *huge* positive mind-share during the 20th Century, and the participants basically didn't have much problem with trickle-down to an eager public.
What has changed is that religions out of synch with reality and corporations that don't want to spend the money it takes to deal with reality have been running huge propaganda campaigns
I think actually what changed was World War 2 and particularly the atomic bomb, when it became clear that abstract 'science' could be used equally well for creative and destructive purposes, and that scientific advancement was not only no guarantee of peace or safety or utility, but could even be trending in the opposite direction.
In the next few decades, nuclear war and MAD led the pack as the ultimate embodiment of self-destructive science, but there were also a number of high-profile failures: overpopulation (held at bay only temporarily by the oil-dependent Green Revolution), pollution and species extinction, the corruption and collapse of the commercial nuclear industry, the failure of modernist urban design to produce livable cities (the 'housing projects') and the decades-long failure to find (or motivate) a replacement for fossil fuels. Then the rebirth of neoclassical economics and its 'scientific' models leading to hollowed-out cities, financial bubbles and collapse, and the end of the dream of manned spaceflight.
Criticism of science as an absolute self-justifying system isn't some strange new thing. For those of us who were in school in the 1970s, it's been a long litany of science's broken promises. And this is why there were hippies in the 1960s - the system's self-contradictions were evident even then.
Many scientists need to realize that their goals, ideals, and ethical standards may not be universal.
Especially if the mainstream scientific ethical standard comes down to 'we don't do ethics, we just like building lots of really big bombs, but seriously that technology could be used for peaceful purposes - theoretically I guess - and it's not our concern what happens after the equations leave our desk, it's just a technically sweet problem".
We're still living in the aftershocks of the Cold War.
So... if it's correct, it must be non-obvious?
When the standard for deciding whether a particular individual action is acceptable or not is not whether it infringes on other people's rights, but whether it is beneficial to the "society" in some way, you can say goodbye to liberty.
And why should abstract 'liberty' to act in the absence of compassion for others, be considered a good thing?
It seems to me that action without thought for consequence is the definition of evil and the source of tyranny.
Were does one draw the line between OS and application (and let's not draw libraries into this).
It's simple.
An operating system provides a web browser, search engine, media player, movie editor, Cloud services and weather-reporting gadgets on the desktop.
Low-level access to disk filesystems such as CD-R and ISO is not part of the operating system and is provided by third-party applications which you must purchase separately.
Hope that helps!
Makes me wonder what disappeared to allow it to happen.
Probably William Gibson's third Blue Ant novel.
He was the father, but when the kid grew up it started hanging around with a bunch of invisible cats so he kicked it out of the house.
Nope. Exploitation and disclosure are two completely different things.
If you've found an unpatched exploit and you're a black hat, are you going to blog to the whole world about it? Or quietly add it to your botnet kit without telling anyone?
If the second, it's a 0-day. No warning, no defense, no lead time, just blam, click the wrong web page, read the wrong email, or open the wrong PDF and you're rooted without knowing it.
Does he have a brother named Hugh?
Thank you, I'll be here all week.
you brain will not change if you calculate 1+1;
Sorry, but actually studies of demonstrate the exact opposite. Thoughts can change the brain just as software can change the operation of a computer equipped with permanent memory.
But do continue.
He got the vector, he got the versor
He got the scalar, he got the tensor
He got the nabla, he got imaginary space
In the science of pure time algebra
His math be sweeter than Levi-Civita
Gibbs and Heaviside just threw him aside
Minkowski went hyperbolic, he couldn't handle him
But let's hear it for my homeboy Hamilton
i squared is j squared is k squared is ijk
i squared is j squared is k squared is ijk
i squared is j squared is k squared is ijk
negative one forever baby
I'm sorry, but as soon as I read 'maniacally pro-ink' I started mentally substituting 'tentacle' for 'tattoo' and it just went all Monty Octopus from there.
We're supposed to be logical and have superior reasoning abilities, and there's absolutely nothing logical or reasonable about getting ink permanently injected into your skin.
It's perfectly logical if you've lost your short-term memory and you need to be able to record the name of your sworn enemy you're tracking down to kill.
Now excuse me while I take a Polaroid snapshot of this moment so I can remember to tattoo it.
Oh! Hello there! Have we met?
From Youtube's heart I vlog at thee.
So what? It doesn't have like a soul and stuff, man!
Kibo cries!
As does Ray Kurtzweil.
Why not require criminals to act as human shields?
Because putting violent sociopaths with a history of breaking rules into a situation where they could pick up very powerful weapons is a brilliant idea which could never possibly go wrong?
A company's worth isn't some discretely tangible thing, as much as we'd all like that.
On the contrary, I'd say a company's real worth is exactly the discretely tangible sum of everything it produces that contributes to human and environmental health and happiness.
Everything else is fantasy-football speculation about pretend value - but real worth is exactly what an enterprise does for the good of humans and the Earth, and no more.
If we don't yet use good rigorous measures of real (vs imagined) worth, then it's because we've simply not been paying attention. There are any number of measures such as commodity baskets and the Genuine Progress Indicator. We should be using them, and not stock price, to evaluate real worth.
Is not everything based on perceived value?
Not really - two people can value things very differently, but eventually they have to ingest the same amount of protein, calories, oxygen and water to continue playing the game of Life.
At some point reality steps in and stomps all over our notions of perceived value and reminds us that there exists real, absolute value which is not a mere trading fantasy.