it will be useful for some of our descendants to have a record of our communications, thoughts, hopes, dreams, etc, plus the real reasons why W invaded Iraq
"He done tried to kill my daddy:("
It even fits in 140 chars. Just imagine, the memoirs of the greatest men of our generation, preserved in the twitter DB for future generations to re-tweet. It brings a tear to one's eye.
Ah, that's a good point. And to think, I was only minutes away from pressing the big, red "launch" button on my spacecraft to fly myself over there for a drink.
To be fair, I think that the current arrangement is probably better than if it were 60% scientists, 20% politicians, and 1% lawyers. Yes, it's fun (and easy!) to hate on lawyers, but there are some places where they are actually needed. A house of legislation is one of them.
That being said, it probably wouldn't hurt things if that 1% scientists was 5%...
I wish I was a programmer but I lack the skill. I know where I would focus my efforts.
Ahh, you have thus identified the chief advantage of linux: software development.
Let's face it... linux is good in the server world, and for coders. If you're a gamer, musician, designer, whatever; then linux will feel very limited. But, if your only goal in life is to write software on a system for other people to write software, then it's really nice.
This guy made one of the really cool things about Star Wars!! We all see the sort of nonsense Lucas came up with without this guy:-( Nothing in the newer 3 movies was there anything as memorable as Stormtroopers. Am I wrong??
Who could ever forget Jar-Jar? He was sure memorable!
Looks like I misspoke a bit... looks like the point of this post isn't to ask something that could have been easily googled, it was for this chump to plug his blog. So, let me rephrase:
Ask Slashdot: When a slashvertisement just won't do, since you've only got yourself to sell.
I'm an American expat living in Germany. One of the things that has been interesting to me here is the difference of how prohibited goods like alcohol and cigarettes are treated in terms of minors.
I must say, I always get screwed when I come back to America to visit and try to go to a bar or buy beer, because I have completely gotten used to not having to bring an ID with me, even though I am clearly over 18/21. The annoyance of this, and the fact that the establishments are only enforcing the rules out of fear that I'm an undercover cop, add to the ridiculousness of the rules.
In Germany, you only have to be 16 to buy alcohol. There is talk of raising this (and the cigarette age) up to 18, but frankly, it won't make much of a difference given the easy access to either substance. The really [i]nice[/i] thing about this is that you are therefore of drinking age before you are able to drive. Thus, by the time that kids learn how to drive, they've already learned how to hold their liquor, and are less likely to make a stupid mistake like getting behind the wheel.
I used to live in Indiana for five years, where the drinking age is of course 21. The number of drunk driving accidents I witnessed or heard about via people that caused them was substantially higher than in a place where alcohol is proudly sold every day and hour of the week (if you know where to get it), at gas stations (heh), movie theaters (which really rocks btw), and supermarkets (and none of that 3.2% crap, either). There is an obvious conclusion to all of this -- people like to drink, and they're going to do it anyways, includng kids. It's better to create an atmosphere where people learn how to handle this responsibility, and are encouraged to enjoy it without risking the lives of others.
Find ET, and you change the course of the human race forever.
Given the history of human civilizations discovering one another, it's pretty safe to say that each one of these interactions has resulted in disaster for the less advanced side. What makes you think the outcome would be any different if another civilization discovers us?
But, hypothetically speaking, let's say all of the sci-fi shows you watch are optimistically correct, and instead of inadvertently wiping us out, the ET's instead come in peace and bestow all sorts of wonderful discoveries and scientific truths upon us... even then, the result would be disastrous on our society. Looking at history, every time a radical scientific discovery has been made, it changes the way we look at the world, and usually causes much strife, dispute, and sometimes war. What makes you think we could really handle this knowledge?
Besides, just do the damn math... given the age of the universe, the amount of time humans have been around, the amount of time that humans have even had radio technology, and the probability that aliens would be using such technology to communicate with us... well, you're right, the payoff would be big (regardless of the eventual outcome), but the odds are extremely slim. On the other hand, protein folding would have a lesser but nonetheless great payoff for society, but with much more reasonable odds of attainment. So, it sounds like you're a betting man who has no actual grasp of the probabilities here.
Funny... 2007 was the year that I basically turned my back on open source software and the linux movement. Granted, there are a few OSS communities out there that I still really support (SVN, for starters), but the whole thing has started to leave a bitter aftertaste in my mouth.
Why, you ask?
Quite simple, really... quality vs. philosophy. As I've moved into the pro audio industry, where linux has essentially no foothold at all, the claims of people spouting that OSS is the solution for "everything" have made me realize how absurd the argument is. There are, of course, good examples of OSS software out there, but the problem lies in the fact that it comes down to a big moral battlefield for people, and they forget that a lot of the software that they so vigorously defend just plain sucks. The idea that the source code of a program can be made available to others at no extra cost is a powerful one. However, the idea that distributing one's software in a big 'ol tarball to be compiled by the user is simply idiotic, and I do not miss the hours of fighting to get package X to compile correctly with library Y with configuration Z. Even binary distribution in linux sucks, and inevitably, users that wonder off the beaten path end up having to build the software that they need by hand.
The irony is, in the computer audio industry, there are those who spend more time and money on new digital toys than actually making music. Likewise, it seems that the OSS community is flooded with too many opinionated geeks, and not enough developers. The result is, expectably, crap.
Anyways, sorry for the rant; feel free to flame on. At the end of the day, I am a better and more productive programmer and musician, most of that due to my subconscious switch away from OSS and to other tools that actually do what I need, even if they cost me a bit of dough.
Forgive me in advance, for the rant that shall follow.:)
So yeah, this topic seems to have been getting bounced around for years, and sooner or later, it seems inevitable that the technology will finally make its way into our culture. As regrettable as that is, I must also say that I really only see it as an extension of our already annoying and invasive society. Much more primitive technologies already exist, but since they have become a part of our collective consciousness, few people object to them. A most obvious example is loudspeakers; with those annoying fucks yelling out prices or other offers on the sidewalk (I have noticed this practice is more prevalent in some countries than others). A more subtle example would be billboards; which at this point cover virtually all of the landscape that people associate with "civilization". Yet, nobody really objects to these practices, with a few notable exceptions.
One could make the argument that the difference between the two is that one is beamed in your head, and the other surrounds it. In the case of the latter, it is possible, with an extreme degree of vigilance, to avert one's eyes from every objectionable sign cluttering the landscape. Perhaps the difference lies only in the fact that people feel somehow targeted, and therefore violated, when the advertising is being transmitted directly to them, rather than broadcast to everybody. Frankly, I also find this development disgusting, though only because it is the natural progression of a society driven by pop culture and material goods.
Slashdot Mirror
the damage to my hearing (after 20 years of listening to good music) wasn't repaired
I hate to break it to you, but Rush sucks. It appears that your hearing loss has been in vain.
...and I suppose a guy with a link in his sig for "get paid to take surveys online" would know a bit about this subject, no?
I am a native English speaker and I did not hear of habeas corpus until recently.
Dubya, is that you?
it will be useful for some of our descendants to have a record of our communications, thoughts, hopes, dreams, etc, plus the real reasons why W invaded Iraq
"He done tried to kill my daddy :("
It even fits in 140 chars. Just imagine, the memoirs of the greatest men of our generation, preserved in the twitter DB for future generations to re-tweet. It brings a tear to one's eye.
Ah, that's a good point. And to think, I was only minutes away from pressing the big, red "launch" button on my spacecraft to fly myself over there for a drink.
To be fair, I think that the current arrangement is probably better than if it were 60% scientists, 20% politicians, and 1% lawyers. Yes, it's fun (and easy!) to hate on lawyers, but there are some places where they are actually needed. A house of legislation is one of them.
That being said, it probably wouldn't hurt things if that 1% scientists was 5%...
(unless you want to click through about 10 pages)
I hope I'm not the only one struck by the irony of this article formatting given that this it is criticizing bad UI design...
I wish I was a programmer but I lack the skill. I know where I would focus my efforts.
Ahh, you have thus identified the chief advantage of linux: software development.
Let's face it... linux is good in the server world, and for coders. If you're a gamer, musician, designer, whatever; then linux will feel very limited. But, if your only goal in life is to write software on a system for other people to write software, then it's really nice.
This guy made one of the really cool things about Star Wars!! We all see the sort of nonsense Lucas came up with without this guy :-( Nothing in the newer 3 movies was there anything as memorable as Stormtroopers. Am I wrong??
Who could ever forget Jar-Jar? He was sure memorable!
Why's this story in the "Humor" section? What's so funny about a 30-year old virgin?
Oh, wait..... HAW, HAW!
If being a respectably-paid techie means I can wear a Hawaiian shirt and shorts on a hot sticky summer day
I assume on said days, you just wear your sandals without socks?
You must be looking for the republican candidate discussion thread...
Yes, but the ball itself somewhat resembles a foot. So by using those terms, it's not the Europeans who are backwards!
Looks like I misspoke a bit... looks like the point of this post isn't to ask something that could have been easily googled, it was for this chump to plug his blog. So, let me rephrase:
Ask Slashdot: When a slashvertisement just won't do, since you've only got yourself to sell.
Ask Slashdot: For when you've got time to write up a whole paragraph, but not a 5-word google search...
Google results, which seem rather informative
Guess what .cx tastes like, then....
My dog only plays fetch when I throw her sticks... this would be like throwing a sequoia log!
I'm an American expat living in Germany. One of the things that has been interesting to me here is the difference of how prohibited goods like alcohol and cigarettes are treated in terms of minors.
I must say, I always get screwed when I come back to America to visit and try to go to a bar or buy beer, because I have completely gotten used to not having to bring an ID with me, even though I am clearly over 18/21. The annoyance of this, and the fact that the establishments are only enforcing the rules out of fear that I'm an undercover cop, add to the ridiculousness of the rules.
In Germany, you only have to be 16 to buy alcohol. There is talk of raising this (and the cigarette age) up to 18, but frankly, it won't make much of a difference given the easy access to either substance. The really [i]nice[/i] thing about this is that you are therefore of drinking age before you are able to drive. Thus, by the time that kids learn how to drive, they've already learned how to hold their liquor, and are less likely to make a stupid mistake like getting behind the wheel.
I used to live in Indiana for five years, where the drinking age is of course 21. The number of drunk driving accidents I witnessed or heard about via people that caused them was substantially higher than in a place where alcohol is proudly sold every day and hour of the week (if you know where to get it), at gas stations (heh), movie theaters (which really rocks btw), and supermarkets (and none of that 3.2% crap, either). There is an obvious conclusion to all of this -- people like to drink, and they're going to do it anyways, includng kids. It's better to create an atmosphere where people learn how to handle this responsibility, and are encouraged to enjoy it without risking the lives of others.
...but it won't stop me from taking 20$ from the kids standing behind the liquor store to buy them a case of PBR.
God bless their little, slightly drunk, souls.
Glad to see I'm not the most stoned geek on /. today....
Before I can explore this theory, I need to re-pack the bong...
*cough*
Ok, ready!
Find ET, and you change the course of the human race forever.
:P
Given the history of human civilizations discovering one another, it's pretty safe to say that each one of these interactions has resulted in disaster for the less advanced side. What makes you think the outcome would be any different if another civilization discovers us?
But, hypothetically speaking, let's say all of the sci-fi shows you watch are optimistically correct, and instead of inadvertently wiping us out, the ET's instead come in peace and bestow all sorts of wonderful discoveries and scientific truths upon us... even then, the result would be disastrous on our society. Looking at history, every time a radical scientific discovery has been made, it changes the way we look at the world, and usually causes much strife, dispute, and sometimes war. What makes you think we could really handle this knowledge?
Besides, just do the damn math... given the age of the universe, the amount of time humans have been around, the amount of time that humans have even had radio technology, and the probability that aliens would be using such technology to communicate with us... well, you're right, the payoff would be big (regardless of the eventual outcome), but the odds are extremely slim. On the other hand, protein folding would have a lesser but nonetheless great payoff for society, but with much more reasonable odds of attainment. So, it sounds like you're a betting man who has no actual grasp of the probabilities here.
Want to come over and play poker sometime?
Funny... 2007 was the year that I basically turned my back on open source software and the linux movement. Granted, there are a few OSS communities out there that I still really support (SVN, for starters), but the whole thing has started to leave a bitter aftertaste in my mouth.
Why, you ask?
Quite simple, really... quality vs. philosophy. As I've moved into the pro audio industry, where linux has essentially no foothold at all, the claims of people spouting that OSS is the solution for "everything" have made me realize how absurd the argument is. There are, of course, good examples of OSS software out there, but the problem lies in the fact that it comes down to a big moral battlefield for people, and they forget that a lot of the software that they so vigorously defend just plain sucks. The idea that the source code of a program can be made available to others at no extra cost is a powerful one. However, the idea that distributing one's software in a big 'ol tarball to be compiled by the user is simply idiotic, and I do not miss the hours of fighting to get package X to compile correctly with library Y with configuration Z. Even binary distribution in linux sucks, and inevitably, users that wonder off the beaten path end up having to build the software that they need by hand.
The irony is, in the computer audio industry, there are those who spend more time and money on new digital toys than actually making music. Likewise, it seems that the OSS community is flooded with too many opinionated geeks, and not enough developers. The result is, expectably, crap.
Anyways, sorry for the rant; feel free to flame on. At the end of the day, I am a better and more productive programmer and musician, most of that due to my subconscious switch away from OSS and to other tools that actually do what I need, even if they cost me a bit of dough.
In the future, which I imagine shall be very much like "Mad Max", this is what shall be required to run SP3 of Windows Vista....
Forgive me in advance, for the rant that shall follow. :)
So yeah, this topic seems to have been getting bounced around for years, and sooner or later, it seems inevitable that the technology will finally make its way into our culture. As regrettable as that is, I must also say that I really only see it as an extension of our already annoying and invasive society. Much more primitive technologies already exist, but since they have become a part of our collective consciousness, few people object to them. A most obvious example is loudspeakers; with those annoying fucks yelling out prices or other offers on the sidewalk (I have noticed this practice is more prevalent in some countries than others). A more subtle example would be billboards; which at this point cover virtually all of the landscape that people associate with "civilization". Yet, nobody really objects to these practices, with a few notable exceptions.
One could make the argument that the difference between the two is that one is beamed in your head, and the other surrounds it. In the case of the latter, it is possible, with an extreme degree of vigilance, to avert one's eyes from every objectionable sign cluttering the landscape. Perhaps the difference lies only in the fact that people feel somehow targeted, and therefore violated, when the advertising is being transmitted directly to them, rather than broadcast to everybody. Frankly, I also find this development disgusting, though only because it is the natural progression of a society driven by pop culture and material goods.