Doh, guess it has been about 10 years since I set foot on irc. Back then irc wars meant impersonating a regular on a popular channel to get ops, then demoting everyone and spouting inane gibberish until everyone left or the net split.
Hey, maybe if Microsoft embraced innovation and tried to outdo others instead of squashing the competition through monopolistic marketing and deployment tactics, people would stop writing so many worms/virii/exploits for Windows, and get back to their irc wars.
Yeah, but Bill Gates is only God on this planet, these results are universe-wide.
Re:Democracy vs. Corporate control
on
Taming the Web
·
· Score: 1
That is true enough I suppose, but also keep in mind that we don't have to risk anything to rise up. The mechanics for change are built into our system whether or not it's working the way we would like right now. I don't view people being pacified as some easily accomplished goal that the corporations have in mind.
Rather, they cater to our consumerist demands and we like it. What's not to like about widespread prosperity the likes of which history has never seen? From a historical standpoint, this capitalist abandon has been going on for a very short time, and I believe that it will not satisfy American sensibilities forever. Just look at how cynical people have become about corporations in general, that is a massive change that has occurred quite rapidly in the last century.
I guess you are right insomuch as you address the failings 'today's society', but honestly I don't see the overall historical trend of more freedom reversing anytime soon. Indeed, many of these problems that you address probably come from too much freedom (for corporations), and will be resolved once people come to a greater consensus about how business should be regulated.
I think the model for the future is a worldwide free market completely separate from government, but with government placing the kind of moral restrictions that the free market does not address (like environmental & union laws). All that really stands in our way is meaningful campaign finance reform. I would like to see a system where money is no longer needed for campaigns. Instead there could be standardized government-sanctioned forums for the candidates to convey their message. Lose the marketing aspect of campaigns and suddenly it becomes about what it should be: the issues.
Re:Democracy vs. Corporate control
on
Taming the Web
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
That's a pretty dim view of humanity. You are of course correct that corporations wield most of the political power. But that's not because they are some incredible behemoths that we have no power over. It's simply because Americans are spoiled, and they really don't give a shit about things like the environment or international justice.
The American people are as bought and paid for as the government, so to say that the government somehow doesn't represent the people is a convenient excuse to dismiss your civil responsibility. Believe me, when there's a large public outcry, the government will listen.
Corporate control of the Internet may very well happen, but don't let your experience of corporate control over your lifetime lead you into false assumptions. The greater a controlling power becomes, the more unstable it becomes until it topples. That is the really real truism of history.
I think this paper outlines very important ideas that all geeks (particularly network engineers) shoudl keep in mind.
My argument is that with the kind of global communication we have today, the will of the people can no longer be subdued. While it is true that if we become complacent in our rich American lives then government and corporations can herd us into a small box with a bright light, it is also true that repression leads to revolution.
To prevent government and corporations from gaining a stranglehold on the Internet, I think steps should be taken to limit their control.
First off it would be nice to see some kind of non-profit/publicly owned organization building high capacity networks so that large telecoms can't suddenly control us through control of the backbone.
But I think the main thing is education. As geeks we are naturally drawn to knowledge and critical thinking, but not always to teaching and communication. I think it is our duty to let the people around us (particularly those making decisions) about potential damages to our freedom.
Big corporations and governments wield a lot of power, and it can be scary, but remember that all power comes from the people, and even people in big corporations are mostly individuals who value their freedom.
The article seems to claim OSS DBMSs aren't as succesful as commercial solutions. Unfortunately, it follows the typical capitalist ideal that something has to make money to be succesful.
OSS flies in the face of American ideologies, and this is just another example of big corporations not seeing the value.
Certainly Oracle is much more robust than MySQL right now, but I think the OSS ideology of trying to make the best product will eventually beat out the ideology of trying to squeeze as much money as possible. Technology will prove to be the end of traditional free-market theory, I think, because there is no longer a solid commodity with value. Things can be copied, so value has to be placed on the creators, not the product.
I think the point is that DBMS code is much more interrelated, requiring all engineers to know fairly well what all the other code is doing.
I still think OSS can do it just fine though.
Yeah, if you can patent:
"heating it up really hot, and beating it really hard":)
The only patentable idea is the proper formula, which is unlikely to be enforced very well since numerous unpatented examples exist.
While you are correct that Bungie is one of leaders in gaming innovations, arguably contributing as much as ID (if for no other reason than the variety of genres to which they have brought new ideas), to not give credit to Doom detracts credibility from your argument.
Single-player doom (especially Doom II) has a visceral intensity to it that I think was unmatched by any game before or since. It was designed in such a way that you were fighting unending hordes constantly. No other game has been able to pack so many monsters into such a small space while maintaining playability. From a design standpoint alone it is quite impressive. Newer games like Quake or Quake II, Unreal, or Half-life simply don't pack that kind of punch in the single-player experience.
I'm REALLY looking forward to Doom III after seeing the Macworld demo on the GeForce III. If they can manage the same visceral exhiliration with the atmospher enhancing elements of 100% real-time lighting it oughta be the most impressive FPS in a long time.
Mazewars was ONLY multiplayer, it was empty if you played by yourself.
You may be remembering one of the other maze games like the Scarab of Ra, or a maze-generating/editing program that I can't remember the name of.
You obviously haven't watched the engine demos of Halo, if you had, you would know why it merits a place in a game discussion.
While I think Doom had an edge on single-player playability over Marathon, Marathon did enough things better than Doom to at least make it an equal (looking up & down, rooms sharing the same space, secondary weapon triggers, interesting story line, more inspired level design, swimming, much stronger quake-like multiplayer).
There is also no mention of Myth/Myth II, the single greatest RTS game ever created (and probably will remain so for quite some time). Bungie did what game designers thought was impossible: namely create an RTS game with realistic physics/terrain with an interface that allows you to control many troops with pinpoint accuracy. Sadly the level of skill that the early players have reached makes it tough for new people to learn it.
Throw Oni into the mix and you can see that Bungie was a visionary company who's interest was bringing cutting-edge NEW ideas to market. Nothing in their games is derivative except for the most general of concepts.
There is also one feature of Marathon that no other game has ever reproduced (to my knowledge). The ability to design a map with any number of rooms sharing the exact same space. No, I'm not talking about one above the other (that's easy), but actually sharing the exact same 3d location.
Although I can't say I agree with the tactics, these MS attacking virii may be the best advertisement for OSS in years. I wonder if that's the motivation behind them, or if it's just random delinquency:)
I can't wait to see the crackers feast on Win XP.
First of all, the web is still evolving so fast that there isn't really any kind of formal university degree that is right for designing and implementing huge on-line ventures. Ultimately as a corporation you kind of have to get lucky in your hiring process to get the right information architects who can relate to the target demographic. Techies have a tendency to design a site the way THEY would want it, which is rarely what the web neophyte wants. So you have to find these brilliant information architects, but they need to have enough technical knowledge to work with the database coding people to build the site properly.
I think this book offers a lot of good advice, but even so, the Internet arena is not the place to launch a multi-million dollar marketing campaign IMHO. On the Internet, I think the best plan is to start small and grow to your market size instead of taking these huge risks which quite frankly don't seem to offer a lot of added value from traditional businesses.
Granted, big corporations make big investments in hope of big (and fast) returns, but I think it's unrealistic to believe that a website and on-line advertising can generate reliable returns with the current state of technology.
The more I think about it, the more I believe that the Internet will continue to be primarily a communication and information tool for years to come. Sure you can sell things on-line, but most people would rather shop at a store...
People seem to either hate the Matrix, or love it. If you hate it, then obviously the sequel will suck for you.
I think the sequel should be good though. The main reason is because it won't just be a re-hash of the first one. It is a distinct story, because the circumstances are almost entirely different.
I really don't understand why so many people hate the Matrix. I mean, I know Keanu can't act, and the plot has holes, but compared to most sci-fi movies it is very solid. ah well, to each his own.
Wasted time? Defamation of character?
His picture was printed identifying him as a criminal. Despite the fact that most geeks don't give a shit what anyone else thinks of them, many people in this world have a good reputation that they'd like to uphold.
You only say that because you haven't had your time wasted by wrongful police accusations.
I say more power to this guy to get legal damages. 'Frivolous' lawsuits like this are one of the great ways that our country is able to keep it's own government in check.
Everyone knows this debate has been beaten to death. Arguing one way or the other isn't going to change anyone's mind anyway.
The fact of the matter is that in today's market both Mac and Windows offer perfect solutions for 90% of consumers. Combine Microsoft Office with an email client and a web browser and you solve the needs of MOST people out there.
The pros and cons of each are quite minor. Speed differences matter little considering how fast most common tasks get done anyway, MacOS and Windows are equally easy to use and stability seems to depend on individual configurations, MacOS has higher quality in exchange for fewer options and higher prices, Windows has more software in exchange for lower average quality of software.
There are many INDIVIDUAL reasons to choose one platform over the other, but there is no clear superiority.
In the past I chose a PC because I wanted to play more games and have an easier time programming. More recently I choose a Mac for BBEdit and Mac OS X.
In short, I think the best thing is to have both, or at least use both, and make an informed decision for yourself. Rants like the one posted are just ignorant and pointless.
Re:At the risk of pissing off... well... everybody
on
Mac Rants
·
· Score: 1
Mac OS may have tiny marketshare, but Apple sells more computers than anyone, so why should they switch? Sure they could cut costs on R&D but the profit margins are cut a lot thinner too.
From any user's standpoint it makes even less sense for Apple to do this. Apple makes great software, but moving to Wintel would throw them in the same boat with all the other Windows developers. That is to say at the mercy of MS un-documented APIs and other dubious Windows problems.
This is to say nothing of what would happen to the future of Windows development if there was no consumer OS to compete with MS. Honestly, I don't see how you could think this would benefit ANYONE except MS and Intel.
Re:Mac fans should defect.
on
Mac Rants
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
For someone who claims to hate Microsoft, that is a pretty bad idea. Linux is a fine alternative to Windows for geeks, but Mac OS is the only consumer OS that competes with Windows. Sure it only runs on Apple hardware, and it has tiny marketshare compared to MS, but at least it forces MS to keep improving Windows...
Not that linux doesn't/can't/won't, but Apple does a great service to x86 owners running Windows.
This sounds like so much irrational paranoia to me. It's like the author hasn't grasped the fact that people get older and are replaced by younger people over time.
The younger people have always been taking over. All home computers have done is allows younger people to get a head start on their education. Big deal, high school should already be teaching more practical, workplace type skills anyway. We just put kids in their to babysit them during the 'trouble years'
Slashdot Mirror
Doh, guess it has been about 10 years since I set foot on irc. Back then irc wars meant impersonating a regular on a popular channel to get ops, then demoting everyone and spouting inane gibberish until everyone left or the net split.
Hey, maybe if Microsoft embraced innovation and tried to outdo others instead of squashing the competition through monopolistic marketing and deployment tactics, people would stop writing so many worms/virii/exploits for Windows, and get back to their irc wars.
The only thing is that the ratio of competent programmers looking at the code is probably 1000 hackers/1 cracker.
Yeah, but Bill Gates is only God on this planet, these results are universe-wide.
Rather, they cater to our consumerist demands and we like it. What's not to like about widespread prosperity the likes of which history has never seen? From a historical standpoint, this capitalist abandon has been going on for a very short time, and I believe that it will not satisfy American sensibilities forever. Just look at how cynical people have become about corporations in general, that is a massive change that has occurred quite rapidly in the last century.
I guess you are right insomuch as you address the failings 'today's society', but honestly I don't see the overall historical trend of more freedom reversing anytime soon. Indeed, many of these problems that you address probably come from too much freedom (for corporations), and will be resolved once people come to a greater consensus about how business should be regulated.
I think the model for the future is a worldwide free market completely separate from government, but with government placing the kind of moral restrictions that the free market does not address (like environmental & union laws). All that really stands in our way is meaningful campaign finance reform. I would like to see a system where money is no longer needed for campaigns. Instead there could be standardized government-sanctioned forums for the candidates to convey their message. Lose the marketing aspect of campaigns and suddenly it becomes about what it should be: the issues.
The American people are as bought and paid for as the government, so to say that the government somehow doesn't represent the people is a convenient excuse to dismiss your civil responsibility. Believe me, when there's a large public outcry, the government will listen.
Corporate control of the Internet may very well happen, but don't let your experience of corporate control over your lifetime lead you into false assumptions. The greater a controlling power becomes, the more unstable it becomes until it topples. That is the really real truism of history.
I think this paper outlines very important ideas that all geeks (particularly network engineers) shoudl keep in mind.
My argument is that with the kind of global communication we have today, the will of the people can no longer be subdued. While it is true that if we become complacent in our rich American lives then government and corporations can herd us into a small box with a bright light, it is also true that repression leads to revolution.
To prevent government and corporations from gaining a stranglehold on the Internet, I think steps should be taken to limit their control.
First off it would be nice to see some kind of non-profit/publicly owned organization building high capacity networks so that large telecoms can't suddenly control us through control of the backbone.
But I think the main thing is education. As geeks we are naturally drawn to knowledge and critical thinking, but not always to teaching and communication. I think it is our duty to let the people around us (particularly those making decisions) about potential damages to our freedom.
Big corporations and governments wield a lot of power, and it can be scary, but remember that all power comes from the people, and even people in big corporations are mostly individuals who value their freedom.
Hmm, well wisenut put both my domains at the top of the list , whereas google only put up one of them :)
It already surpassed Google's according to the numbers on each page.
OSS flies in the face of American ideologies, and this is just another example of big corporations not seeing the value.
Certainly Oracle is much more robust than MySQL right now, but I think the OSS ideology of trying to make the best product will eventually beat out the ideology of trying to squeeze as much money as possible. Technology will prove to be the end of traditional free-market theory, I think, because there is no longer a solid commodity with value. Things can be copied, so value has to be placed on the creators, not the product.
I think the point is that DBMS code is much more interrelated, requiring all engineers to know fairly well what all the other code is doing. I still think OSS can do it just fine though.
Yeah, if you can patent: "heating it up really hot, and beating it really hard" :)
The only patentable idea is the proper formula, which is unlikely to be enforced very well since numerous unpatented examples exist.
While you are correct that Bungie is one of leaders in gaming innovations, arguably contributing as much as ID (if for no other reason than the variety of genres to which they have brought new ideas), to not give credit to Doom detracts credibility from your argument.
Single-player doom (especially Doom II) has a visceral intensity to it that I think was unmatched by any game before or since. It was designed in such a way that you were fighting unending hordes constantly. No other game has been able to pack so many monsters into such a small space while maintaining playability. From a design standpoint alone it is quite impressive. Newer games like Quake or Quake II, Unreal, or Half-life simply don't pack that kind of punch in the single-player experience.
I'm REALLY looking forward to Doom III after seeing the Macworld demo on the GeForce III. If they can manage the same visceral exhiliration with the atmospher enhancing elements of 100% real-time lighting it oughta be the most impressive FPS in a long time.
Mazewars was ONLY multiplayer, it was empty if you played by yourself. You may be remembering one of the other maze games like the Scarab of Ra, or a maze-generating/editing program that I can't remember the name of.
You obviously haven't watched the engine demos of Halo, if you had, you would know why it merits a place in a game discussion.
While I think Doom had an edge on single-player playability over Marathon, Marathon did enough things better than Doom to at least make it an equal (looking up & down, rooms sharing the same space, secondary weapon triggers, interesting story line, more inspired level design, swimming, much stronger quake-like multiplayer).
There is also no mention of Myth/Myth II, the single greatest RTS game ever created (and probably will remain so for quite some time). Bungie did what game designers thought was impossible: namely create an RTS game with realistic physics/terrain with an interface that allows you to control many troops with pinpoint accuracy. Sadly the level of skill that the early players have reached makes it tough for new people to learn it.
Throw Oni into the mix and you can see that Bungie was a visionary company who's interest was bringing cutting-edge NEW ideas to market. Nothing in their games is derivative except for the most general of concepts.
There is also one feature of Marathon that no other game has ever reproduced (to my knowledge). The ability to design a map with any number of rooms sharing the exact same space. No, I'm not talking about one above the other (that's easy), but actually sharing the exact same 3d location.
Although I can't say I agree with the tactics, these MS attacking virii may be the best advertisement for OSS in years. I wonder if that's the motivation behind them, or if it's just random delinquency :)
I can't wait to see the crackers feast on Win XP.
First of all, the web is still evolving so fast that there isn't really any kind of formal university degree that is right for designing and implementing huge on-line ventures. Ultimately as a corporation you kind of have to get lucky in your hiring process to get the right information architects who can relate to the target demographic. Techies have a tendency to design a site the way THEY would want it, which is rarely what the web neophyte wants. So you have to find these brilliant information architects, but they need to have enough technical knowledge to work with the database coding people to build the site properly. I think this book offers a lot of good advice, but even so, the Internet arena is not the place to launch a multi-million dollar marketing campaign IMHO. On the Internet, I think the best plan is to start small and grow to your market size instead of taking these huge risks which quite frankly don't seem to offer a lot of added value from traditional businesses. Granted, big corporations make big investments in hope of big (and fast) returns, but I think it's unrealistic to believe that a website and on-line advertising can generate reliable returns with the current state of technology. The more I think about it, the more I believe that the Internet will continue to be primarily a communication and information tool for years to come. Sure you can sell things on-line, but most people would rather shop at a store...
People seem to either hate the Matrix, or love it. If you hate it, then obviously the sequel will suck for you.
I think the sequel should be good though. The main reason is because it won't just be a re-hash of the first one. It is a distinct story, because the circumstances are almost entirely different.
I really don't understand why so many people hate the Matrix. I mean, I know Keanu can't act, and the plot has holes, but compared to most sci-fi movies it is very solid. ah well, to each his own.
Wasted time? Defamation of character? His picture was printed identifying him as a criminal. Despite the fact that most geeks don't give a shit what anyone else thinks of them, many people in this world have a good reputation that they'd like to uphold.
You only say that because you haven't had your time wasted by wrongful police accusations. I say more power to this guy to get legal damages. 'Frivolous' lawsuits like this are one of the great ways that our country is able to keep it's own government in check.
Everyone knows this debate has been beaten to death. Arguing one way or the other isn't going to change anyone's mind anyway.
The fact of the matter is that in today's market both Mac and Windows offer perfect solutions for 90% of consumers. Combine Microsoft Office with an email client and a web browser and you solve the needs of MOST people out there.
The pros and cons of each are quite minor. Speed differences matter little considering how fast most common tasks get done anyway, MacOS and Windows are equally easy to use and stability seems to depend on individual configurations, MacOS has higher quality in exchange for fewer options and higher prices, Windows has more software in exchange for lower average quality of software.
There are many INDIVIDUAL reasons to choose one platform over the other, but there is no clear superiority.
In the past I chose a PC because I wanted to play more games and have an easier time programming. More recently I choose a Mac for BBEdit and Mac OS X.
In short, I think the best thing is to have both, or at least use both, and make an informed decision for yourself. Rants like the one posted are just ignorant and pointless.
Mac OS may have tiny marketshare, but Apple sells more computers than anyone, so why should they switch? Sure they could cut costs on R&D but the profit margins are cut a lot thinner too.
From any user's standpoint it makes even less sense for Apple to do this. Apple makes great software, but moving to Wintel would throw them in the same boat with all the other Windows developers. That is to say at the mercy of MS un-documented APIs and other dubious Windows problems.
This is to say nothing of what would happen to the future of Windows development if there was no consumer OS to compete with MS. Honestly, I don't see how you could think this would benefit ANYONE except MS and Intel.
For someone who claims to hate Microsoft, that is a pretty bad idea. Linux is a fine alternative to Windows for geeks, but Mac OS is the only consumer OS that competes with Windows. Sure it only runs on Apple hardware, and it has tiny marketshare compared to MS, but at least it forces MS to keep improving Windows...
Not that linux doesn't/can't/won't, but Apple does a great service to x86 owners running Windows.
This sounds like so much irrational paranoia to me. It's like the author hasn't grasped the fact that people get older and are replaced by younger people over time.
The younger people have always been taking over. All home computers have done is allows younger people to get a head start on their education. Big deal, high school should already be teaching more practical, workplace type skills anyway. We just put kids in their to babysit them during the 'trouble years'