the term "life" has zero meaning and will continue to have zero meaning. Any sensible definition you care to give will also classify computer programs, tractors and aeroplanes, unless you specifically exclude them. For a while, people have gotten around this by saying "oh, I mean biological life" but now that we're making machines out of biological "stuff" that trick doesn't work anymore.
In fact, government controls on trade in dangerous microbes do not apply to the bits of DNA that can be used to create them. And while some industry groups have talked about policing the field themselves, the technology is quickly becoming so simple, experts say, that it will not be long before "bio hackers" working in garages will be downloading genetic programs and making them into novel life forms. We've only been waiting, forever. It's hard to imagine the megacorps coming up with something even remotely innovative to do with this technology. We need hackers.
Umm, I believe Shadow7789 is the guy you wanna bash here.. along with the idiots who +'d this in the Firehose. As for kdawson, it's not his job to fact check the article.. in fact, I'm not exactly sure *what* his job is now.
So, basically, what your saying is, Lilienfeld was a wanna-be patent troll and probably did nothing but delay the invention of the transistor because no-one wanted to step on his patent. That's something to be proud of.
1. Clear private data in Firefox doesn't delete cookies by default.. you need to select that option. 2. Slashdot keeps you logged in if you close the browser and restart it.. is that a bad design? 3. Many other sites do too.. it's called convenience.
Otherwise, yes, you're right a decent timeout is a good idea.. but what is "decent"? Sounds pretty subjective.
When I hear stories like this I can't help that think that maybe there is something worthwhile, from an idealistic point of view, in banning drugs. Of course, in reality banning anything just doesn't work so this is all academic - that said, maybe some drugs are freedom diminishing. That is to say, having the freedom to use some addictive drugs may actually be a means by which you reduce your freedom later. Another example would be the freedom to enter into a master-slave agreement. Even in a free society we might ban this kind of contract because although theoretically you have the option to leave the agreement at a later date, practically you do not, as the master has such control over you that they can prevent you from exercising the option to leave. So if, in an ideal freedom optimizing society, we would choose to ban such master-slave, indentured servitude or other similar contracts, then perhaps we also might choose to ban the use of some addictive drugs.
I'm reluctant to make this suggestion, however, as many people see the approximation of an ideal as being as good as the ideal itself. This is not necessarily the case and I feel that banning addictive drugs is likely one of those situations. Developing drugs which provide a similar high without the dangerous addiction is an option.. as is providing the means for addicted individuals to get off the drug safely and painlessly. Banning addictive drugs causes scarcity and that just spreads the damage from the individual to society.
Imagine a group of psychotics deciding how to run a prison:
No matter how much you dislike it, might makes right.
We could have a gang war every time we want to decide something but wars are so damn devastating.
It's simply more efficient to ask each gang leader whether or not they are willing to go to war over a particular issue, then calculate who would most likely win the war. It will likely be whichever side of temporary allies is bigger.
Some gangs are bigger than others so they should get more votes to reflect their ability to win a war unaided.
All of this is designed to avoid bloodshed. If it is perfectly run then the result will be a peaceful prison.
As it turns out, this is pretty much how the UN works.
That's not a democracy you're describing.. it's a constitutional republic. Which, ya know, is probably a heck of a lot better than a pure democracy, but seeing as the majority of Americans don't even know the difference between the two, what hope is there?
I've yet to work for a company that didn't dismiss or downplay the products and actions of competitors. One thing that, occasionally, happens at Microsoft is they have a management decree for everyone to pull their head out of the sand and deal with a threat.. but it doesn't happen often enough, at Microsoft or anywhere.
A whole bunch of us went and stood in line for like an hour to buy tickets. Most crowded movie opening I've ever been to. The whole time we're in line my friends are giving shit to this absolute slut in front of us. I don't use that word lightly. This girl was a disgrace. Anyway, the guy she was with was getting more and more pissed off with every underhanded comment about his girlfriend. As we finally got into the cinema to buy our tickets things had started to get out of hand. I believe the straw that broke the camel's back was when someone (maybe me) said "... anyway, who the hell brings a hooker to a movie?" *Bam* this guy is up in my friend's face. He was gunna kill him. My friend just couldn't stop laughing and saying "hey man, I didn't say it, but you gotta admit, it's accurate!" Security came in and dragged the guy out of line and his ditsy girlfriend didn't have any money to buy the tickets (its not like she had any pockets in that outfit). I don't even know if he got to see the movie, but considering the horridness of episode one, I think maybe we did him a favor.
They can choose to take control over their own IT solution or they can continue to be dissatisfied with a proprietary one.. it's completely up to them.
Not really. Obviously they would prefer that the solutions they have expertise in be the ones wanted by the customer, so they can best serve the customer, but that's about it.
I'd love to know where people like you get this kind of insight from.. Sun is an open source company.. they always have been. They were doing open source before "the revolution" even happened. They're more than "at ease" with it, they have some of the oldest living open source hackers on payroll.
As for this whole "oh noes!! Linux might takeover from Solaris!!" crap, why do people continue to ascribe the Microsoft world view - everything and everyone is a competitor - to other companies? Sun and IBM and every other normal company (read: not a monopoly) has one business strategy: give the customer what they want. If the customer wants Linux, Sun will sell them Linux. If the customer wants Solaris, Sun will sell them Solaris. If the customer wants Intel or AMD or SPARC, Sun will sell them that. IBM will also sell you Linux or Aix or Intel or AMD or SPARC.. if you want to pay them for that, that's what you'll get. It's only Microsoft who seems to think they can dictate the solutions to the customers instead of the other way around.
Slashdot Mirror
the term "life" has zero meaning and will continue to have zero meaning. Any sensible definition you care to give will also classify computer programs, tractors and aeroplanes, unless you specifically exclude them. For a while, people have gotten around this by saying "oh, I mean biological life" but now that we're making machines out of biological "stuff" that trick doesn't work anymore.
Umm, I believe Shadow7789 is the guy you wanna bash here.. along with the idiots who +'d this in the Firehose. As for kdawson, it's not his job to fact check the article.. in fact, I'm not exactly sure *what* his job is now.
Riight. Who says this black hole blasting a galaxy isn't exactly the kind of megaengineering we've been looking for?
Dude, it's no bigger than a womprat.. there's no way.
you're not just whistl'n Dixey brother.
Well that's your own stupid fault then isn't it?
You make a good point, but you did it anonymously, therefore you will be modded into the ground. Step up.
So, basically, what your saying is, Lilienfeld was a wanna-be patent troll and probably did nothing but delay the invention of the transistor because no-one wanted to step on his patent. That's something to be proud of.
1. Clear private data in Firefox doesn't delete cookies by default.. you need to select that option.
2. Slashdot keeps you logged in if you close the browser and restart it.. is that a bad design?
3. Many other sites do too.. it's called convenience.
Otherwise, yes, you're right a decent timeout is a good idea.. but what is "decent"? Sounds pretty subjective.
When I hear stories like this I can't help that think that maybe there is something worthwhile, from an idealistic point of view, in banning drugs. Of course, in reality banning anything just doesn't work so this is all academic - that said, maybe some drugs are freedom diminishing. That is to say, having the freedom to use some addictive drugs may actually be a means by which you reduce your freedom later. Another example would be the freedom to enter into a master-slave agreement. Even in a free society we might ban this kind of contract because although theoretically you have the option to leave the agreement at a later date, practically you do not, as the master has such control over you that they can prevent you from exercising the option to leave. So if, in an ideal freedom optimizing society, we would choose to ban such master-slave, indentured servitude or other similar contracts, then perhaps we also might choose to ban the use of some addictive drugs.
I'm reluctant to make this suggestion, however, as many people see the approximation of an ideal as being as good as the ideal itself. This is not necessarily the case and I feel that banning addictive drugs is likely one of those situations. Developing drugs which provide a similar high without the dangerous addiction is an option.. as is providing the means for addicted individuals to get off the drug safely and painlessly. Banning addictive drugs causes scarcity and that just spreads the damage from the individual to society.
All of this is designed to avoid bloodshed. If it is perfectly run then the result will be a peaceful prison.
As it turns out, this is pretty much how the UN works.
I do not know what I am talking about. You should probably put that in your sig.. or maybe it should just be added to the Slashdot FAQ.
That's not a democracy you're describing.. it's a constitutional republic. Which, ya know, is probably a heck of a lot better than a pure democracy, but seeing as the majority of Americans don't even know the difference between the two, what hope is there?
Yes, but the choice of OS that a consumer makes would be "consumer OS choice" which is what I said.
Don't nitpick with the best.
I've yet to work for a company that didn't dismiss or downplay the products and actions of competitors. One thing that, occasionally, happens at Microsoft is they have a management decree for everyone to pull their head out of the sand and deal with a threat.. but it doesn't happen often enough, at Microsoft or anywhere.
Yes, and consumer OS choice is what this thread is about.
You're right.
A typical patch from Microsoft takes years, if at all.
A whole bunch of us went and stood in line for like an hour to buy tickets. Most crowded movie opening I've ever been to. The whole time we're in line my friends are giving shit to this absolute slut in front of us. I don't use that word lightly. This girl was a disgrace. Anyway, the guy she was with was getting more and more pissed off with every underhanded comment about his girlfriend. As we finally got into the cinema to buy our tickets things had started to get out of hand. I believe the straw that broke the camel's back was when someone (maybe me) said "... anyway, who the hell brings a hooker to a movie?" *Bam* this guy is up in my friend's face. He was gunna kill him. My friend just couldn't stop laughing and saying "hey man, I didn't say it, but you gotta admit, it's accurate!" Security came in and dragged the guy out of line and his ditsy girlfriend didn't have any money to buy the tickets (its not like she had any pockets in that outfit). I don't even know if he got to see the movie, but considering the horridness of episode one, I think maybe we did him a favor.
Ok, look, calling Linux "UNIX-based" is a stretch.. in fact, I think it has been proved in a court of law that it isn't based on UNIX.
Calling Mac OS-X "UNIX-based" is just freakin' absurd!
The ability to run the GNU toolset on an operating system does not make it "UNIX-based". By that logic Windows is "UNIX-based".
They can choose to take control over their own IT solution or they can continue to be dissatisfied with a proprietary one.. it's completely up to them.
Start a project to collect requirements. A lot of geeks will happily hack on it for you but we have no idea WTF you need.
Not really. Obviously they would prefer that the solutions they have expertise in be the ones wanted by the customer, so they can best serve the customer, but that's about it.
I'd love to know where people like you get this kind of insight from.. Sun is an open source company.. they always have been. They were doing open source before "the revolution" even happened. They're more than "at ease" with it, they have some of the oldest living open source hackers on payroll.
As for this whole "oh noes!! Linux might takeover from Solaris!!" crap, why do people continue to ascribe the Microsoft world view - everything and everyone is a competitor - to other companies? Sun and IBM and every other normal company (read: not a monopoly) has one business strategy: give the customer what they want. If the customer wants Linux, Sun will sell them Linux. If the customer wants Solaris, Sun will sell them Solaris. If the customer wants Intel or AMD or SPARC, Sun will sell them that. IBM will also sell you Linux or Aix or Intel or AMD or SPARC.. if you want to pay them for that, that's what you'll get. It's only Microsoft who seems to think they can dictate the solutions to the customers instead of the other way around.
Dude. There's people who have made derivative works mentioned in the summary. You can't even be bothered reading the summary before posting? Wow.