And yes, I believe there is no god. (Gasp! But don't you know you might be wrong?) Sure. EVERY assertion (except arithmetic & tautologies) is
uncertain. I believe in black holes, but this is not yet a given. Reasonable people say they believe in things when the *degree of certainty* reaches
a certain point. I'll call myself an agnostic - there *might* be a God - when Oral Roberts says there *might* be a Zeus. Most "agnostics" have
fallen for the bizarre fundamentalist belief that assertions can be known with certainty. Nope. Can't do it. We can only be pretty sure.
That would be where faith comes in. Nope, don't have any hard physical proof that God exists - and won't ever have it in this world. Sorry.
But my world isn't boring either.
No doubt. Bit it's still rather a bleak, confined world.
Some responses remind me of the junky roommate I had in the sixties. He thot his world would be empty without
morphine, but I just saw his as more constrained & limited.
That's your right. I'd argue otherwise, but I'm pretty sure you won't listen.:>
First - here's an article for you to look over. It doesn't "exactly" answer your questions, but might provide some useful information in your interaction w/ the IT dept.
http://www.ccianet.org/Win2000web.html
Now, about your questions:
1. There doesn't seem to be a way for a Win2K workstation that is using AD to access shares on an NT4 machine. It is possible to use NT4 and Win2K, but you have to use the "older" domain model - you won't get the "benefits" (such as they are) of Windows 2000. Samba doesn't appear to handle AD yet - they're working on full NT4 compatibility. It will work with Windows 2000 in "compatibility mode" where it uses the "old style" domain and SMB structures. In general AD seems to break compatibility (or severely limit compatibility) with just about everything except Win2K.
2. I'm not sure - I *think* it's possible, but I haven't gotten that deep into Win2K. I'm not sure how well the MS implementation of LDAP, DNS, etc work either.
3. There seems to be several security vulnerabilities w/ AD. Check the web (and the other posts here on slashdot) for more information. Considering how new and how limited Win2K has been in its roll-out security is a very valid concern. Historically it seems to take MS 2-3 tries (or more) w/ any new product before they get the gaping holes patched.
4. Most of the articles I've read indicate that while it is possible to use Win2K w/ Unix (with the Unix systems relying on the Win2K system for DNS, LDAP, etc) it can be a major pain. MS did not go out of their way to ensure compatibility. What support there is seems to be more of a "token" support to "tide you over" until you replace all that nasty Unix stuff w/ profit producing Win2K. Whether or not Win2K works (or works for you) is beside the point.:> BTW - that's profit producing for MS, not you.
5. Thankfully, I'm not.:> I've worked w/ consulting/service&support firms the past couple of years, so I'm generally on the other side of the table as the one reccomending painful and expensive changes.:> Fortunately I'm not doing that anymore. Instead I'm looking for a nice quiet admin job where I can have all the headaches you're having. I think there's something wrong w/ me.
It may be going away, but it's not dead yet. I had no experience w/ Novell systems until earlier this year when I started working for a consulting firm - 75% of their clients run Netware. (Yes, they have more than 4 clients). Some of those are switching to NT, but most are staying w/ Netware (they've heard too many NT horror stories). Unfortunately (for them) this company refuses to consider Linux or FreeBSD ("It's Freeware, who wants to run Freeware?"). It's kind of sad really - many of the clients could be better served by a Linux or FreeBSD server (they only use "vanilla" email, but they end up buying Exchange + X copies of Outlook! Ouch - big hit on the pocketbook).
For any "OpenSource" project to succeed it's got to find and educate a user base. Linux and *BSD are good examples of this - although they still have a ways to go. If this project can provide a viable alternative to current Netware users, and is able to inform those users then it will succeed. Unfortunately the kind of communcations skills that are required to convince someone (esp. a "non-techie") that the product is a viable solution are very rare in the OpenSource world.
And before I get jumped on here - that's an observation, not an absolute. It seems that, unfortunately, for every person who is capable of clearly explaining the benefits of XY (be it Linux, *BSD, Apache, etc) there are 100 people who are only capable of shouting "It's better!" at the top of their lungs.
::SIGH:: Do you even pretend to know what you're talking about? There are Window Managers that work, and work quite well. IceWM is one that springs to mind. There are several others out there as well.
Either you were trying for a bit of irony (and failing I might add:>) or you are simply misinformed.
True enough - the fastest connection I can get is 28.8 dial up. Fortunately one local company is running their own lines and expects to offer DSL by the end of the year (they seem to be reasonably intelligent as well - I don't think they'll do anything like Comcast is trying to do).
However, given a choice between some money-sucking vampire company like Comcast appears to be and a dial up connection, I'll take the dial up. Just say "NO" to Comcast. Let them know that you are displeased w/ their service. If you are responsible for maintaining multiple accounts for a business (such as providing @Home to your employees so they can work "@Home" or even if you or your employees use their connection to check e-mail from work) inform @Home/Comcast that they have just lost XX customers and you will be searching for alternatives to their services. Drop your cable and get a satellite dish if that's legal in your area - odds are you'll have a better selection of channels at a lower price anyway, even after you include the equipment purchase.
Don't wait for them to enforce it - tell them "bye bye" now. Blocking VPNs makes no sense (unless they're doing something unethical like attempting to monitor all traffic?!). Let them know how displeased you are in the only language they're likely to understand: $$$. Urge your friends to switch to DSL. Frankly I'll take my 28.8 dial up over anything that gives some faceless company the right to come in, mess w/ my equipment and terminate/restrict my service for no reason other than "let's see what we can get away with this week".
Re:Linux rehashs 70s era OS.. wow, special.
on
A Praise To Unix
·
· Score: 1
If you had limited your comment *strictly* to desktop "clueless newbie" use, I might agree with you. However, Linux is more than a desktop OS. If you look at it as a server OS then the "community development model" has gone from nothing to a robust, viable platform in less time than most "commercial" Operating Systems. MacOS X seems to be (finally) a decent product. They've got a fair user interface on top of a very robust system core.
It's not the end-all be-all of computers though. Arguably Apple has done *exactly* the same thing as Gnome or KDE - taken an Open (relatively open anyway:>) OS and added their own "pretty pictures" on top. The "pretty pictures" may be more refined than Gnome's or KDE's, but they do have a 10 year head start on them.
Apple's got some very smart, very capable programmers working for them, but they're business model is just as bad as Microsoft's. They seem to be slowly changing (generally because it's "change or die") but be careful about holding them up as the "great shining example" of the computer world - they aren't.
BTW - don't think that I hate Apple. They're a company - I don't agree with all of their marketing strategies, I'm sometimes *amazed* at how loyal some of their users are considering how many times they've been "kicked in the teeth", but I don't automatically see Apple and think "It must be bad". I wish their platforms were more affordable - I'd love to have one to run Linux or *BSD on. I've never been very impressed w/ MacOS - from a (simple) user standpoint it was OK, but it could be an administrative nightmare. (Let's see, I need MacOS 5.6.1 rev 3a to run the app - Oh no, I only have 5.6.1 rev 2b!).
But you really have to ask yourself "Is someone going to come into my laundromat, pay to
do their laundry, pay to use the internet, and surf for porn infront of everyone else?" That, my friend, is social-pressure, and that is what will
keep people from viewing porn.
Sorry, but "peer pressure" alone won't stop people. A company I used to work for put a couple of web terminals in at the bookstore next door. They were in a very public place and were near the main traffic lanes in the store (it's a large Books-A-Million). There were a few people (some were fairly young, but the worst offenders were generally middle aged or older men) who seemed to delight in coming in, finding some porn site that wasn't in the filter list and leaving it up and changing the background to some image from that site. (Yes, NT was used as the OS) The bookstore finally asked the owner of the company to remove the terminals because of these individuals (there were one or two "repeat" offenders). All we were trying to block was porn btw.
Aside from that it is very difficult to filter out all sites - many of them aren't "filter friendly". You *might* look into using Squid and SquidGuard - I'm not sure how effective it is, but I believe it's at least as effective as most of the commercial products.:> I don't remember what we were using but it didn't work all that well.
Yep - trains/buses are all well and good, where there's enough people to pay for them. In NYC, where your population density is several thousand per square mile - great. Lots of people, limited area to cover. Now try the rest of the US (aka - "the real world":>) - w/ population density of less than 10 per square mile, or even 50 per square mile public transportation instantly becomes much more of a problem. You don't need a car, good for you. I do. Not because of a "lifestyle choice", but for good old transportation - there's no other way to get to work when your workplace is 45 miles away, and the nearest grocecery store is 10 miles. Want to ride a bike? Good for you. Your carcass will be spread across a mile of rural 2 lane highway that wasn't designed for bike riders.
It would be nice to have a good nationwide public transportation system - ever read "Heavy Weather"? Bruce Sterling describes a very nice dual system - the current highway system still exists, but cars are "smart" and capable of driving themselves. There's a cheap, wide ranging, FAST rail system for those that don't want/can't afford cars.
Ok - take a nice hybrid design (something like Honda's newest design). It uses less fuel than a comparatively powered car w/ a "pure" gasoline system, but how much additional pollution and chemical waste is involved in the manufacturing process? What's the use of having cars that burn marginally cleaner but produce a significant amount of hazardous waste as a by-product of production? Now - before you start flaming realize this is a question, not a "alternative fuel is bad" post.
What I'm trying to point out is that there's a lot more involved than simple efficiency. Electric cars looked great on paper, but a large scale implementation would have potentially overstressed the generating power of several regions, thus requiring more big, ugly, polluting coal fired plants to be built. Why coal? People start screaming and protesting when they hear "nuclear", most feasible hydro sites are in use, and other "alternatives" like solar and wind are only feasible in limited geographic areas and require large tracts of land to place the collectors on. This land may not be usuable for anything else. Alternative fuels would be great - the "biodiesel" stuff seems to show great promise. More "exotic" technologies like fuel cells are showing promise as well, but are still in the early stages of commercial development. There's several companies that are supposed to have a fuel cell on the market by this fall that is designed to power a house. If they can be as reliable and clean as the designers claim you will start seeing lots of them in use, especially in rural areas. I would love to have a clean, reliable source of power that didn't require the time/money investment of modern "small scale" solar or hydro units. A fuel cell does, of course, require a source of fuel but most rural residences have them - they either have access to natural gas lines or they already have a tank used for storing gas (either gasoline or propane/natural gas). Depending on the efficiency of the fuel cell (natural gas is actually rather expensive when you're not on a pipeline. We have a 500lb tank, and I think it costs $300-$500 dollars to fill it up, but that will last 6-8 months depending on the weather and how much we cook - the stove is gas fired as well). If they could be efficient enough where a 500lb tank would provide 8-12 months worth of electricity, possibly w/ a small battery system to handle surge loads, then I'd be very interested. On the other hand, if that same tank is only going to last a month then it's going to be far too expensive. It also must be 100% reliable or be able to be repaired/replaced relatively quickly at a reasonable price. If your fuel cell malfunctions, and there's nobody to repair it within 200 miles, what good is it? If the only possible "repair" in all cases is replacement of a $8000 unit, what good is it? Liquid fuel seems to be here to stay (at least in the immediate future). The infrastructure for dispensing and shipping it is already in place, and current vehicles can be easily converted. Ethanol and bio-diesel may be the best option at this point in climates where they perform acceptably. I live in the Southeast US, so low temparatures are rarely a problem.:> Heat/humidity, on the other hand, is a sever problem. Fuels (or energy sources) that don't handle high heat/humidity will be useless in this area - 50% or higher humidity is the norm, and 90%+ humidity and 100deg heat isn't unheard of either.
What's the point of this long dialog?:> Well - there are alternatives, but there is no universal alternative that won't require major reworking of the fuel distribution system and/or private vehicles. High gas prices can actually be a good thing - the higher the prices of gas, the more incentive there is to develop alternatives and more efficient vehicles. Instead of writing your congressman to ask for controls on the price of gasoline, ask for research into alternatives.
Well, that's exactly what they're trying to do. In theory you learn to apply that knowledge in college. In practice college is, for the most part, more "here, memorize this, test monday, that is all". Computers don't have much of an impact in this situation - they're just another tool to shovel meaningless facts into a students face.
We really aren't talking about the age groups that the article focused on though.:> They were talking primarily about elementary/middle school as opposed to high school (by 15 you are generally in a high-school type environment, even if it's not called "High School").
No, 12 years in the education system didn't leave me bitter, not at all.:> I enjoyed memorizing national capitals of tiny nations that don't exist anymore with no relevant facts to link them to. Really. Almost as much as I enjoyed having a ruptured appendix. I think I learned more at home recovering with a pile of textbooks and my assignments than I had all year in class - and I even had some good teachers that year. Somehow schools seem to skip the "applying" phase that's supposed to come after the "memorizing" phase of learning.
That depends entirely on how "interesting" the subject of the work is to the 15 year old, not on their research methods. Computers are excellent tools, and learning to use them should be a part of every education. However, the article in question is not saying that computers are inherently evil, or that computers should not be allowed in schools. What they are saying is that there seems to be a certain point or stage in a childs learning career (lots of buzzwords, sorry) at which computers have at best no positive benefit and at worst sever negative effects. Does a first grader really need to spend a portion of their school time learning to operate a computer? Even the so-called "learning games" are next to worthless in the environment they are used in. Instead of using something a child is generally interested in (a computer) as a tool in teaching, the computer is expected to become the teacher. How many schools "computer instruction" is nothing more than herding the kids into a room full of computers, sitting them down and starting up some "educational" game for them, and then walking away to grab a soda or a smoke while the kids watch the pretty flashing lights? A case in point - when my younger brother was in first grade in the local school district they were participating in a "pilot program" where the childrens reading lessons would be taught on PCs (Apple IIs in this case). If the program had taught the teachers to *use* the program as a teaching tool it might have succeeded, but instead the kids sat in front of the computer, listened as it read to them, hit a key so it would explain words they didn't understand, and showed them pretty pictures. By fifth grade all the students who participated in the program had to have remedial reading and problem solving classes - instead of learning to think for themselves they learned to push buttons. To this day a large majority of the class still has trouble with any sort of activity involving critical thinking or research. They aren't stupid, but they did have to develop these skills at a much later stage than normal and this is easily observed.
On the other hand, I know a couple of kids who are doing extremely well in school because their parents have integrated a computer into their learning at an early age. The difference is that instead of plopping the kid down, hitting the "start" button, and walking away the parents sat beside the kid and provided the sort of interaction and expanded learning ("Oh - you like dogs? Want to read a "real" book about a dog? Ok, lets go get it and read it!") that computers are simply incapable of providing. <P> I do think the reccomendation of one school that kids not be allowed near a computer until they are at least four years old is ridiculous; however, if the parents (and teachers) aren't willing to spend the time and effort to make the computer a useful tool instead of an inferior babysitter than by all means do not allow them in the classrooms during the important "formative" years when the reading and critical thinking structures are established. Also realize that the computer is simply a tool - and if a school/teacher is incapable of using that one tool, what other tools/skills are they incapable of using? Maybe there's something wrong with the whole system and not just this one aspect of it.:> <p> 'Course I could be totally wrong. That's up to you to decide. Give the old brain a good workout here and think!:>
Good idea. Now all you have to do is find a good encryption protocol that's unemcumbered w/ patents and bogus copyrights, convince lots of people to start using it, and make sure it's compatible w/ SSH so you don't ostracize the people already using "secure" connections. All these components are out there btw - it's getting them put together, standardized, and fighting off the large corporations (and not-so-large corps) who want everybody to "standardize" on their proprietary protocol that makes it difficult.:>
This does seem to exclude customer support, hardware maintenace, system administration type duties (that one might be harder to argue), etc. It seems to primarily apply to programmers - so that job I had for $20,000 a year (w/ 3 years experience) where they apparently expected 60+ hours weeks w/ no overtime is going to be seriously screwed when their employees wise up.
There seems to be some, confusion about what is meant by "Trust". Notice it's spelled with a capital "T"? It has a specific meaning. It's not "I trust my home firewall to protect me from most attacks", it's "This product has been built with XYZ design goals in mind, with strict auditing controls to ensure compliance". See Redfang's post http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/06/21/13332 22&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread &pid=198#206 for a better explanation than I can give.
Ever seen an Avalon box? Lots of Alphas on small boards w/ lots of memory plugged into a fast backplane. You don't need a built-in hard drive, you just need a workstation to "feed" the cluster - you have a nice fast workstation hanging off a nice fast network connection (Myrinet seems to be popular for this - it's what Compaq was using in the Beowulf cluster they had at the Atlanta Linux Showcase). You just need some way to load a "bare" OS so the processors can start talking to the network - and (at least in theory) the linux distro. that's "built into" some of these chips could do that.
'Course, as others have pointed out, the chips unveiled yesterday aren't high-end, but that doesn't mean they won't have a high-end design in the future.:>
>1. what do they mean by "internet plug-ins" ? the >can't mean that a CPU runs netscape or IE >plug-ins.
It's partially a marketing thing, partially a "slam" against WinCE. I don't think the version of IE on CE can run "standard" IE plug-ins, and there's no netscape for it. A machine running on a Crusoe processor could (in theory) run Linux+Netscape (or Win98+IE, or Be, etc) and use "standard" plugins. This would "open up" more web sites to handheld/palmtop devices.
They're not trying to make the "newest fastest most-expensivest" processor - they're going to viable portable devices (1.5-2 hours is not viable:>). Sure, a PIII 500 isn't the fastest thing out there anymore, but it's not bad. A PIII 500 equivalent w/ 6-8 hours of battery life is a truly viable portable. Admittedly the other components may suck down a lot of the power, but hopefully having this chip available will spur IBM, WD, or some other storage solution company to create a large capacity, low power comsumption solution that is also affordable. The IBM Microdrive is a relative low capacity (340 meg?), but it's small with low power consumption.
Basically, it will depend on your needs (as usual), but what I'm looking for in a notebook is compatibility w/ my existing apps (not a rewrite of them, like the WinCE version of Word), the ability to do basic tasks (word processing, some game-playing, e-mail, etc) and BATTERY LIFE - something I can lug around all day and use, not something that becomes dead weight after 1-2 hours of use.
True enough; however, the chips seem to be relatively inexpensive, in-production, and fast (compared to other "low power" and "cheap" processors). In addition they are x86 compatible and can run existing apps. This could make them excellent choice for kiosks. Additionally, their low power comsumption brings up the possibility of "alternative" power sources (solar, etc) - thus making cheap, easily install kiosks a viable product - sorta like the solar powered satellite "payphones" that have been developed. The next Woodstock, for example, could have a bunch of webpads on poles w/ solar panels on top. Swipe a credit card through and send e-mail to your friends.
Also brings up the possibility of solar-recharged notebooks - very nice.:>
As somebody else has pointed out Unreal (which I'm ashamed to say I haven't played yet:>) is you escaping from a prison ship (or so I've gathered). Unreal Tournament is you blowing up other people/bots. Basically UT is to Unreal what Q3 was to Q2 - an excuse to frag massive numbers of people online.:> So far I'm preferring UT over Q3 - beatiful graphics, some good scenarios, and a little more variety. Nice.
Long ago I was searching for a "free" Unix for my PC. At that time I was on Delphi (anybody remember them?:>) and had access to Usenet as well as ftp, etc. I'd heard about 2 different "projects" (well, one project and one family of project to be precise) - Linux and *BSD. I checked out the newsgroup(s) for each project. The *BSD seemed to be full of endless flame wars about which "version" was better, and any "newbie" questions were instantly pounced upon as an opportunity to berate the person in public about their ignorance. Not a very friendly situation. Then I checked out the linux groups - lots of people helping others, with an attitude of "hey, look at this cool new thing we've got, what can you do with it?". Guess which one I went with? Personally, I think that the openness of the linux guys & gals (and not just the license and/or legal troubles) is what really helped push linux in the early days over *BSD. No, it may not result in the cleanest tightest code ever, but it is a friendly attractive environment where would could/is progress at a rapid pace and most people involved could have fun.
I'm currently running Linux (various distro's), FreeBSD, OpenBSD soon (gotta order that CD), and a couple of other things. FreeBSD seems to be a nice, tightly written OS. I am in the process of building a file/print server using FreeBSD. The documentation structure is not as "newbie friendly" as linux, but is fairly complete (hint: "Just get a good book on Unix" does not for newbie-friendly documentation make) No doubt there'll be some nice "flaming" replies to that comment.:>
The *BSD groups have become *much* friendlier to newbies, and *BSD is starting to grow in popularity. Coincidence?
As somebody else pointed out, both groups are (to some degree) working towards the same ends - free, powerful, useful software. This is not a cut-throat financial competition, there's room enough for several OS's/distributions. More and more software is being developed "across platform" (Linux/BSD/etc), and that's a step in the right direction. Cooperation not competition and all that.:>
Slashdot Mirror
1. There doesn't seem to be a way for a Win2K workstation that is using AD to access shares on an NT4 machine. It is possible to use NT4 and Win2K, but you have to use the "older" domain model - you won't get the "benefits" (such as they are) of Windows 2000. Samba doesn't appear to handle AD yet - they're working on full NT4 compatibility. It will work with Windows 2000 in "compatibility mode" where it uses the "old style" domain and SMB structures. In general AD seems to break compatibility (or severely limit compatibility) with just about everything except Win2K.
2. I'm not sure - I *think* it's possible, but I haven't gotten that deep into Win2K. I'm not sure how well the MS implementation of LDAP, DNS, etc work either.
3. There seems to be several security vulnerabilities w/ AD. Check the web (and the other posts here on slashdot) for more information. Considering how new and how limited Win2K has been in its roll-out security is a very valid concern. Historically it seems to take MS 2-3 tries (or more) w/ any new product before they get the gaping holes patched.
4. Most of the articles I've read indicate that while it is possible to use Win2K w/ Unix (with the Unix systems relying on the Win2K system for DNS, LDAP, etc) it can be a major pain. MS did not go out of their way to ensure compatibility. What support there is seems to be more of a "token" support to "tide you over" until you replace all that nasty Unix stuff w/ profit producing Win2K. Whether or not Win2K works (or works for you) is beside the point. :> BTW - that's profit producing for MS, not you.
5. Thankfully, I'm not. :> I've worked w/ consulting/service&support firms the past couple of years, so I'm generally on the other side of the table as the one reccomending painful and expensive changes. :> Fortunately I'm not doing that anymore. Instead I'm looking for a nice quiet admin job where I can have all the headaches you're having. I think there's something wrong w/ me.
It may be going away, but it's not dead yet. I had no experience w/ Novell systems until earlier this year when I started working for a consulting firm - 75% of their clients run Netware. (Yes, they have more than 4 clients). Some of those are switching to NT, but most are staying w/ Netware (they've heard too many NT horror stories). Unfortunately (for them) this company refuses to consider Linux or FreeBSD ("It's Freeware, who wants to run Freeware?"). It's kind of sad really - many of the clients could be better served by a Linux or FreeBSD server (they only use "vanilla" email, but they end up buying Exchange + X copies of Outlook! Ouch - big hit on the pocketbook).
For any "OpenSource" project to succeed it's got to find and educate a user base. Linux and *BSD are good examples of this - although they still have a ways to go. If this project can provide a viable alternative to current Netware users, and is able to inform those users then it will succeed. Unfortunately the kind of communcations skills that are required to convince someone (esp. a "non-techie") that the product is a viable solution are very rare in the OpenSource world.
And before I get jumped on here - that's an observation, not an absolute. It seems that, unfortunately, for every person who is capable of clearly explaining the benefits of XY (be it Linux, *BSD, Apache, etc) there are 100 people who are only capable of shouting "It's better!" at the top of their lungs.
::SIGH:: Do you even pretend to know what you're talking about? There are Window Managers that work, and work quite well. IceWM is one that springs to mind. There are several others out there as well.
:>) or you are simply misinformed.
Either you were trying for a bit of irony (and failing I might add
True enough - the fastest connection I can get is 28.8 dial up. Fortunately one local company is running their own lines and expects to offer DSL by the end of the year (they seem to be reasonably intelligent as well - I don't think they'll do anything like Comcast is trying to do).
However, given a choice between some money-sucking vampire company like Comcast appears to be and a dial up connection, I'll take the dial up. Just say "NO" to Comcast. Let them know that you are displeased w/ their service. If you are responsible for maintaining multiple accounts for a business (such as providing @Home to your employees so they can work "@Home" or even if you or your employees use their connection to check e-mail from work) inform @Home/Comcast that they have just lost XX customers and you will be searching for alternatives to their services. Drop your cable and get a satellite dish if that's legal in your area - odds are you'll have a better selection of channels at a lower price anyway, even after you include the equipment purchase.
Don't wait for them to enforce it - tell them "bye bye" now. Blocking VPNs makes no sense (unless they're doing something unethical like attempting to monitor all traffic?!). Let them know how displeased you are in the only language they're likely to understand: $$$. Urge your friends to switch to DSL. Frankly I'll take my 28.8 dial up over anything that gives some faceless company the right to come in, mess w/ my equipment and terminate/restrict my service for no reason other than "let's see what we can get away with this week".
It's not the end-all be-all of computers though. Arguably Apple has done *exactly* the same thing as Gnome or KDE - taken an Open (relatively open anyway :>) OS and added their own "pretty pictures" on top. The "pretty pictures" may be more refined than Gnome's or KDE's, but they do have a 10 year head start on them.
Apple's got some very smart, very capable programmers working for them, but they're business model is just as bad as Microsoft's. They seem to be slowly changing (generally because it's "change or die") but be careful about holding them up as the "great shining example" of the computer world - they aren't.
BTW - don't think that I hate Apple. They're a company - I don't agree with all of their marketing strategies, I'm sometimes *amazed* at how loyal some of their users are considering how many times they've been "kicked in the teeth", but I don't automatically see Apple and think "It must be bad". I wish their platforms were more affordable - I'd love to have one to run Linux or *BSD on. I've never been very impressed w/ MacOS - from a (simple) user standpoint it was OK, but it could be an administrative nightmare. (Let's see, I need MacOS 5.6.1 rev 3a to run the app - Oh no, I only have 5.6.1 rev 2b!).
Sorry, but "peer pressure" alone won't stop people. A company I used to work for put a couple of web terminals in at the bookstore next door. They were in a very public place and were near the main traffic lanes in the store (it's a large Books-A-Million). There were a few people (some were fairly young, but the worst offenders were generally middle aged or older men) who seemed to delight in coming in, finding some porn site that wasn't in the filter list and leaving it up and changing the background to some image from that site. (Yes, NT was used as the OS) The bookstore finally asked the owner of the company to remove the terminals because of these individuals (there were one or two "repeat" offenders). All we were trying to block was porn btw. Aside from that it is very difficult to filter out all sites - many of them aren't "filter friendly". You *might* look into using Squid and SquidGuard - I'm not sure how effective it is, but I believe it's at least as effective as most of the commercial products. :> I don't remember what we were using but it didn't work all that well.
Yep - trains/buses are all well and good, where :>) - w/ population density of less than 10 per square mile, or even 50 per square mile public transportation instantly becomes much more of a problem. You don't need a car, good for you. I do. Not because of a "lifestyle choice", but for good old transportation - there's no other way to get to work when your workplace is 45 miles away, and the nearest grocecery store is 10 miles. Want to ride a bike? Good for you. Your carcass will be spread across a mile of rural 2 lane highway that wasn't designed for bike riders.
there's enough people to pay for them. In NYC,
where your population density is several thousand
per square mile - great. Lots of people, limited area to cover. Now try the rest of the US (aka -
"the real world"
It would be nice to have a good nationwide public transportation system - ever read "Heavy Weather"? Bruce Sterling describes a very nice dual system - the current highway system still exists, but cars are "smart" and capable of driving themselves. There's a cheap, wide ranging, FAST rail system for those that don't want/can't afford cars.
What I'm trying to point out is that there's a lot more involved than simple efficiency. Electric cars looked great on paper, but a large scale implementation would have potentially overstressed the generating power of several regions, thus requiring more big, ugly, polluting coal fired plants to be built. Why coal? People start screaming and protesting when they hear "nuclear", most feasible hydro sites are in use, and other "alternatives" like solar and wind are only feasible in limited geographic areas and require large tracts of land to place the collectors on. This land may not be usuable for anything else. Alternative fuels would be great - the "biodiesel" stuff seems to show great promise. More "exotic" technologies like fuel cells are showing promise as well, but are still in the early stages of commercial development. There's several companies that are supposed to have a fuel cell on the market by this fall that is designed to power a house. If they can be as reliable and clean as the designers claim you will start seeing lots of them in use, especially in rural areas. I would love to have a clean, reliable source of power that didn't require the time/money investment of modern "small scale" solar or hydro units. A fuel cell does, of course, require a source of fuel but most rural residences have them - they either have access to natural gas lines or they already have a tank used for storing gas (either gasoline or propane/natural gas). Depending on the efficiency of the fuel cell (natural gas is actually rather expensive when you're not on a pipeline. We have a 500lb tank, and I think it costs $300-$500 dollars to fill it up, but that will last 6-8 months depending on the weather and how much we cook - the stove is gas fired as well). If they could be efficient enough where a 500lb tank would provide 8-12 months worth of electricity, possibly w/ a small battery system to handle surge loads, then I'd be very interested. On the other hand, if that same tank is only going to last a month then it's going to be far too expensive. It also must be 100% reliable or be able to be repaired/replaced relatively quickly at a reasonable price. If your fuel cell malfunctions, and there's nobody to repair it within 200 miles, what good is it? If the only possible "repair" in all cases is replacement of a $8000 unit, what good is it? Liquid fuel seems to be here to stay (at least in the immediate future). The infrastructure for dispensing and shipping it is already in place, and current vehicles can be easily converted. Ethanol and bio-diesel may be the best option at this point in climates where they perform acceptably. I live in the Southeast US, so low temparatures are rarely a problem. :> Heat/humidity, on the other hand, is a sever problem. Fuels (or energy sources) that don't handle high heat/humidity will be useless in this area - 50% or higher humidity is the norm, and 90%+ humidity and 100deg heat isn't unheard of either.
What's the point of this long dialog? :> Well - there are alternatives, but there is no universal alternative that won't require major reworking of the fuel distribution system and/or private vehicles. High gas prices can actually be a good thing - the higher the prices of gas, the more incentive there is to develop alternatives and more efficient vehicles. Instead of writing your congressman to ask for controls on the price of gasoline, ask for research into alternatives.
Well, that's exactly what they're trying to do. In theory you learn to apply that knowledge in college. In practice college is, for the most part, more "here, memorize this, test monday, that is all". Computers don't have much of an impact in this situation - they're just another tool to shovel meaningless facts into a students face.
:> They were talking primarily about elementary/middle school as opposed to high school (by 15 you are generally in a high-school type environment, even if it's not called "High School").
:> I enjoyed memorizing national capitals of tiny nations that don't exist anymore with no relevant facts to link them to. Really. Almost as much as I enjoyed having a ruptured appendix. I think I learned more at home recovering with a pile of textbooks and my assignments than I had all year in class - and I even had some good teachers that year. Somehow schools seem to skip the "applying" phase that's supposed to come after the "memorizing" phase of learning.
We really aren't talking about the age groups that the article focused on though.
No, 12 years in the education system didn't leave me bitter, not at all.
That depends entirely on how "interesting" the subject of the work is to the 15 year old, not on their research methods. Computers are excellent tools, and learning to use them should be a part of every education. However, the article in question is not saying that computers are inherently evil, or that computers should not be allowed in schools. What they are saying is that there seems to be a certain point or stage in a childs learning career (lots of buzzwords, sorry) at which computers have at best no positive benefit and at worst sever negative effects. Does a first grader really need to spend a portion of their school time learning to operate a computer? Even the so-called "learning games" are next to worthless in the environment they are used in. Instead of using something a child is generally interested in (a computer) as a tool in teaching, the computer is expected to become the teacher. How many schools "computer instruction" is nothing more than herding the kids into a room full of computers, sitting them down and starting up some "educational" game for them, and then walking away to grab a soda or a smoke while the kids watch the pretty flashing lights? A case in point - when my younger brother was in first grade in the local school district they were participating in a "pilot program" where the childrens reading lessons would be taught on PCs (Apple IIs in this case). If the program had taught the teachers to *use* the program as a teaching tool it might have succeeded, but instead the kids sat in front of the computer, listened as it read to them, hit a key so it would explain words they didn't understand, and showed them pretty pictures. By fifth grade all the students who participated in the program had to have remedial reading and problem solving classes - instead of learning to think for themselves they learned to push buttons. To this day a large majority of the class still has trouble with any sort of activity involving critical thinking or research. They aren't stupid, but they did have to develop these skills at a much later stage than normal and this is easily observed.
:> :>
On the other hand, I know a couple of kids who are doing extremely well in school because their parents have integrated a computer into their learning at an early age. The difference is that instead of plopping the kid down, hitting the "start" button, and walking away the parents sat beside the kid and provided the sort of interaction and expanded learning ("Oh - you like
dogs? Want to read a "real" book about a dog? Ok, lets go get it and read it!") that computers are simply incapable of providing.
<P>
I do think the reccomendation of one school that kids not be allowed near a computer until they are at least four years old is ridiculous; however, if the parents (and teachers) aren't willing to spend the time and effort to make the computer a useful tool instead of an inferior babysitter than by all means do not allow them in the classrooms during the important "formative" years when the reading and critical thinking structures are established. Also realize that the computer is simply a tool - and if a school/teacher is incapable of using that one tool, what other tools/skills are they incapable of using? Maybe there's something wrong with the whole system and not just this one aspect of it.
<p>
'Course I could be totally wrong. That's up to you to decide. Give the old brain a good workout here and think!
Good idea. Now all you have to do is find a good encryption protocol that's unemcumbered w/ patents and bogus copyrights, convince lots of people to start using it, and make sure it's compatible w/ SSH so you don't ostracize the people already using "secure" connections. All these components are out there btw - it's getting them put together, standardized, and fighting off the large corporations (and not-so-large corps) who want everybody to "standardize" on their proprietary protocol that makes it difficult. :>
This does seem to exclude customer support, hardware maintenace, system administration type
duties (that one might be harder to argue), etc.
It seems to primarily apply to programmers - so
that job I had for $20,000 a year (w/ 3 years
experience) where they apparently expected 60+
hours weeks w/ no overtime is going to be seriously screwed when their employees wise up.
There seems to be some, confusion about2 22&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread &pid=198#206 for a better explanation than I can give.
what is meant by "Trust". Notice it's spelled with a capital "T"? It has a specific meaning. It's not "I trust my home firewall to protect me from most attacks", it's "This product has been built with XYZ design goals in mind, with strict auditing controls to ensure compliance". See Redfang's post http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/06/21/1333
Ever seen an Avalon box? Lots of Alphas on
:>
small boards w/ lots of memory plugged into
a fast backplane. You don't need a built-in
hard drive, you just need a workstation to
"feed" the cluster - you have a nice fast
workstation hanging off a nice fast network
connection (Myrinet seems to be popular for
this - it's what Compaq was using in the
Beowulf cluster they had at the Atlanta
Linux Showcase). You just need some way to
load a "bare" OS so the processors can start
talking to the network - and (at least in
theory) the linux distro. that's "built into"
some of these chips could do that.
'Course, as others have pointed out, the
chips unveiled yesterday aren't high-end,
but that doesn't mean they won't have
a high-end design in the future.
>1. what do they mean by "internet plug-ins" ? the >can't mean that a CPU runs netscape or IE >plug-ins.
It's partially a marketing thing, partially a
"slam" against WinCE. I don't think the
version of IE on CE can run "standard" IE
plug-ins, and there's no netscape for it.
A machine running on a Crusoe processor
could (in theory) run Linux+Netscape
(or Win98+IE, or Be, etc) and use "standard"
plugins. This would "open up" more web sites
to handheld/palmtop devices.
They're not trying to make the "newest fastest :>). Sure, a PIII 500 isn't the fastest
most-expensivest" processor - they're going to
viable portable devices (1.5-2 hours is not
viable
thing out there anymore, but it's not bad.
A PIII 500 equivalent w/ 6-8 hours of battery
life is a truly viable portable. Admittedly
the other components may suck down a lot of the
power, but hopefully having this chip available
will spur IBM, WD, or some other storage solution
company to create a large capacity, low power
comsumption solution that is also affordable.
The IBM Microdrive is a relative low capacity
(340 meg?), but it's small with low power
consumption.
Basically, it will depend on your needs (as usual), but what I'm looking for in a notebook
is compatibility w/ my existing apps (not a
rewrite of them, like the WinCE version of Word),
the ability to do basic tasks (word processing,
some game-playing, e-mail, etc) and BATTERY
LIFE - something I can lug around all day
and use, not something that becomes dead weight
after 1-2 hours of use.
True enough; however, the chips seem to be
:>
relatively inexpensive, in-production, and
fast (compared to other "low power" and "cheap"
processors). In addition they are x86
compatible and can run existing apps. This
could make them excellent choice for kiosks.
Additionally, their low power comsumption brings
up the possibility of "alternative" power sources
(solar, etc) - thus making cheap, easily
install kiosks a viable product - sorta like
the solar powered satellite "payphones" that
have been developed. The next Woodstock, for
example, could have a bunch of webpads on poles
w/ solar panels on top. Swipe a credit card
through and send e-mail to your friends.
Also brings up the possibility of solar-recharged
notebooks - very nice.
As somebody else has pointed out Unreal (which :>) :> So far I'm
I'm ashamed to say I haven't played yet
is you escaping from a prison ship (or so I've
gathered). Unreal Tournament is you blowing
up other people/bots. Basically UT is to Unreal
what Q3 was to Q2 - an excuse to frag massive
numbers of people online.
preferring UT over Q3 - beatiful graphics,
some good scenarios, and a little more variety.
Nice.
Just think of the possibilities:
Windows 2001 - an OS driven insane by it's bugs...
Long ago I was searching for a "free" Unix for :>) and had access to Usenet as
:>
:>
my PC. At that time I was on Delphi (anybody
remember them?
well as ftp, etc. I'd heard about 2 different
"projects" (well, one project and one family
of project to be precise) - Linux and *BSD.
I checked out the newsgroup(s) for each project.
The *BSD seemed to be full of endless flame wars
about which "version" was better, and any "newbie"
questions were instantly pounced upon as an
opportunity to berate the person in public about
their ignorance. Not a very friendly situation.
Then I checked out the linux groups - lots
of people helping others, with an attitude of
"hey, look at this cool new thing we've got,
what can you do with it?". Guess which one I
went with? Personally, I think that the openness
of the linux guys & gals (and not just the license and/or legal troubles)
is what really helped push linux in the early days
over *BSD. No, it may not result in the cleanest
tightest code ever, but it is a friendly
attractive environment where would could/is
progress at a rapid pace and most people involved
could have fun.
I'm currently running Linux (various distro's),
FreeBSD, OpenBSD soon (gotta order that CD),
and a couple of other things. FreeBSD seems to be
a nice, tightly written OS. I am in the process of building a file/print server using
FreeBSD. The documentation structure is not
as "newbie friendly" as linux, but is fairly complete (hint: "Just get a good book on Unix"
does not for newbie-friendly documentation make)
No doubt there'll be some nice "flaming" replies
to that comment.
The *BSD groups have become *much* friendlier to
newbies, and *BSD is starting to grow in popularity. Coincidence?
As somebody else pointed out, both groups are
(to some degree) working towards the same ends -
free, powerful, useful software. This is not a
cut-throat financial competition, there's room
enough for several OS's/distributions. More and
more software is being developed "across platform"
(Linux/BSD/etc), and that's a step in the right
direction. Cooperation not competition and all
that.