Whether right or wrong, regardless if it's pyschological... the fact is, a lot of youngsters attempt to make themselves appear as their favorite media icon. Often, it might even lead to self-destructive consequences, such as body modifications. But, most importantly it alters OUR view of the world and how we should look.
Modifying appearances for all models on TV and prints have been long sought after. Even in the twenties, the dramatic scenes in black and white where there was a single ray of light illuminating a portion of the actors face... to the careful coordination between the camera angles and the choreography to make sure the actors look fit and sexy despite their gut. The industry has tons of tricks... and image modification is only one more in their toolbox. Truthfully, Marilyn Manson, Brittany Spears... both have rather artsy modeling pics... but the reality is, neither one is particularly "model humans" without all those professionals telling them what to do. They quite literally can create a sex icon of any of us.
Now, to play devil's advocate. I personally think Marylin Manson makes a fine musician. Had it not been for all of this makeup and fancy photographs... would he have been able to get as far as he did? There are a lot of very good musicians that don't have hard bodies, and their music should be appreciated all the same.
But, I think the damage, overall for youngsters and adults (who aren't willing to admit that they view themselves in comparison to those they view day and night on TV and in Magazines) who are comparing their selves to these photos... they should be informed that the photos aren't real and are in all respect impossible.
Infrastructure is more important than "best practices". Infrastructure is more of a physical, concrete aspect. Practices really aren't that important once the critical, physical disasters begin. As an example, good hardware will continue to run for years. Most of the downtime in regards to good hardware will most likely be due to misconfiguration, human error that sort of thing. A Sys Admin banks on some wrong assumption, messes up a script or hits the wrong command, but nonetheless the hardware is still physically able and therefore the infrastructure has not been jeopardized. If the situation is reversed, top notch paper plans and procedures... with crappy hardware. Well... the realities of physical discrepancies are harder to argue than our personal, nebulous, intangible, inconsequential philosophies of "good/better/best" management procedures/practices.
So to me the question "In their efforts at uptime, are data centers relying too much on infrastructure and not enough on best practices?" is best translated as "To belittle the concept of uptime and it's association with reliability, are data centers relying too much on the raw realities of the universe and the physical laws that govern it and not enough on some random guys philosophies regarding problems that only manifest within our imaginations?"
Or, as a medical analogy... "In their efforts in curing cancer, are doctors relying too much on science and not enough on voodoo/religion?"
Be is one of a long list of non-mainstream technologies which I've seen wither on the vine, again for the simple reason that they were too good. There is a status quo in virtually every area in this world, including computer software. If something shows up which is intelligent, positive, and therefore radical to the point where it exceeds the "just good enough," status quo, it tends to slip back below the surface, very rapidly.
I've often wondered how much more positive the world would be, if all of the things which have been repressed or destroyed because they were too innovative, too positive, or too endangering to a scarcity based economy, had actually been allowed to survive and be used.
I don't agree, but I will admit this is how things pan out. Here's my theory as to a possible cause...
When I bought my first BMW, the salesmen had a very very easy job. Any hardwork that might have befallen him, was taken care of by the engineers of BMW. When I got in a BMW at the dealership, and turned the key, the car started, first time with confidence. The steering wheel seemed in tune to my expectations of how much the car should turn given how much I rotate the wheel (most american cars, regardless of sport or luxury status, seem to have a ridiculous amount of play before response is perceived). The gas seemed to follow suit. The suspension wasn't too tight, but tight enough to compliment handling. The Germans make damn fine automobiles, and the BMW is by far one of the best cars I have ever driven. I bought that BMW, and plan to buy another one.
I would assert that BMW is one of those "very very good products, well deserving of their marketing slogan 'the ultimate driving machine'". But, they are here, alive and well and they have yet to die a sad and lonely death.
But, one could argue that BMW doesn't rule the automotive world. General Motors probably is yet larger than BMW. And other fabulous car companies like Bugatti, Lamborghini and Ferrari have rich histories yet often find themselves owned by larger companies. Not just cars, but Omega watches is owned by Swatch (plastic toy watch company). But this can be attributed to the simple fact that selling a lot of cheap stuff renders more income than selling a few very expensive items. The industries realize these high-end companies are the source for much innovation and technical excellence, so rather than letting them die, they get bought out and preserved in a way.
So, what happens market wise to companies who we think are too good but still fail? I think it boils down to what I first talked about. Anyone selling a BMW really only needs to be present to manage the formalities of the sale. The product will sell itself, it really is that good. The downside of this Led Zeppelin tactic (kudos if you get this reference; if you don't, you suck and need to wiki their fourth album), is that the consumer isn't so vulnerable to a clever sales pitch, and perhaps BMW may even realize their own excellence and choose not to hire the "best" salesmen.
So the best salesmen get hired by the people who know their product is crap, and they are willing to divert funds from R&D to a talented salesman. Cut that man a huge paycheck, because he can sell a fridge to an eskimo! As the joke goes. The salesman can provide results more consistently and quicker than some engineer in the R&D department. You don't want to wait for some product to manifest, you want to sell what you already have now. If in doubt of a products quality, well that's where the salesman comes in to persuade you... help you... guide you to a purchase. Crap companies have lots of talented bullshitters, bullshiting consumers into buying bottled tap water all over the world.
In the end, Be Inc. had their problems. They tried to compete, with a proprietary OS, in a market at war with FOSS. Today, there really is only one major proprietary OS left, that being Windows. AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, IRIX, UNICOS, MacOS (classic)... they have either all majorly revamped their models to be more FOSS friendly or at least in regards to (Open Solaris, MacOS X et al).... or they are on a steady and rapid decline.
A research team led by Microsoft's Helen Wang discovered how to rebrand and skin a theme for the widely used Firefox. "Since most people already think we stole Firefox code to render webpages correctly with IE 8, we got to thinking..." Helen Wang stated in a call yesterday. "Our next IE release will be simply to rebrand and change the default skin of the latest Firefox web browser! So we can then say, finally, that Internet Explorer correctly renders web pages according to W3C published standards." This move seems to secure Firefox as the dominate web browser with a huge influx of new users. "Most people use Firefox because they have realized Internet Explorer was never able to render HTML correctly. This is in part because we have habitually hired software engineers that have never heard of www.w3c.org." This last fact is found to be true, on a job application for the Internet Explorer Development Team, which looks a bit like a Mc Donalds application, the first question is . "1. Do you know of www.w3c.org?" followed immediately by "2. Do you know what the word 'standards' mean?" Helen Wang affirmed that answering any of these two questions with 'yes' will disqualify you for any prospective position on the Internet Explorer Development Team.
We can only suspect that Microsoft will soon shift back to their own broken browser after people stop switching over to a Firefox branded Firefox.
Some people reference car license plates and the such. Perhaps, off the cuff reasoning suggesting that from experience from having to pay a photo-captured ticket from running a red light, that the license plate is 'personally identifiable'. Technically, it's not the court saying that your license plate identifies you as the driver, but rather that the license plate identifies you as responsible for your car; this is a big difference. There is a law allowing traffic violations to only need personal identification in regards to the vehicle itself (as in, the license plate), and the penalty shall rest on who it's registered too. This is why, covering your face while running a red light won't save you... and this is why it doesn't matter who drives your car through red lights downtown... and this is why, the person the vehicle is registered to is who will pay the fine.
At a minimum, 350 USD, at least in San Diego for getting photographed at a stop light, best make sure your pissed off girlfriend doesn't grab the keys to your car as she storms out.
The judge probably considered the fact that while a block of IP addresses can certainly be registered to a person, who is actually in control or representing any individual IP address may not be one in the same. In fact, scratch the in control for a moment. A spoofed connection attempt might not even be indicative of route, path or physical lines from which the connection originated; with this in mind, it wouldn't even make sense to hold responsible the person registered to the IP address, as it's not even feasible to suggest they have control. See, with the actual traffic violation, it's assumed you have the keys to your own car and that you willfully allowed the person who ran the red light to use your car; on the flip side, if your car was stolen and the suspect ran red lights with your stolen car, can you guess why you wouldn't have to pay a fine? A network administrator has no reasonable level of control over his registered network in relative to other networks, not like a person who owns a car having a reasonable amount of control in the manner of physical keys and physical access to the vehicle.
The control we are talking about, in part is inherent to the fact the car is a physical item, which carries all the laws of physics with it (it can't be in the same place as another car, depending on precise measurement it can be shown to be unique to all other cars even if off an assembly line etc). In regards to the Internet, it's just protocols, ambiguous electron patterns that are precise and exact every time. 192.168.1.1 becomes interpretations of bit patterns parsed from a set of standard fields... there is no way to isolate the message as universally unique, and having only been able to be received from any origin.
It's this inability to be unique, which obfuscates origin. If something is unique, it's origin or position is a matter of accountability. Tracing an internet connection really boils down to following what accounting is available for the physical electron flow. The connection came in on this connection, which is connected to this phone line, which opened a circuit... at the end of that circuit is a device, that opened another circuit and at the end of that is another device... and so on. It's the assumption that most connections, tasks, operations, hacks will need constant two-communications, so somewhere a reliable link can be found. So we often put a lot of faith in the reported IP in the logs as being a "real" IP address. But there are hacks, intrusion techniques that aren't two way, but simply one way... injections and such which need not phone home. Kinda like dumping bait into the river and walking away, if your objective is simply to poison the fish, it's a perfectly reasonable approach.
The point is, there's no way to personally identify a person from an IP address. And there's not enough inherent uniqueness or expected control to hold responsible whoever might be registered for an IP in some log file.
I suppose people think that complexity is some how better or more indicative of truth... because why are we trying to battle on these obscure money-lenders' rationale of governing costs of software? It's simple, linux is downloaded for free, and to get Windows alone is what.. 199.95? Oh, and how much for Photoshop? Oh, maybe add Maya, and then perhaps some VM software? Because, we all know that Windows by itself, out of the box, is rather limited. Add in a full blown development environment... oh, yes and Microsoft Office I presume yes?
TCO is bullshit. Windows has a price tag greater than 0. No matter how complex or convoluted you get, no matter how many lawyers with fantasy rationale obfuscating the obvious, no matter what is said or how it's said... any price on Windows is always going to be more expensive than free.
Cost of operation? How much wasted time do you think has been put into trying to figure out mundane tasks in Office 2007? Might as well be a completely new product, Open Office which clearly is a different product is more familiar to a previous Office user than 2007 is. TCO accounts for "training" as their defense? They are shooting them in the foot. I mean, you always have "training" with new software. Sometimes you have it with just bug-fixes or upgrades. Some of us, it might only be "familiarizing", but others who are so dead set in a routine to complete a task will struggle for sure.
What is it, about TCO, is relevant, useful.... real? Keep that to yourself, I've read all the garbage. Bottom line is there's really nothing governing this bullshit "TCO" philosophy, any more in favor of Microsoft than any other software or product for that matter. The real fact is the real numbers. 199.95 for retail Windows. And then tally up all the numbers that would make your "Windows" installation, and all the third party software, "legal". There's your real cost, there's the obvious cost.
How much do you think it would cost to have a legit Windows box? 5,000 USD total in software costs?
No, better yet. How much would a Windows box cost, purchasing all of the commercial software available that would enable the Windows user to do what the typical Linux installation can do? I mean, I have photo editing software, 3D renderers galore... office suites, every server imaginable, VM software, conversion tools... jesus my box is Linux... nuff said. My Windows box would break the bank paying for and installing only a fraction of the capabilities in commercial software.
Now, site wide licenses, think organization size... thousands of desktops... niche market functionality... dear god. TCO is the least of your worries it seems.
France first adopted the Metric System in 1791 (according to Wikipedia). Let me repeat that... 1791.
The first public, commercial, industrial use of the Metric System in America was Coca-Cola; Coca-Cola bottles have always displayed their volume in metrics, and they have been around since 1886. Let me repeat that... 1886.
First shuttle flight was in 1977.
Now here's the surprise on my part. For as long as I have been alive, all science and math text always focused on the metric system. Aside from off-tasks in grade school of converting Celsius to Farhenheit(sp?) or inches to centimeter... gallons to liters... everything has always been in metrics. Growing up, the total icon of science and math has been primarily NASA. It is very hard to for me to conceive, that given the adoption of the metric system in acadamia and almost exclusive to intellectuals and professionals... that NASA has for so long, and so widespread throughout any of their projects, adopted anything other than the metric system. Had this article not been published, I would have refuted any claim that NASA didn't use the metric system. All I can say in 2009 is "wow".
I must be that "some other lifeform". I can't stand or use curved or "Ergonomic" keyboards such as the Microsoft un-Natural keyboard.
I don't think you are "some other lifeform". The real reason for the Microsoft Natural keyboard had little to do with any bio-mechanical reason. I say that in all the faces of those who actually believe in this "ergonomics" mess. That keyboard was released, shortly after the Ergonomic craze that swept multiple industries. It wasn't just computers, but everything from toothbrushes to cars (more on cars later, ergonomics most applied industry could well be the car industry).
People caught on to the bizarre notion of ergonomics and it's flawed rationale as applied to a system already highly engineered and studied for well over three centuries (the keyboard); as the ergonomic keyboards aren't so popular now and far more 'normal' keyboards are on sale than the Picasso keyboards. And while a QWERTY keyboard hasn't been around for 3 centuries, the keyboard found on organs and pianos has, and they are flat and horizontal with step pattern plateaus for successive key layers like on the piano from whole notes to sharps and flats or the multi-keyboard organs.
Now, the history of applied ergonomics probably has least bullshit in the car industry. For many years they designed the interiors of vehicles to increase the availability of controls to the driver as much as possible, in as much a relaxed state as possible for the driver. Some of the features of some cars have historical value, take for instance the Porsche Carrera GT, the car that we will never own but will plaster our walls with pictures of. It's ignition key is to the left of the steering wheel, and what many aren't aware of is the fact this is a nod to the history of racing. Back in the earliest days of racing, the drivers would have to run to their cars, start them and drive off. Porsche, as an added "ergonomic" feature placed the ignition key to the left of the steering wheels of their race cars back then, so the driver could jump in the car and start the car while putting it in gear at the same time; try this with a modern car where the ignition is to the right, you'll find a lot of trouble doing it very fast and it'll feel very awkward every time. Little things like the position of the ignition system could mean seconds between you and the other, and anyone in racing... a second is often night and day.
The whole deal with ergonomic keyboards is a big facade to convince consumers why they should ignore the obvious and shell out more money for something "new". I even heard some people claim they type faster on so-called ergonomic keyboards, perfect now that will be a key selling point; you don't actually have to practice typing with this keyboard, it magically untaps the inherent l33t typing skillZ in your hands because of erg0nomic5! If you can't type 60wpm on a regular keyboard, you certainly won't with an ergonomic keyboard, but try telling that to a believer; one can only wait, watch and then laugh.
Some arguments revolve in "well, without copyrights how do we get paid", and the two sides argue either paid for work done while the copyright proponents argue for continual pay and some try to argue they don't get paid that much.
First, if they didn't get paid that much, then this whole issue would be of no concern to anyone (even those who are receiving pay). Do you think a bum really cares much about finances considering he only get's mere chump change? It's only the people who reap great rewards who seem most concerned about diminutive finances even if they are merely indirect. To attain a more clear idea of this concept, think of the truck driver hauling petroleum. While gas prices rise, he is unaffected. While the claims in the media assert that part of the reason the gas prices rise is to, in part, pay the trucker, in reality his pay stays the same with diminishing health benefits. The only people benefiting from the 10 cent rise in pump prices, are the people at the very top, and no one or no thing or no process or procedure has change anywhere in between the pump and the CEO of Exxon or BP. To the trucker, it's an extra 10 cents, no real big deal only noticable via his general math skills but since he has a "good job" he only voices is opinion on price change via a political sentiment, hardly a financial one. The only one motivated by the zeal of a 10 cent rise is the one who can reap all of those 10 cents into a single pot rendering multiple millions via sum.
This whole copyright thing really is about the Big Dogs extorting control, distribution and price of products they are legally rightful of. Let's take Alexandre Kalishnikov for example. Designer of the AK-47, undoubtedly a best seller through and through. Does he reap royalities? Pretty sure he doesn't. But, is a copyright system in America any better? Who exactly is running all these law suits, all the claims of copyright and patent infringment? The Industry had to pay or force Metallica to do a publicity stunt against Napster. It's rarely the actual artist that claims copyright infringement, the only one that comes to mind is Prince. It's always, someone who probably doesn't actually hold or created the copyright, it's someone who took the copyrights from the original copyright holder to begin with. Sony Entertainment owns a butt-load of copyright material... Sony created none of it, just forced their entertainers to forfeit their rights of the material to them. In the end, we are all, Alexandre Kalishnikovs.... whether it's a wealthy chinese weapons manufacture, or a wealthy Sony CEO... one thing is for sure the actual inventor probably isn't at a loss due to piracy, nor was he actually reaping the real profit off his inventions.
This whole issue really boils down to one thing. The heads of the industry want to exploit this new technology for a way to increase their revenue, and if some law will allow them to charge for every additional copy, then they will be loving this whole internet thing. The inventors, poets, musicians, composers, engineers, writers, scribes, tradesmen, journeymen, craftsman... it's just going to be another day to them. And regardless of which laws are adopted, only those at the top are effected while their source for resources (intellectual resources) are shafted all the same. Do you really believe, those poorly paid people in the Entertainment industries will get a pay raise if the laws were passed in favor of the RIAA or MPAA? God, you're a fool if you think so.
Several species of turtles have debatably "long" necks, and they are all maintained in a horizontal position. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roti_Island_Snake-necked_Turtle
This is media propoganda, through and through. It's insulting even.
Women in math? The "gender gap" between women and men in math, even "basic" math has "closed"? BULLSHIT!
First, "calculus" is not "basic math". It's not needed for most academic majors, nor is it a requirement for entry to so much as a community college. Perhaps, "General Math" is a "basic" math. Perhaps, Pre-Algebra is a "basic" math. But, most certainly, any level of Calculus is NOT a "basic" math.
Secondly, I have been in five higher education institutions spanning two different countries and have majored in Math in particular along with engineering courses. I also took Calculus in High-school... when I attended a high school that even HAD the course (not all American high schools offer calculus).
First, anything past Algebra I and Geometry in highschool and you are officially a nerd or geek, therefore you probably have less options of having a girlfriend. The girls have no interest in that sort of thing, nor any male that has such aptitude. If they did, such classes would have a fair number of girls in them, just to be in social alignment with the males fully able of completing the courses. But, look no further than media entertainment, and frankly, being a nerd or smart isn't "hip".
Ok, so that's more of a social outlook on the issue, and it is. Can girls do the calculus? Maybe, but most don't even if they could, most don't even try or think such a task is even credible to endure.
As a result, any claims that there are a lot of girls in a high school calculus class, is just that a claim. I dare any of them to actually, physically, literally walk their ignorant butts into a random high-level math class and count with their index finger the number of girls in that class. (This will render a far higher count than if we subtracted the ugly girls from any "attractive" girls.)
Now, walk to college. This will be easy as randomly roaming the halls of a high school might have the police arresting you. But you can stand around and most colleges and universities. The gap is closing? Bullshit, if anything it's getting wider.
Of all the years and all the courses of math above Trigonometry I have took, maybe two girls total I might have personally dated . Including all "females", less than ten total. Two of them, were the professors. My Linear Algebra professor was a female, a rather attractive one too. But, the numbers are there, per raw experience. And it only got worse in college and at the highest levels of math females are virtually extinct.
My gripe about all this, is that they should actually do something to make girls look at being smart as an advantage to life. Instead, if one has a cute ass, they'll just leave Calculus to the nerds and hope her boyfriend becomes a NFL star. Regardless if she could have passed a calculus course, the fact she didn't makes her dumb all the same and since she's among millions of other girls the end result is well reflected that women can't be counted on when it comes to mathematical abilities.
They want people to believe there are females in these math classes even if they aren't actually physically present. For most people never take calculus, and now they face the few that have and might call them sexist if they announce "uh... I only saw a handful of girls in any of my classes when getting a Masters in Mathematics".
They want more girls in math? They need to come up with something that actually makes girls consider it as a useful tool in life. As it is now, 10,000 dollars for a hard and burdensome education or an easy and highly profitable breast augmentation? You decide, as inherently lazy humans, which many girls might opt for.
A company is ONLY obligated in accordance to the GPL or whatever other OSL they agreed to.
A company, hacker or hobbyist, I personally don't give a damn. They should make the source available, they should make all modifications available. They should not charge any more than distribution costs for that portion of software, they have to reflect all past contributors and other claims of participation whether it is explicit copy right, or bragging rights.
Just because they are a company, we should not stoop to their level of participation of currency exchange. We are in the business of exchanging ideas, I could care less about the currency they desire. Currency is only about accounting monetary transactions. That's what businesses strive for, and their products re usually not for the better good, not because the pharmecutical companies actually care about people and what to help them... no, they just want something that people will "buy". We aren't in that business.
If Microsoft wants to use Eclipse... then that's a plus for Eclipse. If I worked on Eclipse or submitted a patch, that's more pride and appreciation for me; regardless how I feel about Microsoft.
What the media is trying to do, is associate our work with actual monetary cost, the same crap they reference in their world. They want to do this, because the next step is to justify cost schemes and cost based justification for ignoble actions (such as, copyright infringment, or invalidation of past GPLs for a new GPL that cators to business financial interests and control).
DO NOT DEMAND CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ANYONE! THAT IS NOT OUR MODEL, THAT IS NOT HOW WE GOT SO ADVANCED AS A SOURCE FOR QUALITY SOFTWARE! 'FREELOADERS' TO US ARE BUG TESTORS, IT'S NOT A NEGATIVE LABEL, IT DOESN'T TRANSLATE IN THE OSS COMMUNITY!
I always viewed Polaroid cameras as being, to be elegant and frank, ghetto.
But, they do have a unique visual aesthetic, it's not just the bold white border and the thick bottom border that gives it away. Nor the glassy sheen over the picture itself. There is something about a Polaroid shot, that makes the picture undoubtedly Polaroid nearly every time. It looks like a ghetto shot, but in this day and age with free artists and artistic expression on a free internet, maybe some of the guys at Deviant Art can do some very very nice retro art using Polaroid shots.
I'm certain of it. Just as certain as "indie" films with their similar low-budget feel gives off a certain appeal to their films. Like Tarantino(sp?) films feel low-budget until Bruce Willis appears before the camera (like he isn't getting paid right?).
My only suggestion to this business endeavor... give the artists a larger sample. Original Polaroid shots were stamp size squares, almost every one of them have some part of the primary subject being clipped by the boundaries. A wide aspect ratio shot, on Polaroid, I think would be very awesome.
Hell, I might even be interested, even though I'm not an artist. Also, maybe an electronic means to get that Polaroid shot, into digital form from the camera itself would be sexy. Afterall, no matter the intentions of the visual artist, it's destined to be digitized eventually. (Rembrandt probably never imagined his work would be digitized yet it has been.)
I would be interested in seeing him run this machine for 30 days and then compute the Shannon entropy [wikipedia.org] on the results and then compare this to popular RNGs out there.
After reading the article, I think he's less focused on mathematical accuracy and more focused on appeasing customers. He only went to these lengths due to complaints against his RNGs he used to use.
This way, those wannabe math majors can't so easily complain.
Oh, and regardless of Shannon entropy, it is a bit more obvious that this approach will more satisfy a feeling of randomness. Unless the die are weighted, their effect will be random. Or as random as one will possibly get, or as random enough for those mathematicians who work for Casinos across the world who use real die for a variety of Casino games and are willing to shell out hundreds of millions in winnings should the roller win.
It's already agreed that if we knew the entire state of the universe, that we could see past present and future (just as we can determine numbers either side of a target number within a known sequence or set). But, it's also agreed that it's impossible to know the entire state of the universe. While the universe is big, it's probably agreeable that you don't know the entire state of this machine, nor is it possible. So as each dice has vastly different atomic landscapes on it's edges, and as the surfaces vary greatly with wind currents randomly blowing through, variations in humidity, vibrations, electro magnetics and all sorts of subtle forces and their variations and effects on one another and the die... those dice rolls are as random as they can get.
Please note, the machine can be manipulated. But, this has nothing to do with the fact that throwing dice upon a surface is sufficiently random.
I had a boss, who used to suggest with total seriousness that all politicians should be sent directly to jail after they serve their terms; without trial, without jury, straight from their table to their cell.
I just laughed at this as though it's a joke. But he never showed a joking manner with his opinion. It was often haunting, but the more he insisted on a poker face when saying the more I thought about it.
His claim is that all politicians are liars, and due to the gravity of their lies (in affecting the masses), their crimes have far reaching consequences and hence they should all go directly to jail after they serve for the rest of their lives.
I used to say, 'but we would have no politicians then', to which he said 'good'.
Funny though, he didn't seem to mind the man-behind-the-curtains, in the sense of the CEO of a locally publicly traded international business... who, he never voted for, nor even could identify by name or photo, having probably done more to influence his life than any politician has. For, the politicians he blames, were told what to do by Big Business.
It's only in light of this perspective that I would agree with my boss. Not on grounds of them lying, but more on the grounds they are supposed to serve the people, and not the companies. Since their fibs are a result of Big Business, and they choose Corporate spoils over the People.
I agree with my boss. They all should go directly to jail for not protecting the People.
They could buy AMD products, instead, which is more or less the point.
O'RLY?
I still find it difficult to buy a laptop with Linux preinstalled, or no OS installed at all. Servers might be readily available, but for a geeks personal desktop or home computer your options are limited. Last time I bought a laptop with hardware requirements to meet my tastes, with Linux preinstalled, I had to purchase a very expensive one from a portable UNIX solutions provider.... niche market item, usually nice but always expensive.
Now, anti-trust violations are typically in the manner of some Big Company purchasing security for their revenue streams. Microsoft paying off distributors, or charging much more or otherwise penalizing those who also cater to the competition (i.e. they sell laptops with linux preinstalled, charge them double for their Windows installations).
In short, the stuff that these companies are being nailed for is too far up the food chain.
This sort of stuff, in effect, entrenches nasty trends that are unforgiving to the consumer on the phone with Visa in hand.
So while you say, "buy AMD products"... how? Intel has been found to have already shunned a significant number of hardware manufacturers from distributing AMD...
Last time I bought a motherboard, the guy I've been going to for years said he no longer had any AMD motherboards.
THIS is why Intel is being hammered, and THIS is why consumers can't so easily "just buy AMD". If consumers HAD such abundant and available choices, Intel wouldn't be in trouble.
Do not underestimate the cleverness of American-intelligence procedures.
And don't underestimate the cleverness of foreign intelligence and espionage techniques.
American CIA/NSA, American Navy SEALs, American Marine RECON... they aren't the only people who can field operatives and be effective behind enemy lines.
Isreal, China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Russia, Germany, England (every special forces group is based on British SAS), South Africa... they all, good or bad, have their fair share of highly trained, highly competent bad asses capable of extreme bad assery.
And their technical access rivals one another. The North Korean intelligence field operative have access to very bright hackers/crackers, engineers and scientists just as the American in the CIA.
You can always find a better quality solution if you're willing to pay enough, but as value is roughly modeled as utility/cost
Allow me to translate.
If you have enough money to be on a first name basis with Bill Gates and ask him as a favor to have a few of the top architects personally spend time on your problem... yeah, "paying enough" can get you that sort of support.
However, for most of us peons who make far less than 300-500,000 dollars a year, we have to settle with spending a lot of money to listen to some guy in India who thinks he can speak english read off a screen stuff he probably doesn't understand. Not only that, his ability to actually do anything about your problem? Nil.
You spend a great deal of money, for Nil. Mr. Nil, Dr. Nil... no matter what, you get nothing.
With Open Source, I can try to tackle the problem myself, or let someone else tackle it. Or, if I'm not that savvy at all, there are forums I can go to for help that don't require me to register or have bought a product or some other crap.
Sorry, "pay enough" is an excuse capitalists use to try to get "consumers" to play along more with their system.
According to the complaint filed against Kelly, he believed that "companies like Comcast and Verizon were indirectly responsible for his unemployment and dire financial situation because they worked with companies that favored foreign engineers over their counterparts and because they had indirectly stolen his intellectual property."
As part of his sentence in late 2005, Kelly was also ordered to enter a mental health program.
No parole? He might be a silly muppet, possibly crazy, but treatment sounds more reasonable than prison. Or am i just a European speaking to an American ; ).
And he was ordered to enter a mental health program?
Comcast and Verizon do in fact outsource. They are companies, and therefore, they do steal intellectual property from engineers and scientists much the same way as the music industry steals compositions and performances from the musicians.
From this angle, I applaud his efforts to hurt the companies who only serve to hurt their peers by throwing paychecks across the ocean and giving us the finger.
He was only striking back. Self defense, self preservation, personal dignity, nothing wrong with that.
I don't want to put in 10 unfun minutes when I log in. I don't want to NOT have fun when I play a GAME. I want to log in, have fun and then log off. Why do we need to do unfun things before fun things in MMO's? I do things I don't like in order to get things I do like in my everyday job. There's no boring, unfun grind in FPS or RTS games before you can start having fun.
"Game" is not just Shoots'n'Ladders. Are you so dumb to think the Stock Market is anything but a Game of similar mechanics? The only thing defining game is the number of decisions and possible outcomes for those decisions. Fun has nothing to do with "Game". You sir, do not really know what "Game" means.
Since you so closely couple "fun/unfun" with "Game", you sir, do not know what "fun" is either. What is fun? Something that makes you smile perhaps? Anything? Maybe the hot girl with a skimpy skirt is a game; she may not be worth more than the cost of a typical Monopoly game, but she'll have a much higher price tag to pay for her drugs I assure you. No doubt, you'll think that is fun right?
Instead of using the word "fun", try actually describe a real mechanism you would attribute or foresee might be fun. But you don't know what "game" nor "fun" is, so you can't do that. Why? Because some people don't consider general business a "game" even though it is, and some people might not think contracting some wierd VD from the hot girl in the skimpy skirt as "fun".
If you don't like what you are doing for your everyday job, then sir that's your problem. Some of us get paid to do what we also do at home on our free time. Maybe we are fortunate, but I just think we are wise. We decided to talk to employers who were paying people to do what we do for our hobbies; what we think is "fun", "enjoyable", "addictive", "appealing". One of them hires us to do said task, and we are "happy"...
All those meaningless words describing emotions... whatever. Look, discover your own definitions to those worthless words you like to bank on. Use the definitions instead of the words, because the words themselves are inherently and utterly ambiguous.
Talk about boring unfun grind... it's not the grind. I like killing the npcs, because once a rare drop happens, I am rewarded.... anything else out there that you would no doubt consider fun resembling the same thing? No? Ok, well for one, I never could understand the "grind" in Las Vegas... boy, talk about an endless and unfun thing to do. Wasting your hard earned money for nothing... how could anyone consider it "fun" to give some stranger all of your money one quarter at a time? But you'll consider a night in Las Vegas "fun" right? Yeah, I'm sure you would. This is called being a hypocrite and if not, plain stupid.
The companies that must work together to give the technology to the masses can't agree on how to split the resulting revenue.
All the reasons I read on the reason why we aren't using hydrogen powered cars...
The bottom line is this. Major oil companies, like Exxon, benefit from the fact no one can just dig a hole and have their own gasoline. First day of Chemistry class in high school everyone is shown how to seperate hydrogen and oxygen from tap water.
Until the oil companies can find a necessary mixture of hydrogen and some other highly processed chemical that can't be made on any ones kitchen table, or with two empty peanut butter jars...
We will be using gasoline. Period. They can't find a way to make it difficult for people to acquire "hydrogen" fuel. So they'll lose their grip on that portion of the market and revenue flow. That is the only real reason we aren't using powered cars.
However, back to the topic. The differences in the technology are just in the names, in regards to the economic incentives and judgements. It's just easier for them to admit this motive for something so... trivial. But for cars... it's a much bigger business and better to make such publicity seem a conspiracy theory.
Yes, my phone is a ventriloquist. When it clicks, it can throw the click to a nearby location. Predators may use this phone excessively while the victim stares down some innocent bystander!
OK, so over the years I have always heard this gripe about Linux not being consistent in this area or that area. X11 doesn't have standard GUI? Well, if I recall correctly and I'm not an X11 hacker, but it is open source and Window Maker has always ran well on all of them well.
So, maybe everyone is talking about perhaps the NeXT Step-ish style of Window Maker as opposed to GNOME, KDE, Enlightenment, xfce4? Well, while it might be true, going from Blackbox to Afterstep is a bit of a culture shock, it's hardly a bane to the Linux community.
Non consistent configuration means.... Non consistent UI and non-consistent interfaces through out.
All of this makes PERFECT sense... IF DEALING WITH PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE. But since it's open source, my argument is that all the interfaces are easily accessible via source if nothing else.
There is a operating system which has much of these things... consistent interfaces, UI and configuration. It's called Windows. Oh, and might I add, that even Apple had the good mind to realize that a centralized-consistent-unified configuration utility is often enough a bane where they have a clear and obvious ability to turn it off in MacOS X! Windows, you can't so easily turn off the registry... if you do... good luck.
Linux has a clear and consistent informal trend in regards to configuration utilities. It's so simple it's ridiculous. It also contributes to 98% of the "power" of Linux and other unices. Flat file, plain text key-value pair configuration files. Someone in the Unix history, can't remember who, said plaintext is the universal API. Flat file, configuration is an application of a plaintext API. There are opensource applications that make configuration into binary files and such, and they are a pain to deal with.
So Linux does have a consistent, generally accepted means for a configuration architecture, Plain Text Files!
It really bothers me, these yahoo's, who have the power of the pen and thus perception, these so-called journalists, columnists, lingual devils and verbal vampires who spew their assertions onto the web in hopes of change; who write in total disregard to the essence of Linux's existence. These people, obviously do not realize, that what they are complaining about is what makes Linux so blatantly powerful. They view the surface, but ignore the mechanics. They see that sendmail configuration is different than apaches, but fail to see that both are plaintext and editable from program, script or human just the same.
And some of use actually listens to them!
They are lazy. They don't like to think. They want to be told, once and for all what to press, how and when. To launch an app, you may only use a recognizable cursor, across the same blue background, over an identical 32x32 icon which has been blessed as the only icon for that application regardless if you are on FreeBSD and KDE, or Gentoo Linux with enlightenment. They want a unified means of configuration, even if it means everything must be binary, and uneditable and totally obfuscated to the human.
To hell with these reports of Linux should actually be Windows. That is essentially what they are.
The fact is, most of the scientists that gave us all of our "modern" science, were likely very "racist". After all, they did grow up in those times, and time again scientist do prove susceptible to social trends. So are racists really stupid, or is it more accurately we have been told to have strong negative feelings about that point of view? To the point that we want to say they are wrong, bigoted or ignore them?
Point I'm getting to, is this. regardless of the source, the correct answer is inherently and irreversibly correct. Truth, is absolute and the only thing that ever deviates is belief and other emotive factors. Truth can be hidden, obscured or obfuscated, but whether the truth is lost or hard to find, the truth is still... the truth.
Wikipedia attempts to garner TRUE unbiased opinion and matter. Behind the screen, who cares what social trends suggest... this is a fact, and this is what I'm going to write. Even though, if your name was on it perhaps you might have to factor in the prospect of grand social opinion. Which is why, perhaps, many other sources might be hesitant on data related to race in fear that the authority might be accused of "racism", "communism", "sexism".... get my point?
Wikipedia has very well balanced discussion, regardless if we like it or not. Wikipedia as a result, is not overwhelmingly biased towards one view than the other. With the exception of Accuracy, no other view is so dominate in Wikipedia.
News Corporation doesn't control it's Content. Sony Corporation doesn't control it's Content. The governments have limited ability to control it's Content. ABC, NBC, CBS, HBO, Cinimax, Hollywood doesn't have much control of it's content. It's content is more pure, and truthful than any other source. All other sources, inherently must consider repercussions of social backlash, so they'll twist and word things carefully if it means they have to outright lie or obscure the truth.
No one has control of it's content to guide society to a particular path of believe or common sense. It is influenced by members of all cultures able to speak the languages it presents articles in. It is influenced by the man in the trenches as well as by the man in the laboratory. The plumber, and the scientist at NASA. The US Marine standing watch, and the CIA Field operative, SEAL or MOSSAD agent. It's edited by Time Life journalists, the secretary of the Chancellor of Germany, Prime Minister Putin might have even corrected something on it.
It is the most wonderful source of information in the world. And the safest of all other ills of irrelevant intent and guidance.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this is a sensible law.
Whether right or wrong, regardless if it's pyschological... the fact is, a lot of youngsters attempt to make themselves appear as their favorite media icon. Often, it might even lead to self-destructive consequences, such as body modifications. But, most importantly it alters OUR view of the world and how we should look.
Modifying appearances for all models on TV and prints have been long sought after. Even in the twenties, the dramatic scenes in black and white where there was a single ray of light illuminating a portion of the actors face... to the careful coordination between the camera angles and the choreography to make sure the actors look fit and sexy despite their gut. The industry has tons of tricks... and image modification is only one more in their toolbox. Truthfully, Marilyn Manson, Brittany Spears... both have rather artsy modeling pics... but the reality is, neither one is particularly "model humans" without all those professionals telling them what to do. They quite literally can create a sex icon of any of us.
Now, to play devil's advocate. I personally think Marylin Manson makes a fine musician. Had it not been for all of this makeup and fancy photographs... would he have been able to get as far as he did? There are a lot of very good musicians that don't have hard bodies, and their music should be appreciated all the same.
But, I think the damage, overall for youngsters and adults (who aren't willing to admit that they view themselves in comparison to those they view day and night on TV and in Magazines) who are comparing their selves to these photos... they should be informed that the photos aren't real and are in all respect impossible.
Infrastructure is more important than "best practices". Infrastructure is more of a physical, concrete aspect. Practices really aren't that important once the critical, physical disasters begin. As an example, good hardware will continue to run for years. Most of the downtime in regards to good hardware will most likely be due to misconfiguration, human error that sort of thing. A Sys Admin banks on some wrong assumption, messes up a script or hits the wrong command, but nonetheless the hardware is still physically able and therefore the infrastructure has not been jeopardized. If the situation is reversed, top notch paper plans and procedures... with crappy hardware. Well... the realities of physical discrepancies are harder to argue than our personal, nebulous, intangible, inconsequential philosophies of "good/better/best" management procedures/practices.
So to me the question "In their efforts at uptime, are data centers relying too much on infrastructure and not enough on best practices?" is best translated as "To belittle the concept of uptime and it's association with reliability, are data centers relying too much on the raw realities of the universe and the physical laws that govern it and not enough on some random guys philosophies regarding problems that only manifest within our imaginations?"
Or, as a medical analogy... "In their efforts in curing cancer, are doctors relying too much on science and not enough on voodoo/religion?"
Be is one of a long list of non-mainstream technologies which I've seen wither on the vine, again for the simple reason that they were too good. There is a status quo in virtually every area in this world, including computer software. If something shows up which is intelligent, positive, and therefore radical to the point where it exceeds the "just good enough," status quo, it tends to slip back below the surface, very rapidly.
I've often wondered how much more positive the world would be, if all of the things which have been repressed or destroyed because they were too innovative, too positive, or too endangering to a scarcity based economy, had actually been allowed to survive and be used.
I don't agree, but I will admit this is how things pan out. Here's my theory as to a possible cause...
When I bought my first BMW, the salesmen had a very very easy job. Any hardwork that might have befallen him, was taken care of by the engineers of BMW. When I got in a BMW at the dealership, and turned the key, the car started, first time with confidence. The steering wheel seemed in tune to my expectations of how much the car should turn given how much I rotate the wheel (most american cars, regardless of sport or luxury status, seem to have a ridiculous amount of play before response is perceived). The gas seemed to follow suit. The suspension wasn't too tight, but tight enough to compliment handling. The Germans make damn fine automobiles, and the BMW is by far one of the best cars I have ever driven. I bought that BMW, and plan to buy another one.
I would assert that BMW is one of those "very very good products, well deserving of their marketing slogan 'the ultimate driving machine'". But, they are here, alive and well and they have yet to die a sad and lonely death.
But, one could argue that BMW doesn't rule the automotive world. General Motors probably is yet larger than BMW. And other fabulous car companies like Bugatti, Lamborghini and Ferrari have rich histories yet often find themselves owned by larger companies. Not just cars, but Omega watches is owned by Swatch (plastic toy watch company). But this can be attributed to the simple fact that selling a lot of cheap stuff renders more income than selling a few very expensive items. The industries realize these high-end companies are the source for much innovation and technical excellence, so rather than letting them die, they get bought out and preserved in a way.
So, what happens market wise to companies who we think are too good but still fail? I think it boils down to what I first talked about. Anyone selling a BMW really only needs to be present to manage the formalities of the sale. The product will sell itself, it really is that good. The downside of this Led Zeppelin tactic (kudos if you get this reference; if you don't, you suck and need to wiki their fourth album), is that the consumer isn't so vulnerable to a clever sales pitch, and perhaps BMW may even realize their own excellence and choose not to hire the "best" salesmen.
So the best salesmen get hired by the people who know their product is crap, and they are willing to divert funds from R&D to a talented salesman. Cut that man a huge paycheck, because he can sell a fridge to an eskimo! As the joke goes. The salesman can provide results more consistently and quicker than some engineer in the R&D department. You don't want to wait for some product to manifest, you want to sell what you already have now. If in doubt of a products quality, well that's where the salesman comes in to persuade you... help you... guide you to a purchase. Crap companies have lots of talented bullshitters, bullshiting consumers into buying bottled tap water all over the world.
In the end, Be Inc. had their problems. They tried to compete, with a proprietary OS, in a market at war with FOSS. Today, there really is only one major proprietary OS left, that being Windows. AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, IRIX, UNICOS, MacOS (classic)... they have either all majorly revamped their models to be more FOSS friendly or at least in regards to (Open Solaris, MacOS X et al).... or they are on a steady and rapid decline.
Just my two cents...
A research team led by Microsoft's Helen Wang discovered how to rebrand and skin a theme for the widely used Firefox. "Since most people already think we stole Firefox code to render webpages correctly with IE 8, we got to thinking..." Helen Wang stated in a call yesterday. "Our next IE release will be simply to rebrand and change the default skin of the latest Firefox web browser! So we can then say, finally, that Internet Explorer correctly renders web pages according to W3C published standards." This move seems to secure Firefox as the dominate web browser with a huge influx of new users. "Most people use Firefox because they have realized Internet Explorer was never able to render HTML correctly. This is in part because we have habitually hired software engineers that have never heard of www.w3c.org." This last fact is found to be true, on a job application for the Internet Explorer Development Team, which looks a bit like a Mc Donalds application, the first question is . "1. Do you know of www.w3c.org?" followed immediately by "2. Do you know what the word 'standards' mean?" Helen Wang affirmed that answering any of these two questions with 'yes' will disqualify you for any prospective position on the Internet Explorer Development Team.
We can only suspect that Microsoft will soon shift back to their own broken browser after people stop switching over to a Firefox branded Firefox.
Some people reference car license plates and the such. Perhaps, off the cuff reasoning suggesting that from experience from having to pay a photo-captured ticket from running a red light, that the license plate is 'personally identifiable'. Technically, it's not the court saying that your license plate identifies you as the driver, but rather that the license plate identifies you as responsible for your car; this is a big difference. There is a law allowing traffic violations to only need personal identification in regards to the vehicle itself (as in, the license plate), and the penalty shall rest on who it's registered too. This is why, covering your face while running a red light won't save you... and this is why it doesn't matter who drives your car through red lights downtown... and this is why, the person the vehicle is registered to is who will pay the fine.
At a minimum, 350 USD, at least in San Diego for getting photographed at a stop light, best make sure your pissed off girlfriend doesn't grab the keys to your car as she storms out.
The judge probably considered the fact that while a block of IP addresses can certainly be registered to a person, who is actually in control or representing any individual IP address may not be one in the same. In fact, scratch the in control for a moment. A spoofed connection attempt might not even be indicative of route, path or physical lines from which the connection originated; with this in mind, it wouldn't even make sense to hold responsible the person registered to the IP address, as it's not even feasible to suggest they have control. See, with the actual traffic violation, it's assumed you have the keys to your own car and that you willfully allowed the person who ran the red light to use your car; on the flip side, if your car was stolen and the suspect ran red lights with your stolen car, can you guess why you wouldn't have to pay a fine? A network administrator has no reasonable level of control over his registered network in relative to other networks, not like a person who owns a car having a reasonable amount of control in the manner of physical keys and physical access to the vehicle.
The control we are talking about, in part is inherent to the fact the car is a physical item, which carries all the laws of physics with it (it can't be in the same place as another car, depending on precise measurement it can be shown to be unique to all other cars even if off an assembly line etc). In regards to the Internet, it's just protocols, ambiguous electron patterns that are precise and exact every time. 192.168.1.1 becomes interpretations of bit patterns parsed from a set of standard fields... there is no way to isolate the message as universally unique, and having only been able to be received from any origin.
It's this inability to be unique, which obfuscates origin. If something is unique, it's origin or position is a matter of accountability. Tracing an internet connection really boils down to following what accounting is available for the physical electron flow. The connection came in on this connection, which is connected to this phone line, which opened a circuit... at the end of that circuit is a device, that opened another circuit and at the end of that is another device... and so on. It's the assumption that most connections, tasks, operations, hacks will need constant two-communications, so somewhere a reliable link can be found. So we often put a lot of faith in the reported IP in the logs as being a "real" IP address. But there are hacks, intrusion techniques that aren't two way, but simply one way... injections and such which need not phone home. Kinda like dumping bait into the river and walking away, if your objective is simply to poison the fish, it's a perfectly reasonable approach.
The point is, there's no way to personally identify a person from an IP address. And there's not enough inherent uniqueness or expected control to hold responsible whoever might be registered for an IP in some log file.
I suppose people think that complexity is some how better or more indicative of truth... because why are we trying to battle on these obscure money-lenders' rationale of governing costs of software? It's simple, linux is downloaded for free, and to get Windows alone is what.. 199.95? Oh, and how much for Photoshop? Oh, maybe add Maya, and then perhaps some VM software? Because, we all know that Windows by itself, out of the box, is rather limited. Add in a full blown development environment... oh, yes and Microsoft Office I presume yes?
TCO is bullshit. Windows has a price tag greater than 0. No matter how complex or convoluted you get, no matter how many lawyers with fantasy rationale obfuscating the obvious, no matter what is said or how it's said... any price on Windows is always going to be more expensive than free.
Cost of operation? How much wasted time do you think has been put into trying to figure out mundane tasks in Office 2007? Might as well be a completely new product, Open Office which clearly is a different product is more familiar to a previous Office user than 2007 is. TCO accounts for "training" as their defense? They are shooting them in the foot. I mean, you always have "training" with new software. Sometimes you have it with just bug-fixes or upgrades. Some of us, it might only be "familiarizing", but others who are so dead set in a routine to complete a task will struggle for sure.
What is it, about TCO, is relevant, useful.... real? Keep that to yourself, I've read all the garbage. Bottom line is there's really nothing governing this bullshit "TCO" philosophy, any more in favor of Microsoft than any other software or product for that matter. The real fact is the real numbers. 199.95 for retail Windows. And then tally up all the numbers that would make your "Windows" installation, and all the third party software, "legal". There's your real cost, there's the obvious cost.
How much do you think it would cost to have a legit Windows box? 5,000 USD total in software costs?
No, better yet. How much would a Windows box cost, purchasing all of the commercial software available that would enable the Windows user to do what the typical Linux installation can do? I mean, I have photo editing software, 3D renderers galore... office suites, every server imaginable, VM software, conversion tools... jesus my box is Linux... nuff said. My Windows box would break the bank paying for and installing only a fraction of the capabilities in commercial software.
Now, site wide licenses, think organization size... thousands of desktops... niche market functionality... dear god. TCO is the least of your worries it seems.
France first adopted the Metric System in 1791 (according to Wikipedia). Let me repeat that... 1791.
The first public, commercial, industrial use of the Metric System in America was Coca-Cola; Coca-Cola bottles have always displayed their volume in metrics, and they have been around since 1886. Let me repeat that... 1886.
First shuttle flight was in 1977.
Now here's the surprise on my part. For as long as I have been alive, all science and math text always focused on the metric system. Aside from off-tasks in grade school of converting Celsius to Farhenheit(sp?) or inches to centimeter... gallons to liters... everything has always been in metrics. Growing up, the total icon of science and math has been primarily NASA. It is very hard to for me to conceive, that given the adoption of the metric system in acadamia and almost exclusive to intellectuals and professionals... that NASA has for so long, and so widespread throughout any of their projects, adopted anything other than the metric system. Had this article not been published, I would have refuted any claim that NASA didn't use the metric system. All I can say in 2009 is "wow".
I must be that "some other lifeform". I can't stand or use curved or "Ergonomic" keyboards such as the Microsoft un-Natural keyboard.
I don't think you are "some other lifeform". The real reason for the Microsoft Natural keyboard had little to do with any bio-mechanical reason. I say that in all the faces of those who actually believe in this "ergonomics" mess. That keyboard was released, shortly after the Ergonomic craze that swept multiple industries. It wasn't just computers, but everything from toothbrushes to cars (more on cars later, ergonomics most applied industry could well be the car industry).
People caught on to the bizarre notion of ergonomics and it's flawed rationale as applied to a system already highly engineered and studied for well over three centuries (the keyboard); as the ergonomic keyboards aren't so popular now and far more 'normal' keyboards are on sale than the Picasso keyboards. And while a QWERTY keyboard hasn't been around for 3 centuries, the keyboard found on organs and pianos has, and they are flat and horizontal with step pattern plateaus for successive key layers like on the piano from whole notes to sharps and flats or the multi-keyboard organs.
Now, the history of applied ergonomics probably has least bullshit in the car industry. For many years they designed the interiors of vehicles to increase the availability of controls to the driver as much as possible, in as much a relaxed state as possible for the driver. Some of the features of some cars have historical value, take for instance the Porsche Carrera GT, the car that we will never own but will plaster our walls with pictures of. It's ignition key is to the left of the steering wheel, and what many aren't aware of is the fact this is a nod to the history of racing. Back in the earliest days of racing, the drivers would have to run to their cars, start them and drive off. Porsche, as an added "ergonomic" feature placed the ignition key to the left of the steering wheels of their race cars back then, so the driver could jump in the car and start the car while putting it in gear at the same time; try this with a modern car where the ignition is to the right, you'll find a lot of trouble doing it very fast and it'll feel very awkward every time. Little things like the position of the ignition system could mean seconds between you and the other, and anyone in racing... a second is often night and day.
The whole deal with ergonomic keyboards is a big facade to convince consumers why they should ignore the obvious and shell out more money for something "new". I even heard some people claim they type faster on so-called ergonomic keyboards, perfect now that will be a key selling point; you don't actually have to practice typing with this keyboard, it magically untaps the inherent l33t typing skillZ in your hands because of erg0nomic5! If you can't type 60wpm on a regular keyboard, you certainly won't with an ergonomic keyboard, but try telling that to a believer; one can only wait, watch and then laugh.
Some arguments revolve in "well, without copyrights how do we get paid", and the two sides argue either paid for work done while the copyright proponents argue for continual pay and some try to argue they don't get paid that much.
First, if they didn't get paid that much, then this whole issue would be of no concern to anyone (even those who are receiving pay). Do you think a bum really cares much about finances considering he only get's mere chump change? It's only the people who reap great rewards who seem most concerned about diminutive finances even if they are merely indirect. To attain a more clear idea of this concept, think of the truck driver hauling petroleum. While gas prices rise, he is unaffected. While the claims in the media assert that part of the reason the gas prices rise is to, in part, pay the trucker, in reality his pay stays the same with diminishing health benefits. The only people benefiting from the 10 cent rise in pump prices, are the people at the very top, and no one or no thing or no process or procedure has change anywhere in between the pump and the CEO of Exxon or BP. To the trucker, it's an extra 10 cents, no real big deal only noticable via his general math skills but since he has a "good job" he only voices is opinion on price change via a political sentiment, hardly a financial one. The only one motivated by the zeal of a 10 cent rise is the one who can reap all of those 10 cents into a single pot rendering multiple millions via sum.
This whole copyright thing really is about the Big Dogs extorting control, distribution and price of products they are legally rightful of. Let's take Alexandre Kalishnikov for example. Designer of the AK-47, undoubtedly a best seller through and through. Does he reap royalities? Pretty sure he doesn't. But, is a copyright system in America any better? Who exactly is running all these law suits, all the claims of copyright and patent infringment? The Industry had to pay or force Metallica to do a publicity stunt against Napster. It's rarely the actual artist that claims copyright infringement, the only one that comes to mind is Prince. It's always, someone who probably doesn't actually hold or created the copyright, it's someone who took the copyrights from the original copyright holder to begin with. Sony Entertainment owns a butt-load of copyright material... Sony created none of it, just forced their entertainers to forfeit their rights of the material to them. In the end, we are all, Alexandre Kalishnikovs.... whether it's a wealthy chinese weapons manufacture, or a wealthy Sony CEO... one thing is for sure the actual inventor probably isn't at a loss due to piracy, nor was he actually reaping the real profit off his inventions.
This whole issue really boils down to one thing. The heads of the industry want to exploit this new technology for a way to increase their revenue, and if some law will allow them to charge for every additional copy, then they will be loving this whole internet thing. The inventors, poets, musicians, composers, engineers, writers, scribes, tradesmen, journeymen, craftsman... it's just going to be another day to them. And regardless of which laws are adopted, only those at the top are effected while their source for resources (intellectual resources) are shafted all the same. Do you really believe, those poorly paid people in the Entertainment industries will get a pay raise if the laws were passed in favor of the RIAA or MPAA? God, you're a fool if you think so.
Several species of turtles have debatably "long" necks, and they are all maintained in a horizontal position. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roti_Island_Snake-necked_Turtle
This is media propoganda, through and through. It's insulting even.
Women in math? The "gender gap" between women and men in math, even "basic" math has "closed"? BULLSHIT!
First, "calculus" is not "basic math". It's not needed for most academic majors, nor is it a requirement for entry to so much as a community college. Perhaps, "General Math" is a "basic" math. Perhaps, Pre-Algebra is a "basic" math. But, most certainly, any level of Calculus is NOT a "basic" math.
Secondly, I have been in five higher education institutions spanning two different countries and have majored in Math in particular along with engineering courses. I also took Calculus in High-school... when I attended a high school that even HAD the course (not all American high schools offer calculus).
First, anything past Algebra I and Geometry in highschool and you are officially a nerd or geek, therefore you probably have less options of having a girlfriend. The girls have no interest in that sort of thing, nor any male that has such aptitude. If they did, such classes would have a fair number of girls in them, just to be in social alignment with the males fully able of completing the courses. But, look no further than media entertainment, and frankly, being a nerd or smart isn't "hip".
Ok, so that's more of a social outlook on the issue, and it is. Can girls do the calculus? Maybe, but most don't even if they could, most don't even try or think such a task is even credible to endure.
As a result, any claims that there are a lot of girls in a high school calculus class, is just that a claim. I dare any of them to actually, physically, literally walk their ignorant butts into a random high-level math class and count with their index finger the number of girls in that class. (This will render a far higher count than if we subtracted the ugly girls from any "attractive" girls.)
Now, walk to college. This will be easy as randomly roaming the halls of a high school might have the police arresting you. But you can stand around and most colleges and universities. The gap is closing? Bullshit, if anything it's getting wider.
Of all the years and all the courses of math above Trigonometry I have took, maybe two girls total I might have personally dated . Including all "females", less than ten total. Two of them, were the professors. My Linear Algebra professor was a female, a rather attractive one too. But, the numbers are there, per raw experience. And it only got worse in college and at the highest levels of math females are virtually extinct.
My gripe about all this, is that they should actually do something to make girls look at being smart as an advantage to life. Instead, if one has a cute ass, they'll just leave Calculus to the nerds and hope her boyfriend becomes a NFL star. Regardless if she could have passed a calculus course, the fact she didn't makes her dumb all the same and since she's among millions of other girls the end result is well reflected that women can't be counted on when it comes to mathematical abilities.
They want people to believe there are females in these math classes even if they aren't actually physically present. For most people never take calculus, and now they face the few that have and might call them sexist if they announce "uh... I only saw a handful of girls in any of my classes when getting a Masters in Mathematics".
They want more girls in math? They need to come up with something that actually makes girls consider it as a useful tool in life. As it is now, 10,000 dollars for a hard and burdensome education or an easy and highly profitable breast augmentation? You decide, as inherently lazy humans, which many girls might opt for.
A company is ONLY obligated in accordance to the GPL or whatever other OSL they agreed to.
A company, hacker or hobbyist, I personally don't give a damn. They should make the source available, they should make all modifications available. They should not charge any more than distribution costs for that portion of software, they have to reflect all past contributors and other claims of participation whether it is explicit copy right, or bragging rights.
Just because they are a company, we should not stoop to their level of participation of currency exchange. We are in the business of exchanging ideas, I could care less about the currency they desire. Currency is only about accounting monetary transactions. That's what businesses strive for, and their products re usually not for the better good, not because the pharmecutical companies actually care about people and what to help them... no, they just want something that people will "buy". We aren't in that business.
If Microsoft wants to use Eclipse... then that's a plus for Eclipse. If I worked on Eclipse or submitted a patch, that's more pride and appreciation for me; regardless how I feel about Microsoft.
What the media is trying to do, is associate our work with actual monetary cost, the same crap they reference in their world. They want to do this, because the next step is to justify cost schemes and cost based justification for ignoble actions (such as, copyright infringment, or invalidation of past GPLs for a new GPL that cators to business financial interests and control).
DO NOT DEMAND CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ANYONE! THAT IS NOT OUR MODEL, THAT IS NOT HOW WE GOT SO ADVANCED AS A SOURCE FOR QUALITY SOFTWARE! 'FREELOADERS' TO US ARE BUG TESTORS, IT'S NOT A NEGATIVE LABEL, IT DOESN'T TRANSLATE IN THE OSS COMMUNITY!
I always viewed Polaroid cameras as being, to be elegant and frank, ghetto.
But, they do have a unique visual aesthetic, it's not just the bold white border and the thick bottom border that gives it away. Nor the glassy sheen over the picture itself. There is something about a Polaroid shot, that makes the picture undoubtedly Polaroid nearly every time. It looks like a ghetto shot, but in this day and age with free artists and artistic expression on a free internet, maybe some of the guys at Deviant Art can do some very very nice retro art using Polaroid shots.
I'm certain of it. Just as certain as "indie" films with their similar low-budget feel gives off a certain appeal to their films. Like Tarantino(sp?) films feel low-budget until Bruce Willis appears before the camera (like he isn't getting paid right?).
My only suggestion to this business endeavor... give the artists a larger sample. Original Polaroid shots were stamp size squares, almost every one of them have some part of the primary subject being clipped by the boundaries. A wide aspect ratio shot, on Polaroid, I think would be very awesome.
Hell, I might even be interested, even though I'm not an artist. Also, maybe an electronic means to get that Polaroid shot, into digital form from the camera itself would be sexy. Afterall, no matter the intentions of the visual artist, it's destined to be digitized eventually. (Rembrandt probably never imagined his work would be digitized yet it has been.)
I would be interested in seeing him run this machine for 30 days and then compute the Shannon entropy [wikipedia.org] on the results and then compare this to popular RNGs out there.
After reading the article, I think he's less focused on mathematical accuracy and more focused on appeasing customers. He only went to these lengths due to complaints against his RNGs he used to use.
This way, those wannabe math majors can't so easily complain.
Oh, and regardless of Shannon entropy, it is a bit more obvious that this approach will more satisfy a feeling of randomness. Unless the die are weighted, their effect will be random. Or as random as one will possibly get, or as random enough for those mathematicians who work for Casinos across the world who use real die for a variety of Casino games and are willing to shell out hundreds of millions in winnings should the roller win.
It's already agreed that if we knew the entire state of the universe, that we could see past present and future (just as we can determine numbers either side of a target number within a known sequence or set). But, it's also agreed that it's impossible to know the entire state of the universe. While the universe is big, it's probably agreeable that you don't know the entire state of this machine, nor is it possible. So as each dice has vastly different atomic landscapes on it's edges, and as the surfaces vary greatly with wind currents randomly blowing through, variations in humidity, vibrations, electro magnetics and all sorts of subtle forces and their variations and effects on one another and the die... those dice rolls are as random as they can get.
Please note, the machine can be manipulated. But, this has nothing to do with the fact that throwing dice upon a surface is sufficiently random.
I had a boss, who used to suggest with total seriousness that all politicians should be sent directly to jail after they serve their terms; without trial, without jury, straight from their table to their cell.
I just laughed at this as though it's a joke. But he never showed a joking manner with his opinion. It was often haunting, but the more he insisted on a poker face when saying the more I thought about it.
His claim is that all politicians are liars, and due to the gravity of their lies (in affecting the masses), their crimes have far reaching consequences and hence they should all go directly to jail after they serve for the rest of their lives.
I used to say, 'but we would have no politicians then', to which he said 'good'.
Funny though, he didn't seem to mind the man-behind-the-curtains, in the sense of the CEO of a locally publicly traded international business... who, he never voted for, nor even could identify by name or photo, having probably done more to influence his life than any politician has. For, the politicians he blames, were told what to do by Big Business.
It's only in light of this perspective that I would agree with my boss. Not on grounds of them lying, but more on the grounds they are supposed to serve the people, and not the companies. Since their fibs are a result of Big Business, and they choose Corporate spoils over the People.
I agree with my boss. They all should go directly to jail for not protecting the People.
They could buy AMD products, instead, which is more or less the point.
O'RLY?
I still find it difficult to buy a laptop with Linux preinstalled, or no OS installed at all. Servers might be readily available, but for a geeks personal desktop or home computer your options are limited. Last time I bought a laptop with hardware requirements to meet my tastes, with Linux preinstalled, I had to purchase a very expensive one from a portable UNIX solutions provider.... niche market item, usually nice but always expensive.
Now, anti-trust violations are typically in the manner of some Big Company purchasing security for their revenue streams. Microsoft paying off distributors, or charging much more or otherwise penalizing those who also cater to the competition (i.e. they sell laptops with linux preinstalled, charge them double for their Windows installations).
In short, the stuff that these companies are being nailed for is too far up the food chain.
This sort of stuff, in effect, entrenches nasty trends that are unforgiving to the consumer on the phone with Visa in hand.
So while you say, "buy AMD products"... how? Intel has been found to have already shunned a significant number of hardware manufacturers from distributing AMD...
Last time I bought a motherboard, the guy I've been going to for years said he no longer had any AMD motherboards.
THIS is why Intel is being hammered, and THIS is why consumers can't so easily "just buy AMD". If consumers HAD such abundant and available choices, Intel wouldn't be in trouble.
Do not underestimate the cleverness of American-intelligence procedures.
And don't underestimate the cleverness of foreign intelligence and espionage techniques.
American CIA/NSA, American Navy SEALs, American Marine RECON... they aren't the only people who can field operatives and be effective behind enemy lines.
Isreal, China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Russia, Germany, England (every special forces group is based on British SAS), South Africa... they all, good or bad, have their fair share of highly trained, highly competent bad asses capable of extreme bad assery.
And their technical access rivals one another. The North Korean intelligence field operative have access to very bright hackers/crackers, engineers and scientists just as the American in the CIA.
You can always find a better quality solution if you're willing to pay enough, but as value is roughly modeled as utility/cost
Allow me to translate.
If you have enough money to be on a first name basis with Bill Gates and ask him as a favor to have a few of the top architects personally spend time on your problem... yeah, "paying enough" can get you that sort of support.
However, for most of us peons who make far less than 300-500,000 dollars a year, we have to settle with spending a lot of money to listen to some guy in India who thinks he can speak english read off a screen stuff he probably doesn't understand. Not only that, his ability to actually do anything about your problem? Nil.
You spend a great deal of money, for Nil. Mr. Nil, Dr. Nil... no matter what, you get nothing.
With Open Source, I can try to tackle the problem myself, or let someone else tackle it. Or, if I'm not that savvy at all, there are forums I can go to for help that don't require me to register or have bought a product or some other crap.
Sorry, "pay enough" is an excuse capitalists use to try to get "consumers" to play along more with their system.
According to the complaint filed against Kelly, he believed that "companies like Comcast and Verizon were indirectly responsible for his unemployment and dire financial situation because they worked with companies that favored foreign engineers over their counterparts and because they had indirectly stolen his intellectual property."
As part of his sentence in late 2005, Kelly was also ordered to enter a mental health program.
No parole? He might be a silly muppet, possibly crazy, but treatment sounds more reasonable than prison. Or am i just a European speaking to an American ; ).
And he was ordered to enter a mental health program?
Comcast and Verizon do in fact outsource. They are companies, and therefore, they do steal intellectual property from engineers and scientists much the same way as the music industry steals compositions and performances from the musicians.
From this angle, I applaud his efforts to hurt the companies who only serve to hurt their peers by throwing paychecks across the ocean and giving us the finger.
He was only striking back. Self defense, self preservation, personal dignity, nothing wrong with that.
I don't want to put in 10 unfun minutes when I log in. I don't want to NOT have fun when I play a GAME. I want to log in, have fun and then log off. Why do we need to do unfun things before fun things in MMO's? I do things I don't like in order to get things I do like in my everyday job. There's no boring, unfun grind in FPS or RTS games before you can start having fun.
"Game" is not just Shoots'n'Ladders. Are you so dumb to think the Stock Market is anything but a Game of similar mechanics? The only thing defining game is the number of decisions and possible outcomes for those decisions. Fun has nothing to do with "Game". You sir, do not really know what "Game" means.
Since you so closely couple "fun/unfun" with "Game", you sir, do not know what "fun" is either. What is fun? Something that makes you smile perhaps? Anything? Maybe the hot girl with a skimpy skirt is a game; she may not be worth more than the cost of a typical Monopoly game, but she'll have a much higher price tag to pay for her drugs I assure you. No doubt, you'll think that is fun right?
Instead of using the word "fun", try actually describe a real mechanism you would attribute or foresee might be fun. But you don't know what "game" nor "fun" is, so you can't do that. Why? Because some people don't consider general business a "game" even though it is, and some people might not think contracting some wierd VD from the hot girl in the skimpy skirt as "fun".
If you don't like what you are doing for your everyday job, then sir that's your problem. Some of us get paid to do what we also do at home on our free time. Maybe we are fortunate, but I just think we are wise. We decided to talk to employers who were paying people to do what we do for our hobbies; what we think is "fun", "enjoyable", "addictive", "appealing". One of them hires us to do said task, and we are "happy"...
All those meaningless words describing emotions... whatever. Look, discover your own definitions to those worthless words you like to bank on. Use the definitions instead of the words, because the words themselves are inherently and utterly ambiguous.
Talk about boring unfun grind... it's not the grind. I like killing the npcs, because once a rare drop happens, I am rewarded.... anything else out there that you would no doubt consider fun resembling the same thing? No? Ok, well for one, I never could understand the "grind" in Las Vegas... boy, talk about an endless and unfun thing to do. Wasting your hard earned money for nothing... how could anyone consider it "fun" to give some stranger all of your money one quarter at a time? But you'll consider a night in Las Vegas "fun" right? Yeah, I'm sure you would. This is called being a hypocrite and if not, plain stupid.
The only reasonable post yet.
The companies that must work together to give the technology to the masses can't agree on how to split the resulting revenue.
All the reasons I read on the reason why we aren't using hydrogen powered cars...
The bottom line is this. Major oil companies, like Exxon, benefit from the fact no one can just dig a hole and have their own gasoline. First day of Chemistry class in high school everyone is shown how to seperate hydrogen and oxygen from tap water.
Until the oil companies can find a necessary mixture of hydrogen and some other highly processed chemical that can't be made on any ones kitchen table, or with two empty peanut butter jars...
We will be using gasoline. Period. They can't find a way to make it difficult for people to acquire "hydrogen" fuel. So they'll lose their grip on that portion of the market and revenue flow. That is the only real reason we aren't using powered cars.
However, back to the topic. The differences in the technology are just in the names, in regards to the economic incentives and judgements. It's just easier for them to admit this motive for something so... trivial. But for cars... it's a much bigger business and better to make such publicity seem a conspiracy theory.
Yes, my phone is a ventriloquist. When it clicks, it can throw the click to a nearby location. Predators may use this phone excessively while the victim stares down some innocent bystander!
Phone may throw the click up to 50 feet.
OK, so over the years I have always heard this gripe about Linux not being consistent in this area or that area. X11 doesn't have standard GUI? Well, if I recall correctly and I'm not an X11 hacker, but it is open source and Window Maker has always ran well on all of them well.
So, maybe everyone is talking about perhaps the NeXT Step-ish style of Window Maker as opposed to GNOME, KDE, Enlightenment, xfce4? Well, while it might be true, going from Blackbox to Afterstep is a bit of a culture shock, it's hardly a bane to the Linux community.
Non consistent configuration means.... Non consistent UI and non-consistent interfaces through out.
All of this makes PERFECT sense... IF DEALING WITH PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE. But since it's open source, my argument is that all the interfaces are easily accessible via source if nothing else.
There is a operating system which has much of these things... consistent interfaces, UI and configuration. It's called Windows. Oh, and might I add, that even Apple had the good mind to realize that a centralized-consistent-unified configuration utility is often enough a bane where they have a clear and obvious ability to turn it off in MacOS X! Windows, you can't so easily turn off the registry... if you do... good luck.
Linux has a clear and consistent informal trend in regards to configuration utilities. It's so simple it's ridiculous. It also contributes to 98% of the "power" of Linux and other unices. Flat file, plain text key-value pair configuration files. Someone in the Unix history, can't remember who, said plaintext is the universal API. Flat file, configuration is an application of a plaintext API. There are opensource applications that make configuration into binary files and such, and they are a pain to deal with.
So Linux does have a consistent, generally accepted means for a configuration architecture, Plain Text Files!
It really bothers me, these yahoo's, who have the power of the pen and thus perception, these so-called journalists, columnists, lingual devils and verbal vampires who spew their assertions onto the web in hopes of change; who write in total disregard to the essence of Linux's existence. These people, obviously do not realize, that what they are complaining about is what makes Linux so blatantly powerful. They view the surface, but ignore the mechanics. They see that sendmail configuration is different than apaches, but fail to see that both are plaintext and editable from program, script or human just the same.
And some of use actually listens to them!
They are lazy. They don't like to think. They want to be told, once and for all what to press, how and when. To launch an app, you may only use a recognizable cursor, across the same blue background, over an identical 32x32 icon which has been blessed as the only icon for that application regardless if you are on FreeBSD and KDE, or Gentoo Linux with enlightenment. They want a unified means of configuration, even if it means everything must be binary, and uneditable and totally obfuscated to the human.
To hell with these reports of Linux should actually be Windows. That is essentially what they are.
The fact is, most of the scientists that gave us all of our "modern" science, were likely very "racist". After all, they did grow up in those times, and time again scientist do prove susceptible to social trends. So are racists really stupid, or is it more accurately we have been told to have strong negative feelings about that point of view? To the point that we want to say they are wrong, bigoted or ignore them?
Point I'm getting to, is this. regardless of the source, the correct answer is inherently and irreversibly correct. Truth, is absolute and the only thing that ever deviates is belief and other emotive factors. Truth can be hidden, obscured or obfuscated, but whether the truth is lost or hard to find, the truth is still... the truth.
Wikipedia attempts to garner TRUE unbiased opinion and matter. Behind the screen, who cares what social trends suggest... this is a fact, and this is what I'm going to write. Even though, if your name was on it perhaps you might have to factor in the prospect of grand social opinion. Which is why, perhaps, many other sources might be hesitant on data related to race in fear that the authority might be accused of "racism", "communism", "sexism".... get my point?
Wikipedia has very well balanced discussion, regardless if we like it or not. Wikipedia as a result, is not overwhelmingly biased towards one view than the other. With the exception of Accuracy, no other view is so dominate in Wikipedia.
News Corporation doesn't control it's Content. Sony Corporation doesn't control it's Content. The governments have limited ability to control it's Content. ABC, NBC, CBS, HBO, Cinimax, Hollywood doesn't have much control of it's content. It's content is more pure, and truthful than any other source. All other sources, inherently must consider repercussions of social backlash, so they'll twist and word things carefully if it means they have to outright lie or obscure the truth.
No one has control of it's content to guide society to a particular path of believe or common sense. It is influenced by members of all cultures able to speak the languages it presents articles in. It is influenced by the man in the trenches as well as by the man in the laboratory. The plumber, and the scientist at NASA. The US Marine standing watch, and the CIA Field operative, SEAL or MOSSAD agent. It's edited by Time Life journalists, the secretary of the Chancellor of Germany, Prime Minister Putin might have even corrected something on it.
It is the most wonderful source of information in the world. And the safest of all other ills of irrelevant intent and guidance.