Assuming for a moment your article wasn't meant entirely as a troll to enflame sentiments (which I doubt) of the community here, did you folks ever think of reading the license agreement BEFORE DOING DEVELOPMENT? If not, you are quite utterly clueless. WHENEVER you decide to use someone else's work, in WHATEVER form, one would only think that you'd take the time to read the license they have attached to it. If the license is in any way confusing (and GPL is pretty readable), you'd think you'd talk to your lawyer BEFORE instigating a development effort.
Rather than saying "Linux 0, MS 1", why not say "Intelligence 0, Stupidity 1"?
And BTW, I'd like to see you modify WINDOWS kernel code... PERIOD. At all. Ever. And if you had to, I'd like to see you figure enough of it out to make the modifications viable - even M$ has trouble there.
Sometimes Katz says some stuff you've never thought before. Sometimes he takes off his disguise as Mild Mannered Self-Promoting Tech Pundit and becomes the Awesome Captain Obvious.
The Net has changed a number of things. But the
idea that it should have swept away power structures and transformed societies ignores certain fundamental components of human history... little things like the fact that people with money and power and institutions with money and power tend to remain in power. Social mobility, although greater now than in some periods of history, is still a relatively rare occurence.
And the idea that the net would make people more open-minded and more willing to enter free discourse... the limitation here has never been a technical one but rather one of human attitude. The fact that people like to hear from people of like minds and tend to blot out those whom they disagree with is hardly news. That's about as old as human history. It hinges on the insular nature of man and his strong belief in his own rightness and I don't forsee these basic underlying psychological components changing overnight (and the length the Net has been in existence is an overnight in human history and an eyeblink in geologic time).
Technology is a multiplier... if we use it for good, we'll get more good. If we use it for narrow minded or evil purposes, we'll get more evil. It lets more rabbit-lovers meet each other. It lets more pedophiles exchange material. Technology is inherently amoral. It is humans that put it to use. (Oh look, now I'm spouting the obvious too... maybe I should be a columnist...). We should not expect technology to affect vast changes in the landscape of humanity in years or even decades. Yes, some inventions have global impact - the printing press, radio, etc. And they do change the world. But they do so slowly, and in accordance with evolving social, societal, economic and political realities. They do not "sweep away" these realities, they merely apply a filter or a modifier to them. This is where the info-communists always come up short.
Information doesn't really want to be free. It wants nothing. People may want it to be free, but other people whose interests are served by it not being free will continue to want it to be not-free. And unless the provision of such information becomes costless, economic reality will stand against information being free.
The lynchpin in any analysis of how technology or other trends will change things is the underlying mostly invariant (or very slowly changing) human nature. It can change, but pretty slowly. And even in the good times, greed, hate, ignorance, violence, and lust aren't lurking too far away. To be surprised that those in power and those of certain ideologies and special interests tend to each use the net for their own purposes and to be surprised that everything hasn't become techno-utopian suggests a certain ignorance of the human equation's basic factors.
Still, it's fun to read Katz. Even when he's being the Awesome Captain Obvious. He does provoke discussion....:)
it just means now the universe will be filled with billions of rouge borg.
I assume you mean rogue, though a bunch of rouge borg raging around does have a certain scary aesthetic quality.
This leads to the obvious question: Would this make them Red Shirts?
And although moderators moderating the parent poster as overrated may in fact be jealous of the intelligence of the comments, they certainly aren't jealous of the spelling. (Last time I checked, statement had a letter between the second t and the m....).
Interestingly, we (in North America) tend to take a dimmer view of sex-oriented situations than violent ones. It's okay to own guns in some States probably before you can drink a beer legally. It's okay to go to the latest Schwarzenegger film with attendant blood-on-the-walls high-deathcount activity, but softcore porn is verboten.
CG is interesting in that it opens up possibilities for stunts that humans could not attempt due to ludicrous risks. It opens up vistas on scales that can't be done well otherwise. It opens up new realities.
Interestingly, we can write in text about many very nasty things, but if we put them on the screen or on the Internet, all of a sudden they get banned. The difference between images of something or movies of same and a book describing them? Your imagination.
Somehow public standards are offended by taboo images more than taboo text. Interestingly, the CG actors and actresses could be made do things humans wouldn't or that they could be (for instance) slaughtered in stacks without the huge SFX budget that a violent movie requires (and of course, they might get away with a bit more violence because everyone knows it isn't real).
It'd be nice if societies had some sort of consistent and sane ethic. But views differ. Many folk seem to think a naked breast is the work of Lucifer, whereas having 14 year olds with firearms makes sense. Others don't want anyone carrying guns, but seem to think that adults and young teenagers making whoopee is acceptable. CG just serves to once again focus our attention on the differing values of different parts of the world. Some of the things done in a lot of Japanese Manga/Hentai just isn't allowed over-the-counter uncut here in North America.
I don't realy have a conclusion (wish I did), but it is surely one of the interesting questions about these discussions: Does it matter if the person in an image (or story, if it is text) is real or not as to how what happens to them is judged? Is virtual porn better, worse, or just the same as virtual porn? Is virtual violence better or worse or the same as real violence? Most people would probalby say real violence is worse than virtual violence. But many would probably say virtual porn is as bad as real porn.
If it all made sense, it wouldn't be half so interesting....
The article the previous poster claimed that the US bombed those targets knowing that it wasn't a military target and that the US State Dept. admitted such.
Of course not. If they HAD targetted these on purpose, and I don't imagine that to be the case (even an idiot could see the potential PR implications and State isn't usually full of idiots), they would be very unlikely to say so. Instead, they'd obfuscate the truth, making it sound like an accident. So, in either case (intentional idiocy or accident), the public presentation would be the same.
Military vehicles had been seen in the vicinity of these warehouses.
And of course, those anxious to decry US action will fail to consider the potential that the Taliban either A) intentionally tried to provoke targetting errors or B) parked their vehicles in these areas as an attempt to sheild them from bombing by assuming the US knew about the Red Cross site.
Read the articles being referred to before accusing someone of newspeak.
Yeah, for the home of open source, free speech, etc., sometimes critical consideration is absent in favor of vitriolic polemic in support of some pre-decided world view.
But that's no excuse for misreading "mistakenly" as "intentional".
That's a generous way of putting it. Misreading indeed.
I see plenty of people decrying the civilian casualties in this conflict. It's terrible to kill 4 aid workers... but I guess perhaps it is okay to kill 4K innocent unsuspecting people? (Or course not!). Anyone getting killed when they are innocent of wrongdoing is a tragedy for all of us.
But so is sitting on your ass and letting murderers continue their foul plots. Osama and his buddies more or less declared open season on the civilized world and called upon every Muslim to take up arms. Them's fighting words, even where I come from North of the 49th.
Now, we don't have the evidence on hand that prompted the decisions to ax Somalia's access. What we hear reported as "suspected" may translate as "evidence available but not to be revealed".
Jumping to conclusions is a popular slashdot pastime. You'd think we'd all be in better shape....
Give the Luddites a break (or a fair shake)
on
Message from Kabul
·
· Score: 1
With all due respect, if I recall my history, the Luddites were not anti-technology per se, but they were against some of the negative effects of technology on the workforce and therefor one people.
We may disagree with their assessment of the net effect of technology on the world, but we certainly can appreciate the fact that they were concerned about the negative impacts of technology (which we must admit, just as we trumpet the benefits). We can also agree I'm sure that not every technology has been implemented wisely nor with due forethought for its consequences.
Luddites get a bad wrap because people have abused the term Luddite (taking it out of its historical context) in order to have a neat buzzword which means "anti-technological without reason or sense". The truth is, the Luddites may not have been entirely correct in their evaluation and they may have not understood the remedy to the problems created by technology, but neither were they blindly anti-technology.
But that's just from my recollection. I could, in fact, be mistaken.
Maybe you aren't a dumbass. Maybe it shows what happens when some site more or less impersonates another.
Truth is a matter of debate most times. There are multiple views. But somebody pointed out that obvious parody is protected under law. Apparently this isn't entirely obvious parody. It might verge on (though not actually be) malicious impersonation.
If I can control the images you see, the text you read, and the information you have access to, then I can affect your perceptions. In this case, it is being done for protest. But what could be innocent protest could equally be manipulation.
Although the WTO is no panacea of righteousness, in this case, I think they are in the right to object. Put up a big front end on the other site pointing out that it is parody and I could live with it. We can't rely on the "obvious parody" defence, because it isn't and people are easily lead astray.
And as someone who saw some of what went on in downtown Ottawa at the G-20, I have to say there were a number of people who went their with violence in mind. You don't show up in ballistic protective gear, a gas mask, a balaclava, etc. if you aren't ready for trouble. (And NO, this isn't the police riot squad I'm talking about....).
And smashing the crap out of a McDonalds outlet and some other stores is beating up some businessman and probably won't do much to McDonalds' bottom line.
The media went to interview some of the protesters. They refused to speak on camera. When asked why, they said "the media always gets it wrong" to which the media person replied "here's the mike - you tell your story in your words." They wouldn't.
They asked another girl about why she was wearing a bandana, running with the rougher groups of protestors, and wouldn't give her name. Her answer? "It's fun!".
The Ottawa police didn't lay many charges and didn't lay into the hooligans even when they damaged property. They showed remarkable restraint and the prosecutors are laying light charges against those they did take into custody. AFAICS, this is just like saying "we don't want to appear heavy handed.... too bad for all the businesses affected". Not what I hope for in a government, if I'm a small business person.
And one of the protest organizers was complaining about the government not housing the protesters. He said "They decided to host the conference, which means they decided to host these protests too. They should be housing us." Pardon? The only place they should house people who smash shop windows and assault police is behind bars. And the rest of them who protest peacefully should be allowed to, but certainly not housed.
But what did the politically-sensitive Ottawa Council and our dork of a Mayor do? Took over hundreds of hotel rooms at taxpayers expense to house the rabble. Lovely... just lovely....
Remind me again why these protests are a good thing?
As someone who has had the joys of engineering training in Colleges, University, and the big outside world, let me ask you this, Mr. Aspiring (and I think a bit naive) Software Engineer:
You don't have to worry about the safety of people using your software products? Not if your application just bitshuffles. But if you do actual real world work (control systems, police dispatch systems, military software, aeronautical software, etc), then you better believe you do.
You don't have to worry about unintended uses of your product? Hah! The fact that you think this is quite terrifying all on its own....
You don't have to worry about people using it long past its intended lifetime? Can you say Y2K my friend? That was what happens when a software person fails to think far enough ahead. Or the Internet (IPv4) address space crunch.
Not to be terribly personal, because it is more a generality, but many engineers come out of school with just this kind of impression of the world about them and the difficulty and the difference of the work they do. Some time spent in the real world tends to fix that. I've met at least half a dozen people with the good ole Iron Ring (steel nowadays...) that were working in the software field. Half were damn good at what they did, half were not so hot. About what you'd expect.
The truth is, the software field could benefit from a lot of the professionalism that goes with the engineers calling, the commitment and the responsibility. That's what engineering is really about - a professional ethos of safegaurding the public interest and in releasing only products which meet up to appropriate professional and public standards of quality and safety. In that respect, engineers are ahead of the software programming masses.... but otherwise, most of them require a reality check to adjust their perceptions to the world outside the Ivory Tower.
Nonono. The point is the comments are to tell you what the code was supposed to do.
(snippage)
Whereas without the comments, the clearly written code can be doing the wrong thing and you won't know.
I hope you were being funny. The LAST thing you want to do is assume the comments are right and change the code in a mature product. Often times, in the pressure of maintenance, people will fix a bug (read: change the code) and neglect to change the comment (yes this is EVIL but it is done).
Comments are great, but always check the code to make sure it matches the comments, and if the code is self documenting, all the better. They let us have long variable names - use them for something descriptive. Long method names ditto.
If the code and the comments don't agree, that's a snarly situation and not half so simple as "just fix the code".
And by the way, DON'T EVER CHANGE THE CODE WITHOUT CHANGING THE RELEVANT COMMENTS... EVER...EVER....EVER....ON PAIN OF DEATH....
Little thing I discovered when reading the agreement you sign (with Purolator, but it may apply elsewhere).
Picture this: Shipping two boxes of stuff. Box 1 contains a monitor ($500). Box 2 contains a computer (desktop) ($3K), 2 ruggedized milspec laptops at $10K a pop, about $50K in software, and (at a guess), $250K in source on disk. Now, I was going to just ship it and insure it for $100K (enough to cover most situations). But what do I discover?
A little caveat: If you ship n boxes, if you get a box lost in shipment, the recompense is total insurance/n. So, with two boxes, one of which I wanted $99,500 for if it went awry, and the other I wanted $500 for, this was not the way to ship it.
So I got two bills of lading and filled them out separately. If they were gonna lose my expensive package, they were gonna pay.
Anyone shipping multiple packages may want to check into the details of the shipping agreement for insurance beforehand.
Your comments are bang on. But this problem seems to extend to most wireless tech. When I worked with RDLAP-19.2, MDC-4800 or 9600, and CDPD (19.2) wireless networks, the same phenomena was visible (moreso in RDLAP...). We'd often only get usable bandwidth on the order of 40-60% of advertised bandwidth. Heck, I recall days on the 9600 bps nominal network where practical bit rates hit about 2400...
The longer you are transmitting for (the larger the packet), the more likely you'll get a fade or some interference and your packet will be corrupted. And with phones and other devices operating through the same spectra, and with crappy antennas bouncing out signal harmonics that can tromp your signal, this isn't really surprising. Just sort of an occupational hazard in the wireless environment.
When I ported one of our products to CDPD, I recall that it had a spec limit of 2020 for packet size 9or something like that)... but the local wireless provider advised me they'd never got anything over about a 1300 byte packet to transit the network without a problem. I got 1400 byte packets working... but that's where I capped it.
Even having said all this, and realizing 802.11b has a different performance characteristic than 802.11a, it will still (most of the time) end up being faster, which really is what end users tend to care about. If it only ends up 2x as fast, so be it. If it is only 2x as expensive, you're doing okay. Now, if its 5x as expensive and in practice averages 2x as fast... well.... then you've bought the Pentium-IV of the wireless world.... (*grin*)
I don't know if quite the same rules apply, but when I worked in police wireless, this kind of phenomenon wasn't uncommon. The further away you were from the base, the more chance for a packet to get corrupted (slightly more anyway) and the more chance for something to interfere with your transmission or for any given packet to not make it through (especially if you get near the thresholds for reception -- noise threshold I think the formal term was).
Also movement in a vehicle tends to increase the number of "fades" in proportion to the speed of the vehicle (FYI). But this won't apply to 802.11.... it isn't really meant as a network-on-the-move solution, more of a move-stop-network-move_again kind of solution.
A lot of frame rate counts are also capped... unless you get into the driver and do some tweaking. Using a simple locale in our system and a low res with a low colour depth and few textures, I'm able to get some stupidly high frame rate for my GeForce 2 GTS (in the hundreds of FPS)... now if the tweak in the driver is turned off, that'd max at 75 or 85 (whatever the refresh rate was set to).
Just something to beware when comparing frame rates. There is a setting (something to do with coolBits) that you need to set in your driver's config in the registry (on Windoze boxes) that'll let you uncouple frame-rate from the refresh rate (some versions of the drivers will give you a GUI road to this same setting).
Tomb.
I've been on trains with power plugs. They're geared to road-warriors. Just like some types of planes (well, perhaps 9/11 may have affected this.... haven't flown since).
Low power + high graphics frame rates with full textures, shaders, and the whole nine-yards would be great. Given that right now it is an either or scenario, your choice of laptop has to be based off need. Don't get one of these power-consumptive laptops if your first concern is long battery life.
OTOH, if you like some portability and some battery life (you have a window of battery life) along with the capability to take powerful 3D with you, these laptops are the way to go.
Eventually, these and the low power laptops will maybe merge and won't that be a happy moment for all of us?:)
As a Senior Network dude for a company that specializes in massively multi-user (isn't that getting old fast?) on-line 3D environment technology, I can tell you we're waiting with bated breath for these kinds of developments. Right now we use one of the laptops with the GeForce 2 Go chipset, and we'd love a laptop with this new chipset. More FPS with all the features turned on == better demo == better chance of closing a valuable deal.
Also, when we developers travel, it helps to be able to work on the environment while on the move. Our system requires quite a powerful system (if you insist on running the various servers and the client all on the same box - *grin*) to allow you to do testing and full blown development on the move.
So, _you_ might not see the reason for this, but believe me, a lot of companies working with any kind of 3D technologies certainly will, as will developers and people who like to go to a LAN party using something smaller than an SUV (moving my 19" hitachi monitor is a b*tch)....
Who else would run on at the mouth so long?
You rock, Xandria! Hugs! And I'm not sure I believe the comment about you not molesting people you don't know... *grin*
Kaladorn
The Unrepentant
Seems to me I've heard this particular set of agitprop from the poster (dave-fu) before... (regarding the merits of Ars Technica, the Register, and memepool and the shortcomings of slashdot).
And branding what goes on here as inflammatory agitprop is particularly ironic considering that's how the post above comes off....
I don't for a moment believe that any particular evolution as it relates to Open Source is inevitable. The evolution of Open Source in the first place was not inevitable, nor is its (alleged) demise.
The problem with interpreting trends in real-time is that we miss the historical sweep of the trend... missing the forest by seeing only the trees. We can imagine a hundred different fates for the Open Source movement, but in order to get an idea where it is really headed, I think we should be looking at other trends in our society. Yes, momentary events like 9/11 have redefined civil liberties and how we live day to day life a bit, but the world overall seems to be headed towards greater degrees of freedom and towards a more option oriented society. (Yes, you can pull out counterpoints, but I see these as bumps in the road... utterly contestible I realize!).
More choice, not less. Sure, the idea has resulted in a lot of failed business ventures. THIS IS COMMON WITH ANY FIRST WAVE BUSINESS. Early adopters tend to take a beating. But if the idea is basically appealing to people, in the long run some variant of it will probably fly. Good software for free and a chance to get your name in the geek equivalent of lights (main coder on an Open Source project) is a powerful motivation for a growing class - the technos.
Predict the demise of open source and the unviability of any kind of free software development and you may find yourself in the same boat as those who said man would never make it to the Moon, that man would never fly, and that the Titanic was unsinkable.
American Airlines - prior target.
NYC - prior target.
Outbound flight loaded with fuel presumably.
I've heard their was a meeting of a bunch of arab leaders to discuss the fate of Afghanistan at the UN.
I've also heard (CBC) that Rudy Giuliani (sp?) and Pres Perwez Musharef (sp?) were to tour Ground Zero more or less at the time of the accident.
Also the district where things landed is a shopping district - another symbol of capitalism.
And the eyewitnesses have reported seeing flames from the planes sides. I'm imagining a bomb or a bit of sabotage could easily have caused such an effect.
According to an aviation expert from the USA, interviewed by CBC, the Airbus has a very good safety record and there haven't been (with US carrier's Airbuses anyway) any accidents of this nature.
Now, this doesn't prove anything. In fact, it doesn't even produce a convincing allegation. But it is certainly an interesting combination of facts. If it is mechanical failure not caused by any hostile agency, then it is just an ugly coincidence and NYC is just having more than its fair share of horrendous luck.
I'll be anxious to see how this all comes out in the wash.
And I extend my sympathies to anyone affected directly by this tragedy. Regardless of how it came to be, it is quite horrific.:(
Nice software. Good idea to make it open source too.
I will however disagree with you about the GURPS system, but since that borders on Religion (OS wars, editor wars, etc), I'll just leave it at "I think MegaTraveller(TM) was the best." And the whole "Rebellion... TNE...T4...back to before the Rebellion and ignore it" thing really bothered me.
But it is a fantastic universe with nearly boundless opportunity for entertainment. It is a pity that it didn't get cool 3D starmaps, but other than that it was a great game. And I guess it still is, though the GURPS crowd seems to get an adulterated version of the original with all its complexities.
Re:On correct use of apostrophes
on
God's Debris
·
· Score: 1
True, there is no "pronunciation impediment", but using "Adam's" as the possissive form of "Adams" is as incorrect as using "James's" as the possissive form of "Mary".
While we're being pedants, possissive is not a word I am familiar with. I would suggest before lecturing others on the use of the apostrophe, you investigate the use of the dictionary.
Tick, to my mind, is an ideal hero icon for the current generation. He has good intentions, but isn't too aware of the fine details (well, even some gross details) of the world around him. He tries hard, and things tend to work out after a fashion, but usually not as a result of any particular brilliance on his part. Tick fulfills the iconic image of style over substance, of good intentions versus understanding, of the brawn and machismo not directed by a terribly powerful cranium, and of accidental destruction as a consequence of his good intentions and bungling execution.
His sidekick Arthur, of course, is more down to earth and aware. He's a bit of a geek (though I have yet so see him hack a kernel) with less-than-stellar social skills. He too seems to fill an iconic image in modern-day society - the nerdy brains-behind the brawn.
When these characters evolved, were they merely an attempt to poke fun at Superhero archetypes, or were they consciously intended to be more "in touch" with and to more closely parallel today's society? Or do you consider such analysis to be far deeper than the subject matter merits? Is the Tick just good humored fun, or is it perceptive art?
Damn. Now _THERE_ is a reason to watch the vid! Hopefully there are some claymores and bagpipes involved! Maybe throw in a Stone of Scone for a good measure....
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming for a moment your article wasn't meant entirely as a troll to enflame sentiments (which I doubt) of the community here, did you folks ever think of reading the license agreement BEFORE DOING DEVELOPMENT? If not, you are quite utterly clueless. WHENEVER you decide to use someone else's work, in WHATEVER form, one would only think that you'd take the time to read the license they have attached to it. If the license is in any way confusing (and GPL is pretty readable), you'd think you'd talk to your lawyer BEFORE instigating a development effort.
Rather than saying "Linux 0, MS 1", why not say "Intelligence 0, Stupidity 1"?
And BTW, I'd like to see you modify WINDOWS kernel code... PERIOD. At all. Ever. And if you had to, I'd like to see you figure enough of it out to make the modifications viable - even M$ has trouble there.
Have a nice day, Mr. Troll.
Sometimes Katz says some stuff you've never thought before. Sometimes he takes off his disguise as Mild Mannered Self-Promoting Tech Pundit and becomes the Awesome Captain Obvious.
:)
The Net has changed a number of things. But the idea that it should have swept away power structures and transformed societies ignores certain fundamental components of human history... little things like the fact that people with money and power and institutions with money and power tend to remain in power. Social mobility, although greater now than in some periods of history, is still a relatively rare occurence.
And the idea that the net would make people more open-minded and more willing to enter free discourse... the limitation here has never been a technical one but rather one of human attitude. The fact that people like to hear from people of like minds and tend to blot out those whom they disagree with is hardly news. That's about as old as human history. It hinges on the insular nature of man and his strong belief in his own rightness and I don't forsee these basic underlying psychological components changing overnight (and the length the Net has been in existence is an overnight in human history and an eyeblink in geologic time).
Technology is a multiplier... if we use it for good, we'll get more good. If we use it for narrow minded or evil purposes, we'll get more evil. It lets more rabbit-lovers meet each other. It lets more pedophiles exchange material. Technology is inherently amoral. It is humans that put it to use. (Oh look, now I'm spouting the obvious too... maybe I should be a columnist...). We should not expect technology to affect vast changes in the landscape of humanity in years or even decades. Yes, some inventions have global impact - the printing press, radio, etc. And they do change the world. But they do so slowly, and in accordance with evolving social, societal, economic and political realities. They do not "sweep away" these realities, they merely apply a filter or a modifier to them. This is where the info-communists always come up short.
Information doesn't really want to be free. It wants nothing. People may want it to be free, but other people whose interests are served by it not being free will continue to want it to be not-free. And unless the provision of such information becomes costless, economic reality will stand against information being free.
The lynchpin in any analysis of how technology or other trends will change things is the underlying mostly invariant (or very slowly changing) human nature. It can change, but pretty slowly. And even in the good times, greed, hate, ignorance, violence, and lust aren't lurking too far away. To be surprised that those in power and those of certain ideologies and special interests tend to each use the net for their own purposes and to be surprised that everything hasn't become techno-utopian suggests a certain ignorance of the human equation's basic factors.
Still, it's fun to read Katz. Even when he's being the Awesome Captain Obvious. He does provoke discussion....
it just means now the universe will be filled with billions of rouge borg.
I assume you mean rogue, though a bunch of rouge borg raging around does have a certain scary aesthetic quality.
This leads to the obvious question:
Would this make them Red Shirts?
And although moderators moderating the parent poster as overrated may in fact be jealous of the intelligence of the comments, they certainly aren't jealous of the spelling. (Last time I checked, statement had a letter between the second t and the m....).
Interestingly, we (in North America) tend to take a dimmer view of sex-oriented situations than violent ones. It's okay to own guns in some States probably before you can drink a beer legally. It's okay to go to the latest Schwarzenegger film with attendant blood-on-the-walls high-deathcount activity, but softcore porn is verboten.
CG is interesting in that it opens up possibilities for stunts that humans could not attempt due to ludicrous risks. It opens up vistas on scales that can't be done well otherwise. It opens up new realities.
Interestingly, we can write in text about many very nasty things, but if we put them on the screen or on the Internet, all of a sudden they get banned. The difference between images of something or movies of same and a book describing them? Your imagination.
Somehow public standards are offended by taboo images more than taboo text. Interestingly, the CG actors and actresses could be made do things humans wouldn't or that they could be (for instance) slaughtered in stacks without the huge SFX budget that a violent movie requires (and of course, they might get away with a bit more violence because everyone knows it isn't real).
It'd be nice if societies had some sort of consistent and sane ethic. But views differ. Many folk seem to think a naked breast is the work of Lucifer, whereas having 14 year olds with firearms makes sense. Others don't want anyone carrying guns, but seem to think that adults and young teenagers making whoopee is acceptable. CG just serves to once again focus our attention on the differing values of different parts of the world. Some of the things done in a lot of Japanese Manga/Hentai just isn't allowed over-the-counter uncut here in North America.
I don't realy have a conclusion (wish I did), but it is surely one of the interesting questions about these discussions: Does it matter if the person in an image (or story, if it is text) is real or not as to how what happens to them is judged? Is virtual porn better, worse, or just the same as virtual porn? Is virtual violence better or worse or the same as real violence? Most people would probalby say real violence is worse than virtual violence. But many would probably say virtual porn is as bad as real porn.
If it all made sense, it wouldn't be half so interesting....
The article the previous poster claimed that the US bombed those targets knowing that it wasn't a military target and that the US State Dept. admitted such.
Of course not. If they HAD targetted these on purpose, and I don't imagine that to be the case (even an idiot could see the potential PR implications and State isn't usually full of idiots), they would be very unlikely to say so. Instead, they'd obfuscate the truth, making it sound like an accident. So, in either case (intentional idiocy or accident), the public presentation would be the same.
Military vehicles had been seen in the vicinity of these warehouses.
And of course, those anxious to decry US action will fail to consider the potential that the Taliban either A) intentionally tried to provoke targetting errors or B) parked their vehicles in these areas as an attempt to sheild them from bombing by assuming the US knew about the Red Cross site.
Read the articles being referred to before accusing someone of newspeak.
Yeah, for the home of open source, free speech, etc., sometimes critical consideration is absent in favor of vitriolic polemic in support of some pre-decided world view.
But that's no excuse for misreading "mistakenly" as "intentional".
That's a generous way of putting it. Misreading indeed.
I see plenty of people decrying the civilian casualties in this conflict. It's terrible to kill 4 aid workers... but I guess perhaps it is okay to kill 4K innocent unsuspecting people? (Or course not!). Anyone getting killed when they are innocent of wrongdoing is a tragedy for all of us.
But so is sitting on your ass and letting murderers continue their foul plots. Osama and his buddies more or less declared open season on the civilized world and called upon every Muslim to take up arms. Them's fighting words, even where I come from North of the 49th.
Now, we don't have the evidence on hand that prompted the decisions to ax Somalia's access. What we hear reported as "suspected" may translate as "evidence available but not to be revealed".
Jumping to conclusions is a popular slashdot pastime. You'd think we'd all be in better shape....
With all due respect, if I recall my history, the Luddites were not anti-technology per se, but they were against some of the negative effects of technology on the workforce and therefor one people.
We may disagree with their assessment of the net effect of technology on the world, but we certainly can appreciate the fact that they were concerned about the negative impacts of technology (which we must admit, just as we trumpet the benefits). We can also agree I'm sure that not every technology has been implemented wisely nor with due forethought for its consequences.
Luddites get a bad wrap because people have abused the term Luddite (taking it out of its historical context) in order to have a neat buzzword which means "anti-technological without reason or sense". The truth is, the Luddites may not have been entirely correct in their evaluation and they may have not understood the remedy to the problems created by technology, but neither were they blindly anti-technology.
But that's just from my recollection. I could, in fact, be mistaken.
Maybe you aren't a dumbass. Maybe it shows what happens when some site more or less impersonates another.
Truth is a matter of debate most times. There are multiple views. But somebody pointed out that obvious parody is protected under law. Apparently this isn't entirely obvious parody. It might verge on (though not actually be) malicious impersonation.
If I can control the images you see, the text you read, and the information you have access to, then I can affect your perceptions. In this case, it is being done for protest. But what could be innocent protest could equally be manipulation.
Although the WTO is no panacea of righteousness, in this case, I think they are in the right to object. Put up a big front end on the other site pointing out that it is parody and I could live with it. We can't rely on the "obvious parody" defence, because it isn't and people are easily lead astray.
And as someone who saw some of what went on in downtown Ottawa at the G-20, I have to say there were a number of people who went their with violence in mind. You don't show up in ballistic protective gear, a gas mask, a balaclava, etc. if you aren't ready for trouble. (And NO, this isn't the police riot squad I'm talking about....).
And smashing the crap out of a McDonalds outlet and some other stores is beating up some businessman and probably won't do much to McDonalds' bottom line.
The media went to interview some of the protesters. They refused to speak on camera. When asked why, they said "the media always gets it wrong" to which the media person replied "here's the mike - you tell your story in your words." They wouldn't.
They asked another girl about why she was wearing a bandana, running with the rougher groups of protestors, and wouldn't give her name. Her answer? "It's fun!".
The Ottawa police didn't lay many charges and didn't lay into the hooligans even when they damaged property. They showed remarkable restraint and the prosecutors are laying light charges against those they did take into custody. AFAICS, this is just like saying "we don't want to appear heavy handed.... too bad for all the businesses affected". Not what I hope for in a government, if I'm a small business person.
And one of the protest organizers was complaining about the government not housing the protesters. He said "They decided to host the conference, which means they decided to host these protests too. They should be housing us." Pardon? The only place they should house people who smash shop windows and assault police is behind bars. And the rest of them who protest peacefully should be allowed to, but certainly not housed.
But what did the politically-sensitive Ottawa Council and our dork of a Mayor do? Took over hundreds of hotel rooms at taxpayers expense to house the rabble. Lovely... just lovely....
Remind me again why these protests are a good thing?
As someone who has had the joys of engineering training in Colleges, University, and the big outside world, let me ask you this, Mr. Aspiring (and I think a bit naive) Software Engineer:
You don't have to worry about the safety of people using your software products? Not if your application just bitshuffles. But if you do actual real world work (control systems, police dispatch systems, military software, aeronautical software, etc), then you better believe you do.
You don't have to worry about unintended uses of your product? Hah! The fact that you think this is quite terrifying all on its own....
You don't have to worry about people using it long past its intended lifetime? Can you say Y2K my friend? That was what happens when a software person fails to think far enough ahead. Or the Internet (IPv4) address space crunch.
Not to be terribly personal, because it is more a generality, but many engineers come out of school with just this kind of impression of the world about them and the difficulty and the difference of the work they do. Some time spent in the real world tends to fix that. I've met at least half a dozen people with the good ole Iron Ring (steel nowadays...) that were working in the software field. Half were damn good at what they did, half were not so hot. About what you'd expect.
The truth is, the software field could benefit from a lot of the professionalism that goes with the engineers calling, the commitment and the responsibility. That's what engineering is really about - a professional ethos of safegaurding the public interest and in releasing only products which meet up to appropriate professional and public standards of quality and safety. In that respect, engineers are ahead of the software programming masses.... but otherwise, most of them require a reality check to adjust their perceptions to the world outside the Ivory Tower.
Nonono. The point is the comments are to tell you what the code was supposed to do.
(snippage)
Whereas without the comments, the clearly written code can be doing the wrong thing and you won't know.
I hope you were being funny. The LAST thing you want to do is assume the comments are right and change the code in a mature product. Often times, in the pressure of maintenance, people will fix a bug (read: change the code) and neglect to change the comment (yes this is EVIL but it is done).
Comments are great, but always check the code to make sure it matches the comments, and if the code is self documenting, all the better. They let us have long variable names - use them for something descriptive. Long method names ditto. If the code and the comments don't agree, that's a snarly situation and not half so simple as "just fix the code".
And by the way, DON'T EVER CHANGE THE CODE WITHOUT CHANGING THE RELEVANT COMMENTS... EVER...EVER....EVER....ON PAIN OF DEATH....
Little thing I discovered when reading the agreement you sign (with Purolator, but it may apply elsewhere).
Picture this: Shipping two boxes of stuff. Box 1 contains a monitor ($500). Box 2 contains a computer (desktop) ($3K), 2 ruggedized milspec laptops at $10K a pop, about $50K in software, and (at a guess), $250K in source on disk. Now, I was going to just ship it and insure it for $100K (enough to cover most situations). But what do I discover?
A little caveat: If you ship n boxes, if you get a box lost in shipment, the recompense is total insurance/n. So, with two boxes, one of which I wanted $99,500 for if it went awry, and the other I wanted $500 for, this was not the way to ship it.
So I got two bills of lading and filled them out separately. If they were gonna lose my expensive package, they were gonna pay.
Anyone shipping multiple packages may want to check into the details of the shipping agreement for insurance beforehand.
Internet Exlorer
A new browser? I think not. Just another example of the benefits of a Liberal Arts education... (if you could call it that).
I would have thought Theatre majors could manage to spell correctly.... Or is this maybe the Shakespearean spelling? Some sort of in-period thing?
It is surely an interesting discussion.... but is it in fact NEWS? I think not.
:)
Sometimes I wonder if the EdiTrolls(TM) actually preview their posts...
Your comments are bang on. But this problem seems to extend to most wireless tech. When I worked with RDLAP-19.2, MDC-4800 or 9600, and CDPD (19.2) wireless networks, the same phenomena was visible (moreso in RDLAP...). We'd often only get usable bandwidth on the order of 40-60% of advertised bandwidth. Heck, I recall days on the 9600 bps nominal network where practical bit rates hit about 2400...
The longer you are transmitting for (the larger the packet), the more likely you'll get a fade or some interference and your packet will be corrupted. And with phones and other devices operating through the same spectra, and with crappy antennas bouncing out signal harmonics that can tromp your signal, this isn't really surprising. Just sort of an occupational hazard in the wireless environment.
When I ported one of our products to CDPD, I recall that it had a spec limit of 2020 for packet size 9or something like that)... but the local wireless provider advised me they'd never got anything over about a 1300 byte packet to transit the network without a problem. I got 1400 byte packets working... but that's where I capped it.
Even having said all this, and realizing 802.11b has a different performance characteristic than 802.11a, it will still (most of the time) end up being faster, which really is what end users tend to care about. If it only ends up 2x as fast, so be it. If it is only 2x as expensive, you're doing okay. Now, if its 5x as expensive and in practice averages 2x as fast... well.... then you've bought the Pentium-IV of the wireless world.... (*grin*)
I don't know if quite the same rules apply, but when I worked in police wireless, this kind of phenomenon wasn't uncommon. The further away you were from the base, the more chance for a packet to get corrupted (slightly more anyway) and the more chance for something to interfere with your transmission or for any given packet to not make it through (especially if you get near the thresholds for reception -- noise threshold I think the formal term was).
Also movement in a vehicle tends to increase the number of "fades" in proportion to the speed of the vehicle (FYI). But this won't apply to 802.11.... it isn't really meant as a network-on-the-move solution, more of a move-stop-network-move_again kind of solution.
A lot of frame rate counts are also capped... unless you get into the driver and do some tweaking. Using a simple locale in our system and a low res with a low colour depth and few textures, I'm able to get some stupidly high frame rate for my GeForce 2 GTS (in the hundreds of FPS)... now if the tweak in the driver is turned off, that'd max at 75 or 85 (whatever the refresh rate was set to). Just something to beware when comparing frame rates. There is a setting (something to do with coolBits) that you need to set in your driver's config in the registry (on Windoze boxes) that'll let you uncouple frame-rate from the refresh rate (some versions of the drivers will give you a GUI road to this same setting). Tomb.
I've been on trains with power plugs. They're geared to road-warriors. Just like some types of planes (well, perhaps 9/11 may have affected this .... haven't flown since).
:)
Low power + high graphics frame rates with full textures, shaders, and the whole nine-yards would be great. Given that right now it is an either or scenario, your choice of laptop has to be based off need. Don't get one of these power-consumptive laptops if your first concern is long battery life.
OTOH, if you like some portability and some battery life (you have a window of battery life) along with the capability to take powerful 3D with you, these laptops are the way to go.
Eventually, these and the low power laptops will maybe merge and won't that be a happy moment for all of us?
As a Senior Network dude for a company that specializes in massively multi-user (isn't that getting old fast?) on-line 3D environment technology, I can tell you we're waiting with bated breath for these kinds of developments. Right now we use one of the laptops with the GeForce 2 Go chipset, and we'd love a laptop with this new chipset. More FPS with all the features turned on == better demo == better chance of closing a valuable deal.
Also, when we developers travel, it helps to be able to work on the environment while on the move. Our system requires quite a powerful system (if you insist on running the various servers and the client all on the same box - *grin*) to allow you to do testing and full blown development on the move.
So, _you_ might not see the reason for this, but believe me, a lot of companies working with any kind of 3D technologies certainly will, as will developers and people who like to go to a LAN party using something smaller than an SUV (moving my 19" hitachi monitor is a b*tch)....
Tomb.
Who else would run on at the mouth so long? You rock, Xandria! Hugs! And I'm not sure I believe the comment about you not molesting people you don't know... *grin* Kaladorn The Unrepentant
Seems to me I've heard this particular set of agitprop from the poster (dave-fu) before... (regarding the merits of Ars Technica, the Register, and memepool and the shortcomings of slashdot).
And branding what goes on here as inflammatory agitprop is particularly ironic considering that's how the post above comes off....
I don't for a moment believe that any particular evolution as it relates to Open Source is inevitable. The evolution of Open Source in the first place was not inevitable, nor is its (alleged) demise.
The problem with interpreting trends in real-time is that we miss the historical sweep of the trend... missing the forest by seeing only the trees. We can imagine a hundred different fates for the Open Source movement, but in order to get an idea where it is really headed, I think we should be looking at other trends in our society. Yes, momentary events like 9/11 have redefined civil liberties and how we live day to day life a bit, but the world overall seems to be headed towards greater degrees of freedom and towards a more option oriented society. (Yes, you can pull out counterpoints, but I see these as bumps in the road... utterly contestible I realize!).
More choice, not less. Sure, the idea has resulted in a lot of failed business ventures. THIS IS COMMON WITH ANY FIRST WAVE BUSINESS. Early adopters tend to take a beating. But if the idea is basically appealing to people, in the long run some variant of it will probably fly. Good software for free and a chance to get your name in the geek equivalent of lights (main coder on an Open Source project) is a powerful motivation for a growing class - the technos.
Predict the demise of open source and the unviability of any kind of free software development and you may find yourself in the same boat as those who said man would never make it to the Moon, that man would never fly, and that the Titanic was unsinkable.
American Airlines - prior target.
:(
NYC - prior target.
Outbound flight loaded with fuel presumably.
I've heard their was a meeting of a bunch of arab leaders to discuss the fate of Afghanistan at the UN.
I've also heard (CBC) that Rudy Giuliani (sp?) and Pres Perwez Musharef (sp?) were to tour Ground Zero more or less at the time of the accident.
Also the district where things landed is a shopping district - another symbol of capitalism.
And the eyewitnesses have reported seeing flames from the planes sides. I'm imagining a bomb or a bit of sabotage could easily have caused such an effect.
According to an aviation expert from the USA, interviewed by CBC, the Airbus has a very good safety record and there haven't been (with US carrier's Airbuses anyway) any accidents of this nature.
Now, this doesn't prove anything. In fact, it doesn't even produce a convincing allegation. But it is certainly an interesting combination of facts. If it is mechanical failure not caused by any hostile agency, then it is just an ugly coincidence and NYC is just having more than its fair share of horrendous luck.
I'll be anxious to see how this all comes out in the wash.
And I extend my sympathies to anyone affected directly by this tragedy. Regardless of how it came to be, it is quite horrific.
Tomb
Just pointing this out to anyone who might not have made the connection. This makes his last comment rather hilarious, really.
Wil, you've got a damn good sense of humor man. I doubly-recant any prior anti-Wesleyan diatribes...
Also, I'd like to know WHAT you'd like to go on the Tick as? Have you a villain or hero in mind?
Nice software. Good idea to make it open source too.
I will however disagree with you about the GURPS system, but since that borders on Religion (OS wars, editor wars, etc), I'll just leave it at "I think MegaTraveller(TM) was the best." And the whole "Rebellion... TNE...T4...back to before the Rebellion and ignore it" thing really bothered me.
But it is a fantastic universe with nearly boundless opportunity for entertainment. It is a pity that it didn't get cool 3D starmaps, but other than that it was a great game. And I guess it still is, though the GURPS crowd seems to get an adulterated version of the original with all its complexities.
True, there is no "pronunciation impediment", but using "Adam's" as the possissive form of "Adams" is as incorrect as using "James's" as the possissive form of "Mary".
While we're being pedants, possissive is not a word I am familiar with. I would suggest before lecturing others on the use of the apostrophe, you investigate the use of the dictionary.
Tick, to my mind, is an ideal hero icon for the current generation. He has good intentions, but isn't too aware of the fine details (well, even some gross details) of the world around him. He tries hard, and things tend to work out after a fashion, but usually not as a result of any particular brilliance on his part. Tick fulfills the iconic image of style over substance, of good intentions versus understanding, of the brawn and machismo not directed by a terribly powerful cranium, and of accidental destruction as a consequence of his good intentions and bungling execution.
His sidekick Arthur, of course, is more down to earth and aware. He's a bit of a geek (though I have yet so see him hack a kernel) with less-than-stellar social skills. He too seems to fill an iconic image in modern-day society - the nerdy brains-behind the brawn.
When these characters evolved, were they merely an attempt to poke fun at Superhero archetypes, or were they consciously intended to be more "in touch" with and to more closely parallel today's society? Or do you consider such analysis to be far deeper than the subject matter merits? Is the Tick just good humored fun, or is it perceptive art?
Damn. Now _THERE_ is a reason to watch the vid! Hopefully there are some claymores and bagpipes involved! Maybe throw in a Stone of Scone for a good measure....