i keep repeating this time and time again at every opportunity on slashdot.
EUROPOSITRON.COM already HAVE a rechargeable battery that is FIVE TIMES more powerful than Li-Ion.
they're sealed.
they're rechargeable.
they don't turn to sludge because Mr Rainer Partenan has reversed the anode and cathode that would otherwise make the battery turn to sludge (in other aluminium cells) - instead, the liquid turns crystalline.
it's a 1.5V cell.
it means that a D-Type cell could deliver something stupid like 20Ah.
it means that a battery array of around 60kg could propel a family-sized electric car a distance of FIVE HUNDRED MILES on one charge.
and is there anything in the news about mr partenan's technology? is there xxxx.... why are people being so THICK!!!! maaaaagh!
PRECISELY! you GOT IT IN ONE!... and if the corporations - and i include redhat amongst them - DON'T fund a project, it doesn't get worked on, does it?
he hasn't _forgotten_ - not in the least. he's pointing out EXACTLY the problem i mention in the article about africa.
namely that the opportunity for free software developers to make a SOCIALLY "free" contribution is being LOST.
the context in which the question was asked was referencing _all_ proprietary file and networking formats.
e.g. word, excel, powerpoint as particular examples.
since that time, of course, we have been donated a piece-of-overbloated-shit called openoffice (which came out two years after the talk).
but we _still_ don't know how exchange really works, and cannot interoperate with that.
we _still_ don't have an interoperability alternative / way-to-get-out-of-the-trap that is "Active Directory".
i wasn't dismissing them, btw. i was utilising their point of view and commenting on it from a different perspective.
Re:Someone doesn't know what they're talking about
on
Researching Open Source
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
look me up, dude:)
"lkcl samba" on google.com provides sixteen THOUSAND hits.
teehee:)
i'm _famous_ for causing trouble, dude *ROTFL*.
i even had the samba team making a fascist censorship decision to classify any posts i make to samba.org as "net abuse".
that takes some doing - especially as i was working up to donating the copyright of all my samba-related code.
you want to talk about ignorance and ego?
how about the samba team being sufficiently willing to be egoistical and to remain ignorant by cutting off opinions of people that privately they agree with but are so arrogant that they cannot publicly admit that that person might be right?
i read the article thoroughly. you are right: the article is not about OSS developer arrogance. however, its timely occurrence here on slashdot gave me an opportunity to raise something that i believe needs to be said.
thank you for replying because there will be so many people who will look at this thread and _not_ reply and _still_ think what you thought [but actually wrote it down].
so i'll iterate it again, explicitly: my replies to this article are NOTHING to do per se with the bridges article.
my replies are purely to raise a point that i believe is very important, and this seemed like an opportune moment to mention that point.
and that point is simple: that there seems to be more focus, in the FOSS world, on "because i can" rather than "because i should" or "because it will help people".
self-gratification rather than selfless acts.
we "give to charity" but we know what happens to _that_. why not make it much more concrete by giving our _time_ to develop _useful_ free software?
[p.s. - my wife says i'm being pompous again ROTFL]
Sucks the way the glass tends to be half empty, doesn't it?... tell me about it:)
okay. i made sure that i included some words that would sting, because it tends to get the point across: the back-lash at least gets people talking:)
hey, if i went on about how wonderful free software developers _all_ are, would you believe me? and the gun-toting thing has been done already...:)... i think it sensible (like i did in one of my other replies to this thread) to refer you here:
and perhaps leave it at that. other than to say thank you for replying: i _really_ appreciate different viewpoints when i go out on a limb (again) to attempt to shock people [into acting or thinking of things from a different angle].
responsibility to whom? interesting question that invites clarification, as it may not be obvious.
responsibility to those people who do _not_ have the same level of technical ability as you, nor the knowledge that you have, opportunities that you have, or even enough food to keep their strength up enough _to_ learn.
responsibility to those people for whom it's a day-to-day struggle to _live_ let alone focus on how to switch on a computer or worry about where the electricity is going to come from, even before they've got to the point about what do _do_ with the computer when it works.
and when it works - does the computer (and its software) do the job that they need? does it help build up the infrastructure that they need, in order to dig themselves out of a third world situation?
[did you _read_ the bridges article all the way through?]
is that clear enough, now?
so, the million dollar question is: do _you_ have the time to spend a _little_ of your intelligence and creative abilities to develop the kinds of computer programs that will HELP PEOPLE.
and it doesn't just apply to people in the third world: this argument (with less stark consequences of course) applies equally as well to those people in business who are almost entirely dependent on microsoft - in the _first_ world as well.
in 1997, i did a talk on samba. when the question asked was "why should we bother to interoperate with proprietary protocols when we are [clever enough] to write our own and we don't _need_ to interoperate [with microsoft]", everybody clapped.
that was a _very_ interesting and defining moment, because it told me that everyone in that room lacked any sense of responsibility associated with their intelligence, capabilities, and the opportunities that their education and environment had presented them.
now, there's someone here at bridges.org pointing out that Free Software is pretty much useless to people who need it the most.
i hope that this article will bring that home more clearly - that the ignorance and ego [definition of arrogance] of free software developers needs to go.
if you HAVE the ability, ACCEPT the responsibility.
1) NT is a Mach Kernel, and has _three_ subsystems that i know of - POSIX, OS/2 and Win32. the POSIX subsystem has been implemented once by microsoft and independently by opennt.com (can't find them any more).
2) Cooperative Linux is a port of linux to userspace as a Win32 application.
it would actually be pretty sodding easy and doable.
BBC starts from assumption that all PCs have software installed that makes it capable of displaying sound and video over the internet.
that's a fuck right up from the word go.
so let's assume that iWhacks, MAC OS/1, BeOS, FreeBSD, Atari ST500s and BBC Micros (the ones with the ARM processor) are all capable of viewing video and listening to sound, over the internet.
great. so the BBC must first fund [patent-unencumbered!] free software development of video and sound compression and broadcasting technology, in order to guarantee that the technology is available across all platforms.
that sounds good to me.
so your computer _is_ capable, your OS _is_ capable, but you choose _not_ to install capable software: will the BBC force people to pay a license fee just because your PC is _capable_ of being used to view video, listen to sound, and be connected to the internet?
i know of at least one person whose total finances are not known, but are underestimated to be $0.5bn, who is one of the most evil money-grabbing people who will stop at nothing to make more money that i have ever encountered.
incredibly, he even used the death of his son to attempt to bargain and negotiate for discounts - including over the price of his son's gravestone.
from a shop in cambridge calling itself the "army and navy", i purchased some police-issue handcuffs.
i put them on my bike around the handlebars and the frame because when going along the road, they dinged against the frame and told people i was coming [when travelling at 20-30mph along streets in cambridge, people tend to step out unless there's sound warning them...]
policemen in cambridge tended to find this amusing.
then i went to the US, and took my handcuffs with me. and a pair of dress making scissors, in my small rucksack.
"do you have anything in your possession that could be used as a weapon?"
[the handcuffs were strapped to the bike, cost $75 in oversize shipping].
"i have some dress-making scissors..."
"could you show them to me?"
eeeuw, yukkk... i hadn't looked in that compartment since the washing up liquid had leaked, two years ago. out they came - into the box with the bicycle, never to be seen again...
anyway - off i went to seek my fortune in atlanta.
the handcuffs came off the bike, and i attached them, this being america, to my laptop bag. i thought it would be funny to look like my bag was important enough to need to be secured to my wrist.
i had begun travelling regularly around the states, and gotten into the habit of taking only carry-on luggage. when i had to return to the UK, i was able to go straight to the checkin desk.
the mentality of international flights is presumed that you will have lots of luggage - i had my computer and the aforementioned rucksack, the one filled with washing up liquid.
only when i got to the boarding gate did i think, hm, nobody's asked me any security questions, so i pointed this out, and was asked to step aside for a minute.
a very nice man came up to me and started going through the security questions.
"did you pack those bags yourself [yes], have they been with you at all times [no, my friends kept them in the car boot when we went for a coffee], are you carring anything that could be used as a weapon?"
now, i deliberately answer these questions honestly - the reason being that it is a criminal offense to lie to a government-appointed official. so i answered this, like all other questions, truthfully.
"well, i _do_ have a pair of handcuffs attached to my computer bag..." which i had forgotten about, to be absolutely honest.
well, they even went to the lengths of asking the pilot if he minded if my bag was kept separate from the rest of the passengers, and in the end my pathetic-sized rucksack (35 litre) after being thoroughly searched ended up in the hold, with the handcuffs in it.
_that_ would cause some merriment going through the x-rays.
i think the reason they let me on the plane is because i had been honest. the point of the security questions is to _get_ people to think, "are you bringing or could you have, without your knowledge, been given anything on board that someone _else_ could use to compromise the security of the plane?"
Slashdot Mirror
http://europositron.com./
i keep repeating this time and time again at every opportunity on slashdot.
... why are people being so THICK!!!! maaaaagh!
EUROPOSITRON.COM already HAVE a rechargeable battery that is FIVE TIMES more powerful than Li-Ion.
they're sealed.
they're rechargeable.
they don't turn to sludge because Mr Rainer Partenan has reversed the anode and cathode that would otherwise make the battery turn to sludge (in other aluminium cells) - instead, the liquid turns crystalline.
it's a 1.5V cell.
it means that a D-Type cell could deliver something stupid like 20Ah.
it means that a battery array of around 60kg could propel a family-sized electric car a distance of FIVE HUNDRED MILES on one charge.
and is there anything in the news about mr partenan's technology? is there xxxx.
a free software implementation of what skype have already done.
now all that's needed is to port it out of bloody java and also to back-end this code into a VPN.
in this way, you'd be able to hide ANY network traffic, not just VoIP and not just file sharing.
PRECISELY! you GOT IT IN ONE! ... and if the corporations - and i include redhat amongst them - DON'T fund a project, it doesn't get worked on, does it?
he hasn't _forgotten_ - not in the least. he's pointing out EXACTLY the problem i mention in the article about africa.
namely that the opportunity for free software developers to make a SOCIALLY "free" contribution is being LOST.
free software isn't just about code.
the context in which the question was asked was referencing _all_ proprietary file and networking formats.
e.g. word, excel, powerpoint as particular examples.
since that time, of course, we have been donated a piece-of-overbloated-shit called openoffice (which came out two years after the talk).
but we _still_ don't know how exchange really works, and cannot interoperate with that.
we _still_ don't have an interoperability alternative / way-to-get-out-of-the-trap that is "Active Directory".
i wasn't dismissing them, btw. i was utilising their point of view and commenting on it from a different perspective.
look me up, dude :)
:)
2 8/2058251&tid=146&tid=14
"lkcl samba" on google.com provides sixteen THOUSAND hits.
teehee
i'm _famous_ for causing trouble, dude *ROTFL*.
i even had the samba team making a fascist censorship decision to classify any posts i make to samba.org as "net abuse".
that takes some doing - especially as i was working up to donating the copyright of all my samba-related code.
you want to talk about ignorance and ego?
how about the samba team being sufficiently willing to be egoistical and to remain ignorant by cutting off opinions of people that privately they agree with but are so arrogant that they cannot publicly admit that that person might be right?
i advise you to read the following reference:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/
... fascinating - thank you.
i wonder if it would be possible to utilise outsourced skills in say india etc. to develop such programs?
sounds ironic, doesn't it?
i read the article thoroughly. you are right: the article is not about OSS developer arrogance. however, its timely occurrence here on slashdot gave me an opportunity to raise something that i believe needs to be said.
thank you for replying because there will be so many people who will look at this thread and _not_ reply and _still_ think what you thought [but actually wrote it down].
so i'll iterate it again, explicitly: my replies to this article are NOTHING to do per se with the bridges article.
my replies are purely to raise a point that i believe is very important, and this seemed like an opportune moment to mention that point.
and that point is simple: that there seems to be more focus, in the FOSS world, on "because i can" rather than "because i should" or "because it will help people".
self-gratification rather than selfless acts.
we "give to charity" but we know what happens to _that_. why not make it much more concrete by giving our _time_ to develop _useful_ free software?
[p.s. - my wife says i'm being pompous again ROTFL]
Sucks the way the glass tends to be half empty, doesn't it? ... tell me about it :)
:)
:) ... i think it sensible (like i did in one of my other replies to this thread) to refer you here:
2 8/2058251&tid=146&tid=14
okay. i made sure that i included some words that would sting, because it tends to get the point across: the back-lash at least gets people talking
hey, if i went on about how wonderful free software developers _all_ are, would you believe me? and the gun-toting thing has been done already...
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/
and perhaps leave it at that. other than to say thank you for replying: i _really_ appreciate different viewpoints when i go out on a limb (again) to attempt to shock people [into acting or thinking of things from a different angle].
responsibility to whom? interesting question that invites clarification, as it may not be obvious.
responsibility to those people who do _not_ have the same level of technical ability as you, nor the knowledge that you have, opportunities that you have, or even enough food to keep their strength up enough _to_ learn.
responsibility to those people for whom it's a day-to-day struggle to _live_ let alone focus on how to switch on a computer or worry about where the electricity is going to come from, even before they've got to the point about what do _do_ with the computer when it works.
and when it works - does the computer (and its software) do the job that they need? does it help build up the infrastructure that they need, in order to dig themselves out of a third world situation?
[did you _read_ the bridges article all the way through?]
is that clear enough, now?
so, the million dollar question is: do _you_ have the time to spend a _little_ of your intelligence and creative abilities to develop the kinds of computer programs that will HELP PEOPLE.
and it doesn't just apply to people in the third world: this argument (with less stark consequences of course) applies equally as well to those people in business who are almost entirely dependent on microsoft - in the _first_ world as well.
is that clear enough, now?
Am I missing something? Samba was developed by a bunch of (ignorant? arrogant?) free software developers.
2 8/2058251&tid=146&tid=14 for hints.
yes, you are missing something [which has nothing to do with my original post].
see http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/
message to the person [people] who modded this comment down: it stings, doesn't it?
you want to be one of the people who "buries" painfully insightful comments?
go ahead.
got your attention? good.
in 1997, i did a talk on samba. when the question asked was "why should we bother to interoperate with proprietary protocols when we are [clever enough] to write our own and we don't _need_ to interoperate [with microsoft]", everybody clapped.
that was a _very_ interesting and defining moment, because it told me that everyone in that room lacked any sense of responsibility associated with their intelligence, capabilities, and the opportunities that their education and environment had presented them.
now, there's someone here at bridges.org pointing out that Free Software is pretty much useless to people who need it the most.
i hope that this article will bring that home more clearly - that the ignorance and ego [definition of arrogance] of free software developers needs to go.
if you HAVE the ability, ACCEPT the responsibility.
... i don't understand.
this could _so_ easily be real.
1) NT is a Mach Kernel, and has _three_ subsystems that i know of - POSIX, OS/2 and Win32. the POSIX subsystem has been implemented once by microsoft and independently by opennt.com (can't find them any more).
2) Cooperative Linux is a port of linux to userspace as a Win32 application.
it would actually be pretty sodding easy and doable.
... this will no longer be a problem.
lock down the machine: ban games, and any other apps which are not "approved".
oh, darn. it's a windows-related article. *thinks*... let's start again.
Subject: when SE/Linux takes over the wooorld...
this will no longer be a problem...
yeh, that makes about 70 hours a week.
gotta do mahhh johb...
the .aspx extension should give you a clue :)
the ability to _find_ useful nodes decreases with the quantity of nodes.
that's what makes google so valuable: the ability to provide a "meta" node-set.
Expert-Zone posted another one on how OSS must learn to take responsibility on its great success."
where is the "must" in not being _paid_ to work on OSS?
okay.
:)
BBC starts from assumption that all PCs have software installed that makes it capable of displaying sound and video over the internet.
that's a fuck right up from the word go.
so let's assume that iWhacks, MAC OS/1, BeOS, FreeBSD, Atari ST500s and BBC Micros (the ones with the ARM processor) are all capable of viewing video and listening to sound, over the internet.
great. so the BBC must first fund [patent-unencumbered!] free software development of video and sound compression and broadcasting technology, in order to guarantee that the technology is available across all platforms.
that sounds good to me.
so your computer _is_ capable, your OS _is_ capable, but you choose _not_ to install capable software: will the BBC force people to pay a license fee just because your PC is _capable_ of being used to view video, listen to sound, and be connected to the internet?
mmm
less heat generated. more bang per watt.
no, it takes more than being a billionaire.
i know of at least one person whose total finances are not known, but are underestimated to be $0.5bn, who is one of the most evil money-grabbing people who will stop at nothing to make more money that i have ever encountered.
incredibly, he even used the death of his son to attempt to bargain and negotiate for discounts - including over the price of his son's gravestone.
from a shop in cambridge calling itself the "army and navy", i purchased some police-issue handcuffs.
i put them on my bike around the handlebars and the frame because when going along the road, they dinged against the frame and told people i was coming [when travelling at 20-30mph along streets in cambridge, people tend to step out unless there's sound warning them...]
policemen in cambridge tended to find this amusing.
then i went to the US, and took my handcuffs with me. and a pair of dress making scissors, in my small rucksack.
"do you have anything in your possession that could be used as a weapon?"
[the handcuffs were strapped to the bike, cost $75 in oversize shipping].
"i have some dress-making scissors..."
"could you show them to me?"
eeeuw, yukkk... i hadn't looked in that compartment since the washing up liquid had leaked, two years ago. out they came - into the box with the bicycle, never to be seen again...
anyway - off i went to seek my fortune in atlanta.
the handcuffs came off the bike, and i attached them, this being america, to my laptop bag. i thought it would be funny to look like my bag was important enough to need to be secured to my wrist.
i had begun travelling regularly around the states, and gotten into the habit of taking only carry-on luggage. when i had to return to the UK, i was able to go straight to the checkin desk.
the mentality of international flights is presumed that you will have lots of luggage - i had my computer and the aforementioned rucksack, the one filled with washing up liquid.
only when i got to the boarding gate did i think, hm, nobody's asked me any security questions, so i pointed this out, and was asked to step aside for a minute.
a very nice man came up to me and started going through the security questions.
"did you pack those bags yourself [yes], have they been with you at all times [no, my friends kept them in the car boot when we went for a coffee], are you carring anything that could be used as a weapon?"
now, i deliberately answer these questions honestly - the reason being that it is a criminal offense to lie to a government-appointed official. so i answered this, like all other questions, truthfully.
"well, i _do_ have a pair of handcuffs attached to my computer bag..." which i had forgotten about, to be absolutely honest.
well, they even went to the lengths of asking the pilot if he minded if my bag was kept separate from the rest of the passengers, and in the end my pathetic-sized rucksack (35 litre) after being thoroughly searched ended up in the hold, with the handcuffs in it.
_that_ would cause some merriment going through the x-rays.
i think the reason they let me on the plane is because i had been honest. the point of the security questions is to _get_ people to think, "are you bringing or could you have, without your knowledge, been given anything on board that someone _else_ could use to compromise the security of the plane?"
both the scissors and the handcuffs disappeared
Sponsored Links
Test your Linux smarts and identify your Red Hat training course level with our free pre-assesment tests.
It is time to port your Unix or Linux application over to Windows?
Tune in to Interoperability Month and win a Portable Media Center.
somebody bittorrent it - next time _before_ announcing it on slashdot, please.