> Sending someone to report on conditions in some remote area of the world doesn't happen for free.
I used to think the same thing. Until this past Sunday when a TV station played the footage of the Meteor fireball..
That was an epiphany for me that posed the question of do we really need journalists to be sent out to where the news is?
In the days past, cameras were bulky and expensive, satellite up-links were required to upload content and needed entire van full of equipment to make that happen. You couldn't equip enough people - you needed a trained few.
When spontaneous events took place, all that could be mustered was a commentary and some interviews after the fact.
Yet, this last Sunday, someone filming a marathon on (presumably) their camera phone, caught the action live, uploaded it and the news stations picked it up. No need for after-the-fact commentary and interviews to 'recreate' what happened. We were able to see what actually happened - not an embellished recount of the events.
The TV station, in a small way, became the "chatterati" you speak of. They used footage from a person at the scene. Didn't have the send out reporters.
Now, take any part of the world.. why couldn't the people that are already there report it? Before the internet came along, the cost of sending someone there to get you the report was small compared to trying to equip someone that was already there and then to retrieve the material. Not anymore. People have access to usable cameras. Have the means to upload it to the internet. The internet has the ability to 'ship' it around the world.
You needed trained journalists because they were few (dictated by the resources needed to equip them, provide travel for them etc.) and needed the ability to cover wide range of events, topics etc. When you have everyone with the ability to 'report', presumably, they will be the familiar enough with the subject matter..
Anyhow, the sanctity of 'journalism', at least to me, is quickly eroding. Most news outlets don't have a 'journalist' to begin with - they have opinionated pundits who just found a bullhorn. But I digress.
That's probably the most rational thing I've heard on the topic.
I've always 'waited' for the likes of HP or Dell to start offering Linux. Time to say fuck 'em. Time to pony up and buy from vendors offering Linux from the get go. Maybe they'll grow to become the new HP/Dell - but with choices.
Cisco - ASA - Based on Linux A10 - Loadbalancer/Firewall - Has Linux Coyote Point - Loadbalancer - *BSD
And I'm sure several others.
If open source is good enough for Cisco to use for Firewalls that you'd need to secure your network, you'd think it's secure enough for the common man?
Any references where Windows was used for firewalls to secure the rest of the network?
I'm not sure if I'd take the combative approach but the point is that even if you went 'proprietary' and wiped out all open source servers, put windows on 'em - what would you put in front to firewall them? Another windows box? Or a Cisco ASA? So, did you really get rid of Open Source?
I hear what's being said but here's a scenario where anything other than a web delivered app is murder:
- We are a small company 300,000 people in some cases - *All* of their employees use us exactly *once* a year.
Imagine trying to install a desktop client across all continents (save for Antarctica), every year, for one use. (we do have feature upgrades that would call for redeployment).
How much leverage would we have to get that done? in time? none.
Web based? no problem. We get 5-10 calls for support. No additional deployment is needed since all their computers have browsers and access is controlled centrally by them.
Like most things in life, there is good and bad with web delivered app. Is it *the* solution in some cases? Absolutely? Is the *the* solution in *all* cases? Absolutely not. Figuring out when to use what is what the gray thing between the ears is for.
it might be interesting to note that I had windows on my wife's computer running well for almost a year and a half without problems. the trick was, I had her using FF in normal usage and IE only when she had to use her University's registration site which, for whatever reason, only worked in IE. It worked great for 1 1/2 years *without* AV or other software grinding the harddrive to a pulverized puff of magnetic particles.
over the thanksgiving break, we had a few guests and one of 'em, of course, clicked the all too familiar IE icon (should have removed that from the menus) and the system went to hell in no time.
anecdotal evidence but evidence nonetheless.
FF and informed usage - 1 1/2 years. IE - 1 day.
Both without AV.
(I refuse to turn the computer into a grinder for the sake of running an AV to make up for the deficiencies of the OS it's running under. Personally use GNU/Linux - have been since 1995).
but if he's all knowing, then he knew which way it would go. therefore, how it went was a foregone conclusion and therefore it was never free will. since he created us without free will but with eventual evil - he created evil. so not only is he unwilling to wipe out evil, he created evil.
This was on 'the daily show' last night. there was a guy who had written a book about the kamikaze pilots and the gist of it was that they were college students who were not recruited but drafted into service shortly after the US fleet showed up at the doorstep. no-one was happy at the prospect of having to sacrifice their lives with that level of certainty. they were given a crash-course (no pun intended) and were ordered to go on the mission. many flew back claiming they could not locate a target. none were doing it for the emperor or for god. in fact, most never even cared much for the emperor.
to reverse the situation a little, if there was a draft on in the US. the draftees were then told to go on a mission that was doomed. what choices would the draftees have? we can look at Gallipoli to find an example of similar circumstances.
my dad and i are both athiests. mom is not. as they head into the autumn of their lives he's been musing over a similar quandary. he's always played along with mom though so that should make it easy for him.
i have no such plans however. and i'm lucky to have a wife who goes along with me.
if anything, if i make any money, i plan to actually build an IPU 'church' to claim that as my religion and exercise my 'religious freedom'.
the concept of 'religious freedom' has always intrigued me since it explicitly grants the dismissal of N gods but not N-1 for *any set* of N as long as N > 1. it almost says you *have to* pick a god - any god will do. my money's on IPU. or the FSM. or both. i personally prefer the paradox of the invisible pink one.. but i digress.
The way I've always seen it is that to have a middle (that hopefully, you and I are in), you need two sides. MS and Co. are on one. GNU is on the other. Without the countering balance, there wouldn't be a middle. For a continuum to exist, there have to be two extremes. If one of the two extremes disappears in the continuum, the previously moderate position will now be the extreme position.
Don't completely agree with GNU. But damn glad it's there. It allows my position to be the moderate by having stretched the continuum.
Slashdot Mirror
> That was me. Must have hit AC by mistake
No, no.. the meteor didn't hit anything.. but thanks for flying by if it indeed was you.
> the lamest thing you could possibly put on a crocs head
Yeah, if you're affixing something to their heads, why not *airquotes* Lasers *airquotes* ?
> Sending someone to report on conditions in some remote area of the world doesn't happen for free.
I used to think the same thing. Until this past Sunday when a TV station played the footage of the Meteor fireball..
That was an epiphany for me that posed the question of do we really need journalists to be sent out to where the news is?
In the days past, cameras were bulky and expensive, satellite up-links were required to upload content and needed entire van full of equipment to make that happen. You couldn't equip enough people - you needed a trained few.
When spontaneous events took place, all that could be mustered was a commentary and some interviews after the fact.
Yet, this last Sunday, someone filming a marathon on (presumably) their camera phone, caught the action live, uploaded it and the news stations picked it up. No need for after-the-fact commentary and interviews to 'recreate' what happened. We were able to see what actually happened - not an embellished recount of the events.
The TV station, in a small way, became the "chatterati" you speak of. They used footage from a person at the scene. Didn't have the send out reporters.
Now, take any part of the world.. why couldn't the people that are already there report it? Before the internet came along, the cost of sending someone there to get you the report was small compared to trying to equip someone that was already there and then to retrieve the material. Not anymore. People have access to usable cameras. Have the means to upload it to the internet. The internet has the ability to 'ship' it around the world.
You needed trained journalists because they were few (dictated by the resources needed to equip them, provide travel for them etc.) and needed the ability to cover wide range of events, topics etc. When you have everyone with the ability to 'report', presumably, they will be the familiar enough with the subject matter..
Anyhow, the sanctity of 'journalism', at least to me, is quickly eroding. Most news outlets don't have a 'journalist' to begin with - they have opinionated pundits who just found a bullhorn. But I digress.
That's probably the most rational thing I've heard on the topic.
I've always 'waited' for the likes of HP or Dell to start offering Linux. Time to say fuck 'em. Time to pony up and buy from vendors offering Linux from the get go. Maybe they'll grow to become the new HP/Dell - but with choices.
> The topic is right; "the cameras do nothing". They are passive. Put as many up as you like, I don't mind.
I would like to put one up. In Daley's office.
Or that can work in reverse:
Closed Source - the expertest the company could afford to hire.
Open Source - the expertest anywhere in the world!
would you want him writing your ethernet drivers? or the cheapest outsourcing provider?
If I were in that situation, I'd cite:
Cisco - ASA - Based on Linux
A10 - Loadbalancer/Firewall - Has Linux
Coyote Point - Loadbalancer - *BSD
And I'm sure several others.
If open source is good enough for Cisco to use for Firewalls that you'd need to secure your network, you'd think it's secure enough for the common man?
Any references where Windows was used for firewalls to secure the rest of the network?
I'm not sure if I'd take the combative approach but the point is that even if you went 'proprietary' and wiped out all open source servers, put windows on 'em - what would you put in front to firewall them? Another windows box? Or a Cisco ASA? So, did you really get rid of Open Source?
damn, that screwed up my formatting:
it's supposed to be:
- we are a small company with less than 50 people
- our clients are companies with more than 300,000 people in some cases.
it ate up the < and > and everything in between
I hear what's being said but here's a scenario where anything other than a web delivered app is murder:
- We are a small company 300,000 people in some cases
- *All* of their employees use us exactly *once* a year.
Imagine trying to install a desktop client across all continents (save for Antarctica), every year, for one use. (we do have feature upgrades that would call for redeployment).
How much leverage would we have to get that done? in time? none.
Web based? no problem. We get 5-10 calls for support. No additional deployment is needed since all their computers have browsers and access is controlled centrally by them.
Like most things in life, there is good and bad with web delivered app. Is it *the* solution in some cases? Absolutely? Is the *the* solution in *all* cases? Absolutely not. Figuring out when to use what is what the gray thing between the ears is for.
Well then, I think I'll stick to my "fringe" OS. Thank you very much.
it might be interesting to note that I had windows on my wife's computer running well for almost a year and a half without problems. the trick was, I had her using FF in normal usage and IE only when she had to use her University's registration site which, for whatever reason, only worked in IE. It worked great for 1 1/2 years *without* AV or other software grinding the harddrive to a pulverized puff of magnetic particles.
over the thanksgiving break, we had a few guests and one of 'em, of course, clicked the all too familiar IE icon (should have removed that from the menus) and the system went to hell in no time.
anecdotal evidence but evidence nonetheless.
FF and informed usage - 1 1/2 years.
IE - 1 day.
Both without AV.
(I refuse to turn the computer into a grinder for the sake of running an AV to make up for the deficiencies of the OS it's running under. Personally use GNU/Linux - have been since 1995).
I seriously hope that this new administration will end the era where willful ignorance was a virtue.
free will implies uncertain outcome. which implies no knowledge of the outcome beforehand. which implies he is not all-knowing.
but if he's all knowing, then he knew which way it would go. therefore, how it went was a foregone conclusion and therefore it was never free will. since he created us without free will but with eventual evil - he created evil. so not only is he unwilling to wipe out evil, he created evil.
nice to see someone enjoy logic candy despite ones own position. nicely done.
> mathematically impossible
it's nice that science and math can be used when it's convenient.
> don't forget the Bible spoke to a Hebrew culture, 1500 years ago
thank you for pointing that out. now how about something that speaks to our culture here and now?
... and have the biggest deficit *ever* to show for it. just stating facts.
This was on 'the daily show' last night. there was a guy who had written a book about the kamikaze pilots and the gist of it was that they were college students who were not recruited but drafted into service shortly after the US fleet showed up at the doorstep. no-one was happy at the prospect of having to sacrifice their lives with that level of certainty. they were given a crash-course (no pun intended) and were ordered to go on the mission. many flew back claiming they could not locate a target. none were doing it for the emperor or for god. in fact, most never even cared much for the emperor.
to reverse the situation a little, if there was a draft on in the US. the draftees were then told to go on a mission that was doomed. what choices would the draftees have? we can look at Gallipoli to find an example of similar circumstances.
see this and this
remember, japan doesn't have a friendly neighbor to the north to take in asylum seekers.
my dad and i are both athiests. mom is not. as they head into the autumn of their lives he's been musing over a similar quandary. he's always played along with mom though so that should make it easy for him.
i have no such plans however. and i'm lucky to have a wife who goes along with me.
if anything, if i make any money, i plan to actually build an IPU 'church' to claim that as my religion and exercise my 'religious freedom'.
the concept of 'religious freedom' has always intrigued me since it explicitly grants the dismissal of N gods but not N-1 for *any set* of N as long as N > 1. it almost says you *have to* pick a god - any god will do. my money's on IPU. or the FSM. or both. i personally prefer the paradox of the invisible pink one.. but i digress.
> s/he
now, who the fuck are we kidding?
well, with this device, anyone using it to film porn is by definition a linux user getting lucky!
download google for mobile or some such. same thing.
The way I've always seen it is that to have a middle (that hopefully, you and I are in), you need two sides. MS and Co. are on one. GNU is on the other. Without the countering balance, there wouldn't be a middle. For a continuum to exist, there have to be two extremes. If one of the two extremes disappears in the continuum, the previously moderate position will now be the extreme position.
Don't completely agree with GNU. But damn glad it's there. It allows my position to be the moderate by having stretched the continuum.
> ... there is no law against being a Dick
Obviously
And don't be talking about Byte-Order-Markers. And no she's not the bomb either. Any such references, you will find, will have bombed.