When it comes to making predictions regarding technology, it is typically much safer to predict the possibility of something than the impossibility of it. Human ingenuity is truly amazing.
Perhaps that's what makes all these old predictions about talking, thinking computers so intriguing. Computers have advanced in so many ways as people have boldly predicted (perhaps the most astounding of which is that Moore's Law continues to hold true), yet AI has accomplished very little. And unfortunately, speech recognition and AI (which might be the same) are probably the most important for making computers truly useful for the ordinary end users that don't have to time to learn complex interfaces.
Give me a company that sells support over one that sells software any day.
Here's a financial analysis of Red Hat.
The question of using the GPL for flagship software is not one of morality or ethics but one of financial practicality. Red Hat has lost $0.72 per share in the last 4 quarters, which is quite a bit considering that they've never once turned a profit.
IANAL, but the GPL was not originally intended nor is well suited for the corporate world. What that world needs is a good balance between the free as in freedom and the ability to turn a profit. A license agreement that would allow such a beneficial compromise would be invaluable.
Oh, maybe you thought that just because it is somewhat easier to snoop internet traffic that it is therefore OK. The whole point of protections against unwarranted search and seizure is to say that the authorities aren't even allowed to try.
I make no argument about the moral correctness of snooping. Personally, I like nearly every court case that restricts the power of the government. However, my point is that in terms of how the court will interpret the relevant laws regarding this matter, it's not obvious.
The phone network is highly regulated in the laws, and the Internet is not. In addition, packets may be sent whichever direction on the Internet in order to arrive at their destination. The sender has no control over who gets to see the packets. It seems that yes, there is indeed a difference that the courts may rule differently.
This is by no means an obvious case. The difference between intercepting Internet communications and, say, communications on a phone line, is that the Internet is inherently unsafe, and information is publicly available. Every packet you send can be examined along each router through which is passes.
I don't see the benefit(s) of language dependence in virtual machines. Why can't a VM have a simple instruction set (RISC-like) with a very basic API specification for I/O and other common services that are ultimately carried out by the OS?
What's the need to link VMs with OO and all the other hot buzzwords? Any popular compiled language and its standard libraries can compile onto nearly any popular (real) platform, and any interpreted language has similarly had its interpreters compiled onto all popular (real) platforms. Why not create a VM with a simple instruction set and API interface such that all the same compilers and interpreters can easily run on it without flaw? What's the point of putting language features into the working of the underlying machine?
Sounds like an interesting article, but I didn't click on the link to read it for fear than I was infringing on somebody's hard earned patent.
First I had use lynx so that I wouldn't inadvertantly see any GIFS, but I suppose now I'll have to find a text-based browser that doesn't show any hyperlinks as well.
Being three meals away from revolution is nothing new and nothing specific to 9/11. Yeah, so the saying is clever but the actual number of meals is probably a little greater than three. The point, however, is that if a group of terrorists attempted to capitalize on this general notion, then there could be a profound effect amongst regular citizens.
The two most basic human needs are food/drink and security. You take away both of those and people will not be idle. They will take it upon themselves to fill those needs whichever ways possible.
I played Castles way back in the day in which its 320x200x256 graphics were quite amazing and there did not seem to be a game quite like it. I realize that Castles was not an RTS game as they are cut with the cookie cutters these days, but that game was one of the first that combined SimCity-like construction along with militaristic planning.
And the computer always had more units than you, too.
Pretty cool! It's always nice to be reminded that we're merely on a big rock hurling through space and how seemingly fragile our planet is. It's also nice to see a map without national or other man made borders on it.
It is not the case that computers are not useful or helpful to most people. Rather, the Web has brought about a revolutionary change in people's lives. We now have too much information as opposed to too little information. It is true that computers need improvement in how people interface with them, but the improvement is in letting people sift quickly and accurately through the abundance of information and do what they need to do. It is not fair to generalize all advancements in the last decade as worthless.
You make an interesting point with which I agree. There are undoubtedly countless possible techniques for spreading fear. One of my personal favorite examples is poisoning public food and water supplies for a few medium sized cities. How hard would it be to contaminate the water supply of Anytown, USA and kill 50 000? We're only three meals away from revolution anyway, and I think most people would simply crack if they did not know from where they could find their next meal.
You're right; if a small group of people were truly committed, it would not be too difficult.
But what is the point of worrying? There is significant risk all around us (e.g., getting in or near an automobile), and there is nothing one can do about it and live a normal, sane life. We have nothing to fear but fear itself, truly.
I've discovered from personal experience that using Google or your favorite all-purpose search engine to search for existing sample code out there on the web is a great way to learn new Win32 programming techniques. This is a major advantage of Windows programming; it's more mainstream so finding example application code that is easy to read and understand is quite easy. If you're a learn-by-example kind of programmer, then I highly recommend it.
Of course, a comprehensive online reference such as MSDN or what Borland packages with their Builder suites is also good for quickly looking up function prototypes and descriptions.
Following the Sept.11 attacks on America, Congress passed the USA Patriot Act, which expand the ability of law enforcement to hunt for terrorists.
"People can rant and rave on the Internet all they want, but when they cross the line of calling people to action to violently overthrow the Constitution of the United States, they have a problem," said McLaughlin.
Doesn't anyone else see this as, ironically, un-American? The U.S. forefathers may have intended the U.S. Constitution to be the law of the land, but they also believed that it was the duty of patriots to overthrow oppressive or tyranical government. Jefferson is quoted as saying that revolution is, in fact, needed every 20 years or so.
Perhaps the government has yet to reach a state of being overly oppressive or tyranical, but it seems that we Americans are becoming much too averse to risk and fearful of social change.
What the LoTR needs isn't creativity, it's craftsmanship. I want a movie that takes one of my favorite stories ever and recreates it faithfully. Accomplishing this task, in my opinion, would require more actual creativity than rewriting the story.
I agree with your opinion that LoTR doesn't need rewriting. I also agree that the movie is well done.
However, I believe that most of those who have replied to my original comment (as well as the moderators who have modded me as flamebait) have completely missed my original point. Perhaps if I hadn't been so rushed to get my post off so quickly (so that it would be at the top of the list) I would have communicated this better. Here goes.
There is a difference between a movie that does a great job meeting its objectives and audiences' expectations and a movie that is in itself great. It's one thing to do a job well and another thing to innovate.
LoTR the movie does a great job in what in seeks to do: to faithfully bring LoTR the books to the big screen. However, this does not break any new ground in Hollywood (other than perhaps on a few technical points such as raising CG standards).
LoTR the movie is probably about as good as it can be. However, epic movies have been around since Lawrence of Arabia and have become a genre. While epics remain entertaining, the format itself is no longer new. Similarly, the plot in LoTR poses nothing new for Hollywood nor do the stereotyped characters. Even the setting, while spectacularly filmed, is nothing new. Sure, the acting is near top notch, but none of the performances introduce anything new.
Here's my point: LoTR the movie is about as good as it could have been, and it may even win some nice awards (it should), but in the grand scheme of things, it has not introduced any new ideas that will change Hollywood (except that hopefully they'll start taking other fantasy/sci-fi books and series and adapting them for the silver screen).
LoTR is good but not great. It does a great job of bringing a mainstream story to the silver screen, but it doesn't introduce any new concepts or demonstrate any real creativity. This makes it a good film.
Go ahead and flame me for this.
Slashdot Mirror
... that way I'll be "too gross."
This sig is false.
When it comes to making predictions regarding technology, it is typically much safer to predict the possibility of something than the impossibility of it. Human ingenuity is truly amazing.
Perhaps that's what makes all these old predictions about talking, thinking computers so intriguing. Computers have advanced in so many ways as people have boldly predicted (perhaps the most astounding of which is that Moore's Law continues to hold true), yet AI has accomplished very little. And unfortunately, speech recognition and AI (which might be the same) are probably the most important for making computers truly useful for the ordinary end users that don't have to time to learn complex interfaces.
This sig is false.
Give me a company that sells support over one that sells software any day.
Here's a financial analysis of Red Hat.
The question of using the GPL for flagship software is not one of morality or ethics but one of financial practicality. Red Hat has lost $0.72 per share in the last 4 quarters, which is quite a bit considering that they've never once turned a profit.
IANAL, but the GPL was not originally intended nor is well suited for the corporate world. What that world needs is a good balance between the free as in freedom and the ability to turn a profit. A license agreement that would allow such a beneficial compromise would be invaluable.
Oh, maybe you thought that just because it is somewhat easier to snoop internet traffic that it is therefore OK. The whole point of protections against unwarranted search and seizure is to say that the authorities aren't even allowed to try.
I make no argument about the moral correctness of snooping. Personally, I like nearly every court case that restricts the power of the government. However, my point is that in terms of how the court will interpret the relevant laws regarding this matter, it's not obvious.
The phone network is highly regulated in the laws, and the Internet is not. In addition, packets may be sent whichever direction on the Internet in order to arrive at their destination. The sender has no control over who gets to see the packets. It seems that yes, there is indeed a difference that the courts may rule differently.
This is by no means an obvious case. The difference between intercepting Internet communications and, say, communications on a phone line, is that the Internet is inherently unsafe, and information is publicly available. Every packet you send can be examined along each router through which is passes.
I don't see the benefit(s) of language dependence in virtual machines. Why can't a VM have a simple instruction set (RISC-like) with a very basic API specification for I/O and other common services that are ultimately carried out by the OS?
What's the need to link VMs with OO and all the other hot buzzwords? Any popular compiled language and its standard libraries can compile onto nearly any popular (real) platform, and any interpreted language has similarly had its interpreters compiled onto all popular (real) platforms. Why not create a VM with a simple instruction set and API interface such that all the same compilers and interpreters can easily run on it without flaw? What's the point of putting language features into the working of the underlying machine?
Sounds like an interesting article, but I didn't click on the link to read it for fear than I was infringing on somebody's hard earned patent.
First I had use lynx so that I wouldn't inadvertantly see any GIFS, but I suppose now I'll have to find a text-based browser that doesn't show any hyperlinks as well.
Being three meals away from revolution is nothing new and nothing specific to 9/11. Yeah, so the saying is clever but the actual number of meals is probably a little greater than three. The point, however, is that if a group of terrorists attempted to capitalize on this general notion, then there could be a profound effect amongst regular citizens.
The two most basic human needs are food/drink and security. You take away both of those and people will not be idle. They will take it upon themselves to fill those needs whichever ways possible.
I played Castles way back in the day in which its 320x200x256 graphics were quite amazing and there did not seem to be a game quite like it. I realize that Castles was not an RTS game as they are cut with the cookie cutters these days, but that game was one of the first that combined SimCity-like construction along with militaristic planning.
And the computer always had more units than you, too.
Pretty cool! It's always nice to be reminded that we're merely on a big rock hurling through space and how seemingly fragile our planet is. It's also nice to see a map without national or other man made borders on it.
It is not the case that computers are not useful or helpful to most people. Rather, the Web has brought about a revolutionary change in people's lives. We now have too much information as opposed to too little information. It is true that computers need improvement in how people interface with them, but the improvement is in letting people sift quickly and accurately through the abundance of information and do what they need to do. It is not fair to generalize all advancements in the last decade as worthless.
You make an interesting point with which I agree. There are undoubtedly countless possible techniques for spreading fear. One of my personal favorite examples is poisoning public food and water supplies for a few medium sized cities. How hard would it be to contaminate the water supply of Anytown, USA and kill 50 000? We're only three meals away from revolution anyway, and I think most people would simply crack if they did not know from where they could find their next meal.
You're right; if a small group of people were truly committed, it would not be too difficult.
But what is the point of worrying? There is significant risk all around us (e.g., getting in or near an automobile), and there is nothing one can do about it and live a normal, sane life. We have nothing to fear but fear itself, truly.
I've discovered from personal experience that using Google or your favorite all-purpose search engine to search for existing sample code out there on the web is a great way to learn new Win32 programming techniques. This is a major advantage of Windows programming; it's more mainstream so finding example application code that is easy to read and understand is quite easy. If you're a learn-by-example kind of programmer, then I highly recommend it.
Of course, a comprehensive online reference such as MSDN or what Borland packages with their Builder suites is also good for quickly looking up function prototypes and descriptions.
From the article:
Following the Sept.11 attacks on America, Congress passed the USA Patriot Act, which expand the ability of law enforcement to hunt for terrorists.
"People can rant and rave on the Internet all they want, but when they cross the line of calling people to action to violently overthrow the Constitution of the United States, they have a problem," said McLaughlin.
Doesn't anyone else see this as, ironically, un-American? The U.S. forefathers may have intended the U.S. Constitution to be the law of the land, but they also believed that it was the duty of patriots to overthrow oppressive or tyranical government. Jefferson is quoted as saying that revolution is, in fact, needed every 20 years or so.
Perhaps the government has yet to reach a state of being overly oppressive or tyranical, but it seems that we Americans are becoming much too averse to risk and fearful of social change.
What the LoTR needs isn't creativity, it's craftsmanship. I want a movie that takes one of my favorite stories ever and recreates it faithfully. Accomplishing this task, in my opinion, would require more actual creativity than rewriting the story.
I agree with your opinion that LoTR doesn't need rewriting. I also agree that the movie is well done.
However, I believe that most of those who have replied to my original comment (as well as the moderators who have modded me as flamebait) have completely missed my original point. Perhaps if I hadn't been so rushed to get my post off so quickly (so that it would be at the top of the list) I would have communicated this better. Here goes.
There is a difference between a movie that does a great job meeting its objectives and audiences' expectations and a movie that is in itself great. It's one thing to do a job well and another thing to innovate.
LoTR the movie does a great job in what in seeks to do: to faithfully bring LoTR the books to the big screen. However, this does not break any new ground in Hollywood (other than perhaps on a few technical points such as raising CG standards).
LoTR the movie is probably about as good as it can be. However, epic movies have been around since Lawrence of Arabia and have become a genre. While epics remain entertaining, the format itself is no longer new. Similarly, the plot in LoTR poses nothing new for Hollywood nor do the stereotyped characters. Even the setting, while spectacularly filmed, is nothing new. Sure, the acting is near top notch, but none of the performances introduce anything new.
Here's my point: LoTR the movie is about as good as it could have been, and it may even win some nice awards (it should), but in the grand scheme of things, it has not introduced any new ideas that will change Hollywood (except that hopefully they'll start taking other fantasy/sci-fi books and series and adapting them for the silver screen).
LoTR is good but not great. It does a great job of bringing a mainstream story to the silver screen, but it doesn't introduce any new concepts or demonstrate any real creativity. This makes it a good film. Go ahead and flame me for this.