Maybe this is because under capitalism every decision is a compromise between rival power structures, while good engineering is an open discource between co-operating equals? (Compare Windows vs. Open Source)
And do you think that under socialism, there is less rivalry between competing power structures? To what extend have Russian scientists have had a true open discourse to resolve conflicting viewpoints, as opposed to the Party dictating the 'truth' of the moment? Under the socialists, mistakes were buried rather than learned-from.
Look up some time why the Buran was grounded after one test flight. Hint: it wasn't for technical or economical reasons.
A Russian-style space agency could very well function under a capitalist government. The problems that NASA has would have existed under a socialist government, too. Their success or failure cannot be attributed solely to the way their respective governments work.
Hmm not just one but two silly statements that need to be addressed here.
1) If socialism is such a good way to undertake large projects such as space programmes, how come so many of the other large-scale undertakings in socialist countries have, to put it in popular terms, sucked donkeyballs? If anything, socialism has been the cause of a number of failures of the Russian space program, due to strict adherence to unrealistic schedules. Of course, capitalist organisations fall victim to the same trap from time to time.
I think the Russian space program has been successful because of the way the program and associated design bureaus have been set up. That has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism, but with common sense.
2) OSS is not socialism. In addition, I do not think that you can say that OSS has a clear advantage over commercial software, on the strength of one prominent example (Linux). Many OSS products are merely 'adequate' rather than 'best of class'.
State socialism is evil, in the sense that it robs individuals of the freedom of choice. In contrast, an individualist society allows its members to associate how and with whom they want, which includes the right to form a fully socialistic sub-group. The difference between an individualist society and a collectivist one, is that socialists are allowed to be socialists in an individualist society (they do not have the right to rob unwilling victims, though). A socialistic society however does not allow its members to opt out, except by leaving the society altogether, and that is not always an option either (Berlin wall).
Ahh yes, universal broadband, complete with government beaurocracy, paid for by taxpayers, funneled directly to the wallets of media industry campaign contributors' wallets.
However horrendous the service that state companies or state-run programmes provide, there is one thing that they are actually quite good and even efficient at (at least over here): building and running a public infrastructure. State companies so far have been able to provide excellent infrastructure for electricity, telephony, gas, and public transport.
Since a few decades, more and more of such utilities have been turned into private enterprise. The result? Prices have not gone down a lot, and in some cases (railways), the physical infrastructure has suffered. The notable success of privatisation has been in the level and quality of service, something that state companies are notoriously bad at. So all in all, I do think privatisation has been a success.
I'm very much a believer in the free market, but I think that there is something to be said for state-run infrastructure: for example, a high-speed Internet network to every door. Let private enterprise provide the backbone networks, the services, and so on, but let a state-run company take care of the connection to each house. Our government should have done this with the old telephony network... paid-for by taxpayers, but now in the hands of the formerly state-run PTT, who wilfully and blatantly frustrate any attempt by other companies to enter in the voice telephony business, since that is still their own core business as well. Mark my words: if one company is offered the job of hooking up everyone to this fast Internet (or perhaps everyone in a particular region), you will see that they or a sister company will want to undertake offering the actual Internet service to customers as well... it will be in their own best business interests to thwart other companies offering competitive services.
Clamping is villainous:-) Considering the hassle and expense of getting a clamp removed, I consider it harassment. In fact, it's meant to be harassment. As such, it is a punishment that far exceeds the seriousness of the crime. If you park without paying, you should get a ticket. If you park where you're in the way, your car should be towed... not to annoy you, but to get rid of the car.
Angle-grinder man's methods may not be the right way to get things changed, but hopefully his antics will receive some more attention. His main problem is that he's just one guy. For some reason, if you're in a group of some minimum size, you get away with anything (like breaking into military bases), but if you're less than the minimum number, they treat you like a vandal or troublemaker rather than giving you the exalted status of 'activist'.
The cellphone companies here in the Netherlands have already recognised the value of 'nice' or easy-to-remember numbers, and you have to pay extra for the so-called 'silver' or 'gold' numbers.
1) Looks like you and your manager are part of that 1%. Most other people do not care as long as it works. And yes, that includes mission-critical business stuff. Corporations trust that Microsoft will continue to support their products or make future ones backward compatible. Microsoft's track record shows very few instances of them breaking backward-compatibility (although I am sure you can find a few examples).
2) You work with what works for you. If you can't choose hardware and Windows runs crappy on what you have, then use another OS. If you like Windows a lot but it runs crappy on certain systems, buy other systems that will properly run it. We have a variety of brands and models of computers in our office, and Windows runs most satisfactory on them. We use Linux as well... where it makes sense.
3) Strangely, Linux typically "just works". So does Windows XP. For most uses, the default Windows XP drivers are adequate for a wide range of hardware. The number one reason to upgrade the drivers on Windows is for bleeding edge games support...
5) Easy to backup, easy to restore, easy to understand, etc. Tell that to my mother... most users aren't capable of, or interested in, editing config files. But most of them are able to install and administer their Windows box on their own. (Viruses and security aside, but that is another matter. We're talking about installing the OS and applications here).
Heh, if they're letting the religion evolve and change, why is it called judaism?
Didn't some open-source religions exist in England in the early middle ages? Something along the lines of "there are no gods but which we make ourselves". The idea that the truth about the Gods is whatever we believe it to be: it doesn't get any more open-source than that:)
Re:Or, this can IMPROVE your car
on
Hack Your Car
·
· Score: 1
Consider the products from TechnoMotive [tmo.com]. You can add security so that the engine will only start if you tap a secret code on the gas pedal.
How useful is this, really? Most modern cars already have very good security, ie. they will only start if the (eeeevil) RFID thingy in the ignition key is detected. According to the police, the security is so good that most car thieves will just swap out the car electronics with a hacked version... but by far the most popular method for stealing expensive cars is to break into your house first and simply take the keys!
..diamond would be as cheap as sand...
Diamonds already are worth about as much as sand, except that de Beers has pretty much all of them, and they charge what they like...
Some dutch artists are trying to influence the government into changing the law here to go after the downloaders as well.
Actually they weren't that specific, they just wanted their interests looked after, and saw downloading and CD swapping as a threat.
But it's the right direction to take: go ahead and make downloading and distribution of copyrighted material illegal... but don't ban P2P, don't mandate DRM, and don't take away our rights in the process, the rights to make backups, to convert digital content to the medium of our choice (Ripping Cd's for playing on an Ipod for example), and don't mess with our privacy either. The goal does not justify the means.
No. It demonstrates that the worldwide MMORPG is not saturated. For English speakers, though, there are plenty of MMORPGs available (I'll leave the question of whether they're good or not to others).
Unfortunately, the MMORPG market seems to be locked into a painful, stagnating track. Specifically, everyone sees the success of Everquest and wants to attract the people who like that game. Thus, every game seems to be emulating EQ with relatively minor tweaks
I think the potential MMORPG market is immense. There are plenty of people who would enjoy such a game, if they were introduced to a) computers, b) gaming in general, and c) online gaming. I know a few people who were pushed through that path by their husband or wife, and (to their own surprise) found great enjoyment ini playing MMORPGs.
The Sims Online tried to tap some of this market. Despite its failure, the game managed to draw in something of a new crowd; people who weren't big on RPGs or online gaming.
I see two opportunities for MMORPG companies:
1) Market expansion a la Sims Online: attracting more of the mainstream crowd. That doesn't mean writing a game that everyone likes; it means writing a game that has appeal outside the current MMORPG player base.
2) Separation and rationalisation of the graphics engine, game world functions, support, and billing function. As the player base widens, I think it will be increasingly hard to develop a game that has appeal to everyone. Instead, if you have a generic (but evolving) game world engine, a single billing and support entity, and flexible graphics engines, then you will be able to develop and run multiple MMORPGs at a lower cost. You may be able to profitably run a niche-market game for perhaps 20.000 subscribers, if you have 10 such games. That way, you'll be able to tailor each game to the wants of a small group of players, rather than being forced financially to write a game that tries to be everything to everyone.
An old adage that governments would be well-served to heed is: You get what you pay for. When you rely on free or low-cost products, you often get the shaft, and that, in my opinion, is exactly what governments are on track to get.
So far, I think the track records of currently existing operating systems speak for themselves: one particular popular commercial operating system (yes, that one) makes the news almost weekly with another gaping security hole, exploit, or worm doing the rounds. On the other hand, you don't hear a lot about security issues with (wonderfully-free) Linux systems, despite their widespread use as servers.
A number of governmental institution have chosen Linux not because it is free, but because of another distinct advantage: because it is open-source, they know what they pay for.
Apparently they had brought in an "Exchange Expert" to fix the problem. The guy spent about 2 days out there and didn't get anything done.
... It took me 4 hours to fix it, nice little chunk o change in my pocket. Thanks MyDoom!
Sounds like the Exchange expert was the smarter person... het gets to bill for 2 days of work! Plus, he didn't fix it so he was probably looking at some more work... until you ruined that for him!;-)
Get some good real-time video processing stuff... and hack into the mirror system, so that, for example, a person would see her own likeness slowly take on a disturbing sneer, with red glowing eyes. Watch them bolt for the door in a panic!
Do hardened capatalists actually succeed when they try to convince the public that something free and welcoming to public scrutiny is a bad thing?
No, but they don't have to: most of the public doesn't give a toss about the wider political issues around this case, or even about the case itself.
Something that is scary rather than humorous, is that they are convincing some politicians. It's the same line of reasoning used in many other cases: what is good for us is good for the economy!
1) "Free software is unfair competition against the products that we businesspeople offer" (or: "we need software patents to protect our inventions!", or insert your favorite cause here.)
2) "If you make legislation against [insert special interest issue], you are hurting our business. Not just our company, really, but the entire economy is at stake!!!111one"
3) "If the economy goes bad, voters will hate you"
You'll find this line of reasoning is used often when business, or indeed any special interest, lobbies with politicians
If they can make a show like South Park, or even Beavis & Butthead (which is 2-minute snippets interspersed with video clips) into a movie, then the Simpsons should be no problem.
I wouldn't know about computers and network cards and such, but as for what software to use: ask the marketing department (if you have one)!
If you can find out why your customers would need a 2,5Ghz link, and find the software that would demonstrate that your offering meets that need, you'll have no trouble selling it to them.
We are in the middle of a jobless recovery, nearly 50 million don't have health insurance, and people are starting to roll off of unemployemnt benefits.
During bad times, which nation do you think will be more able to overcome adversity? The nation with a vision, not afraid to spend resources or even risk lives on new, unproven endeavours? Or the nation that insists on first fixing the problems of today?
It is the first nation that will prosper during both the good times and the bad. By trying new things and discovering new knowledge, they are better able to handle their existing problems as well. Going to Mars will not fix the economy of itself, but it may very well help the recovery. If anything, it isn't going to hurt the economy a lot: compared to the total budget, NASA doesn't take a lot, and much of the money goes towards useful jobs or research.
The second nation is doomed to forever live in caves or grass huts, never contemplating building houses of wood or stone, at least not before the leaks in the existing huts are fixed, the mammoth pen is repaired, Llugs broken leg is splinted and healed, or before the hungry children of the next village are properly fed. You will be able to forever find more 'pressing' problems looming behind the ones you just fixed; insisting to fix all of them will get you nowhere,
I just wonder what this trains people to do in society?
Nothing they didn't do already. Some people feel that attack is the best option when they think they are somehow wronged at the post office, tailgated at a traffic light, or whatever. As soon as they have a conflict, they start with shouting, abuse and threats.
Good suggestion. I have never noticed any blatant cheating, and if you know which server to visit, you will find a reasonably mature crowd to play with (behaving maturely that is, not necessarily being of age).
Another pro is that it runs reasonably well on dated equipment. It worked just fine on my 1Ghz machine with an older graphics card.
Especially if you want to continue to run your business on the side. Most employers take a dim view on that and their contracts may reflect that view. Have a lawyer check the contract, both for IP ownership-related issues, and how the contract affects your current business activities.
Don't be afraid to suggest and negotiate changes to your contract. They prefer that you sign the default one, since any changes will probably have to be okay'd by their lawyer, but if they really want you they might be amendable. I've never signed an employment contract without having made some changes first... incidentally, I made the changes myself, but had them checked by a lawyer afterwards.
Oh and don't fall for the old traps, like "We just want you to sign the standard contract; company policy, you know? Of course we don't actually enforce this". Or the rather popular "Don't you trust us?". You're entering into a business agreement; if you rely on trust, it''ll probably come back to bite you one day.
Slashdot Mirror
Look up some time why the Buran was grounded after one test flight. Hint: it wasn't for technical or economical reasons.
A Russian-style space agency could very well function under a capitalist government. The problems that NASA has would have existed under a socialist government, too. Their success or failure cannot be attributed solely to the way their respective governments work.
Hmm not just one but two silly statements that need to be addressed here.
1) If socialism is such a good way to undertake large projects such as space programmes, how come so many of the other large-scale undertakings in socialist countries have, to put it in popular terms, sucked donkeyballs? If anything, socialism has been the cause of a number of failures of the Russian space program, due to strict adherence to unrealistic schedules. Of course, capitalist organisations fall victim to the same trap from time to time.
I think the Russian space program has been successful because of the way the program and associated design bureaus have been set up. That has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism, but with common sense.
2) OSS is not socialism. In addition, I do not think that you can say that OSS has a clear advantage over commercial software, on the strength of one prominent example (Linux). Many OSS products are merely 'adequate' rather than 'best of class'.
State socialism is evil, in the sense that it robs individuals of the freedom of choice. In contrast, an individualist society allows its members to associate how and with whom they want, which includes the right to form a fully socialistic sub-group. The difference between an individualist society and a collectivist one, is that socialists are allowed to be socialists in an individualist society (they do not have the right to rob unwilling victims, though). A socialistic society however does not allow its members to opt out, except by leaving the society altogether, and that is not always an option either (Berlin wall).
Since a few decades, more and more of such utilities have been turned into private enterprise. The result? Prices have not gone down a lot, and in some cases (railways), the physical infrastructure has suffered. The notable success of privatisation has been in the level and quality of service, something that state companies are notoriously bad at. So all in all, I do think privatisation has been a success.
I'm very much a believer in the free market, but I think that there is something to be said for state-run infrastructure: for example, a high-speed Internet network to every door. Let private enterprise provide the backbone networks, the services, and so on, but let a state-run company take care of the connection to each house. Our government should have done this with the old telephony network... paid-for by taxpayers, but now in the hands of the formerly state-run PTT, who wilfully and blatantly frustrate any attempt by other companies to enter in the voice telephony business, since that is still their own core business as well. Mark my words: if one company is offered the job of hooking up everyone to this fast Internet (or perhaps everyone in a particular region), you will see that they or a sister company will want to undertake offering the actual Internet service to customers as well... it will be in their own best business interests to thwart other companies offering competitive services.
Angle-grinder man's methods may not be the right way to get things changed, but hopefully his antics will receive some more attention. His main problem is that he's just one guy. For some reason, if you're in a group of some minimum size, you get away with anything (like breaking into military bases), but if you're less than the minimum number, they treat you like a vandal or troublemaker rather than giving you the exalted status of 'activist'.
But seriously, what would such a special reason be? Airshows?
1) Looks like you and your manager are part of that 1%. Most other people do not care as long as it works. And yes, that includes mission-critical business stuff. Corporations trust that Microsoft will continue to support their products or make future ones backward compatible. Microsoft's track record shows very few instances of them breaking backward-compatibility (although I am sure you can find a few examples).
2) You work with what works for you. If you can't choose hardware and Windows runs crappy on what you have, then use another OS. If you like Windows a lot but it runs crappy on certain systems, buy other systems that will properly run it. We have a variety of brands and models of computers in our office, and Windows runs most satisfactory on them. We use Linux as well... where it makes sense.
3) Strangely, Linux typically "just works". So does Windows XP. For most uses, the default Windows XP drivers are adequate for a wide range of hardware. The number one reason to upgrade the drivers on Windows is for bleeding edge games support...
5) Easy to backup, easy to restore, easy to understand, etc. Tell that to my mother... most users aren't capable of, or interested in, editing config files. But most of them are able to install and administer their Windows box on their own. (Viruses and security aside, but that is another matter. We're talking about installing the OS and applications here).
Nope, I'm from the Netherlands :)
I took the line from 'Futurama'... it is the motto of the Neutral Planet.
Heh, if they're letting the religion evolve and change, why is it called judaism?
:)
Didn't some open-source religions exist in England in the early middle ages? Something along the lines of "there are no gods but which we make ourselves". The idea that the truth about the Gods is whatever we believe it to be: it doesn't get any more open-source than that
..diamond would be as cheap as sand... Diamonds already are worth about as much as sand, except that de Beers has pretty much all of them, and they charge what they like...
But it's the right direction to take: go ahead and make downloading and distribution of copyrighted material illegal... but don't ban P2P, don't mandate DRM, and don't take away our rights in the process, the rights to make backups, to convert digital content to the medium of our choice (Ripping Cd's for playing on an Ipod for example), and don't mess with our privacy either. The goal does not justify the means.
The Sims Online tried to tap some of this market. Despite its failure, the game managed to draw in something of a new crowd; people who weren't big on RPGs or online gaming.
I see two opportunities for MMORPG companies:
1) Market expansion a la Sims Online: attracting more of the mainstream crowd. That doesn't mean writing a game that everyone likes; it means writing a game that has appeal outside the current MMORPG player base.
2) Separation and rationalisation of the graphics engine, game world functions, support, and billing function. As the player base widens, I think it will be increasingly hard to develop a game that has appeal to everyone. Instead, if you have a generic (but evolving) game world engine, a single billing and support entity, and flexible graphics engines, then you will be able to develop and run multiple MMORPGs at a lower cost. You may be able to profitably run a niche-market game for perhaps 20.000 subscribers, if you have 10 such games. That way, you'll be able to tailor each game to the wants of a small group of players, rather than being forced financially to write a game that tries to be everything to everyone.
A number of governmental institution have chosen Linux not because it is free, but because of another distinct advantage: because it is open-source, they know what they pay for.
Get some good real-time video processing stuff... and hack into the mirror system, so that, for example, a person would see her own likeness slowly take on a disturbing sneer, with red glowing eyes. Watch them bolt for the door in a panic!
Something that is scary rather than humorous, is that they are convincing some politicians. It's the same line of reasoning used in many other cases: what is good for us is good for the economy!
1) "Free software is unfair competition against the products that we businesspeople offer" (or: "we need software patents to protect our inventions!", or insert your favorite cause here.)
2) "If you make legislation against [insert special interest issue], you are hurting our business. Not just our company, really, but the entire economy is at stake!!!111one"
3) "If the economy goes bad, voters will hate you"
You'll find this line of reasoning is used often when business, or indeed any special interest, lobbies with politicians
If they can make a show like South Park, or even Beavis & Butthead (which is 2-minute snippets interspersed with video clips) into a movie, then the Simpsons should be no problem.
I wouldn't know about computers and network cards and such, but as for what software to use: ask the marketing department (if you have one)!
If you can find out why your customers would need a 2,5Ghz link, and find the software that would demonstrate that your offering meets that need, you'll have no trouble selling it to them.
It is the first nation that will prosper during both the good times and the bad. By trying new things and discovering new knowledge, they are better able to handle their existing problems as well. Going to Mars will not fix the economy of itself, but it may very well help the recovery. If anything, it isn't going to hurt the economy a lot: compared to the total budget, NASA doesn't take a lot, and much of the money goes towards useful jobs or research.
The second nation is doomed to forever live in caves or grass huts, never contemplating building houses of wood or stone, at least not before the leaks in the existing huts are fixed, the mammoth pen is repaired, Llugs broken leg is splinted and healed, or before the hungry children of the next village are properly fed. You will be able to forever find more 'pressing' problems looming behind the ones you just fixed; insisting to fix all of them will get you nowhere,
Anyway, at least they haven't digitally replaced all blasters with walkie-talkies.
Good suggestion. I have never noticed any blatant cheating, and if you know which server to visit, you will find a reasonably mature crowd to play with (behaving maturely that is, not necessarily being of age).
Another pro is that it runs reasonably well on dated equipment. It worked just fine on my 1Ghz machine with an older graphics card.
Especially if you want to continue to run your business on the side. Most employers take a dim view on that and their contracts may reflect that view. Have a lawyer check the contract, both for IP ownership-related issues, and how the contract affects your current business activities.
Don't be afraid to suggest and negotiate changes to your contract. They prefer that you sign the default one, since any changes will probably have to be okay'd by their lawyer, but if they really want you they might be amendable. I've never signed an employment contract without having made some changes first... incidentally, I made the changes myself, but had them checked by a lawyer afterwards.
Oh and don't fall for the old traps, like "We just want you to sign the standard contract; company policy, you know? Of course we don't actually enforce this". Or the rather popular "Don't you trust us?". You're entering into a business agreement; if you rely on trust, it''ll probably come back to bite you one day.