My 333 mhz celeron overclocked to 415mhz, 128Mb ram, UDMA/33 HD, loads KDE from startx in about 13s. (no app sessions restored). This is just a stock Mandrake 7.2 installation, with some hdparm fiddling (-d1 -c1).
Sounds like a natural robotics guy. Get him a lego mindstorms kit if he's not got one already.
Teach him that different languages are used for different purposes and have different strengths. Show him Scheme, Forth, Smalltalk, assembly, perl, Prolog, C. Teach the concepts behind each, and let him play.
Teach him OS concepts as they come up. Show him how CPUs work. Make sure he's got access to an open OS so he can read the code and muck with it.
Actually doing things this way, one often finds other bugs in the code. It's kind of a forced code review. Other things that tend to come out of not using a debugger: more use of assertions to catch bad conditions, better unit testing, development of better tracing and logging mechanisms, and generally a habit of reflecting on new code after it is typed in.
The things I learned from programming a system without a debugger are priceless. Now, even with a debugger available, I still make use of most of these practices to develop, and it's been a blessing.
I agree and I'm surprised when people think consolidation is a bad thing. It usually means that the vendors aren't differentiating their products enough, or that the market prefers less choice, or someone isn't putting out competitive products. In any case the market gets what it wants, and hard:)
I worked once in a place like this. It sucked dead bunnies through a bent straw. I think of it as the "control" method of management. It works to a certain extent, but your good people tend to become unsatisfied and leave.... The opposite end of the spectrum is the "lead" method. In this you make sure everyone knows the goal, provide incentives, hire talented people, and have common code. Talented people just need direction, not control. They know when they are in over their head, you don't need to cage them in. And they inherently want challenges, give it to them.
I dunno, if someone was in my office "shouting out questions", I'd not be working there long, or I'd go postal, one of the two. This war room idea works out great for the guys who don't know anything, but the experienced people get too many interuptions and time wasted hand holding to remain productive.
Possibly the ideal is a common room, and everyone has a laptop. Rapid prototyping can happen in the war room, and once things have been settled, retire to your office and crank out the code.
Well I was going to write a treatise on communism, but this whole argument falls apart when you realize that Linux and/or OSS is neither a political system nor a political theory.
Even as an analogy, the comparision is pretty weak--my copy of linux is mine, no one can demand a copy of me. Nothing in the GPL says that you *must* make a copy on demand which is what the political system of communism would demand to be done (actually it would also say anybody should be able to use my computer, which is worse). You may be confused about the GPL conditions on redistribution. Read it some time and give it some thought.
Well if it's difficult for a multi-billion dollar corporation like Microsoft to do anything fresh, I don't feel it reflects too badly on the KDE people to make baby improvements over the windows interface. But somehow deep down I can't help feeling that the desktop metaphor is just a local maximum with respect to what could be done. It just isn't elegant. Example: Why does the desktop metaphor need a "show desktop" feature? Sure it makes it more usable, but surely there's a way to present things so that kind of quirk just isn't possible.
All right, as a rabid capitalist who uses Linux, I'll bite.
"both rely on the principle that working together as a community will produce better results than each man for himself"
I think any community of people could make this claim! The fatal flaw of communism is idea that the talented *must* sacrifice for the sake of the less talented, or the "common good". It brought everyone down to a least common denominator, and basically to get anything done they had to make exceptions under the table, which led to corruption, etc. This is obviously _NOT_ a good idea, IMO. Note there is no comparable forced sacrifice being made with open source. Any sacrifice being made is freely made.
"Windows is greatly superior to KDE/Gnome, and Solaris is better than Linux"
Superior according to whom? I use OSS because it's value to me is greater than what I paid to get it (the cost of some CDRs). For me, the cost of windows is too high for what I get. Part of the value of OSS to me is the ability to make changes and a greater access to authors. The value of something depends on the valuer.
"both perform poorly financially - Linux stocks have fallen through the floor"
I'm not sure I see the point. Linux companies are trying to make money from the services they provide. If they fail, Linux goes on. Linux does not require commercial support. It was born without it, and can go on without it.
"both are bad for humanity - Communism because it results in a lower standard of living for all, and Linux because it stifles innovation - everything in Linux is *copied* "
Well, again I don't see your point. First, no one is forcing *anyone* to use linux. If humanity doesn't want it, they won't use it. Communism was forced by a minority on the majority. And most of the minority was misled. Second, it is a rare innovation in computers that doesn't use 99.9% of the existing infrastructure and existing, working ideas.
"Linux is bad for humanity because it means people will no longer take Computer Science degrees"
Hmmm, first you argue that OSS doesn't compete, then you argue that it's in danger of wiping out CS jobs! No, it will force companies to develop more vertical, innovative, and high value solutions rather than copy cat, horizontal solutions that lock customers into the company.
"both are increasingly being discredited and look to be all but dead".
Even if this were true, I fail to see how this indicates a "fatal flaw". Linux and OSS does not need a commercial company to "succeed". What part of "free as in beer" escapes you?
"both seem to believe that making money is bad, and have successfully indoctrinated many people with the idea - something anyone would see is wrong"
I'm not sure who you are refering to exactly (except maybe RMS), since Linux as yet, does not think, but there is no contradiction between OSS and capitalism. Nothing about capitalism implies that *everything must* be exchanged for money, only that *everything can be*, as long as both sides agree on the price. What they do have in common is that they are both natural outgrowths of freedom. No one is forcing you to use or contribute to OSS, just as no one is forcing you to use and buy Windows. You make the choice based on what you get from them. For Windows, obviously a large part of the value is that so many other people use it, it automatically has value due to the fact that so many other people use it and send out documents that require windows applications to view them. Some of us have a problem with *that*, but not with making money.
"For more integer-oriented tasks, where there are few instructions with multiple operations, running eight operations per second is the theoretical maximum."
So what you're saying is that a basic human need is defined by what a human might need to get urgent medical care?....
- Someone just sold me an old junker, thank god the government provides the latest state of the art in air bags and emergency radio equipment. It must be expensive, but you know it's the government's job to make sure the authorities are notified via that radio when the airbags deploy. I could be lying there unconscious in the middle of nowhere, y'know. It's my basic human need at that point.
- Hmmm, I'm going to have some fun way out in the country. Thank god the government provides free cell phone service in case I need to be flown to a hospital with an appendicitus or something!
- I'm going downtown tonight, but I'll feel safe due to this government issued light weight kevlar bullet proof vest. I hear they're insanely expensive, but since it's a basic human need in that crime ridden area, I get it free!
- Gee, that water sure is polluted, and I hear there are sharks in there too! But I've got this government issued shark repellent and inflatable vest. And if I swallow some water, I've got these free antibiotics. Sure glad the government thinks of everything--These precautions are basic in that environment!
- You know, I hear I could get cancer from staying out in the sun so long and smoking these cigarettes. But if I get cancer, the government pays for the treatments. Getting the latest treatments is the least the government can do for me. I pay taxes!
- I used to feel so unsafe swimming at the beach, but you know it's my basic human need to get help when I need it, so the goverment is paying for a lifeguard every 300 yards!
And so on. Sorry, but getting subsidized phone service is just a little less silly. If it is a basic human need, then it is one we got along with just fine for most of human history. I don't even consider it something necessary for humans to flourish as opposed to just surviving. It's not much more than a convenience.
So basically you're saying we should place artificial costs on VOIP so that joe welfare can get excellent subsidized phone service? I'm sorry, but phone service just isn't a basic human need, last time I checked.
Could it possibly be the case that money freed from paying all those overpriced LD bills might actually be used to buy things, capitalize businesses, and expand the economy just enough to make it possible for joe to get off of the welfare dole. Naah...
No, they are losing out fairly. They will soon offer a service that has less value to me than I am paying for it, and they will no longer get my money.
I already pay for my phone access to my ISP. And I already pay for my ISP for my access to the internet. Fact is, as soon as it seems to be reasonably priced, I'll ditch my phone company for an all in one phone/internet access provider (I don't watch television, so I don't care about cable access).
The telcos are the buggy whip manufacturers of the 21st century. This is cruel and efficient capitalism at work. I wouldn't want it any other way.
Growing up in the middle of the US east coast, I had zero exposure to other languages. Television, radio, and newspapers were all english. Everyone around me spoke only english. There was a vacuum of other languages. My first exposure was a french language option at school at the age of 13. After learning some french, my skills eroded because I had no one to converse with and the usefulness of speaking french was not apparent to me at the time.
So, I'd say it is mainly isolation from other cultures which produces the mono-lingual american rather than intellectual laziness.
"Should she be denied the right to vote just because she cannot read the ballot that is printed in English?"
I assume that since she's a citizen, she is able to understand spoken english to some extent, so she can become educated on the issues via TV and discussions in her community. There is no rule against bringing materials into the voting booth, so she can simply mark off the candidates she wants to vote for and do pattern matching. I don't think your argument here holds water.
I personally think that English-only for everything is somewhat fascist, but I don't see any reason that government (all levels) documents should be printed in any language other than English. I don't quite follow the attitude that a country that I choose to live in should adapt to me. It's difficult to immigrate, surely, but I would have to make that choice with all the drawbacks in mind. One of those drawbacks is that my job opportunities would be limited without knowing the predominate language used in businesses of that country.
For a government, however, to require businesses to use a particular language however seems like a gross violation of individual freedom.
This attitude on the surface seems to be at odds with itself, but it is not. Contrary to popular believe it's not (the US) governments job to make everyone happy or even to make things equally easy for everyone. It is only supposed to delineate and maintain as much freedom for all citizens as possible. Making it easier for some citizens by extracting money from others doesn't really qualify, IMO. On the other hand there are many recent examples to the opposite, but I don't agree with any of them.
Does that make me barely to the left of a skinhead? Oh well. I prefer the term libertarian.
Well, I certainly can't remember the last time I actually _typed_ a URL, and if I type it wrong, well, whose fault is that? Whatever happened to taking responsibility for ones own actions?
The whole idea of people a priori "owning" a name--an address, a location--in this non-physical idea world that WE created seems to me to be completely ludicrous. The reason behind trademark law--reducing fraud--seems to be conveniently forgotten these days. The fact is that the URL is only a convenient mnemonic device. It is a label for a web-site, a street address for electrons. It is not a sign or advertisement. A better name is simply a better street for business.
As for "cybersquatting", the only problem with it is that individuals who honestly paid for a piece of property have had it yanked away from them under the misguided presumption of "ownership" over a string of characters (or even similiar strings!)--no matter what the use is being made of that name. If I was on the ball and snagged www.coke.com before coke did, why shouldn't I be able to sell it to them for an exorbinent price? (Personally I think that any company that shells out big bucks for a web address ought to get some new leadership) On the other hand if I was selling soft drinks on that site using a coca cola like logo, Coke definitely has a case against me, as I am clearly defrauding their customers.
I for one hope that the ICANN monopoly is demolished and an exploratory chaos ensues. A world where property, no matter how virtual, can't be taken away because of some poorly thought out laws, can only be better.
"If we do not, many innocent people will be jailed and many guilty people will get off free. The time to act is now."
Umm, and exactly how does this scenario differ from the present time?
P.S. Bring me back some gum drops from the sugar cane forest while you are there. Thanks!
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it's hard to believe the same group of people could actually make such an accurate identification.
Dude, your system needs tuning!
My 333 mhz celeron overclocked to 415mhz, 128Mb ram, UDMA/33 HD, loads KDE from startx in about 13s. (no app sessions restored). This is just a stock Mandrake 7.2 installation, with some hdparm fiddling (-d1 -c1).
Sounds like a natural robotics guy. Get him a lego mindstorms kit if he's not got one already.
:-)
Teach him that different languages are used for different purposes and have different strengths. Show him Scheme, Forth, Smalltalk, assembly, perl, Prolog, C. Teach the concepts behind each, and let him play.
Teach him OS concepts as they come up. Show him how CPUs work. Make sure he's got access to an open OS so he can read the code and muck with it.
Above all, don't get in the way.
I'm not sure exactly what they're claiming but the TINI board has run java on an 8 bit processor for some time.
Actually doing things this way, one often finds other bugs in the code. It's kind of a forced code review. Other things that tend to come out of not using a debugger: more use of assertions to catch bad conditions, better unit testing, development of better tracing and logging mechanisms, and generally a habit of reflecting on new code after it is typed in.
The things I learned from programming a system without a debugger are priceless. Now, even with a debugger available, I still make use of most of these practices to develop, and it's been a blessing.
I agree and I'm surprised when people think consolidation is a bad thing. It usually means that the vendors aren't differentiating their products enough, or that the market prefers less choice, or someone isn't putting out competitive products. In any case the market gets what it wants, and hard :)
It doesn't make much engineering sense to make the bus speed faster than what can be accommidated by current or near future DRAMs.
I worked once in a place like this. It sucked dead bunnies through a bent straw. I think of it as the "control" method of management. It works to a certain extent, but your good people tend to become unsatisfied and leave.... The opposite end of the spectrum is the "lead" method. In this you make sure everyone knows the goal, provide incentives, hire talented people, and have common code. Talented people just need direction, not control. They know when they are in over their head, you don't need to cage them in. And they inherently want challenges, give it to them.
I dunno, if someone was in my office "shouting out questions", I'd not be working there long, or I'd go postal, one of the two. This war room idea works out great for the guys who don't know anything, but the experienced people get too many interuptions and time wasted hand holding to remain productive.
Possibly the ideal is a common room, and everyone has a laptop. Rapid prototyping can happen in the war room, and once things have been settled, retire to your office and crank out the code.
Keep in mind that this is the odds of _a_ person dying out of billions. Compare the odds of _a_ person dying in the next 14 months from:
- automobile related incidents
- a plane crash
- power line electrocution
- medical error
- heating fuel fires
Just about any technology has risks far more likely than satellite related death.
People blow these things *way* out of proportion.
"I think someone who takes the time to cut AOL CD's into tile-able shapes, and then proceed to cover their entire auto is pretty impressive. "
If by "pretty impressive" you mean "a few eggs short of an omelette", then you indeed have a very good point.
Navigator->Explorer->(K)Conqueror
A prediction and history lesson all in one.
"btw anyone know of an app that would actually want to be coded to EPIC?"
I wrote a program that wants to be ported to EPIC, but it's going to have to learn to make money option trading before it gets the goodies.
Well I was going to write a treatise on communism, but this whole argument falls apart when you realize that Linux and/or OSS is neither a political system nor a political theory.
Even as an analogy, the comparision is pretty weak--my copy of linux is mine, no one can demand a copy of me. Nothing in the GPL says that you *must* make a copy on demand which is what the political system of communism would demand to be done (actually it would also say anybody should be able to use my computer, which is worse). You may be confused about the GPL conditions on redistribution. Read it some time and give it some thought.
Well if it's difficult for a multi-billion dollar corporation like Microsoft to do anything fresh, I don't feel it reflects too badly on the KDE people to make baby improvements over the windows interface. But somehow deep down I can't help feeling that the desktop metaphor is just a local maximum with respect to what could be done. It just isn't elegant. Example: Why does the desktop metaphor need a "show desktop" feature? Sure it makes it more usable, but surely there's a way to present things so that kind of quirk just isn't possible.
Oh well, so far, it appears not.
All right, as a rabid capitalist who uses Linux, I'll bite.
"both rely on the principle that working together as a community will produce better results than each man for himself"
I think any community of people could make this claim! The fatal flaw of communism is idea that the talented *must* sacrifice for the sake of the less talented, or the "common good". It brought everyone down to a least common denominator, and basically to get anything done they had to make exceptions under the table, which led to corruption, etc. This is obviously _NOT_ a good idea, IMO. Note there is no comparable forced sacrifice being made with open source. Any sacrifice being made is freely made.
"Windows is greatly superior to KDE/Gnome, and Solaris is better than Linux"
Superior according to whom? I use OSS because it's value to me is greater than what I paid to get it (the cost of some CDRs). For me, the cost of windows is too high for what I get. Part of the value of OSS to me is the ability to make changes and a greater access to authors. The value of something depends on the valuer.
"both perform poorly financially - Linux stocks have fallen through the floor"
I'm not sure I see the point. Linux companies are trying to make money from the services they provide. If they fail, Linux goes on. Linux does not require commercial support. It was born without it, and can go on without it.
"both are bad for humanity - Communism because it results in a lower standard of living for all, and Linux because it stifles innovation - everything in Linux is *copied* "
Well, again I don't see your point. First, no one is forcing *anyone* to use linux. If humanity doesn't want it, they won't use it. Communism was forced by a minority on the majority. And most of the minority was misled. Second, it is a rare innovation in computers that doesn't use 99.9% of the existing infrastructure and existing, working ideas.
"Linux is bad for humanity because it means people will no longer take Computer Science degrees"
Hmmm, first you argue that OSS doesn't compete, then you argue that it's in danger of wiping out CS jobs! No, it will force companies to develop more vertical, innovative, and high value solutions rather than copy cat, horizontal solutions that lock customers into the company.
"both are increasingly being discredited and look to be all but dead".
Even if this were true, I fail to see how this indicates a "fatal flaw". Linux and OSS does not need a commercial company to "succeed". What part of "free as in beer" escapes you?
"both seem to believe that making money is bad, and have successfully indoctrinated many people with the idea - something anyone would see is wrong"
I'm not sure who you are refering to exactly (except maybe RMS), since Linux as yet, does not think, but there is no contradiction between OSS and capitalism. Nothing about capitalism implies that *everything must* be exchanged for money, only that *everything can be*, as long as both sides agree on the price. What they do have in common is that they are both natural outgrowths of freedom. No one is forcing you to use or contribute to OSS, just as no one is forcing you to use and buy Windows. You make the choice based on what you get from them. For Windows, obviously a large part of the value is that so many other people use it, it automatically has value due to the fact that so many other people use it and send out documents that require windows applications to view them. Some of us have a problem with *that*, but not with making money.
"For more integer-oriented tasks, where there are few instructions with multiple operations, running eight operations per second is the theoretical maximum."
So what you're saying is that a basic human need is defined by what a human might need to get urgent medical care?....
- Someone just sold me an old junker, thank god the government provides the latest state of the art in air bags and emergency radio equipment. It must be expensive, but you know it's the government's job to make sure the authorities are notified via that radio when the airbags deploy. I could be lying there unconscious in the middle of nowhere, y'know. It's my basic human need at that point.
- Hmmm, I'm going to have some fun way out in the country. Thank god the government provides free cell phone service in case I need to be flown to a hospital with an appendicitus or something!
- I'm going downtown tonight, but I'll feel safe due to this government issued light weight kevlar bullet proof vest. I hear they're insanely expensive, but since it's a basic human need in that crime ridden area, I get it free!
- Gee, that water sure is polluted, and I hear there are sharks in there too! But I've got this government issued shark repellent and inflatable vest. And if I swallow some water, I've got these free antibiotics. Sure glad the government thinks of everything--These precautions are basic in that environment!
- You know, I hear I could get cancer from staying out in the sun so long and smoking these cigarettes. But if I get cancer, the government pays for the treatments. Getting the latest treatments is the least the government can do for me. I pay taxes!
- I used to feel so unsafe swimming at the beach, but you know it's my basic human need to get help when I need it, so the goverment is paying for a lifeguard every 300 yards!
And so on. Sorry, but getting subsidized phone service is just a little less silly. If it is a basic human need, then it is one we got along with just fine for most of human history. I don't even consider it something necessary for humans to flourish as opposed to just surviving. It's not much more than a convenience.
So basically you're saying we should place artificial costs on VOIP so that joe welfare can get excellent subsidized phone service? I'm sorry, but phone service just isn't a basic human need, last time I checked.
Could it possibly be the case that money freed from paying all those overpriced LD bills might actually be used to buy things, capitalize businesses, and expand the economy just enough to make it possible for joe to get off of the welfare dole. Naah...
No, they are losing out fairly. They will soon offer a service that has less value to me than I am paying for it, and they will no longer get my money.
I already pay for my phone access to my ISP. And I already pay for my ISP for my access to the internet. Fact is, as soon as it seems to be reasonably priced, I'll ditch my phone company for an all in one phone/internet access provider (I don't watch television, so I don't care about cable access).
The telcos are the buggy whip manufacturers of the 21st century. This is cruel and efficient capitalism at work. I wouldn't want it any other way.
Growing up in the middle of the US east coast, I had zero exposure to other languages. Television, radio, and newspapers were all english. Everyone around me spoke only english. There was a vacuum of other languages. My first exposure was a french language option at school at the age of 13. After learning some french, my skills eroded because I had no one to converse with and the usefulness of speaking french was not apparent to me at the time.
So, I'd say it is mainly isolation from other cultures which produces the mono-lingual american rather than intellectual laziness.
"Should she be denied the right to vote just because she cannot read the ballot that is printed in English?"
I assume that since she's a citizen, she is able to understand spoken english to some extent, so she can become educated on the issues via TV and discussions in her community. There is no rule against bringing materials into the voting booth, so she can simply mark off the candidates she wants to vote for and do pattern matching. I don't think your argument here holds water.
I personally think that English-only for everything is somewhat fascist, but I don't see any reason that government (all levels) documents should be printed in any language other than English. I don't quite follow the attitude that a country that I choose to live in should adapt to me. It's difficult to immigrate, surely, but I would have to make that choice with all the drawbacks in mind. One of those drawbacks is that my job opportunities would be limited without knowing the predominate language used in businesses of that country.
For a government, however, to require businesses to use a particular language however seems like a gross violation of individual freedom.
This attitude on the surface seems to be at odds with itself, but it is not. Contrary to popular believe it's not (the US) governments job to make everyone happy or even to make things equally easy for everyone. It is only supposed to delineate and maintain as much freedom for all citizens as possible. Making it easier for some citizens by extracting money from others doesn't really qualify, IMO. On the other hand there are many recent examples to the opposite, but I don't agree with any of them.
Does that make me barely to the left of a skinhead? Oh well. I prefer the term libertarian.
Heh. On the other hand, she did a great job with semiconductor physics. Maybe it's time for "Britney's Guide to the Linux Kernel".
Well, I certainly can't remember the last time I actually _typed_ a URL, and if I type it wrong, well, whose fault is that? Whatever happened to taking responsibility for ones own actions?
The whole idea of people a priori "owning" a name--an address, a location--in this non-physical idea world that WE created seems to me to be completely ludicrous. The reason behind trademark law--reducing fraud--seems to be conveniently forgotten these days. The fact is that the URL is only a convenient mnemonic device. It is a label for a web-site, a street address for electrons. It is not a sign or advertisement. A better name is simply a better street for business.
As for "cybersquatting", the only problem with it is that individuals who honestly paid for a piece of property have had it yanked away from them under the misguided presumption of "ownership" over a string of characters (or even similiar strings!)--no matter what the use is being made of that name. If I was on the ball and snagged www.coke.com before coke did, why shouldn't I be able to sell it to them for an exorbinent price? (Personally I think that any company that shells out big bucks for a web address ought to get some new leadership) On the other hand if I was selling soft drinks on that site using a coca cola like logo, Coke definitely has a case against me, as I am clearly defrauding their customers.
I for one hope that the ICANN monopoly is demolished and an exploratory chaos ensues. A world where property, no matter how virtual, can't be taken away because of some poorly thought out laws, can only be better.
"If we do not, many innocent people will be jailed and many guilty people will get off free. The time to act is now."
Umm, and exactly how does this scenario differ from the present time?
P.S. Bring me back some gum drops from the sugar cane forest while you are there. Thanks!