Obviously this situation rests on the parents who at some point *need* to instill some sort of values in their children. So for this I see the point of not letting children see this movie with out their parents.
I don't get it. You seem to make the perfectly obvious point that the child learned to be rotten straight from the mouths of its parents. Then you say we need laws to make parents see the movie with the children. But, you've already proved the point - it's not the movie that's the problem, it's the parents! So lay off the governmental censorship, eh?
I think you're referring to Bell's Theory about two particles created together that speed apart but retain an instantaneous link between them. This has been proved, BTW, and it is instantaneous, not the speed of light.
However, you've got it a bit wrong, and it's _really_ hard to explain, but here goes:
The particles are created in such a way that we know they have opposite spins. Everything else about them may be the same, but the spins are opposite. Then they start moving apart. If I later measure one of the particles for spin, I "instantaneously" know the spin of the other particle, which could be light-years away by now. However, this is nothing special - just mere logic. The special part is that I can effect the particles spin by how I measure it. If I measure it in a certain way, I get a certain "type" of answer, and the wave-form collapses and all that jazz. The really interesting thing is that the wave-form for that light-years-away particle also collapses at just that instant, and it's spin becomes "fixed" to exactly opposite of the spin I measured on my local particle.
Now I've confused myself.... so let me summarize what I definitely know: 1. The transmission of "something" between these two particles is instantaneous - it's been proven in the lab.
2. The best scientific minds have never figured a way to use this for purposes of communication, so although the ansible is a nice idea, it is a fictional plot device, not a theoretical possibility (at least, not yet).
Maybe a real scientist can come by and say something on this?
I've always found the comments posted to be more helpful than the original source article pointed to. Usually, I read the comments posted first, and if interested, I will go to the source article. I also like to read the older stuff, cause it's "matured" - ie. more posts that rank 2 and up.
Public moderation is a great thing, and I believe it would be improved by having more of it. The original posts themselves could be moderated (scored based on number of quality posts? scored directly by readers?). Slashdot would benefit from letting everyone moderate all the time, with the exception of their own posts and follow-ups.
But, we will always want bias. Slashdot would not be slashdot if it weren't Rob picking the posts. The NYTimes would not be....etc One point to remember in considering bias - I can read both newspapers, read multiple web sites, and I think that is often overlooked.
I second this! I learned to program on an Amiga. I remember panicking as the stores that sold Amiga hardware and software starting closing one by one........:-(
Imagine if you made, say, a really spiffy Got Milk parody featuring Yoda, and someone else displayed it on their site, within a frame, so that although the image was coming from your site, it looked like it was their's. You'd be pissed, right?
No, I wouldn't. And if I would be pissed about some content I had up being "stolen" in this way, I'd just put up frame busting code and be done with it.
>>The story was a bit sparse, but why would cow tissue grow into human fingers anyhow? Strange stuff, this.
Havent' we learned by now? Cows can do _anything_! Be micro trains, serve as host computers, grow human fingers, grow mice fingers, feed the hungry, house the poor, save the whales.......
Maybe we shouldn't think of bounty software as open source. The essay compares it to open source and finds it lacking because it looks more like proprietary development in many ways. So, compare it to normal proprietary development.
In the end, you get open source software. That seems an improvement over normal closed development.
The quality may be better or worse, but the market will determine the price, and it will determine the winners and losers. If a company pays to have something developed that already exists out there, they lose. Simple, but not a problem. Companies will probably become more aware of what's out there.
And there's no reason to assume only individuals will bid. I would think, over time, market forces will select for good teams of developers that have a broader suite of skills. The lone "dime-a-dozens" will not be able to compete for coding projects.
And for the final alternative suggestion, it was my understanding cosource.com was going to have both developers and consumers initiate project ideas, which seemed to be the main point of the suggestion.
Good point. Could someone start calling X-Windows Windows 95? Not that you'd want to, but imagine if it tricked people into buying it, just cause of the name?
Seems like, as usual, I just don't understand.....
Linux is not being sold by Red Hat - they are selling Linux support and an easy installation toolkit. What happens when other, easy-to-use Linux toolkits are made available for free download? Then all Red Hat is is a technical support company. Which is exactly what I'm saying. Selling software just can't last if Open Source takes off they way everyone seems to want.
And since Open Source software has more developers behind it, on more platforms, proprietary software solutions designed with specific hardware in mind (ie Sun making solaris for Sun hardware, HP making software for HP hardware, etc) will become increasingly hard to sell. The proprietary software is no longer a value add over Open Source solutions. The software divisions will spin off - witness Javasoft. Yeah, Java is from Sun, but it's mostly it's own company that Sun just has a large investment in. Because Java isn't tied to Sun's hardware, it's going it's own way.
Even for internal use, an independent software house would be hard to justify - it has no means of making money, and it's probably cheaper to outsource it all, just like companies find it's better to outsource IT. Why have a team of engineers create code for your copier, when you can contract some dedicated software house to modify some existing Open Source code for you? Admittedly, this is a far off example, because Open Source is nowhere near the embedded systems market, but this is an extrapolation.
I'm hopeful, in any case. I envision loosely knit teams of programmers contracting for jobs - not even representing a company - just a group of individuals with complimentary skills coding for fun and profit. Reminds me of that group of ISP developers who put themselves up for auction on Ebay.
So there would be a segment of the software industry (those programs that lend themselves to OpenSource - basically, OS's, business, most things besides big games) that could no longer be "sold", per se. Companies would still pay to have it built, but then everyone could use. Companies would probably create software research funds and all member companies could request various software to be created/updated.
Which suggests that all software could eventually be outsourced and created on-demand, and the main companies would only make "real" products, and sell services only. No HP making copiers and software, no Sun making hardware and software. All these companies would have to drop their software divisions.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously this situation rests on the parents who at some point *need* to instill some sort of values in their children. So for this I see the point of not letting
children see this movie with out their parents.
I don't get it. You seem to make the perfectly obvious point that the child learned to be rotten straight from the mouths of its parents. Then you say we need laws to make parents see the movie with the children. But, you've already proved the point - it's not the movie that's the problem, it's the parents! So lay off the governmental censorship, eh?
I think you're referring to Bell's Theory about two particles created together that speed apart but retain an instantaneous link between them. This has been proved, BTW, and it is instantaneous, not the speed of light.
However, you've got it a bit wrong, and it's _really_ hard to explain, but here goes:
The particles are created in such a way that we know they have opposite spins. Everything else about them may be the same, but the spins are opposite. Then they start moving apart.
If I later measure one of the particles for spin, I "instantaneously" know the spin of the other particle, which could be light-years away by now. However, this is nothing special - just mere logic. The special part is that I can effect the particles spin by how I measure it. If I measure it in a certain way, I get a certain "type" of answer, and the wave-form collapses and all that jazz. The really interesting thing is that the wave-form for that light-years-away particle also collapses at just that instant, and it's spin becomes "fixed" to exactly opposite of the spin I measured on my local particle.
Now I've confused myself.... so let me summarize what I definitely know:
1. The transmission of "something" between these two particles is instantaneous - it's been proven in the lab.
2. The best scientific minds have never figured a way to use this for purposes of communication, so although the ansible is a nice idea, it is a fictional plot device, not a theoretical possibility (at least, not yet).
Maybe a real scientist can come by and say something on this?
I've always found the comments posted to be more helpful than the original source article pointed to. Usually, I read the comments posted first, and if interested, I will go to the source article. I also like to read the older stuff, cause it's "matured" - ie. more posts that rank 2 and up.
Public moderation is a great thing, and I believe it would be improved by having more of it. The original posts themselves could be moderated (scored based on number of quality posts? scored directly by readers?). Slashdot would benefit from letting everyone moderate all the time, with the exception of their own posts and follow-ups.
But, we will always want bias. Slashdot would not be slashdot if it weren't Rob picking the posts. The NYTimes would not be....etc
One point to remember in considering bias - I can read both newspapers, read multiple web sites, and I think that is often overlooked.
...people, for the (Dilbert T-shirt, jean wearing)
people.
I second this! I learned to program on an Amiga. I remember panicking as the stores that sold Amiga hardware and software starting closing one by one........ :-(
Imagine if you made, say, a really spiffy Got Milk parody featuring Yoda, and someone else displayed it on their site, within a
frame, so that although the image was coming from your site, it looked like it was their's. You'd be pissed, right?
No, I wouldn't. And if I would be pissed about some content I had up being "stolen" in this way, I'd just put up frame busting code and be done with it.
>>The story was a bit sparse, but why would cow tissue grow into human fingers anyhow? Strange stuff, this.
Havent' we learned by now? Cows can do _anything_! Be micro trains, serve as host computers, grow human fingers, grow mice fingers, feed the hungry, house the poor, save the whales.......
Maybe the Hindu's knew it all along?
Yeah, but think of the compression algorithm it's using!
Try reading "The Diamond Age" by Neal Stephenson for a whole bunch of much scarier and wonderful ideas about nanos.
Maybe we shouldn't think of bounty software as open source. The essay compares it to open source and finds it lacking because it looks more like proprietary development in many ways. So, compare it to normal proprietary development.
In the end, you get open source software. That seems an improvement over normal closed development.
The quality may be better or worse, but the market will determine the price, and it will determine the winners and losers. If a company pays to have something developed that already exists out there, they lose. Simple, but not a problem. Companies will probably become more aware of what's out there.
And there's no reason to assume only individuals will bid. I would think, over time, market forces will select for good teams of developers that have a broader suite of skills. The lone "dime-a-dozens" will not be able to compete for coding projects.
And for the final alternative suggestion, it was my understanding cosource.com was going to have both developers and consumers initiate project ideas, which seemed to be the main point of the suggestion.
Good point. Could someone start calling X-Windows Windows 95? Not that you'd want to, but imagine if it tricked people into buying it, just cause of the name?
Seems like, as usual, I just don't understand.....
Linux is not being sold by Red Hat - they are selling Linux support and an easy installation toolkit. What happens when other, easy-to-use Linux toolkits are made available for free download? Then all Red Hat is is a technical support company. Which is exactly what I'm saying. Selling software just can't last if Open Source takes off they way everyone seems to want.
And since Open Source software has more developers behind it, on more platforms, proprietary software solutions designed with specific hardware in mind (ie Sun making solaris for Sun hardware, HP making software for HP hardware, etc) will become increasingly hard to sell. The proprietary software is no longer a value add over Open Source solutions. The software divisions will spin off - witness Javasoft. Yeah, Java is from Sun, but it's mostly it's own company that Sun just has a large investment in. Because Java isn't tied to Sun's hardware, it's going it's own way.
Even for internal use, an independent software house would be hard to justify - it has no means of making money, and it's probably cheaper to outsource it all, just like companies find it's better to outsource IT. Why have a team of engineers create code for your copier, when you can contract some dedicated software house to modify some existing Open Source code for you? Admittedly, this is a far off example, because Open Source is nowhere near the embedded systems market, but this is an extrapolation.
I'm hopeful, in any case. I envision loosely knit teams of programmers contracting for jobs - not even representing a company - just a group of individuals with complimentary skills coding for fun and profit. Reminds me of that group of ISP developers who put themselves up for auction on Ebay.
Extrapolating a bit.....
So there would be a segment of the software industry (those programs that lend themselves to OpenSource - basically, OS's, business, most things besides big games) that could no longer be "sold", per se. Companies would still pay to have it built, but then everyone could use. Companies would probably create software research funds and all member companies could request various software to be created/updated.
Which suggests that all software could eventually be outsourced and created on-demand, and the main companies would only make "real" products, and sell services only. No HP making copiers and software, no Sun making hardware and software. All these companies would have to drop their software divisions.