Successful in life? Who knows what child will be successful in life. So who cares if kill any kid right? Give me a break.
Handicapped persons - why don't we kill the grown up ones too eh? They're a drain on society right? Nah, you don't want to pay more tax, you'd rather get the latest computer to play Quake, never mind that numbers of handicapped persons are on the decrease due to technology anyway.
Mother's life dependant: Well obviously if the mother dies before birth, both would die so it's not an either/or proposition.
Oh, the poor oppressed murderers need our compassion, give me a break.
I actually, see nothing on that web site advocating taking the law into your own hands. It just says they should be tried like Goebles, which is spot on.
Why are people so protective of children and babies? Because they're defenceless human beings who deserve the right to grow up and fulfill their potential. Unfulfilled potential applies doubly to unborn children. Why not allow murdering small babies? They can't talk, they have no personality and are otherwise useless, right?
Grow some moral fibre please. If you kill unborn children you deserve as much compassion as Hitler.
If you're going to go around killing children, you've got to expect some fierce opposition. Hitler did it, and we know what happened to him. If you do it now in the US, you can expect your time to come too.
If evil people would exploit it, all the more reason to not advertise what is there. Make it so that you only find out if you choose to dig, which in this remote area is frankly a million to one shot.
I have to say, I think the better option is to make the site non-obvious, not to mark it with monumental markers which make a tourist attraction. Put information markers under the ground so if anyone starts to dig, then they will discover them. The less future generations are even aware of the site the better. And if they do decide to dig there, and they ignore the submerged marker, I don't think there's much more you can do. I think this is one case where security through obscurity is preferable.
HP risks losing the Compaq business without transitioning them successfully to HP. Non-slashdot readers are going to take a while to figure out that HP = Compaq. If I were them I'd offer the same products with Compaq and HP badges. Even give retail outlets the badges and let the badge them however they or the customer likes.
That Plan 9 has all these distributed features is all cool and great, as I said nice job. But still at the end of the day, these cool features are based on the file and file system and directory name space idea. And each of these "resources" is always a byte stream. The better idea is the object idea where objects hang together any way they please, not just in one paradigm - directory name spaces. Building a nice OO operating system on top of this is likely to be extremely kludgy. Ok, some IDEAS in plan-9 are interesting to research, but the OS itself should die. It's 70's technology taken to it's ultimate conclusion which is interesting, but not where we should be going.
Well firstly XML is not OO at all anyway. There have been some proposals to add some OO features but they havn't got up. In any case, compare XML to what an OO file system or OO database has and it's really pathetic. As a network protocol, I guess SOAP is in some way ok (not great, but ok) that's not really anything much to do with storing complex INTERCONNECTED data.
While it's cool, in a 70's kind of way that Plan 9 makes everything into a file, it's really pretty old hat. A file is a very kludgy, primitive notion compared to making everything into an object. Making everything a byte stream is consistent - sure, great - but byte streams are pretty pathetic. Some kind of OO file system where everything is an object, and you can hook objects together would be something much cooler. Something kinda like a lisp machine combined with a persistent store, where you can operate on any object using standard language constructs.
So MS is going to donate $6M in licences? I'll up that, I'll donate 100 million licences to use RedHat. Valued at the official price for RedHat, that ups MS's bid by thousands of times.
It's highly debatable whether the.NET VM is any more language neutral than the JVM. Both are built to support C++ish languages and fall far short in features for more innovative languages.
Cringley himself answers his own stupid question... Who would buy such a beast? Mac users buy Mac hardware, so why bother? That's exactly right Cringley, so the product would be a waste of time. Either the Mac users would save some pennies on Intel hardware and Apple loses, or they wouldn't
and it would be a waste of time. Most users are simply not going to bother loading another OS with Windows, that's why BeOS failed. Linux is making some headway because (a) it's free as in beer and (b) it's free as in liberty. We don't need another stinkin proprietry OS, one is enough and users know it.
I've been running 2.4 on a server since
the early days with no lock ups. On the
other hand Windows XP locks up on me
every few days on the desktop. Suck it
and see, if 2.4 crashed on you, go back
to 2.2 until it's ready for YOU.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no shortage whatsoever of people wanting to adopt children.
Successful in life? Who knows what child will be successful in life. So who cares if kill any kid right? Give me a break.
Handicapped persons - why don't we kill the grown up ones too eh? They're a drain on society right? Nah, you don't want to pay more tax, you'd rather get the latest computer to play Quake, never mind that numbers of handicapped persons are on the decrease due to technology anyway.
Mother's life dependant: Well obviously if the mother dies before birth, both would die so it's not an either/or proposition.
I don't know what a Jesus Freak is, but it sounds good to me.
"I didn't kill any Jews, I only told the SS where they were hiding out, and pushed them into the train". Give me a break.
Get your head out of the sand and find out what's going on.
Oh, the poor oppressed murderers need our compassion, give me a break.
I actually, see nothing on that web site advocating taking the law into your own hands. It just says they should be tried like Goebles, which is spot on.
Why are people so protective of children and babies? Because they're defenceless human beings who deserve the right to grow up and fulfill their potential. Unfulfilled potential applies doubly to unborn children. Why not allow murdering small babies? They can't talk, they have no personality and are otherwise useless, right?
Grow some moral fibre please. If you kill unborn children you deserve as much compassion as Hitler.
If you're going to go around killing children, you've got to expect some fierce opposition. Hitler did it, and we know what happened to him. If you do it now in the US, you can expect your time to come too.
one of these rips through a nuclear reactor?
If evil people would exploit it, all the more
reason to not advertise what is there. Make it
so that you only find out if you choose to dig,
which in this remote area is frankly a million
to one shot.
I have to say, I think the better option is
to make the site non-obvious, not to mark it with
monumental markers which make a tourist attraction.
Put information markers under the ground so if anyone starts to dig, then they will discover them.
The less future generations are even aware of the
site the better. And if they do decide to dig there,
and they ignore the submerged marker, I don't think there's
much more you can do. I think this is one case where security through obscurity is preferable.
HP risks losing the Compaq business without
transitioning them successfully to HP.
Non-slashdot readers are going to take a
while to figure out that HP = Compaq.
If I were them I'd offer the same products
with Compaq and HP badges. Even give retail
outlets the badges and let the badge them
however they or the customer likes.
True, Linux is old hat. Unfortuately it's the best thing out there that is free, stable and has decent number of apps.
That Plan 9 has all these distributed features is all cool and great, as I said nice job. But still at the end of the day, these cool features are based on the file and file system and directory name space idea. And each of these "resources" is always a byte stream. The better idea is the object idea where objects hang together any way they please, not just in one paradigm - directory name spaces. Building a nice OO operating system on top of this is likely to be extremely kludgy. Ok, some IDEAS in plan-9 are interesting to research, but the OS itself should die. It's 70's technology taken to it's ultimate conclusion which is interesting, but not where we should be going.
Well firstly XML is not OO at all anyway. There
have been some proposals to add some OO features
but they havn't got up. In any case, compare
XML to what an OO file system or OO database has
and it's really pathetic. As a network protocol, I
guess SOAP is in some way ok (not great, but ok)
that's not really anything much to do with storing
complex INTERCONNECTED data.
While it's cool, in a 70's kind of way that Plan 9 makes everything into a file, it's really pretty old hat. A file is a very kludgy, primitive notion compared to making everything into an object.
Making everything a byte stream is consistent - sure, great - but byte streams are pretty pathetic. Some kind of OO file system where everything is an object, and you can hook objects together would be something much cooler. Something kinda like a lisp machine combined with a persistent store, where you can operate on any object using standard language constructs.
So who gives a %&*#@ about Plan 9. Let it die.
So MS is going to donate $6M in licences? I'll up that, I'll donate 100 million licences to use RedHat. Valued at the official price for RedHat, that ups MS's bid by thousands of times.
If you could get people inside of them, I would
say rebuild. But I suspect that nobody would want
to be in towers this big any more, logic or not.
It's highly debatable whether the .NET VM is any more language neutral than the JVM. Both are built to support C++ish languages and fall far short in features for more innovative languages.
Cringley himself answers his own stupid question... Who would buy such a beast? Mac users buy Mac hardware, so why bother? That's exactly right Cringley, so the product would be a waste of time. Either the Mac users would save some pennies on Intel hardware and Apple loses, or they wouldn't
and it would be a waste of time. Most users are simply not going to bother loading another OS with Windows, that's why BeOS failed. Linux is making some headway because (a) it's free as in beer and (b) it's free as in liberty. We don't need another stinkin proprietry OS, one is enough and users know it.
I've been running 2.4 on a server since
the early days with no lock ups. On the
other hand Windows XP locks up on me
every few days on the desktop. Suck it
and see, if 2.4 crashed on you, go back
to 2.2 until it's ready for YOU.
Nonsense. You must just be too clueless
to know how to use it. I'd put it up
against any other DBMS any day of the
week when used properly.
I was also under the impression that Sabre make a lot of use of the Versant ODBMS. Pretty advanced stuff.
I thought you could forge your MAC address under
Linux?? If not I'd be finding a cheap source of
network cards and round-robining them.
Taking bets on how long before someone hacks this
latest internet appliance and puts Linux on it.
Oh wait... Damn. What the hell use is it, it comes
pre-cracked.