Hasn't it been at least suggested if not established that tech savvy people, i.e. those that use(d) such P2P tools as Napster and Kazaa actually went out and bought more albums when they could get access to mp3s of those artists they wanted to check out (recent Slashdot piece on this subject)?
Re:An alternative to Gentoo...
on
Gentoo Linux 1.2
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I've used both LFS and Gentoo. The basic fact is, LFS is wonderful for learning about Linux but doesn't have anything comparable to Portage. Indeed, LFS doesn't have any kind of package management system except one you set up yourself. That's one example of a major difference which might have you choosing a Gentoo install over "doing" LFS.
Now, I loved doing LFS, it was great to learn more about Linux, see what depended on what and compile things "by hand," but when I was looking for an upgrade, I didn't want to spend the time, so I picked Gentoo: it's very low-level in some nice ways, but doesn't make me doing every single little thing to get it running. They are two different distributions (if you can call LFS a distribution) with different positive points. So why compare them like this? You're just trolling and spreading confusion. Please explain what you mean when you say "LFS...accomplishes much of what Gentoo has set out to accomplish but without all of the superfluous extras." Is a BSD-style ports system superfluous? Superfluous is what is superfluous to you depending on your needs. This is why we have different distributions. So what are you talking about, what is your point?
Re:I find all this genre nonsense...
on
lowercase music
·
· Score: 1
Well, dunno if you're being facetious or not, but thanks in any case, either for the compliment or for paying attention at all!
I find all this genre nonsense...
on
lowercase music
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
...really frustrating. I mean, what's with all the people getting on each other's cases about "this isn't ambient, how could you confuse it with glitch..." etc. Why are we incapable of listening to music as it is rather than dividing it all into little categories?
Okay, before you give me a response, I've heard these things before:
Point- It helps us understand what other music we'd be interested in and find it. Rebuttal- Why don't we compare musicians to other musicians? That's more accurate and would probably get us closer to something we'd like. Frankly, there are more similarities between say, some Aphex Twin and Stockhausen than Aphex Twin and Moby, but they are lumped together and you are less likely to find out about Stockhausen than Moby because of that. That's a shame, because Moby sucks balls;). You are going to enjoy music more if you throw those categories out the window and just listen.
Point- By putting things in genres, you can understand the lineage of music. Rebuttal- This is true only to a point. Unfortunately I think it's been a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because we've had these categories people have started classifying themselves and putting themselves willingly into little boxes. Remember though that the great musicians didn't give a shit about these categories...Coltrane, Coleman, Mingus, etc. weren't out to create 'Free Jazz,' they were just bringing in aspects of their culture and other cultures together. That's a much more broad-minded grasp of music. The really funny thing to me that people do today is take little bits and pieces of different genres very consciously and try to call it something new, they categorize it before it's even out there. "Yeah, it's my new Funk/Jungle/Experimental Digital Hardcore/Polka band!" Why not just play some fucking music??
Anyways, this is a brief digression for a nerd site like this, but thought it'd be interesting to get some REAL discussion going about musical styles.
BTW, I have to ditto the poster above who said that the article was little more than an ad for Macs. I guess more generally it was an illustration that Wired probably shouldn't be doing pieces on music. Or they should realize that the technology is just a tool, no matter how much it has empowered people to create new music. For real music coverage, instead check out The Wire.
I've been checking out this stuff and using the software linking from it for a few years now (thanks Dave P.), and I've had a really fun time with it. If you are willing to use proprietary software and want to throw $50 towards a good project, I can recommend the 'Ultramaster rs101,' which is a fun little 16 track sequencer: http://www.ultramaster.com/rs101/.
(seems like the site is temporarily down, try the google cache for now: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.ultramast er.com/rs101/.) If you want, you can hear some of the music I've made on linux with this package: http://www.easy-protest.com/music/
Currently I'm in the process of installing Ardour to see how that works, and I've used a bunch of other stuff already with good results, like Audacity, snd, (haven't tried hard enough to use) PD, etc.
There's a lot of stuff out there, and a lot going on! I know Ardour's been mentioned a lot, but if you would like to get some real pro-audio on Linux, I would recommend checking it out: http://ardour.sf.net/--and maybe tossing some money toward Paul Davis, who does a sh*tload of work for Alsa, Jack, and etc. as well as creating this amazing software. Of course, there are others out there too, get involved!
A link to a Google search of pages which link to the original page. Since the original is all links, this will probably be more helpful. Obviously, try clicking on the cached version, duh...
Obviously you've put a lot of thought into this. Why is that? If you're happy being who you are, why do you need to pay attention to what other people do with their lives? Why do you have to sit there and think up rationalizations about why people are gay and whether or not you can choose to be gay and that you *prefer* to be straight...etc.? Sounds pretty much like you've got some issues to deal with. This is not a flame, it's just what seems to be true from your lengthy, essentially useless explanation of why you are not gay and why others don't have to be.
I can understand perfectly well someone who considers themselves gay or lesbian or bi trying to understand why they are the way they are, and offering a rationalization to the world...that's because of all the homophobes (er...closet homosexuals who are uncomfortable with who they really might be?) on the other end wasting their and other's time thinking up reasons why someone else's behavior which really shouldn't concern them is wrong or able to be changed...why should it be changed? I guess this goes to those in the LGB community for which nature vs. nurture is a sticking point as well: don't you realize, that's not really the issue, despite what the Christian fundamentalists, social conservatives, radical queer theorists, etc. tell you?
To all of you: don't waste your time and everyone else's. Why does it matter whether God, the environment, their genes, or their own fucking choice made them that way? Let the people live in peace. Life is too fucking short.
People aren't really getting more ignorant: we're more educated than at anytime in the past.
Yes, but also one can observe that as we've acquired more and more knowledge, that hasn't necessarily led to an increase in wisdom. So if we are getting more educated, then we aren't necessarily putting that to work, and things are the same as they have always been--which really just supports your first point, but without the corollary (that in contrast, things are actually getting better).
Do you think those textile workers were curious to know how the sewing machines really worked?
I would imagine that neither do the slave-wage laborers in southeast Asia, and they don't seem to be get more educated, but less...and I don't see how things are in general getting better and better. In the United States, perhaps, our standard of living has been getting better and better. But when I think of the millions of people who have contracted HIV in Africa without access to the necessary expensive drug cocktail that would allow them to survive, the people around the world put to work for pitiful money to support the consumer machine that is western 'culture,' etc., I can't help but think things are, if not getting worse, then determinedly staying at the same level of overall mediocrity for most of humanity.
Now, there are right ways to do this, and wrong ways. I was peeved by the approach taken by DEC when they upgraded BASIC/PLUS to handle long variable names. Their solution was to require every program using long variable names to use the command EXTEND at the top. So henceforth and forevermore, every BASIC/PLUS program had EXTEND at the top of it. I don't know whether to call it Bad or Ugly, but it certainly wasn't Good.
Furthermore he goes on:
A better approach is to modify something that would have to be there anyway. If you go out to CPAN and look at every single module out there, what do you see at the top? Answer: a ``package'' declaration. So we break that.
I hereby declare that a package declaration at the front of a file unambiguously indicates you are parsing Perl 5 code. If you want to write a Perl 6 module or class, it'll start with the keyword module or class. I don't know yet what the exact syntax of a module or a class declaration will be, but one thing I do know is that it'll set the current global namespace much like a package declaration does.
And if you continue to read this section it sounds like the issue has not been completely resolved.
I've not read much more of the Apocalypses or Exegesises in depth...but what I've skimmed doesn't seem to address this in greater depth. Is there a more definitive answer to this question?
Maybe it will just help the game sell better, certainly among the adolescent population. I remember being a teen and if it had a warning label on it that was immediately more appealing. So I suppose it could be a boon for Sony in some ways.
And like the old expression goes, "No publicity is bad publicity."
Just to clarify: I wasn't trying to suggest that Reading University or the Department of Cybernetics there is a bunch of morons, or that they don't know what Warwick is up to--certainly not. In fact, I think they keep such a prat as Kevin Warwick on because he makes money for them. That's very intelligent, if cynical.:-)
Of course, maybe he's damn good at something, I don't know really. But based upon his media exposure, all he seems to be good at is drawing attention to himself.
Despite the fact that some of you feel The Reg. to be unnecessarily sarcastic or (tongue and cheek) sensationalistic, I think they've hit it spot on with their take on Prof. Warwick. He seems to be pretty much into it for the 'look-at-me-I'm-original' factor, but he doesn't seem to have much scientific credibility when it comes right down to it. Here is a good Reg. analysis from 2000, after his the big story in Wired came out about him: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/29/9250.html.
His attempts to become a cyborg from what I understand consisted of little more than putting a chip in his body which would open a door as he walked towards it. How is this that different from: having the chip in your pocket, sticking it to your arm with some sort of patch, etc. My roommate's cat has a chip implanted in her to find her in the case of her running away. Is she a cyborg kitty??
As far as this new venture is concerned, Warwick seems to have the idea that using this kind of technology to help paralyzed is his idea, or has never been done. Think again, Professor Warwick (I really this is somewhat different but seems to be essentially the same idea, stimulating nerves to create movement in people struggling with paralysis...my point is merely that Warwick is not the brilliant loner on the revolutionary fronts of scientific acheivement that he makes himself out to be...there are people doing real science all over who don't need the gratification of being in the media--this is a non-story).
I've just been checking the mirror sites, and it doesn't appear to be up on many of them yet, at least not in the states...I got it off of the openssh site in alberta (sorry guys, I want it and it's just not on the mirrors yet!!).
I'm taking this from Harper's February 2002 issue. The spelling errors are Harris's:
[Last Wishes]
AS YOU WERE
From the journal of Eric Harris, who, with Dylan Klebold, committed suicide after killing thirteen people in April 1999 at Columbine High School. The journal was leaked last December, after eight of the nine cases against the school district and polic were dismissed. Duke and Doom are video games.
it will be like the LA riots, the oklahoma bombing, WWII, vietnam, duke and doom all mixed together. maybe we will even start a little rebelion or revolution to fuck things up as much as we can. i want to leave a lasting impression on the world. and god damnit do not blame anyone else besides me and V [Klebold] for this. don't blame my family, they had no clue and there is nothing they could have done, they brought me up just fucking fine. don't blame toy stores or any other stores for selling us ammo, bomb materials or anything like that becuase it's not their fault. i don't want no fucking laws on buying fucking PVC pipes. we are kind of a select case here so don't think this will happen again. don't blame the school, don't fucking put cops all over the place. just because we went on a killing spree doesn't mean everyone else will, and hardly ever do people bring bombs or guns to school anyway. the admin is doing a fine job as it is. i don't know who will be left after we kill but damnit don't change any policies just because of us. it would be stupid, and if there is any way in this fucked up universe we can come back as ghosts or what the fuck ever we will haunt the life out of anyone who blames anoyone besides me and V. if by some weird as shit luck me and V survive and escape we will move to some island somewhere or maybe mexico, new zelend, or some exotic place where americans can't get us. if there isn't such a place, then we will hijack a hell of a lot of bombs and crash a plane into NYC with us inside firing away as we go down. just something to cause more devistation.
(end of the Harper's quote...)
Well, I might not believe Harris is or can be completely honest about why he thought he was going to do what he and 'V' did - obviously the kid was a little mentally unstable - but it's pretty f$cking interesting some of the things he says (and his talk about crashing a plane into NYC is very disturbingly prescient, on a side note).
Re:Try again, only this time "think"
on
ULTra Robo-Taxi
·
· Score: 1
I ditto what HKTiger said. Again, no need to be insulting, but I guess you saw what I was saying as insulting; for that I apologize. But I again emphasize that I was not trying to be, only stating what I saw as reality.
Contrary to what you have suggested, I am thinking. And thinking has led me to a few points:
Cars rely upon fossil fuels and other resources which could be used more effectively and intelligently.
The infrastructure which has been created and is maintained to support cars costs a tremendous amount of taxpayer money, also uses precious dwindling resources, and because new construction takes so long, often times the problems the new construction is supposed to solve are moot by the time it is finished!!
Whether or not you think I'm being patronizing or insulting, the fact is that the majority of the world can't afford to live the way the upper class of the world - yes, that's us Americans in particular - live. This includes the expensive cars that we drive and the expensive gas that we put in them. This is a FACT! Look at China, look at India, look at Nigeria, and look at the United States. Whose populations are exploding among these countries? Now whose populations can afford to live the way Americans do, and is it practical for these exploding populations to do so? China has more than a billion people. India has more than a billion people, I believe (tell me if I'm not correct on this...heard it recently but haven't fact checked that). Talking about public transit seriously entails letting go of the ideas of comfortability and complacency with our way of life. It's not about guilt or holier-than-thou attitudes, it's about practicality, functionality, what are we going to do to sustain the environment and account for population growth.
Please, try to look at this with some consideration. I'm not being absurd or attempting to insult, or to patronize, but it does sound as if you are taking this rather defensively and more to heart than you need to. This is a real point I'm trying to make, and rather than challenging my ideas with alternatives or intelligent refutation based on statistics, you're just going for the throat. This will get us nowhere.
Perhaps we won't get rid of cars (probably not) but we need to try to understand a future where cars don't exist and people get around. Fossil fuels aren't going to last forever, and that means that we need to radically rethink cars, whether that means getting rid of them or finding new ways to make them run and new materials to create roads. What do you have to suggest other than "this is the way it is, deal with it?"
Re:Because cars go exactly where you want them to
on
ULTra Robo-Taxi
·
· Score: 1
Well, I can see your point, but I've got to disagree at least to a certain extent. Living in the city I've gone grocery shopping, done laundry, been out in the snow and rain and had to deal with all the instances where the benefits of public transportation don't shine so much. However, I see many instances where public transportation could be used, and isn't. I see many instances where, if more people took public transporation, the traffic problems associated with cars would be alleviated. And I also see public transportation projects which could be viable and which would allow more of the benefits of cars which you describe (getting closer right to your door) but which are shot down because they would only be a boon to the lower class citizens, and that is not enough to justify the expense. Sure, public transportation isn't going to be perfect, but it's going to be more sustainable than cars, and there are socio-economics benefits as well.
I've heard many times the argument of "it's what we're used to, it's our lifestyle." That's a rather selfish and short-sighted way to look at it, isn't it? Honestly, who cares if your date isn't so spectacular because you can't drive vs. take a bus? Maybe that's more because you don't know how to really make a date spectacular. But I digress.
The point is, at a certain time we are going to have to grow up and realize that the comfortable way we live is inefficient and not sustainable. You may think I'm expecting you to live in my "little world." But it's really the other way around - I'm hoping everyone will eventually wake up and realize that it is a little world they've been living in, fed by the marketing propaganda of the auto industry and filled with the complacency and privilege of the over-indulgent upper class of the world stage. Try to include yourself in the bigger world that actually exists and needs to be dealt with, thank you.
And why does everyone on slashdot have to be so damn insulting?? Honestly, I'm just trying to make a point here. I'm not trying to insult anyone.
By the way, I've seen plenty of people making out on the back seat of a bus or train. Doesn't seem to matter if you really want to do it.
Re:why don't we just get rid of cars altogether...
on
ULTra Robo-Taxi
·
· Score: 1
I swear I'm not trying to troll...this is what I really think and what occured to me when reading the article. I didn't intend to be a troll and I think the fact that it seems obvious and a not very good troll to you should help show that that was not my intent.
I don't think it's that foolish either: cars really are an inefficient and unintelligent mode of transport compared to trains or other mass transit.
why don't we just get rid of cars altogether...
on
ULTra Robo-Taxi
·
· Score: 1
Damnit, they're just not intelligent ways to get around. Even if we eliminate the use of fossil fuels with the vehicles, the costs of building and maintaining the roadways, not to mention the fossil fuel consumption THAT involves, is a waste of our resources and unintelligent.
What about trains?? It seems obvious - safer, carry more people with less resource cost, eliminate the nasty roads all over the U.S. (being U.S. centric here as I'm an American, apologize to all non-USians)..I know other countries take trains more seriously, why do the auto manufactures have so much damn influence here? It's just stupid!!! I saw a show on PBS the other night about advances in intelligent cars, and it involved spending tremendous amount in research, investing in new roadways that are prepared for these new cars, etc...why not invest this time and energy in a long term solution?
More public transportation! More incentives to use public transportation! Let's start being intelligent about our future infrastructure...oh, I'm just wasting my breath...*sigh*
Wow...you really have a low opinion of the Reg, which to me sounds ridiculous. Yes, they do have sensationalist (and very funny at times) headlines. But one of their mottos is: "Integrity, we've heard of it." And if you don't read the Reg with a little bit of your tongue in your cheek then you are missing the point and you are missing out.
However, I'd also like to point out that in the original article, they did mention exactly where they got their information:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23939.html...from the Brazilian site Hotbits. And it seems to me that a journalist can do no better in reporting the truth than if he/she uses the unadulterated words of someone - RMS's full letter - to respond to their (the Reg's) statements about that person. How could they get closer to admitting that they were wrong other than saying explicitly "we were wrong" !? How is that weaseling out? They are the ones who posted the damn letter!!!! And what the hell at the bottom below RMS's letter consists of demonizing Miguel de Icaza? Here's the text below the letter, read it carefully:
We've been promised a tape and a transcript of the Porto Alegre Q and A.
Miguel de Icaza has issued his own clarification, here, which also amounts to "move along folks, there's nothing to see".
On Friday he repeated his desire to base future GNOME development on the.NET APIs using work from his Mono project.
".NET is a fantastic technology upgrade for GNOME from Microsoft," he said.
In the interview, he praised many aspects of.NET including SmartClients and the new Microsoft security model. ®
And again, if you go back to this piece:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23939.html
it really seems that they are defending Miguel rather than demonizing. It seems that most of the demonizing of Miguel (and RMS) goes on on Slashdot.
Now, really...what the hell are you talking about?
Slashdot Mirror
...er...thought that's what I was saying...
Hasn't it been at least suggested if not established that tech savvy people, i.e. those that use(d) such P2P tools as Napster and Kazaa actually went out and bought more albums when they could get access to mp3s of those artists they wanted to check out (recent Slashdot piece on this subject)?
I maintain that Moby just sucks. If you suck people don't want to buy your music, that's what I've found.
I've used both LFS and Gentoo. The basic fact is, LFS is wonderful for learning about Linux but doesn't have anything comparable to Portage. Indeed, LFS doesn't have any kind of package management system except one you set up yourself. That's one example of a major difference which might have you choosing a Gentoo install over "doing" LFS.
Now, I loved doing LFS, it was great to learn more about Linux, see what depended on what and compile things "by hand," but when I was looking for an upgrade, I didn't want to spend the time, so I picked Gentoo: it's very low-level in some nice ways, but doesn't make me doing every single little thing to get it running. They are two different distributions (if you can call LFS a distribution) with different positive points. So why compare them like this? You're just trolling and spreading confusion. Please explain what you mean when you say "LFS...accomplishes much of what Gentoo has set out to accomplish but without all of the superfluous extras." Is a BSD-style ports system superfluous? Superfluous is what is superfluous to you depending on your needs. This is why we have different distributions. So what are you talking about, what is your point?
BTW, Gentoo does also have a PPC version, please check your facts or make sure you are saying what you mean to say before posting: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/gentooppc-quickstart.htm l.
Well, dunno if you're being facetious or not, but thanks in any case, either for the compliment or for paying attention at all!
Okay, before you give me a response, I've heard these things before:
Point- It helps us understand what other music we'd be interested in and find it. ;). You are going to enjoy music more if you throw those categories out the window and just listen.
Rebuttal- Why don't we compare musicians to other musicians? That's more accurate and would probably get us closer to something we'd like. Frankly, there are more similarities between say, some Aphex Twin and Stockhausen than Aphex Twin and Moby, but they are lumped together and you are less likely to find out about Stockhausen than Moby because of that. That's a shame, because Moby sucks balls
Point- By putting things in genres, you can understand the lineage of music.
Rebuttal- This is true only to a point. Unfortunately I think it's been a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because we've had these categories people have started classifying themselves and putting themselves willingly into little boxes. Remember though that the great musicians didn't give a shit about these categories...Coltrane, Coleman, Mingus, etc. weren't out to create 'Free Jazz,' they were just bringing in aspects of their culture and other cultures together. That's a much more broad-minded grasp of music. The really funny thing to me that people do today is take little bits and pieces of different genres very consciously and try to call it something new, they categorize it before it's even out there. "Yeah, it's my new Funk/Jungle/Experimental Digital Hardcore/Polka band!" Why not just play some fucking music??
Anyways, this is a brief digression for a nerd site like this, but thought it'd be interesting to get some REAL discussion going about musical styles.
BTW, I have to ditto the poster above who said that the article was little more than an ad for Macs. I guess more generally it was an illustration that Wired probably shouldn't be doing pieces on music. Or they should realize that the technology is just a tool, no matter how much it has empowered people to create new music. For real music coverage, instead check out The Wire.
I've gotta agree...what's the deal with you folks? Check out the page he listed in the subject line:
http://linux-sound.org/
I've been checking out this stuff and using the software linking from it for a few years now (thanks Dave P.), and I've had a really fun time with it. If you are willing to use proprietary software and want to throw $50 towards a good project, I can recommend the 'Ultramaster rs101,' which is a fun little 16 track sequencer: http://www.ultramaster.com/rs101/. (seems like the site is temporarily down, try the google cache for now: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.ultramast er.com/rs101/.) If you want, you can hear some of the music I've made on linux with this package: http://www.easy-protest.com/music/
Currently I'm in the process of installing Ardour to see how that works, and I've used a bunch of other stuff already with good results, like Audacity, snd, (haven't tried hard enough to use) PD, etc.
There's a lot of stuff out there, and a lot going on! I know Ardour's been mentioned a lot, but if you would like to get some real pro-audio on Linux, I would recommend checking it out: http://ardour.sf.net/--and maybe tossing some money toward Paul Davis, who does a sh*tload of work for Alsa, Jack, and etc. as well as creating this amazing software. Of course, there are others out there too, get involved!
A link to a Google search of pages which link to the original page. Since the original is all links, this will probably be more helpful. Obviously, try clicking on the cached version, duh...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&num= 30&q=link:PzYbVLt75vYC:www.honet.com/Nadine/defaul t.htm
Yes, at the risk of being called a Karma whore.
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:PzYbVLt75vYC: www.honet.com/Nadine/default.htm+&hl=en&lr=lang_en
Obviously you've put a lot of thought into this. Why is that? If you're happy being who you are, why do you need to pay attention to what other people do with their lives? Why do you have to sit there and think up rationalizations about why people are gay and whether or not you can choose to be gay and that you *prefer* to be straight...etc.? Sounds pretty much like you've got some issues to deal with. This is not a flame, it's just what seems to be true from your lengthy, essentially useless explanation of why you are not gay and why others don't have to be.
I can understand perfectly well someone who considers themselves gay or lesbian or bi trying to understand why they are the way they are, and offering a rationalization to the world...that's because of all the homophobes (er...closet homosexuals who are uncomfortable with who they really might be?) on the other end wasting their and other's time thinking up reasons why someone else's behavior which really shouldn't concern them is wrong or able to be changed...why should it be changed? I guess this goes to those in the LGB community for which nature vs. nurture is a sticking point as well: don't you realize, that's not really the issue, despite what the Christian fundamentalists, social conservatives, radical queer theorists, etc. tell you?
To all of you: don't waste your time and everyone else's. Why does it matter whether God, the environment, their genes, or their own fucking choice made them that way? Let the people live in peace. Life is too fucking short.
Dave D.
Yes, but also one can observe that as we've acquired more and more knowledge, that hasn't necessarily led to an increase in wisdom. So if we are getting more educated, then we aren't necessarily putting that to work, and things are the same as they have always been--which really just supports your first point, but without the corollary (that in contrast, things are actually getting better).
I would imagine that neither do the slave-wage laborers in southeast Asia, and they don't seem to be get more educated, but less...and I don't see how things are in general getting better and better. In the United States, perhaps, our standard of living has been getting better and better. But when I think of the millions of people who have contracted HIV in Africa without access to the necessary expensive drug cocktail that would allow them to survive, the people around the world put to work for pitiful money to support the consumer machine that is western 'culture,' etc., I can't help but think things are, if not getting worse, then determinedly staying at the same level of overall mediocrity for most of humanity.
Well, uh, actually...
http://www.rocketguy.com/flash.html
http://www.artbell.com/rocketguy.html
I don't understand your point...that program is in C!
Where are you getting this? He talks about such an idea in Apocalypse 1, referencing RFC 16: Keep default Perl free of constraints such as warnings and strict. and says specifically that it is not good:
Furthermore he goes on:
And if you continue to read this section it sounds like the issue has not been completely resolved.
I've not read much more of the Apocalypses or Exegesises in depth...but what I've skimmed doesn't seem to address this in greater depth. Is there a more definitive answer to this question?
On the nature of parents' responsibility vs. society vs. the person who actually does the deed:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=28994&cid=3114 492
Maybe it will just help the game sell better, certainly among the adolescent population. I remember being a teen and if it had a warning label on it that was immediately more appealing. So I suppose it could be a boon for Sony in some ways.
And like the old expression goes, "No publicity is bad publicity."
Just to clarify: I wasn't trying to suggest that Reading University or the Department of Cybernetics there is a bunch of morons, or that they don't know what Warwick is up to--certainly not. In fact, I think they keep such a prat as Kevin Warwick on because he makes money for them. That's very intelligent, if cynical. :-)
Of course, maybe he's damn good at something, I don't know really. But based upon his media exposure, all he seems to be good at is drawing attention to himself.
Despite the fact that some of you feel The Reg. to be unnecessarily sarcastic or (tongue and cheek) sensationalistic, I think they've hit it spot on with their take on Prof. Warwick. He seems to be pretty much into it for the 'look-at-me-I'm-original' factor, but he doesn't seem to have much scientific credibility when it comes right down to it. Here is a good Reg. analysis from 2000, after his the big story in Wired came out about him: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/29/9250.html.
His attempts to become a cyborg from what I understand consisted of little more than putting a chip in his body which would open a door as he walked towards it. How is this that different from: having the chip in your pocket, sticking it to your arm with some sort of patch, etc. My roommate's cat has a chip implanted in her to find her in the case of her running away. Is she a cyborg kitty??
As far as this new venture is concerned, Warwick seems to have the idea that using this kind of technology to help paralyzed is his idea, or has never been done. Think again, Professor Warwick (I really this is somewhat different but seems to be essentially the same idea, stimulating nerves to create movement in people struggling with paralysis...my point is merely that Warwick is not the brilliant loner on the revolutionary fronts of scientific acheivement that he makes himself out to be...there are people doing real science all over who don't need the gratification of being in the media--this is a non-story).
Check out this link for further information: http://www.kevinwarwick.org.uk/.
I've just been checking the mirror sites, and it doesn't appear to be up on many of them yet, at least not in the states...I got it off of the openssh site in alberta (sorry guys, I want it and it's just not on the mirrors yet!!).
I'm taking this from Harper's February 2002 issue. The spelling errors are Harris's:
[Last Wishes]
AS YOU WERE
From the journal of Eric Harris, who, with Dylan Klebold, committed suicide after killing thirteen people in April 1999 at Columbine High School. The journal was leaked last December, after eight of the nine cases against the school district and polic were dismissed. Duke and Doom are video games.
it will be like the LA riots, the oklahoma bombing, WWII, vietnam, duke and doom all mixed together. maybe we will even start a little rebelion or revolution to fuck things up as much as we can. i want to leave a lasting impression on the world. and god damnit do not blame anyone else besides me and V [Klebold] for this. don't blame my family, they had no clue and there is nothing they could have done, they brought me up just fucking fine. don't blame toy stores or any other stores for selling us ammo, bomb materials or anything like that becuase it's not their fault. i don't want no fucking laws on buying fucking PVC pipes. we are kind of a select case here so don't think this will happen again. don't blame the school, don't fucking put cops all over the place. just because we went on a killing spree doesn't mean everyone else will, and hardly ever do people bring bombs or guns to school anyway. the admin is doing a fine job as it is. i don't know who will be left after we kill but damnit don't change any policies just because of us. it would be stupid, and if there is any way in this fucked up universe we can come back as ghosts or what the fuck ever we will haunt the life out of anyone who blames anoyone besides me and V. if by some weird as shit luck me and V survive and escape we will move to some island somewhere or maybe mexico, new zelend, or some exotic place where americans can't get us. if there isn't such a place, then we will hijack a hell of a lot of bombs and crash a plane into NYC with us inside firing away as we go down. just something to cause more devistation.
(end of the Harper's quote...)
Well, I might not believe Harris is or can be completely honest about why he thought he was going to do what he and 'V' did - obviously the kid was a little mentally unstable - but it's pretty f$cking interesting some of the things he says (and his talk about crashing a plane into NYC is very disturbingly prescient, on a side note).
I ditto what HKTiger said. Again, no need to be insulting, but I guess you saw what I was saying as insulting; for that I apologize. But I again emphasize that I was not trying to be, only stating what I saw as reality.
Contrary to what you have suggested, I am thinking. And thinking has led me to a few points:
Please, try to look at this with some consideration. I'm not being absurd or attempting to insult, or to patronize, but it does sound as if you are taking this rather defensively and more to heart than you need to. This is a real point I'm trying to make, and rather than challenging my ideas with alternatives or intelligent refutation based on statistics, you're just going for the throat. This will get us nowhere.
Perhaps we won't get rid of cars (probably not) but we need to try to understand a future where cars don't exist and people get around. Fossil fuels aren't going to last forever, and that means that we need to radically rethink cars, whether that means getting rid of them or finding new ways to make them run and new materials to create roads. What do you have to suggest other than "this is the way it is, deal with it?"
Well, I can see your point, but I've got to disagree at least to a certain extent. Living in the city I've gone grocery shopping, done laundry, been out in the snow and rain and had to deal with all the instances where the benefits of public transportation don't shine so much. However, I see many instances where public transportation could be used, and isn't. I see many instances where, if more people took public transporation, the traffic problems associated with cars would be alleviated. And I also see public transportation projects which could be viable and which would allow more of the benefits of cars which you describe (getting closer right to your door) but which are shot down because they would only be a boon to the lower class citizens, and that is not enough to justify the expense. Sure, public transportation isn't going to be perfect, but it's going to be more sustainable than cars, and there are socio-economics benefits as well.
I've heard many times the argument of "it's what we're used to, it's our lifestyle." That's a rather selfish and short-sighted way to look at it, isn't it? Honestly, who cares if your date isn't so spectacular because you can't drive vs. take a bus? Maybe that's more because you don't know how to really make a date spectacular. But I digress.
The point is, at a certain time we are going to have to grow up and realize that the comfortable way we live is inefficient and not sustainable. You may think I'm expecting you to live in my "little world." But it's really the other way around - I'm hoping everyone will eventually wake up and realize that it is a little world they've been living in, fed by the marketing propaganda of the auto industry and filled with the complacency and privilege of the over-indulgent upper class of the world stage. Try to include yourself in the bigger world that actually exists and needs to be dealt with, thank you.
And why does everyone on slashdot have to be so damn insulting?? Honestly, I'm just trying to make a point here. I'm not trying to insult anyone.
By the way, I've seen plenty of people making out on the back seat of a bus or train. Doesn't seem to matter if you really want to do it.
I swear I'm not trying to troll...this is what I really think and what occured to me when reading the article. I didn't intend to be a troll and I think the fact that it seems obvious and a not very good troll to you should help show that that was not my intent.
I don't think it's that foolish either: cars really are an inefficient and unintelligent mode of transport compared to trains or other mass transit.
Damnit, they're just not intelligent ways to get around. Even if we eliminate the use of fossil fuels with the vehicles, the costs of building and maintaining the roadways, not to mention the fossil fuel consumption THAT involves, is a waste of our resources and unintelligent.
What about trains?? It seems obvious - safer, carry more people with less resource cost, eliminate the nasty roads all over the U.S. (being U.S. centric here as I'm an American, apologize to all non-USians)..I know other countries take trains more seriously, why do the auto manufactures have so much damn influence here? It's just stupid!!! I saw a show on PBS the other night about advances in intelligent cars, and it involved spending tremendous amount in research, investing in new roadways that are prepared for these new cars, etc...why not invest this time and energy in a long term solution?
More public transportation! More incentives to use public transportation! Let's start being intelligent about our future infrastructure...oh, I'm just wasting my breath...*sigh*
Wow...you really have a low opinion of the Reg, which to me sounds ridiculous. Yes, they do have sensationalist (and very funny at times) headlines. But one of their mottos is: "Integrity, we've heard of it." And if you don't read the Reg with a little bit of your tongue in your cheek then you are missing the point and you are missing out.
However, I'd also like to point out that in the original article, they did mention exactly where they got their information: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23939.html ...from the Brazilian site Hotbits. And it seems to me that a journalist can do no better in reporting the truth than if he/she uses the unadulterated words of someone - RMS's full letter - to respond to their (the Reg's) statements about that person. How could they get closer to admitting that they were wrong other than saying explicitly "we were wrong" !? How is that weaseling out? They are the ones who posted the damn letter!!!! And what the hell at the bottom below RMS's letter consists of demonizing Miguel de Icaza? Here's the text below the letter, read it carefully:
We've been promised a tape and a transcript of the Porto Alegre Q and A.
Miguel de Icaza has issued his own clarification, here, which also amounts to "move along folks, there's nothing to see".
On Friday he repeated his desire to base future GNOME development on the .NET APIs using work from his Mono project.
".NET is a fantastic technology upgrade for GNOME from Microsoft," he said.
In the interview, he praised many aspects of .NET including SmartClients and the new Microsoft security model. ®
And again, if you go back to this piece: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23939.html it really seems that they are defending Miguel rather than demonizing. It seems that most of the demonizing of Miguel (and RMS) goes on on Slashdot.
Now, really...what the hell are you talking about?
http://eveander.com/cancun/images/43.jpg