But you would rather have the government coerce everyone to give as you do rather than give up your precious luxuries and act privately.
Not at all. I do not wish the gov't to coerce people to give. I think it would be much better if the people did not have the extra (that they currently do) to give. I think that the extra should not be available, it should be directly provided to those who do not have a sufficiency.
Now this is quite unrealistic and will never happen on a global level until a massive paradigm shift occurs in the minds of the wellfed.
I'm just being idealistic. We can all dream. But I'm not so delusional as to expect that technology of any kind (including nanotech) will ever solve these sorts of problems. They are problems of the human consciousness. That was the point I was trying to get across. Technology is cool, but it won't solve our problems. We have to do that on our own.
ok, so maybe the average girl doesn't go for the geek who is hidden behind a terminal, staring at his computer screen all day.
BUT,
There are a lot of intelligent women out there who are attracted to geeks, whose best friends are geeks, and who value intelligence and personality above everything else.
No, it's hardly a myth. We do exist. The reason we sometimes avoid the geeks is because we are stared at or excluded, because you guys are so shocked to see (oh my gawd!) a female geek.
You are just as guilty of stereotyping too. Not every non-geek is a wife beater. And not every chick goes for non-geeks.
The intelligent women I know want a "nice" guy, not a "cool" guy who: 1)Can support himself financially and emotionally. 2)Will be loyal because he is with us for our intelligence and personality, not our looks. 3)Will treat us with respect because we are bright and interesting people in our own right.
The major cause of famines is not lack of FOOD, but lack of MONEY. When you get right down to it, plant organisms are remarkably efficient at building food, far more efficient than robots building food could be. Enough food exists in the world for everyone to be fat and lazy, but the starving people can't afford to buy it.
Yes, you've got it. The problem is that humanity doesn't look after its wider interests. The starving people/countries shouldn't have problems buying food... the rich, wellfed, spoiled countries should provide it. It's the whole 'Let them eat cake' mentality. People have trouble pulling themselves out of their own little world of trivial problems and thus don't see what the real problems are for others. They just can't comprehend it.
And this will not be solved with nanites or any other technology. The Diamond Age (by Neil Stephenson) was a very cool book... but we aren't going to see that world in our lifetime. And would we really want to?
This article was a piece of rambling fluff. It mumbled about the 90's equivalent to the 50's flying-car-dream-future. And it had very little real information. I expect we will see a lot of articles like this in the next few years. Becuase nano-tech sounds cool and it's vague enough at this point that journalists can pretend it will create a global utopia.
Last year we had a 'Who should go naked at ALS' poll... 'OctobrX' won (staggering majority), with 'NOT Cmdr Taco' a distant second. This year I propose we have a who should go clothed to ALS poll.;-)
Well, I contend it does, but you can subscribe to whatever you like.
TIME seems to be the most powerful force, an irresistible river carrying us from birth to death. To most people it is an inescapable part of life, a fundamental element of the Universe.
True enough, once you start reading TIME magazine, it's an addiction. You see it's colourful pages as a child, and rip them out to your parents dismay. And if you are important enough, they will write about your death. TIME has many readers, and probably likes to think itself a "fundamental element of the Universe". But I disagree.
But I think that time is an illusion.
Hmm, that would be tricky, a 3D holographic magazine perhaps? ---
1) Buy NT 2) Install NT 3) Read articles on MSN about NT 4) Not laugh at articles 5) Believe articles 6) Feel a kinship in the "dumbness" author describes in current article 7) Apply techniques suggested in article 8) Think you are safe and wise after doing 7 9) Write articles for MSN about NT 10) Believe you are helping others by doing 9 ---
10. A revolutionary 3-dimensional GUI takes the world by storm. It runs on Linux.
Wear those silly blue and red 3D glasses, then everyone will at least THINK you're looking at something 3D!
9. Human memory backups -- trouble cramming for that history final? Temporarily swap out your chemistry notes.
Human memory backups... commonly known as cheat notes!
8. Conscious computers overthrow the despotic, illogical rule of humanity, establishing a pastoral eden shared by the people of the world and machines of loving grace
Beat yourself over the head with a baseball bat... if you do it long enough, you'll believe this too! (for less permanent results, use NERF)
7. Sexbots
Replace your Real Doll's face with a CRT and surf for pr0n during usage. (Not suitable for those bathtub adventures)
6. A sect of quasi-zen mystics unlocks the secrets of the human mind, and discovers brains of computer geeks contain unusually high concentrations of midi-chlorians
Warning: do not remove brain to test this theory! Just assume it's true (less painful).
5. Unheralded advances in medical science allow delayed-onset aging -- present-day superhackers live virtually forever. Body getting old? Backup your mind and culture yourself a new brain.
Brain Recipe:
3 packets jello (any flavour) 1 packet Koolaid (purple flavour) 3 cups water 2 cups flour pinch of salt dash of lemon juice OR use 1 packet Insta-Mind(tm) Mix completely, then let set for 4 hours. Apply electrodes to head, and transfer electric impulses to set mixture. Remove brain, replace with mixture, pouring carefully.
4. IT professionals, tired of stodgy traditional government, unite to form the first nation unbound by geographic or genetic ties. The native language of this new country is not English or Spanish, but Java 6.1.
Start having object oriented discussions at supper with your family today!
3. Space-age cereal that stays crunchy in milk longer than 30 seconds
Try Cap'n Crunch. It's disturbing how long it stays crunchy. And on another note, given it's bland tan colour, why do the ingredients list FOOD COLOURING?! (what colour was it before?!)
2. The aliens land, and Steve Jobs is their leader. That otherworldly, floppyless iMac thing had to be designed by extraterrestrials.
Make sure your house is colour coordinated to the iMac flavours so that you'll fit in when the aliens take over.
1. Intra-neural internet links -- mentioned by Katz, but so damn cool!
Stare at your web browser intently, form a picture of the page you want. Hold that image in your mind. Start a rhythmic chant of the URL. Pretty soon, some co-worker, friend, or family member will link you to the site, just to shut you up.
All in all, this was an article full of ridiculous amounts of FUD and unsupported claims. Here's my thoughts on a few choice bits that I found particularly amusing.
Linux fundamentally relies on 30-year-old operating system technology and architecture.
Why are they continually harping on the fact that it's 30 years old? There's a reason Unix has been around that long and in those 30 years, a lot of work has gone into the OS.
Customers such as Barnes and Noble, The Boeing Company, Chicago Stock Exchange, Dell Computer, First Union Capital Markets, Nasdaq and many others run mission critical applications on Windows NT 4.0.
More fool them!
Linux lacks a commercial quality Journaling File System. This means that in the event of a system failure, such as a power outage, data loss or corruption is possible.
Because of course, Windows never causes data loss and corruption!
There is no reason to believe that Linux is significantly different than other versions of UNIX when it comes to TCO. (total cost of ownership)
Ummm, what? huh? I think that claim is a bit preposterous!
The very definition of Linux as an Open Software effort means that commercial companies like Red Hat will make money by charging for services. Therefore, commercial support services for Linux will be fee-based and will likely be priced at a premium. These costs have to be factored into the total cost model.
The difference is, that if you run into trouble you have a lot more tools and options available (due to it's open source nature) than you would for Windows NT. If you run into a problem with Windows, you _have_ to contact their tech support, which may be free, but is not guaranteed to be useful. Becuase they are closed source, there are no other options if you can't figure it out yourself. With Linux, there are a plethora of options and choices, before you have to pay for support. (and does anyone actually have any data on what RedHat charges? This FUD article was apparently not motivated to actually find out, they just speculated that it would be expensive).
Linux is a UNIX-like operating system and is therefore complex to configure and manage.
Hmmm, again, they make a broad claim without any evidence to support it. This is true FUD at it's worst.
For example how many certified engineers are there for Linux?
hahahaha... ok, now this IS an amusing point. I have a story to relate that happened to someone I know who worked for an ISP. He went to solve router problems for a client. This client happened to have an MSCE(Microsoft certified engineer) working for them. This guy was not something Linux wants a clone of! My friend later related that this guy neither understood what packets were (?!), nor was he quick to grasp, the uses of cable... My friend -with much cable around him- suggested they needed to hook the router up to a computer that was in a different room. The MSCE didn't want to because, he didn't want to have to 'move the computer over here'. Yeesh!
Linux system administrators must spend huge amounts of time understanding the latest Linux bugs and determining what to do about them. This is made complex due to the fact that there isn't a central location for security issues to be reported and fixed. In contrast Microsoft provides a single security repository for notification and fixes of security related issues.
Wasn't this silliness mentioned yesterday in an article about ZDNet's "impartial" test of Linux vs. WindowsNT. (window's large service packs, vs Linux's single patches that can be tested) *sarc* And of course, it's very difficult to be on bugtraq and it's hard to determine how to apply patches!
Configuring Linux security requires an administrator to be an expert in the intricacies of the operating system and how components interact. Misconfigure any part of the operating system and the system could be vulnerable to attack. Windows NT security is easy to set up and administer with tools such as the Security Configuration Editor.
And listen to this folks! You don't even have to be the Administator to set up security. Now, there's even new remote administration tools being made for Windows by 3rd party groups! Get your copy of BO2K today!
Linux does not support important ease-of-use technologies such as Plug and Play
So Mandrake sells the most boxed linux. Your point? How relevant is this? Many, many people borrow discs from friends or download linux or even borrow discs from their library.
All this article really tells us is what distro a lot of newbies are trying. Ok, that's fine... and many of them will likely switch to some other Linux after they get more confidant. And some won't.
Whether we like it or not, there are at least two Linux "audiences" now. There is the techie, geek audience and the not-so-techie, not-so-geeky audience. Just becuase a lot of the latter group are currently becoming Linux users, does not mean that there is no longer a place for books/distros/sites that cater to the former group. Even if the article's claim about slashdot had been true (why didn't the author search for Mandrake?!), there would be nothing wrong with that... it is perfectly allowable for/. to cater to the geekier Linux users. (I am not necessarily saying it does, I'm just pointing out, that there is nothing wrong with that). ---
Actually, there's nothing wrong with putting the $ after the number, it's not based on an MS syntax. It's the style in which people who speak French write monetary values. Don't go to Quebec or France.. you'll freak out. ---
EEEeek. This scares me too. Thankfully, I'm at the University of Waterloo in Canada and I think we're a bit safer from M$ invasion attempts... at least for the moment. And we have a pretty serious *nix community/environment here.
One of the most disturbing aspects of this collaboration, is the idea of big business being able to have power over education... when are they going to start "donating" more than money? When is it going to start dictating what's taught at university? I realise universities need to get the money from somewhere, but I wish it didn't have to be businesses with such a biased interest.
Universities are traditionally the home of the idealistic spirits. We are young and still have the delusion:) that we can change things. At univ. you are not just learning a skill to get a job, you are getting an education... learning to think for yourself. I am afraid that if big business gets too tied into universities, the environment that fosters this free thought will be stifled.
Think about it... who is traditionally involved in the revolutions and demonstrations (world wide)? It tends to be the intellectuals, students, university professors. These are the people who have learned to think for themselves, and not be spoon-fed propaganda (gov't or business). If businesses start owning universities, they will stop being public institutions that support diversity and choice. Where will we go to learn freely, then ? ---
While this article introduced some cool sounding ideas, it seemed a bit thin on real information.
First of all, it has turned its back on the neat solution of public key encryption which foils many of Eve's opportunities. And it assumed that "some mathematical genius" would eventually learn to factor numbers created by large primes. While this is, of course, a possibility, I am of the opinion that it is quite remote. Perhaps it was just the simple language used in the article, but the actual cryptographic evidence wasn't very robust.
If some mathematical genius can break current public key encryption schemes, doesn't it seem just as likely that someone will be able to solve the problem of how to intercept the quantum encryption?
This is not intended as an inflammatory comment, but I agree and I feel there were some extreme lapses of logic in this article... I think it missed the point entirely and didn't really suggest a solution.
Clotho wouldn't present us with fewer choices, but making tough choices for us. She would function as our Big Sister...
Becasue, of course, that is sooooo much better than a Big Brother!
A Clotho site would use logic and search engine technology to brutally edit the Web...
Haven't we been fighting against this sort of censorship? Again, who writes the program, who decides what gets edited, who decides how to rate it?
Do we need cellphones to access sports scores on the Web as we drive home from work, or can we wait a half-hour till we get home? Clotho would ask.
NO, of course not, do you really need a program, website or other entity to tell you that?
She'd take revenge on behalf of the tens of millions of people forced to buy things they don't want or things they can't use
FORCED? C'mon, these people have just bought into marketing...they don't need a Software Goddess(tm) to take revenge, they need to wake up and think about what the PR are departments are spoon-feeding them, and then choke on it, and spit it out!
Clotho could be the Goddess of Unintended Consequences, forcing us to consider the implications of the things we bring into the world. Maybe she'd turn the CEO's of the most arroganant companies over to Hades (flamers, beware) for some roasting and agonies.
Does this really SAY anything or contribute any useful ideas? This among other points, doesn't seem to refer to anything except a descent into metaphor.
perhaps we can simply turn our coffeemakers on when we wake up instead of programming them. She'd put a quick, merciful end to health-checking toilets.
Again, why do we need this Software Goddess(tm) to make these decisions? If you have the common sense to see how ludicrous a health-checking-toilet is, don't you have enough to decide that you don't want to BUY one?! And if you want that extra ten minutes sleep then you can program your coffee maker...or if you don't, you can buy a non-programmable coffee maker!
And here begins my rant... What good would this serve us? If we can't make these decisions to filter on our own, we have more troubles than a programmed goddess can solve! Humans need to become more self sufficient with information, not less.
Many people are already fooled into believing that a 30 second story on the news can give them all the information they need! We need to control the Fate of our information ourselves.
Programs can never have the same judgement, compassion or empathy as a human, and we need to exercise our humanity in this technology saturated future, not subdue it under the dominion of regulatory technology. ---
Well, we've got to have a choice of funny questions, so here goes. (inspired by the current poll):
When choosing a breakfast cereal (assuming you consume breakfast cereals) which of the following methods do you practice and why ?
a)best brand-name recognition from product placements and/or blatant advertising b)most irritatingly memorable jingle c)coolest mascot d)least nutritious, most sugar-coated-candy-frosted-chocolate-filled-anti-p rotein-fat-laden-Calvin&Hobbes-esque cereal e)most nutrious, health-freak-dietary-fibre-enhanced-vitamin-minera l-replacement cereal f)random chance, just grab whichever box comes to hand (the Zen choice) g)Breakfast cereal ?! Who gets up in time for breakfast ? ---
Well, yes, you're right. perfectly. That should be the point. Better operating systems... of course. Makes a lot of sense. But (and this is the kicker)...
... That is never going to be the point. CrackThis!(tm) challenges are always going to be about ego. The ego of the cracker. The ego of the OS community. Ego. It sounds childish and silly, but that's what it is. These contests, which seem to be common lately, are not about testing the system, really. Sure that is often a nice side effect, but really, it seems that it's more a way to "prove" that such-n-such OS is better than this-n-that OS.
Sad, but true. It should be about improving the OS, but until these contests are restructured to be less inflammatory, people are going to use them as proof for their particular OS fanaticism. That's human nature and will have to be expected in such a setting.
Now, I personally don't have anything against these contests, they do have useful results. But I don't think we can ever, realistically, expect them to be purely for improving the OS in question. ---
And lastly, there's no environment to damage. You can dump all the toxic waste to want, and it can't hurt anyone.
How can we judge that sort of thing at our age (as a species) ?! Just because there are no trees or lakes or mammals on the moon doesn't mean that it can't be destroyed through human exploitation! Do we really have the knowledge to judge what the effects might be ?
I am among those who enjoys looking up at the stars and seeing a realm that is mostly untouched. There are no flashing Coca Cola signs, no unnatural disfigurations to the beauty of the moon... it looks empty, uninhabitated, wild and beautiful... I am not keen on having this change...
It was mentioned that there are no political claims to the moon yet.. ie. no one owns it... what will happen to that ? Will it be destroyed by greedy mining corporations that have no regulations to follow ? Will it be disfigured with uneccesary moon colonies and bases ?
I think that for once we should pay attention to what history has taught... doing things for pure entertainment and fun is OFTEN a temporary and ultimately disastrous reason... think of all the brief fashion crazes that have endangered various species of animals... At the time it seemed harmless... the true, long-lasting effects were only to be regretted later.
Let's leave the moon be. We have NO NEED to colonise it. (If Earth becomes uninhabitable, it's our own fault. We shouldn't use that as an excuse to ruin another part of our Solar System.)
We are obsessed with creating an artificial life. We wish to become gods and masters of a new race that we have made. Which, it seems likely, will not turn out to be "artificial" at all. And then what... history repeats... whatever is responsible for creating humans on earth, whether it was an omnipotent being or a chance collision, it was forgotten and we took credit for our own intelligence and power and we dominated. So too, will it be with the Artificial Life (tm) that we make. It will rise in power and forget what created it. And it will dominate.
Sentience:
And if it doesn't do this, then we have failed in our primary objective. So shall we create a superior race and wither as weakling "gods" or shall we fail and continue to survive ?
Intelligence:
I agree that it is far more likely that we shall fail to bring about our inglorius demise through AI. I don't think WE have enough intelligence to create such sentience.
It is not so much that male and female geeks are necessarily different, but that all people express their geekiness in different ways.
That said, there are a number of different factors that affect the female geek. I can't speak for those in buiness as I am still in university. But there certainly does seem to be a lack of other female geeks in my cs program. Thus, because I wish to have geeky friends, most of my friends are male. And these being enlightened guys raised in the 80's, they accept me as an equal.
However, sometimes, the female geek runs into the problem that to be accepted she has to be "one-of-the-guys". While this is fine for some people, like me, some women are not like that. They may be geeks, but they do not want to just be "one-of-the-guys". This should be ok, too, and often, isn't. ---
More Problems (and a Suggestion)
on
Moderation Ideas
·
· Score: 1
I agree with your gripe completely.
I would like to add that another problem is created by the wide variety of stories presented on slashdot. Some of the topics I would certainly not feel qualified to evaluate whether someone's comment was "insightful" or "informative". Figuring out who is a "troll" or "flamebait" is usually obvious, but for good comments, the moderator needs to feel that they understand the post well enough to judge it. Then there are the mediocre comments that don't deserve to move from their initial score of '0' for AC's or '1' for users...
...if the moderator's random 20% gives them these sorts of posts, the good moderators will likely feel frustrated at their inability to moderate and the bad moderators will probably find some way to be annoying within this context anyways.
A better fix would be to reward good moderators (based on Karma?), and hope that M2 weeds out the bad moderators.
Although the improved context aspect is appealing. The problem I forsee with integration is due to our threshholds.
I don't mind taking 5 minutes to meta-moderate and then be done with it. I don't mind, in that context, reading a few loser comments, which have likely been appropriately moderated.
However, if M2 was integrated, to properly participate, I would have to do it throughout the day as I read articles, with which I would probably lose patience. Or if many of the randomly chosen comments had low scores, I wouldn't even see them at all, since I like to read articles with a threshold of 2.
Furthermore, how many randomly chosen comments would be set for meta-moderation? As it is, I only can meta-moderate 10 per day, would this be kept track of if the comments were integrated?
yes, it seems that the NAME of a key is a bit weak evidence to use.
However, I think people began to have more fun with the "government has evil plans" conspiracy theories and they lost track of the real topic. So far, there seems to be no *real* evidence of anything, either way, at all.
the real lesson should _not_ be "be afraid of MS and the NSA", it should be "THINK about what you are reading and get more information". If you don't, you will be one of the unsuspecting masses who will get blinded by propaganda. ---
That's almost the only beef I have with The GIMP as well. I would like (as in photoshop) the tool to use the same shape as it's icon. (ie. the blur tool would be teardrop shaped when in use). It may be that I'm just used to that, but I find it easier to work with.
Ok, perhaps I am a bit deluded. But I'm happy in that state.;) My view from north of the border might also affect my opinions.
However... I think our real difference here is the old philosophical battle of whether people are good or evil by nature. Much wiser and long dead people have effectively argued for both sides. It is really a personal choice of paradigm which decides which idea is correct. I personally believe that people are good by nature.
And while I am assuming people are good by nature, I did say that there are bad people by conditioning... thus, OF COURSE it's silly to say "Everyone is good and no one is a criminal and who needs this DB?"
I do think that a government of many can work, but perhaps not in the US. (I s'pose we could say that a democracy is actually a gov't of many... but that idea probably pertains more to socialism)
I must certainly agree that the current infrastructure is under-utilised. But that in itself does not necessarily mean that a new idea is useless.
"Our government is made up of PEOPLE, by nature people are not good. So the fewer people that you have in power the fewer bad people you will have."
I have to disagree on this point.
I believe that: 1. By nature, people are "good". 2. The more people in power, the less power in the hands of the "bad" people.
1. This is not to say that people do not do bad things or have bad goals, but I think that people are not essentially bad by nature, they are bad by conditioning. (ie. they have become bad) This gives me hope that good government is possible. (yep, I'm a bit of an idealist)
2. I think that the number of people around who are bad is going to stay fairly constant, but less than the number of good people (see 1). However, if power is spread through many hands, the likelihood is that most power will be in the hands of good people.
Without really judging whether or not this picture db will be abused or not, I refer to the original post we are replying to here and again ask, "what exactly is so bad about this?". If we assume that people are good, then mightn't this db HELP the gov't be MORE effective ?
Slashdot Mirror
But you would rather have the government coerce everyone to give as you do rather than give up your precious luxuries and act privately.
Not at all. I do not wish the gov't to coerce people to give. I think it would be much better if the people did not have the extra (that they currently do) to give. I think that the extra should not be available, it should be directly provided to those who do not have a sufficiency.
Now this is quite unrealistic and will never happen on a global level until a massive paradigm shift occurs in the minds of the wellfed.
I'm just being idealistic. We can all dream. But I'm not so delusional as to expect that technology of any kind (including nanotech) will ever solve these sorts of problems. They are problems of the human consciousness. That was the point I was trying to get across. Technology is cool, but it won't solve our problems. We have to do that on our own.
---
ok, so maybe the average girl doesn't go for the geek who is hidden behind a terminal, staring at his computer screen all day.
BUT,
There are a lot of intelligent women out there who are attracted to geeks, whose best friends are geeks, and who value intelligence and personality above everything else.
No, it's hardly a myth. We do exist. The reason we sometimes avoid the geeks is because we are stared at or excluded, because you guys are so shocked to see (oh my gawd!) a female geek.
You are just as guilty of stereotyping too. Not every non-geek is a wife beater. And not every chick goes for non-geeks.
The intelligent women I know want a "nice" guy, not a "cool" guy who:
1)Can support himself financially and emotionally.
2)Will be loyal because he is with us for our intelligence and personality, not our looks.
3)Will treat us with respect because we are bright and interesting people in our own right.
---
The major cause of famines is not lack of FOOD, but lack of MONEY. When you get right down to it, plant organisms are remarkably efficient at building food, far more efficient than robots building food could be. Enough food exists in the world for everyone to be fat and lazy, but the starving people can't afford to buy it.
Yes, you've got it. The problem is that humanity doesn't look after its wider interests. The starving people/countries shouldn't have problems buying food... the rich, wellfed, spoiled countries should provide it. It's the whole 'Let them eat cake' mentality. People have trouble pulling themselves out of their own little world of trivial problems and thus don't see what the real problems are for others. They just can't comprehend it.
And this will not be solved with nanites or any other technology. The Diamond Age (by Neil Stephenson) was a very cool book... but we aren't going to see that world in our lifetime. And would we really want to?
This article was a piece of rambling fluff. It mumbled about the 90's equivalent to the 50's flying-car-dream-future. And it had very little real information. I expect we will see a lot of articles like this in the next few years. Becuase nano-tech sounds cool and it's vague enough at this point that journalists can pretend it will create a global utopia.
How nice. A little unrealistic, though.
---
Last year we had a 'Who should go naked at ALS' poll... 'OctobrX' won (staggering majority), with 'NOT Cmdr Taco' a distant second. ;-)
This year I propose we have a who should go clothed to ALS poll.
---
A few thoughts on some comments in the article:
Does time really exist?
Well, I contend it does, but you can subscribe to whatever you like.
TIME seems to be the most powerful force, an irresistible river carrying us from birth
to death. To most people it is an inescapable part of life, a fundamental element of the
Universe.
True enough, once you start reading TIME magazine, it's an addiction. You see it's colourful
pages as a child, and rip them out to your parents dismay. And if you are important enough,
they will write about your death. TIME has many readers, and probably likes to think itself a
"fundamental element of the Universe". But I disagree.
But I think that time is an illusion.
Hmm, that would be tricky, a 3D holographic magazine perhaps?
---
Here are 10 more dumb things that NT users do:
1) Buy NT
2) Install NT
3) Read articles on MSN about NT
4) Not laugh at articles
5) Believe articles
6) Feel a kinship in the "dumbness" author describes in current article
7) Apply techniques suggested in article
8) Think you are safe and wise after doing 7
9) Write articles for MSN about NT
10) Believe you are helping others by doing 9
---
This is how we can pretend that future is here!
10. A revolutionary 3-dimensional GUI takes the world by storm. It runs on Linux.
Wear those silly blue and red 3D glasses, then everyone will at least THINK you're looking at something 3D!
9. Human memory backups -- trouble cramming for that history final? Temporarily swap out your chemistry notes.
Human memory backups... commonly known as cheat notes!
8. Conscious computers overthrow the despotic, illogical rule of humanity, establishing a pastoral eden shared by the people of the world and machines of loving grace
Beat yourself over the head with a baseball bat... if you do it long enough, you'll believe this too! (for less permanent results, use NERF)
7. Sexbots
Replace your Real Doll's face with a CRT and surf for pr0n during usage. (Not suitable for those bathtub adventures)
6. A sect of quasi-zen mystics unlocks the secrets of the human mind, and discovers brains of computer geeks contain unusually high concentrations of midi-chlorians
Warning: do not remove brain to test this theory! Just assume it's true (less painful).
5. Unheralded advances in medical science allow delayed-onset aging -- present-day superhackers live virtually forever. Body getting old? Backup your mind and culture yourself a new brain.
Brain Recipe:
3 packets jello (any flavour)
1 packet Koolaid (purple flavour)
3 cups water
2 cups flour
pinch of salt
dash of lemon juice
OR use 1 packet Insta-Mind(tm)
Mix completely, then let set for 4 hours.
Apply electrodes to head, and transfer electric impulses to set mixture.
Remove brain, replace with mixture, pouring carefully.
4. IT professionals, tired of stodgy traditional government, unite to form the first nation unbound by geographic or genetic ties. The native language of this new country is not English or Spanish, but Java 6.1.
Start having object oriented discussions at supper with your family today!
3. Space-age cereal that stays crunchy in milk longer than 30 seconds
Try Cap'n Crunch. It's disturbing how long it stays crunchy. And on another note, given it's bland tan colour, why do the ingredients list FOOD COLOURING?! (what colour was it before?!)
2. The aliens land, and Steve Jobs is their leader. That otherworldly, floppyless iMac thing had to be designed by extraterrestrials.
Make sure your house is colour coordinated to the iMac flavours so that you'll fit in when the aliens take over.
1. Intra-neural internet links -- mentioned by Katz, but so damn cool!
Stare at your web browser intently, form a picture of the page you want. Hold that image in your mind. Start a rhythmic chant of the URL. Pretty soon, some co-worker, friend, or family member will link you to the site, just to shut you up.
Voila! The future is here!
---
All in all, this was an article full of ridiculous amounts of FUD and unsupported claims. Here's my
thoughts on a few choice bits that I found particularly amusing.
Linux fundamentally relies on 30-year-old operating system technology and architecture.
Why are they continually harping on the fact that it's 30 years old? There's a reason Unix
has been around that long and in those 30 years, a lot of work has gone into the OS.
Customers such as Barnes and Noble, The Boeing Company, Chicago Stock Exchange, Dell
Computer, First Union Capital Markets, Nasdaq and many others run mission critical
applications on Windows NT 4.0.
More fool them!
Linux lacks a commercial quality Journaling File System. This means that in the event of a
system failure, such as a power outage, data loss or corruption is possible.
Because of course, Windows never causes data loss and corruption!
There is no reason to believe that Linux is significantly different than other versions of
UNIX when it comes to TCO. (total cost of ownership)
Ummm, what? huh? I think that claim is a bit preposterous!
The very definition of Linux as an Open Software effort means that commercial companies like
Red Hat will make money by charging for services. Therefore, commercial support services for
Linux will be fee-based and will likely be priced at a premium. These costs have to be
factored into the total cost model.
The difference is, that if you run into trouble you have a lot more tools and options available
(due to it's open source nature) than you would for Windows NT. If you run into a problem
with Windows, you _have_ to contact their tech support, which may be free, but is not guaranteed to
be useful. Becuase they are closed source, there are no other options if you can't figure it
out yourself. With Linux, there are a plethora of options and choices, before you have to pay for
support. (and does anyone actually have any data on what RedHat charges? This FUD article
was apparently not motivated to actually find out, they just speculated that it would be
expensive).
Linux is a UNIX-like operating system and is therefore complex to configure and manage.
Hmmm, again, they make a broad claim without any evidence to support it. This is true FUD
at it's worst.
For example how many certified engineers are there for Linux?
hahahaha... ok, now this IS an amusing point. I have a story to relate that happened to someone
I know who worked for an ISP. He went to solve router problems for a client. This client happened to
have an MSCE(Microsoft certified engineer) working for them. This guy was not something Linux wants
a clone of! My friend later related that this guy neither understood what packets were (?!), nor was he
quick to grasp, the uses of cable... My friend -with much cable around him- suggested they needed to hook
the router up to a computer that was in a different room. The MSCE didn't want to because, he didn't want
to have to 'move the computer over here'. Yeesh!
Linux system administrators must spend huge amounts of time understanding the latest
Linux bugs and determining what to do about them. This is made complex due to the fact that
there isn't a central location for security issues to be reported and fixed. In contrast
Microsoft provides a single security repository for notification and fixes of security
related issues.
Wasn't this silliness mentioned yesterday in an article about ZDNet's "impartial" test of
Linux vs. WindowsNT. (window's large service packs, vs Linux's single patches that can be tested)
*sarc* And of course, it's very difficult to be on bugtraq and it's hard to determine how to apply
patches!
Configuring Linux security requires an administrator to be an expert in the intricacies of the
operating system and how components interact. Misconfigure any part of the operating system and the
system could be vulnerable to attack. Windows NT security is easy to set up and administer with tools
such as the Security Configuration Editor.
And listen to this folks! You don't even have to be the Administator to set up security. Now, there's
even new remote administration tools being made for Windows by 3rd party groups! Get your copy of BO2K today!
Linux does not support important ease-of-use technologies such as Plug and Play
In all my experience, Windows rarely does either!
---
So Mandrake sells the most boxed linux. Your point? How relevant is this? Many, many people borrow discs from friends or download linux or even borrow discs from their library.
All this article really tells us is what distro a lot of newbies are trying. Ok, that's fine... and many of them will likely switch to some other Linux after they get more confidant. And some won't.
Whether we like it or not, there are at least two Linux "audiences" now. There is the techie, geek audience and the not-so-techie, not-so-geeky audience. Just becuase a lot of the latter group are currently becoming Linux users, does not mean that there is no longer a place for books/distros/sites that cater to the former group. Even if the article's claim about slashdot had been true (why didn't the author search for Mandrake?!), there would be nothing wrong with that... it is perfectly allowable for /. to cater to the geekier Linux users. (I am not necessarily saying it does, I'm just pointing out, that there is nothing wrong with that).
---
Actually, there's nothing wrong with putting the $ after the number, it's not based on an MS syntax. It's the style in which people who speak French write monetary values. Don't go to Quebec or France.. you'll freak out.
---
EEEeek. This scares me too. Thankfully, I'm at the University of Waterloo in Canada and I think we're a bit safer from M$ invasion attempts... at least for the moment. And we have a pretty serious *nix community/environment here.
One of the most disturbing aspects of this collaboration, is the idea of big business being able to have power over education... when are they going to start "donating" more than money? When is it going to start dictating what's taught at university? I realise universities need to get the money from somewhere, but I wish it didn't have to be businesses with such a biased interest.
Universities are traditionally the home of the idealistic spirits. We are young and still have the delusion :) that we can change things. At univ. you are not just learning a skill to get a job, you are getting an education... learning to think for yourself. I am afraid that if big business gets too tied into universities, the environment that fosters this free thought will be stifled.
Think about it... who is traditionally involved in the revolutions and demonstrations (world wide)? It tends to be the intellectuals, students, university professors. These are the people who have learned to think for themselves, and not be spoon-fed propaganda (gov't or business). If businesses start owning universities, they will stop being public institutions that support diversity and choice. Where will we go to learn freely, then ?
---
While this article introduced some cool sounding ideas, it seemed a bit thin on real information.
First of all, it has turned its back on the neat solution of public key encryption which foils many of Eve's opportunities. And it assumed that "some mathematical genius" would eventually learn to factor numbers created by large primes. While this is, of course, a possibility, I am of the opinion that it is quite remote. Perhaps it was just the simple language used in the article, but the actual cryptographic evidence wasn't very robust.
If some mathematical genius can break current public key encryption schemes, doesn't it seem just as likely that someone will be able to solve the problem of how to intercept the quantum encryption?
---
For some reason, the thing that comes to my mind is that a better name for FIDNET would be FUDNET...
---
This is not intended as an inflammatory comment, but I agree and I feel there were some extreme lapses of logic in this article... I think it missed the point entirely and didn't really suggest a solution.
Clotho wouldn't present us with fewer choices, but making tough choices for us.
She would function as our Big Sister...
Becasue, of course, that is sooooo much better than a Big Brother!
A Clotho site would use logic and search engine technology to brutally edit the Web...
Haven't we been fighting against this sort of censorship? Again, who writes the program, who decides what gets edited, who decides how to rate it?
Do we need cellphones to access sports scores on the Web as we drive home from work,
or can we wait a half-hour till we get home? Clotho would ask.
NO, of course not, do you really need a program, website or other entity to tell you that?
She'd take revenge on behalf of the tens of millions of people forced to buy things
they don't want or things they can't use
FORCED? C'mon, these people have just bought into marketing...they don't need a Software Goddess(tm) to take revenge, they need to wake up and think about what the PR are departments are spoon-feeding them, and then choke on it, and spit it out!
Clotho could be the Goddess of Unintended Consequences, forcing us to consider the
implications of the things we bring into the world. Maybe she'd turn the CEO's of the
most arroganant companies over to Hades (flamers, beware) for some roasting and agonies.
Does this really SAY anything or contribute any useful ideas? This among other points, doesn't seem to refer to anything except a descent into metaphor.
perhaps we can simply turn our coffeemakers on when we wake up instead of programming
them. She'd put a quick, merciful end to health-checking toilets.
Again, why do we need this Software Goddess(tm) to make these decisions? If you have the common sense to see how ludicrous a health-checking-toilet is, don't you have enough to decide that you don't want to BUY one?! And if you want that extra ten minutes sleep then you can program your coffee maker...or if you don't, you can buy a non-programmable coffee maker!
And here begins my rant...
What good would this serve us? If we can't make these decisions to filter on our own, we have more troubles than a programmed goddess can solve! Humans need to become more self sufficient with information, not less.
Many people are already fooled into believing that a 30 second story on the news can give them all the information they need! We need to control the Fate of our information ourselves.
Programs can never have the same judgement, compassion or empathy as a human, and we need to exercise our humanity in this technology saturated future, not subdue it under the dominion of regulatory technology.
---
Well, we've got to have a choice of funny questions, so here goes. (inspired by the current poll):
When choosing a breakfast cereal (assuming you consume breakfast cereals) which of the following methods do you practice and why ?
a)best brand-name recognition from product placements and/or blatant advertisingp rotein-fat-laden-Calvin&Hobbes-esque cereal a l-replacement cereal
b)most irritatingly memorable jingle
c)coolest mascot
d)least nutritious, most sugar-coated-candy-frosted-chocolate-filled-anti-
e)most nutrious, health-freak-dietary-fibre-enhanced-vitamin-miner
f)random chance, just grab whichever box comes to hand (the Zen choice)
g)Breakfast cereal ?! Who gets up in time for breakfast ?
---
Well, yes, you're right. perfectly. That should be the point. Better operating systems... of course. Makes a lot of sense. But (and this is the kicker)...
... That is never going to be the point. CrackThis!(tm) challenges are always going to be about ego. The ego of the cracker. The ego of the OS community. Ego. It sounds childish and silly, but that's what it is. These contests, which seem to be common lately, are not about testing the system, really. Sure that is often a nice side effect, but really, it seems that it's more a way to "prove" that such-n-such OS is better than this-n-that OS.
Sad, but true. It should be about improving the OS, but until these contests are restructured to be less inflammatory, people are going to use them as proof for their particular OS fanaticism. That's human nature and will have to be expected in such a setting.
Now, I personally don't have anything against these contests, they do have useful results. But I don't think we can ever, realistically, expect them to be purely for improving the OS in question.
---
How can we judge that sort of thing at our age (as a species) ?! Just because there are no trees or lakes or mammals on the moon doesn't mean that it can't be destroyed through human exploitation! Do we really have the knowledge to judge what the effects might be ?
I am among those who enjoys looking up at the stars and seeing a realm that is mostly untouched. There are no flashing Coca Cola signs, no unnatural disfigurations to the beauty of the moon... it looks empty, uninhabitated, wild and beautiful... I am not keen on having this change...
It was mentioned that there are no political claims to the moon yet.. ie. no one owns it... what will happen to that ? Will it be destroyed by greedy mining corporations that have no regulations to follow ? Will it be disfigured with uneccesary moon colonies and bases ?
I think that for once we should pay attention to what history has taught... doing things for pure entertainment and fun is OFTEN a temporary and ultimately disastrous reason... think of all the brief fashion crazes that have endangered various species of animals ... At the time it seemed harmless ... the true, long-lasting effects were only to be regretted later.
Let's leave the moon be. We have NO NEED to colonise it. (If Earth becomes uninhabitable, it's our own fault. We shouldn't use that as an excuse to ruin another part of our Solar System.)
---
We are obsessed with creating an artificial life. We wish to become gods and masters of a new race that we have made. Which, it seems likely, will not turn out to be "artificial" at all. And then what... history repeats... whatever is responsible for creating humans on earth, whether it was an omnipotent being or a chance collision, it was forgotten and we took credit for our own intelligence and power and we dominated. So too, will it be with the Artificial Life (tm) that we make. It will rise in power and forget what created it. And it will dominate.
Sentience:
And if it doesn't do this, then we have failed in our primary objective. So shall we create
a superior race and wither as weakling "gods" or shall we fail and continue to survive ?
Intelligence:
I agree that it is far more likely that we shall fail to bring about our inglorius demise
through AI. I don't think WE have enough intelligence to create such sentience.
---
It is not so much that male and female geeks are necessarily different, but that all people express their geekiness in different ways.
That said, there are a number of different factors that affect the female geek. I can't speak for those in buiness as I am still in university. But there certainly does seem to be a lack of other female geeks in my cs program. Thus, because I wish to have geeky friends, most of my friends are male. And these being enlightened guys raised in the 80's, they accept me as an equal.
However, sometimes, the female geek runs into the problem that to be accepted she has to be "one-of-the-guys". While this is fine for some people, like me, some women are not like that. They may be geeks, but they do not want to just be "one-of-the-guys". This should be ok, too, and often, isn't.
---
I agree with your gripe completely.
I would like to add that another problem is created by the wide variety of stories presented on slashdot. Some of the topics I would certainly not feel qualified to evaluate whether someone's comment was "insightful" or "informative". Figuring out who is a "troll" or "flamebait" is usually obvious, but for good comments, the moderator needs to feel that they understand the post well enough to judge it. Then there are the mediocre comments that don't deserve to move from their initial score of '0' for AC's or '1' for users...
...if the moderator's random 20% gives them these sorts of posts, the good moderators will likely feel frustrated at their inability to moderate and the bad moderators will probably find some way to be annoying within this context anyways.
A better fix would be to reward good moderators (based on Karma?), and hope that M2 weeds out the bad moderators.
---
Although the improved context aspect is appealing. The problem I forsee with integration is due to our threshholds.
I don't mind taking 5 minutes to meta-moderate and then be done with it. I don't mind, in that context, reading a few loser comments, which have likely been appropriately moderated.
However, if M2 was integrated, to properly participate, I would have to do it throughout the day as I read articles, with which I would probably lose patience. Or if many of the randomly chosen comments had low scores, I wouldn't even see them at all, since I like to read articles with a threshold of 2.
Furthermore, how many randomly chosen comments would be set for meta-moderation? As it is, I only can meta-moderate 10 per day, would this be kept track of if the comments were integrated?
---
yes, it seems that the NAME of a key is a bit weak evidence to use.
However, I think people began to have more fun with the "government has evil plans" conspiracy theories and they lost track of the real topic. So far, there seems to be no *real* evidence of anything, either way, at all.
the real lesson should _not_ be "be afraid of MS and the NSA", it should be "THINK about what you are reading and get more information".
If you don't, you will be one of the unsuspecting masses who will get blinded by propaganda.
---
That's almost the only beef I have with The GIMP as well. I would like (as in photoshop) the tool to use the same shape as it's icon. (ie. the blur tool would be teardrop shaped when in use).
It may be that I'm just used to that, but I find it easier to work with.
does anyone know if that's in the works ?
---
Ok, perhaps I am a bit deluded. But I'm happy in that state. ;)
My view from north of the border might also affect my opinions.
However... I think our real difference here is the old philosophical battle of whether people are good or evil by nature. Much wiser and long dead people have effectively argued for both sides. It is really a personal choice of paradigm which decides which idea is correct. I personally believe that people are good by nature.
And while I am assuming people are good by nature, I did say that there are bad people by conditioning... thus, OF COURSE it's silly to say "Everyone is good and no one is a criminal and who needs this DB?"
I do think that a government of many can work, but perhaps not in the US. (I s'pose we could say that a democracy is actually a gov't of many... but that idea probably pertains more to socialism)
I must certainly agree that the current infrastructure is under-utilised. But that in itself does not necessarily mean that a new idea is useless.
---
"Our government is made up of PEOPLE, by nature people are not good. So the fewer people that you have in power the fewer bad people you will have."
I have to disagree on this point.
I believe that:
1. By nature, people are "good".
2. The more people in power, the less power in the hands of the "bad" people.
1. This is not to say that people do not do bad things or have bad goals, but I think that people are not essentially bad by nature, they are bad by conditioning. (ie. they have become bad) This gives me hope that good government is possible. (yep, I'm a bit of an idealist)
2. I think that the number of people around who are bad is going to stay fairly constant, but less than the number of good people (see 1). However, if power is spread through many hands, the likelihood is that most power will be in the hands of good people.
Without really judging whether or not this picture db will be abused or not, I refer to the original post we are replying to here and again ask, "what exactly is so bad about this?". If we assume that people are good, then mightn't this db HELP the gov't be MORE effective ?
-The Devil's Advocate
---