Re:The guy sounds like a world-class sleazeball.
on
Hacking Web Services
·
· Score: 1
Moronic Coward: he is not unwilling to let "the Law [sic] handle the problem". He is just pointing out that the law is innefective in handling the problem. Much like the recording industry wanting the law to handle their problems, the laws can only interfere with the legal purchase and use. It does nothing to stop the criminals. If he was a vigilante (as you so wrongly accuse) he would be USING his pipes, not lamenting the fact that he can't.
As for being part of the problem: would he have publicly spoken about security measures that they are taking, sharing and collaborating with the community if he was not trying to be part of the solution? Yes he asked that those in attendance not repeat in open forums these solutions, as that would make them obsolete.
The more we involve the courts in settling our problems, the less individual freedom we have.
I'd say that Lumpy has pointed out what we in the manufacturing world like to call an "issue". All technologies have issues. When you solve them you then can sell the resulting product. Granted this is not a "new" idea, but there are definitely some good applications. Also, could you not mount the leds in a grid on the surface of a sphere, so that they shined in all directions, thereby lighting an area instead of a spot?
Ok, I agree with you (except the part about me being a fucking moron . . . what is it with/. everyone wants to be the most offensive) . . . I am not really a believer in the x86 part except that there was a time when the x86 chip of the day ate Apples for lunch. But nowadays is different. The main point is the marketing/bundling piece. If I was a potential OS I'd be working on a bundled package to take the "but there's no apps for it" argument away. Apple treats their software vendors like shit with endlessly shifting APIs, but still (some of them) are plugging away, mostly because they have a big share of the Windows apps too (Adobe). But there's no sense in arguing . . . if nobody does it then nothing will change. MS does not abuse Monopoly power, they simply abuse the market. This does not have anything to do with them being a monopoly (they aren't), they just get their stuff out to the people better. The fact that it blows is irrelevent.
C'mon Apple, release OSX for the x86, write a browser and bundle it together with ClarisWorks for the PC. Instead of moaning, why don't companies just get out there and start taking market share.
Mod this up.
This is exactly the point that needs to be said. MS won't say it, but I'll bet they'd like it as it might take the monopoly pressure off of them, and I get the idea that Billy likes to compete, he just likes to play dirty and no one else is smart enough to beat him. Why hasn't Apple even tried to compete by doing the same kind of smart marketing that MS does? Just because the marketing scheme is wildly successful does not mean the resulting very large and influential company is a monopoly.
MS has done many well documented illegal things, but these are more of pedatory business practices that any business should be punished for. MS seems to be taking the "since we are not a monopoly, you should not punish us for those practices". I have hated MS since Windows 95 came out, and had a chance to work on SGI IRIX machines. But Apple in the Windows 3.1 486 days was no better, unless you got the chance to work on one of the really premium souped up machines. But dollar for dollar, Wintel machines were better. They were easy to use and everything you needed came on them. Apple had a strong market in those days and lost it, not because MS was unethical or criminal (though they might have been) but because Apple tripped and fell. The first gen PowerPCs might have been good, but they were expensive and only the creme of the computer user crop were smart enough or had enough money to use them or even know what they might have been missing.
If one company writes an OS, a bunch of apps that work well with it, and creates partnerships with HW vendors, then this is a smart company. We just need several companies to do this. This along with continued work in the open source arena and all will be well in the computer world.
Ok back to work
Off Topic, Ranting, Flaimbait perhaps, but Mod parent up
The extent to which the government, the reps of the PEOPLE, think that they need to create laws that protect CORPORATIONS is absolutely astounding. Congress should pass very few laws that protect companies. Those that do should do so only by the fact that the law is protecting the consumer, and in some way this is also protecting the company. Sen. Hollings is representative of what is wrong with the focus of our government.
We don't need "Internet" cops. The analogy to traffic cops is wrong. Traffic laws are in place (largely -- this is another debate) to protect the individuals using the roads. These so called internet cops would be a government agency that is protecting the copyright of private or public corporations. It is (should be in a free market model) the responsibility of the corporation to protect their own copyright, and the laws should be in place to help provide a framework for the cases where the corporation is pursuing litigation against another corporation or individual because of copyright infringement. There should never be a government agency that acts on behalf of the corporation in this way. Tax dollars are too hard to come by. Any congress person who thinks otherwise is suspect.
Right on. It does my soul some good to read what this guy thinks and stands for. We need more in our leader pool who are not tools of the corporation . . . this is really just one (albeit a big one) issue of many that are quickly going to surface and which will very closely effect the way we live and work.
Of course, I also think that the music industry will shift towards (not totally) independant lables that will not copy protect, as the market will demand this. Consumers need to be aware to make sure that they behave in a way that moves the market where they need it to be. A single consumer can do very little, but many consumers can do quite a lot, given some good organization, information, a way to disseminate it effectively, and, most importantly, time.
Good point, although I'm not sure where you stand on the argument. As to the first reply, in all seriousness the military in my mind is the biggest industrial subsidy. Why do we need global projection capabilities? Why do not we rely more on diplomatic ways to get the resources we need? If we put 10% or more of the DOD budget into NASA we would be doing some great things . . . and there everyone benefits.
I hope that pics like these will start to spark more public interest which will eventually lead to some well thought out re-prioritizing. Of course, we will need the world to be a safe place, but aren't there ways to accomplish this that don't involve such a big US dollar commitment to DOD slush funds?
I don't think that a woman's right to choose actually costs very much. As for welfare, prisons, war on drugs, etc. . . . lots of room for improvement and cost saving measures.
Your statement is devoid of logic. Please elaborate on DNS servers loosing their registrations as an effect of the.prn domain. Congress wants porn as much as your average hairy handed Jolene, and by putting it on one domain it will actually enhance the porn industry. A lot of the industry is actually for this kind of thing, as they recognize the need to be viewed as acceptable. When the argument that it is too easy for children to get to it exists, it is too easy for head-up-their-ass right wingers to cry foul and waste the time of our government representatives. It's fairly easy to say what goes into the.prn domain, as it's already defined for the airways and video/movie markets.
Just because there are challenges does not mean the problem is not worth solving.
Now the video tape issue is another one entirely. What isthe intent? How are the laws to be enforced? Will my purchase of surveillence equipment provide probable cause to search my house? Is the intent to limit FBI/CIA/police use of spy video, or to prevent me from catching theives in my house? If I did catch a theif on video and then used that to help prosecute, would I then be liable for civil or criminal charges? There are some really interesting issues . . .
Re:When I'm not so egotistical
on
Rare Earth
·
· Score: 1
Good luck trying to get 1 polititian to do anything usefull, let alone get 1 million to rebuild a civilisation. You make an interesting point. I do believe, however, that we are near the edges of the universe, just as we are near the edges of our galaxy, and that we have observed huge gamma radiation causing effects near the center of the universe that makes it unlikely that life will happen there. Consequently, life only happens on the fringes, and therefore as the universe expands, life will happen more often, but will also happen with such great distances between the other occurances that no two occurences will ever be able to make contact. If at the dawn of man, we were able to send a message at the speed of light, man would be dead before the message was even received. I think I'll go get drunk now and watch Voyager.
You make some good points. I think that in the near term if we simply put our emphasis on using wind and solar power generation to supplant the existing coal and natural gas power generation then we would have cleaner power. I don't hold any illusions about this reducing our dependance on foreign oil, but I do think that it will be a good first step . . . sort of a cultural shift in thinking.
There was a very important decision made in the 50s when there were two major proposals in energy development, recognizing the need to stop using coal for power generation. The two alternatives were wind and nuclear. Nuclear won for many reasons, a lot of them right. I think now may be the time though to revisit that decision because while nuclear energy is compelling, it is not the clean cheap source of electricity that we thought it might be. We need layers of power generation which will provide for redundancy on the grid, and adding wind as a layer makes a lot of sense. The gas and oil companies sponsor behind closed doors an environmental group whose purpose it is to generate public opinion and goodwill towards the continued use of oil and gas. This group continually spews propaganda about the evils of wind power. If you check out the New York Times today you will find an article about a wind farm proposal in Cape Cod, and will see a quote from an environmental group whose concerns are that birds will be hurt by wind farms. This environmental group is sponsored in large part by the oil industry, which has caused quite a bit of damage to marine and bird life over the years. The bird argument was a valid one 50 years ago, but redesign of the airfoils and towers have greatly reduced the damage to birds, to the point where, while not perfect, the environmental impact of wind generated power is far less than the environmental impact of mining and drilling required for the coal/gas power generation.
As for the cars, we need to stop subsidising gas prices and bring them in line with the rest of the world ($5 per gallon). I think this would go a long way in spurring some real move towards many efforts to lower gasoline usage: cleaner deisel engines, better mass transit (light rail, etc), fuel cell/battery/hybrid vehicles, and communities planned around lessening the demand for daily commuting.
The wealthy and powerful always surpress the impetus to change, as they always have the most to lose. This is done not out of any malicious intent, simply the strive to stay at the top, an admirable goal. In the end though, change happens, and the cloying effect from the top is a good one, as it ensures that it happens in a slow and graceful manner.
Wind power is hardly tapped. It doesn't need much more R&D, just a lot of implementation. This is a good thing in that it means we have good power for not much investment. Solar power is also very good and very untapped. The interesting thing here is that you could have wind and solar farms that are coincident physically (and temporally for that matter). There are studies that show that we could harness enough wind power today to supply the entire country if we simply converted unused farm land to wind farms. I'll leave the proof to you, as I have satisfied myself that those claims are true enough.
As for nuclear spending, my argument was one of scale. An equivalent number in wind power will do a lot more good, as nuclear power only gives us 14% or so of the power we use, and at an extremely high cost. The important thing to know is that we don't get to use that money, as it is just upkeep on the power plants, most of which we need to spend even if we shut the plants down. It takes a lot of money to take a nuclear plant offline, and close it for good. Your claims may be true enough about expanding the nuclear infrastructure, but if you inferred that I claimed we are expanding them then you did so incorrectly.
We should absolutely continue doing research in both fission and fusion based technologies, as lots of other GOOD STUFF will come from them.
Wind could outstrip all other electric power generetion as soon as we populated enough land to do it. I live in New Mexico where wind and solar are plenty, but there is no use of it (we rank 50th in our use of them as compared to the other states, with a potential in the top 5).
I don't know if it is correct to say that Oil is cheaper. The current oil infrastructure is already in place, but if we stopped spending on Nuclear and spent one years worth of the money on wind, then the wind power generation would easily surpass the amount of nuclear energy we use per year. A bit of a simplification, but true enough. Wind power is certainly more freely available than Hydrogen, simply because we don't have to do anything to get to the wind, we just have to set up some aparatus to react to it. If we stopped subsidising farmers to not grow certain crops, and instead let them use that money to invest in a wind farm, then the money we spend in farm aid would drop, farmers would be able to make a profit selling their energy, and our dependence on coal and oil would drop dramatically in a mere decade.
Economics is why we don't do it. Not because it would cost us any more, but becuase it would shift wealth away from the currently wealthy.
You make a case for restricting those allowed to influence HCI, that is make it a more integral part of CS, rather than not having it be a part of CS. If it is a part of CS, then those in the field must have an understanding of computers, how they work, how to program them, and how not to program them. As it was it sounds like UC Irvine made it a social sciences degree, which does not make any good sense. Actually there should be a combination of the two, because those who use them now are less likely to be truly innovative (ie, they have some strong and very hard to break preconceptions of how a computer should work).
I'd like to see a bit more emphasis in this area. The US Air Force has a group of people involved in aircraft design who concentrate on the Man-Machine Interface. Their job is to optimize the way man interfaces with the controls, as well as to ensure that this interface does not cause wear and tear on either. As a programmer, I'd like to know that there are people actively pursuing better man-machine interfaces with computers so that I don't have to sit and type all day. Flat panel monitors have done wonders for my eyes, but the whole keyboard/mouse interface is still infantile and clumsy. The desk/lap top type computer environment is getting a little old. I'd like something a little more like Neil Stephenson's vision as copied in that Michael Douglas/ Demi Moore movie (not good enough to be titularly memorable).
And hence the need for surefire eco-friendliness. We have done so much damage to sea creatures (think of the wales when we tested nukes underwater) and ecology that if these things are sent out in the ocean en masse to sample the environment, they had better well not damage it.
I am looking forward to the day that we begin to model the global climate based on empiracle data from this monitoring system.
Sure, but the ISPs could simply scan all messages that they send out. So if you send an infected attachment, it is stripped at your ISP, you get a message warning you, and the recipient knows that whatever they get won't be infected.
If the poster really is starting an ISP (I don't see that indication in the topic post, but someone inferred it) I'd like to push for that. I know that it puts a great additional load on the server, but e-mail really doesn't have to be immediate, and other services (web, ftp) could go through another server . . . although, a virus scan from the ISP of all transmitted files (ftps too) would prevent these continuing breakouts of known viruses, and then we could concentrate on finding where they originate.
Don't worry about modding me down for being off topic, I'll do it myself.
Sure do, coolest game ever (at that point anyhow). I was mostly playing the "Ascii graphics" Rogue and some Digr (kind of a Dig Dug knock off, but better) and then came along Thexder. Pissed me off though, because the copy protection on it was very good (I think it was some kind of physical deformation like a hole) and I never could make a copy. Luckily, the original was my roommate's.
Really good point. However, I think the line between OS and application here is blurred. The DLLs that Office uses (particularly earlier versions) could perhaps not be considered part of the base OS. So, if you write an app that is Win32, and totally self contained, then you don't need to rely on any of the extensions. Of course, not many people these days write windows apps that way, but you certainly could. If you do more complex interactions, like writing to databases and so forth, you have now linked yourself to the use of extensions. In this case, if you use the original Win95 version of the extension to test your code with, then you can be "assured" (never 100%) that your app will be compatible with the later versions. Certainly M$ has been much better with backward compatibility than SGI (IRIX) and Apple, my only other experiences, but has not been perfect.
On the other hand, I think that Joel is still over simplifying the case. If it were that simple then certainly Corel should be done. I'd like to hear a rebuttal from someone at Corel on this matter.
What the f**k are you talking about you fing neanderthal. You think that maintain means simply fixing bugs? Incredible: coders like you are still employed out there. You might as well work for Microsoft you idiot. My only point, you ignorant ass, is that design philosophy and communication of it to the developer team is more important than figuring metrics for evaluation of project status. Yes, I code so that there are no bugs, and that the code is maintainable. Perhaps you should look up the word maintenance while you have one thumb up your ass and the other in your mouth and before you switch.
Time until feature complete. Hmmm, this sounds dubious. It may be quicker to sit down and code the feature, but then end up being very hard to maintain becuase the feature is not designed to interoperate well. How about time until feature complete, written in accordance with the established business rules and codebase? Actually, the whole idea of productive programmers begins with a solid design philosophy. I have found mostly that managers have no idea how to approach design and that developers would rather just get it done than struggle to define a bunch of hard things up front.
I'm still going to give the summary to my boss, as it indeed is a usefull summary of a well known management principle, which has appeared in many publications and probably not first in Peoplesoft.
I've been waiting a long time for a cloak of invisibility. Fortunately, Ive been wearing my cloak of indifference . . . let's see 1d20 . . . yes! I don't care!
Oh yes, energy policy brings out the best in everyone. First of all, we make dicisions based on the wrong thing: money. This way public good is moved aside for corporate greed. This has been going on since at least the 50s when we decided to use nuclear power over wind power. Back then, the cronies touted nuclear power as the cleanest and cheapes source possible. So, when they got done smoking and listening to their Marley tunes, they got to work building the reactors. Since then, nuclear power (about 17% of US power consumption) is by far the most expensive, even without including the costs incurred when dealing with the waste. Wind power, alternatively, could have produced 100% of US power consumption, with the problem being one of continuity . . . easily solved had we been motivated to do the right thing.
On the other hand, lets just understand that Whatever path we take, there will be periods where we have to backtrack and rethink. Look at a future where all cars run on fuel cells that spew O2 and H2O. When I was studying the atmospheric balance it seemed that if our O2 levels were raised by as much as 10%, the atmosphere would become far too volitile for most life here. So, no matter what polutants we spew, whether we think of them as good or bad, we risk upsetting a very fragile balance. Our goals as a society should be, IMHO, to live quietly on this planet. To learn all we can, but to leave the ecosystem largely alone. Find a way to power transportation and living systems that does not change the local or global ecosystems, and until we do, minimize the damage as much as possible. Until $ is not the almighty last word, we will continue to do what is good for the likes of Kenny Boy, and what is bad for every other living thing.
Like yours, AC. As one of the people here, you must recognize that by contributing (in your own way) you are in fact writing of yourself as well. I might say that I find your sense of humor to be truly developed lol.
I can tell that you have left your speach recognition sw on. Your original submission must have read
This is so funny. Why is it that people on slashdot seem to have the most fantastic senses of humor? ohyeah [sic] cuz[sic] its [sic] not me.
It is my belief, and i know the belief of most of the people on slashdot, that the DOJ is currently neither acting in the best interests of the american people or acting to see the law of the united states of america upheld.
It is my belief that you would be hard pressed to find any branch or agency of the Gov't working to protect the civil liberties of the citizens. The Supreme Court acted illegaly (out of their juristiction) in Election-Gate, and undermined the will of American voters. W has amassed power by declaring an endless war on everyone who is not with him. Congress is a simple tool of big business. Cheney is a wedge, the simplest tool, or the Oil industry. Although there are those in our Gov't who seem to want to correct the flaws (McCain), they are too few. Vote early and often! Insist that the governance of people shall not be conducted by those who are able to influenced by money. Money should not be a part, in any way, of the political process. One person, one vote, period.
Forgive my offtopic rant, but cases like this are infuriating me. Our government has apparently forgotten the meaning of Justice, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness . . . for all.
(/anthem)
Slashdot Mirror
As for being part of the problem: would he have publicly spoken about security measures that they are taking, sharing and collaborating with the community if he was not trying to be part of the solution? Yes he asked that those in attendance not repeat in open forums these solutions, as that would make them obsolete.
The more we involve the courts in settling our problems, the less individual freedom we have.
I'd say that Lumpy has pointed out what we in the manufacturing world like to call an "issue". All technologies have issues. When you solve them you then can sell the resulting product. Granted this is not a "new" idea, but there are definitely some good applications. Also, could you not mount the leds in a grid on the surface of a sphere, so that they shined in all directions, thereby lighting an area instead of a spot?
Ok, I agree with you (except the part about me being a fucking moron . . . what is it with /. everyone wants to be the most offensive) . . . I am not really a believer in the x86 part except that there was a time when the x86 chip of the day ate Apples for lunch. But nowadays is different. The main point is the marketing/bundling piece. If I was a potential OS I'd be working on a bundled package to take the "but there's no apps for it" argument away. Apple treats their software vendors like shit with endlessly shifting APIs, but still (some of them) are plugging away, mostly because they have a big share of the Windows apps too (Adobe). But there's no sense in arguing . . . if nobody does it then nothing will change. MS does not abuse Monopoly power, they simply abuse the market. This does not have anything to do with them being a monopoly (they aren't), they just get their stuff out to the people better. The fact that it blows is irrelevent.
Mod this up.
This is exactly the point that needs to be said. MS won't say it, but I'll bet they'd like it as it might take the monopoly pressure off of them, and I get the idea that Billy likes to compete, he just likes to play dirty and no one else is smart enough to beat him. Why hasn't Apple even tried to compete by doing the same kind of smart marketing that MS does? Just because the marketing scheme is wildly successful does not mean the resulting very large and influential company is a monopoly.
MS has done many well documented illegal things, but these are more of pedatory business practices that any business should be punished for. MS seems to be taking the "since we are not a monopoly, you should not punish us for those practices". I have hated MS since Windows 95 came out, and had a chance to work on SGI IRIX machines. But Apple in the Windows 3.1 486 days was no better, unless you got the chance to work on one of the really premium souped up machines. But dollar for dollar, Wintel machines were better. They were easy to use and everything you needed came on them. Apple had a strong market in those days and lost it, not because MS was unethical or criminal (though they might have been) but because Apple tripped and fell. The first gen PowerPCs might have been good, but they were expensive and only the creme of the computer user crop were smart enough or had enough money to use them or even know what they might have been missing.
If one company writes an OS, a bunch of apps that work well with it, and creates partnerships with HW vendors, then this is a smart company. We just need several companies to do this. This along with continued work in the open source arena and all will be well in the computer world.
Ok back to work
Off Topic, Ranting, Flaimbait perhaps, but Mod parent up
We don't need "Internet" cops. The analogy to traffic cops is wrong. Traffic laws are in place (largely -- this is another debate) to protect the individuals using the roads. These so called internet cops would be a government agency that is protecting the copyright of private or public corporations. It is (should be in a free market model) the responsibility of the corporation to protect their own copyright, and the laws should be in place to help provide a framework for the cases where the corporation is pursuing litigation against another corporation or individual because of copyright infringement. There should never be a government agency that acts on behalf of the corporation in this way. Tax dollars are too hard to come by. Any congress person who thinks otherwise is suspect.
Of course, I also think that the music industry will shift towards (not totally) independant lables that will not copy protect, as the market will demand this. Consumers need to be aware to make sure that they behave in a way that moves the market where they need it to be. A single consumer can do very little, but many consumers can do quite a lot, given some good organization, information, a way to disseminate it effectively, and, most importantly, time.
I hope that pics like these will start to spark more public interest which will eventually lead to some well thought out re-prioritizing. Of course, we will need the world to be a safe place, but aren't there ways to accomplish this that don't involve such a big US dollar commitment to DOD slush funds?
I don't think that a woman's right to choose actually costs very much. As for welfare, prisons, war on drugs, etc. . . . lots of room for improvement and cost saving measures.
Just because there are challenges does not mean the problem is not worth solving.
Now the video tape issue is another one entirely. What isthe intent? How are the laws to be enforced? Will my purchase of surveillence equipment provide probable cause to search my house? Is the intent to limit FBI/CIA/police use of spy video, or to prevent me from catching theives in my house? If I did catch a theif on video and then used that to help prosecute, would I then be liable for civil or criminal charges? There are some really interesting issues . . .
Good luck trying to get 1 polititian to do anything usefull, let alone get 1 million to rebuild a civilisation. You make an interesting point. I do believe, however, that we are near the edges of the universe, just as we are near the edges of our galaxy, and that we have observed huge gamma radiation causing effects near the center of the universe that makes it unlikely that life will happen there. Consequently, life only happens on the fringes, and therefore as the universe expands, life will happen more often, but will also happen with such great distances between the other occurances that no two occurences will ever be able to make contact. If at the dawn of man, we were able to send a message at the speed of light, man would be dead before the message was even received. I think I'll go get drunk now and watch Voyager.
Yeah, I remember doing this in first year physics. They let us detonate the bomb in the law school. 2 birds.
There was a very important decision made in the 50s when there were two major proposals in energy development, recognizing the need to stop using coal for power generation. The two alternatives were wind and nuclear. Nuclear won for many reasons, a lot of them right. I think now may be the time though to revisit that decision because while nuclear energy is compelling, it is not the clean cheap source of electricity that we thought it might be. We need layers of power generation which will provide for redundancy on the grid, and adding wind as a layer makes a lot of sense. The gas and oil companies sponsor behind closed doors an environmental group whose purpose it is to generate public opinion and goodwill towards the continued use of oil and gas. This group continually spews propaganda about the evils of wind power. If you check out the New York Times today you will find an article about a wind farm proposal in Cape Cod, and will see a quote from an environmental group whose concerns are that birds will be hurt by wind farms. This environmental group is sponsored in large part by the oil industry, which has caused quite a bit of damage to marine and bird life over the years. The bird argument was a valid one 50 years ago, but redesign of the airfoils and towers have greatly reduced the damage to birds, to the point where, while not perfect, the environmental impact of wind generated power is far less than the environmental impact of mining and drilling required for the coal/gas power generation.
As for the cars, we need to stop subsidising gas prices and bring them in line with the rest of the world ($5 per gallon). I think this would go a long way in spurring some real move towards many efforts to lower gasoline usage: cleaner deisel engines, better mass transit (light rail, etc), fuel cell/battery/hybrid vehicles, and communities planned around lessening the demand for daily commuting.
The wealthy and powerful always surpress the impetus to change, as they always have the most to lose. This is done not out of any malicious intent, simply the strive to stay at the top, an admirable goal. In the end though, change happens, and the cloying effect from the top is a good one, as it ensures that it happens in a slow and graceful manner.
As for nuclear spending, my argument was one of scale. An equivalent number in wind power will do a lot more good, as nuclear power only gives us 14% or so of the power we use, and at an extremely high cost. The important thing to know is that we don't get to use that money, as it is just upkeep on the power plants, most of which we need to spend even if we shut the plants down. It takes a lot of money to take a nuclear plant offline, and close it for good. Your claims may be true enough about expanding the nuclear infrastructure, but if you inferred that I claimed we are expanding them then you did so incorrectly.
We should absolutely continue doing research in both fission and fusion based technologies, as lots of other GOOD STUFF will come from them.
Wind could outstrip all other electric power generetion as soon as we populated enough land to do it. I live in New Mexico where wind and solar are plenty, but there is no use of it (we rank 50th in our use of them as compared to the other states, with a potential in the top 5).
Economics is why we don't do it. Not because it would cost us any more, but becuase it would shift wealth away from the currently wealthy.
I'd like to see a bit more emphasis in this area. The US Air Force has a group of people involved in aircraft design who concentrate on the Man-Machine Interface. Their job is to optimize the way man interfaces with the controls, as well as to ensure that this interface does not cause wear and tear on either. As a programmer, I'd like to know that there are people actively pursuing better man-machine interfaces with computers so that I don't have to sit and type all day. Flat panel monitors have done wonders for my eyes, but the whole keyboard/mouse interface is still infantile and clumsy. The desk/lap top type computer environment is getting a little old. I'd like something a little more like Neil Stephenson's vision as copied in that Michael Douglas/ Demi Moore movie (not good enough to be titularly memorable).
I am looking forward to the day that we begin to model the global climate based on empiracle data from this monitoring system.
If the poster really is starting an ISP (I don't see that indication in the topic post, but someone inferred it) I'd like to push for that. I know that it puts a great additional load on the server, but e-mail really doesn't have to be immediate, and other services (web, ftp) could go through another server . . . although, a virus scan from the ISP of all transmitted files (ftps too) would prevent these continuing breakouts of known viruses, and then we could concentrate on finding where they originate.
Don't worry about modding me down for being off topic, I'll do it myself.
Think Tierra will do a VGA version of Zork ;)
No no no. Without velcro how would Dubya tie his shoes?
On the other hand, I think that Joel is still over simplifying the case. If it were that simple then certainly Corel should be done. I'd like to hear a rebuttal from someone at Corel on this matter.
Obviously VB is your first and only language.
I'm still going to give the summary to my boss, as it indeed is a usefull summary of a well known management principle, which has appeared in many publications and probably not first in Peoplesoft.
sig me? sig you!
I've been waiting a long time for a cloak of invisibility. Fortunately, Ive been wearing my cloak of indifference . . . let's see 1d20 . . . yes! I don't care!
On the other hand, lets just understand that Whatever path we take, there will be periods where we have to backtrack and rethink. Look at a future where all cars run on fuel cells that spew O2 and H2O. When I was studying the atmospheric balance it seemed that if our O2 levels were raised by as much as 10%, the atmosphere would become far too volitile for most life here. So, no matter what polutants we spew, whether we think of them as good or bad, we risk upsetting a very fragile balance. Our goals as a society should be, IMHO, to live quietly on this planet. To learn all we can, but to leave the ecosystem largely alone. Find a way to power transportation and living systems that does not change the local or global ecosystems, and until we do, minimize the damage as much as possible. Until $ is not the almighty last word, we will continue to do what is good for the likes of Kenny Boy, and what is bad for every other living thing.
no one carries the dog boy
I can tell that you have left your speach recognition sw on. Your original submission must have read
This is so funny. Why is it that people on slashdot seem to have the most fantastic senses of humor? ohyeah [sic] cuz[sic] its [sic] not me.
It is my belief that you would be hard pressed to find any branch or agency of the Gov't working to protect the civil liberties of the citizens. The Supreme Court acted illegaly (out of their juristiction) in Election-Gate, and undermined the will of American voters. W has amassed power by declaring an endless war on everyone who is not with him. Congress is a simple tool of big business. Cheney is a wedge, the simplest tool, or the Oil industry. Although there are those in our Gov't who seem to want to correct the flaws (McCain), they are too few. Vote early and often! Insist that the governance of people shall not be conducted by those who are able to influenced by money. Money should not be a part, in any way, of the political process. One person, one vote, period.
Forgive my offtopic rant, but cases like this are infuriating me. Our government has apparently forgotten the meaning of Justice, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness . . . for all. (/anthem)