When MP3's hit the scene, record companies started to moan about how their profits were being eroded and how Napster (etc) needed to be shut down. The entire userbase of Slashdot (including me) said that there was no legally guaranteed "right to profit" and that if they couldn't make it in the "New Economy", they should get a different business model. "That's how capitalism works" was the libertarian cry.
Now technology has struck again--people are inventing new ways to make money. Instead of applauding their innovations and acknowledging their right of first use on ideas they made up, we are demanding that they share them with us. Instead of being free market, laisez-faire capitalists, we (by which I mean you, I don't subscribe to this) have turned into whiny littly communists. "It's too hard to make money when the other guy has a shiny new business model. Mommy, make him share!" Bah.
Today you are renaming "xterm" to "DOS" to ease confusion, tomorrow you are including pr0n filter software to "protect the children". I say put a stop to it before it even starts.
Besides, the Linux kernal guys have better things to do than run sed scripts to change all these jargony terms.
I've experienced this problem with lusers before too. At first I was very frustrated, spending hours explaning the logical history underlying the acronames "cd" and "ls" and how they are actually newmonic. After a while, though, I realized that this jargon was actually working for us, not against us. If someone is too stupid to learn and understand some basic terminology, I don't want them dumbing down Linux anyway. It's like Mensa--you have to have a certain amount of brains to get in the door, which makes for a more pleasant experience among the intelligentcia.
You may have put the cart before the hoarse here, has anyone proved that gaming causes the poor socialization and obesity? It seems far more likely to me that those types are resorting to games as their last hope. Look at how many comments there are here about "online games *are* social", as though brief, obscene text messages about "fragging" could take the place of real interaction. It's obvious that that pretending their are Somebody online is the only thing that keeps them going and taking that away from them is just mean spirited on your part.
Nearly 70 percent of those questioned said they were in elementary school when they first played video games. By junior high and high school, about half said they had tried computer games -- software-driven games from cards to shoot-'em-up adventures such as Doom -- and 43 percent said they had tried online games over the Internet. However, 92 percent of those that played games said that it replaced their regular social life, including dating. Most of the survey participants still had never gone on a date.
If you use Linux you obviously won't see the benefits of.NET, maybe that's why you guys haven't seen it. But the improvements have been manifold, let me give you some examples from my own network, which is.NETified:
1) We have single-source logons for all users, even if they migrate workstations.
2) Users can access their apps and data from anywhere on the network, even offsite.
3) Ping times have halved.
4) You wouldn't believe our uptime, sometimes we go for weeks without rebooting.
5) The TCO is 1/10th of what it was and we've been able to reduce our IT staff (maybe this is the real reason the/. readership hates.NET?).
OTOH, if people are playing games around the clock, that's not good either. It's like seatbelt laws or laws against selling alcohol on Sunday--it protects people from themselves. That's what government is all about and I support them.
Most parents make their kids go to bed (or do homework) at those times anyway. This curfew just takes the argument out of it. There's no point in arguing, since even if you won you wouldn't be able to play the games. This sounds like a really good law that deals with the root of the problem instead of just addressing the symptoms.
When Macs first came out, everyone justified the high price by saying that the hardware was superior for graphics intensive tasks like video editing. But now, when you can do 3D modeling with Blender, POVray, etc on a regular PC, what's the point of paying all that extra money? It would appear that Adobe agrees. What niche market can Apple appeal to now, to complement the teenage girl demographic it already enjoys?
I use Linux of course, but my wife and my small children like to use computers too, so I'm thinking about getting them a toy computer like an iMac or a G5. They love the colors, plus small hands can't work multiple mouse buttons very well.
The trouble is the cost. But I just remind myself that if I took the time and effort to strip out the floppy drive and 200 Mhz bus from an Intel machine and paint it to be like a Mac, I'd end up spending more than if I just bought the Mac to begin with.
Or at least immoral? I don't think "the end justifies the means" is really a valid defense, especially as there's no "end" in this case. They are just reading someone else's email. And "White hat hacking" doesn't apply either, as that refers to people who are asked to break in to a computer to test it, not vigilantes like our own Fyodor, who use their skills to merely harass people that annoy them.
Page 850 of Halliday and Resnick, 5th edition. Here's the caption, emphasis mine: "An initially horizontal laser beam of green light is sent upward by a glass prism into an evacuated transparent cell and onto a glass sphere 20 micrometers in diameter....the radiation pressure of the laser light has lifted the sphere by about 1 cm.
the horses have been stolen. And the thieves apprehended.
While this technology is theoretically interesting, it won't save the victims of the 9/11 FTC disaster. And the terrorists have been subdued--you only have to turn on CNN and see that Iraq is now safely under American (to say nothing of Christian) control.
I hope Gold didn't OK that, because it's physical nonsense. What it is trying to imply is that if the photons are emitted with the same energy as they are absorbed, the solar sail can't gain any kinetic energy (because of conservation of energy--the photons kept all theirs, so the sail gets none). But what about the conservation of momentum? The photon was headed rightward in the first diagram and headed left in the last one. That's a next change in momentum--where did it go, if not the sail?
Gold's claim isn't merely that solar sails won't work, but that radiation pressure in general is non-existent. This is patently false, since my undergrad physics book has an actual picture of a small sphere being levitated by a powerful laser. So where has he gone wrong?
Here's the crux of his argument: But what will be the performance of the mirror as a heat engine? If the mirror receives heat energy from the Sun and converts some of this into free energy, namely the kinetic energy of its motion, it falls into the strict definition of a heat engine, and Carnot's rule defining the maximum efficiency for this energy conversion must apply. We can determine the incoming temperature of the radiation by measuring the temperature an absorbing (black) body would reach when exposed to the radiation being sent to the mirror, and the temperature a black body would reach exposed to the outgoing radiation from the mirror, both measurements carried out in common motion with the mirror. Carnot's rule would then give the maximum efficiency as that fraction of the heat flow trough the mirror, given by the difference of the two temperatures, divided by the input temperature. It would be that fraction of the heat flow that could maximally appear as kinetic energy gained by the mass of the mirror. If this was a perfect mirror, the two temperatures will be the same, and it follows that the mirror cannot act as a heat engine at all: no free energy can be obtained from the light. The proposed solar sail cannot be accelerated by sunlight.
Carnot only applies to closed systems. In textbook examples of heat engines, the engine, the heat source and the heat sink are all included in the analysis. Gold has included the engine (the sail) and heat source (the sun), but he's neglected the heat sink (the almost-perfect blackbody of intergalactic space). It isn't the temperature difference between absorption and emittance that matters, it's the temperature difference between source and sink, and that difference is huge here.
You probably think I'm about to blast the Dogbert ruling. Well, I'm not. I am a human being and socially-responsible person before I'm a scientist. And speaking as a person, I know that values such as justice come before mere scientific exactitude. I applaud this decision as it takes the fate of the human race away from the computers and the the technocracy who runs them and puts it back in human hands.
There are many good and valid reasons to use Java, though they don't apply to everyone. For instance, Java is object-orientated which I understand makes code reuse better, I'm guessing because it makes Java plug-n-play. Also, Java has strong datatyping, unlike C, so if you are typing data then you want to use Java. And I think there are Web server modules that let you use Java on a webpage, which improves site usability.
In short, please try to think before you make rash claims about how lame Java is. It might be too hard for your mother to use, but other people see that as merely being powerful.
I think we can all agree that the very existence of the "merchandising pipeline" is what killed Star Trek in the first place, but that's not what I want to talk about. What I'd like to ask is, what if ActiVision had sued Star Trek even earlier, when real fans were saying it sucked while n00bs claimed it was great?[1] Can you sue an artist for producing terrible art when you have a contract with them? And could loyal TV viewers be said to have a social contract with TV content producers? If so, I have a great idea...
[1]I'm thinking here of the Wil Whitman character, though Lt Colonel Riker bears a lot of the blame as well.
I went through a similar search process about a year ago. We got bids from several vendors and we eventually ended up choosing this one. It's turned out pretty well for us, but it doesn't have the visual management you are looking for. In that case, you may want to try this. I hope it's worth more than doubling your price, though.
Finally, an interview with Gates!
on
Bill Gates On Linux
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Mr Gates,
Given that UNIX technology has been around for almost 40 years now and the Linux implementation of that standard in particular has been with us for 12 or 13 years, wouldn't it be fair to call Windows, the first 32 bit versions of which have only been with us for 8 years, the passing fad?
I always thought that there were too many OS licenses out there anyway. Sure, there were websites that tracked which ones were and weren't compatible, but a) those websites are not legal authorities and b) who wants to read a bunch of legal E's every time they install some software? While I'm of course saddened that any project with "Open" in the name has ended, I feel that the resulting simplification of license space might provide a much-needed boost to Linux on the workplace desktop. Because so much of the Linux world already uses, I suppose the GPL is an OK choice, but personally I think BSD is really more free, being non-viral.
Why would I want live streaming video from Japan in France? If it was to watch episodes of a TV show I liked, why couldn't I just download them from gnutella or the equivalent? That saves me having to watch commercials.
Also, what about bandwidth? Compression of a stream is considerably less than what is possible for a pre-existing file. If everyone starts doing this, soon all bandwidth will cease to exist. And for what? A cheap parlor trick.
But the worst problem of all is how to maintain community standards at a national level. Internet rebroadcasting from Japan to France is no big deal, since France is already very decadent and would probably even welcome some tentacle rape porn. But what if someone in either Japan or France tried to beam that kind of junk into the precious minds of the US's children?
I think we all remember the horrors of the Matrix and HGttG games, which bore little or no relation to the content of the source material. For instance, I think the puzzles at the end, like the chess game etc, should be identical in the adaptation as it was in the original. Likewise, in the Order of the Phoenix version, Ginny should be accidentally killed by Malfoy.
Slashdot Mirror
Businesses need to share the things you want a piece of, but it's OK if they keep anything you don't want. At least, for now.
Now technology has struck again--people are inventing new ways to make money. Instead of applauding their innovations and acknowledging their right of first use on ideas they made up, we are demanding that they share them with us. Instead of being free market, laisez-faire capitalists, we (by which I mean you, I don't subscribe to this) have turned into whiny littly communists. "It's too hard to make money when the other guy has a shiny new business model. Mommy, make him share!" Bah.
Besides, the Linux kernal guys have better things to do than run sed scripts to change all these jargony terms.
I've experienced this problem with lusers before too. At first I was very frustrated, spending hours explaning the logical history underlying the acronames "cd" and "ls" and how they are actually newmonic. After a while, though, I realized that this jargon was actually working for us, not against us. If someone is too stupid to learn and understand some basic terminology, I don't want them dumbing down Linux anyway. It's like Mensa--you have to have a certain amount of brains to get in the door, which makes for a more pleasant experience among the intelligentcia.
You may have put the cart before the hoarse here, has anyone proved that gaming causes the poor socialization and obesity? It seems far more likely to me that those types are resorting to games as their last hope. Look at how many comments there are here about "online games *are* social", as though brief, obscene text messages about "fragging" could take the place of real interaction. It's obvious that that pretending their are Somebody online is the only thing that keeps them going and taking that away from them is just mean spirited on your part.
Nearly 70 percent of those questioned said they were in elementary school when they first played video games. By junior high and high school, about half said they had tried computer games -- software-driven games from cards to shoot-'em-up adventures such as Doom -- and 43 percent said they had tried online games over the Internet. However, 92 percent of those that played games said that it replaced their regular social life, including dating. Most of the survey participants still had never gone on a date.
1) We have single-source logons for all users, even if they migrate workstations.
2) Users can access their apps and data from anywhere on the network, even offsite.
3) Ping times have halved.
4) You wouldn't believe our uptime, sometimes we go for weeks without rebooting.
5) The TCO is 1/10th of what it was and we've been able to reduce our IT staff (maybe this is the real reason the /. readership hates .NET?).
OTOH, if people are playing games around the clock, that's not good either. It's like seatbelt laws or laws against selling alcohol on Sunday--it protects people from themselves. That's what government is all about and I support them.
Most parents make their kids go to bed (or do homework) at those times anyway. This curfew just takes the argument out of it. There's no point in arguing, since even if you won you wouldn't be able to play the games. This sounds like a really good law that deals with the root of the problem instead of just addressing the symptoms.
When Macs first came out, everyone justified the high price by saying that the hardware was superior for graphics intensive tasks like video editing. But now, when you can do 3D modeling with Blender, POVray, etc on a regular PC, what's the point of paying all that extra money? It would appear that Adobe agrees. What niche market can Apple appeal to now, to complement the teenage girl demographic it already enjoys?
The trouble is the cost. But I just remind myself that if I took the time and effort to strip out the floppy drive and 200 Mhz bus from an Intel machine and paint it to be like a Mac, I'd end up spending more than if I just bought the Mac to begin with.
Or at least immoral? I don't think "the end justifies the means" is really a valid defense, especially as there's no "end" in this case. They are just reading someone else's email. And "White hat hacking" doesn't apply either, as that refers to people who are asked to break in to a computer to test it, not vigilantes like our own Fyodor, who use their skills to merely harass people that annoy them.
QED, Gold is wrong.
I've known some loud DBAs, but I didn't realize they had been organized into a loudness-measuring system.
While this technology is theoretically interesting, it won't save the victims of the 9/11 FTC disaster. And the terrorists have been subdued--you only have to turn on CNN and see that Iraq is now safely under American (to say nothing of Christian) control.
I hope Gold didn't OK that, because it's physical nonsense. What it is trying to imply is that if the photons are emitted with the same energy as they are absorbed, the solar sail can't gain any kinetic energy (because of conservation of energy--the photons kept all theirs, so the sail gets none). But what about the conservation of momentum? The photon was headed rightward in the first diagram and headed left in the last one. That's a next change in momentum--where did it go, if not the sail?
Here's the crux of his argument: But what will be the performance of the mirror as a heat engine? If the mirror receives heat energy from the Sun and converts some of this into free energy, namely the kinetic energy of its motion, it falls into the strict definition of a heat engine, and Carnot's rule defining the maximum efficiency for this energy conversion must apply. We can determine the incoming temperature of the radiation by measuring the temperature an absorbing (black) body would reach when exposed to the radiation being sent to the mirror, and the temperature a black body would reach exposed to the outgoing radiation from the mirror, both measurements carried out in common motion with the mirror. Carnot's rule would then give the maximum efficiency as that fraction of the heat flow trough the mirror, given by the difference of the two temperatures, divided by the input temperature. It would be that fraction of the heat flow that could maximally appear as kinetic energy gained by the mass of the mirror. If this was a perfect mirror, the two temperatures will be the same, and it follows that the mirror cannot act as a heat engine at all: no free energy can be obtained from the light. The proposed solar sail cannot be accelerated by sunlight.
Carnot only applies to closed systems. In textbook examples of heat engines, the engine, the heat source and the heat sink are all included in the analysis. Gold has included the engine (the sail) and heat source (the sun), but he's neglected the heat sink (the almost-perfect blackbody of intergalactic space). It isn't the temperature difference between absorption and emittance that matters, it's the temperature difference between source and sink, and that difference is huge here.
You probably think I'm about to blast the Dogbert ruling. Well, I'm not. I am a human being and socially-responsible person before I'm a scientist. And speaking as a person, I know that values such as justice come before mere scientific exactitude. I applaud this decision as it takes the fate of the human race away from the computers and the the technocracy who runs them and puts it back in human hands.
In short, please try to think before you make rash claims about how lame Java is. It might be too hard for your mother to use, but other people see that as merely being powerful.
[1]I'm thinking here of the Wil Whitman character, though Lt Colonel Riker bears a lot of the blame as well.
I went through a similar search process about a year ago. We got bids from several vendors and we eventually ended up choosing this one. It's turned out pretty well for us, but it doesn't have the visual management you are looking for. In that case, you may want to try this. I hope it's worth more than doubling your price, though.
Given that UNIX technology has been around for almost 40 years now and the Linux implementation of that standard in particular has been with us for 12 or 13 years, wouldn't it be fair to call Windows, the first 32 bit versions of which have only been with us for 8 years, the passing fad?
Just my $.02
Also, what about bandwidth? Compression of a stream is considerably less than what is possible for a pre-existing file. If everyone starts doing this, soon all bandwidth will cease to exist. And for what? A cheap parlor trick.
But the worst problem of all is how to maintain community standards at a national level. Internet rebroadcasting from Japan to France is no big deal, since France is already very decadent and would probably even welcome some tentacle rape porn. But what if someone in either Japan or France tried to beam that kind of junk into the precious minds of the US's children?
I think we all remember the horrors of the Matrix and HGttG games, which bore little or no relation to the content of the source material. For instance, I think the puzzles at the end, like the chess game etc, should be identical in the adaptation as it was in the original. Likewise, in the Order of the Phoenix version, Ginny should be accidentally killed by Malfoy.