Your analogy is flawed, for multiple reasons: Linus HAS given up control, or more accurately, Linux is uncontrolable. Anyone can do anything they like to Linux. Second, Linux is not a limited resource. You can copy it and change it, or put in on a disc and burn it. Third, Australia's domain system is part of a larger hierarchy and system which NO ONE should have the right to control. He is the caretaker of a part of the system already cordoned off by artificial government boundries. If it wasn't for the australian government, there would be no.au domain. And if it wasn't for whoever created the domain name system, there would be no.au. He did not build this think all by his lonesome.
"When dealing with national security, one should generally err on the side of caution."
Listen to yourself. I could easily hear that comment coming from a fascist. Erring on the side of caution for national security is always an excuse for taking away freedom.
Another subliminal advertisement from the Slasdot Crew. Thanks! I'll put this in my stack of junk with the Atari Games, X10 firecracker, and Plasma Shoelaces.
Re:The Net content players- some winners, some los
on
Suck Stops Sucking
·
· Score: 1
I would disagree with you. Suck's well defined style, writing, consistent quality artwork, and personal touches are unmatched by Salon, Slate, Wired, or most anything else out there. Of course, this is just my opinion.
"There is nothing more pathetic than a slave who thinks he is free."
Wrong. There is nothing more pathetic than a free person who thinks he is a slave.
Try it. Go walk out of your job. They wont hold a gun to your head. Get a rucksack, and start walking the earth. No one will stop you. Go speak to women in Afghanistan or sex slaves in Thailand. Then start talking about freedom.
What makes the arbiters of thsi plan think that stockpiling weapons grade plutonium in one place wont make it much easier for nuts to get hold of it? Isn't plutonium the hardest component to acquire when building a nuclear weapon?
What's with all these articles with the "Hey, wouldn't be cool if we all gave Mandrake some money?" Could there possibly be some shared interest with the Slashdot crew?
I had the luck of asking RMS the final question of the day. I'm not sure if I took advantage of the opportunity though. My question was: "If there was a button that would make the government force software companies to open and free all software, would you press it?" He answered "yes", and afterwards, I wondered if it was a dumb question. But my intention was to see if he would use the government and force against others the way he sees software companies currently using the legal system against users. And apparently he would, but I guess it makes sense, if he thinks that the system shouldn't exist anyway. This line of thinking leads to the destruction of copyrights and patent. Many think that money, and even physical property are contrivances that are used to subjigate the common man; should we get rid of that too? In limiting his scope to software, RMS allows himself to actually get things done, but if I take his ideas further, they seem to contradict how our society works as a whole. Maybe these ideas should be taken further. Maybe they have already. I haven't really read Marx or other populist authors.
I like the idea of the GPL, and I love and appreciate all the software that RMS and crew has provided, but I'm not sure if I can stand with his ideals yet, untill they are applied to a larger scope.
I don't get much of the cloudmakers group/site on a quick perusal. Why does it seem that if I put the effort into figuring out what it's about, it seems like it might be lame? The site is pretty well done for a movie studio, but the admission that it's a promotion doesn't let them off the hook for trying to pose, and create a geek community out of thin air.
I am curious as to what technology actually worked for you? Most 3D display technology I am aware of works by sending a different image to each eye. In fact, isn't viewing the actual world through one eye only really in 2D? You may be able to determine distance through certain depth cues, but you can not really see anything in 3D.
"It was two young architects, Peter O'Shea and Robert Winstead, who came up with the simple and dramatic idea of a chalkboard. ''We started with the idea that for the project to be successful it had to be confrontational,'' says O'Shea. It wasn't to be a static place where people would bow to free speech, but a fluid, dynamic, controversial space where they would exercise it."
When did a slate become confrontational???
SERIOUSLY, after a hit on the bong, and a bit of converstation, my friends and I will come up with several ideas that are simple but clever. But we are not allowed to excersize them freely on public land. But because these two are officially licensed architects, they can come up with "fulid, dynamic, controversial space" for the public to excersize their opinion. Thousands have alread put up graffiti walls or comment boards on their web sites. How does this differ?
The page written by Leonid A. Kharitonov that you linked states that the Russian government simply speculated on the idea of a failure of a secret new torpedo as the reason for the Kursk disaster, along with several other reasons. No mention of cavitation. So you are disseminating sensationalism and possibly misinformation by filtering out the rest of the page and submitting fourth hand knowledge (The Russian government - Russian reporters - Leonid Kharitonov - then yourself) to create fifth hand knowledge for the rest of the slashdot public.
The article title refers to Uplifting, which is a term from a series of books by SF author David Brin. In these books (Startide Rising is one of them), dolphins and chimps are modified by humans to raise them to a higher level of intelligence. Humans have made contact with many alien races, and humans are unique in that they have no know uplifters, and evolved intelligence without external help.
I'd hardly call trying to communicate with dolphins "uplifting". We still don't really know the level of their intelligence. Maybe they are trying to uplift us.
As technology advances, simulation and games get closer to being indistinguishable from everyday reality. I've heard the comment that gamers don't want reality, but I don't believe this. Players may not want realistic plot (though the Sims may show me to be incorrect), but they do want realistic gravity and reflections, and they also want realistic _time_ continuity.
When we are sitting in a holo-deck, are we going to want to take turns each time we do something? Turns are only a model of reality. Even though a single player and a computer can't do the work of an general and his staff (as the article states), players will step into the role of the characters and work with others in a massive online environment and become the general and his staff.
First, as others have said, the archive is still there, at the same address (groups.google.com).
Also, the Wired article mentions that a single person called for the release of the archive, but no mention is made of a response from anyone at Google or the Library of Congress. So what? I call for Microsoft to release the windows source code and have the DOJ supervise it. Where is my Wired and Slashdot article?
There are multiple archives in existance, and Deja owns one of them. They collected it and maintained it privately, and they nor google owe you alimony because of the lifestyle you are used to.
Are there no other public or private archives out there? It seems strange that only there is only one service available. I recall a public web and usenet archive out there that stored a limited chronological range, but I don't remember the address...
I don't doubt that google will eventually do a good job with it, even though it does suck in it's current form.
I just read Dogme, and I don't think its creater, director Von Trier, followed only some of its tenets when making his latest movie, Dancer in the Dark.
Let's see:
1. Shooting must be done on location. Props and sets must not be brought in (if a particular prop is necessary for the story, a location must be chosen where this prop is to be found).
Ok, he appeared to have followed this tenet well, unless he did an excellent job of fakery.
2. The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs where the scene is being shot).
Bjork's musical involvement in this film automatically contradicts this tenet, considering all the sound effects and music produced seperately from the movie. But, I thought it was done in good taste.
3. The camera must be hand-held. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted. (The film must not take place where the camera is standing; shooting must take place where the film takes place).
Most of the camera work is definitely hand held, but I wonder if the camera man was carried around with the camera for the scenes above the train, and other looking-down perspectives.
4. The film must be in color. Special lighting is not acceptable. (If there is too little light for exposure the scene must be cut or a single lamp be attached to the camera).
The film is in color. I don't know if special lighting is used.
5. Optical work and filters are forbidden
He definitely didn't follow this tenet. There are plenty of scenes that use some kind of filters.
6. The film must not contain superficial action. (Murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.)
There is a murder, and a weapon in this movie
7. Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden. (That is to say that the film takes place here and now.)
The film appears to take place in America (which is not "here" for Von Trier - He is from Europe) and sometime in the mid 20th century (which is not "now"). Also, Bjork has many visions which do not correspond to local reality.
8. Genre movies are not acceptable.
I couldn't fit this movie into any genre
9. The film format must be Academy 35 mm.
I have no idea what format the movie is filmed in.
10. The director must not be credited.
I don't remember
My point with all this is that the creator of the idea isn't even following his own rules...
'I suggest you read the article without any preconceived ideas of whether you'll find it "good" or "bad", just read it and see what you get out of it.'
though shouldn't this apply to everything one reads?
Wrong. The time cost to me in sifting through snail spam everyday is probably similar relative to AOL's cost of storing and routing spam. This one instance of pr0n spam is probably negligible, and so is the one instance of AOL CD spam. But just like the spammers, AOL was still unsolicited, they wasted my time, they polute the front of my apartment visually, and they polute my mind with their branding techniques. They are just as bad as the spammers they are suing.
You also must remember that HAL was "taught" instead of programmed, and was not your run of the mill kernel based computer. It had a near human level of intelligence. In the world of 2001, this type of computer may have had a extremely low failure rate.
Slashdot Mirror
Has a lot of good real estate statistics, but it's limited unless you pay. They're geared towards real estate professionals.
Your analogy is flawed, for multiple reasons: Linus HAS given up control, or more accurately, Linux is uncontrolable. Anyone can do anything they like to Linux. Second, Linux is not a limited resource. You can copy it and change it, or put in on a disc and burn it. Third, Australia's domain system is part of a larger hierarchy and system which NO ONE should have the right to control. He is the caretaker of a part of the system already cordoned off by artificial government boundries. If it wasn't for the australian government, there would be no .au domain. And if it wasn't for whoever created the domain name system, there would be no .au. He did not build this think all by his lonesome.
LS
I'll take the bait:
"When dealing with national security, one should generally err on the side of caution."
Listen to yourself. I could easily hear that comment coming from a fascist. Erring on the side of caution for national security is always an excuse for taking away freedom.
Another subliminal advertisement from the Slasdot Crew. Thanks! I'll put this in my stack of junk with the Atari Games, X10 firecracker, and Plasma Shoelaces.
I would disagree with you. Suck's well defined style, writing, consistent quality artwork, and personal touches are unmatched by Salon, Slate, Wired, or most anything else out there. Of course, this is just my opinion.
LS
"There is nothing more pathetic than a slave who thinks he is free."
Wrong. There is nothing more pathetic than a free person who thinks he is a slave.
Try it. Go walk out of your job. They wont hold a gun to your head. Get a rucksack, and start walking the earth. No one will stop you. Go speak to women in Afghanistan or sex slaves in Thailand. Then start talking about freedom.
LS
Yes, Slashdot, the forum of truth to the enlightened!
What makes the arbiters of thsi plan think that stockpiling weapons grade plutonium in one place wont make it much easier for nuts to get hold of it? Isn't plutonium the hardest component to acquire when building a nuclear weapon?
LS
What's with all these articles with the "Hey, wouldn't be cool if we all gave Mandrake some money?" Could there possibly be some shared interest with the Slashdot crew?
I had the luck of asking RMS the final question of the day. I'm not sure if I took advantage of the opportunity though. My question was: "If there was a button that would make the government force software companies to open and free all software, would you press it?" He answered "yes", and afterwards, I wondered if it was a dumb question. But my intention was to see if he would use the government and force against others the way he sees software companies currently using the legal system against users. And apparently he would, but I guess it makes sense, if he thinks that the system shouldn't exist anyway. This line of thinking leads to the destruction of copyrights and patent. Many think that money, and even physical property are contrivances that are used to subjigate the common man; should we get rid of that too? In limiting his scope to software, RMS allows himself to actually get things done, but if I take his ideas further, they seem to contradict how our society works as a whole. Maybe these ideas should be taken further. Maybe they have already. I haven't really read Marx or other populist authors.
I like the idea of the GPL, and I love and appreciate all the software that RMS and crew has provided, but I'm not sure if I can stand with his ideals yet, untill they are applied to a larger scope.
LS
I don't get much of the cloudmakers group/site on a quick perusal. Why does it seem that if I put the effort into figuring out what it's about, it seems like it might be lame? The site is pretty well done for a movie studio, but the admission that it's a promotion doesn't let them off the hook for trying to pose, and create a geek community out of thin air.
LS
I am curious as to what technology actually worked for you? Most 3D display technology I am aware of works by sending a different image to each eye. In fact, isn't viewing the actual world through one eye only really in 2D? You may be able to determine distance through certain depth cues, but you can not really see anything in 3D.
LS
"It was two young architects, Peter O'Shea and Robert Winstead, who came up with the simple and dramatic idea of a chalkboard. ''We started with the idea that for the project to be successful it had to be confrontational,'' says O'Shea. It wasn't to be a static place where people would bow to free speech, but a fluid, dynamic, controversial space where they would exercise it."
When did a slate become confrontational???
SERIOUSLY, after a hit on the bong, and a bit of converstation, my friends and I will come up with several ideas that are simple but clever. But we are not allowed to excersize them freely on public land. But because these two are officially licensed architects, they can come up with "fulid, dynamic, controversial space" for the public to excersize their opinion. Thousands have alread put up graffiti walls or comment boards on their web sites. How does this differ?
LS
A quote from Robert Anton Wislon's Book "The Illuminatus Trilogy":
"Think for yourself!"
The page written by Leonid A. Kharitonov that you linked states that the Russian government simply speculated on the idea of a failure of a secret new torpedo as the reason for the Kursk disaster, along with several other reasons. No mention of cavitation. So you are disseminating sensationalism and possibly misinformation by filtering out the rest of the page and submitting fourth hand knowledge (The Russian government - Russian reporters - Leonid Kharitonov - then yourself) to create fifth hand knowledge for the rest of the slashdot public.
A lot of people never read the links, you know...
Well, Noryungi, what are you waiting for?
LS
The article title refers to Uplifting, which is a term from a series of books by SF author David Brin. In these books (Startide Rising is one of them), dolphins and chimps are modified by humans to raise them to a higher level of intelligence. Humans have made contact with many alien races, and humans are unique in that they have no know uplifters, and evolved intelligence without external help.
I'd hardly call trying to communicate with dolphins "uplifting". We still don't really know the level of their intelligence. Maybe they are trying to uplift us.
LS
As technology advances, simulation and games get closer to being indistinguishable from everyday reality. I've heard the comment that gamers don't want reality, but I don't believe this. Players may not want realistic plot (though the Sims may show me to be incorrect), but they do want realistic gravity and reflections, and they also want realistic _time_ continuity.
When we are sitting in a holo-deck, are we going to want to take turns each time we do something? Turns are only a model of reality. Even though a single player and a computer can't do the work of an general and his staff (as the article states), players will step into the role of the characters and work with others in a massive online environment and become the general and his staff.
LS
I found the archive I refered to:
www.archive.org, but their archive is offline on tape. Perhaps there is some FSF funding to have it put up publicly?
Also, Altavista, Infoseek, and Excite do or did some archiving at one point or another.
LS
First, as others have said, the archive is still there, at the same address (groups.google.com).
Also, the Wired article mentions that a single person called for the release of the archive, but no mention is made of a response from anyone at Google or the Library of Congress. So what? I call for Microsoft to release the windows source code and have the DOJ supervise it. Where is my Wired and Slashdot article?
There are multiple archives in existance, and Deja owns one of them. They collected it and maintained it privately, and they nor google owe you alimony because of the lifestyle you are used to.
Are there no other public or private archives out there? It seems strange that only there is only one service available. I recall a public web and usenet archive out there that stored a limited chronological range, but I don't remember the address...
I don't doubt that google will eventually do a good job with it, even though it does suck in it's current form.
LS
I just read Dogme, and I don't think its creater, director Von Trier, followed only some of its tenets when making his latest movie, Dancer in the Dark.
Let's see:
1. Shooting must be done on location. Props and sets must not be brought in (if a particular prop is necessary for the story, a location must be chosen where this prop is to be found).
Ok, he appeared to have followed this tenet well, unless he did an excellent job of fakery.
2. The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs where the scene is being shot).
Bjork's musical involvement in this film automatically contradicts this tenet, considering all the sound effects and music produced seperately from the movie. But, I thought it was done in good taste.
3. The camera must be hand-held. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted. (The film must not take place where the camera is standing; shooting must take place where the film takes place).
Most of the camera work is definitely hand held, but I wonder if the camera man was carried around with the camera for the scenes above the train, and other looking-down perspectives.
4. The film must be in color. Special lighting is not acceptable. (If there is too little light for exposure the scene must be cut or a single lamp be attached to the camera).
The film is in color. I don't know if special lighting is used.
5. Optical work and filters are forbidden
He definitely didn't follow this tenet. There are plenty of scenes that use some kind of filters.
6. The film must not contain superficial action. (Murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.)
There is a murder, and a weapon in this movie
7. Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden. (That is to say that the film takes place here and now.)
The film appears to take place in America (which is not "here" for Von Trier - He is from Europe) and sometime in the mid 20th century (which is not "now"). Also, Bjork has many visions which do not correspond to local reality.
8. Genre movies are not acceptable.
I couldn't fit this movie into any genre
9. The film format must be Academy 35 mm.
I have no idea what format the movie is filmed in.
10. The director must not be credited.
I don't remember
My point with all this is that the creator of the idea isn't even following his own rules...
Sounds like an open source Carnivore to me...
This is good advice, Michael:
'I suggest you read the article without any preconceived ideas of whether you'll find it "good" or "bad", just read it and see what you get out of it.'
though shouldn't this apply to everything one reads?
LS
Wrong. The time cost to me in sifting through snail spam everyday is probably similar relative to AOL's cost of storing and routing spam. This one instance of pr0n spam is probably negligible, and so is the one instance of AOL CD spam. But just like the spammers, AOL was still unsolicited, they wasted my time, they polute the front of my apartment visually, and they polute my mind with their branding techniques. They are just as bad as the spammers they are suing.
LS
You also must remember that HAL was "taught" instead of programmed, and was not your run of the mill kernel based computer. It had a near human level of intelligence. In the world of 2001, this type of computer may have had a extremely low failure rate.
-Ellis