In case you hadn't noticed, hard drives are typically used and marketed within the context of the "computer world".
Well, that begs the question of what the hell do you consider the computer world?
Once, a very long time ago in chip years, the "computer world" encompassed most of geekdom and very little more. There were a number of aliens called "users" or "lusers" who visited, but the computer world was run by geeks and nerds. But a long time ago the "computer world" expanded to well beyond those borders. Now the greater number of people who use computers daily and make daily decisions about buying systems, upgrading systems, and replacing systems are unnerdy nongeeks. It makes sense for the common language to change.
After all, when even a geek says "I make $58k a year", you know he's talking about $58,000 and not $59,392.
First, all seventeen year olds are in for a rude awakening. That's the nature of adolescence.
Second, for women in good health the statistical drop-off in fertility is not concern before the mid thirties. These figures are generally based on births per 100,000 of population, and don't reflect the basic biology-- they are more reflective of societal norms, the pressures for birth control that come with the second, third, umpteenth child, and so on.
Third, while I know you are correct about fertility rates, if you look further, you'll also find that WHO and other health agencies consistently report that five year survival rates of the children of teenagers are much lower than for women in their mid-twenties. For a young woman who wants to raise a child, the statistics suggest that she will be better off waiting a few years before she begins her family, as otherwise she runs a higher risk of experiencing the grief of burying her first born.
The original concept was like this...
on
State Of The Simputer
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
[This is recycled from something I posted about a year ago.]
Alice is a shrewd 17 year old who plans to build on her investment in a Simputer and a cell phone until she achieves world domination. With the optimism of youth, she figures that will happen when she's about 25. After all, she needs two years to pay off the Co-op loan she took to get the things, and then she needs to really learn how read and write, too. That might take a little while. But she's willing to put off starting her family until she's 25. Much as she wants kids, she wants to be rich, first.
One of Alice's clients of the day is Bob, who is a 28 year old who has a full set of socket wrenches, a number of other tools, a backpack, and an excellent memory of the exploded diagrams of the half dozen different types of Briggs & Stratton engines that are in use within walking distance. Today he brings Alice a broken fan belt from Chuck's rototiller. With him helping her figure out the part identification code, Alice is able to find a store that has a replacement in stock, fifteen miles-- a round-trip walk of only a day-- away. That's much better than the fifty mile trip to the city.
Chuck, who tagged along with Bob in a very worried fashion, is delighted at this good news. Three years ago his tiller had also broken down in the middle of planting season, and it had taken a week of sending a runner around to the distant towns to find the needed part. A week without work had thrown off the usual schedule, and while his farmer clients understood these things happen, some of their wives were angry at him because their kids had to be pulled out of school to hoe the fields, and those families had become the butt of village jokes for months. Nobody likes to be called "old fashioned", not that way. Chuck had lost something much more important than just the loss of income in that debacle, and he did not want to repeat it.
Alice, the shrewd businesswoman, suggested that if Bob and Chuck wanted her to, maybe she could try to broker a delivery deal and get the new belt into Bob's hands before noon. At first they thought she was joking: same day delivery, better even than the mythical FedEx! But after a few minutes of enjoyable haggling, the three agreed to a payment. Then Alice chased them out of hearing distance, while she did furtive things with the internet access and the cell phone. No, I won't reveal her trade secrets, so don't ask me. Something about a regional network of teenage girls with Simputers, but you didn't hear that from me.
The upshot was that 10 minutes later Chuck started sloshing across the western marsh to the highway, where he was to flag down a Frito Lay delivery truck heading east. The driver would give him the fan belt, and also a dozen batteries and a bag of potato chips for Alice. Meanwhile, Bob went back to the rototiller and began removing cover plates and things that needed to come off before the new belt could go on.
End of story: Chuck is back in business before the day has even started to get hot. Bob's reputation for fast, friendly, quality field service is even more enhanced. That evening Alice counts the day's take with a laugh, and then gently tells her latest suitor that no, she's not yet ready to marry. There is a world out there and she is going to claim her piece of it. Marriage and children have to wait awhile.
[It seems like this original vision is not going to happen-- reality always gets in the way of guiding visions. Nevertheless, if low cost computers promote coop purchases of supplies or coop selling arrangements, these Simputers would improve the lives of villagers.]
Most of the ten reasons make sense, but they don't really address the two most critical issues facing the space program today:
Why do we need a manned space program today?
If we have a manned program, why use the Shuttle?
Good questions. IMO, the larger question of why go into space at all doesn't matter very much. It is sufficient to say that for some of us, "going out there" is something we need to attempt since to do otherwise would be to deny a part of what we are. The urge to space arises from the same motivation that causes some of us to want to walk around that next corner just to see what's there. It is the same urge that caused our ancestors to walk out of Africa. And to put unnatural coverings on their bodies and their feet, that they might walk further, and settle comfortably in places where their ancestors in their nakedness could not have survived.
So it appears that going into space is related to one of the most powerful parts of human nature: the primal urge to shop for new clothes.
Ahem. Getting back on topic...
It doesn't make sense to ask why we do it. It does make a lot of sense to ask how we should do it.
Right at the moment, the immediate question is how do we keep the ISS properly staffed? We need a new manned launch vehicle because if we don't build one, the ISS will come down like Mir and Sky Lab. And that is simply unacceptable.
I suggest that we set aside all stylistic concerns and sew up some utilitarian coverings that, although ugly, will let us get out in the weather and tend our small garden plot. Of the recent proposals, what makes the most sense to me is the two part concept of:
building an unmanned freighter to do one-way cargo hauls to orbit (and to be parked up there afterward, for future salvage of construction material that already has that expensive investment of delta vee); and
building cheap and safe capsules as extensions of the Apollo program that will get our people up and down in the surest manner we now know.
Over the long term, we need to look at more comfortable, and stylish, ways of Going Up There. Things like the suborbital space plane competition and the possibility of beanstalk materials suggest some exciting design concepts. But we'll probably always want cheap unmanned freighters for some tasks, and that probably goes for Apollo-like capsules, too (they'll be hard to beat as escape pods). So for a little while let's set aside our thoughts about a new party dress and think instead about what we want for the grubbies we need while we're mucking about in our little garden.
There are six illegal forms of discrimination in the USA:
race
color
creed
national origin
sex (was added more recently than the above)
age (also added more recently)
Over the last decade or so, the original sexual discrimination is being blurred and extended into gender discrimination. A wise employer will avoid any discrimination against transexuals or gays and so on-- whether it is legal or not to do so, it just isn't worth the trouble to go there.
Also, national origin is now interpreted more widely to identify any cultural group, whether or not it ever had a national presence. So it is illegal to discriminate against the kurd or basque peoples, for instance.
Anything else goes. It is perfectly okay for an employer to discriminate against persons based on their past employment history or other affiliations.
However it usually is not a smart idea to write "No Ex-Enron Execs Need Apply" at the end of the help-wanted ad. In fact, it is sort of stupid to do things like that.
Oh what the heck, it's still Sunday morning so I've got a few minutes' more to play this silly game.
me: I really question the way your sources distort the facts
you: CNN '92 election coverage on CNN's website. CNN, a founding member of the vast right wing conspiracy.
Yeah, I noticed your citation. They did a pretty sleazy juxtaposition of two unrelated facts-- that he had been avoiding the draft for four years (with a student deferment), and that after that time he had applied for pre-enrollment to an ROTC program at a school that he might someday attend, to take advantage of another deferment program. It was a good job for creating the impression they wanted you to take with you-- that Clinton had abused the ROTC program for years and years-- and you fell for it. Then when the time line shows this just isn't so, you choose to trump the facts by suggesting that CNN is An Authority. Perhaps they are, but in this case they are also Wrong. But there is now no possibility of reasoned discussion with you on this, since you have deserted the arena of reason for that of belief.
Clinton apologized for misleading the ROTC, that is not normal.
I don't know what apology you are referring to. If it is the same quotation from Clinton's letter of withdrawal that I saw, it was the conventional apology most people make when they realize that changing their mind has caused someone else some unnecessary paperwork. The same kind of apology I would make to a car salesman if I learned that the loan was not going to come through at the rate I was budgeting for. Or the apology Clinton would have made later on, when he was accepted by Yale University's law school, and would be telling his safety school, the University of Arkansas, that he'd not be attending there, after all.
Your own source proves you incorrect. "Many young men would not have pursued higher education if there had not been a program of student deferment." Clinton was bound for college irregardless of the draft.
I don't have any idea what you are attempting to say with that statement.
What is clear in the record is that Clinton took advantage of the student deferment for his 4 years of undergraduate study then took advantage of another deferment program. The second deferment program ended just a few months after Clinton had been accepted into it when the entire Selective Service law was revised. (You are aware that if Clinton had drawn a low number in that first draft lottery, he would have received a Notice of Induction?)
There is no indication in any of this that Clinton was a draft dodger-- he used the system the way it was intended to be used until Congress put an end to that whole approach.
Bill Clinton, CIA agent. Priceless.
Use your head. He was in the right place at the right time and had the right image to fit in with young french, german, and italian radicals. As he had decided on a US law degree, he could not finish out the Rhodes Scholarship program. He needed money for schooling, and would probably welcome an opportunity to tour Europe. How can you doubt that the CIA would not have explored recruiting him? He was ripe. Not tarnished enough, and too hung up on his step-dad's drinking problems to learn how to inhale weed, but there were other ways to tarnish a kid player. Now I'll not say that I actually believe that, but it fits the facts at least as well as the other stories... in some ways, better. That would make him the second President in a row with a spook background... interesting.
Nothing like a good conspiracy on a Sunday morning. But I've got to sign off now.
Here's a factual timeline that interleaves Clinton's known actions with those of the Selective Service (and, just for fun, GW Bush):
1946: Bush's birth year (July); Clinton's birth year (August)
1964: Gulf of Tonkin resolution and US begins bombing North Vietnam; Clinton registers for draft; Clinton's freshman year at Georgetown University; Bush registers for draft; Bush's freshman year at Yale (both Clinton and Bush have student deferments during their undergraduate studies)
1965: "Channeling" document codifying existing Selective Service practices wrt deferments and adjustments of the order of selection (partial quote):
While the best known purpose of Selective Service is to procure manpower for the armed forces, a variety of related processes take place outside delivery of manpower to the active armed forces. Many of these may be put under the heading of "channeling manpower." Many young men would not
have pursued higher education if there had not been a program of student deferment. Many young scientists, engineers, tool and die makers, and other possessors of scarce skills would not remain in their jobs in the defense effort if it were not for a program of occupational deferments. Even though the salary of a teacher has historically been meager, many young men remain in that job, seeking the reward of a deferment. The process of channeling manpower by deferment is entitled to much credit for the large number of graduate students in technical fields and for the fact that there is not a greater shortage of teachers, engineers and other scientists working in activities which are essential to the national interest....
1966: Serious questions begin to arise about whether "channeling" was being used to draft civil rights workers, labor organizers, war protestors, and other dissidents (the voluntary nature of draft boards makes it impossible to judge how seriously the Selective Service laws were being abused by local draft boards)
1968: Clinton graduates from G.U. (BA, International Affairs); Clinton goes to Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar; Bush graduates from Yale (BA); Bush joins Texas Air National Guard
1969: Clinton receives draft notice (while at Oxford); Clinton pre-enrolls in ROTC program at University of Arkansas Law School; structure and policies of the Selective Service are significantly changed with end of "channeling" and increased accountability; first draft lottery (on December 1); Clinton drops his pre-enrollment in the ROTC program after the lottery
1970: Clinton leaves Oxford and Rhodes Scholarship program; begins travels in Europe and Russia with no visible source of funds (there is speculation that he was one of many students the CIA employed to gather background information on political dissidents in Europe and Russia); Bush has a series of unexplained absences from Air National Guard duties but these apparently are not treated as formal AWOL incidents
1973: Clinton receives law degree from Yale University; Bush leaves Air National Guard
1975: Bush receives MBA from Harvard University
This raises some interesting questions about Clinton wrt possible CIA activities and cover stories. But it is clear just from these bare dates that his interactions with the Selective Service were not only normal for that time, but showed exactly the kind of behavior that the Selective Service was trying to elicit through its "channeling" techniques.
I really question the way your sources distort the facts. While it is true that Clinton spent several years avoiding the draft (just the way he was supposed to, by being a good student), it is not true that he did this through abuse of the ROTC program. His pre-enrollment in ROTC covered less than one semester at Oxford, and was an appropriate action while "channeling" was in effect. I'm sure he was relieved, as many of my younger friends were, when that whole "channeling" ball of crap was dismantled and the ROTC pre-enrollment progra
The "sleaze" was Clinton's manipulation of the draft/ROTC system while studying in the US.
You provide all kinds of unnecessary facts supporting your statements about Reagan and National Guard (evidently in support of statements you made about GWB) even though they were not necessary to discussing the point in question, and contributed only flavors without any substance to the discussion.
Would you kindly provide the same level of detail documenting the Clinton "sleaze". For extra credit, try doing a comparison between the ethics of an officer's dereliction of training duties from the Air National Guard and the ethics of a ROTC cadet's antiwar activities.
BTW, the above is purely rhetorical. I recognize that your mind is much too strong, much too like a steel trap, to be affected by anything further that anyone might write about this subject. And at this point, I think discerning readers are capable of forming their own opinions, now that some facts and the lack of other facts have been made clear.
Thanks for the interchange of... ideas... or whatever.
While Carter was ineffective in the politics of being a US President, he was, and is, very effective as a statesman and mediator. What he managed with the Camp David Accord was an incredible act of diplomacy. It is widely recognized that he should have been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 1978, along with Begin and Sadat.
He also had the guts to tell Americans that they could turn their thermostats down to 68 degrees and wear sweaters in the face of OPEC's attempts at extortion. And that the USA would boycott the 1980 Moscow Summer Olympic Games as part of a wider economic boycott to get Moscow to withdraw its invasion force from Afghanistan (started in Jan 1980). These were not popular stances; they were political suicide. He almost certainly would have lost the 1980 election even if the Ayatolla Khomeini had not used the US Embassy hostages in Iran to throw the election to Reagan.
His continued work since that time has kept him in the thick of international politics. He does not place himself in the midst of international crises; his work puts him where these crises arise around him. I agree that he is not privy to all the fantastic intelligence the US gathers, like that bit about the Iraqi WMD that could be launched on 45 minutes' notice and which I'm sure we'll find Real Soon Now, and that other bit about the way US soldiers were going to be greeted like the first Allied troops to enter Paris in WWII, and that other bit about how Saddam was in bed with Al Quaida which I never really understood. Nevertheless, he is an intelligent man, one of sharpest US Presidents ever, who studies these crises as they develop and who has an informed and articulate opinon.
When he speaks on an issue, smart people should hear him out. Not that he is always right about the correct course of action, but because he will have his facts straight, he will be honest, and he will not pull any slick tricks.
Why must people keep abusing the phrase, "begs the question?" It does not mean "causes us to question" or "makes me wonder." Just because MANY people keep making the same mistake does not make it so.
</grammar nazo>
Which begs the question, since when has consistent idiomatic usage within a language become a province of that language's grammar?
Granted that the erosion of meaning of "beg the question" is an unfortunate loss, it is also true that idioms like this are superstructures that ride on top of a language's grammar, and are not a core part of the language itself.
To bring this back on topic, let it be noted that this kind of confusion of idiom with grammar clouds the issues, and risks turning the field of discussion into the kind of mess one finds underneath the passage of many elephants.
Open system vs closed system, central organization vs decentralized development community, communistic vs capitalistic... None of those matter to Darl McBride.
His actions demonstrate he follows WMIM/WYIN* of wealth management, and in that system all the other terminology is verbiage to be used or not as needed.
*key to acronyms WMIM: "what's mine is mine" WYIN: "what's yours is negotiable"
...misspellings were much more common in earlier times.
It only appears that way because of our current widespread cultural bias about there being one True, Right And Only Way (TRAOW) to spell. A more useful view for the historian and language scholar is that correct spelling in earlier times had more fluidity.
The fluidity of english spelling was severely repressed in the 30 or so decades surrounding the early 1700s, as it crimped the marketing plans of the nascent (but fast growing) publishing industry. In a sense, we owe the current rigidity of spelling rules to the spiritual forefathers of the RIAA. But that's another rant.
Something going on right now that is putting some fascinating twists into contemporary english is best shown by example. Written english is now being used by a Finn and a Chinaman to work together on creating a cross platform Perl script that will translate legacy HTML into XML (that can then be served out by existing software written in PHP). Neither of these writers can speak english well enough to order from a MickieDee's menu without pointing, yet they can use it in its written form to collaborate while working in various ways with several artificial languages.
Consideration of ancient parochial concerns over the 'u' in "favo[u]?r" pales compared to the needs of these two and others like them. When the most important use of english is as a second tongue that is going teh b mangled gy all the typos htat occur in email anyway, then perhaps its spelling rules need to be relaxed once again.
...could you reduce the amount of heating during rentry by slowing the craft down much much more before it reenters?
If you had the reaction mass in orbit as a refueling point, there is no question that this would work. It is out of reach of today's technology with its dependence on chemical rockets, because the cost of hauling the fuel up with you is much too great. But that could change in a hurry, if we happen to find a source of ice that is already up there somewhere...
What I envision is a reentry vehicle that uses steam jets generated by the heat of reentry as brakes. I'm talking water-cooled wings where the liquid water is brought to temperatures of 250 - 500 deg C before it is flashed to steam in forward-pointing jets. We are past masters of handling live steam in everything from 1850's locomotives to light water nuclear power stations. We've got steam technology pretty well nailed. It is hard to imagine not being able to make that work. But it might depend on finding exploitable ice on the Moon, or snagging a passing comet.
It is also possible to use heavy lift, brute force, unmanned rockets to throw big water balloons into orbit, that would then be used as refueling points for the descent of manned craft. From my vague memories of the space shuttle's payload (something like 20 tonnes?) I'd guess that NASA could throw a 30 - 50 tonne water balloon up there within 4 years, with most of that time spent on choosing and approving the contracts. At a WAG, a water balloon of that size would probably provide a half dozen or so manned rides back (depending on what kind of beast you get when you mix a bunch of steam engineers with a bunch of aeronautic engineers). Compared to the cost of extending the space shuttle's service life, this could be economically worthwhile.
Anyway, the thought of this generates some interesting and fun images.
Damian's book is great, but a good comparison would be that Learning Perl is to the Camel what Learning Perl Objects, References and Modules is to Damian's book. Both of my tutorial books are tutorial in design, based on years of classroom experience in teaching these subjects. Both of the other books are reference in design.
Hi, Randal,
The Gecko book was very important to me when I made the big step from Perl as a replacement for awk scripts to Perl as an application development tool, around 1997 (the world around me has dictated that I work in Windows, hence gecko). I've still got my copy within reach from the keyboard and it's one of the more tattered and used books in my collection. Thank you very much! You've been a big help in my career.
I learned more advanced techniques from Srinivasan's Black Jaguar, aka Advanced Perl Programming. The first few times I went through it, it was not an easy read, but that may have been my problem in getting my mind around the concepts. I use it and Conway's OOPerl book as references now.
How would you compare Learning Perl Objects, References and Modules to the Black Jag? I'm certain to buy the book when finances allow-- I have nearly a complete set of O'Reilly Perl books... it's like collecting cook books...
--
Will Woodhull
aka mysticgoat (mostly for historical reasons)
More accurately, it is a zip file that contains the content, style and meta information of the document in separate XML files, and also any embedded images, etc. The only thing vaguely proprietary are the file extensions-- the file format itself is plain old zip.
But that doesn't matter a damn when the real question is "who else can load it?" and the answer is "only other geeks with OOo".
Actually these OOo files can be opened with WinZip or any other tool that reads zip files. So it is easy to set up scripts that can feed all or any part of an OOo document to any application that understands XML.
I'm slowly working through the conversion of years of Office97.doc and.xls files to OOo, since OOo's file system is a better bet for long term archiving (neither zip nor XML is going to go away any time soon).
On a separate point, since OOo incorporates file compression into every save and read operation, there is no fair way to compare times between OOo and MS Office when any file operations are involved. It should also be noted that OOo files don't benefit from external compression-- they are already compressed.
Why is NY Times even in "discussions" for this, other than to gain some column inches?
I don't think this is the case. For one thing, it doesn't seem like NYT is playing up this story the way I would expect, if they were using it as a publicity tool.
My guess is that among other things, NYT and Google are discussing what kinds of demographic info Google could provide NYT on those who access the cache, and what the cost of that kind of contract would be. I'm sure that NYT would like to be able to tell their advertisers that "If you buy the 'Geek' package, your ad will be put directly in front of 750k geeks with subscriptions, and on the stories that get to slashdot, you can expect another 250k tinfoilhat viewers, through the Google archive."
So I think Google and NYT are looking for win-win combinations. Since this is a brand-new playing field, it is probably going to take a while to figure out. I'd guess they are even having to work out how to keep score.
This message brought to you by BronzeWorks
"Tinfoil is now so old hat. Move up to the new technology: get a BronzeFoil Helmet(TM); today!"
You've brought out some very good information in a well-written way. Thank you. I'll cover much of the same ground from the satisfied user's viewpoint.
NYT and spam: there is no relationship between these. That's my experience after years of subscription, and a number of other people on this thread report the same thing. The Yahoo portal news service is also good this way (and gives me Reuters: an excellent supplement to NYT).
The metrics thing: I provided NYT with true demographics when I signed up, because I know that will help them deliver product more efficiently and sell their advertising.
I want that. I like the service NYT provides, and so I want them to succeed. I very much want them to continue to provide me with a free subscription-- and I'm willing to help them hold their costs down and maximize their advertising revenues.
Focused advertising: I don't like ads, but I'm willing to put up with their presence in exchange for a service like NYT.
NYT has done a good job of keeping the impact of the ads low: the ads don't get in the way of reading the stories and they don't slow page loading significantly (since I'm on a slow rural dial-up, that's very important). If NYT starts to charge me, I'll be less tolerant of the ads. If the advertising starts slowing down the page loading, I'll drop my subscription. There are a number of other news services-- CNN, ABC, etc-- that I don't use because the advertising burden slows page loading or otherwise gets in the way.
As to focused ads-- I'm all for that. I'd rather ignore stuff that's somewhat pertinent to my life than ignore crap I'd never buy. An ad for reading glasses is pertinent to me, but an ad for skateboards is crap-- I was long past skateboarding age before the first ones hit the street. Reading glasses are something me and my cohorts have to live with, and we talk about them. Nobody in my circle of friends has a skateboard and I don't recall ever talking about them. (Of course skateboards would be a problem for me and my neighbors: I don't think they do well on gravel and road apples.)
And sometimes the advertising actually works-- sometimes it makes me aware of a product or company that I'll want to talk over with my buddies, and maybe try out. That is much more likely with focused ads. As I recall, my first awareness of the existence of fold-up reading glasses in a hard case (suitable for hiking, bicycling, and other hip pocket activities) was from an advertisement. Now I've got a couple of pairs of them. Neat.
About Google's archive, NYT, and slashdot: Something I hope NYT considers is that the Google archive gives it (and at least some of its ads) exposure in demographic groups that it would otherwise never reach. Such as the tinfoil hat superparanoid geek crowd. While there is no way to develop metrics on this, nor any way to market this to advertisers seeking targetted audiences, this exposure is certainly more beneficial than harmful. Besides, every once in a while somebody matures a little and puts away their tinfoil hat-- and then is a likely candidate for the kind of news service NYT provides.
So I think it would be very hard for NYT or Google to assess whether the Google cache is harmful or beneficial.
benhaha says: Light is red-shifted climbing out of the gravity well.
Can you expand on this? I've never heard of this, and I can't think of anything in my 40+ years of layman's reading on physics that could be expressed this way.
It's a really good sound bite, but I think it needs to have its rationale presented, too.
The computer industry has finally finished its buyout phase, and is now in a replacement (i.e. mature) phase.
That's the best summary of what's going on that I've seen on this thread.
As for the contention that this helps OSS, I'm very skeptical. Businesses have been slow to adopt OSS out of fear. They know about the cost savings, but they don't want to gamble their entire infrastructure on an unknown. A lack of a reason to buy new hardware won't change that basic fact.
I don't think you are right on this, though. Businesses are likely to to begin adopting OS initiatives like Linux and OOo when they see that these allow them to get more functionality out of their old equipment. For example, migrating select executive secretaries to OOo would enable those persons to accept and generate documents in MSOffice2000 formats while continuing to use the existing hardware and with little additional training.
In hard times such as these, that kind of approach is seen as an economy measure. And that shift in viewpoint changes the whole risk management picture. It becomes a matter of planning for gradual changes, rather like a gradual migration of copying machine service contracts from one vendor to another whose got a better deal. You introduce a few copies of OOo v1.1 (expect its release in August) in Purchasing, and you track the maintenance and support costs, and you develop a body of data that will allow you to compare TOC of this approach to the costs of a Windows upgrade of all your 486 NT machines that are running MSOffice97.
Oh, here's OpenOffice.org (Yeah, they've named themselves after their web address).
Do you think RMS was talking to the geeks on slashdot in this article?
I don't. I don't think he was preaching to the choir. I think his remarks were aimed at the upper management types who influence decisions about OS adoptions, but who don't have a technical background. I think he has done a very good job of telling the suits why SCO's FUD is so much bullsh*t.
Consider adding this article to your defudding toolkit. It is a very good piece to give to a CPA or BusSci type, to help them see the kinds of questions they should be asking, in place of the questions that SCO wants them to be worrying about.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that begs the question of what the hell do you consider the computer world?
Once, a very long time ago in chip years, the "computer world" encompassed most of geekdom and very little more. There were a number of aliens called "users" or "lusers" who visited, but the computer world was run by geeks and nerds. But a long time ago the "computer world" expanded to well beyond those borders. Now the greater number of people who use computers daily and make daily decisions about buying systems, upgrading systems, and replacing systems are unnerdy nongeeks. It makes sense for the common language to change.
After all, when even a geek says "I make $58k a year", you know he's talking about $58,000 and not $59,392.
I don't disagree. Not at all.
But let's put this in context.
First, all seventeen year olds are in for a rude awakening. That's the nature of adolescence.
Second, for women in good health the statistical drop-off in fertility is not concern before the mid thirties. These figures are generally based on births per 100,000 of population, and don't reflect the basic biology-- they are more reflective of societal norms, the pressures for birth control that come with the second, third, umpteenth child, and so on.
Third, while I know you are correct about fertility rates, if you look further, you'll also find that WHO and other health agencies consistently report that five year survival rates of the children of teenagers are much lower than for women in their mid-twenties. For a young woman who wants to raise a child, the statistics suggest that she will be better off waiting a few years before she begins her family, as otherwise she runs a higher risk of experiencing the grief of burying her first born.
[This is recycled from something I posted about a year ago.]
Alice is a shrewd 17 year old who plans to build on her investment in a Simputer and a cell phone until she achieves world domination. With the optimism of youth, she figures that will happen when she's about 25. After all, she needs two years to pay off the Co-op loan she took to get the things, and then she needs to really learn how read and write, too. That might take a little while. But she's willing to put off starting her family until she's 25. Much as she wants kids, she wants to be rich, first.
One of Alice's clients of the day is Bob, who is a 28 year old who has a full set of socket wrenches, a number of other tools, a backpack, and an excellent memory of the exploded diagrams of the half dozen different types of Briggs & Stratton engines that are in use within walking distance. Today he brings Alice a broken fan belt from Chuck's rototiller. With him helping her figure out the part identification code, Alice is able to find a store that has a replacement in stock, fifteen miles-- a round-trip walk of only a day-- away. That's much better than the fifty mile trip to the city.
Chuck, who tagged along with Bob in a very worried fashion, is delighted at this good news. Three years ago his tiller had also broken down in the middle of planting season, and it had taken a week of sending a runner around to the distant towns to find the needed part. A week without work had thrown off the usual schedule, and while his farmer clients understood these things happen, some of their wives were angry at him because their kids had to be pulled out of school to hoe the fields, and those families had become the butt of village jokes for months. Nobody likes to be called "old fashioned", not that way. Chuck had lost something much more important than just the loss of income in that debacle, and he did not want to repeat it.
Alice, the shrewd businesswoman, suggested that if Bob and Chuck wanted her to, maybe she could try to broker a delivery deal and get the new belt into Bob's hands before noon. At first they thought she was joking: same day delivery, better even than the mythical FedEx! But after a few minutes of enjoyable haggling, the three agreed to a payment. Then Alice chased them out of hearing distance, while she did furtive things with the internet access and the cell phone. No, I won't reveal her trade secrets, so don't ask me. Something about a regional network of teenage girls with Simputers, but you didn't hear that from me.
The upshot was that 10 minutes later Chuck started sloshing across the western marsh to the highway, where he was to flag down a Frito Lay delivery truck heading east. The driver would give him the fan belt, and also a dozen batteries and a bag of potato chips for Alice. Meanwhile, Bob went back to the rototiller and began removing cover plates and things that needed to come off before the new belt could go on.
End of story: Chuck is back in business before the day has even started to get hot. Bob's reputation for fast, friendly, quality field service is even more enhanced. That evening Alice counts the day's take with a laugh, and then gently tells her latest suitor that no, she's not yet ready to marry. There is a world out there and she is going to claim her piece of it. Marriage and children have to wait awhile.
[It seems like this original vision is not going to happen-- reality always gets in the way of guiding visions. Nevertheless, if low cost computers promote coop purchases of supplies or coop selling arrangements, these Simputers would improve the lives of villagers.]
Most of the ten reasons make sense, but they don't really address the two most critical issues facing the space program today:
Good questions. IMO, the larger question of why go into space at all doesn't matter very much. It is sufficient to say that for some of us, "going out there" is something we need to attempt since to do otherwise would be to deny a part of what we are. The urge to space arises from the same motivation that causes some of us to want to walk around that next corner just to see what's there. It is the same urge that caused our ancestors to walk out of Africa. And to put unnatural coverings on their bodies and their feet, that they might walk further, and settle comfortably in places where their ancestors in their nakedness could not have survived.
So it appears that going into space is related to one of the most powerful parts of human nature: the primal urge to shop for new clothes.
Ahem. Getting back on topic...
It doesn't make sense to ask why we do it. It does make a lot of sense to ask how we should do it.
Right at the moment, the immediate question is how do we keep the ISS properly staffed? We need a new manned launch vehicle because if we don't build one, the ISS will come down like Mir and Sky Lab. And that is simply unacceptable.
I suggest that we set aside all stylistic concerns and sew up some utilitarian coverings that, although ugly, will let us get out in the weather and tend our small garden plot. Of the recent proposals, what makes the most sense to me is the two part concept of:
Over the long term, we need to look at more comfortable, and stylish, ways of Going Up There. Things like the suborbital space plane competition and the possibility of beanstalk materials suggest some exciting design concepts. But we'll probably always want cheap unmanned freighters for some tasks, and that probably goes for Apollo-like capsules, too (they'll be hard to beat as escape pods). So for a little while let's set aside our thoughts about a new party dress and think instead about what we want for the grubbies we need while we're mucking about in our little garden.
Agree with parent. Here's a little more detail.
There are six illegal forms of discrimination in the USA:
Over the last decade or so, the original sexual discrimination is being blurred and extended into gender discrimination. A wise employer will avoid any discrimination against transexuals or gays and so on-- whether it is legal or not to do so, it just isn't worth the trouble to go there.
Also, national origin is now interpreted more widely to identify any cultural group, whether or not it ever had a national presence. So it is illegal to discriminate against the kurd or basque peoples, for instance.
Anything else goes. It is perfectly okay for an employer to discriminate against persons based on their past employment history or other affiliations.
However it usually is not a smart idea to write "No Ex-Enron Execs Need Apply" at the end of the help-wanted ad. In fact, it is sort of stupid to do things like that.
Oh what the heck, it's still Sunday morning so I've got a few minutes' more to play this silly game.
me: I really question the way your sources distort the facts
you: CNN '92 election coverage on CNN's website. CNN, a founding member of the vast right wing conspiracy.
Yeah, I noticed your citation. They did a pretty sleazy juxtaposition of two unrelated facts-- that he had been avoiding the draft for four years (with a student deferment), and that after that time he had applied for pre-enrollment to an ROTC program at a school that he might someday attend, to take advantage of another deferment program. It was a good job for creating the impression they wanted you to take with you-- that Clinton had abused the ROTC program for years and years-- and you fell for it. Then when the time line shows this just isn't so, you choose to trump the facts by suggesting that CNN is An Authority. Perhaps they are, but in this case they are also Wrong. But there is now no possibility of reasoned discussion with you on this, since you have deserted the arena of reason for that of belief.
Clinton apologized for misleading the ROTC, that is not normal.
I don't know what apology you are referring to. If it is the same quotation from Clinton's letter of withdrawal that I saw, it was the conventional apology most people make when they realize that changing their mind has caused someone else some unnecessary paperwork. The same kind of apology I would make to a car salesman if I learned that the loan was not going to come through at the rate I was budgeting for. Or the apology Clinton would have made later on, when he was accepted by Yale University's law school, and would be telling his safety school, the University of Arkansas, that he'd not be attending there, after all.
Your own source proves you incorrect. "Many young men would not have pursued higher education if there had not been a program of student deferment." Clinton was bound for college irregardless of the draft.
I don't have any idea what you are attempting to say with that statement.
What is clear in the record is that Clinton took advantage of the student deferment for his 4 years of undergraduate study then took advantage of another deferment program. The second deferment program ended just a few months after Clinton had been accepted into it when the entire Selective Service law was revised. (You are aware that if Clinton had drawn a low number in that first draft lottery, he would have received a Notice of Induction?)
There is no indication in any of this that Clinton was a draft dodger-- he used the system the way it was intended to be used until Congress put an end to that whole approach.
Bill Clinton, CIA agent. Priceless.
Use your head. He was in the right place at the right time and had the right image to fit in with young french, german, and italian radicals. As he had decided on a US law degree, he could not finish out the Rhodes Scholarship program. He needed money for schooling, and would probably welcome an opportunity to tour Europe. How can you doubt that the CIA would not have explored recruiting him? He was ripe. Not tarnished enough, and too hung up on his step-dad's drinking problems to learn how to inhale weed, but there were other ways to tarnish a kid player. Now I'll not say that I actually believe that, but it fits the facts at least as well as the other stories... in some ways, better. That would make him the second President in a row with a spook background... interesting.
Nothing like a good conspiracy on a Sunday morning. But I've got to sign off now.
Here's a factual timeline that interleaves Clinton's known actions with those of the Selective Service (and, just for fun, GW Bush):
1946: Bush's birth year (July); Clinton's birth year (August)
1964: Gulf of Tonkin resolution and US begins bombing North Vietnam; Clinton registers for draft; Clinton's freshman year at Georgetown University; Bush registers for draft; Bush's freshman year at Yale (both Clinton and Bush have student deferments during their undergraduate studies)
1965: "Channeling" document codifying existing Selective Service practices wrt deferments and adjustments of the order of selection (partial quote):
1966: Serious questions begin to arise about whether "channeling" was being used to draft civil rights workers, labor organizers, war protestors, and other dissidents (the voluntary nature of draft boards makes it impossible to judge how seriously the Selective Service laws were being abused by local draft boards)
1968: Clinton graduates from G.U. (BA, International Affairs); Clinton goes to Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar; Bush graduates from Yale (BA); Bush joins Texas Air National Guard
1969: Clinton receives draft notice (while at Oxford); Clinton pre-enrolls in ROTC program at University of Arkansas Law School; structure and policies of the Selective Service are significantly changed with end of "channeling" and increased accountability; first draft lottery (on December 1); Clinton drops his pre-enrollment in the ROTC program after the lottery
1970: Clinton leaves Oxford and Rhodes Scholarship program; begins travels in Europe and Russia with no visible source of funds (there is speculation that he was one of many students the CIA employed to gather background information on political dissidents in Europe and Russia); Bush has a series of unexplained absences from Air National Guard duties but these apparently are not treated as formal AWOL incidents
1973: Clinton receives law degree from Yale University; Bush leaves Air National Guard
1975: Bush receives MBA from Harvard University
This raises some interesting questions about Clinton wrt possible CIA activities and cover stories. But it is clear just from these bare dates that his interactions with the Selective Service were not only normal for that time, but showed exactly the kind of behavior that the Selective Service was trying to elicit through its "channeling" techniques.
I really question the way your sources distort the facts. While it is true that Clinton spent several years avoiding the draft (just the way he was supposed to, by being a good student), it is not true that he did this through abuse of the ROTC program. His pre-enrollment in ROTC covered less than one semester at Oxford, and was an appropriate action while "channeling" was in effect. I'm sure he was relieved, as many of my younger friends were, when that whole "channeling" ball of crap was dismantled and the ROTC pre-enrollment progra
The "sleaze" was Clinton's manipulation of the draft/ROTC system while studying in the US.
You provide all kinds of unnecessary facts supporting your statements about Reagan and National Guard (evidently in support of statements you made about GWB) even though they were not necessary to discussing the point in question, and contributed only flavors without any substance to the discussion.
Would you kindly provide the same level of detail documenting the Clinton "sleaze". For extra credit, try doing a comparison between the ethics of an officer's dereliction of training duties from the Air National Guard and the ethics of a ROTC cadet's antiwar activities.
BTW, the above is purely rhetorical. I recognize that your mind is much too strong, much too like a steel trap, to be affected by anything further that anyone might write about this subject. And at this point, I think discerning readers are capable of forming their own opinions, now that some facts and the lack of other facts have been made clear.
Thanks for the interchange of... ideas... or whatever.
It's not that he [Clinton] dodged the draft; it's the sleazy way in which he did it.
Accepting a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University is "sleazy"? That's a new one on me!
And that, my dear fellow, does cause me to wonder about the veracity of any of your other statements.
While Carter was ineffective in the politics of being a US President, he was, and is, very effective as a statesman and mediator. What he managed with the Camp David Accord was an incredible act of diplomacy. It is widely recognized that he should have been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 1978, along with Begin and Sadat.
He also had the guts to tell Americans that they could turn their thermostats down to 68 degrees and wear sweaters in the face of OPEC's attempts at extortion. And that the USA would boycott the 1980 Moscow Summer Olympic Games as part of a wider economic boycott to get Moscow to withdraw its invasion force from Afghanistan (started in Jan 1980). These were not popular stances; they were political suicide. He almost certainly would have lost the 1980 election even if the Ayatolla Khomeini had not used the US Embassy hostages in Iran to throw the election to Reagan.
His continued work since that time has kept him in the thick of international politics. He does not place himself in the midst of international crises; his work puts him where these crises arise around him. I agree that he is not privy to all the fantastic intelligence the US gathers, like that bit about the Iraqi WMD that could be launched on 45 minutes' notice and which I'm sure we'll find Real Soon Now, and that other bit about the way US soldiers were going to be greeted like the first Allied troops to enter Paris in WWII, and that other bit about how Saddam was in bed with Al Quaida which I never really understood. Nevertheless, he is an intelligent man, one of sharpest US Presidents ever, who studies these crises as they develop and who has an informed and articulate opinon.
When he speaks on an issue, smart people should hear him out. Not that he is always right about the correct course of action, but because he will have his facts straight, he will be honest, and he will not pull any slick tricks.
<grammar nazi hat on>
<snip>
Why must people keep abusing the phrase, "begs the question?" It does not mean "causes us to question" or "makes me wonder." Just because MANY people keep making the same mistake does not make it so.
</grammar nazo>
Which begs the question, since when has consistent idiomatic usage within a language become a province of that language's grammar?
Granted that the erosion of meaning of "beg the question" is an unfortunate loss, it is also true that idioms like this are superstructures that ride on top of a language's grammar, and are not a core part of the language itself.
To bring this back on topic, let it be noted that this kind of confusion of idiom with grammar clouds the issues, and risks turning the field of discussion into the kind of mess one finds underneath the passage of many elephants.
Or something like that.
Open system vs closed system, central organization vs decentralized development community, communistic vs capitalistic... None of those matter to Darl McBride.
His actions demonstrate he follows WMIM/WYIN* of wealth management, and in that system all the other terminology is verbiage to be used or not as needed.
WMIM: "what's mine is mine"
WYIN: "what's yours is negotiable"
We have exactly 1.9 trillion unemployed IS/IT consultants in Portland alone.
I thought it was a little less than that.
It only appears that way because of our current widespread cultural bias about there being one True, Right And Only Way (TRAOW) to spell. A more useful view for the historian and language scholar is that correct spelling in earlier times had more fluidity.
The fluidity of english spelling was severely repressed in the 30 or so decades surrounding the early 1700s, as it crimped the marketing plans of the nascent (but fast growing) publishing industry. In a sense, we owe the current rigidity of spelling rules to the spiritual forefathers of the RIAA. But that's another rant.
Something going on right now that is putting some fascinating twists into contemporary english is best shown by example. Written english is now being used by a Finn and a Chinaman to work together on creating a cross platform Perl script that will translate legacy HTML into XML (that can then be served out by existing software written in PHP). Neither of these writers can speak english well enough to order from a MickieDee's menu without pointing, yet they can use it in its written form to collaborate while working in various ways with several artificial languages.
Consideration of ancient parochial concerns over the 'u' in "favo[u]?r" pales compared to the needs of these two and others like them. When the most important use of english is as a second tongue that is going teh b mangled gy all the typos htat occur in email anyway, then perhaps its spelling rules need to be relaxed once again.
If you had the reaction mass in orbit as a refueling point, there is no question that this would work. It is out of reach of today's technology with its dependence on chemical rockets, because the cost of hauling the fuel up with you is much too great. But that could change in a hurry, if we happen to find a source of ice that is already up there somewhere...
What I envision is a reentry vehicle that uses steam jets generated by the heat of reentry as brakes. I'm talking water-cooled wings where the liquid water is brought to temperatures of 250 - 500 deg C before it is flashed to steam in forward-pointing jets. We are past masters of handling live steam in everything from 1850's locomotives to light water nuclear power stations. We've got steam technology pretty well nailed. It is hard to imagine not being able to make that work. But it might depend on finding exploitable ice on the Moon, or snagging a passing comet.
It is also possible to use heavy lift, brute force, unmanned rockets to throw big water balloons into orbit, that would then be used as refueling points for the descent of manned craft. From my vague memories of the space shuttle's payload (something like 20 tonnes?) I'd guess that NASA could throw a 30 - 50 tonne water balloon up there within 4 years, with most of that time spent on choosing and approving the contracts. At a WAG, a water balloon of that size would probably provide a half dozen or so manned rides back (depending on what kind of beast you get when you mix a bunch of steam engineers with a bunch of aeronautic engineers). Compared to the cost of extending the space shuttle's service life, this could be economically worthwhile.
Anyway, the thought of this generates some interesting and fun images.
Damian's book is great, but a good comparison would be that Learning Perl is to the Camel what Learning Perl Objects, References and Modules is to Damian's book. Both of my tutorial books are tutorial in design, based on years of classroom experience in teaching these subjects. Both of the other books are reference in design.
Hi, Randal,
The Gecko book was very important to me when I made the big step from Perl as a replacement for awk scripts to Perl as an application development tool, around 1997 (the world around me has dictated that I work in Windows, hence gecko). I've still got my copy within reach from the keyboard and it's one of the more tattered and used books in my collection. Thank you very much! You've been a big help in my career.
I learned more advanced techniques from Srinivasan's Black Jaguar, aka Advanced Perl Programming. The first few times I went through it, it was not an easy read, but that may have been my problem in getting my mind around the concepts. I use it and Conway's OOPerl book as references now.
How would you compare Learning Perl Objects, References and Modules to the Black Jag? I'm certain to buy the book when finances allow-- I have nearly a complete set of O'Reilly Perl books... it's like collecting cook books...
--
Will Woodhull
aka mysticgoat (mostly for historical reasons)
[roughly, where can I learn more about chemosynthesis - based ecosystems?]
Try googling on "black smokers". Here's a quick overview: an introductory lecture about black smokers
It's a compressed directory full of xml.
More accurately, it is a zip file that contains the content, style and meta information of the document in separate XML files, and also any embedded images, etc. The only thing vaguely proprietary are the file extensions-- the file format itself is plain old zip.
But that doesn't matter a damn when the real question is "who else can load it?" and the answer is "only other geeks with OOo".
Actually these OOo files can be opened with WinZip or any other tool that reads zip files. So it is easy to set up scripts that can feed all or any part of an OOo document to any application that understands XML.
I'm slowly working through the conversion of years of Office97 .doc and .xls files to OOo, since OOo's file system is a better bet for long term archiving (neither zip nor XML is going to go away any time soon).
On a separate point, since OOo incorporates file compression into every save and read operation, there is no fair way to compare times between OOo and MS Office when any file operations are involved. It should also be noted that OOo files don't benefit from external compression-- they are already compressed.
Why is NY Times even in "discussions" for this, other than to gain some column inches?
I don't think this is the case. For one thing, it doesn't seem like NYT is playing up this story the way I would expect, if they were using it as a publicity tool.
My guess is that among other things, NYT and Google are discussing what kinds of demographic info Google could provide NYT on those who access the cache, and what the cost of that kind of contract would be. I'm sure that NYT would like to be able to tell their advertisers that "If you buy the 'Geek' package, your ad will be put directly in front of 750k geeks with subscriptions, and on the stories that get to slashdot, you can expect another 250k tinfoilhat viewers, through the Google archive."
So I think Google and NYT are looking for win-win combinations. Since this is a brand-new playing field, it is probably going to take a while to figure out. I'd guess they are even having to work out how to keep score.
You've brought out some very good information in a well-written way. Thank you. I'll cover much of the same ground from the satisfied user's viewpoint.
I want that. I like the service NYT provides, and so I want them to succeed. I very much want them to continue to provide me with a free subscription-- and I'm willing to help them hold their costs down and maximize their advertising revenues.
NYT has done a good job of keeping the impact of the ads low: the ads don't get in the way of reading the stories and they don't slow page loading significantly (since I'm on a slow rural dial-up, that's very important). If NYT starts to charge me, I'll be less tolerant of the ads. If the advertising starts slowing down the page loading, I'll drop my subscription. There are a number of other news services-- CNN, ABC, etc-- that I don't use because the advertising burden slows page loading or otherwise gets in the way.
As to focused ads-- I'm all for that. I'd rather ignore stuff that's somewhat pertinent to my life than ignore crap I'd never buy. An ad for reading glasses is pertinent to me, but an ad for skateboards is crap-- I was long past skateboarding age before the first ones hit the street. Reading glasses are something me and my cohorts have to live with, and we talk about them. Nobody in my circle of friends has a skateboard and I don't recall ever talking about them. (Of course skateboards would be a problem for me and my neighbors: I don't think they do well on gravel and road apples.)
And sometimes the advertising actually works-- sometimes it makes me aware of a product or company that I'll want to talk over with my buddies, and maybe try out. That is much more likely with focused ads. As I recall, my first awareness of the existence of fold-up reading glasses in a hard case (suitable for hiking, bicycling, and other hip pocket activities) was from an advertisement. Now I've got a couple of pairs of them. Neat.
About Google's archive, NYT, and slashdot: Something I hope NYT considers is that the Google archive gives it (and at least some of its ads) exposure in demographic groups that it would otherwise never reach. Such as the tinfoil hat superparanoid geek crowd. While there is no way to develop metrics on this, nor any way to market this to advertisers seeking targetted audiences, this exposure is certainly more beneficial than harmful. Besides, every once in a while somebody matures a little and puts away their tinfoil hat-- and then is a likely candidate for the kind of news service NYT provides.
So I think it would be very hard for NYT or Google to assess whether the Google cache is harmful or beneficial.
Thanks for all the replies. I've learned of a newer way of looking at the event horizon.
benhaha says: Light is red-shifted climbing out of the gravity well.
Can you expand on this? I've never heard of this, and I can't think of anything in my 40+ years of layman's reading on physics that could be expressed this way.
It's a really good sound bite, but I think it needs to have its rationale presented, too.
The computer industry has finally finished its buyout phase, and is now in a replacement (i.e. mature) phase.
That's the best summary of what's going on that I've seen on this thread.
As for the contention that this helps OSS, I'm very skeptical. Businesses have been slow to adopt OSS out of fear. They know about the cost savings, but they don't want to gamble their entire infrastructure on an unknown. A lack of a reason to buy new hardware won't change that basic fact.
I don't think you are right on this, though. Businesses are likely to to begin adopting OS initiatives like Linux and OOo when they see that these allow them to get more functionality out of their old equipment. For example, migrating select executive secretaries to OOo would enable those persons to accept and generate documents in MSOffice2000 formats while continuing to use the existing hardware and with little additional training.
In hard times such as these, that kind of approach is seen as an economy measure. And that shift in viewpoint changes the whole risk management picture. It becomes a matter of planning for gradual changes, rather like a gradual migration of copying machine service contracts from one vendor to another whose got a better deal. You introduce a few copies of OOo v1.1 (expect its release in August) in Purchasing, and you track the maintenance and support costs, and you develop a body of data that will allow you to compare TOC of this approach to the costs of a Windows upgrade of all your 486 NT machines that are running MSOffice97.
Oh, here's OpenOffice.org (Yeah, they've named themselves after their web address).
This is one of the best pieces I've ever seen on slashdot.
Maybe the above statement is ironic, and maybe it isn't.
If it is ironic, maybe it's literary irony and maybe its cosmic irony.
By George! I think I've got it! Now isn't that ironic?
Do you think RMS was talking to the geeks on slashdot in this article?
I don't. I don't think he was preaching to the choir. I think his remarks were aimed at the upper management types who influence decisions about OS adoptions, but who don't have a technical background. I think he has done a very good job of telling the suits why SCO's FUD is so much bullsh*t.
Consider adding this article to your defudding toolkit. It is a very good piece to give to a CPA or BusSci type, to help them see the kinds of questions they should be asking, in place of the questions that SCO wants them to be worrying about.