Have you've ever thought it is the failing of teachers, not of the students or tv producers? If these shows are wrong, prove it to them.
Yeah, it strikes me that the best response to these crazy beliefs is rebuttal, strong if necessary: "No, you're simply wrong. And I can prove you wrong."
I find it hard to believe this is actually a problem in schoolchildren. Rather, I believe it is a problem in adults due to the lack of absorption of knowledge as children. That, I believe, is the real problem: cutting through complacency and installing a robust kernel. Skepticism and a solid foundation of knowledge and experience provide any person with the base of self-respect and self-reliance that will immunize them to this silliness.
Note, though (or at least ponder) that everyone is different: just because one person doesn't care in science doesn't mean they will latch on to pseudo-science. I think you will find that some people will rebuff science due to disinterest, and pseudo-science for the same reasons real scientists do: common sense; experience; etc. The people who actually believe in pseudo-science obviously have a potential for at least a pedestrian learning of science. Those people are the ones to reach.
I'll remain reticent on the pockets of religious people that would shape the learning of all of our children with (often more corrosive, since it comes with morals) pseudo-science, suffice it to say that I strongly recommend you fight this on the local level.
The attitude expressed is one of not solely, and I would hold, not primarily, an appreciation of software or building software. He is describing what is basically "hack-work": doing the best you can while maintaining a ceiling of quality and features that is equal to what customers want. This is the business perspective of writing software; it is not the pure joy of designing and writing a program. That said, I think a lesson could be learned from this: As fun as it is to do [x], it's good to get feedback and focus on what is really needed (liked tabbed browsing, for example, meanwhile XUL is robust and interesting yet virtually unused -- it's mostly relevant to the mozilla project alone though; I'm not bashing it).
The purpose of art is to question, the purpose of entertainment is to reassure, surely?
My interpretation of existentialism has always been just the opposite: look at what is questioned, and then reveal it to be natural, thus exhibiting a story that is life-affirming and beautiful. When you can see something real or someone struggling with what you have struggled with in isolation, and possibly overcome it or learn about it, that, to me, is the greatest art, and surely that is reassuring.
Perhaps what you're addressing with the "reassuring" remark, though, is comedy (at least in part). Here again I would argue with you, and in fact it is what led me to my response regarding existentialism: comedy, the best comedy and the deep "observational" humor, is based upon revealing that which is felt within us all and yet traps us in doubt or isolation. Why is Office Space funny, really? Why do you cry after you laugh when you watch some films?
Re:why should art matter?
on
Videogames as Art
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What does calling it art do for the form?
One important difference it will make is whether it is considered protected speech. "Art" is protected, whilst "video games" are not.
I'd like to comment that if we're gong to consider throwaway sitcoms with no redeeming value "art," surely games can be considered art as well.
I remember reading an article about how Diebold (I believe it was Diebold) held the "ultimate key" to releasing the voter data. Personally it read to me not like corporations controlling votes, rather it seemed to me to be another one of those "ignorance snags" that happen frequently between people who understand technology and people who don't. It didn't concern me too much because I assumed it would be ironed out in time. Certainly it's against the law, or should be.
The idea behind this technology is that any introduced paper trail is infallible. All you need are regulations and requirements, and there's no reason you couldn't have a paper trail and very good security. Certainly having votes and voting data in physical form establishes an environment primely susceptible to corruption, especially for people close to the data. Even a senator could understand that. And, paper degrades and gets "lost." If you delete a file or a record, there's nothing saying that the system can't have built-in modification timestamps.
If software, rather than people, handle votes and voting data, there's no room for skepticism -- if the software is indeed sound. It has continually pissed me off that voting software keeps failing. What exactly is so hard about
SELECT eligible FROM people WHERE person_id='555112222' SELECT COUNT( person_id ) FROM votes WHERE person_id='555112222' INSERT INTO votes( person_id, candidate_id ) values( '555112222', '123' );
? I assume it's a little more complicated, but honestly: this is a data-bound application, and the software really couldn't be that complicated in design. Anyway, voting machines get write access, everyone else gets read access (except the press; if you want to skew late votes, broadcast projections on tv).
Want to skew the results? Attack the servers most likely to be used by a people of a particular political persuation.
I don't see how this would change the results of the election. If there were a DDoS attack, the election would just be extended until such time that everyone who wants to vote is allowed to. Rather than trying to work around the schedules of individuals, you could, once a DDoS attack is confirmed, extend the hours to a new deadline. Also, DDoS attacks are rarely prolonged.
To work, however, this must be embraced fully, so that technophobic/techno-agnostic state officials don't "dump" online voting when it is attacked, and just tell the people who would have voted in this manner to "take the bus to the nearest polling station." I hope it is obvious why that would be very bad, but I'm afraid it could easily happen if everyone is not sensitive enough to the introduction of this technology.
If you complain about people not voting, I would argue that it is almost compulsory to support initiatives to establish online voting. Just be prepared for a bumpy introduction.
It depends greatly on where you work. A salary of $45K in Wyoming is a lot different than a salary of $45K in San Francisco and New York City.
I spent months looking for job, and finally got one as the sole software developer and designer for a collections company for $32K a year with good benefits in Minnesota. I'm definitely looking to move up significantly within a year or two, but $32K a month is enough to have a nice car and a nice place in the city and still have ~45% of my income left over.
Doing what you want is incomparably fulfilling, but you have to set a breaking point, even in tumultuous times like these.
Yama hama: the point of my post was that this summary judgment was ridiculous, and, quite in opposition to your affront (which is in accord with the article), the strengths of Linux lie primarily in its viability as a stable computing platform, particularly in server environments where sound is superflous and indeed useless.
This article begs to be satirized, especially when posted on Slashdot. Meanwhile, I went to great pains to get the 2.6 kernel running so I could have ALSA: as a dekstop platform Linux may not be perfect, but does the article make that distinction in the headline or opening paragraph (outside the obvious ignorance of a novice user)? No. It's good to remember, also (though it is granted that this is not necessary in such an article unless it is truly inflammatory) that Linux sound drivers are created by the community or by companies who do so out of enlightened self-interest, not purely requisite "Windows world"-style support. So, who is to blame here, really? Open question I guess, but, while drivers lag, they do often eventually come out, just not on the bleeding edge or in support of marginal hardware.
By the way, will someone remind me why it's required that Linux take the desktop platform? I know it will be nice when Windows is no longer the big player on the desktop, but that doesn't mean we have to lose focus and placate ourselves to jerks who want to play solitaire and complain that they can't get Kazaa working.
Sound is important on Windows machines because how else are you supposed to know that IIS has gone down or become infected with a virus for the third time this week, than with a lot of "dinging" noises, while you're huddled under your desk?
I think the chief motive for MS to settle these lawsuits is that, written into the settlements is that, in exchange for money, Microsoft acknowledges no cupability or guilt as stated in the indictment/whatever. I think that's a standard clause of these settlements. Someone will have to correct me if I'm wrong.
Has Microsoft not settled one of these? I imagine if they didn't settle, and therefore accepted blame (if that's indeed the case), it would set a precedent that could really cost MS some money in the long run.
IANALBIWLO (I am not a lawyer, but I watch Law & Order).
.. Which is part of the nature of cookies. Google uses cookies for location/language information, and perhaps ads as they relate to whatever language/country you're in. It's all in their privacy policy: http://www.google.com/privacy.html
Of course, you did not literally spread FUD -- just information, but I believe that now, while Google is inexplicably under attack - perhaps by those who could know better - we need to actively defend Google as the epitome of what companies on the internet can be.
If you read the link from the story and understand it, you'll know that you have nothing to worry about: Google's software is parsing your messages as you open them for keywords so they can show you ads. This is something their search engine does already, and, as far as I know, nobody has been traced and arrested via their cookie because they looked up "nude kids" or "dirty bomb diagrams." And if you're really paranoid, just turn off cookies: they aren't mandated. Every site that uses cookies gives you a "unique user id." If you want to whinge about "unique user IDs," we can talk about social security numbers or palladium hardware IDs or the Passport service.
When I say "globalization," I don't just mean economic globalization, but yes that is inevitable as well.
I'm not promoting capitalism or any particular ideology. I don't go to picket rallies, I don't support the world bank, I don't do anything but read and think, so I'm not on anyone's team here.
All that out of the way: the world exists as the North and South (as the wisdom goes); the "affluent" and the "marginalized." I say marginalized because we now live in a world where everyone can potentially be helped, but it frequently happens that the North countries take advantage of whatever the South has to offer. When a country is colonized and then abandoned, a vacuum of hatred and resentment is left. Add to this a feeling of hopelessness, and you frequently find that people turn to terrorism. Note that religion has very little to do with terrorism, and I would eschew that definition for fear of ignorance. Solely religious uprisings are isolated and are one-offs.
So, if you take advantage of and ignore your brethren, they fight back. Embrace them, support them, and help them along their way to their own destiny (note: not an implanted destiny, as happens when you try to attribute a government upon a people that did not decide on it or earn it), and everyone obviously benefits. That is all that I was saying. It is inevitable precisely because it began as a matter of course, not as a matter of policy. Indeed, globalization is only now being understood, notwithstanding the fact that it has been ongoing since the late 1970s.
Also, globalization brings all sorts of cultures together. This is a wonderful result of people coming together, and something I welcome.
I don't get the problem? In isolated demographics (captive audiences), maybe mom and pop stores worked. Economic globalization is the epitome of the fact that businesses seek to make money. Businesses and governments are made of people, so somewhere along the muddled path of delusion and structure, nice things get done. But the purpose of commerce and free market is to afford choice so that people can get the best possible outcome for their money. The flip side of this is that businesses compete for this money. What other purpose is there to a business? The software developers may enjoy their projects, but they don't leave their software hats on to make the decisions about the company.
People didn't magically change overnight. That sort of attitude is exactly what makes people think they can wage a war on "terror."
First off: globalization is pretty inevitable. In the long run, it's good for everyone (and how many things can be characterized that way?). In the short run, however, there are growing pains:
For the people in other countries: Their lower standard of living and (sometimes) lax labor laws allow American corporations to pay very low wages and offer little benefits or health considerations. Obviously you see this in countries with, for example, sweatshop textile factories: there are many questionable human rights situations and very low wages, but still it is a step up for many of these workers!
For the out of work American: Americans are used to their standard of living. Our laws enforce it, in fact. How can we compete with an unapproachably slim (relatively) standard of living, and freer-reined corporations?
I should point out again that the goal of a corporation is to make money. They will not follow "moral" guidelines unless they are enforced by law. The only thing I would ask for in this period of globalization is that corporations that leave America be held to our human rights/workers' rights standards and laws. They should also be held to fair-wage laws (based on whatever the dollar fares against their currency, I guess).
I wouldn't accuse anyone of nepotism: these are tough times for some people, and nothing is black-and-white. The struggle seems to bring the worst out of some people though, on all sides.
Rather than trying to divide the corporate world up into friends and enemies, we should consider all for-profit entities as being agnostic to Linux, and we should be agnostic in kind, for one self-evident reason: said entities exist to make money, and as long as Linux helps them achieve that goal, they will defend it (as parent notes).
These legal sparrings over Linux get perhaps at least most of the inspection the deserve, but let us not take sides. Remember that Linux was created for everyone, and each and every one of these companies is trying to bend it completely to their will. Whether Linux remains free is a side-effect (to them), and whether the GPL remains unchallenged is a corollary of whether it impedes future business for these companies now that they've chosen Linux for their platform of operations.
Writing this, I'm becoming pretty indignant about the whole thing. Nobody is taking my Linux away. We didn't give it to you; you're using it because we give it to everyone, and in case you hadn't noticed, your assaults do not result in a change in our behavior, nor will they ever. Linux cannot be affronted or destroyed, because it is not a stack of gold coins or a religion; it is reason, it is ideology. Trying to stamp it out is like trying to put postage stamps on packets.
Yeah, and I'd agree that in some situations, the pictures are indeed transliterated, if you will, into code. What you're talking about is more of a "computer science" question. That is, it's more of a single problem to be solved (one "method"). With "plug-ins," you have roughly the same phenomena, which is what plug-ins are designed to do in the first place. I just don't believe that all software can be thought of as plug-ins: the two beauties of software are: ability to solve a specific problem; once a problem is solved, it can be solved again indefinitely. Actually, it seems as though pieces/suites of software are more easily diagrammed in relation to a person's life. However, in your case, I'd have to agree with you.
I guess I should have characterized it more accurately; you're absolutely right, and honestly software is creative to the utmost, by definition, isn't it? When I said "totally creative," I guess I meant "artistic," like you said. The artistic aspect of code, which is actually up for debate, is something I have actually struggled with, when writing software. Some people claim that their actual method of writing code is an art form. Since it has to conform to syntax and semantics, perhaps it is not, however the way in which you write code is definitely a creative expression of your idiosyncracies.
Just a general note, since it looks like it came up a couple times: I don't think Gates meant RAD or anything RAD-like. Note: "He further predicts -- ugh! -- that software will not be written but visually designed."
Software is written because software is a set of instructions. Software is a set of scripts that respond to events. If software were spatial and totally right-brain (and analogous to engineering or construction), AI would work, and software would probably rely on the immutable laws of physics and chemistry, rather than homespun rules. When I write software, it is frequently because I am taking a "break" from other totally creative pursuits.
The only visual constructions relating to software engineering (SE) that I consider appropriate, are those that relate a large system in terms of its data, logic, and interfaces. This is not necessarily the Rational Unified Process with UML -- indeed, I tend to think people take that too far (eXtreme Programming seems to take a nice perspective on SE in this regard). People also like to relate Classes to real-world objects, usually real-world objects that relate to "parts" of the project. This is tempting but is, I feel, usually inappropriate! A good compromise is a balance between the format of the data (with appropriate, thin, "agnostic bridges"/Classes) and an easy access point for real logic (the Model, of the MVC pattern). I would also recommend a sort of laid-back attitude when developing software: don't live your life by a paradigm or methodology, especially in an immature field (SE) that has a lifetime of problems to solve. You know what problems need to be solved. You also know that not once did you wish you could draw a picture instead of write code. I mean, what the hell? Someone take Johnny Mnemonic away from Gates.
If the software you write, however, is modular enough that you can arrange the pieces/modules/methods like components in a circuit, then go for it. However, this level of widespread code reuse is frankly fantasy; reuse will remain, I believe, as it has: generic libraries used in a custom fashion, i.e., not suitable to be "visually" "dropped-in." Code generation is nice, but it's only appropriate for certain large-scale applications (like large database-driven applications).
If one is to believe Gates on this issue, one is also compelled to believe that Microsoft's research and development department has created software practices at the forefront of software engineering (and indeed computer science. Remember computer science?). I do not believe this to be the case, and I'd make the indictment that this "release" by Gates is purely worldfair in nature, and is for the hoi polloi.
I think that a 3D-accelerated desktop would catalyze driver development. However, there always seems to be a "lag" problem: I still don't have an accelerated driver for my 9800 Pro. Why can't nvidia or ati develop and release drivers for Linux alongside Windows drivers? Is the demand for Windows drivers that great? New detonator drivers come out like every week. The problem of lag will always be there, at least to some degree, and there will always be people with bleeding-edge PCs that want to run the latest Linux, so a few things should happen: the accelerated desktop should be "friendly" to non-accelerated machines, at least while driver lag and old machines still abound, or, a completely 2D, scaled-down, bare-bones version should be offered in tandem; Linux popularity should increase in all non-server markets; Linux drivers should ship with 3D accelerator cards (for all even minor kernel releases). It should be noted that Apple OS X's desktop is 3D-accelerated while being 2D-friendly, even though they could easily eschew old hardware which are mostly desktop machines.
All that being said, a 3D-accelerated desktop is currently superfluous to most of us that don't find Expose very useful, and even Expose has been mimicked in Windows (without real-time updates, mind). However, who can deny the possibilities for this technology? The imagination revels in them.
I read Wikipedia sometimes for hours at a day, and I admit that I always wonder how the writers of the articles knew so much, but at the same time, I've never doubted the factual base for the articles. There are usually (perhaps always) links in non-stub articles. Glancing through some of the books in my family's 30-book encyclopedia, I see no attribution at all for any of the entries. Granted, the writers of encyclopedias are ostensibly scholars with reputations on the line. However, the Wikipedia is live and can be updated by anyone and has version history. Also, as I mentioned, the Wikipedia articles have links and attribution. A sample article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_Drakul
Incidentally, my original intention on replying to this article was to mention that while I would not buy a paper encyclopedia, (the major benefits of the Wikipedia being: content flux; contribution; instant searches; massive amount of content along with an infinite space for growth) I would gladly give money to the Wikipedia. The latest fund drive for the Wikipedia generously exceeded its goals within hours, so obviously I'm not the only one.
If I may be bold for a moment, I'd also like to point out that the spirit of the first encyclopedia was to be knowledge of the people and for the people, so that everyone may be educated. If the web (again, a series of "ends") were available in the sixteenth century, the encyclopedia, I'd argue, would not have been published in medium as expensive, bulky and unportable as paper. When was the last time you sat down and opened the encyclopedia instead of using the web?
To read more about the concept of encyclopaedia in dozens of languages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia
Slashdot Mirror
Have you've ever thought it is the failing of teachers, not of the students or tv producers? If these shows are wrong, prove it to them.
Yeah, it strikes me that the best response to these crazy beliefs is rebuttal, strong if necessary: "No, you're simply wrong. And I can prove you wrong."
I find it hard to believe this is actually a problem in schoolchildren. Rather, I believe it is a problem in adults due to the lack of absorption of knowledge as children. That, I believe, is the real problem: cutting through complacency and installing a robust kernel. Skepticism and a solid foundation of knowledge and experience provide any person with the base of self-respect and self-reliance that will immunize them to this silliness. Note, though (or at least ponder) that everyone is different: just because one person doesn't care in science doesn't mean they will latch on to pseudo-science. I think you will find that some people will rebuff science due to disinterest, and pseudo-science for the same reasons real scientists do: common sense; experience; etc. The people who actually believe in pseudo-science obviously have a potential for at least a pedestrian learning of science. Those people are the ones to reach.
I'll remain reticent on the pockets of religious people that would shape the learning of all of our children with (often more corrosive, since it comes with morals) pseudo-science, suffice it to say that I strongly recommend you fight this on the local level.
The attitude expressed is one of not solely, and I would hold, not primarily, an appreciation of software or building software. He is describing what is basically "hack-work": doing the best you can while maintaining a ceiling of quality and features that is equal to what customers want. This is the business perspective of writing software; it is not the pure joy of designing and writing a program. That said, I think a lesson could be learned from this: As fun as it is to do [x], it's good to get feedback and focus on what is really needed (liked tabbed browsing, for example, meanwhile XUL is robust and interesting yet virtually unused -- it's mostly relevant to the mozilla project alone though; I'm not bashing it).
The purpose of art is to question, the purpose of entertainment is to reassure, surely?
My interpretation of existentialism has always been just the opposite: look at what is questioned, and then reveal it to be natural, thus exhibiting a story that is life-affirming and beautiful. When you can see something real or someone struggling with what you have struggled with in isolation, and possibly overcome it or learn about it, that, to me, is the greatest art, and surely that is reassuring.
Perhaps what you're addressing with the "reassuring" remark, though, is comedy (at least in part). Here again I would argue with you, and in fact it is what led me to my response regarding existentialism: comedy, the best comedy and the deep "observational" humor, is based upon revealing that which is felt within us all and yet traps us in doubt or isolation. Why is Office Space funny, really? Why do you cry after you laugh when you watch some films?
What does calling it art do for the form?
One important difference it will make is whether it is considered protected speech. "Art" is protected, whilst "video games" are not.
I'd like to comment that if we're gong to consider throwaway sitcoms with no redeeming value "art," surely games can be considered art as well.
Windows XP SP2 introduces pop-up blocking in Internet Explorer. A little late, but know that it's coming.
The idea behind this technology is that any introduced paper trail is infallible. All you need are regulations and requirements, and there's no reason you couldn't have a paper trail and very good security. Certainly having votes and voting data in physical form establishes an environment primely susceptible to corruption, especially for people close to the data. Even a senator could understand that. And, paper degrades and gets "lost." If you delete a file or a record, there's nothing saying that the system can't have built-in modification timestamps.
If software, rather than people, handle votes and voting data, there's no room for skepticism -- if the software is indeed sound. It has continually pissed me off that voting software keeps failing. What exactly is so hard about
?
I assume it's a little more complicated, but honestly: this is a data-bound application, and the software really couldn't be that complicated in design. Anyway, voting machines get write access, everyone else gets read access (except the press; if you want to skew late votes, broadcast projections on tv).
I don't see how this would change the results of the election. If there were a DDoS attack, the election would just be extended until such time that everyone who wants to vote is allowed to. Rather than trying to work around the schedules of individuals, you could, once a DDoS attack is confirmed, extend the hours to a new deadline. Also, DDoS attacks are rarely prolonged.
To work, however, this must be embraced fully, so that technophobic/techno-agnostic state officials don't "dump" online voting when it is attacked, and just tell the people who would have voted in this manner to "take the bus to the nearest polling station." I hope it is obvious why that would be very bad, but I'm afraid it could easily happen if everyone is not sensitive enough to the introduction of this technology.
If you complain about people not voting, I would argue that it is almost compulsory to support initiatives to establish online voting. Just be prepared for a bumpy introduction.
sean-sub@NAUGHTSPAMbluebeard.org
Somewhat ironically, I'd like nothing better to live in the country. If I could figure out a way to do that, I'd do it in a heartbeat. :-)
It depends greatly on where you work. A salary of $45K in Wyoming is a lot different than a salary of $45K in San Francisco and New York City.
I spent months looking for job, and finally got one as the sole software developer and designer for a collections company for $32K a year with good benefits in Minnesota. I'm definitely looking to move up significantly within a year or two, but $32K a month is enough to have a nice car and a nice place in the city and still have ~45% of my income left over.
Doing what you want is incomparably fulfilling, but you have to set a breaking point, even in tumultuous times like these.
Yama hama: the point of my post was that this summary judgment was ridiculous, and, quite in opposition to your affront (which is in accord with the article), the strengths of Linux lie primarily in its viability as a stable computing platform, particularly in server environments where sound is superflous and indeed useless.
This article begs to be satirized, especially when posted on Slashdot. Meanwhile, I went to great pains to get the 2.6 kernel running so I could have ALSA: as a dekstop platform Linux may not be perfect, but does the article make that distinction in the headline or opening paragraph (outside the obvious ignorance of a novice user)? No. It's good to remember, also (though it is granted that this is not necessary in such an article unless it is truly inflammatory) that Linux sound drivers are created by the community or by companies who do so out of enlightened self-interest, not purely requisite "Windows world"-style support. So, who is to blame here, really? Open question I guess, but, while drivers lag, they do often eventually come out, just not on the bleeding edge or in support of marginal hardware.
By the way, will someone remind me why it's required that Linux take the desktop platform? I know it will be nice when Windows is no longer the big player on the desktop, but that doesn't mean we have to lose focus and placate ourselves to jerks who want to play solitaire and complain that they can't get Kazaa working.
Sound is important on Windows machines because how else are you supposed to know that IIS has gone down or become infected with a virus for the third time this week, than with a lot of "dinging" noises, while you're huddled under your desk?
I think the chief motive for MS to settle these lawsuits is that, written into the settlements is that, in exchange for money, Microsoft acknowledges no cupability or guilt as stated in the indictment/whatever. I think that's a standard clause of these settlements. Someone will have to correct me if I'm wrong.
Has Microsoft not settled one of these? I imagine if they didn't settle, and therefore accepted blame (if that's indeed the case), it would set a precedent that could really cost MS some money in the long run.
IANALBIWLO (I am not a lawyer, but I watch Law & Order).
Of course, you did not literally spread FUD -- just information, but I believe that now, while Google is inexplicably under attack - perhaps by those who could know better - we need to actively defend Google as the epitome of what companies on the internet can be.
If you read the link from the story and understand it, you'll know that you have nothing to worry about: Google's software is parsing your messages as you open them for keywords so they can show you ads. This is something their search engine does already, and, as far as I know, nobody has been traced and arrested via their cookie because they looked up "nude kids" or "dirty bomb diagrams." And if you're really paranoid, just turn off cookies: they aren't mandated. Every site that uses cookies gives you a "unique user id." If you want to whinge about "unique user IDs," we can talk about social security numbers or palladium hardware IDs or the Passport service.
Are you sure you want to shoot this cacodemon?
(hee haw)
When I say "globalization," I don't just mean economic globalization, but yes that is inevitable as well.
I'm not promoting capitalism or any particular ideology. I don't go to picket rallies, I don't support the world bank, I don't do anything but read and think, so I'm not on anyone's team here.
All that out of the way: the world exists as the North and South (as the wisdom goes); the "affluent" and the "marginalized." I say marginalized because we now live in a world where everyone can potentially be helped, but it frequently happens that the North countries take advantage of whatever the South has to offer. When a country is colonized and then abandoned, a vacuum of hatred and resentment is left. Add to this a feeling of hopelessness, and you frequently find that people turn to terrorism. Note that religion has very little to do with terrorism, and I would eschew that definition for fear of ignorance. Solely religious uprisings are isolated and are one-offs.
So, if you take advantage of and ignore your brethren, they fight back. Embrace them, support them, and help them along their way to their own destiny (note: not an implanted destiny, as happens when you try to attribute a government upon a people that did not decide on it or earn it), and everyone obviously benefits. That is all that I was saying. It is inevitable precisely because it began as a matter of course, not as a matter of policy. Indeed, globalization is only now being understood, notwithstanding the fact that it has been ongoing since the late 1970s.
Also, globalization brings all sorts of cultures together. This is a wonderful result of people coming together, and something I welcome.
The biggest potential improvement is the removal of the screaming, shrieking synth noise when you start the PS2.
I don't get the problem? In isolated demographics (captive audiences), maybe mom and pop stores worked. Economic globalization is the epitome of the fact that businesses seek to make money. Businesses and governments are made of people, so somewhere along the muddled path of delusion and structure, nice things get done. But the purpose of commerce and free market is to afford choice so that people can get the best possible outcome for their money. The flip side of this is that businesses compete for this money. What other purpose is there to a business? The software developers may enjoy their projects, but they don't leave their software hats on to make the decisions about the company.
People didn't magically change overnight. That sort of attitude is exactly what makes people think they can wage a war on "terror."
First off: globalization is pretty inevitable. In the long run, it's good for everyone (and how many things can be characterized that way?). In the short run, however, there are growing pains:
I should point out again that the goal of a corporation is to make money. They will not follow "moral" guidelines unless they are enforced by law. The only thing I would ask for in this period of globalization is that corporations that leave America be held to our human rights/workers' rights standards and laws. They should also be held to fair-wage laws (based on whatever the dollar fares against their currency, I guess).
I wouldn't accuse anyone of nepotism: these are tough times for some people, and nothing is black-and-white. The struggle seems to bring the worst out of some people though, on all sides.
Rather than trying to divide the corporate world up into friends and enemies, we should consider all for-profit entities as being agnostic to Linux, and we should be agnostic in kind, for one self-evident reason: said entities exist to make money, and as long as Linux helps them achieve that goal, they will defend it (as parent notes).
These legal sparrings over Linux get perhaps at least most of the inspection the deserve, but let us not take sides. Remember that Linux was created for everyone, and each and every one of these companies is trying to bend it completely to their will. Whether Linux remains free is a side-effect (to them), and whether the GPL remains unchallenged is a corollary of whether it impedes future business for these companies now that they've chosen Linux for their platform of operations.
Writing this, I'm becoming pretty indignant about the whole thing. Nobody is taking my Linux away. We didn't give it to you; you're using it because we give it to everyone, and in case you hadn't noticed, your assaults do not result in a change in our behavior, nor will they ever. Linux cannot be affronted or destroyed, because it is not a stack of gold coins or a religion; it is reason, it is ideology. Trying to stamp it out is like trying to put postage stamps on packets.
Yeah, and I'd agree that in some situations, the pictures are indeed transliterated, if you will, into code. What you're talking about is more of a "computer science" question. That is, it's more of a single problem to be solved (one "method"). With "plug-ins," you have roughly the same phenomena, which is what plug-ins are designed to do in the first place. I just don't believe that all software can be thought of as plug-ins: the two beauties of software are: ability to solve a specific problem; once a problem is solved, it can be solved again indefinitely. Actually, it seems as though pieces/suites of software are more easily diagrammed in relation to a person's life. However, in your case, I'd have to agree with you.
I guess I should have characterized it more accurately; you're absolutely right, and honestly software is creative to the utmost, by definition, isn't it? When I said "totally creative," I guess I meant "artistic," like you said. The artistic aspect of code, which is actually up for debate, is something I have actually struggled with, when writing software. Some people claim that their actual method of writing code is an art form. Since it has to conform to syntax and semantics, perhaps it is not, however the way in which you write code is definitely a creative expression of your idiosyncracies.
Cripes that was convoluted. I need lunch.
Just a general note, since it looks like it came up a couple times: I don't think Gates meant RAD or anything RAD-like. Note: "He further predicts -- ugh! -- that software will not be written but visually designed."
Software is written because software is a set of instructions. Software is a set of scripts that respond to events. If software were spatial and totally right-brain (and analogous to engineering or construction), AI would work, and software would probably rely on the immutable laws of physics and chemistry, rather than homespun rules. When I write software, it is frequently because I am taking a "break" from other totally creative pursuits.
The only visual constructions relating to software engineering (SE) that I consider appropriate, are those that relate a large system in terms of its data, logic, and interfaces. This is not necessarily the Rational Unified Process with UML -- indeed, I tend to think people take that too far (eXtreme Programming seems to take a nice perspective on SE in this regard). People also like to relate Classes to real-world objects, usually real-world objects that relate to "parts" of the project. This is tempting but is, I feel, usually inappropriate! A good compromise is a balance between the format of the data (with appropriate, thin, "agnostic bridges"/Classes) and an easy access point for real logic (the Model, of the MVC pattern). I would also recommend a sort of laid-back attitude when developing software: don't live your life by a paradigm or methodology, especially in an immature field (SE) that has a lifetime of problems to solve. You know what problems need to be solved. You also know that not once did you wish you could draw a picture instead of write code. I mean, what the hell? Someone take Johnny Mnemonic away from Gates.
If the software you write, however, is modular enough that you can arrange the pieces/modules/methods like components in a circuit, then go for it. However, this level of widespread code reuse is frankly fantasy; reuse will remain, I believe, as it has: generic libraries used in a custom fashion, i.e., not suitable to be "visually" "dropped-in." Code generation is nice, but it's only appropriate for certain large-scale applications (like large database-driven applications).
If one is to believe Gates on this issue, one is also compelled to believe that Microsoft's research and development department has created software practices at the forefront of software engineering (and indeed computer science. Remember computer science?). I do not believe this to be the case, and I'd make the indictment that this "release" by Gates is purely worldfair in nature, and is for the hoi polloi.
I think that a 3D-accelerated desktop would catalyze driver development. However, there always seems to be a "lag" problem: I still don't have an accelerated driver for my 9800 Pro. Why can't nvidia or ati develop and release drivers for Linux alongside Windows drivers? Is the demand for Windows drivers that great? New detonator drivers come out like every week. The problem of lag will always be there, at least to some degree, and there will always be people with bleeding-edge PCs that want to run the latest Linux, so a few things should happen: the accelerated desktop should be "friendly" to non-accelerated machines, at least while driver lag and old machines still abound, or, a completely 2D, scaled-down, bare-bones version should be offered in tandem; Linux popularity should increase in all non-server markets; Linux drivers should ship with 3D accelerator cards (for all even minor kernel releases). It should be noted that Apple OS X's desktop is 3D-accelerated while being 2D-friendly, even though they could easily eschew old hardware which are mostly desktop machines.
All that being said, a 3D-accelerated desktop is currently superfluous to most of us that don't find Expose very useful, and even Expose has been mimicked in Windows (without real-time updates, mind). However, who can deny the possibilities for this technology? The imagination revels in them.
I read Wikipedia sometimes for hours at a day, and I admit that I always wonder how the writers of the articles knew so much, but at the same time, I've never doubted the factual base for the articles. There are usually (perhaps always) links in non-stub articles. Glancing through some of the books in my family's 30-book encyclopedia, I see no attribution at all for any of the entries. Granted, the writers of encyclopedias are ostensibly scholars with reputations on the line. However, the Wikipedia is live and can be updated by anyone and has version history. Also, as I mentioned, the Wikipedia articles have links and attribution. A sample article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_Drakul
Incidentally, my original intention on replying to this article was to mention that while I would not buy a paper encyclopedia, (the major benefits of the Wikipedia being: content flux; contribution; instant searches; massive amount of content along with an infinite space for growth) I would gladly give money to the Wikipedia. The latest fund drive for the Wikipedia generously exceeded its goals within hours, so obviously I'm not the only one.
If I may be bold for a moment, I'd also like to point out that the spirit of the first encyclopedia was to be knowledge of the people and for the people, so that everyone may be educated. If the web (again, a series of "ends") were available in the sixteenth century, the encyclopedia, I'd argue, would not have been published in medium as expensive, bulky and unportable as paper. When was the last time you sat down and opened the encyclopedia instead of using the web?
To read more about the concept of encyclopaedia in dozens of languages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia