hey man. listen. there is one serious point to this whole argument that you failed to mention, and that everyone else has decided to ignore. I used to be the Netscape product champion back when AOL messenger first came out, so I attended a few meetings in my time with AOL execs about the product.
"The AOL Instant messenger was originally created as advertising medium. The messenger itself was designed to attract users and provide a chat service, but the most important thing to AOL is that it serves up the AD content. The companies that pay for the ad space, expect that there will be people looking at these ads.
The problem is that if AOL lets everyone create their own clients, then everyone will stop using the AOL client, nobody will see ads anymore, and AOL messenger will lose all of its ad revenue.
Duh! Grow up people and see the truth. AOL has EVERY right to create the inferior TOC protocol for 3rd party clients. In order of importance are 1. the users of the AOL client 2. ad revenue and 3. 3rd party client protocol."
hey... i was just thinking... i am not religious at all, so I am going on heresay...
1. isn't 999999999 equivilant to about 30 years, which is how old Jesus was when he was crucified?
2. i find it strange that 000000001 starts at damn near Christmas time in 1971 and 999999999 ends at damn near Easter time 30 years later...
3. does this mean that GOD uses the unix date/time system for all of his scheduling??
your right, P2P hype is over and done with. there are emerging technologies right now that are already prepared to take market share in all of the P2P segments. the scary thing is that you probably haven't even heard of them yet but they are working out of the garage next door. hindsight is 20/20, and with all of the talent and hype that we have in the market right now, we should expect something far greater than Napster to come along very soon.
if you own stock in an indexing search engine, you should dump it now, because distributed search engines are going to replace them. if you don't believe me, just ask all of the young peer-2-peer developers out there, because distributed computing can solve this, and there is a huge hole in the efficiency of the internet that these developers can fill, and THEY KNOW they will be famous if they solve it. its a race. run. run. run. your going to lose if your still wearing your penny loafers.
it makes me happy to hear you say this. finally, someone else out there is smart enough to realize that the human IQ is just not enough to comprehend genomics. its far too compliated, and scientists naively think they can handle it.
I think that a gene mistake could have the destructive power of a nuclear bomb. For example, scientists are creating a bacteria that lives entirely on carbon monoxide, this could potentially alter the mix of gases in our atmosphere and kill everything on earth.
the nuclear bomb was a discovery that even a retarded person could understand. scientists currently naively believe that they are capable of understanding the impacts of changes in genes. the fact is that there ARE things that are simply too complicated to ever comprehend. understanding the human genome likely would take an IQ far beyond what anyone on earth has. they will unwittingly unleash a global catastrophe if they continue. the end of the world is near. would I let cousin eddie experiment with a nuclear grenade!
your right. when will people wake up and realize that PURE-distributed searches will NEVER work. The most efficient search (i.e. "the perfect search") is a hybrid that uses discovery, like the library of congress system, or the yellow pages. Its much more efficient this way.
What amazes me the most is that purists actually got people to believe for this long that a pure system like Gnutella would work. Bullshit!
i know you guys mean well, but after 20 minutes of seaching on the web and reading all of these news messages... i still have no clue about where to start if I want to play.
i can find MOO3 utilities, media, maps, etc... all kinds of stuff , except NOBODY says where and how I get it...
ok... so what happens when you create a retarded baby because you were trying to move around the diabetes gene? or mabye you think that they are more likely to be born with xray vision... and so the risk is ok?
the fact is that by screwing with one gene, you potentially create a domino effect through the entire genome. for each thing you fix, you change 10-1000 other things. some will be bad and some will be good. most effects will go unnoticed. will these "cloners" take responsibility for creating a "dyslexic" clone when all they "fixed" was the color-blind gene? of course they wont!!! it is screwed up.
you cant play god... because god is the only one who will truly take responsibility.
a good analogy is a piano player. the worlds best piano player can play fantastic masterpieces and they might also believe that they cannot make a mistake. the truth is that that piano player will NEVER NEVER EVER play any piece perfectly. each time he/she tries, it will be slightly different and have different flaws. the difference between genomics and piano playing is that the genome is a 100,000 keyed piano.
you make me laugh when you say "better products like Windows" because ALL of THOSE 'products', as you say, are owned my ONE SINGLE monopolistic company.
If you dont think they are monopolistic, then you should open your eyes and read what is happening with the '.Net" and C# stuff.
It is sooo sad to see valid competition unfairly hacked down by the supreme overlord (Bill Gates)!!
i don't need to show you a company!! everyone knows the limitations of indexing search engines. people have been harping about it ever since Netscape 1.0 was out.
it is an OBVIOUS evolutionary step for search technology to take a step to distributed systems.
with the growth rate of the web proceeding like it is, do you expect that Inktomi (or anyone else like them) will be able to achieve anything beyond 20%???
All of the indexed search engines on the internet are now scared because they are about to become extinct. CMGI is just now taking action on this patent stuff because they realize that the patent will not be worth a dime once distributed search technologies are uncovered.
Trust me, there are a whole bunch of companies right now that are developing search technologies that will cause Excite, Lycos, AltaVista, Yahoo, Hotbot, Google, etc. to go the way of the dinosaur. Sooner than you think.
If I were AltaVista, I would be suing everyones ass off while i still have a chance.
assuming a constant rate of mass increase, my guess is that as the age of the black hole increases, the event horizon will shrink. because the matter that is falling into it is approaching the speed of light, time slows down for it relative to us, but perhaps it reaches a little further inward toward the point of singularity (which it will never reach) than it would have if the black hole were younger?? woah... mabye i have no idea how to answer this one.
well, your sorta right. what i mean is that as any mass accelerates, because of relativity (time), our perception of that mass approaches infinity. therefore we think that its the most massive thing in the universe even though it could merely be one small pebble being sucked into the thing.
also, your right that the "event" horizon is the boundary that we call the black hole... but there is NO "region" between the event horizon and the singularity... it is an extra-dimensional space that really is not space at all. the singularity exists within the event horizon but it would take longer than the age of the universe for any object that gets sucked inside to reach it. if this is true, is there really a singularity at all?
think about this one: if you accelerate towards a black hole, the event horizon will appear to grow because if you subtract the relative time difference, the mass will not reach as far withing the horizon. also, your speed difference will subtract from the percieved mass and so the mass of the hole will be reduced.
* i am stretching here and just playing devils advocate... everything i know is from national geographic.:-)
remember that as matter accelerates toward the black hole it gains mass... and continues to do so into infinity because of relativity (the speed of the matter relative to you)... the mass that we see in a black hole is actually the stuff that is accelerating toward it... the actual black hole is just a singularity. what do you mean by solid service?
From our perspective outside a black hole, matter never quite passes through a black hole's event horizon. That is because time slows down near the event horizon and it takes an infinite amount of our time for the matter to pass through the event horizon. From the perspective of the matter falling through the event horizon, the passage is uneventful; the matter experiences no sudden changes as it passes through that surface of no return. Instead, the matter continues to accelerate toward the singularity at the center of the black hole to a point of infinite density and infinitely small size. Its approach to the singularity completely destroys the matter's structure. The gravitational tidal forces caused by the differences in gravity at different locations in space tear the matter apart so that it contributes only mass, charge, momentum, and angular momentum to the singularity. The black hole is usual identified with the event horizon rather than the singularity contained inside it. Passage through that event horizon erases any memory of the structure of the matter, leaving only its mass, charge, momentum, and angular momentum observable in the properties of the black hole.
I agree with his premise based upon what his application development space has been. Typically, OOP practices do not pay off until the maintenance period of a product and it does tend to slow down the development cycle because you have to put more thought into what you are designing. I think that this guy's point of view is incorrect though because he has only ever had to be the initial designer of a product and has obviously never had to assume somebody else's code base where he had to figure out what the initial developer's purpose of code was. He has a pretty narrow view of the world and I think if he had to maintain somebody else's code or take an existing product and continue to evolve it, he would rapidly find the advantage of code reuse due to OOP practices. I also noticed he has some fundamental misunderstandings about OOP. I could pick apart almost every statement he makes about the downside of OOP. I only agree with 2 statements of his - OOP advantages are only realized over time and that an OOP project needs to be well managed in order to be effective. This latter point though is true for any project and in fact ends up encouraging well managed projects whereas non OOP products tend to promote a program as you go methodology that promotes mistakes too late into development to back track from. I could write an entire book on why this guy's views are inaccurate and from a very narrow point of view. By the way, there have been new development disciplines to speed up this exact process he is complaining about. http://www.extremeprogramming.org/ . What he needs is not a non OOP language but instead a faster methodology for development of an OOP application.
Slashdot Mirror
hey people. its nice to see so much love between us linux hackers. its so beautiful, its bringing a tear to my eye. :-)
i wonder....how long will it take for someone to write a 100 line long "quantum decription" perl script...?
hey man. listen. there is one serious point to this whole argument that you failed to mention, and that everyone else has decided to ignore. I used to be the Netscape product champion back when AOL messenger first came out, so I attended a few meetings in my time with AOL execs about the product.
"The AOL Instant messenger was originally created as advertising medium. The messenger itself was designed to attract users and provide a chat service, but the most important thing to AOL is that it serves up the AD content. The companies that pay for the ad space, expect that there will be people looking at these ads.
The problem is that if AOL lets everyone create their own clients, then everyone will stop using the AOL client, nobody will see ads anymore, and AOL messenger will lose all of its ad revenue.
Duh! Grow up people and see the truth. AOL has EVERY right to create the inferior TOC protocol for 3rd party clients. In order of importance are 1. the users of the AOL client 2. ad revenue and 3. 3rd party client protocol."
hey... i was just thinking... i am not religious at all, so I am going on heresay...
1. isn't 999999999 equivilant to about 30 years, which is how old Jesus was when he was crucified?
2. i find it strange that 000000001 starts at damn near Christmas time in 1971 and 999999999 ends at damn near Easter time 30 years later...
3. does this mean that GOD uses the unix date/time system for all of his scheduling??
come on now! This is obviously a smokescreen for the actual mach 55 prototype "Aurora" that the CIA is using right now... somebody call Moulder.
your right, P2P hype is over and done with. there are emerging technologies right now that are already prepared to take market share in all of the P2P segments. the scary thing is that you probably haven't even heard of them yet but they are working out of the garage next door. hindsight is 20/20, and with all of the talent and hype that we have in the market right now, we should expect something far greater than Napster to come along very soon.
if you own stock in an indexing search engine, you should dump it now, because distributed search engines are going to replace them. if you don't believe me, just ask all of the young peer-2-peer developers out there, because distributed computing can solve this, and there is a huge hole in the efficiency of the internet that these developers can fill, and THEY KNOW they will be famous if they solve it. its a race. run. run. run. your going to lose if your still wearing your penny loafers.
that was fun to read. thanks for the interesting point!
it makes me happy to hear you say this. finally, someone else out there is smart enough to realize that the human IQ is just not enough to comprehend genomics. its far too compliated, and scientists naively think they can handle it.
I think that a gene mistake could have the destructive power of a nuclear bomb. For example, scientists are creating a bacteria that lives entirely on carbon monoxide, this could potentially alter the mix of gases in our atmosphere and kill everything on earth.
the nuclear bomb was a discovery that even a retarded person could understand. scientists currently naively believe that they are capable of understanding the impacts of changes in genes. the fact is that there ARE things that are simply too complicated to ever comprehend. understanding the human genome likely would take an IQ far beyond what anyone on earth has. they will unwittingly unleash a global catastrophe if they continue. the end of the world is near. would I let cousin eddie experiment with a nuclear grenade!
your right. when will people wake up and realize that PURE-distributed searches will NEVER work. The most efficient search (i.e. "the perfect search") is a hybrid that uses discovery, like the library of congress system, or the yellow pages. Its much more efficient this way.
What amazes me the most is that purists actually got people to believe for this long that a pure system like Gnutella would work. Bullshit!
if you saw Superman I (the movie), he already found crystals bigger than this one... :-)
why do I care if my fonts are "anti-aliased". what does this mean?
10,000 hours of life in one of these is not enough for me. i put about 8000 hours a year into my monitors...
they will have to do much better than that to get me to buy one...
i hate to be too logical.. but the obvious answer is: get a new job with a boss who will respect you.
i know you guys mean well, but after 20 minutes of seaching on the web and reading all of these news messages... i still have no clue about where to start if I want to play.
i can find MOO3 utilities, media, maps, etc... all kinds of stuff , except NOBODY says where and how I get it...
please help... i guess i am ignorant.
jon
ok... so what happens when you create a retarded baby because you were trying to move around the diabetes gene? or mabye you think that they are more likely to be born with xray vision... and so the risk is ok?
the fact is that by screwing with one gene, you potentially create a domino effect through the entire genome. for each thing you fix, you change 10-1000 other things. some will be bad and some will be good. most effects will go unnoticed. will these "cloners" take responsibility for creating a "dyslexic" clone when all they "fixed" was the color-blind gene? of course they wont!!! it is screwed up.
you cant play god... because god is the only one who will truly take responsibility.
a good analogy is a piano player. the worlds best piano player can play fantastic masterpieces and they might also believe that they cannot make a mistake. the truth is that that piano player will NEVER NEVER EVER play any piece perfectly. each time he/she tries, it will be slightly different and have different flaws. the difference between genomics and piano playing is that the genome is a 100,000 keyed piano.
you make me laugh when you say "better products like Windows" because ALL of THOSE 'products', as you say, are owned my ONE SINGLE monopolistic company.
If you dont think they are monopolistic, then you should open your eyes and read what is happening with the '.Net" and C# stuff.
It is sooo sad to see valid competition unfairly hacked down by the supreme overlord (Bill Gates)!!
Jon
i don't need to show you a company!! everyone knows the limitations of indexing search engines. people have been harping about it ever since Netscape 1.0 was out.
it is an OBVIOUS evolutionary step for search technology to take a step to distributed systems.
with the growth rate of the web proceeding like it is, do you expect that Inktomi (or anyone else like them) will be able to achieve anything beyond 20%???
Start here: http://www.peertal.com/ .
All of the indexed search engines on the internet are now scared because they are about to become extinct. CMGI is just now taking action on this patent stuff because they realize that the patent will not be worth a dime once distributed search technologies are uncovered.
Trust me, there are a whole bunch of companies right now that are developing search technologies that will cause Excite, Lycos, AltaVista, Yahoo, Hotbot, Google, etc. to go the way of the dinosaur. Sooner than you think.
If I were AltaVista, I would be suing everyones ass off while i still have a chance.
*shrug*
assuming a constant rate of mass increase, my guess is that as the age of the black hole increases, the event horizon will shrink. because the matter that is falling into it is approaching the speed of light, time slows down for it relative to us, but perhaps it reaches a little further inward toward the point of singularity (which it will never reach) than it would have if the black hole were younger?? woah... mabye i have no idea how to answer this one.
well, your sorta right. what i mean is that as any mass accelerates, because of relativity (time), our perception of that mass approaches infinity. therefore we think that its the most massive thing in the universe even though it could merely be one small pebble being sucked into the thing.
:-)
also, your right that the "event" horizon is the boundary that we call the black hole... but there is NO "region" between the event horizon and the singularity... it is an extra-dimensional space that really is not space at all. the singularity exists within the event horizon but it would take longer than the age of the universe for any object that gets sucked inside to reach it. if this is true, is there really a singularity at all?
think about this one: if you accelerate towards a black hole, the event horizon will appear to grow because if you subtract the relative time difference, the mass will not reach as far withing the horizon. also, your speed difference will subtract from the percieved mass and so the mass of the hole will be reduced.
* i am stretching here and just playing devils advocate... everything i know is from national geographic.
no solid service???
... the mass that we see in a black hole is actually the stuff that is accelerating toward it... the actual black hole is just a singularity. what do you mean by solid service?
remember that as matter accelerates toward the black hole it gains mass... and continues to do so into infinity because of relativity (the speed of the matter relative to you)
From our perspective outside a black hole, matter never quite passes through a black hole's event horizon. That is because time slows down near the event horizon and it takes an infinite amount of our time for the matter to pass through the event horizon. From the perspective of the matter falling through the event horizon, the passage is uneventful; the matter experiences no sudden changes as it passes through that surface of no return. Instead, the matter continues to accelerate toward the singularity at the center of the black hole to a point of infinite density and infinitely small size. Its approach to the singularity completely destroys the matter's structure. The gravitational tidal forces caused by the differences in gravity at different locations in space tear the matter apart so that it contributes only mass, charge, momentum, and angular momentum to the singularity. The black hole is usual identified with the event horizon rather than the singularity contained inside it. Passage through that event horizon erases any memory of the structure of the matter, leaving only its mass, charge, momentum, and angular momentum observable in the properties of the black hole.
I agree with his premise based upon what his application development space has been. Typically, OOP practices do not pay off until the maintenance period of a product and it does tend to slow down the development cycle because you have to put more thought into what you are designing. I think that this guy's point of view is incorrect though because he has only ever had to be the initial designer of a product and has obviously never had to assume somebody else's code base where he had to figure out what the initial developer's purpose of code was. He has a pretty narrow view of the world and I think if he had to maintain somebody else's code or take an existing product and continue to evolve it, he would rapidly find the advantage of code reuse due to OOP practices. I also noticed he has some fundamental misunderstandings about OOP. I could pick apart almost every statement he makes about the downside of OOP. I only agree with 2 statements of his - OOP advantages are only realized over time and that an OOP project needs to be well managed in order to be effective. This latter point though is true for any project and in fact ends up encouraging well managed projects whereas non OOP products tend to promote a program as you go methodology that promotes mistakes too late into development to back track from. I could write an entire book on why this guy's views are inaccurate and from a very narrow point of view. By the way, there have been new development disciplines to speed up this exact process he is complaining about. http://www.extremeprogramming.org/ . What he needs is not a non OOP language but instead a faster methodology for development of an OOP application.