Well, if it's not performing any transformation then it is probably just a filter or suppressor. In that regard, I've always felt that certain Jedi mind tricks must work on the thalamus:
Obi Wan: "You don't need to see his identification."
Storm Trooper: "I don't need to see his identification."
Obi Wan: "These aren't the droids you're looking for."
Storm Trooper: "These aren't the droids we're looking for."
Well, since nobody has patented it, and the source code is readily available (not that anyone understands it yet) we should probably call it GNU/Thalamus.
Even worse is that many people do not realise this.
Yes... this is a case where ignorance is anything but bliss.
I would say it is another 20-50 years until important software is routinely being built with the same level of reliability as bridges.
Software is already routinely built to high standards, but those standards are expensive, consequently most vendors don't live up to them. Most of the problem is that the complexity of a modern operating system or major application affords so many possible failure modes that it really isn't possible to test for all of them. That puts the onus back on solid design and implementation and even then you're still taking a shot in the dark when you release your code.
Don't know where free software will go, though.
Well, free software (at least, the open source variety) could, reasonably, be expected to have less liability because you can actually see what you're getting and if your application requires more reliability have it evaluated from that perspective. When you buy a closed source product, it's caveat emptor, baby.
There are numerous laptops and other examples of technology products running Microsoft operating systems and applications on board passenger liners, freighters and cruise ships that have gone to Davey Jones' locker. Nobody can call those systems insecure.
Trouble with programming is that bridges collapse far more newsworthy than software.
That's not really true, certainly not with embedded control systems. There's one hell of a lot of mission-critical firmware out there that, if it were to fail catastrophically, would produce far more newsworthy results than any bridge falling down. Which is, of course... all the more reason to apply sound engineering principles, so I'm hardly disagreeing with you.
Part of the problem, really, is that applied computer science is not (in spite of some people's claims to the contrary) as mature a discipline as mechanical and structural engineering. The human race has been building bridges for thousands of years, and computers for only half a century or so. Worse yet, software engineering changes constantly as new techniques and methodologies are discovered. Still, if you're coding an application that is potentially dangerous it is best to be conservative: one of the best examples of that is the Space Shuttle's software engineering group. What they do isn't remotely sexy, but damn if it isn't reliable..
Truth is, as Professor Falkenberg said in Falkenberg's Legion by Larry Niven: "We deduce the existence of peace because there are intervals between wars."
... Richard Stallman, the founder of the Free Software movement and author of the GPL, says that while he doesn't support the philosophy of "open source"...
The word is "elitism". There will always be people willing to lay down serious money to maintain their egos. Cars, stereos, guns, computers, home theaters, women... you name it, somebody will pay too much for it just to get that special "God, I'm just so much better than everyone else" feeling. Of course, most elitists are in reality fools (and if male, typically equipped with miniscule sexual apparatus) but if you tell them how idiotic they look they'll just go spend even more money to prove you wrong. That can be entertaining, actually... just keep pissing them off by saying things like "yeah yeah, that's cool, I guess, but you know my friend Bob has twenty-seven terabytes running on his home network" and watch their credit-card balances soar.
Possibly... although if it ever got out that AOL did that there would truly be hell to pay. Besides, as Google has demonstrated there are a lot of PR points to be gained by simply not co-operating with unreasonable government requests. At least, in the United States.
Well, after Googling this subject for a bit (and looking at the Project's Web site) it appears that he announced his results after Otto Schaden and his team independently found the tomb (it was found in what was originally Reeve's concession.) He also states very clearly that even though his radar results identified a tomb-like structure some time before the physical discovery of the tomb, Schaden's group clearly deserves the credit for finding it. Doesn't sound like as much of an asshole as you're trying to make him out to be.
Well, that's not entirely true. The "current system" hasn't been in place for more than a couple of decades, and has already caused substantial damage. Remember, there have been a *lot* of changes put in place at the USPTO by Congress in recent years. Had we actually stuck with our traditional patent system and not made gratuitous changes for the benefit of large rightsholders there would be no need for patent reform. What we need is patent reversion. Let's go back to the system that did, after all is said and done, help make the United States a source of much of the world's technological and scientific advancement for a very long time. The real question that needs to be asked of these idiots in Washington is: why did you screw around with something so important? It wasn't broke! It wasn't perfect, by any means... but it worked.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if it's not performing any transformation then it is probably just a filter or suppressor. In that regard, I've always felt that certain Jedi mind tricks must work on the thalamus:
Obi Wan: "You don't need to see his identification."
Storm Trooper: "I don't need to see his identification."
Obi Wan: "These aren't the droids you're looking for."
Storm Trooper: "These aren't the droids we're looking for."
Well, since nobody has patented it, and the source code is readily available (not that anyone understands it yet) we should probably call it GNU/Thalamus.
Even worse is that many people do not realise this.
... this is a case where ignorance is anything but bliss.
Yes
I would say it is another 20-50 years until important software is routinely being built with the same level of reliability as bridges.
Software is already routinely built to high standards, but those standards are expensive, consequently most vendors don't live up to them. Most of the problem is that the complexity of a modern operating system or major application affords so many possible failure modes that it really isn't possible to test for all of them. That puts the onus back on solid design and implementation and even then you're still taking a shot in the dark when you release your code.
Don't know where free software will go, though.
Well, free software (at least, the open source variety) could, reasonably, be expected to have less liability because you can actually see what you're getting and if your application requires more reliability have it evaluated from that perspective. When you buy a closed source product, it's caveat emptor, baby.
Wasn't it the ATF that went after PGP and its author?
This would probably be a good time to invest in that laptop rental business.
Sorry, I meant "Jerry Pournelle".
There are numerous laptops and other examples of technology products running Microsoft operating systems and applications on board passenger liners, freighters and cruise ships that have gone to Davey Jones' locker. Nobody can call those systems insecure.
Trouble with programming is that bridges collapse far more newsworthy than software.
... all the more reason to apply sound engineering principles, so I'm hardly disagreeing with you.
That's not really true, certainly not with embedded control systems. There's one hell of a lot of mission-critical firmware out there that, if it were to fail catastrophically, would produce far more newsworthy results than any bridge falling down. Which is, of course
Part of the problem, really, is that applied computer science is not (in spite of some people's claims to the contrary) as mature a discipline as mechanical and structural engineering. The human race has been building bridges for thousands of years, and computers for only half a century or so. Worse yet, software engineering changes constantly as new techniques and methodologies are discovered. Still, if you're coding an application that is potentially dangerous it is best to be conservative: one of the best examples of that is the Space Shuttle's software engineering group. What they do isn't remotely sexy, but damn if it isn't reliable..
Truth is, as Professor Falkenberg said in Falkenberg's Legion by Larry Niven: "We deduce the existence of peace because there are intervals between wars."
Sounds like a bad Chuck Norris movie.
... Richard Stallman, the founder of the Free Software movement and author of the GPL, says that while he doesn't support the philosophy of "open source" ...
Joe, tell me it ain't so!
And the second rule is to always use a verteron pulse wherever possible, preferably transmitted through subspace.
You forgot the TIA program. Of course, you did mention the Devil so maybe you already covered it.
It's been a long time for me too, but I think there was a robot called "Uniblab" that rolled around on a ball.
"Don't worry, Dr. Jones ... YOU'RE NEXT!"
This is why I always keep my cell phone in a lead box.
A lead box? I hadn't realized that they were selling atomic-powered cell phones.
it Linux run does?
... I never knew that Yoda's brain was stack-oriented.
Interesting
Why do people invent shit like this? So far as I'm concerned, this is just about as "useful" to society as the average trojan, worm or virus.
The word is "elitism". There will always be people willing to lay down serious money to maintain their egos. Cars, stereos, guns, computers, home theaters, women ... you name it, somebody will pay too much for it just to get that special "God, I'm just so much better than everyone else" feeling. Of course, most elitists are in reality fools (and if male, typically equipped with miniscule sexual apparatus) but if you tell them how idiotic they look they'll just go spend even more money to prove you wrong. That can be entertaining, actually ... just keep pissing them off by saying things like "yeah yeah, that's cool, I guess, but you know my friend Bob has twenty-seven terabytes running on his home network" and watch their credit-card balances soar.
Possibly ... although if it ever got out that AOL did that there would truly be hell to pay. Besides, as Google has demonstrated there are a lot of PR points to be gained by simply not co-operating with unreasonable government requests. At least, in the United States.
Anything can be a derogatory term. Just because Christians aren't a race doesn't mean they can't be vilified.
Al Gore talks the talk but by no means does he walk the walk.
The word you're looking for is "hypocrite". But that's by no means a partisan attribute.
Heavy? What is this "heavy"? Is there something wrong with the force of gravity in our time?
Well, after Googling this subject for a bit (and looking at the Project's Web site) it appears that he announced his results after Otto Schaden and his team independently found the tomb (it was found in what was originally Reeve's concession.) He also states very clearly that even though his radar results identified a tomb-like structure some time before the physical discovery of the tomb, Schaden's group clearly deserves the credit for finding it. Doesn't sound like as much of an asshole as you're trying to make him out to be.
Well, that's not entirely true. The "current system" hasn't been in place for more than a couple of decades, and has already caused substantial damage. Remember, there have been a *lot* of changes put in place at the USPTO by Congress in recent years. Had we actually stuck with our traditional patent system and not made gratuitous changes for the benefit of large rightsholders there would be no need for patent reform. What we need is patent reversion. Let's go back to the system that did, after all is said and done, help make the United States a source of much of the world's technological and scientific advancement for a very long time. The real question that needs to be asked of these idiots in Washington is: why did you screw around with something so important? It wasn't broke! It wasn't perfect, by any means ... but it worked.