I'm not a coward but I don't want to get mugged, especially for not posting, so let me just say that I agree that these slippery slopes could lead to our being mugged more frequently, eventually in our own homes, all for the crimes of not posting or owning laptops.
Pretty soon they'll be able to hold me for not having a laptop for them to search. They'll think I'm hiding something. That's like being told I should carry some cash on me so the mugger has something to walk away with, otherwise he'll get pissed and just shoot me. Every border crossing is turning into a mugging.
Wow. First to see that in a post that isn't clearly a troll, and then to see it modded +5? Slashdot's really turning into Digg.
Frankly, your post is one of the most absurd ones I've ever seen on Slashdot.
Pretty soon you'll be criticising people for not posting at all, like they're trying to hide their opinions from the Slashdot masses. Then you'll be mugging them. I've seen these scary, slippery slopes before.
Yes, I totally agree. The only reason I bothered to point out the said/did dichotomy is that with President Bush there is a very big gulf between the two on some issues that have turned lot of Republicans into Libertarians.
I can't entirely agree. Well, I suppose it depends on how you define a person: based upon what they believe in or upon what they actually do. Bush definitely ran in 2000 on a small government, limited foreign policy platform. His tax cuts and lack of interest in matters overseas prior to 2001 demonstrate that his platform truly represented what he was aiming for as president. His focus was on America, not nation building, and his policies were probably mostly in line with your brand paleoconservatism.
There's a lot of room for debate about this, but I'd say Bush's fall from paleoconservatism happened not in 2001, but rather when he selected Cheney as his running mate. A Bush/SomeoneElse presidency would have been very different from what we've seen. Cheney brought back to the executive branch a lot of the so-called neocons who Bush's father and Ronald Reagan had sworn off in the 1980s. And since Bush was not great with foreign policy (and that's not to pick on him - all presidents are bad at some things and that's why there's a Cabinet), he relied heavily on the advice of neocons in shaping his policies.
So in terms of what he's done, Bush is a neocon as you said. I think deep down he's a paleocon. The existence of both paleocons and neocons in a single party, and the ability of so many of your fellow paleocons to embrace neoconservative foreign policy and spending, has always mystified me.
Disclaimer: I am not a political scientist, and thus can only write from my observations as a lay person. The above statements are IMHO only.
That's a very short and limited disclaimer. Any casual Slashdot reader could easily take your observation about the shortcomings of parliaments and apply it in the real world with terrible consequences, and you would be liable. Might I suggest:
Disclaimer: The posting Slashdot user ("the author") who authored the above electronic nested web comment ("the comment") being read by you ("the reader") is not and has never in any previous capacity been a political scientist or professional political pundit, nor has he/she assisted any persons occupying these or similar occupations. His/her comment is provided "as is" with no warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of reliability and fitness for a political purpose. The entire risk as to the quality and veracity of the comment is with the reader. The author posted the comment purely as the observations of a lay person ("IMHO") and should not be construed as a wholehearted endorsement of any political proposal that may or may not have been included within it.
It only occurred to me today, but I actually think KDE should do it again for KDE 5. If consistently used, there's nothing wrong with the following version numbering
I agree. I actually like the KDE 4 scheme better than the usual one. Partly I like it because terms like "alpha" and "beta" are used inconsistently nowadays, and areoftenabused. The so-called controversy with KDE 4 erupted mainly because KDE didn't go the easy route and call it 3.99 or beta. The complainers didn't pay attention to what they were getting and had false expectations as a result. However, the paradigm that.0 would be a library freeze to build a platform foundation was very sound, IMHO.
I've never been sure why there was much controversy. The various announcements around the time of the 4.0 release and in advance made it clear that KDE 4 was the entire new desktop (in all its future versions) with new core technologies like Phonon and Plasma, whereas KDE 4.0 was the very first release of said desktop, wherein the underlying technologies were frozen so that developers could start using them, but the apps and desktop were incomplete.
I tried it as a LiveCD and the desktop experience was lukewarm, so I went back to 3.5. But I never wrote off KDE 4. No one should have, and there never should have been any controversy, considering what 4.0 was. The 4.1 release is the one people have actually been waiting for, since the apps and desktop components have had time to adjust to the new libaries, so if you adopted 4.0 thinking it would be your new desktop and you hated it, you probably jumped the gun. Have another look.
Sounds like he followed the usual guidelines (well explained here). The slime-ball didn't actually divulge the fine details, just summarized that it was not cancer.
You know, it's funny, but despite the success of open source, embracing it is something companies have been known to do when they're on the rocks. Novell did it, Palm is trying to do it - heck, Netscape is the shining example, with the Mozilla project announcement - and I think there are others that have crashed and nearly burned, only at the last minute to say "And we'll be opening the source of the next version!" or "And we're going to run the next device on Linux!"
I wonder what sparked this at Microsoft. Granted, they have no real prospects besides the usual Windows/Office cash cows, but they're not exactly bleeding money.
Amen, brotha. I love surfing Wikipedia, and even fixing other people's bad writing. And as much as Wikipedia has its problems, I don't see that Knol offers much over it. Its articles aren't encyclopedic, but are more like standalone magazine articles. They also aren't guaranteed to improve over time with new information, something that would happen if new verified experts were to come in and edit existing articles. That happens all the time on Wikipedia (if you care to substitute "unqualified hacks" for "new verified experts"), but I don't see a community forming around Knol in the same way.
On the other hand, the articles themselves look quite good. In a way, what they've created is really an online magazine, like Wired or Ars Technica, but with no core subject matter. Because of this, and because of its style, I don't see people flocking to it. But Knols will appear in search results, and that's bound to send traffic to it.
Do you need to independently verify all science behind nuclear physics to be a nuclear physicist?
No, because it is a science that is actively generating power for cities and blowing things up in underground testing facilities, so it is obviously verifiable on those grounds. A nuclear physicist will have at least visited a power facility, and possibly even worked in one.
Bending your analogy into usability, if there were no nuclear reactors in the world, and if there had never been an atomic bomb, and if all there was behind the science of nuclear physics was a cult of people in white scientist smocks telling you you have to just believe, and that they are the authority on the subject, and that they are the only ones who understand the science books... then yes, you'd absolutely have to call them a bunch of useless loonies and verify all the science behind nuclear physics yourself in order to rationally believe in it. In our world, though, no faith is required to believe in a science with working applications.
On the other hand, the Bible is of suspect origin. The original poster clearly meant to write "fourth century CE" (an equivalent of the period from AD 301 to AD 400), a time during which what we now call "Christianity" took its shape. It's widely known that the Bible's canon went through many iterations, and that the Western world was filled with what may have been very different faiths at the start of the fourth century that merged into a single "Christianity" after the Council of Nicea. That makes the idea of the immutability of the word of God very shaky, to put it mildly.
When they got fans clamped onto them. Low-wattage processors usually ditch the fans, so they're quieter and don't require the same sort of ventilation.
While I grant that it is somewhat difficult to nail down the definition of "cloud computing", what does this have to do with it?
If you want to define "cloud computing" in this context you need to consider the Web 2.0 paradigm this product leverages for its innovation. This is a "green" product that maximizes its use of the grid for next-generation social shaping, so from a Slashdot commenter's perspective you'll get web services, tagging, and real user participation if you buy this product. I think their idea is to have it be a dynamic framework for proactive immersion, which is basically win-win.
We're already doing this with roads in America so why not sidewalks? The Magic of the Free Market also worked well in bringing about prosperity in Iraq (imagine how badly it would have gone if we'd relied on public entities rather than contractors). I don't see how this sidewalk plan could go wrong - just make sure you stock up on quarters before you go for a walk.:)
Mods, just look at this nonsense. Can you believe it? All these requests in the parent, grandparent and great-grandparent posts... ridiculous, aren't they? They think they can push you around, that you'll do whatever they think is appropriate.
I say screw them. You know what you should do? Mod great-grandparent down. Mod grandparent down. Mod parent double-down, and mod this comment Funny. And if anyone replies to this comment they should definitely be modded down. That's what you should do to teach these pesky Mod-dictators a lesson.
My problems are exactly identical (and I mean identical, with FF3 on my Windows XP work machine crashing constantly, but the one on my Kubuntu Hardy desktop is fine). I'd love to know what causes this. New profile, fresh install - none of it helps.
Yeah, at least Fake Steve himself, Dan Lyons, admitted that he was conned. I don't recall reading a similar mea culpa from DiDo.
I really appreciated Lyons' article. I still think it was stupid to buy into SCO's claims in the first place: there was a little matter of an absence of evidence, and the company's excuses for not releasing clear proof of code pilfering were sadly flawed (The Linux people will just destroy the evidence by removing it!). But Lyons' admission of error made it possible for me to read Fake Steve again after he was outed, and enjoy it. Namaste, Forbes Man.
For those that have been following this saga, we finally get to watch the house of cards start to fall.
Start? I thought the house of cards fell in early 2003. That's when the lawsuit dropped, and at that same moment most of the employees of SCO and about 75% of the world's clueless tech pundits mistook conjecture and cognitive dissonance for business wisdom and impending legal victory. The rest of us started laughing at this charade almost immediately. But then, we read the facts.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a coward but I don't want to get mugged, especially for not posting, so let me just say that I agree that these slippery slopes could lead to our being mugged more frequently, eventually in our own homes, all for the crimes of not posting or owning laptops.
You know who else didn't own laptops? The Nazis.
Pretty soon they'll be able to hold me for not having a laptop for them to search. They'll think I'm hiding something. That's like being told I should carry some cash on me so the mugger has something to walk away with, otherwise he'll get pissed and just shoot me. Every border crossing is turning into a mugging.
Wow. First to see that in a post that isn't clearly a troll, and then to see it modded +5? Slashdot's really turning into Digg.
Frankly, your post is one of the most absurd ones I've ever seen on Slashdot.
Pretty soon you'll be criticising people for not posting at all, like they're trying to hide their opinions from the Slashdot masses. Then you'll be mugging them. I've seen these scary, slippery slopes before.
Heed my word, my brothers, for I have RTFA!
Mod parent down! Parent read the linked article and has an informed opinion. Alert! Alert!
Yes, I totally agree. The only reason I bothered to point out the said/did dichotomy is that with President Bush there is a very big gulf between the two on some issues that have turned lot of Republicans into Libertarians.
Bush? Neocon all the way.
I can't entirely agree. Well, I suppose it depends on how you define a person: based upon what they believe in or upon what they actually do. Bush definitely ran in 2000 on a small government, limited foreign policy platform. His tax cuts and lack of interest in matters overseas prior to 2001 demonstrate that his platform truly represented what he was aiming for as president. His focus was on America, not nation building, and his policies were probably mostly in line with your brand paleoconservatism.
There's a lot of room for debate about this, but I'd say Bush's fall from paleoconservatism happened not in 2001, but rather when he selected Cheney as his running mate. A Bush/SomeoneElse presidency would have been very different from what we've seen. Cheney brought back to the executive branch a lot of the so-called neocons who Bush's father and Ronald Reagan had sworn off in the 1980s. And since Bush was not great with foreign policy (and that's not to pick on him - all presidents are bad at some things and that's why there's a Cabinet), he relied heavily on the advice of neocons in shaping his policies.
So in terms of what he's done, Bush is a neocon as you said. I think deep down he's a paleocon. The existence of both paleocons and neocons in a single party, and the ability of so many of your fellow paleocons to embrace neoconservative foreign policy and spending, has always mystified me.
Disclaimer: I am not a political scientist, and thus can only write from my observations as a lay person. The above statements are IMHO only.
That's a very short and limited disclaimer. Any casual Slashdot reader could easily take your observation about the shortcomings of parliaments and apply it in the real world with terrible consequences, and you would be liable. Might I suggest:
Disclaimer: The posting Slashdot user ("the author") who authored the above electronic nested web comment ("the comment") being read by you ("the reader") is not and has never in any previous capacity been a political scientist or professional political pundit, nor has he/she assisted any persons occupying these or similar occupations. His/her comment is provided "as is" with no warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of reliability and fitness for a political purpose. The entire risk as to the quality and veracity of the comment is with the reader. The author posted the comment purely as the observations of a lay person ("IMHO") and should not be construed as a wholehearted endorsement of any political proposal that may or may not have been included within it.
It only occurred to me today, but I actually think KDE should do it again for KDE 5. If consistently used, there's nothing wrong with the following version numbering
I agree. I actually like the KDE 4 scheme better than the usual one. Partly I like it because terms like "alpha" and "beta" are used inconsistently nowadays, and are often abused. The so-called controversy with KDE 4 erupted mainly because KDE didn't go the easy route and call it 3.99 or beta. The complainers didn't pay attention to what they were getting and had false expectations as a result. However, the paradigm that .0 would be a library freeze to build a platform foundation was very sound, IMHO.
After months of development and controversy
I've never been sure why there was much controversy. The various announcements around the time of the 4.0 release and in advance made it clear that KDE 4 was the entire new desktop (in all its future versions) with new core technologies like Phonon and Plasma, whereas KDE 4.0 was the very first release of said desktop, wherein the underlying technologies were frozen so that developers could start using them, but the apps and desktop were incomplete.
I tried it as a LiveCD and the desktop experience was lukewarm, so I went back to 3.5. But I never wrote off KDE 4. No one should have, and there never should have been any controversy, considering what 4.0 was. The 4.1 release is the one people have actually been waiting for, since the apps and desktop components have had time to adjust to the new libaries, so if you adopted 4.0 thinking it would be your new desktop and you hated it, you probably jumped the gun. Have another look.
Sounds like he followed the usual guidelines (well explained here). The slime-ball didn't actually divulge the fine details, just summarized that it was not cancer.
Not me. Embarassingly, I don't think I even have enough room on my hard drive to compile the thing. (Well, maybe Home Basic Edition.)
You know, it's funny, but despite the success of open source, embracing it is something companies have been known to do when they're on the rocks. Novell did it, Palm is trying to do it - heck, Netscape is the shining example, with the Mozilla project announcement - and I think there are others that have crashed and nearly burned, only at the last minute to say "And we'll be opening the source of the next version!" or "And we're going to run the next device on Linux!"
I wonder what sparked this at Microsoft. Granted, they have no real prospects besides the usual Windows/Office cash cows, but they're not exactly bleeding money.
You just violated my patents on patent-ing invalidation of....
...whatever it is the poem was about!
Right, to the airlock with the lot of you!
Amen, brotha. I love surfing Wikipedia, and even fixing other people's bad writing. And as much as Wikipedia has its problems, I don't see that Knol offers much over it. Its articles aren't encyclopedic, but are more like standalone magazine articles. They also aren't guaranteed to improve over time with new information, something that would happen if new verified experts were to come in and edit existing articles. That happens all the time on Wikipedia (if you care to substitute "unqualified hacks" for "new verified experts"), but I don't see a community forming around Knol in the same way.
On the other hand, the articles themselves look quite good. In a way, what they've created is really an online magazine, like Wired or Ars Technica, but with no core subject matter. Because of this, and because of its style, I don't see people flocking to it. But Knols will appear in search results, and that's bound to send traffic to it.
Do you need to independently verify all science behind nuclear physics to be a nuclear physicist?
No, because it is a science that is actively generating power for cities and blowing things up in underground testing facilities, so it is obviously verifiable on those grounds. A nuclear physicist will have at least visited a power facility, and possibly even worked in one.
Bending your analogy into usability, if there were no nuclear reactors in the world, and if there had never been an atomic bomb, and if all there was behind the science of nuclear physics was a cult of people in white scientist smocks telling you you have to just believe, and that they are the authority on the subject, and that they are the only ones who understand the science books ... then yes, you'd absolutely have to call them a bunch of useless loonies and verify all the science behind nuclear physics yourself in order to rationally believe in it. In our world, though, no faith is required to believe in a science with working applications.
On the other hand, the Bible is of suspect origin. The original poster clearly meant to write "fourth century CE" (an equivalent of the period from AD 301 to AD 400), a time during which what we now call "Christianity" took its shape. It's widely known that the Bible's canon went through many iterations, and that the Western world was filled with what may have been very different faiths at the start of the fourth century that merged into a single "Christianity" after the Council of Nicea. That makes the idea of the immutability of the word of God very shaky, to put it mildly.
Oops. Whooooooosh! :)
When did processors have moving parts?
When they got fans clamped onto them. Low-wattage processors usually ditch the fans, so they're quieter and don't require the same sort of ventilation.
While I grant that it is somewhat difficult to nail down the definition of "cloud computing", what does this have to do with it?
If you want to define "cloud computing" in this context you need to consider the Web 2.0 paradigm this product leverages for its innovation. This is a "green" product that maximizes its use of the grid for next-generation social shaping, so from a Slashdot commenter's perspective you'll get web services, tagging, and real user participation if you buy this product. I think their idea is to have it be a dynamic framework for proactive immersion, which is basically win-win.
We're already doing this with roads in America so why not sidewalks? The Magic of the Free Market also worked well in bringing about prosperity in Iraq (imagine how badly it would have gone if we'd relied on public entities rather than contractors). I don't see how this sidewalk plan could go wrong - just make sure you stock up on quarters before you go for a walk. :)
... when you open the case to add a stick of RAM and the heat sink asks you if you've "seen this boy."
Mods, just look at this nonsense. Can you believe it? All these requests in the parent, grandparent and great-grandparent posts ... ridiculous, aren't they? They think they can push you around, that you'll do whatever they think is appropriate.
I say screw them. You know what you should do? Mod great-grandparent down. Mod grandparent down. Mod parent double-down, and mod this comment Funny. And if anyone replies to this comment they should definitely be modded down. That's what you should do to teach these pesky Mod-dictators a lesson.
Do'h! Someone clarified this below
Unless they fix the URL bar, I'm not upgrading
The Awesome Bar is awesome ... but if you disagree, I think you can turn it off, IIRC.
My problems are exactly identical (and I mean identical, with FF3 on my Windows XP work machine crashing constantly, but the one on my Kubuntu Hardy desktop is fine). I'd love to know what causes this. New profile, fresh install - none of it helps.
Yeah, at least Fake Steve himself, Dan Lyons, admitted that he was conned. I don't recall reading a similar mea culpa from DiDo.
I really appreciated Lyons' article. I still think it was stupid to buy into SCO's claims in the first place: there was a little matter of an absence of evidence, and the company's excuses for not releasing clear proof of code pilfering were sadly flawed (The Linux people will just destroy the evidence by removing it!). But Lyons' admission of error made it possible for me to read Fake Steve again after he was outed, and enjoy it. Namaste, Forbes Man.
For those that have been following this saga, we finally get to watch the house of cards start to fall.
Start? I thought the house of cards fell in early 2003. That's when the lawsuit dropped, and at that same moment most of the employees of SCO and about 75% of the world's clueless tech pundits mistook conjecture and cognitive dissonance for business wisdom and impending legal victory. The rest of us started laughing at this charade almost immediately. But then, we read the facts.