In this particular case, though, it's a matter of IT staff expecting it to be easy and not bothering to familiarize themselves with Linux enough to competently deploy it.
It could also be that with Linux, suddenly most of their expertise and know-how is totally useless. I'm not flaming Linux here, the same is true for all major technology switches. People have invested a huge amount of effort and "intellectual capital" in the existing technology over the years, and it hurts to throw that away. That can make people rather resistive. And if the ones trying to deploy it would rather like to see it fail, consciously or sub-consciously, well...
I'm not saying this is the case here, of that I really have no idea, but it seems plausible that such a factor could be involved as well.
The goal of the experiment was to come up with a safe way to create self replicating nanites that could cure cancer. [...] So we build these guys to start replicating and to stop replicating when we want them to... but when you make a billion of something you end up with some odd mutations. Even if you are talking about.001% mutation that's still 100,000 self replicating mistakes. If even one of those 100,000 mistakes is a mutation that just doesn't turn off self replication you now have a very bad problem.
Actually, that is essentially what cancer is, except then it is one of the human cells that replicates in an uncontrolled manner. So you would have recreated the problem you set out to solve, except with nanites instead of human cells.
Presumably, there is much to learn from studying cancer and how the human body deals with cell mutations, before one starts designing self replicating nanites. Of course, that presents a catch 22 in your thought experiment.
If the OSS community had a lobby (and ideology) similar to that of the record industry, I imagine we would have "computer taxes" being collected by some organisation like FSF and distributed to open source developers, much like many contries today have taxes on empty storage media collected by copyright organisations.
So now what's smarter, keeping it that way or changing it?
That is a bit like asking "What is smarter, ending all wars or keep waging war?". If it was entirely in my power to choose the software market landscape, then obviously I would alter it. The point is that it isn't in my power to do so.
This is a typical example of the prisoners dilemma: If everyone switched at the same time, everyone would be a winner. But the optimal decision for each single player is to keep doing everything the same way, since swimming against the stream incurs huge costs. Humans occasionally break such equilibria by acting altruistically (e.g. starting the GNU project), accepting a personal loss for the common greater good, but a corporation isn't allowed to do that.
There is also a conflict between short and long term: what use is it to replace the OS vendor for a long term profit if it means the end of ones business now?
What, charging the price that the market will bear? If you don't like it, do what I did and install Linux.
You make it sound as if that is always a viable option. Perhaps for ones home computer, but often not for companies. In many industries Windows and MS Office is the de facto standard. Also, even when it is possible, switching a reasonably large organisation to Linux isn't exactly cheap either. Change is expensive -- especially when the monopolists are experts at vendor lock-in.
Yup, I understand that some people think OLPC will make for a better world. But this is geek thinking. However for the poor in rural villages, there's much more need for more basic things like clean water and other non-geeky needs.
This argument is repeated over and over again. Yes, there is no doubt there is a need for clean water in many areas of the world, but there is also a need for education and basic access to information technology. Why is there a problem that some people are trying to mitigate the second problem? It is not like we don't have enough resources to do both -- if we really wanted to, and there weren't a lot of political and sociological problems impeding it.
There are endless other places where we throw away resources that could have been used to help people in need. The OLPC project isn't exactly the first I would complain about.
Try to think of this as a good thing: you don't want a lot of non-techies using Linux, because compromises will be made to support that audience.
Yes, we do. With the current situation, many of us are forced to use Windows instead, since it is the de facto industry standard in many areas. And that alternative is worse.
Also, what proof do you have that compromises will have to be made? Why is it fundamentally impossible to build a OS that is easy to use for non-techies (as a default), but still powerful and unrestricted if you're skilled? In fact, I think Linux could even become better if it was made more (non-techie) user friendly. I like to tinker with my computer, and the first time I configured an X server I thought it was interesting and fun. But eventually, you get to a stage were that is just in the way of what you really want to do. I'd much rather construct some cool self-modifying AI program, or whatever, than getting my screen resolution right.
you'll get people making cleverer or less obvious infomercials.
True. But, on the other hand, that might very well happen anyway. Think of it this way: why wouldn't a TV station utilize both product placements and commercials, if they could?
You have to think like a marketing/sales person. An engineer would think: "I want to make this TV show, how do I get enough money to produce it?" and would be satisfied with commercials xor product placements. A marketing person thinks: "I have this TV show, how can I get as much money out if it as possible?" Since the guiding principle in society is profit, the latter will have his way.
Hint: you can judge the law as well as the facts, and juries ARE the "last line of defense" against oppressive government / bad laws.
I am more afraid of the mob than the law. I can see the logic in your argument, but my sense is that oppressive governments really only last when their thoughts are reflected in a large portion of the public (propaganda helps here). So a jury wouldn't help much -- it could even be worse.
Also, if the government turns oppressive and finds juries to be a problem, they will simply get rid of them then, in cases where it matters. (How many of the gitmo prisoners have seen a jury?) Do you think people would protest under the erosion of such fundamental laws? Well, the recent suspending of habeas corpus in the US was apparently not too problematic, for example. Imagine what could happen in an even more whipped up atmosphere, such as the 1930's Germany.
It's used in feng shui in the literal sense, as if there's LITERALLY positive and negative energy lines zipping about the place and turning a table to face west helps disrupt this energy flow.
What exactly do you mean with "literally [...] energy"? Our modern concept of energy (as in thermodynamics) is much younger than feng shui, so that is obviously not what the Chinese concept of qi refers to.
While the Chinese may have constructed theories to explain their observations that aren't true in a literal sense (whatever that means -- language is nothing more than symbols anyway), these theories may still yield conclusions that are consistent with future observations.
Also, just because a complex theory involves incorrect assumptions doesn't mean all it's conclusions are bullshit. Newton mechanics is based on false premisses, but is it totally useless? Clearly not.
they just use custom peers to download a packet from each client they come across in a popular swarm. Then they can just show in court how that piece can be mathematically proven to be part of an episode of their show.
But is this enough? All they can really prove is that you have distributed that particular piece, which in itself probably is completely worthless.
So, if I patent a method af applying for and receiving a patent, will the patent system self destruct?
I suspect there would be prior art.
But perhaps one could patent the business method of "using software patents to impede open source competitors threatening your monopoly", for example. If some company would like to prove that they have prior art, then please, be my guest.
This system is intended for support calls, where the customer service rep might not realize that they need to take action to prevent the loss of your business. Presumably, the system would automatically flag a manager if it calcualted that the customer was getting frustrated.
So, essentially, the more frustrated and angry you sound, the better support you'll get...?
I think it'll be a while before the industry starts putting out photo realistic digital animations of people.
No doubt. Animating people is a tricky subject, especially when trying to do it automatically. Humans are incredibly good at recognising biological motion and particularly facial expressions. Not surprising from an evolutionary perspective, I guess: watching out for dangerous animals, looking for game and reading body language (for communication with strangers, knowing when someone is ill etc.) has been way more important during most of our existence than driving cars or understanding street signs.
One piece I think people skip over is the benefit from rotating certain monitors to be oriented vertically. Most non-media-related computing tasks rely more on the y-axis (emails, code, web pages.); being able to see 100+ lines of code on the screen lets you have a lot more context.
I tried that once with my 16:10 monitor. The problem was that I soon needed to have two files open and visible simultaneously. The only reasonable layout was to put one above the other, but that meant each window was about the same size as when I hade the monitor oriented horizontally, with the only difference that I now had to tilt my head up and down instead of quickly moving the eyes left and right. Clearly suboptimal (in my case anyway).
Most scientists think it is impossible to tell at this point what the long-term consequences are likely to be.
So you're saying short-term consequences can't be devastating? Humans and nature are good at adapting to the environment if it changes, but adaption takes time. I'm sure the western world will cope; some of us might even be better off. But even slightly altered rain patterns in poor countries that already have a dry climate could be very problematic, resulting in drought and famine. And rising sea levels would be extremely costly for people living in flat coastal areas. The problem isn't primarily the end result, but the sudden changes.
I'm not saying there will be giant tidal waves ungulfing coastal cities out of nowhere, or sudden massive changes in the sea currents. That would be Hollywood.
Do yo ulive in a country where being an environmentalist is a bad thing? god help you, I hope it's a small country.
Quite the opposite, actually. However, it seemed the OP was hoping the term would bring negative connotations. At least with his definition of environmentalism. In your case he clearly failed.
Methane has a far greater effect, as do many other things.
Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas per molecule. But that doesn't mean it has a greater impact, since there is much less methane being released into the atmosphere.
As a funny side note: a significant amount (more than a third) of the anthropogenic methane emissions are coming from agriculture -- farting livestock basically.
Environmentalists:
-> CO2 will cause mass extinctions
but also
-> gsms cause brain cancer (show me one single case...)
-> against nuclear power, the easiest and most economically viable option to stopping global warning
Everybody else
-> There is not sufficient evidence to really change our policy (this btw, is unfortunately very true)
-> Therefore CO2 does not cause problems (this conclusion may be true, but the honest answer is : we don't know)
You are trolling. First you label everyone believing that human induced global climate change is really happening as "the environmentalists" in an attempt to discredit that opinion, ascribing it to a relatively small number of extremists. Then you put a bunch other opinions in the mouths of these people to make them sound irrational and stupid.
All this when in reality the vast majority of researchers and people (at least outside the US) find that there are strong reasons to think that we are causing global warming, and that the consequences likely are devastating for a large portion of the Earth.
At $200 each (plus cremation) I am sure they could sell a few thousand of these per year.
Well, a few thousand cremated bodies would probably fit inside one single launch, so you would need millions to get that price. Because I seriously doubt the $189/kg figure assumes 1 kg payload/launch.
Running the browser in a VM might be a good idea, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is a perfect solution. It is still just damage control. While your entire computer will not be lost to an exploit, running a compromised browser can be bad enough (especially if you use it for banking and such).
I guess one idea would be to run a new VM for every group of sites you're visiting, but then it starts to get somewhat impractical.
Slashdot Mirror
It could also be that with Linux, suddenly most of their expertise and know-how is totally useless. I'm not flaming Linux here, the same is true for all major technology switches. People have invested a huge amount of effort and "intellectual capital" in the existing technology over the years, and it hurts to throw that away. That can make people rather resistive. And if the ones trying to deploy it would rather like to see it fail, consciously or sub-consciously, well...
I'm not saying this is the case here, of that I really have no idea, but it seems plausible that such a factor could be involved as well.
Only on slashdot, "getting out more" equates to playing multiplayer games online...
Actually, that is essentially what cancer is, except then it is one of the human cells that replicates in an uncontrolled manner. So you would have recreated the problem you set out to solve, except with nanites instead of human cells.
Presumably, there is much to learn from studying cancer and how the human body deals with cell mutations, before one starts designing self replicating nanites. Of course, that presents a catch 22 in your thought experiment.
If the OSS community had a lobby (and ideology) similar to that of the record industry, I imagine we would have "computer taxes" being collected by some organisation like FSF and distributed to open source developers, much like many contries today have taxes on empty storage media collected by copyright organisations.
That is a bit like asking "What is smarter, ending all wars or keep waging war?". If it was entirely in my power to choose the software market landscape, then obviously I would alter it. The point is that it isn't in my power to do so.
This is a typical example of the prisoners dilemma: If everyone switched at the same time, everyone would be a winner. But the optimal decision for each single player is to keep doing everything the same way, since swimming against the stream incurs huge costs. Humans occasionally break such equilibria by acting altruistically (e.g. starting the GNU project), accepting a personal loss for the common greater good, but a corporation isn't allowed to do that.
There is also a conflict between short and long term: what use is it to replace the OS vendor for a long term profit if it means the end of ones business now?
You make it sound as if that is always a viable option. Perhaps for ones home computer, but often not for companies. In many industries Windows and MS Office is the de facto standard. Also, even when it is possible, switching a reasonably large organisation to Linux isn't exactly cheap either. Change is expensive -- especially when the monopolists are experts at vendor lock-in.
This argument is repeated over and over again. Yes, there is no doubt there is a need for clean water in many areas of the world, but there is also a need for education and basic access to information technology. Why is there a problem that some people are trying to mitigate the second problem? It is not like we don't have enough resources to do both -- if we really wanted to, and there weren't a lot of political and sociological problems impeding it.
There are endless other places where we throw away resources that could have been used to help people in need. The OLPC project isn't exactly the first I would complain about.
Yes, we do. With the current situation, many of us are forced to use Windows instead, since it is the de facto industry standard in many areas. And that alternative is worse.
Also, what proof do you have that compromises will have to be made? Why is it fundamentally impossible to build a OS that is easy to use for non-techies (as a default), but still powerful and unrestricted if you're skilled? In fact, I think Linux could even become better if it was made more (non-techie) user friendly. I like to tinker with my computer, and the first time I configured an X server I thought it was interesting and fun. But eventually, you get to a stage were that is just in the way of what you really want to do. I'd much rather construct some cool self-modifying AI program, or whatever, than getting my screen resolution right.
True. But, on the other hand, that might very well happen anyway. Think of it this way: why wouldn't a TV station utilize both product placements and commercials, if they could?
You have to think like a marketing/sales person. An engineer would think: "I want to make this TV show, how do I get enough money to produce it?" and would be satisfied with commercials xor product placements. A marketing person thinks: "I have this TV show, how can I get as much money out if it as possible?" Since the guiding principle in society is profit, the latter will have his way.
I am more afraid of the mob than the law. I can see the logic in your argument, but my sense is that oppressive governments really only last when their thoughts are reflected in a large portion of the public (propaganda helps here). So a jury wouldn't help much -- it could even be worse.
Also, if the government turns oppressive and finds juries to be a problem, they will simply get rid of them then, in cases where it matters. (How many of the gitmo prisoners have seen a jury?) Do you think people would protest under the erosion of such fundamental laws? Well, the recent suspending of habeas corpus in the US was apparently not too problematic, for example. Imagine what could happen in an even more whipped up atmosphere, such as the 1930's Germany.
Possibly, she could have meant that we post way too many uninsightful comments...
What exactly do you mean with "literally [...] energy"? Our modern concept of energy (as in thermodynamics) is much younger than feng shui, so that is obviously not what the Chinese concept of qi refers to.
While the Chinese may have constructed theories to explain their observations that aren't true in a literal sense (whatever that means -- language is nothing more than symbols anyway), these theories may still yield conclusions that are consistent with future observations.
Also, just because a complex theory involves incorrect assumptions doesn't mean all it's conclusions are bullshit. Newton mechanics is based on false premisses, but is it totally useless? Clearly not.
But is this enough? All they can really prove is that you have distributed that particular piece, which in itself probably is completely worthless.
I suspect there would be prior art.
But perhaps one could patent the business method of "using software patents to impede open source competitors threatening your monopoly", for example. If some company would like to prove that they have prior art, then please, be my guest.
So, essentially, the more frustrated and angry you sound, the better support you'll get...?
No doubt. Animating people is a tricky subject, especially when trying to do it automatically. Humans are incredibly good at recognising biological motion and particularly facial expressions. Not surprising from an evolutionary perspective, I guess: watching out for dangerous animals, looking for game and reading body language (for communication with strangers, knowing when someone is ill etc.) has been way more important during most of our existence than driving cars or understanding street signs.
No. The human field of view is anisotropic.
I tried that once with my 16:10 monitor. The problem was that I soon needed to have two files open and visible simultaneously. The only reasonable layout was to put one above the other, but that meant each window was about the same size as when I hade the monitor oriented horizontally, with the only difference that I now had to tilt my head up and down instead of quickly moving the eyes left and right. Clearly suboptimal (in my case anyway).
So you're saying short-term consequences can't be devastating? Humans and nature are good at adapting to the environment if it changes, but adaption takes time. I'm sure the western world will cope; some of us might even be better off. But even slightly altered rain patterns in poor countries that already have a dry climate could be very problematic, resulting in drought and famine. And rising sea levels would be extremely costly for people living in flat coastal areas. The problem isn't primarily the end result, but the sudden changes.
I'm not saying there will be giant tidal waves ungulfing coastal cities out of nowhere, or sudden massive changes in the sea currents. That would be Hollywood.
Quite the opposite, actually. However, it seemed the OP was hoping the term would bring negative connotations. At least with his definition of environmentalism. In your case he clearly failed.
We'd have to screw up pretty badly before it is easier to terraform Mars into a habitable planet than to restore Earth.
Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas per molecule. But that doesn't mean it has a greater impact, since there is much less methane being released into the atmosphere.
As a funny side note: a significant amount (more than a third) of the anthropogenic methane emissions are coming from agriculture -- farting livestock basically.
You are trolling. First you label everyone believing that human induced global climate change is really happening as "the environmentalists" in an attempt to discredit that opinion, ascribing it to a relatively small number of extremists. Then you put a bunch other opinions in the mouths of these people to make them sound irrational and stupid.
All this when in reality the vast majority of researchers and people (at least outside the US) find that there are strong reasons to think that we are causing global warming, and that the consequences likely are devastating for a large portion of the Earth.
Well, a few thousand cremated bodies would probably fit inside one single launch, so you would need millions to get that price. Because I seriously doubt the $189/kg figure assumes 1 kg payload/launch.
Running the browser in a VM might be a good idea, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is a perfect solution. It is still just damage control. While your entire computer will not be lost to an exploit, running a compromised browser can be bad enough (especially if you use it for banking and such).
I guess one idea would be to run a new VM for every group of sites you're visiting, but then it starts to get somewhat impractical.