This sounds a lot like this an earlier Tim Berners-Lee effort. It was an awesome language that really did a nice job at combining rich OO programming with a markup-language; but too bad the company that took it over made the licensing of the language so painful it never caught on.
Anyway, that project did make some really cool demos of what the technology is capable of.
Alas some company got involved and practically killed this technology, but before their bizzare licensing policies kill it completely you can check out some really cool demos this technology enables.
Considering how successful tobacco, alcohol, soft-drink, etc. companies are, I'm almost surprised coffee shops didn't catch on to this "more caffeine gets people hooked faster" insight earlier.
Nope programmers are the ones taking the jobs away from the rats. For example, today Programmers spend their lives in little twisty mazes of cubicles, all alike. This used to be the job of rats.
Nonsense. The ability to use and afford nanotechnology will be just as much a part of natural selection as the ability to use and afford a bow-and-arrow or a plow.
Nanotech replacing hearts, lungs, and alzheimer's infected brains will be no different than larger-than-nanotech replacing teeth with knives to cut food. Eventually, natural selection will favor those who don't even bother keeping the protein-based parts of the body in favor of the nano-engineered components. This will be a monumental step for evolution.
Where I grew up, noone locked their doors, and garages stayed open even when people went out to the store. Did people loot? NO! Such an act would be so immoral it would be unthinkable.
Just because some asshole can convince a store owner that they can carry a bomb inside doesn't mean all stores should start searching people they way they do in airports.
Rather, teach people stealing is bad, and set community standards that discourages lying scammers that try to steal from stores and that try to sell them "security" from made-up problems.
This guy's FUD is going to destroy that community.
All Commercial SW vendors should be audited.
on
SCO Caught Copying
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Perhaps all software vendors, commercial or not, should be audited by the open-source community to make sure they don't include stolen code.
How else would a customer know that their business wasn't using some illegal components that they couldn't depend on in the future because their vendor might have to remove them.
Just think if SCO or some other OS you might be using might be dependant on an illegally-copied component. Your business would be SOL if they had to remove it and couldn't find a replacement. Yipes. I think we should be insisting on audits of the commmercial packages we buy.
Parent wrote: "You'd need different glasses for each publisher, and you would not be allowed to make your own glasses, nor to publish your own books without licensing a special publishing system. The idea sounds so outrageously unreasonable that no one would be willing to put up with it, yet this is exactly what Microsoft, Apple, Real, "
Wonder if their webmaster's making fun of them. In addition the funny image, of course netcraft confirms baystar's
running BSD. Does that mean they're dead?
I suspect it's a combination of both approaches. No need for immediate action; and you just let them sit and wait until you're running low on rackspace.
Then when you need to expand, "ping" them all (no need for overly complex monitoring SW in this case) and reclaim them in groups of hundreds. If you do this once/quarter or so it's not too much of an administrative burden.
Now here is the part that sticks in my mind: the fault tolerant nature of the cluster is such that if a machine fails, the other machines simply take over its functions. As a result, <b>whenever a server fails at Google, THEY DO NOTHING. They don't replace the broken machine. They don't remove the broken machine. They don't even turn it off.</b> In an army of drones, it isn't worth the cost of labor to locate and replace the bad machines. Hundreds, maybe thousands of machines lie dead, uncounted among the 10,000 plus.
We have reached the point where we are totally dependent on computers, yet the marginal cost of a computer—at least for Google—is nothing. This may be an historical first.
Parent wrote: "The boss. They paid him for his work, so it is there's to do with as they please."
Which boss? And no, bosses can't always "do as they please" (Tyco). They have fiduciary responsibilities to make responsible decisions.
Also, bosses can delegate authority. Just as the shareholders delegates some responsibility to the board, and just as the board deligates some responsibility to the executives,
a high-level exec delegates some responsibility to middle level execs.
Ultimatelly, they should be accountable to the shareholders - but where the chain of deletaing authority for software licensing stops probably depends on the management chain in place. There's no reason why this decision couldn't be delegated to a software-strategy person in some companies and be a board-level decision in others.
IMHO a CEO _should_ delegate domain-specific decisions to the most qualified person (and I'm just speaking hypothetically, not about java/gpl now). Not sure about "Legally", though - somone else will say if a CEO has a fiduciary responsibility to delegate such decisions or not.
Or you can read a fictionalized account of similar technology in a pretty cool
technology-thriller book that I heard about on Slashdot a few years back.
It's scary how many of that book's technologies seem to be really close now.
At the company I work, we make it easier. Everyone can have 2 (or more if needed) email addresses. One for reliable business partners, and a second one for less trusted business partners, mailing lists, etc. For example our affiliate manager may actually need to contact porn sites.
For another example, our CEO wants to sign up to mailinglists of all our partners, competitors, etc. Both use their "secondary" email address for this spam-ridden mail.
Most of the "legimite" "corporate" use of email doesn't actually get your email address listed with porn spammers. People just like giving out their email addresses to everyone, and that's what gets them in spam-trouble. By giving a second throwaway account, most people's primary account stays nice and spam-clean.
Non-Authenticable sending is an important privacy right.
Just because someone has a problem with giving their email address to unscrupulous spammers doesn't mean they should start whining to remove
freedoms.
IMnsHO the answer is on the receiving end - people should learn not to give out emails to everyone if they don't want to get spammed.
For an interesting article, check out
Wired
"
In times past, anonymous speech sheltered the Founding Fathers' revolutionary arguments and emboldened commentators such as Mark Twain (aka Samuel Langhorne Clemens) to criticize common ignorance.
Last April, in MacIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, the US Supreme Court reaffirmed that the First Amendment protects the right to anonymous speech. Anonymity, the court reasoned, helps speech stay free. Focusing on political speech - the sort of speech that lies at the core of the First Amendment - the MacIntyre ruling stipulated that restrictions on anonymous political speech must be narrowly tailored and serve an over-riding state interest. "
Parent asked: ", shouldn't it have wings"
It has wings - just upside down - for the downforce needed to make it stable.
From TFA:
aerodynamics was the biggest challenge. That the car doesn't fly. We needed a lot, a lot, of wind-tunnel testing. With the moving tail spoiler we've got enough downforce now, about 100 kg (221 pounds) at the rear and 80 kg (177 pounds) at the front at top speed."
But wouldn't it have been easier to just add 398 lbs. of extra metal? Serious question. Is downforce from the spoiler(wing) that much better than extra metal?
Slashdot Mirror
This sounds a lot like this an earlier Tim Berners-Lee effort. It was an awesome language that really did a nice job at combining rich OO programming with a markup-language; but too bad the company that took it over made the licensing of the language so painful it never caught on. Anyway, that project did make some really cool demos of what the technology is capable of.
The original DARPA grant that started the W3C also included a MIT project that proposed what is a very nice solution for distributing rich applications through a HTML-like content language.
Alas some company got involved and practically killed this technology, but before their bizzare licensing policies kill it completely you can check out some really cool demos this technology enables.
Considering how successful tobacco, alcohol, soft-drink, etc. companies are, I'm almost surprised coffee shops didn't catch on to this "more caffeine gets people hooked faster" insight earlier.
Nope programmers are the ones taking the jobs away from the rats. For example, today Programmers spend their lives in little twisty mazes of cubicles, all alike. This used to be the job of rats.
Nanotech replacing hearts, lungs, and alzheimer's infected brains will be no different than larger-than-nanotech replacing teeth with knives to cut food. Eventually, natural selection will favor those who don't even bother keeping the protein-based parts of the body in favor of the nano-engineered components. This will be a monumental step for evolution.
Where I grew up, noone locked their doors, and garages stayed open even when people went out to the store. Did people loot? NO! Such an act would be so immoral it would be unthinkable.
Just because some asshole can convince a store owner that they can carry a bomb inside doesn't mean all stores should start searching people they way they do in airports.
Rather, teach people stealing is bad, and set community standards that discourages lying scammers that try to steal from stores and that try to sell them "security" from made-up problems.
This guy's FUD is going to destroy that community.
How else would a customer know that their business wasn't using some illegal components that they couldn't depend on in the future because their vendor might have to remove them.
Just think if SCO or some other OS you might be using might be dependant on an illegally-copied component. Your business would be SOL if they had to remove it and couldn't find a replacement. Yipes. I think we should be insisting on audits of the commmercial packages we buy.
You forgot to mention Adobe - the one company who actually imprisoned someone by doing exactly what you described.
Are you suggesting that Microsoft has that small a penetration into the home? I thought many people who used MS-Windows at work also used it at home.
Wonder if their webmaster's making fun of them. In addition the funny image, of course netcraft confirms baystar's running BSD. Does that mean they're dead?
I think he was referring to shining as in The Shining(1980)
I'd like the review to include whether or not it's strictly free/open software of dependant on proprietary components.
What about BitKeeper. Surely it'd be nice if students had access to the Linux kernel source control system?
Then when you need to expand, "ping" them all (no need for overly complex monitoring SW in this case) and reclaim them in groups of hundreds. If you do this once/quarter or so it's not too much of an administrative burden.
Only in a really poorly managed network. Failover is a wonderful thing.
Cringley analyzed this before:
Which boss? And no, bosses can't always "do as they please" (Tyco). They have fiduciary responsibilities to make responsible decisions.
Also, bosses can delegate authority.
Just as the shareholders delegates some responsibility to the board, and
just as the board deligates some responsibility to the executives,
a high-level exec delegates some responsibility to middle level execs.
Ultimatelly, they should be accountable to the shareholders - but where the chain of deletaing authority for software licensing stops probably depends on the management chain in place. There's no reason why this decision couldn't be delegated to a software-strategy person in some companies and be a board-level decision in others.
IMHO a CEO _should_ delegate domain-specific decisions to the most qualified person (and I'm just speaking hypothetically, not about java/gpl now). Not sure about "Legally", though - somone else will say if a CEO has a fiduciary responsibility to delegate such decisions or not.
It's scary how many of that book's technologies seem to be really close now.
It somewhat reminded me of this technology
For another example, our CEO wants to sign up to mailinglists of all our partners, competitors, etc. Both use their "secondary" email address for this spam-ridden mail.
Most of the "legimite" "corporate" use of email doesn't actually get your email address listed with porn spammers. People just like giving out their email addresses to everyone, and that's what gets them in spam-trouble. By giving a second throwaway account, most people's primary account stays nice and spam-clean.
Just because someone has a problem with giving their email address to unscrupulous spammers doesn't mean they should start whining to remove freedoms.
IMnsHO the answer is on the receiving end - people should learn not to give out emails to everyone if they don't want to get spammed.
For an interesting article, check out Wired
" In times past, anonymous speech sheltered the Founding Fathers' revolutionary arguments and emboldened commentators such as Mark Twain (aka Samuel Langhorne Clemens) to criticize common ignorance.
Last April, in MacIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, the US Supreme Court reaffirmed that the First Amendment protects the right to anonymous speech. Anonymity, the court reasoned, helps speech stay free. Focusing on political speech - the sort of speech that lies at the core of the First Amendment - the MacIntyre ruling stipulated that restrictions on anonymous political speech must be narrowly tailored and serve an over-riding state interest. "
It has wings - just upside down - for the downforce needed to make it stable. From TFA:
But wouldn't it have been easier to just add 398 lbs. of extra metal? Serious question. Is downforce from the spoiler(wing) that much better than extra metal?
Good call on X. That belongs on both he MSwindows&linux side. It sucks using MSwindows without having Xwindows.
I guess for tcsh I was just thinking windows / solaris / etc.
You're totally right 10 is too small. I think the guy who said he does the whole cygwin package is on the right track.
Or, just "cp /dev/hda /dev/hdc".
And yes, I have heard about 'dd'. cp works just fine