Thanks... That super-religious cartoon was hilarious. The ironic humor in it was wonderfully done, especially the assumption that witchcraft was real and that D+D would cause someone to become a witch. The whole "Jesus will save you" thing from that random guy (what was he, a boyfriend?) was precious.
I agree. Kids are active little buggers, and get into everything from fights to "jumping off roof" contests. Plus there's the chance another kid will steal or destroy your kid's laptop (especially here in the U.S. where middle and high school are fairly darwinian and horrible).
When I have kids, I'm going to get them ONE PC, and it's going to go in the living room; while they work, the wife and I will be able to keep an eye on them to make sure they're not up to no good (or in contact with someone who is).
When they get to college, I'll get them something rugged and powerful, like a Panasonic Toughbook. On Ebay, so if it gets stolen I can replace it easily enough.
Well, it seems to me that AJAX solves the same exact problem as Java applets. Since Java applets didn't really change anything for desktop O/S'es, I think it's unlikely AJAX will, either.
It's just going to give us a nice additional tool for web development, and make web pages a lot more responsive. Which isn't anything to sniff at, of course.
Chill. The future's brighter than you think. People are willing to pay to be flung up into space, even though that might result in a fiery death. Therefore, private industry will figure out a way to fling them up there.
You can't fight commerce, at least not in the U.$.A.
Heh heh heh... Yeah, the company I was in had one too. He got the idea from Bill Joy, who was his hero (I think).
I seem to remember this was one of the big dot-com things to do, anoint people with weird titles. I spent a few months as a "parsing engineer" (which basically meant I was a perl hacker who parsed and fetched web content for syndication... I found it hilariously pretentious).
Windows software SEEMS to install "pretty easily these days" but in the process of installing it usually copies a bunch of dlls to the Windows system directory. Over time, these dlls tend to clobber each other, produce subtle incompatabilities, etc, and Windows' performance decreases. Sometimes there are crashes, BSODs, etc. Sometimes installing one app kills another one.
Eventually the person gets totally fed up and either reinstalls Windows or chucks it all and downloads Slackware.
Ah, but did you develop talent because you found them so interesting and worked so hard? Or did you find them interesting and work so hard because you managed to discover a talent you didn't know you possessed?
It's kind of taboo in our supposedly non-elitist society to say such things, but that doesn't make them untrue.
A person can go to harvard, spend a hundred thousand dollars on his education, and still be a talentless hack. I know; I've met that guy (No, N---, I'm not talking about you, don't freak out).
On the other hand, another person can go to a cheap, never-heard-of-it public school, and write good software effortlessly and quickly, on a level hacks can't even approach. It comes natural to a person like this.
Talent can't be taught. It can't be bought. It either is or it isn't present.
Uh, sorry, nope, wrongo. The first civilian craft to get up into/beyond the stratosphere has already done so and come back safely, and Virgin Atlantic is going to build a fleet of similar craft and start throwing rich people up into the sky. Hell, it was reported HERE, on/. Maybe you were on vacation that day...
Keep an eye on this. It's going to be a big deal in a few years.
Hey, that's kind of interesting. I like the separation between manned and cargo type craft, both of which use the same type of booster. Looks like a good idea all around.
So, you're a rocket scientist, eh? That's really cool.
I don't see why they don't use the technology they used to use in the Apollo missions; a nice space capsule on top of a heavy-lifting rocket. It seems to be working pretty well for the Russians, right?
And it seems to me that those capsules were a little bit safer than the shuttles.
Can't they use capsules until the civilian companies perfect their plane-to-orbiter technology? Or would that be too embarassing for NASA?
Put several ethernet plugs along a long table so that people can plug their laptops in (for a fee). Set up a router that offers port 80 access, maybe POP3, maybe FTP (but leaves no other ports open).
The router is a Linux box. When a user starts his session, you call a script "startUser" which does an ifup on the ethernet card he's connected to, then crontabs bringing the ethernet card back down after a half hour, or hour, or whatever. If the user pays for more time, you run startUser again, and it extends the crontab time limit.
It's simple, it isn't possible to freeload, and it keeps people away from the seats reserved for COFFEE customers.
I agree with you as far as HOME computing goes. However, in business computing, terminals are better. I just interviewed with a state agency that was rolling out interesting smart terminals to hundreds of users across the state. Because they connected to a central server, the users couldn't install their own software, adware, malware, etc, also updates to the business apps were automatic. It's going to reduce tech support hassles enormously. Cheaper than regular PCs, too.
A side "benefit" (although I personally wasn't crazy about this) is that users can't effectively have any fun at work, so (theoretically) they'll get more work done. I dunno, though; it seems to me that a network connection is a sufficient condition for fun to occur.
Unix and C were invented together in the early seventies, '73, I think. The basic ideas behind unix haven't changed in all that time, they've just been incrementally improved, because it was designed from the get-go to be multiuser and networked.
Linux and BSD are the latest, greatest implementations of the best theoretical OS design ever created. I think they're only going to get better.
Yeah, no shit. And it's always the same utopian bullshit that ignores the salient facts:
1. People want to be able to use their computer whether they're connected to the web or not.
2. Not everybody even HAS an internet connection. And some people use their computers far from any network connections, like biologists collecting data, etc.
3. It's ridiculous to try and shove EVERYTHING over a skinny little network cable, and really inefficient besides.
What's much more likely is, you'll continue to have an O/S (just like today) and the network will provide the communications layer (just like today). It's the way it is because it's already optimal. If it wasn't optimal, they would have already changed it.
I'm not saying things aren't going to be amazing and interesting in the future, I'm just saying that the general form computers and networks have taken is pretty much optimal already. What I think is coming is improvement on what we have, not a complete change.
I see us having access to a lot more useful information as search systems get better. I see us having much, much better entertainment. I see virtually all public services being integrated with the network, so that you can do just about everything without leaving your couch (except work -- bosses want to be able to scream at you, it's a psychological thing). I see O/S manufacturers finally getting their crap together and securing their systems.
But "the network is the computer"??? Ha! In a pig's eye!
I didn't say you'd be POOR, I said you'd be SURPRISED.
The reason you economists get paid so well is that you've conned the business community into thinking you actually know what you're talking about. You wave a pretty degree in their faces, you wear a "power suit" and good shoes, and like a cobra mesmerized by a flute-playing swami, they sign your checks and do as you bid.
It's fine with me; I think the whole thing is hilarious, and I hope your scam doesn't get found out. Suits have too much money anyway.
I'll leave you with a thought: you spend all your time studying and obsessing over the movement of worthless little pieces of paper, IOU's, really. Isn't it funny? Little bits of paper. And you work your ass off shuffling them around for people who are even MORE obsessed with them.
Meanwhile, I (who make just slightly less than you, actually and truly) only have to work 40 hours a week and don't think about those pieces of paper for one instant longer than I have to.
You hoard and shuffle them, I get rid of them (trading them for physical things immediately).
Let's set economics aside, because I don't consider it a science (I consider it a combination of wishful and magical thinking, derived from generalizations and simplifications economists shouldn't have made in the first place, that ONLY exists because so many in the business world agree to it as a sort of consensual delusion).
Let's talk about what REALLY HAPPENS when someone buys something.
Joe wants to buy a widget. Now, he thinks, it'd be nice to have this widget, but it's not a life or death thing, so I figure, maybe I'll spend ten bucks. If it's more than that, it isn't worth it, I'll get some plastic and make my own (or something, it's open-ended at this point).
So, Joe goes to store #1. He sees a widget for fifty bucks, and thinks "Fifty bucks! Fifty bucks! I can get a blowjob for fifty bucks! What are they, nuts?" and he leaves.
He goes to store #2. He sees a widget for twenty bucks. That's closer, but still a little pricey. He leaves.
He checks out Home Depot. He can get the materials to make his OWN widget for eight bucks, but it'll take a couple of hours. He decides to think this over, and checks online.
Online, he finds out he can order a widget for a total of ten bucks, but it'll take two weeks.
Now, will he buy online and wait for it to be delivered, or spend a couple of hours making his own widget? Or will he chuck the whole thing and live widget-less?
I say again. People will ONLY spend what they think something is worth, NOT what you're willing to sell it for. If your item is too expensive, people will either find an alternative, build their own workaround, or give up entirely.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks... That super-religious cartoon was hilarious. The ironic humor in it was wonderfully done, especially the assumption that witchcraft was real and that D+D would cause someone to become a witch. The whole "Jesus will save you" thing from that random guy (what was he, a boyfriend?) was precious.
Who does these? I love a good satire.
He was no ordinary slacker! He was a slacker MASTER.
We should erect some kind of monument, I think. Just let me finish this game...
Whatever it was, I bet he died happy. He probably totally pwned his opponent, stuck both his arms up, yelled "W00T" and passed out.
I hope I go out that way... It's beautiful, man. Heroic, even.
I agree. Kids are active little buggers, and get into everything from fights to "jumping off roof" contests. Plus there's the chance another kid will steal or destroy your kid's laptop (especially here in the U.S. where middle and high school are fairly darwinian and horrible).
When I have kids, I'm going to get them ONE PC, and it's going to go in the living room; while they work, the wife and I will be able to keep an eye on them to make sure they're not up to no good (or in contact with someone who is).
When they get to college, I'll get them something rugged and powerful, like a Panasonic Toughbook. On Ebay, so if it gets stolen I can replace it easily enough.
That's my thinking, anyway...
Well, it seems to me that AJAX solves the same exact problem as Java applets. Since Java applets didn't really change anything for desktop O/S'es, I think it's unlikely AJAX will, either.
It's just going to give us a nice additional tool for web development, and make web pages a lot more responsive. Which isn't anything to sniff at, of course.
Thanks... That was some of the funniest stuff I've seen all week. You've made my whole weekend. :)
Chill. The future's brighter than you think. People are willing to pay to be flung up into space, even though that might result in a fiery death. Therefore, private industry will figure out a way to fling them up there.
You can't fight commerce, at least not in the U.$.A.
Heh heh heh... Yeah, the company I was in had one too. He got the idea from Bill Joy, who was his hero (I think).
I seem to remember this was one of the big dot-com things to do, anoint people with weird titles. I spent a few months as a "parsing engineer" (which basically meant I was a perl hacker who parsed and fetched web content for syndication... I found it hilariously pretentious).
Windows software SEEMS to install "pretty easily these days" but in the process of installing it usually copies a bunch of dlls to the Windows system directory. Over time, these dlls tend to clobber each other, produce subtle incompatabilities, etc, and Windows' performance decreases. Sometimes there are crashes, BSODs, etc. Sometimes installing one app kills another one.
Eventually the person gets totally fed up and either reinstalls Windows or chucks it all and downloads Slackware.
Ah, but did you develop talent because you found them so interesting and worked so hard? Or did you find them interesting and work so hard because you managed to discover a talent you didn't know you possessed?
Yes, but even consultants who have NO comp.sci degree and took a VB boot camp are calling themselves "software engineers".
Titles are meaningless now.
Hire a small number of very good programmers, give them a reasonable, flexible deadline, and let them really pull out all the stops.
"Talent matters".
It's kind of taboo in our supposedly non-elitist society to say such things, but that doesn't make them untrue.
A person can go to harvard, spend a hundred thousand dollars on his education, and still be a talentless hack. I know; I've met that guy (No, N---, I'm not talking about you, don't freak out).
On the other hand, another person can go to a cheap, never-heard-of-it public school, and write good software effortlessly and quickly, on a level hacks can't even approach. It comes natural to a person like this.
Talent can't be taught. It can't be bought. It either is or it isn't present.
Again, I know this is a huge taboo these days.
But it's still true.
Uh, sorry, nope, wrongo. The first civilian craft to get up into/beyond the stratosphere has already done so and come back safely, and Virgin Atlantic is going to build a fleet of similar craft and start throwing rich people up into the sky. Hell, it was reported HERE, on /. Maybe you were on vacation that day...
Keep an eye on this. It's going to be a big deal in a few years.
Tell it to Virgin Atlantic. They've already got a business model put together, and a tested spacecraft, besides.
Hey, that's kind of interesting. I like the separation between manned and cargo type craft, both of which use the same type of booster. Looks like a good idea all around.
So, you're a rocket scientist, eh? That's really cool.
I don't see why they don't use the technology they used to use in the Apollo missions; a nice space capsule on top of a heavy-lifting rocket. It seems to be working pretty well for the Russians, right?
And it seems to me that those capsules were a little bit safer than the shuttles.
Can't they use capsules until the civilian companies perfect their plane-to-orbiter technology? Or would that be too embarassing for NASA?
Put several ethernet plugs along a long table so that people can plug their laptops in (for a fee). Set up a router that offers port 80 access, maybe POP3, maybe FTP (but leaves no other ports open).
The router is a Linux box. When a user starts his session, you call a script "startUser" which does an ifup on the ethernet card he's connected to, then crontabs bringing the ethernet card back down after a half hour, or hour, or whatever. If the user pays for more time, you run startUser again, and it extends the crontab time limit.
It's simple, it isn't possible to freeload, and it keeps people away from the seats reserved for COFFEE customers.
I agree with you as far as HOME computing goes. However, in business computing, terminals are better. I just interviewed with a state agency that was rolling out interesting smart terminals to hundreds of users across the state. Because they connected to a central server, the users couldn't install their own software, adware, malware, etc, also updates to the business apps were automatic. It's going to reduce tech support hassles enormously. Cheaper than regular PCs, too.
A side "benefit" (although I personally wasn't crazy about this) is that users can't effectively have any fun at work, so (theoretically) they'll get more work done. I dunno, though; it seems to me that a network connection is a sufficient condition for fun to occur.
No thank you. I just want some nekkid Japanese porn.
Movies.Yahoo.Com in 2015:
User: "Hey, M.Y.C, what do you think about this new superhero flick?"
MYC: "I've seen it, it's rubbish."
User: "Wait a minute, you're supposed to give movie reviews."
MYC: "A brain the size of a planet, and I'm reduced to this. Oh, the mechanity!"
User: "Man, you suck."
MYC: "Oh, sure, pick on the computer. It's the way of things. I'm so depressed."
User: "Sigh..."
MYC: "Is there anything else I can help you with? They won't let me do anything else, you know..."
Unix and C were invented together in the early seventies, '73, I think. The basic ideas behind unix haven't changed in all that time, they've just been incrementally improved, because it was designed from the get-go to be multiuser and networked.
Linux and BSD are the latest, greatest implementations of the best theoretical OS design ever created. I think they're only going to get better.
Yeah, no shit. And it's always the same utopian bullshit that ignores the salient facts:
1. People want to be able to use their computer whether they're connected to the web or not.
2. Not everybody even HAS an internet connection. And some people use their computers far from any network connections, like biologists collecting data, etc.
3. It's ridiculous to try and shove EVERYTHING over a skinny little network cable, and really inefficient besides.
What's much more likely is, you'll continue to have an O/S (just like today) and the network will provide the communications layer (just like today). It's the way it is because it's already optimal. If it wasn't optimal, they would have already changed it.
I'm not saying things aren't going to be amazing and interesting in the future, I'm just saying that the general form computers and networks have taken is pretty much optimal already. What I think is coming is improvement on what we have, not a complete change.
I see us having access to a lot more useful information as search systems get better. I see us having much, much better entertainment. I see virtually all public services being integrated with the network, so that you can do just about everything without leaving your couch (except work -- bosses want to be able to scream at you, it's a psychological thing). I see O/S manufacturers finally getting their crap together and securing their systems.
But "the network is the computer"??? Ha! In a pig's eye!
I didn't say you'd be POOR, I said you'd be SURPRISED.
The reason you economists get paid so well is that you've conned the business community into thinking you actually know what you're talking about. You wave a pretty degree in their faces, you wear a "power suit" and good shoes, and like a cobra mesmerized by a flute-playing swami, they sign your checks and do as you bid.
It's fine with me; I think the whole thing is hilarious, and I hope your scam doesn't get found out. Suits have too much money anyway.
I'll leave you with a thought: you spend all your time studying and obsessing over the movement of worthless little pieces of paper, IOU's, really. Isn't it funny? Little bits of paper. And you work your ass off shuffling them around for people who are even MORE obsessed with them.
Meanwhile, I (who make just slightly less than you, actually and truly) only have to work 40 hours a week and don't think about those pieces of paper for one instant longer than I have to.
You hoard and shuffle them, I get rid of them (trading them for physical things immediately).
Tomato, tomahto, eh?
Let's set economics aside, because I don't consider it a science (I consider it a combination of wishful and magical thinking, derived from generalizations and simplifications economists shouldn't have made in the first place, that ONLY exists because so many in the business world agree to it as a sort of consensual delusion).
Let's talk about what REALLY HAPPENS when someone buys something.
Joe wants to buy a widget. Now, he thinks, it'd be nice to have this widget, but it's not a life or death thing, so I figure, maybe I'll spend ten bucks. If it's more than that, it isn't worth it, I'll get some plastic and make my own (or something, it's open-ended at this point).
So, Joe goes to store #1. He sees a widget for fifty bucks, and thinks "Fifty bucks! Fifty bucks! I can get a blowjob for fifty bucks! What are they, nuts?" and he leaves.
He goes to store #2. He sees a widget for twenty bucks. That's closer, but still a little pricey. He leaves.
He checks out Home Depot. He can get the materials to make his OWN widget for eight bucks, but it'll take a couple of hours. He decides to think this over, and checks online.
Online, he finds out he can order a widget for a total of ten bucks, but it'll take two weeks.
Now, will he buy online and wait for it to be delivered, or spend a couple of hours making his own widget? Or will he chuck the whole thing and live widget-less?
I say again. People will ONLY spend what they think something is worth, NOT what you're willing to sell it for. If your item is too expensive, people will either find an alternative, build their own workaround, or give up entirely.
Oh, and people downloading? That's a workaround.