No offense KidSock, but I think that's not going to work.
Why? Because let's say I invent a new item that is a vast improvement on a very succesful product already on the market. Now let's say I patent that idea and set up my own company to make these new items.
ItemCorp then sees what I'm doing and does its best to ensure that I do not profit in any way for 2 years - dirty tricks, advertisement flooding anything. 2 years later, I'm broke, and the expensive renewal beyond me - now ItemCorp simply steps in and uses my idea without me being able to do anything about it.
These are all scary terms to be throwing around. Especially when we add another scary term "precedence". it's tempting to say oh, it's gay porn - of course we should redirect, but if we set a precedent, then a commercial company can start redirecting us with opt-out rather than opt-in clicks.
Who's got an ISP with Republican/Democrat/People's progressive party for democratic Communism leanings? Or owned by Microsoft?
There's the problem. Microsoft has someone to do that. "Someone" who is willing to send out threatening letters to MS product users on behalf of the OpenSource community will be hard to find (or hard to pay for)
This may not be the evolutionary step that we took it for.
just because it's a monkey doesn't mean it's any more meaningful then if a A dog started doing it, and no-one suggests that we evolved from dogs, or that dogs are going to start walking around on two legs
How many democracies are older than 200 years? How many governmental structures have survived 200 years? Bridges may last that long, but 200 years ago, Ireland was a very different place. America was a very different place, England was a very different place (see Ireland and America for why;) ) as a matter of fact, EVERYWHERE was very very different
200 years ago, the Americans loved the french for helping them in the civil war, the english hated the americans as barbarians, the Irish as "Paddies" and the Irish hated the english. The English hated the French..... Come to think of it - only some things change.
Back to the point - Software, or those parts of it that do qualify as societal infrastructure will have to change, simply to keep up with the rate of societal change and anything that lasts for 200 years is a very fundamental tool indeed.
He might just know that the average desktop user is not going to buy Linux for any reason other than to use the software that has been produced for it. In that case - they are trying to dominate with Office.NET, directx (XNA) etc. and don't give a damn how good Linux is.
This sounds right for a slashdot - "Let's produce stuff that is great for the user experience" harangue. But It's not something I think that grass-roots is producing (See previous arguments about StarOffice just cloning MSOffice, Mono cloning.NET etc.)
It's not just a case of "stop pissing about" - you have to develop a system that is 1)Unbelievably simple to use 2)COMPLETELY secure 3)Leaves a completely correct and permanent trail for recounting 4)Relatively cheap to roll out
Never mind that paper voting has never been all 3 above, a voting system has to be extremely good to be accepted by people who know the only true power we have over our government is our ability to vote for or against them.
Systems with that kind of quality are NEVER easy to implement. Ask anybody who develops OS's used in Nuclear Power Plants. Or people who have to go through QA for mobile phone system control software
Good point, being Irish - this hits quite close to home
But unless you allow Texas their independence, and then invade them - you won't have a similar situation. which leads us back to training. Train the living bejaysus out of them, because if they don't have experience, it's the only advantage they can gain.
Mainly my point was that people are going to start worrying about the use of technology in warfare - if that's the case, then worry about uranium depleted shells and self-healing landmines (I won't even link to the pages that describe these). Training a young soldier how not to get shot in the streets, and how not to shoot the first person with strange apparel on their heads is a pretty good use of technology as far as I can see.
That said, I am trusting that they are training how to think and not shoot.
Why worry that we now have a "new toy" to train soldiers?
Humanity has been using war games to train soldiers since the time of sparta. Then, as now, the aim was not to sharpen the fighting skills, but the thinking skills.
My feelings on the war in Baghdad aside, I feel happier that the soldiers being sent into the streets of baghdad will feel less nervous, and therefore less trigger happy
A well trained Army is not a more blood-thirsty army, as a matter of fact, the opposite is porbably true.
Aside from the pun, the camera can be linked to a sorting device - so that it can.... what? NOT dump the fish? Also, this reduces the waste to... 25% - down from 33% - not a gigantic saving. Every little bit helps.
All in all, short on detail, and how it will reduce waste, lets see them sort the fish and reject the unwanted ones BEFORE the die from exhaustion on board
Of course you're going to want not to divulge information about yourself if you perceive yourself to be abnormal. Doesn't sound very intriguing.
The consequences of this though, on a study ofwill mean that "perceived" normality will tend to be the one that gets the highest stats. This COULD mean that actual normality is less normal than perceived according to a questionnaire - reinforcing the perceived norms/abnorms.
If people can throw their hands in the air and say "The trojan did it", then the law will change to catch the paedophiles who are using it as an excuse.
If it becomes popular to do so, and easy to get off if that is the case (and it seems like it might be, I'd hate to have a court disbelieve me if a trojan downloaded kiddie porn to my computer) - then who gets the blame?
This might lend some power to the palladium protocol (nothing's impregnable, but the guff is pretty air-tight) - "get rid of all viruses and trojans" - can now be replaced with "protect your children from being brutalized and their pictures sold to sickos all over the world while you rot in jail forever"?
There was a young poet from essex
Who tried to get poems to have sex
He generated 'em random,
mutated and culled them,
But then we went and slashdotted his competer
I liked the answers, and the fact that they pulled out 2 questions to answer from the unsubmitted ones. All in all, though...... smooth and political. The people involved in large legal issues like this are professional and capable, it's funny how different it can be to the slightly more... emotional opinions to be found on slashdot.
It's interesting that these two different worlds are engaging in dialogue
You may not have the choice. What if you wanted to join the army? What if you needed it to get a job (in the scary world that many predict).
What indeed, if you needed to submit to DNA testing to get a government ID card so that you could get basic services?
I have no idea if we're going that way - but that case is completely different to the case under discussion... they did not use the DNA except as a fingerprint substitute
DNA was used in this case to catalogue, not used to identify traits about the person (ostensibly, let's not go all X-files on it) - and only released when there was a criminal investigation.
As a matter of fact, this all sounds rather grown-up and useful, some static information which is never used until you're accused of a crime, and then only to match you up. I only get worried when it's used to identify your genetic makeup for making decisions on how you live your life (commercial and government).
This is just like using DNA instead of fingerprints
'We anticipate that these patents and our technology solutions will encourage large groups of corporations to become customers of Mirror Image services'
It's the technology that should be getting the customers, not the patents, it's this kind of attitude (we're using patents to encourage customers - read FUD) that leads to forgetting why patents are there, to allow you to enjoy the benefit of the attractiveness of your INVENTION, not the attractiveness of your patent
I saw a program where another professor (I find this a bit confusing - professor in America is a lecturer right? In Ireland Professor is reeeeaaaallll high up the food chain), tried to prove that the Incas used giant mirrors to create temperatures high enough to melt rock and create the perfect fitting buildings they have
He failed to ignite a small stick, and sounded utterly unconvincing.... and mad.
While I know the babylonians had batteries and the Incas were well and truly advanced, there are nutters proposing all sorts of things. It probably IS a code - but perhaps one like the hanky code (only example I could think of sorry), where the colors signified entire concepts rather than some sort of grammar.
In summation: this guy could oh so easily be a wacko
Perhaps not, it's telling that the things that are popular are not microsoft, and a product that was helped was MBFGW.
Rather than this revolutionising the current marketplace, it instead opens up a new one, based around the interests of people who have access to information, and can create their own reviews. So Open Source, and small-budget but high quality productions will do much better than they would in the "real world"
It's only when we have no choice in the matter that "dumbing down occurs" - which alienates a section of the populace that don't benefit from blandness - they turn somewhere else - the internet.
It's an R-Rated movie, people are not bringing their kids to see it for the 13th time. That's the big difference between this and attack of the scones and spiderman.
How many adults went to see spiderman 5 times? How many kids saw it multiple times? How many teenage girls saw titanic 100 times? You reach a more adult audience, you reach an audience who will mull over it and buy it on DVD.
"sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare" could also mean "I know people are coming together to make music against me":))
Instead, you mutually annihilate, creating a fairly large explosion, depending on how much anti-water you drink - or in this case self-immolate with:))
Though, if you're really REALLY thirsty, the burning dying sensations are similar.
remember... it's like the seperate olympics idea... one that does drugs, one that doesn't. No-one wants to win the drugged-up-to-my-eyeballs drooling orange-eyed, dead at 30 olympics... we want to win the clean one. So we cheat at it.
Similarly, a lot of these cheaters don't want to lose against other cheaters, they want to beat people, and then laugh at them.
There are various kinds of cheaters remember, from the ones that want to challenge the system to the ones that sell simulated money for real on e-bay. I believe most get most pleasure/money etc. from cheating and causing harm to honest players.
Slashdot Mirror
No offense KidSock, but I think that's not going to work.
Why? Because let's say I invent a new item that is a vast improvement on a very succesful product already on the market. Now let's say I patent that idea and set up my own company to make these new items.
ItemCorp then sees what I'm doing and does its best to ensure that I do not profit in any way for 2 years - dirty tricks, advertisement flooding anything. 2 years later, I'm broke, and the expensive renewal beyond me - now ItemCorp simply steps in and uses my idea without me being able to do anything about it.
Or even..
IP in YOUR computer
"virtually everyone's"
"best interests"
"vast minority" (oxymoron?)
These are all scary terms to be throwing around. Especially when we add another scary term "precedence". it's tempting to say oh, it's gay porn - of course we should redirect, but if we set a precedent, then a commercial company can start redirecting us with opt-out rather than opt-in clicks.
Who's got an ISP with Republican/Democrat/People's progressive party for democratic Communism leanings? Or owned by Microsoft?
There's the problem. Microsoft has someone to do that. "Someone" who is willing to send out threatening letters to MS product users on behalf of the OpenSource community will be hard to find (or hard to pay for)
This may not be the evolutionary step that we took it for.
just because it's a monkey doesn't mean it's any more meaningful then if a A dog started doing it, and no-one suggests that we evolved from dogs, or that dogs are going to start walking around on two legs
Societal infrastructure is the key part here.
;) ) as a matter of fact, EVERYWHERE was very very different
..... Come to think of it - only some things change.
How many democracies are older than 200 years? How many governmental structures have survived 200 years? Bridges may last that long, but 200 years ago, Ireland was a very different place. America was a very different place, England was a very different place (see Ireland and America for why
200 years ago, the Americans loved the french for helping them in the civil war, the english hated the americans as barbarians, the Irish as "Paddies" and the Irish hated the english. The English hated the French
Back to the point - Software, or those parts of it that do qualify as societal infrastructure will have to change, simply to keep up with the rate of societal change and anything that lasts for 200 years is a very fundamental tool indeed.
Not necessarily,
.NET, directx (XNA) etc. and don't give a damn how good Linux is.
.NET etc.)
He might just know that the average desktop user is not going to buy Linux for any reason other than to use the software that has been produced for it.
In that case - they are trying to dominate with Office
This sounds right for a slashdot - "Let's produce stuff that is great for the user experience" harangue. But It's not something I think that grass-roots is producing (See previous arguments about StarOffice just cloning MSOffice, Mono cloning
I have to disagree with this
It's not just a case of "stop pissing about" - you have to develop a system that is
1)Unbelievably simple to use
2)COMPLETELY secure
3)Leaves a completely correct and permanent trail for recounting
4)Relatively cheap to roll out
Never mind that paper voting has never been all 3 above, a voting system has to be extremely good to be accepted by people who know the only true power we have over our government is our ability to vote for or against them.
Systems with that kind of quality are NEVER easy to implement. Ask anybody who develops OS's used in Nuclear Power Plants. Or people who have to go through QA for mobile phone system control software
Good point, being Irish - this hits quite close to home
But unless you allow Texas their independence, and then invade them - you won't have a similar situation. which leads us back to training. Train the living bejaysus out of them, because if they don't have experience, it's the only advantage they can gain.
Mainly my point was that people are going to start worrying about the use of technology in warfare - if that's the case, then worry about uranium depleted shells and self-healing landmines (I won't even link to the pages that describe these). Training a young soldier how not to get shot in the streets, and how not to shoot the first person with strange apparel on their heads is a pretty good use of technology as far as I can see.
That said, I am trusting that they are training how to think and not shoot.
Why worry that we now have a "new toy" to train soldiers?
Humanity has been using war games to train soldiers since the time of sparta. Then, as now, the aim was not to sharpen the fighting skills, but the thinking skills.
My feelings on the war in Baghdad aside, I feel happier that the soldiers being sent into the streets of baghdad will feel less nervous, and therefore less trigger happy
A well trained Army is not a more blood-thirsty army, as a matter of fact, the opposite is porbably true.
Aside from the pun, the camera can be linked to a sorting device - so that it can .... what? NOT dump the fish? Also, this reduces the waste to ... 25% - down from 33% - not a gigantic saving. Every little bit helps.
All in all, short on detail, and how it will reduce waste, lets see them sort the fish and reject the unwanted ones BEFORE the die from exhaustion on board
Of course you're going to want not to divulge information about yourself if you perceive yourself to be abnormal. Doesn't sound very intriguing.
The consequences of this though, on a study ofwill mean that "perceived" normality will tend to be the one that gets the highest stats. This COULD mean that actual normality is less normal than perceived according to a questionnaire - reinforcing the perceived norms/abnorms.
Try sending an SMS to another phone with just the text 'P' in it.
It sends your current address (accuracy depends on city/county you're in)
If people can throw their hands in the air and say "The trojan did it", then the law will change to catch the paedophiles who are using it as an excuse.
If it becomes popular to do so, and easy to get off if that is the case (and it seems like it might be, I'd hate to have a court disbelieve me if a trojan downloaded kiddie porn to my computer) - then who gets the blame?
This might lend some power to the palladium protocol (nothing's impregnable, but the guff is pretty air-tight) - "get rid of all viruses and trojans" - can now be replaced with "protect your children from being brutalized and their pictures sold to sickos all over the world while you rot in jail forever"?
There was a young poet from essex
Who tried to get poems to have sex
He generated 'em random,
mutated and culled them,
But then we went and slashdotted his competer
Anybody got a mate for a lonely limerick?
Well, I'm glad you asked that question
That's an interesting question
You're quite right
I liked the answers, and the fact that they pulled out 2 questions to answer from the unsubmitted ones. All in all, though...... smooth and political. The people involved in large legal issues like this are professional and capable, it's funny how different it can be to the slightly more... emotional opinions to be found on slashdot.
It's interesting that these two different worlds are engaging in dialogue
You may not have the choice. What if you wanted to join the army? What if you needed it to get a job (in the scary world that many predict).
What indeed, if you needed to submit to DNA testing to get a government ID card so that you could get basic services?
I have no idea if we're going that way - but that case is completely different to the case under discussion... they did not use the DNA except as a fingerprint substitute
This doesn't seem too bad.
DNA was used in this case to catalogue, not used to identify traits about the person (ostensibly, let's not go all X-files on it) - and only released when there was a criminal investigation.
As a matter of fact, this all sounds rather grown-up and useful, some static information which is never used until you're accused of a crime, and then only to match you up. I only get worried when it's used to identify your genetic makeup for making decisions on how you live your life (commercial and government).
This is just like using DNA instead of fingerprints
How about some suggestions: I'll kick start y'all Indiana jones and his old bones Indiana jones and jar-jar: the early years
'We anticipate that these patents and our technology solutions will encourage large groups of corporations to become customers of Mirror Image services'
It's the technology that should be getting the customers, not the patents, it's this kind of attitude (we're using patents to encourage customers - read FUD) that leads to forgetting why patents are there, to allow you to enjoy the benefit of the attractiveness of your INVENTION, not the attractiveness of your patent
I saw a program where another professor (I find this a bit confusing - professor in America is a lecturer right? In Ireland Professor is reeeeaaaallll high up the food chain), tried to prove that the Incas used giant mirrors to create temperatures high enough to melt rock and create the perfect fitting buildings they have
.... and mad.
He failed to ignite a small stick, and sounded utterly unconvincing
While I know the babylonians had batteries and the Incas were well and truly advanced, there are nutters proposing all sorts of things. It probably IS a code - but perhaps one like the hanky code (only example I could think of sorry), where the colors signified entire concepts rather than some sort of grammar.
In summation: this guy could oh so easily be a wacko
Perhaps not, it's telling that the things that are popular are not microsoft, and a product that was helped was MBFGW.
Rather than this revolutionising the current marketplace, it instead opens up a new one, based around the interests of people who have access to information, and can create their own reviews. So Open Source, and small-budget but high quality productions will do much better than they would in the "real world"
It's only when we have no choice in the matter that "dumbing down occurs" - which alienates a section of the populace that don't benefit from blandness - they turn somewhere else - the internet.
It's an R-Rated movie, people are not bringing their kids to see it for the 13th time. That's the big difference between this and attack of the scones and spiderman. How many adults went to see spiderman 5 times? How many kids saw it multiple times? How many teenage girls saw titanic 100 times? You reach a more adult audience, you reach an audience who will mull over it and buy it on DVD. "sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare" could also mean "I know people are coming together to make music against me" :))
Instead, you mutually annihilate, creating a fairly large explosion, depending on how much anti-water you drink - or in this case self-immolate with :))
Though, if you're really REALLY thirsty, the burning dying sensations are similar.
"HaXorz RUlez!!! I Ownz U".
etc.
etc.
etc.
remember... it's like the seperate olympics idea... one that does drugs, one that doesn't. No-one wants to win the drugged-up-to-my-eyeballs drooling orange-eyed, dead at 30 olympics... we want to win the clean one. So we cheat at it.
Similarly, a lot of these cheaters don't want to lose against other cheaters, they want to beat people, and then laugh at them.
There are various kinds of cheaters remember, from the ones that want to challenge the system to the ones that sell simulated money for real on e-bay. I believe most get most pleasure/money etc. from cheating and causing harm to honest players.