"The current theories which are based on current axioms are *right*. However, according to Godel, there are theorems that can not be proved with current axioms. So mathematics is indeed about truth and it is based on axioms, which I believe are on very firm ground currently"
Current mathematical theories are right in the sense that if you posit their axioms then their conclusions follow logically via a mechanical procedure of proof. If the axioms are true in a model, the theorems are too. I didn't mean to cast doubt on that.
But prior to Godel many mathematicians felt that there was one true axiom set for number theory that could be used to deduce any true property of numbers. Godel showed that this was not correct, true statements of number theory exist not provable from any particular set of consistent axioms. Mathematics cannot settle truth in the domain of numbers, it can only validate that conclusions are based on assumptions correctly. It is up to us to pick our axioms, for our particular needs at the time.
To bring it home, there are competing theories of real numbers. One theory includes infintesimally small numbers, the other doesn't. It is meaningless to ask which is true, the question is which is more useful. Since infintesimals essentially eliminate tedious epsilon-delta proofs in calculus, there are some that think it a better theory of the reals. You only have time to teach one, which will it be? Just don't look to truth for the answer -- preconceptions about what a real number is play a large part in an answer.
Yes, of course math and science are different, but I wonder how fundamentally.
Mathematicians were at one point completely convinced (and some still are) that there is a Platonic reality that mathematics approaches in the same way science approaches physical reality. Impossible to get there, yet it somehow exists, waiting to be approximated.
Hints of this same question are appearing in physics in subtle ways. For example what is "reality" if its basic parts are probability waves? Is Schroedinger's cat dead or not? Perhaps reality isn't as definite as you think, but more a phenomenon of coherent observations. Once the wave collapses, all observers agree. Reality is at the least a little fuzzy on the smallest scales. Complete predictability may be to science what complete number theory is to mathematics.
I don't mean to imply that I personally think creationism coequal with evolution, BTW. I'm only maintaining that truth is a poor criterion to judge by, you can't even make it work with something as definite and simple as mathematics. Effectiveness is a more useful measurement and easier to apply. We should measure how much you have to assume versus how much you can explain to value a theory, not argue whether it's absolutely true or not.
Truth is a weak foundation. Mathematics is on no firmer ground than evolution. Godel and Tarski showed that mathematics isn't about truth, it's about logical relationships between statements. Your system is never any better than your axioms, and no finite set of axioms can ever suffice.
Just because evolution and creationism can't be proved true doesn't mean they're not useful. Note that the parallel postulate *or* its negation can be added to geometry and result in a consistent (i.e. useful) system. Hence the possibility of useful *and* conflicting theories is real. One is useful for planes, the other for curved surfaces.
The danger isn't in studying either evolution or creationism. It's in asserting that either is truth eternal or claiming that one necessarily negates the other. Both may be useful when applied to a system modelling their particular suppositions.
After studying them, my personal conclusion is that one is far more useful than the other because it requires far fewer assumptions. This seems to me a more rational basis for choice of what to teach in time limited classrooms, should such choice be necessary. Studying creationism can be valuable, if only to understand its assumptions.
Yup, sounds very familiar to me too. Not that I'd want a credit card -- I'm not good with money and fear what I could do with one:).
A nice service for Linuxfund to offer that would get me interested would be to offer a $0 limit credit card, no links to money, purely as a second identification card. As long as the credit industry is keeping all these records on me, can't I get *some* benefit from it at least?
Re:What Mozilla is (for those who don't know)
on
Mozilla M10 Released
·
· Score: 2
You're probably right that people aren't going to switch from IE on Windows in droves. The whole concept of downloading and installing software is foreign to much of the user base. And about one in ten times you try it, Windows stops working from DLL incompatibilities and you need to uninstall, or worse, re-install Windows. People learn to leave well enough alone. While IE is not perfect, it certainly works well enough. The best hope in that market is being able to convince system vendors to put a Mozilla icon on the desktop.
However, the situation for Linux and some other OSes isn't like that. I can easily see Mozilla rapidly capturing nearly all of that market. Then Mozilla gains market share as Linux does. This is enough of a presence to restrain incompatible web standards I hope.
"I have read The Mythical Man-Month myself and I agree with you to a certain point. However, I must be missing something here, if adding paid contractors or employees will only slow the project down, doesn't allowing anyone to see the source and contribute do the same thing? Whether the person is paid or not, donesn't adding additonal developers in any form do the same thing?"
This is an important point I think. A major thrust of ESR's CatB essay is that Linux violated Brooke's Law (from MMM), surprising a lot of people who thought they understood large software project management. This is what lead to the concept of a bazaar model. I believe the trick is that *when* the code is well organized and well written, new developers organize themselves and just start chipping in on corners of the code that interest them. The O(N**2) communication problem doesn't arise because not much communication is needed after some initial organizing and at patch submission times.
Netscape, unfortunately, had just suffered rapid expansion in a browser war and from what I hear was not in a sufficiently organized state to support bazaar development well. Hence rewriting was undertaken, and this does involve problems with communication scaling that could easily be predicted to take a while. I am hopeful for the results though. Often being written again after having made mistakes with a first version is the best thing that can happen to software.
I've seen too many software projects, including my own, take longer than expected. I'm not going to harass Mozilla over delays. When they release a stable beta I'll start forming an opinion and help as much as I can with feedback. Until then, I'm going to assume they know what they're about. If they don't, there's little I could say that would do much good in any case.
Hello, whats the problem again?
on
Dirty Domains
·
· Score: 2
What exactly is the problem with these domain names? Who is it that is injured if they are allowed to be registered?
There seems to be a notion that domain names can be divided into two subsets, offensive and acceptable. Across all languages and cultures. Perhaps they should submit the complete list for public approval first. Will they allow sexforkids.com? This smells like a bureaucracy where each new domain name has to pass thru a dozen cultural "experts" who measure it's offensiveness. No wonder it takes months.
You don't want to see offensive domain names? Then don't type them into your browser. If you're on a page with a link to one, chances are you're already offended. If your kid is typing in www.handjob.com, they could undoubtedly manage www.yahoo.com, and search from there for the same material. The domain name registrars should concentrate on proper syntax and leave the semantic checking to others.
Grade papers on content? My, what an asocial idea. That would encourage people to use logic, include references, and do thinking. Too dangerous, because it creates citizens that can resist their government and employers effectively. Really, it's better for everyone if they just test for vocabulary and spelling. We need to teach students how superficial society can be.
It's like having humans read resumes instead of computers searching for buzzwords. Seems like a good idea, but unsavory changes might result.
I agree with Tim O'Reilly quite a bit. There is truth in the statement that to maintain something you should oppose it. Also that a destructive focus is not sufficient, you have to create something new, not just rail against the old.
But, and it's a big but, ignoring Microsoft can't work until they no longer unfairly control the hardware and software markets. If merely being better than Microsoft was sufficient, BeOS would far more successful than it is today. We can and should ignore Microsoft on the day the following can be asserted with truth:
1) Hardware vendors are just as likely to create drivers for Linux as Microsoft.
2) System vendors can't be pressured successfully by Microsoft to avoid using competing products like Linux or Netscape.
3) Microsoft no longer dominates standards thru controlling the OS platform used by nearly everyone.
It would be nice if Microsoft just started playing fair. But I don't expect it. Rather I expect them to lie, cheat, and steal as necessary in an attempt to ensure dominance. Desperation is rarely pretty.
His point about web applications being the future is worth consideration. The advantages in making large databases like Amazon and Yahoo available that way are quite clear. I don't quite see the clarity of that view when it comes to editors, compilers, or games however -- though I could be wrong, I much prefer local programs on my own computer for those.
The other point he makes that is well worth considering is about the open nature of web development. Clay Shirkey did an excellent paper on this subject a while back. You may find many of the other papers on his page of interest as well.
Well written (except for a missing close bold tag anyway *g*) and fairly good at summarizing the various criticisms of open source. Unfortunately I don't see too much new thought, just an organization of some good points that have been made before.
I also don't agree with a lot of these points. For example, he makes a point of the dictatorial nature of many a group's management. There is a bit of a difference between authoritarian management and the normal usage of the word "dictatorship", in that this is dictatorship by consent. Leaders are delegated dictatorial powers by their group in the interests of efficiency. No guns are being pointed at developers heads. Dissenters can always fork their own version of the software should the power be actually abused. The dictators aren't rewarded disproportionately and often work a lot harder than most contributors.
He repeatedly refers to ESR's papers as "marxist." While they may be biased, it would be rather surprising to find marxist bias in the writings of an avowed libertarian-capitalist. I think this is clear evidence he wasn't able to completely parse what ESR was really saying. Or maybe ESR is a closet communist after all?
I think he's also a bit overly concerned with distro fragmentation. It *does* lead to irritating problems, but nearly always problems with solutions, and usually fairly simple ones. There is no doubt it can be done better, and I expect Linux will evolve to do so if the problems created become serious enough. The real concern here is that the response will likely be for the market leader to become the de facto standard. It might be better if the most functional and efficient distro layout triumphed. But, good enough often wins over better, and open source is not a solution to *that* problem.
As to open source not being a magic bullet, I think nearly everyone agrees, it's almost a straw man. Worth pointing it out one more time since some don't get it, but not exactly surprising.
The academic parallel is a worthwhile subject of study. Stephen Adler's Open-Source/Open-Science conference recently is clearly an indication that others have also noticed the similarity. But don't be too quick to conclude which side will learn more from the other. It's likely both can benefit.
You know, if someone donates the money to a charity I'll think very well of them. I agree with you that much.
Open source isn't about free beer though. It's about open access to the source for verification and modification. Freedom to innovate, as Microsoft would say. Nothing in the GPL prohibits charging for software, though obviously it makes it more difficult.
This confusion, that money is evil, and charging for software (or writing) a sin, is damaging. Hiding software bugs, leveraging protocols for monetary gain, those are evil, not money paid for honest work.
People have to live you know. I've been selling software for nearly 20 years. If you expect me to start giving it away to corporations and flipping hamburgers for a living soon, please think again.
Someday, when everyone's basic needs are all automatically supplied by self-repairing machines, you can rant against paying for value. Until then open source needs to remain a *gift* economy - things are freely given as and when the giver desires, not on demand.
I think you hit the nail pretty squarely there, it's the inappropriate use of technology that's at issue, and the problem is the impossibility of knowing the appropriateness of technology when it is introduced.
Advertising is not helping either, because it causes people to buy things they don't really need. Use of unneeded technology is very often inappropriate. We need consumer education on the differences between needing, wanting, and being suckered into. Compulsive buying anyone?
To mention another unforseen implication of cars, there is the exodus to the suburbs. That was supposedly about nice houses in nice places to raise kids, but again unexpectedly resulted in decay of our inner cities as well. That's the problem with technology, the side effects take years to become apparent, and can be profound.
Since we will not be able to stop technology I think we have to examine our response to it. I'd like to suggest that one aspect of this problem is the inflexibility of our social structures. Even though the problem of inner city decay has been apparent for years we seem unwilling or unable to do much about it. We need to be better at noticing when new technology is creating a problem and factoring the cost of corrective measures into the cost of use of that technology as soon as they appear. We need the *true* cost of each technology factored into supply and demand in order for the free market to converge to the best solution without government help.
When social programs aren't working we should -- *stop them* -- and try something else. Let's stop talking about what's the right thing to do, forever and always, and start looking at the most efficient response to current conditions. Including new technologies, as appropriate, in our calculations.
Yes, people should realize that comments in forums like this are effectively permanent. But that isn't the real problem. Even being careful about what you say may not suffice if what you say is controversial relative to the mores of the time, which are always changing.
Imagine if the net had existed during the McCarthy era in the U.S. A lot of the people making leftist comments about software development could be in for investigation. And having *lots* of trouble getting work.
Another fairly easy thing to imagine is a period of political religious conservatism making life difficult for pagans and atheists.
Or how about political correctness metering?
Thanks to the net, if you're honest, you can no longer hide what you believe. The net makes it easier to persecute you, but it also makes it harder to ignore you, and gives you a voice to protest such persecution. Can you imagine the furor if they started arresting the GNU-lefties?
The real danger here is the quiet stuff personnel departments and insurance companies do before hiring/insuring someone. Even though it is illegal, some may perform a credit check. Even though it is illegal, they may try to obtain medical records. Even though it *should* be illegal they may try to determine your political or religious beliefs thru net postings. I can't say how widespread these practices are, but I've heard a great deal of anecdotal evidence about them.
As our lives become more transparent to the powers-that-be it is essential we demand equal transparency in return from those with the potential to misuse the information.
"If you think open source software is something that has some thread of ethical or moral content, then consider yourself a "fringe" element of the open source movement."
I guess I'm way out there on the fringe then, because I believe *most* actions have a moral or ethical component, albeit small, including the choice of license for a project.
I wouldn't go nearly so far as to say only open source licenses are ethical or moral, but they *do* help convince me the company is interested in the good of their customers as well as their pocketbooks. That kind of thing used to be called business ethics, back when it was in vogue. Companies were said to have a good reputation when they acted ethically, and they spent considerable time maintaining that reputation.
Open source licenses promote freedom and choice, encourage open standards, make software available to more people, increase quality, and help prevent monopolies. I consider these social goods, and therefore give open source licenses a moral and ethical plus. I am *not* saying that closed source software is evil, more like neutral, except in the case of licenses that egregiously exploit end users or interfere with consumer choice.
"Of course, there can be some debate as to how well representatives perform in this respect, but I can only assume that they still make better decisions than the average Joe who doesn't begin to have time to gain in in-depth knowledge of an issue."
Maybe they do, but you should ask yourself, better for whom? All too often politicians work directly against the interests of all but a tiny share of their constituients, for the benefit of those that pay their re-election bills, or otherwise supply them with money or power.
This argument is very reminiscent of the software cathedral. Can't let the hoi-polloi loose on the code, any damn thing could happen. For example, Linux. It is true that moderation (like Linus) is required, but the argument that it would necessarily result in chaos is bogus I think.
After reading slashdot, many of us wish our politicians sounded as intelligent and informed as a typical 5pt comment. The interesting thing is that the group that decides the best comments can apparently be universal, it doesn't need to be an elite, educated class. The very best comments provide references and links that lesser mortals can verify with and become educated through.
We have a fairly widespread consensus in this country that politics is broken, so perhaps we'd better fix it. I agree with Katz that consensual democracy is worth a try, and the best idea I've heard on the subject in years. No idea how to get there from here, however, that's a tough one. Maybe just start with a "News for citizens, stuff that matters" site, with the top comments mailed to our current policy makers?
I thought Dvorak made one good point. Making examples of script kiddies will reduce their numbers but transform the remainder into really angry and careful hackers.
This situation isn't much different from drugs, as long as people want to do them, a way will be found. All law enforcement can do is arrest the least talented and make the rest more cautious and better armed.
I'd prefer to see hacking winked at, but actual damage responded to in a proportionate matter. If someone hacks a hospital and someone dies, that's murder, laws exist. If someone brings a financial system down, that's war or terrorism, call out the troops. We need to get across the idea that stupid hackers are those that damage, not those that can simply be caught.
As noted, this topic is sensitive and people's views are going to offend each other. This is where it's very important that we remember that different thoughts are to be encouraged even when the actions they contemplate may be reprehensible to us. Exposing some values that lead people to end up on the different sides of this issue may be helpful.
Some people deeply believe that is wrong for a full adult in irremediable acute pain to decide to end their own life.
Others may be deeply empathetic with the pain they imagine in a seriously handicapped child, and think it mercy to kill the child instead.
Another group will think that this kind of euthansia will benefit society, and rather coldly decide it is a good idea for that reason.
I find all three views expressed above at least uncomfortable. I don't wish to assign a value of "true" to any one. I think you have to look at each individual case, weigh the options carefully, and make a hard decision, knowing you could be wrong. What I am sure of, personally, is that I don't want the government mandating the "one true" practice. I think the choice needs to be made at a much more local level -- between the family concerned, and their doctor, with legal advice. My pro-choice bias undoubtedly shows here, and I realize this will be no less controversial than abortion.
Note we've already had to deal with this problem in the form of acephalic babies. IIRC, It's been decided that they are braindead, and their life support may be legally terminated currently.
So it may be that the question isn't whether it is ever acceptable, but rather under which circumstances, and for what reasons. Decision where there is no obvious right or wrong should be made at the family level, with government supplying reasonable guidelines for that choice.
Ah yes, advertising, otherwise known as mind pollution.
I'm sure drivers will appreciate lots of moving ads on the side of the road to grab their vision. Especially the ones with half-naked people. Well, what are a few more accidents in the cause of money?
The grocery store should be quite psychedelic with every package and advertisment a gaudy moving display evolved to catch your eye in a ruthless ecology of attention. Too bad for people with epilepsy.
Hey, we can't have people buying products because they're good or cheap, no, they have to buy them because of the nifty packaging or subliminal associations! Otherwise some serious fatcats might lose some money.
The technology is wonderful, and I'm sure there will be legitimate uses, but to me, this really sounds like a royal PITA. Anyone remember blink tags?
There is a real problem that comes from people assuming that the similarity in name between mail and e-mail implies that the same privacy conditions apply. This law essentially mandates educating employees that this is in fact not the case; company e-mail is more like a letter stored in a filing cabinet to which your boss has a key.
Compared to the price of installing and maintaining the surveillance it seems a reasonable one-time cost. It should keep problems from occurring, as well as merely helping to catch them once they do.
I think I will still strongly prefer employment by those that don't feel the need to spy on me, but it's a good bill for those without the choice.
Just to let you know, the font isn't a bit better with Win98/IE5+Web Fonts. Seems to be bad page design, not just incompatibility this time.
With typical memory sizes in the 64-256M range swap files are becoming irrelevant for most people who use operating systems that don't leak memory in any case.
Seems to me this is yet another portal web site, but run by a government.
Like all portals, it could be good or bad, depending on how useful, secure, private, and reliable its services are. Off hand, I don't think this one is that bad, and they could distinguish themselves by being completely non-commercial. No ads, no plugs, no links sold to the highest bidder.
"Of course new users are still left to install all 21."
I'm not arguing that small, isolated patches are infinitely superior to mega-packs including both fixes and features.
However if a company like RedHat wants to provide support that people would buy, then making a patch or script available to fix all known security problems since last release might be a worthwhile product that new users would appreciate, especially those switching from Windows.
If you want to get into ease of use features, something with the functionality of Windows Update could also be popular. It should be done Unix style though. The update site sends the information about what is available to the local computer on request, which then compares it to what is installed and offers the user an opportunity to select packages to update or install. From this a script is generated locally that will download and install the required software. Category filters for "Security", "Bug", and "Feature" would also be nice.
Perhaps their new online update support in 6.1 addresses this. Can anyone describe it for me?
It occurs to me that if a congresscritter can notice a mere 20 e-mails extra in their inbox, we citizens must not be doing our job!
Congress should be getting thousands of emails each day, making 20 more unnoticeable. Clearly, they don't read their e-mail from us, or we aren't mailing them often enough!
Or maybe they only read "important" mail - those whose subject and body are all caps?:)
I hope DOOM Legacy will open their sources, but they have been the least willing to do so to date. They will sometimes provide source to those who ask for the purpose of developing auxilliary programs, but they have expressed unwillingness to let "competing projects" use their code. Doom Legacy is a very impressive source mod, I just question their willingness to open their sources publically. If so, that's good.
Nearly all the other projects except Bruce Lewis's GL Doom have offered sources with binaries, and I expect most will convert to GPL now. Bruce Lewis lost his sources in a flood, thereby killing an important project, and that's what Carmack is referring to in the linked article. He intended to release them, after beta, but it never made it there.
What you say is basically correct, the code is not amenable to being extended to 3D. It's a rewrite, as Carmack noticed when he wrote Quake.
However some of the source mods already available have provided pretty good workarounds. Boom, for example allows you to create "fake" ceilings and floors so you can be underwater. More importantly there is a silent teleporter that preserves angle and momentum, so you can create some very good 3D effects by seamlessly joining two different sections of map as you walk up some stairs, or take an elevator (also supported.)
Some source mods also allow real heights. You can walk across the heads of a line of imps, take a ride on a cyber, control vertical aiming, jump, use weaker gravity, and look up and down.
It isn't perfect, but DOOM was always about doing as much as you can within the engine limits.
Slashdot Mirror
"The current theories which are based on current axioms are *right*. However, according to Godel, there are theorems that can not be proved with current axioms. So mathematics is indeed about truth and it is based on axioms, which I believe are on very firm ground currently"
Current mathematical theories are right in the sense that if you posit their axioms then their conclusions follow logically via a mechanical procedure of proof. If the axioms are true in a model, the theorems are too. I didn't mean to cast doubt on that.
But prior to Godel many mathematicians felt that there was one true axiom set for number theory that could be used to deduce any true property of numbers. Godel showed that this was not correct, true statements of number theory exist not provable from any particular set of consistent axioms. Mathematics cannot settle truth in the domain of numbers, it can only validate that conclusions are based on assumptions correctly. It is up to us to pick our axioms, for our particular needs at the time.
To bring it home, there are competing theories of real numbers. One theory includes infintesimally small numbers, the other doesn't. It is meaningless to ask which is true, the question is which is more useful. Since infintesimals essentially eliminate tedious epsilon-delta proofs in calculus, there are some that think it a better theory of the reals. You only have time to teach one, which will it be? Just don't look to truth for the answer -- preconceptions about what a real number is play a large part in an answer.
Yes, of course math and science are different, but I wonder how fundamentally.
Mathematicians were at one point completely convinced (and some still are) that there is a Platonic reality that mathematics approaches in the same way science approaches physical reality. Impossible to get there, yet it somehow exists, waiting to be approximated.
Hints of this same question are appearing in physics in subtle ways. For example what is "reality" if its basic parts are probability waves? Is Schroedinger's cat dead or not? Perhaps reality isn't as definite as you think, but more a phenomenon of coherent observations. Once the wave collapses, all observers agree. Reality is at the least a little fuzzy on the smallest scales. Complete predictability may be to science what complete number theory is to mathematics.
I don't mean to imply that I personally think creationism coequal with evolution, BTW. I'm only maintaining that truth is a poor criterion to judge by, you can't even make it work with something as definite and simple as mathematics. Effectiveness is a more useful measurement and easier to apply. We should measure how much you have to assume versus how much you can explain to value a theory, not argue whether it's absolutely true or not.
Truth is a weak foundation. Mathematics is on no firmer ground than evolution. Godel and Tarski showed that mathematics isn't about truth, it's about logical relationships between statements. Your system is never any better than your axioms, and no finite set of axioms can ever suffice.
Just because evolution and creationism can't be proved true doesn't mean they're not useful. Note that the parallel postulate *or* its negation can be added to geometry and result in a consistent (i.e. useful) system. Hence the possibility of useful *and* conflicting theories is real. One is useful for planes, the other for curved surfaces.
The danger isn't in studying either evolution or creationism. It's in asserting that either is truth eternal or claiming that one necessarily negates the other. Both may be useful when applied to a system modelling their particular suppositions.
After studying them, my personal conclusion is that one is far more useful than the other because it requires far fewer assumptions. This seems to me a more rational basis for choice of what to teach in time limited classrooms, should such choice be necessary. Studying creationism can be valuable, if only to understand its assumptions.
Yup, sounds very familiar to me too. Not that I'd want a credit card -- I'm not good with money and fear what I could do with one :).
A nice service for Linuxfund to offer that would get me interested would be to offer a $0 limit credit card, no links to money, purely as a second identification card. As long as the credit industry is keeping all these records on me, can't I get *some* benefit from it at least?
You're probably right that people aren't going to switch from IE on Windows in droves. The whole concept of downloading and installing software is foreign to much of the user base. And about one in ten times you try it, Windows stops working from DLL incompatibilities and you need to uninstall, or worse, re-install Windows. People learn to leave well enough alone. While IE is not perfect, it certainly works well enough. The best hope in that market is being able to convince system vendors to put a Mozilla icon on the desktop.
However, the situation for Linux and some other OSes isn't like that. I can easily see Mozilla rapidly capturing nearly all of that market. Then Mozilla gains market share as Linux does. This is enough of a presence to restrain incompatible web standards I hope.
"I have read The Mythical Man-Month myself and I agree with you to a certain point. However, I must be missing something here, if adding paid contractors or employees will only slow the project down, doesn't allowing anyone to see the source and contribute do the same thing? Whether the person is paid or not, donesn't adding additonal developers in any form do the same thing?"
This is an important point I think. A major thrust of ESR's CatB essay is that Linux violated Brooke's Law (from MMM), surprising a lot of people who thought they understood large software project management. This is what lead to the concept of a bazaar model. I believe the trick is that *when* the code is well organized and well written, new developers organize themselves and just start chipping in on corners of the code that interest them. The O(N**2) communication problem doesn't arise because not much communication is needed after some initial organizing and at patch submission times.
Netscape, unfortunately, had just suffered rapid expansion in a browser war and from what I hear was not in a sufficiently organized state to support bazaar development well. Hence rewriting was undertaken, and this does involve problems with communication scaling that could easily be predicted to take a while. I am hopeful for the results though. Often being written again after having made mistakes with a first version is the best thing that can happen to software.
I've seen too many software projects, including my own, take longer than expected. I'm not going to harass Mozilla over delays. When they release a stable beta I'll start forming an opinion and help as much as I can with feedback. Until then, I'm going to assume they know what they're about. If they don't, there's little I could say that would do much good in any case.
What exactly is the problem with these domain names? Who is it that is injured if they are allowed to be registered?
There seems to be a notion that domain names can be divided into two subsets, offensive and acceptable. Across all languages and cultures. Perhaps they should submit the complete list for public approval first. Will they allow sexforkids.com? This smells like a bureaucracy where each new domain name has to pass thru a dozen cultural "experts" who measure it's offensiveness. No wonder it takes months.
You don't want to see offensive domain names? Then don't type them into your browser. If you're on a page with a link to one, chances are you're already offended. If your kid is typing in www.handjob.com, they could undoubtedly manage www.yahoo.com, and search from there for the same material. The domain name registrars should concentrate on proper syntax and leave the semantic checking to others.
Grade papers on content? My, what an asocial idea. That would encourage people to use logic, include references, and do thinking. Too dangerous, because it creates citizens that can resist their government and employers effectively. Really, it's better for everyone if they just test for vocabulary and spelling. We need to teach students how superficial society can be.
It's like having humans read resumes instead of computers searching for buzzwords. Seems like a good idea, but unsavory changes might result.
But, and it's a big but, ignoring Microsoft can't work until they no longer unfairly control the hardware and software markets. If merely being better than Microsoft was sufficient, BeOS would far more successful than it is today. We can and should ignore Microsoft on the day the following can be asserted with truth:
1) Hardware vendors are just as likely to create drivers for Linux as Microsoft.
2) System vendors can't be pressured successfully by Microsoft to avoid using competing products like Linux or Netscape.
3) Microsoft no longer dominates standards thru controlling the OS platform used by nearly everyone.
It would be nice if Microsoft just started playing fair. But I don't expect it. Rather I expect them to lie, cheat, and steal as necessary in an attempt to ensure dominance. Desperation is rarely pretty.
His point about web applications being the future is worth consideration. The advantages in making large databases like Amazon and Yahoo available that way are quite clear. I don't quite see the clarity of that view when it comes to editors, compilers, or games however -- though I could be wrong, I much prefer local programs on my own computer for those.
The other point he makes that is well worth considering is about the open nature of web development. Clay Shirkey did an excellent paper on this subject a while back. You may find many of the other papers on his page of interest as well.
Well written (except for a missing close bold tag anyway *g*) and fairly good at summarizing the various criticisms of open source. Unfortunately I don't see too much new thought, just an organization of some good points that have been made before.
I also don't agree with a lot of these points. For example, he makes a point of the dictatorial nature of many a group's management. There is a bit of a difference between authoritarian management and the normal usage of the word "dictatorship", in that this is dictatorship by consent. Leaders are delegated dictatorial powers by their group in the interests of efficiency. No guns are being pointed at developers heads. Dissenters can always fork their own version of the software should the power be actually abused. The dictators aren't rewarded disproportionately and often work a lot harder than most contributors.
He repeatedly refers to ESR's papers as "marxist." While they may be biased, it would be rather surprising to find marxist bias in the writings of an avowed libertarian-capitalist. I think this is clear evidence he wasn't able to completely parse what ESR was really saying. Or maybe ESR is a closet communist after all?
I think he's also a bit overly concerned with distro fragmentation. It *does* lead to irritating problems, but nearly always problems with solutions, and usually fairly simple ones. There is no doubt it can be done better, and I expect Linux will evolve to do so if the problems created become serious enough. The real concern here is that the response will likely be for the market leader to become the de facto standard. It might be better if the most functional and efficient distro layout triumphed. But, good enough often wins over better, and open source is not a solution to *that* problem.
As to open source not being a magic bullet, I think nearly everyone agrees, it's almost a straw man. Worth pointing it out one more time since some don't get it, but not exactly surprising.
The academic parallel is a worthwhile subject of study. Stephen Adler's Open-Source/Open-Science conference recently is clearly an indication that others have also noticed the similarity. But don't be too quick to conclude which side will learn more from the other. It's likely both can benefit.
You know, if someone donates the money to a charity I'll think very well of them. I agree with you that much.
Open source isn't about free beer though. It's about open access to the source for verification and modification. Freedom to innovate, as Microsoft would say. Nothing in the GPL prohibits charging for software, though obviously it makes it more difficult.
This confusion, that money is evil, and charging for software (or writing) a sin, is damaging. Hiding software bugs, leveraging protocols for monetary gain, those are evil, not money paid for honest work.
People have to live you know. I've been selling software for nearly 20 years. If you expect me to start giving it away to corporations and flipping hamburgers for a living soon, please think again.
Someday, when everyone's basic needs are all automatically supplied by self-repairing machines, you can rant against paying for value. Until then open source needs to remain a *gift* economy - things are freely given as and when the giver desires, not on demand.
I think you hit the nail pretty squarely there, it's the inappropriate use of technology that's at issue, and the problem is the impossibility of knowing the appropriateness of technology when it is introduced.
Advertising is not helping either, because it causes people to buy things they don't really need. Use of unneeded technology is very often inappropriate. We need consumer education on the differences between needing, wanting, and being suckered into. Compulsive buying anyone?
To mention another unforseen implication of cars, there is the exodus to the suburbs. That was supposedly about nice houses in nice places to raise kids, but again unexpectedly resulted in decay of our inner cities as well. That's the problem with technology, the side effects take years to become apparent, and can be profound.
Since we will not be able to stop technology I think we have to examine our response to it. I'd like to suggest that one aspect of this problem is the inflexibility of our social structures. Even though the problem of inner city decay has been apparent for years we seem unwilling or unable to do much about it. We need to be better at noticing when new technology is creating a problem and factoring the cost of corrective measures into the cost of use of that technology as soon as they appear. We need the *true* cost of each technology factored into supply and demand in order for the free market to converge to the best solution without government help.
When social programs aren't working we should -- *stop them* -- and try something else. Let's stop talking about what's the right thing to do, forever and always, and start looking at the most efficient response to current conditions. Including new technologies, as appropriate, in our calculations.
Yes, people should realize that comments in forums like this are effectively permanent. But that isn't the real problem. Even being careful about what you say may not suffice if what you say is controversial relative to the mores of the time, which are always changing.
Imagine if the net had existed during the McCarthy era in the U.S. A lot of the people making leftist comments about software development could be in for investigation. And having *lots* of trouble getting work.
Another fairly easy thing to imagine is a period of political religious conservatism making life difficult for pagans and atheists.
Or how about political correctness metering?
Thanks to the net, if you're honest, you can no longer hide what you believe. The net makes it easier to persecute you, but it also makes it harder to ignore you, and gives you a voice to protest such persecution. Can you imagine the furor if they started arresting the GNU-lefties?
The real danger here is the quiet stuff personnel departments and insurance companies do before hiring/insuring someone. Even though it is illegal, some may perform a credit check. Even though it is illegal, they may try to obtain medical records. Even though it *should* be illegal they may try to determine your political or religious beliefs thru net postings. I can't say how widespread these practices are, but I've heard a great deal of anecdotal evidence about them.
As our lives become more transparent to the powers-that-be it is essential we demand equal transparency in return from those with the potential to misuse the information.
"If you think open source software is something that has some thread of ethical or moral content, then consider yourself a "fringe" element of the open source movement."
I guess I'm way out there on the fringe then, because I believe *most* actions have a moral or ethical component, albeit small, including the choice of license for a project.
I wouldn't go nearly so far as to say only open source licenses are ethical or moral, but they *do* help convince me the company is interested in the good of their customers as well as their pocketbooks. That kind of thing used to be called business ethics, back when it was in vogue. Companies were said to have a good reputation when they acted ethically, and they spent considerable time maintaining that reputation.
Open source licenses promote freedom and choice, encourage open standards, make software available to more people, increase quality, and help prevent monopolies. I consider these social goods, and therefore give open source licenses a moral and ethical plus. I am *not* saying that closed source software is evil, more like neutral, except in the case of licenses that egregiously exploit end users or interfere with consumer choice.
"Of course, there can be some debate as to how well representatives perform in this respect, but I can only assume that they still make better decisions than the average Joe who doesn't begin to have time to gain in in-depth knowledge of an issue."
Maybe they do, but you should ask yourself, better for whom? All too often politicians work directly against the interests of all but a tiny share of their constituients, for the benefit of those that pay their re-election bills, or otherwise supply them with money or power.
This argument is very reminiscent of the software cathedral. Can't let the hoi-polloi loose on the code, any damn thing could happen. For example, Linux. It is true that moderation (like Linus) is required, but the argument that it would necessarily result in chaos is bogus I think.
After reading slashdot, many of us wish our politicians sounded as intelligent and informed as a typical 5pt comment. The interesting thing is that the group that decides the best comments can apparently be universal, it doesn't need to be an elite, educated class. The very best comments provide references and links that lesser mortals can verify with and become educated through.
We have a fairly widespread consensus in this country that politics is broken, so perhaps we'd better fix it. I agree with Katz that consensual democracy is worth a try, and the best idea I've heard on the subject in years. No idea how to get there from here, however, that's a tough one. Maybe just start with a "News for citizens, stuff that matters" site, with the top comments mailed to our current policy makers?
I thought Dvorak made one good point. Making examples of script kiddies will reduce their numbers but transform the remainder into really angry and careful hackers.
This situation isn't much different from drugs, as long as people want to do them, a way will be found. All law enforcement can do is arrest the least talented and make the rest more cautious and better armed.
I'd prefer to see hacking winked at, but actual damage responded to in a proportionate matter. If someone hacks a hospital and someone dies, that's murder, laws exist. If someone brings a financial system down, that's war or terrorism, call out the troops. We need to get across the idea that stupid hackers are those that damage, not those that can simply be caught.
As noted, this topic is sensitive and people's views are going to offend each other. This is where it's very important that we remember that different thoughts are to be encouraged even when the actions they contemplate may be reprehensible to us. Exposing some values that lead people to end up on the different sides of this issue may be helpful.
Some people deeply believe that is wrong for a full adult in irremediable acute pain to decide to end their own life.
Others may be deeply empathetic with the pain they imagine in a seriously handicapped child, and think it mercy to kill the child instead.
Another group will think that this kind of euthansia will benefit society, and rather coldly decide it is a good idea for that reason.
I find all three views expressed above at least uncomfortable. I don't wish to assign a value of "true" to any one. I think you have to look at each individual case, weigh the options carefully, and make a hard decision, knowing you could be wrong. What I am sure of, personally, is that I don't want the government mandating the "one true" practice. I think the choice needs to be made at a much more local level -- between the family concerned, and their doctor, with legal advice. My pro-choice bias undoubtedly shows here, and I realize this will be no less controversial than abortion.
Note we've already had to deal with this problem in the form of acephalic babies. IIRC, It's been decided that they are braindead, and their life support may be legally terminated currently.
So it may be that the question isn't whether it is ever acceptable, but rather under which circumstances, and for what reasons. Decision where there is no obvious right or wrong should be made at the family level, with government supplying reasonable guidelines for that choice.
Ah yes, advertising, otherwise known as mind pollution.
I'm sure drivers will appreciate lots of moving ads on the side of the road to grab their vision. Especially the ones with half-naked people. Well, what are a few more accidents in the cause of money?
The grocery store should be quite psychedelic with every package and advertisment a gaudy moving display evolved to catch your eye in a ruthless ecology of attention. Too bad for people with epilepsy.
Hey, we can't have people buying products because they're good or cheap, no, they have to buy them because of the nifty packaging or subliminal associations! Otherwise some serious fatcats might lose some money.
The technology is wonderful, and I'm sure there will be legitimate uses, but to me, this really sounds like a royal PITA. Anyone remember blink tags?
There is a real problem that comes from people assuming that the similarity in name between mail and e-mail implies that the same privacy conditions apply. This law essentially mandates educating employees that this is in fact not the case; company e-mail is more like a letter stored in a filing cabinet to which your boss has a key.
Compared to the price of installing and maintaining the surveillance it seems a reasonable one-time cost. It should keep problems from occurring, as well as merely helping to catch them once they do.
I think I will still strongly prefer employment by those that don't feel the need to spy on me, but it's a good bill for those without the choice.
Just to let you know, the font isn't a bit better with Win98/IE5+Web Fonts. Seems to be bad page design, not just incompatibility this time.
With typical memory sizes in the 64-256M range swap files are becoming irrelevant for most people who use operating systems that don't leak memory in any case.
Seems to me this is yet another portal web site, but run by a government.
Like all portals, it could be good or bad, depending on how useful, secure, private, and reliable its services are. Off hand, I don't think this one is that bad, and they could distinguish themselves by being completely non-commercial. No ads, no plugs, no links sold to the highest bidder.
"Of course new users are still left to install all 21."
I'm not arguing that small, isolated patches are infinitely superior to mega-packs including both fixes and features.
However if a company like RedHat wants to provide support that people would buy, then making a patch or script available to fix all known security problems since last release might be a worthwhile product that new users would appreciate, especially those switching from Windows.
If you want to get into ease of use features, something with the functionality of Windows Update could also be popular. It should be done Unix style though. The update site sends the information about what is available to the local computer on request, which then compares it to what is installed and offers the user an opportunity to select packages to update or install. From this a script is generated locally that will download and install the required software. Category filters for "Security", "Bug", and "Feature" would also be nice.
Perhaps their new online update support in 6.1 addresses this. Can anyone describe it for me?
It occurs to me that if a congresscritter can notice a mere 20 e-mails extra in their inbox, we citizens must not be doing our job!
:)
Congress should be getting thousands of emails each day, making 20 more unnoticeable. Clearly, they don't read their e-mail from us, or we aren't mailing them often enough!
Or maybe they only read "important" mail - those whose subject and body are all caps?
I hope DOOM Legacy will open their sources, but they have been the least willing to do so to date. They will sometimes provide source to those who ask for the purpose of developing auxilliary programs, but they have expressed unwillingness to let "competing projects" use their code. Doom Legacy is a very impressive source mod, I just question their willingness to open their sources publically. If so, that's good.
Nearly all the other projects except Bruce Lewis's GL Doom have offered sources with binaries, and I expect most will convert to GPL now. Bruce Lewis lost his sources in a flood, thereby killing an important project, and that's what Carmack is referring to in the linked article. He intended to release them, after beta, but it never made it there.
What you say is basically correct, the code is not amenable to being extended to 3D. It's a rewrite, as Carmack noticed when he wrote Quake.
However some of the source mods already available have provided pretty good workarounds. Boom, for example allows you to create "fake" ceilings and floors so you can be underwater. More importantly there is a silent teleporter that preserves angle and momentum, so you can create some very good 3D effects by seamlessly joining two different sections of map as you walk up some stairs, or take an elevator (also supported.)
Some source mods also allow real heights. You can walk across the heads of a line of imps, take a ride on a cyber, control vertical aiming, jump, use weaker gravity, and look up and down.
It isn't perfect, but DOOM was always about doing as much as you can within the engine limits.