Hold on - what you do on the street is seen by others and hence constitutes an implicit consent to be recorded? I think that's a bit of a stretch.
For example - let's say you film a person in the town square, that's perfectly legal. IANAL, but if you follow them around for the whole day filming everything that he or she does (even in public), I'm pretty sure they can take legal action against you.
In any case, that's not the point - there's a difference between someone filming an occasional home video and institutional surveillance by the govt. of everyone's every move.
While focusing on Big Brother aspects, I think people are leaving out more important issues - for example, what impact will this have on Michael Jackson's life when he undergoes facial surgery gain? What about other celebrities who regularly undergo facelifts?
Sure, *you* may worry about petty matters like surveillance, but think of it. This technology could have the potential to seriously disrupt their lives...
I knew a guy who worked in Sun's "Visual IDE" tools division a couple yrs ago, and couldn't help asking the obvious - How is it that Sun created Java, and the main tools being used to code java come from Symantec, MS, and IBM. It struck me as profoundly ironic that sun was releasing this revolutionary language and their competitor was making more money off it than they were. His view was that sun really sucked at developing GUI/IDE type stuff. I believe it.
OTOH, sun is REALLY good at *nix stuff. I'm surprised that they didn't take the initiative to figure out how to win in the GUI world. This is quite a contrast to MS, which is ruthlessly quick at changing its focus, adapting, and winning marketshare.
I also can't believe how badly they handled the core java people - half of them quit after the product took off, which doesn't exactly help.
After the movie, rampant speculation ensued as to whether HAL was a hidden reference to IBM (just substitute the preceeding letters). Clarke denied it, saying HAL stood for Heuristic ALgorithmic (sounds like a stretch). He even poked fun at the controversy in the novel 2010, noting how the rumor spread and people still didn't believe it stood for "heuristic.."
Wired had a good cover story on HAL's b'day in 1997. I think there was also a symposium at UIUC, where he was "invented by Dr. Chandra".
Heh, you're basically proving my point - using an exception and ignoring the average (airplane crashes vs. car crashes?).
anyway, the point is - both auto accidents and firearm homicides are large scale incidents: so the way they are reduced are by making usage safer overall.
With autos, this is done by restricting cars to those over 16, who have proved competence, and by instituting devices such as air bags, etc.
With guns, there are no restrictions. Any minor or mentally ill person can walk into a gun show and buy a machine gun (one in Pomona, California was selling rocket launchers and grenades as well; gun shows there routinely sell machineguns - no questions asked).
the number of driving deaths would increase if children or incompetent unregistered drivers were on the streets. Similarly, the number of gun deaths increase when the above categories use them.
Now you may point out - hey, it's illegal for the mentally ill to use guns. Big deal, that's like making a law stating that "It's hereby illegal for the mentally ill to piss on the streets." Doesn't have any bite, know what I mean?
I'm not saying lawful, competent gun owners should be punished. I'm saying it can be regulated, just like cars are. Nobody's right is deprived, except those who shouldn't be using guns in the first place.
However, it's precisely because of lawful owners that nothing can be done. The mentally ill, the minors, and the felons don't have much political power. The NRA, the voters, and lawful gun owners do. And because they are terrified of the slightest move towards public safety (say, prohibiting the manufacture of high calibre machine guns), the US will continue to have a high homicide rate.
I know, I know, there will still be guns. There are also unsafe cars - the key is the statistical odds of access and misuse of guns. If you restrict production/distribution, the number is reduced. This is what I meant by binary thinking - think "reduced", not "eliminated totally".
The total number of unsafe thingies floating around X the ease of access to them is what determines rate of deaths.
BTW, you're comparing shootings in *school* to driving everywhere else. I'm pretty sure less than 82 kids are killed in air bag accidents on school premises.:)
In a surprise move, an arrest warrant was issued by the Finnish police to capture Linus Torvalds under the nation's new "anti virus" law.
"The law states that any program that causes danger to data processing systems and is freely available for download by visitors is a virus," said Lt. Hakk Daeta. "The linux kernel poses a danger to Windows, which is a widely used data processing system. Many legal scholars have testified to this. And after Torvalds blatantly put out this virus, millions of PCs have been affected. He must be stopped."
Meanwhile, rumors persisted that Torvalds was seen on the Jerry Springer show, on an episode titled "My PC is too sexy". A man who appeared on the show wearing a paper bag over his head made the suspicious statement that "I am innocent. I just showed how it must be pronounced. It is lin-nucks, not line-ux."
When it comes to guns being restricted, people tend to assume binary viewpoints. Nobody seems to realise it's a matter or reducing the odds.
Example - Imagine 2 cities, one where seat belts & air bags are used and one where they aren't. let's say you go to the city where they aren't used. You are surprised to see the number of auto deaths are vastly greater, and try to make a point.
You: If you had seat belts/air bags, it would reduce the number of deaths.
Local: Bullshit! There was an accident in your town, and people got killed even tho they had both!
You: I'm not saying it will cure all problems. It will simply *reduce* the number.
Local: Crap! There was a case of a car falling over the bridge, and they died *because* they wore seatbelts and couldn't get out. Unsafe cars don't kill people. Unsafe people kill people.
See what I mean? You can prove that the safety measure does actually *kill* people. And you can prove that even when it's implemented, it doesn't prevent deaths. But what you may forget is that the probability is vastly reduced.
Look at the numbers:
The US has 20,000 deaths each year from guns, far more per person than any other industrial nation. (note - per person, so don't say it's got a bigger population , blah blah blah).
Japan has 1/216 fewer gun deaths than the US, per 100,000 people. (Guns are NOT banned in japan, they are just very, very difficult to get). Yes, japan has a smaller population - this is *after* adjusting for the population.
There are 200+ million guns in the US, with more than 50% of the population owning guns.
15 % of the US population spends time in a mental institute at some point.
Just combine the last 2 numbers and enjoy the fireworks.
2014 -- Construction of Hilton Orbiter Hotel begins, by assembling and converting the giant Shuttle tanks which had previously been allowed to fall back to Earth.
http://www.gsreport.com/articles/art000072.html
There was a news story some months ago about he being involved in a plan with Hilton. Can't find any URLs, but apparently he has had ties to them for a while, hence the 2001 reference.
It's funny when you look at some of the logos in 2001. Pan-Am was the mega airline back then, but it went bankrupt. AT & T (the logo on the space phone) is still trotting along. Can't remember other merchandising tie-ins.
Apparently, unlike today's movies which get paid to include product placement, rumor has it that Kubrick had to *pay* the corporations to include their logos and add a respectable touch.
Well, O'Reilly made a bad choice. I didn't say every closed solution is the best. I said pick the best one available, and it appears they weren't blinded by ideology but still picked the wrong one.
I agree about the general set of principles - normally it's stuff like compatibility with your existing software, quality, etc. etc. And sure, if it's open source, it's a point in its favor.
All I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense to make a business decision based on ideology. Sure, a personal decision is fine, because the whole point is personal satisfaction. But if you're using it for running your business, then that's your main goal, not the ideology.
Actually, I think a lot of people who make purchasing decisions for IT tend to have a pro-MS or pro-big-corporation ideology. It gives an illusion of safety. But again, I think it hurts them in the long run.
Just ask which is the better software for the job, given all the factors.
In the case of OSS, one of the factors would be likely long term support and development. But that is not the ONLY factor.
If you had to develop a new game, you'd probably license the propietary Quake engine instead of using the open source Golgotha. If you had to build a giant database, DB2 would probably be more viable than MySQL.
In the case of SOLID, you could reject it on the grounds that it is a small company which could pull the rug. That doesn't mean IBM's DB2 (which is EQUALLY closed source) is going to go under as well. If you are evaluating long term support, look at the facts, not the ideology. (Again, the advantage of something being OSS would be one of the facts in its favor, I'm not against open source - I use linux).
The problem with ideology is that people believe things based mainly on their principles, not on reality. So you'll end up making a decision based on ideals, not sound judgement. Just look at the diehard fanatics who claim that Linux has more apps than Windows, or the MS fans who claim NT is more reliable than anything, or the COBOL fans who believe its the most advanced language there is.
Again, I know if it's open source, it has many strengths. Include them in your judgement. But don't preclude everything else simply on ideology - you'll only reduce your own choices.
"My advice is: Don't let ideology get in the way of business."
That makes perfect sense. If you refuse certain products because of ideology, you're simply limiting your choices because of your emotional bias, and that's not smart if you're running a business.
For instance, I've run across posts from physicians asking about dictation/voice recognition software. Now, if they were ideologically committed to open source, I doubt they would have a choice at all. Similarly, there are sectors of this $100 billion industry where OSS products do not exist, or exist but aren't as good as the commercial ones.
OTOH, people who refuse to use open source products, or use only MS, or use anything-but-MS, also commit the same mistake. Ideology gets in the way if it limits your choice. (Don't mean to start a flame war either).
1) The AC is truly distributed and open, unlike others who are closed, proprietary entities. The AC exists as a conceptual entity, much like Free Software. Not only is the AC similar to free speech, but he dishes out vast volumes of it. (Some would say too vast).
2) The AC has stimulated various debates on various issues. Often with dumbass comments, the AC stirs up high emotions and profound criticism.
3) The AC always gets the first post. This is a dubious achievement at best, but he takes innocent pride in it like a happy little kid.
4) The AC has often submitted critical insider info from the CIA, Microsoft, IBM, and many organizations; he has gone where lesser mortals feared to tread.
5) The AC is unique - he is loved in the abstract, yet hated at almost every appearance he makes. In fact, this is the reason why he is the AC.
6) The AC has become a part of the OSS psyche; in the press there are frequent references to him. Almost like Superman or Batman, people speak of the AC as some kind of superhero (or supervillian) whose identity is unknown....This introduces an element of comic book intrigue and suspense into an otherwise dull and boring profession.
7) Everybody has been an AC, they just won't admit it. Thus by rewarding the AC, you reward the whole community.
8) The AC exists in multiple places at the same time, thereby providing redundant backup and stable, 24x7 service.
9) The AC is intellectually complex. He is international, posting in strange languages nobody can understand. He is mysterious and abstruse in his thoughts, which may contain hidden truths masked in the form of annoying spam like troll.
10) It's difficult to draw out the AC. He has never been seen, but if he wins the award, he may appear to accept it....We can finally unmask him and see what he looks like...
He has long been a proponent of the view that space travel will be funded privately and that ultimately, we'll have hotels in space. In fact, I believe he even had some kind of tie up with Hilton, and apparently Hilton is depicted in 2001 (can't recall it myself).
2012: Aerospace planes enter service. The history of space travel has repeated that of aeronautics, although more slowly, because the technical problems are so much greater. From Gagarin to commercial space flight has taken twice as long as from the Wright Brothers to the DC3.
2013: Despite the understandable apprehensions of Buckingham Palace, Prince Harry becomes the first member of the British royal family to fly in space.
2014: Construction of Hilton Orbiter Hotel begins, by assembling and converting the giant Shuttle tanks previously allowed to fall back to Earth.
During the cold war, a system evolved to prevent a nuclear holocaust. Basically, either the US president or the Russian President could "push the button".
On the US side, the president carries a briefcase known as "the football", which contains the nuclear trigger. Similarly, there's a briefcase on the Russian side (there was even a documentary on this, with an interview with the Russian engineer who designed the Russian briefcase, no doubt one of the strangest careers on the planet.)
It's really amazing how this system works. There were accounts in the media of how George Bush once left behind the man carrying the "football" and how he had to catch up with the president. And in 1995, a Norwegian space probe launch triggered off a Russian alarm against a missile strike, which was cancelled by Yeltsin, 20 minutes after it was detected.
The whole command/control system is one of the most sophisticated structures ever designed by humans - and it has the planet at stake. It's insightful to read about the scientists behind the system, and how human they are. It's also scary.
It also makes you wonder what might have happened if Yeltsin was drunk.
In a surprise announcement today, Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) threatened to create innovative products. "Our customers have said they want innovation," said a Microsoft spokesperson. "We will now make innovative products."
According to analysts, this could send shock waves through the PC industry. "We rely on them to follow our code of honor," said a disgruntled industry leader, who preferred to remain anonymous. "We've been making the same hardware for 20 years. What will we do now?" According to an analyst, there is no skepticism in an industry used to a flood of vaporware announcements. "We have had many false alarms from Microsoft before," said the Anonymous Analyst. "However, this time they are REALLY serious."
A key distinguishing feature this time around is a stunning move by Microsoft to create a 'Freedom to Innovate Network', known as FIN.
Many industry observers pointed out the resemblence to a previous Microsoft initiative. "Earlier, they had formed a top secret organization called 'Freedom to Innovate Bugs', and guess how that turned out," said another insider. "Naturally, we can't dismiss this as vaporware. The coincidence is practically spooky." Especially the acronym, he added.
Microsoft spokesmen declined to comment on backward compatibility problems with the new trend towards innovation. ---
Being extremely brilliant in science or math does not mean that a person cannot be not irrational or religious. OTOH, being completely rational doesn't make one a brilliant mind either. Many accomplished genuises were extremely good in their field, and yet irrational in other respects.
* Godel came up with one the most elegant and logical proofs in math, yet in his later years was paranoid about being infected by microorganisms in his food and ended up starving to death. A notably illogical way to die.
* Ramanujan, who was self taught and considered one of the most brilliant mathematicians of the century, was devoutly religious and was eccentric enough that he carried a doctor's certificate stating he was sane.
* Emannuel Swedenborg was a deeply religious and profound scholar with an allegedly stupendous IQ.
* John Forbes Nash, who won the Nobel for a thesis he wrote at 21, became schizophrenic later. There's an unforgettable exchange in his biography, "A Beautiful Mind", by Sylvia Nasar (an excellent book).
Mackey: "How could you, a mathematician... believe that extraterrestrials are sending you messages?"
Nash: "Because, the ideas I had about supernatural beings came to me the same way that my mathematical ideas did. So I took them seriously."
Of course, this does not mean that Knuth or any genius is bound to be eccentric or worse. The point is - the history of math and science is replete with people of enormous logic, who were quite irrational and non-scientific outside their core field of accomplishment.
In any case, religion has more to do with faith and finding personal meaning, not with exhibiting scientifically rigorous proof (which would be quite irrational indeed, not to mention a career-limiting-move. )
L.
PS - found this thoughtful remark from Nash describing his delusions
Thus further time passed. Then gradually I began to intellectually reject some of the delusionally influenced lines of thinking which had been characteristic of my orientation.This began, most recognizably, with the rejection of politically-oriented thinking as essentially a hopeless waste of intellectual effort.
So at the present time I seem to be thinking rationally again in the style that is characteristic of scientists. However this is not entirely a matter of joy as if someone returned from physical disability to good physical health. One aspect of this is that rationality of thought imposes a limit on a person's concept of his relation to the cosmos. For example, a non-Zoroastrian could think of Zarathustra as simply a madman who led millions of naive followers to adopt a cult of ritual fire worship. But without his "madness" Zarathustra would necessarily have been only another of the millions or billions of human individuals who have lived and then been forgotten.
Statistically, it would seem improbable that any mathematician or scientist, at the age of 66, would be able through continued research efforts, to add much to his or her previous achievements. However I am still making the effort and it is conceivable that with the gap period of about 25 years of partially deluded thinking providing a sort of vacation my situation may be atypical. Thus I have hopes of being able to achieve something of value through my current studies or with any new ideas that come in the future.
You can rant and rave all you want. It does not matter. IBM is like the IRS - the people who work in certain depts. get their paychecks for whatever they do. For instance,
"Early Tuesday morning, says Tim Eades, a segment marketing manager for IBM Thinkpads, IBM will set up a Web page for the Thinkpad 600E that will include the compatibility announcement"
Indeed, the article is up and running, and it says that Thinkpad is 'compatible' with linux.
What this means is another matter. But you can rest assured that if you call up IBM, a drone-like voice will assure you that it is 'compatible with redhat linux'.
What interests me is - does anybody at IBM actually read/. ? Do they care? And more importantly, is there an email id, or is this the archetype of the faceless bureaucracy?
"(CNN) -- The duo who brought the world the PalmPilot and recently formed their own company debuted on Tuesday a faster, cheaper and far more versatile competitor -- a handheld computer called Visor. "
So this is a competitor to the PalmPilot. Now watch....
"Hawkins says he is not in competition with 3Com, his former employer, and its PalmPilot lines. In fact, the two companies have partnered, with Handspring paying a royalty to 3Com for every unit it ships. "
So this is a competitor to the PalmPilot, and it happens to be cheaper, compatible, is manufactured by a different company, and pays royalties to...3Com, which owns PalmPilot.
Whoever is in charge of Visor has really bad lawyers. They need to get hold of someone who knows IPR and design, and they need to kick off the gigantic bureaucracy of 3com/US Robotics. Look-and-feel has failed as a legal property, as in the Apple vs. MS lawsuit.
The odds are that 3com will be far too slow to react, but from what I can see, the inventors of this Visor don't seem very smart at business either. Which is sad; I remember reading a WSJ article about Hawkins walking around with a wooden block in his pocket the size of a Palm Pilot to make sure he was designing the right product - simple, effective, useful. It would be sad if he gave up now because of bad legal advise.
OTOH, look at the massive obstacles - he has to manage production and inventory for a brand new product which is compatible with a big success, and yet, he has no idea how many people will order, and he has to set up a brand new manufacturing, inventory, and distribution base.
But...he still has the insight and knowledge. It's a tough call.
I happened to watch one of her programs on building a wooden desk/closet thingie for your PC.
I hereby present various pieces of evidence that prove she is not a geek:
Ladies and Gentlemen, please focus your attention on Exhibit A
Exhibit A) ---------- She had a total moron to talk about the technical stuff. Here's how the discussion went, after he placed the monitor on the desk:
[ note - the "MS" that follows is not *that* MS]
Act I, Scene I. --------- MS : So where do we place this? (pointing to the PC).
Techno dude: This is the hard disk. We connect it to the monitor and place it under the desk here. (points to support board).
Act I, Scene II ------------- [...now they are discussing placing the PC in a closet, to hide the wires and stuff ]
MS : So this is where we place the hard disk (pointing to the PC).
Techno dude: That's right. ---------- -- End of Martha Steward dialogue --
She kept referring to the PC as "hard disk" so many times I quickly went through the stages of surprise, amusement, irritation, and activism (the last one being displayed here). And no geek would put a PC in a closed closet space, with such poor ventilation.
Moving on.....
Exhibit B) ----------
Once again, I was flipping channels, and who should appear on the Martha Stewart show but a smiling Bill Gates.
MS: So how many hours a day do you spend using the internet?
Bill: (suddenly realising he'd look like a total nerd if he said "ten" or something like that) Oh, maybe around 3... --- And no reaction from MS. Anybody who follows news stories knows better. If she were a REAL geek, she'd nudge and wink, or maybe glare at him in disbelief, but no. It passed right by without she noticing.
I rest my case (which is that while I'm not saying MS is evil, she is definitely not a geek).
"Why has the time come for them to load Linux onto their systems? "
Because linux was viewed as an experimental low end platform until recently. media attention and industry momentum have cast it into the big league. And now it's viewed as stable and mature enough for high-end boxes.
"Then you listed reasons why they wouldn't want to. "
I didn't say that. I said if a high-end vendor starts loading linux, they may be tempted to modify it for their own purposes, and thus fork from everyone else.
"Even though they described the bird as 'walchvogel' meaning 'disguting to eat' they certainly must have had fun clobbering the clumsy creatures that waddled up to them only to be hit on the head with a stout staff. In fact the name Dodo comes from the Dutch 'Dodars' or 'Dodoor', meaning a sluggard or a stupid fool. "
- This is from http://www.mauritius-canada.com/dodo/
Hmmm, I find myself getting increasingly fascinated by the Dodo and am reading all about it now.
L.
PS - That web site says:
"You are the 6,439th person visiting this page since March 1st, 1999". It will be fun to watch the slashdot effect. Hehehe. They won't know what hit them. Literally.
It seems the time has come for high-end vendors to start loading linux on their boxes. The question is -
Since Linux is mainly PC based, won't a vendor or two be tempted to throw their own engineers to fork the kernel to make a dedicated OS for their particular machine/architecture? This way, they can claim it runs 25% faster or whatever.
The present 28 or so Linux distros all have the same linux inside, since they mainly target the same market. But if a big vendor steps in for a specialized niche market (say, mega servers, or GFX rendering), they might very well be tempted to diverge from the rest, since:
a) their market is different
b) they don't care about a backlash since they are so powerful
How likely is this? And is history going to repeat itself? Is there any incentive to prevent splintering?
Slashdot Mirror
Hold on - what you do on the street is seen by others and hence constitutes an implicit consent to be recorded? I think that's a bit of a stretch.
For example - let's say you film a person in the town square, that's perfectly legal. IANAL, but if you follow them around for the whole day filming everything that he or she does (even in public), I'm pretty sure they can take legal action against you.
In any case, that's not the point - there's a difference between someone filming an occasional home video and institutional surveillance by the govt. of everyone's every move.
While focusing on Big Brother aspects, I think people are leaving out more important issues - for example, what impact will this have on Michael Jackson's life when he undergoes facial surgery gain? What about other celebrities who regularly undergo facelifts?
Sure, *you* may worry about petty matters like surveillance, but think of it. This technology could have the potential to seriously disrupt their lives...
Sorry 'bout the ghastly pun.
I knew a guy who worked in Sun's "Visual IDE" tools division a couple yrs ago, and couldn't help asking the obvious - How is it that Sun created Java, and the main tools being used to code java come from Symantec, MS, and IBM. It struck me as profoundly ironic that sun was releasing this revolutionary language and their competitor was making more money off it than they were. His view was that sun really sucked at developing GUI/IDE type stuff. I believe it.
OTOH, sun is REALLY good at *nix stuff. I'm surprised that they didn't take the initiative to figure out how to win in the GUI world. This is quite a contrast to MS, which is ruthlessly quick at changing its focus, adapting, and winning marketshare.
I also can't believe how badly they handled the core java people - half of them quit after the product took off, which doesn't exactly help.
After the movie, rampant speculation ensued as to whether HAL was a hidden reference to IBM (just substitute the preceeding letters). Clarke denied it, saying HAL stood for Heuristic ALgorithmic (sounds like a stretch). He even poked fun at the controversy in the novel 2010, noting how the rumor spread and people still didn't believe it stood for "heuristic.."
Wired had a good cover story on HAL's b'day in 1997. I think there was also a symposium at UIUC, where he was "invented by Dr. Chandra".
anyway, enough rambling.
Heh, you're basically proving my point - using an exception and ignoring the average (airplane crashes vs. car crashes?).
:)
anyway, the point is - both auto accidents and firearm homicides are large scale incidents: so the way they are reduced are by making usage safer overall.
With autos, this is done by restricting cars to those over 16, who have proved competence, and by instituting devices such as air bags, etc.
With guns, there are no restrictions. Any minor or mentally ill person can walk into a gun show and buy a machine gun (one in Pomona, California was selling rocket launchers and grenades as well; gun shows there routinely sell machineguns - no questions asked).
the number of driving deaths would increase if children or incompetent unregistered drivers were on the streets. Similarly, the number of gun deaths increase when the above categories use them.
Now you may point out - hey, it's illegal for the mentally ill to use guns. Big deal, that's like making a law stating that "It's hereby illegal for the mentally ill to piss on the streets." Doesn't have any bite, know what I mean?
I'm not saying lawful, competent gun owners should be punished. I'm saying it can be regulated, just like cars are. Nobody's right is deprived, except those who shouldn't be using guns in the first place.
However, it's precisely because of lawful owners that nothing can be done. The mentally ill, the minors, and the felons don't have much political power. The NRA, the voters, and lawful gun owners do. And because they are terrified of the slightest move towards public safety (say, prohibiting the manufacture of high calibre machine guns), the US will continue to have a high homicide rate.
I know, I know, there will still be guns. There are also unsafe cars - the key is the statistical odds of access and misuse of guns. If you restrict production/distribution, the number is reduced. This is what I meant by binary thinking - think "reduced", not "eliminated totally".
The total number of unsafe thingies floating around X the ease of access to them is what determines rate of deaths.
BTW, you're comparing shootings in *school* to driving everywhere else. I'm pretty sure less than 82 kids are killed in air bag accidents on school premises.
HELSINKI (Reuters).
In a surprise move, an arrest warrant was issued by the Finnish police to capture Linus Torvalds under the nation's new "anti virus" law.
"The law states that any program that causes danger to data processing systems and is freely available for download by visitors is a virus," said Lt. Hakk Daeta. "The linux kernel poses a danger to Windows, which is a widely used data processing system. Many legal scholars have testified to this. And after Torvalds blatantly put out this virus, millions of PCs have been affected. He must be stopped."
Meanwhile, rumors persisted that Torvalds was seen on the Jerry Springer show, on an episode titled "My PC is too sexy". A man who appeared on the show wearing a paper bag over his head made the suspicious statement that "I am innocent. I just showed how it must be pronounced. It is lin-nucks, not line-ux."
Police are still searching.
When it comes to guns being restricted, people tend to assume binary viewpoints. Nobody seems to realise it's a matter or reducing the odds.
Example - Imagine 2 cities, one where seat belts & air bags are used and one where they aren't. let's say you go to the city where they aren't used. You are surprised to see the number of auto deaths are vastly greater, and try to make a point.
You: If you had seat belts/air bags, it would reduce the number of deaths.
Local: Bullshit! There was an accident in your town, and people got killed even tho they had both!
You: I'm not saying it will cure all problems. It will simply *reduce* the number.
Local: Crap! There was a case of a car falling over the bridge, and they died *because* they wore seatbelts and couldn't get out. Unsafe cars don't kill people. Unsafe people kill people.
See what I mean? You can prove that the safety measure does actually *kill* people. And you can prove that even when it's implemented, it doesn't prevent deaths. But what you may forget is that the probability is vastly reduced.
Look at the numbers:
The US has 20,000 deaths each year from guns, far more per person than any other industrial nation. (note - per person, so don't say it's got a bigger population , blah blah blah).
Japan has 1/216 fewer gun deaths than the US, per 100,000 people. (Guns are NOT banned in japan, they are just very, very difficult to get). Yes, japan has a smaller population - this is *after* adjusting for the population.
There are 200+ million guns in the US, with more than 50% of the population owning guns.
15 % of the US population spends time in a mental institute at some point.
Just combine the last 2 numbers and enjoy the fireworks.
L.
2014 -- Construction of Hilton Orbiter Hotel begins,
by assembling and converting the giant Shuttle tanks
which had previously been allowed to fall back to
Earth.
http://www.gsreport.com/articles/art000072.html
There was a news story some months ago about he being involved in a plan with Hilton. Can't find any URLs, but apparently he has had ties to them for a while, hence the 2001 reference.
It's funny when you look at some of the logos in 2001. Pan-Am was the mega airline back then, but it went bankrupt. AT & T (the logo on the space phone) is still trotting along. Can't remember other merchandising tie-ins.
Apparently, unlike today's movies which get paid to include product placement, rumor has it that Kubrick had to *pay* the corporations to include their logos and add a respectable touch.
L.
Found these links on Chandra(s)
9 5/sept/obit_950918.html
http://members.tripod.com/hamzmat/3chandras.htm
"Born in Lahore in colonial India in 1910, Chandrasekhar was the nephew of India's only other physics Nobelist (1930), Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman."
Hmm, that's quite a remarkable coincidence of both physics and name.
http://www.the-scientist.library.upenn.edu/yr19
Well, O'Reilly made a bad choice. I didn't say every closed solution is the best. I said pick the best one available, and it appears they weren't blinded by ideology but still picked the wrong one.
I agree about the general set of principles - normally it's stuff like compatibility with your existing software, quality, etc. etc. And sure, if it's open source, it's a point in its favor.
All I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense to make a business decision based on ideology. Sure, a personal decision is fine, because the whole point is personal satisfaction. But if you're using it for running your business, then that's your main goal, not the ideology.
Actually, I think a lot of people who make purchasing decisions for IT tend to have a pro-MS or pro-big-corporation ideology. It gives an illusion of safety. But again, I think it hurts them in the long run.
L.
Just ask which is the better software for the job, given all the factors.
In the case of OSS, one of the factors would be likely long term support and development. But that is not the ONLY factor.
If you had to develop a new game, you'd probably license the propietary Quake engine instead of using the open source Golgotha. If you had to build a giant database, DB2 would probably be more viable than MySQL.
In the case of SOLID, you could reject it on the grounds that it is a small company which could pull the rug. That doesn't mean IBM's DB2 (which is EQUALLY closed source) is going to go under as well. If you are evaluating long term support, look at the facts, not the ideology. (Again, the advantage of something being OSS would be one of the facts in its favor, I'm not against open source - I use linux).
The problem with ideology is that people believe things based mainly on their principles, not on reality. So you'll end up making a decision based on ideals, not sound judgement. Just look at the diehard fanatics who claim that Linux has more apps than Windows, or the MS fans who claim NT is more reliable than anything, or the COBOL fans who believe its the most advanced language there is.
Again, I know if it's open source, it has many strengths. Include them in your judgement. But don't preclude everything else simply on ideology - you'll only reduce your own choices.
L.
"My advice is: Don't let ideology get in the way of business."
That makes perfect sense. If you refuse certain products because of ideology, you're simply limiting your choices because of your emotional bias, and that's not smart if you're running a business.
For instance, I've run across posts from physicians asking about dictation/voice recognition software. Now, if they were ideologically committed to open source, I doubt they would have a choice at all. Similarly, there are sectors of this $100 billion industry where OSS products do not exist, or exist but aren't as good as the commercial ones.
OTOH, people who refuse to use open source products, or use only MS, or use anything-but-MS, also commit the same mistake. Ideology gets in the way if it limits your choice. (Don't mean to start a flame war either).
L.
There are various reasons why:
1) The AC is truly distributed and open, unlike others who are closed, proprietary entities. The AC exists as a conceptual entity, much like Free Software. Not only is the AC similar to free speech, but he dishes out vast volumes of it. (Some would say too vast).
2) The AC has stimulated various debates on various issues. Often with dumbass comments, the AC stirs up high emotions and profound criticism.
3) The AC always gets the first post. This is a dubious achievement at best, but he takes innocent pride in it like a happy little kid.
4) The AC has often submitted critical insider info from the CIA, Microsoft, IBM, and many organizations; he has gone where lesser mortals feared to tread.
5) The AC is unique - he is loved in the abstract, yet hated at almost every appearance he makes. In fact, this is the reason why he is the AC.
6) The AC has become a part of the OSS psyche; in the press there are frequent references to him. Almost like Superman or Batman, people speak of the AC as some kind of superhero (or supervillian) whose identity is unknown....This introduces an element of comic book intrigue and suspense into an otherwise dull and boring profession.
7) Everybody has been an AC, they just won't admit it. Thus by rewarding the AC, you reward the whole community.
8) The AC exists in multiple places at the same time, thereby providing redundant backup and stable, 24x7 service.
9) The AC is intellectually complex. He is international, posting in strange languages nobody can understand. He is mysterious and abstruse in his thoughts, which may contain hidden truths masked in the form of annoying spam like troll.
10) It's difficult to draw out the AC. He has never been seen, but if he wins the award, he may appear to accept it....We can finally unmask him and see what he looks like...
L.
He has long been a proponent of the view that space travel will be funded privately and that ultimately, we'll have hotels in space. In fact, I believe he even had some kind of tie up with Hilton, and apparently Hilton is depicted in 2001 (can't recall it myself).
l ife02.htm
Here are some of his predictions:
http://www.suntimes.co.za/1999/03/14/lifestyle/
2012: Aerospace planes enter service. The history of space travel has repeated that of aeronautics, although more slowly, because
the technical problems are so much greater. From Gagarin to
commercial space flight has taken twice as long as from the Wright
Brothers to the DC3.
2013: Despite the understandable apprehensions of Buckingham
Palace, Prince Harry becomes the first member of the British royal
family to fly in space.
2014: Construction of Hilton Orbiter Hotel begins, by assembling
and converting the giant Shuttle tanks previously allowed to fall
back to Earth.
Domain names with the word "monkey" in them.
http://www.zone8.com/monkey/list/index.html
I'm not sure whom this helps, but more power to you.
During the cold war, a system evolved to prevent a nuclear holocaust. Basically, either the US president or the Russian President could "push the button".
On the US side, the president carries a briefcase known as "the football", which contains the nuclear trigger. Similarly, there's a briefcase on the Russian side (there was even a documentary on this, with an interview with the Russian engineer who designed the Russian briefcase, no doubt one of the strangest careers on the planet.)
It's really amazing how this system works. There were accounts in the media of how George Bush once left behind the man carrying the "football" and how he had to catch up with the president. And in 1995, a Norwegian space probe launch triggered off a Russian alarm against a missile strike, which was cancelled by Yeltsin, 20 minutes after it was detected.
The whole command/control system is one of the most sophisticated structures ever designed by humans - and it has the planet at stake. It's insightful to read about the scientists behind the system, and how human they are. It's also scary.
It also makes you wonder what might have happened if Yeltsin was drunk.
L.
REDMOND (Reuters).
In a surprise announcement today, Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) threatened to create innovative products. "Our customers have said they want innovation," said a Microsoft spokesperson. "We will now make innovative products."
According to analysts, this could send shock waves through the PC industry. "We rely on them to follow our code of honor," said a disgruntled industry leader, who preferred to remain anonymous. "We've been making the same hardware for 20 years. What will we do now?" According to an analyst, there is no skepticism in an industry used to a flood of vaporware announcements. "We have had many false alarms from Microsoft before," said the Anonymous Analyst. "However, this time they are REALLY serious."
A key distinguishing feature this time around is a stunning move by Microsoft to create a 'Freedom to Innovate Network', known as FIN.
Many industry observers pointed out the resemblence to a previous Microsoft initiative. "Earlier, they had formed a top secret organization called 'Freedom to Innovate Bugs', and guess how that turned out," said another insider. "Naturally, we can't dismiss this as vaporware. The coincidence is practically spooky." Especially the acronym, he added.
Microsoft spokesmen declined to comment on backward compatibility problems with the new trend towards innovation.
---
L.
Being extremely brilliant in science or math does not mean that a person cannot be not irrational or religious. OTOH, being completely rational doesn't make one a brilliant mind either. Many accomplished genuises were extremely good in their field, and yet irrational in other respects.
t obio.html
* Godel came up with one the most elegant and logical proofs in math, yet in his later years was paranoid about being infected by microorganisms in his food and ended up starving to death. A notably illogical way to die.
* Ramanujan, who was self taught and considered one of the most brilliant mathematicians of the century, was devoutly religious and was eccentric enough that he carried a doctor's certificate stating he was sane.
* Emannuel Swedenborg was a deeply religious and profound scholar with an allegedly stupendous IQ.
* John Forbes Nash, who won the Nobel for a thesis he wrote at 21, became schizophrenic later. There's an unforgettable exchange in his biography, "A Beautiful Mind", by Sylvia Nasar (an excellent book).
Mackey: "How could you, a mathematician... believe that extraterrestrials are sending you messages?"
Nash: "Because, the ideas I had about supernatural beings came to me the same way that my mathematical ideas did. So I took them seriously."
Of course, this does not mean that Knuth or any genius is bound to be eccentric or worse. The point is - the history of math and science is replete with people of enormous logic, who were quite irrational and non-scientific outside their core field of accomplishment.
In any case, religion has more to do with faith and finding personal meaning, not with exhibiting scientifically rigorous proof (which would be quite irrational indeed, not to mention a career-limiting-move. )
L.
PS - found this thoughtful remark from Nash describing his delusions
http://www.nobel.se/laureates/economy-1994-2-au
Thus further time passed. Then gradually I began to intellectually reject some of the delusionally influenced lines of thinking which had been characteristic of my orientation.This began, most recognizably, with the rejection of politically-oriented thinking as essentially a hopeless waste of intellectual effort.
So at the present time I seem to be thinking rationally again in the style that is characteristic of scientists. However this is not entirely a matter of joy as if someone returned from physical disability to good physical health. One aspect of this is that rationality of thought imposes a limit on a person's concept of his relation to the cosmos. For
example, a non-Zoroastrian could think of Zarathustra as simply a madman who led millions of naive followers to adopt a cult of ritual fire worship. But without his "madness" Zarathustra would necessarily have been only another of the millions or billions of human individuals who have lived and then been forgotten.
Statistically, it would seem improbable that any mathematician or scientist, at the age of 66, would be able through continued research efforts, to add much to his or her previous achievements. However I am still making the effort and it is conceivable that with the gap period of about 25 years of partially deluded thinking providing a sort of vacation my situation may be atypical. Thus I have hopes of being able to achieve something of value through my current studies or with any new ideas that come in the future.
You can rant and rave all you want. It does not matter. IBM is like the IRS - the people who work in certain depts. get their paychecks for whatever they do. For instance,
/. ? Do they care? And more importantly, is there an email id, or is this the archetype of the faceless bureaucracy?
"Early Tuesday morning, says Tim Eades, a segment marketing manager for
IBM Thinkpads, IBM will set up a Web page for the Thinkpad 600E that will
include the compatibility announcement"
Indeed, the article is up and running, and it says that Thinkpad is 'compatible' with linux.
What this means is another matter. But you can rest assured that if you call up IBM, a drone-like voice will assure you that it is 'compatible with redhat linux'.
What interests me is - does anybody at IBM actually read
L.
At the beginning of the article:
"(CNN) -- The duo who brought
the world the PalmPilot and
recently formed their own company
debuted on Tuesday a faster,
cheaper and far more versatile
competitor -- a handheld
computer called Visor. "
So this is a competitor to the PalmPilot. Now watch....
"Hawkins says he is not in
competition with 3Com, his former
employer, and its PalmPilot lines. In
fact, the two companies have
partnered, with Handspring paying a
royalty to 3Com for every unit it
ships. "
So this is a competitor to the PalmPilot, and it happens to be cheaper, compatible, is manufactured by a different company, and pays royalties to...3Com, which owns PalmPilot.
Whoever is in charge of Visor has really bad lawyers. They need to get hold of someone who knows IPR and design, and they need to kick off the gigantic bureaucracy of 3com/US Robotics. Look-and-feel has failed as a legal property, as in the Apple vs. MS lawsuit.
The odds are that 3com will be far too slow to react, but from what I can see, the inventors of this Visor don't seem very smart at business either. Which is sad; I remember reading a WSJ article about Hawkins walking around with a wooden block in his pocket the size of a Palm Pilot to make sure he was designing the right product - simple, effective, useful. It would be sad if he gave up now because of bad legal advise.
OTOH, look at the massive obstacles - he has to manage production and inventory for a brand new product which is compatible with a big success, and yet, he has no idea how many people will order, and he has to set up a brand new manufacturing, inventory, and distribution base.
But...he still has the insight and knowledge. It's a tough call.
L.
I happened to watch one of her programs on building a wooden desk/closet thingie for your PC.
I hereby present various pieces of evidence that prove she is not a geek:
Ladies and Gentlemen, please focus your attention on Exhibit A
Exhibit A)
----------
She had a total moron to talk about the technical stuff. Here's how the discussion went, after he placed the monitor on the desk:
[ note - the "MS" that follows is not *that* MS]
Act I, Scene I.
---------
MS : So where do we place this? (pointing to the PC).
Techno dude: This is the hard disk. We connect it to the monitor and place it under the desk here. (points to support board).
Act I, Scene II
-------------
[...now they are discussing placing the PC in a closet, to hide the wires and stuff ]
MS : So this is where we place the hard disk (pointing to the PC).
Techno dude: That's right.
----------
-- End of Martha Steward dialogue --
She kept referring to the PC as "hard disk" so many times I quickly went through the stages of surprise, amusement, irritation, and activism (the last one being displayed here). And no geek would put a PC in a closed closet space, with such poor ventilation.
Moving on.....
Exhibit B)
----------
Once again, I was flipping channels, and who should appear on the Martha Stewart show but a smiling Bill Gates.
MS: So how many hours a day do you spend using the internet?
Bill: (suddenly realising he'd look like a total nerd if he said "ten" or something like that) Oh, maybe around 3...
---
And no reaction from MS. Anybody who follows news stories knows better. If she were a REAL geek, she'd nudge and wink, or maybe glare at him in disbelief, but no. It passed right by without she noticing.
I rest my case (which is that while I'm not saying MS is evil, she is definitely not a geek).
L.
"Why has the time come for them to load Linux onto their systems? "
Because linux was viewed as an experimental low end platform until recently. media attention and industry momentum have cast it into the big league. And now it's viewed as stable and mature enough for high-end boxes.
"Then you listed reasons why they wouldn't want to. "
I didn't say that. I said if a high-end vendor starts loading linux, they may be tempted to modify it for their own purposes, and thus fork from everyone else.
L.
"Even though they described the bird as 'walchvogel' meaning
'disguting to eat' they certainly must have had fun
clobbering the clumsy creatures that waddled up to them
only to be hit on the head with a stout staff. In fact the
name Dodo comes from the Dutch 'Dodars' or 'Dodoor',
meaning a sluggard or a stupid fool. "
- This is from http://www.mauritius-canada.com/dodo/
Hmmm, I find myself getting increasingly fascinated by the Dodo and am reading all about it now.
L.
PS - That web site says:
"You are the 6,439th person visiting this page since March 1st, 1999". It will be fun to watch the slashdot effect. Hehehe. They won't know what hit them. Literally.
Never seen an AIX vs. SunOS 4.1.3 religious war before. Go, go, go!
:)
It seems the time has come for high-end vendors to start loading linux on their boxes. The question is -
Since Linux is mainly PC based, won't a vendor or two be tempted to throw their own engineers to fork the kernel to make a dedicated OS for their particular machine/architecture? This way, they can claim it runs 25% faster or whatever.
The present 28 or so Linux distros all have the same linux inside, since they mainly target the same market. But if a big vendor steps in for a specialized niche market (say, mega servers, or GFX rendering), they might very well be tempted to diverge from the rest, since:
a) their market is different
b) they don't care about a backlash since they are so powerful
How likely is this? And is history going to repeat itself? Is there any incentive to prevent splintering?
L.