Those "<insert some area here> is the next big thing" predictions are always BS. They happen because on the past we had a big thing. That was physics, but on the pas we didn't have much more than physics. Nowadays, we have plenty of areas that can lead to great opportunities, and need to (and will) explore all of them.
No old area lose (scientifical or economical) importance, and no new area is much bigger than the old ones. But the oposite is true, normaly, new areas normaly are quite small, and when they manage to grow, there is no more hype on them.
So, Sony is going to take advantage of the DRM role on the GPL (so bad Linus don't like v3). As I said, that won't let people improve Linux, destroying its sucessfull strategy.
You are right. I was confused (I was thinking mitochrondriae, if it spells like that). And I tryed to guess how to write procaryte, tanks for the correction.
There is plenty of biochemical materials out there at the Solar System, it spreading through some rocks at the early times (when there where more rocks and more hits) isn't so hard to imagine. And when it hit Earth it maybe got an ideal environment to grow. The biggest problem I have with the origin of life on Earth was that it was fast, and that only one type of it had a chance of surviving. It could be fast because the planet is big, and there where plenty of places to life happen, but if it was the case, there should be more types of it. Otherwise, it should take a long time.
But you got the point, we shouldn't fund research on that. That is more because biology have much less to gain by studying panspermy than the origin of life itself. Once we have a better idea on how life started, we can start seriously asking where.
Anyway, the fact that we didn't see it anywhere else isn't that hard. Life is simply too hard to see (unless it start broadcasting its presence), I remember a probe that was aimed to Mars that was tested on Earth that couldn't find any conclusive traces of life. Well, maybe now we can detect life on Earth (from space, of course, and without those very powerfull lenses), but I never saw anybody claiming that they can.
Thacherous computing plattaforms won't be able to run Linux. Or, at least won't be able to do that the way we do it now, that is easy to modify and improve.
Sorry to destroy that, but on procariontes have ribosomes. But we could use genetics anyway, we should be able to know if we "leaked" genetic material on the last bilion years, and how much.
In fact, I think that it is much more easy to life to occur out of Earth ang fall here by luck (disclaimer, IAN a biologist, or geologist, or something like it). For a start, the Solar System is much bigger than the Earth, bigger chance of something unlikely happenning. Also, several places at the Solar System cooled much earlier than the Earth, so the chemical reactions that may create life started first.
I think that probably exogene life have hit early Earth and created a gray goo (that latter turned into green goo...) scenario and made Earth born life impossible. As a previous poster said, life evolution on Earth is very weard otherwise.
DNA replication is affected by ionizing radiation, that is known. What those experiments found is that DNA itself is resilient. So if the bacteria is not reproducing, it is ok. Some can even fix their DNA and reproduce on a hight radiation evironment.
And the evolution is much more dependent of genetic recombination* than on mutations. That is why all known life forms (and virus too) do it (as far as I know at least, IAN a biologist).
* On our case, sex. But different creatures use different strategies, bacteria simply send their DNA out.
Now that confuses me... If I quote a complete phrase, should I ommit the period? So I got something like "\"said that\".", instead of "\"said that.\"."? Or I should ommit the second period, to get something as "\"said that.\""?
I see both constructions, and grammar nazis normaly only complain about the one with the 2 periods.
And this is a serious question, not a joke. I know, that should be obvious, and I am missing something very simple, but I can't see what.
Last time I saw, IE was de dominant brownser out there, with 80% or more of the overall hits. And nobody was talking about IE dying, just becomming less dominant.
The only one talking about IE dying here is Microsoft. Well, maybe they have a point, they know it better than anybody else.
Re:Yet Again, the BSDs get Snubbed
on
Unusual Open Source
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
GPL wins. A professor may not bother that people close his code, but companies do, so lots of developers never see the BSD kernels, nor work with it. And the word doesn't spread, so people don't consider it.
So, if you define sucess as having a big reachable community, the sucessfull projects will have someone able to tell you the name of every developer. If you define sucess as being used by corporations, the sucessfull projects look like corporation projects.
Now, we could get the first page with some more truisms, or we could forget about generalising this idea of "sucess" to an area where there is simply no metric to be used.
There are so much warns out there that they become useless. The user don't read them anymore. The only alternative that works is making it hard to run the trojan, make the user DO several things in order to run it.
Require the user to change permissions is something that works. Linking the file with the browser someway, and requiring the user to unlink it to use out of a sandbox is something that may work. Displaying a confirmation window when the user see several of them each hour is something that doen't work.
Even requiring conscient actions from the user, the system is still not completely safe, but now they know what they are doing (or they'd be harmless). So you can finaly educate them.
He told Gates that he wanted a system that could do some real work (what plain Windows can't) and hadn't artificial limitations (like the Windows that Gates offered had). Wow! that is rude.
And he also told Gates that he want something that the children can hack (but he didn't used that word, I guess he said thinker), because that is what children do. That is definitely rude!
If somebody come to me trying to turn that incredibly nice idead that I had into some useless PR that has absolutely none of the original benefits, and expected me to agree (so that wasn't a joke), I'd be much more rude. But if Gates proposal of using Windows were a joke, I'd laught with him. I'm not so sure if it wasn't really a joke, so maybe Negroponte was rude.
"Don't even get me started on oppressive/corrupt governments."
You really should get started on oppressive/corrupt government... If there is something that can destroy corrupt governments it is this device. This is not an educational (on the sense of "what people learn at scool") device, it is useless for that. What this thing is usefull for is to inform the masses, and make them create information. On other words, this levels the playing field of ideas, and if there is something that endangers corrupt govenments is a mass of creative people.
Nice troll. No, governemnt shouldn't make those things as teachers and communication tools available for the populations. It would save your money. And you say you distribute 50% of your inconme... I'm not sure I belive that.
Anyway, it is not your money that is going into those computers. Mine is, and I am glad to help financing something like that.
Microsoft lost the golden age of UNIX. It implemented a half compatible system and lied to people telling them it was compatible. So most people kept UNIX.
Now, UNIX is dying anyway. Linux and BSD (mostly because of GNU tools) are each day less POSIX compilant, and the programs are using their extensions (that are quite usefull). Even more important, proprietary UNIX are almost dead aready, why does MS thinks that it will be sucessfull introducing a new proprietary UNIX now? Why does it think that people will buy that UNIX.
Windows surely needs a lot of improvement, and getting ideas from UNIX is a good idea. But MS shouldn't hype that compatibility, because it will lead nowhere.
"A machine that goes on replicating forever, eating everything in its path? If that were possible, don't you think that evolution would have come up with it already?"
What! Didn't it already happened? I always though that I descended from it...
When you create a lot of exoteric math and have a lot of models to define, you'll probably be able to apply some of the first on some of the latter. It is a simple matter of probability.
Now, that debate was very hot, and everything, but we have the solution now: math is completely man made. None of it is discovered. It is already time for you to live that behing and come to the XXI century. We have now at least 2 completely different and equivalent "maths".
It was done to the extent that was possible. The CLI isn't there to let the user write, it is there to automate stuff. When you want to automate stuff, you use lots of rarely used functions that your system would neglet (making the user RTFM anyway) and monitor space is extremly important. Also, you don't want some weard program messing up with the streams.
"My bet is that the Firefox team gets decadent and corrupt and doesn't do anything and fades into the background..."
It is free software... If it get evil, we fork and everybody changes to the forked code. And the life goes on, but not for the now evil Mozilla Foundation.
That is the bigest upside of free software, you don't need to trust anybody. And when people don't want to be trusted, it is so much easier to trust them.
Slashdot Mirror
Care to tell me one of those problems that a turing machine can not solve, but we can? Any pointer, any name, any evidence...
Why not?
Those "<insert some area here> is the next big thing" predictions are always BS. They happen because on the past we had a big thing. That was physics, but on the pas we didn't have much more than physics. Nowadays, we have plenty of areas that can lead to great opportunities, and need to (and will) explore all of them.
No old area lose (scientifical or economical) importance, and no new area is much bigger than the old ones. But the oposite is true, normaly, new areas normaly are quite small, and when they manage to grow, there is no more hype on them.
So, Sony is going to take advantage of the DRM role on the GPL (so bad Linus don't like v3). As I said, that won't let people improve Linux, destroying its sucessfull strategy.
You are right. I was confused (I was thinking mitochrondriae, if it spells like that). And I tryed to guess how to write procaryte, tanks for the correction.
There is plenty of biochemical materials out there at the Solar System, it spreading through some rocks at the early times (when there where more rocks and more hits) isn't so hard to imagine. And when it hit Earth it maybe got an ideal environment to grow. The biggest problem I have with the origin of life on Earth was that it was fast, and that only one type of it had a chance of surviving. It could be fast because the planet is big, and there where plenty of places to life happen, but if it was the case, there should be more types of it. Otherwise, it should take a long time.
But you got the point, we shouldn't fund research on that. That is more because biology have much less to gain by studying panspermy than the origin of life itself. Once we have a better idea on how life started, we can start seriously asking where.
Anyway, the fact that we didn't see it anywhere else isn't that hard. Life is simply too hard to see (unless it start broadcasting its presence), I remember a probe that was aimed to Mars that was tested on Earth that couldn't find any conclusive traces of life. Well, maybe now we can detect life on Earth (from space, of course, and without those very powerfull lenses), but I never saw anybody claiming that they can.
Thacherous computing plattaforms won't be able to run Linux. Or, at least won't be able to do that the way we do it now, that is easy to modify and improve.
Sorry to destroy that, but on procariontes have ribosomes. But we could use genetics anyway, we should be able to know if we "leaked" genetic material on the last bilion years, and how much.
In fact, I think that it is much more easy to life to occur out of Earth ang fall here by luck (disclaimer, IAN a biologist, or geologist, or something like it). For a start, the Solar System is much bigger than the Earth, bigger chance of something unlikely happenning. Also, several places at the Solar System cooled much earlier than the Earth, so the chemical reactions that may create life started first.
I think that probably exogene life have hit early Earth and created a gray goo (that latter turned into green goo...) scenario and made Earth born life impossible. As a previous poster said, life evolution on Earth is very weard otherwise.
DNA replication is affected by ionizing radiation, that is known. What those experiments found is that DNA itself is resilient. So if the bacteria is not reproducing, it is ok. Some can even fix their DNA and reproduce on a hight radiation evironment.
And the evolution is much more dependent of genetic recombination* than on mutations. That is why all known life forms (and virus too) do it (as far as I know at least, IAN a biologist).
* On our case, sex. But different creatures use different strategies, bacteria simply send their DNA out.
Now that confuses me... If I quote a complete phrase, should I ommit the period? So I got something like "\"said that\".", instead of "\"said that.\"."? Or I should ommit the second period, to get something as "\"said that.\""?
I see both constructions, and grammar nazis normaly only complain about the one with the 2 periods.
And this is a serious question, not a joke. I know, that should be obvious, and I am missing something very simple, but I can't see what.
Last time I saw, IE was de dominant brownser out there, with 80% or more of the overall hits. And nobody was talking about IE dying, just becomming less dominant.
The only one talking about IE dying here is Microsoft. Well, maybe they have a point, they know it better than anybody else.
GPL wins. A professor may not bother that people close his code, but companies do, so lots of developers never see the BSD kernels, nor work with it. And the word doesn't spread, so people don't consider it.
So, if you define sucess as having a big reachable community, the sucessfull projects will have someone able to tell you the name of every developer. If you define sucess as being used by corporations, the sucessfull projects look like corporation projects.
Now, we could get the first page with some more truisms, or we could forget about generalising this idea of "sucess" to an area where there is simply no metric to be used.
There are so much warns out there that they become useless. The user don't read them anymore. The only alternative that works is making it hard to run the trojan, make the user DO several things in order to run it.
Require the user to change permissions is something that works. Linking the file with the browser someway, and requiring the user to unlink it to use out of a sandbox is something that may work. Displaying a confirmation window when the user see several of them each hour is something that doen't work.
Even requiring conscient actions from the user, the system is still not completely safe, but now they know what they are doing (or they'd be harmless). So you can finaly educate them.
He told Gates that he wanted a system that could do some real work (what plain Windows can't) and hadn't artificial limitations (like the Windows that Gates offered had). Wow! that is rude.
And he also told Gates that he want something that the children can hack (but he didn't used that word, I guess he said thinker), because that is what children do. That is definitely rude!
If somebody come to me trying to turn that incredibly nice idead that I had into some useless PR that has absolutely none of the original benefits, and expected me to agree (so that wasn't a joke), I'd be much more rude. But if Gates proposal of using Windows were a joke, I'd laught with him. I'm not so sure if it wasn't really a joke, so maybe Negroponte was rude.
You really should get started on oppressive/corrupt government... If there is something that can destroy corrupt governments it is this device. This is not an educational (on the sense of "what people learn at scool") device, it is useless for that. What this thing is usefull for is to inform the masses, and make them create information. On other words, this levels the playing field of ideas, and if there is something that endangers corrupt govenments is a mass of creative people.
Nice troll. No, governemnt shouldn't make those things as teachers and communication tools available for the populations. It would save your money. And you say you distribute 50% of your inconme... I'm not sure I belive that.
Anyway, it is not your money that is going into those computers. Mine is, and I am glad to help financing something like that.
Microsoft lost the golden age of UNIX. It implemented a half compatible system and lied to people telling them it was compatible. So most people kept UNIX.
Now, UNIX is dying anyway. Linux and BSD (mostly because of GNU tools) are each day less POSIX compilant, and the programs are using their extensions (that are quite usefull). Even more important, proprietary UNIX are almost dead aready, why does MS thinks that it will be sucessfull introducing a new proprietary UNIX now? Why does it think that people will buy that UNIX.
Windows surely needs a lot of improvement, and getting ideas from UNIX is a good idea. But MS shouldn't hype that compatibility, because it will lead nowhere.
What! Didn't it already happened? I always though that I descended from it...
When you create a lot of exoteric math and have a lot of models to define, you'll probably be able to apply some of the first on some of the latter. It is a simple matter of probability.
Now, that debate was very hot, and everything, but we have the solution now: math is completely man made. None of it is discovered. It is already time for you to live that behing and come to the XXI century. We have now at least 2 completely different and equivalent "maths".
It was done to the extent that was possible. The CLI isn't there to let the user write, it is there to automate stuff. When you want to automate stuff, you use lots of rarely used functions that your system would neglet (making the user RTFM anyway) and monitor space is extremly important. Also, you don't want some weard program messing up with the streams.
Wine and DOSEmu happen to emulate* 16bit windows quite well. Maybe those applications turn out to work better on Linux nowadays...
I have a lot of old games that I must run on Linux now, because Windows won't run them anymore.
*Wine is not an emulator, but you got the point.
It is free software... If it get evil, we fork and everybody changes to the forked code. And the life goes on, but not for the now evil Mozilla Foundation.
That is the bigest upside of free software, you don't need to trust anybody. And when people don't want to be trusted, it is so much easier to trust them.
In a few years, maybe a few months, it will be.