That's probably a pretty common way of visualizing it, but the previous work isn't really getting trashed, is it? Were it not for the original work being publicized, there might not have been a competing idea at all, or at least not as soon. Challenges to canon are often still reliant on the existence of the canon in the first place. That's reason to be proud of scientific challenges to one's work, not upset by them. Maybe for science there should be a corollary to the old cliche, "imitation is the most sincere form of flattery"?
It's not good science unless it upsets somebody who dislikes having their gospel (or canon, for the more sociologically correct) challenged. Good science always bruises egos.
I don't personally get it, though. Do the authors of buggy code that gets patched by others also get upset? They should be happy the code finally works.
Still, why on earth would it ever upset someone who didn't discover/propose/create what's being challenged?
Timothy is likely no more "aware of location" now when he isn't tethered to a satellite than when those satellites never existed at all. The technology hasn't really changed him at all, he's just dependent upon it.
Correct. I overlooked the "12" cutoff and was too influenced by the general wording of it that to me seemed to focus on younger children. It doesn't change my concern much because it's still pretty exclusive. There are plenty of poor people who could benefit enormously from having access to the social and digital and economic Internet.
It's so hard to tell who actually started what ('specially with news media cherry-picking), and what's the point of trying? It's all one endless continuum of bad corporate (human hierarchical) behavior. Whaddaya get when you view a corporate chain of command? A pyramid. And we all know pyramid schemes are bad!
Hmmm... you have a point about Web OSes in general. I might have to retract that part of the theory. As I said in another reply, it's not necessarily that various execs are actually plotting in a room to do this... it's just convergence of goals. All good tyrants think alike.
How come free-thinking conspiracists always end up with the same language?
Because we have a finite grammar to begin with and people like cliches? Does it translate exactly the same in French or Chinese?
You'd go even further from a bunch of PCs running apps to a relatively lower number of highly virtualized datacenter hosts running the apps.
That sounds quite a bit like the "content delivery networks" that we now have springing up like rabbits everywhere. Really all that inconceivable that they could deliver the equivalent of X11 streams as well? Most of the apps that people use are not really instruction-centric, anyway, they're I/O-centric... a perfect fit for a CDN, right?
Conspiracies take a lot of cooperation and whole lot more trust.
It wouldn't be an actual conspiracy with heads of corporations plotting in a back room, it would be a synergistic convergence. They would all have recognized the potential value of the subscription model and be independently working towards it. At some point their actions could begin to align, even without plotting.
I've seen so many different separate attempts over the years to condition software consumers for subscriptions that it's hard not to see a pattern. Mostly they were just that, attempts, but they keep trying because of the obvious potential. Software in the cloud, i.e. software as a service, lends itself so perfectly to subscriptions that it would be shocking if those "people at the top" didn't try to leverage it. Historically people are used to paying initially for software, waiting for "upgrades" and paying for those, and getting interim "updates" and "bug fixes" for free... BUT they're also paying every month for phone, TV, Internet, etc. How much would it actually take to shift the public perception or expectation of software such that they would be willing to pay a weensy bit every month for continuous "upgrades"?
It would take a lot for me, obviously, but maybe not much for many people.
You're just a tool, as both an unwitting pawn and a bit of a jerk. Declaring that anyone else who is more suspicious and skeptical of human motives than you are must thus be a conspiracy nut is not exactly a shining example of critical thought. Clean up your own attic before you try rummaging in mine, buddy.
"Much of a tablet's success is based on the ecosystem of apps that is available to the end-user."
It seems like the summary author needs to be reminded that this was precisely Apple's dilemma for decades, and to a degree still is with its desktop OS versus Windows.
Personally I'm inclined to resist any browser-as-OS solution with every fiber of my being, just as I have been software subscriptions. The writing is on the wall: the browser-as-OS gambit is intended to warm people up to the notion of software in the "cloud", and software in the cloud will inevitably lead to subscriptions. Once the instructions no longer even execute on your hardware, you're a hostage.
This makes me cackle, because this was exactly the sort of thing we were doing with DESQview/X back in the early 90s. It was an X server WITH multitasking for DOS, and of course it worked both ways, meaning you could:
- run X11 apps on a UNIX machine and interact with them from a DOS machine, or - run DOS or even Windows apps on an x86 system and interact with them from a
UNIX system (the latter by actually serving up separate instances of Windows itself
as a DOS app)
The company I worked for then used it as an application server, running DOS DB and other software on heavy duty PCs and serving up instances of it to less powerful workstations.
Read the details: it's ONLY offered to families with young children. If you're single and down on your luck, you're still down on your luck; if you're an older couple with teenaged kids fallen on hard times, tough luck for you, too.
Riiiight... and if we took your profound advice, every stretch of road would be owned by some corporation, there would be no "highway neutrality", and we'd wind up paying multiple tolls to drive anywhere... because the government wouldn't be allowed to tax anyone to collectively buy off the builders of the roads for the ownership (and CONTROL) of them. Who do you suppose paid for all the roads you traverse every single day for free? The government... WITH TAXES. Exactly how would you propose crowdsourcing our streets and national highway system?
Why do you think we're having these endless debates about "network neutrality" now? It's precisely because the government - WE - didn't insist on retaining ownership of all the telegraph, telephone, and telecommunications wires that companies like AT&T have been laying for more than a century. It's shared infrastructure, just like highways, and it should have been our government - us - paying to retain ownership (and control) of those wires... with taxes If we had done that, we wouldn't be worrying about network neutrality now because the wires would be TRULY neutral.
This was part of my point; instead of expecting a higher standard of people and making sure they get the necessary training to achieve it, (our) governments expect LESS and are then amazed when people stoop to the occasion. Will people fight and bitch and complain about too much being expected of them? Hell, yes, just like children would choose NOT to go to school if given the choice; many adults are nothing more than upsized children. We - collectively - have to play meta-adult and MAKE them learn what is necessary to make our civilization function efficiently and safely. If they refuse or fail, then they don't get to drive! (Driver education here in the U.S. is profoundly ineffective now, aside from the extra focus that would be required to make roundabouts commonplace.)
"A man's gotta know his [and his vehicle's] limitations.
Sadly, far too many people don't recognize the limits of either. They think they can fly even when they're not high on LSD. The cars aren't the problem, nor is making them lighter/smaller; it's the ignorance of the people driving them. More fragile vehicles demand that people be less competitive, more cooperative, more observant, and if they aren't trained to behave that way they'll die or be maimed.
It's the same ignorance that makes the use of roundabouts instead of traffic signals more dangerous than they logically should be (in the U.S. at least). That's also a huge shame, because roundabouts require NO ENERGY and NO MAINTENANCE and are inherently more efficient than traffic signals. Traffic signals require electricity, waste gasoline, and require human maintenance, but they require much less awareness and cooperation because the signals are telling people what to do and when to do it. To function correctly - and safely - roundabouts require that people cooperate and observe; at least in the U.S., people have not been trained to do those things, and they are not instinctive for most.
The mean limits of human awareness and intelligence is the problem that needs a solution.
The proper mindful response to such criticism would be change the policies of the police department and the behavior of its officers such that no reasonable person would even briefly consider them credible.
As it is, the only reason for them to believe that a costly criminal trial is necessary is (a) because they themselves actually find the parody critiques credible and (b) they intend to discourage further criticism by vilifying the creator of the parodies.
This is not justice or rule of law in action. This is tribalism (police department and city officials being the tribe), abuse of the law, and abuse of authority. This is actual criminal behavior perpetrated by people sworn to protect and uphold. We know what they're attempting to protect, and it's not us.
We here in the United States will try to teach you how to give the Fraternity the finger. For now... until we've marshaled the strength to put a stake through its dogmatic heart.
Slashdot Mirror
"... get trashed in the name of progress."
That's probably a pretty common way of visualizing it, but the previous work isn't really getting trashed, is it? Were it not for the original work being publicized, there might not have been a competing idea at all, or at least not as soon. Challenges to canon are often still reliant on the existence of the canon in the first place. That's reason to be proud of scientific challenges to one's work, not upset by them. Maybe for science there should be a corollary to the old cliche, "imitation is the most sincere form of flattery"?
It's not good science unless it upsets somebody who dislikes having their gospel (or canon, for the more sociologically correct) challenged. Good science always bruises egos.
I don't personally get it, though. Do the authors of buggy code that gets patched by others also get upset? They should be happy the code finally works.
Still, why on earth would it ever upset someone who didn't discover/propose/create what's being challenged?
[Title asks:] "How Does GPS Change Us?"
Dependency, stupid.
Timothy is likely no more "aware of location" now when he isn't tethered to a satellite than when those satellites never existed at all. The technology hasn't really changed him at all, he's just dependent upon it.
... when its host has a hole in its head that needs patching up.
Refined carbs!
Correct. I overlooked the "12" cutoff and was too influenced by the general wording of it that to me seemed to focus on younger children. It doesn't change my concern much because it's still pretty exclusive. There are plenty of poor people who could benefit enormously from having access to the social and digital and economic Internet.
It's so hard to tell who actually started what ('specially with news media cherry-picking), and what's the point of trying? It's all one endless continuum of bad corporate (human hierarchical) behavior. Whaddaya get when you view a corporate chain of command? A pyramid. And we all know pyramid schemes are bad!
Perhaps Samsung should have left well enough alone a month ago?
This crap sickens me. Is it possible that our economies are becoming less rather than more ethical as civilization (d|)evolves?
(Oven-fired, that is.)
It's Play-Doh.
Hmmm... you have a point about Web OSes in general. I might have to retract that part of the theory. As I said in another reply, it's not necessarily that various execs are actually plotting in a room to do this... it's just convergence of goals. All good tyrants think alike.
How come free-thinking conspiracists always end up with the same language?
Because we have a finite grammar to begin with and people like cliches? Does it translate exactly the same in French or Chinese?
You'd go even further from a bunch of PCs running apps to a relatively lower number of highly virtualized datacenter hosts running the apps.
That sounds quite a bit like the "content delivery networks" that we now have springing up like rabbits everywhere. Really all that inconceivable that they could deliver the equivalent of X11 streams as well? Most of the apps that people use are not really instruction-centric, anyway, they're I/O-centric... a perfect fit for a CDN, right?
Conspiracies take a lot of cooperation and whole lot more trust.
It wouldn't be an actual conspiracy with heads of corporations plotting in a back room, it would be a synergistic convergence. They would all have recognized the potential value of the subscription model and be independently working towards it. At some point their actions could begin to align, even without plotting.
I've seen so many different separate attempts over the years to condition software consumers for subscriptions that it's hard not to see a pattern. Mostly they were just that, attempts, but they keep trying because of the obvious potential. Software in the cloud, i.e. software as a service, lends itself so perfectly to subscriptions that it would be shocking if those "people at the top" didn't try to leverage it. Historically people are used to paying initially for software, waiting for "upgrades" and paying for those, and getting interim "updates" and "bug fixes" for free... BUT they're also paying every month for phone, TV, Internet, etc. How much would it actually take to shift the public perception or expectation of software such that they would be willing to pay a weensy bit every month for continuous "upgrades"?
It would take a lot for me, obviously, but maybe not much for many people.
You're just a tool, as both an unwitting pawn and a bit of a jerk. Declaring that anyone else who is more suspicious and skeptical of human motives than you are must thus be a conspiracy nut is not exactly a shining example of critical thought. Clean up your own attic before you try rummaging in mine, buddy.
"Much of a tablet's success is based on the ecosystem of apps that is available to the end-user."
It seems like the summary author needs to be reminded that this was precisely Apple's dilemma for decades, and to a degree still is with its desktop OS versus Windows.
Personally I'm inclined to resist any browser-as-OS solution with every fiber of my being, just as I have been software subscriptions. The writing is on the wall: the browser-as-OS gambit is intended to warm people up to the notion of software in the "cloud", and software in the cloud will inevitably lead to subscriptions. Once the instructions no longer even execute on your hardware, you're a hostage.
This makes me cackle, because this was exactly the sort of thing we were doing with DESQview/X back in the early 90s. It was an X server WITH multitasking for DOS, and of course it worked both ways, meaning you could:
- run X11 apps on a UNIX machine and interact with them from a DOS machine, or
- run DOS or even Windows apps on an x86 system and interact with them from a
UNIX system (the latter by actually serving up separate instances of Windows itself
as a DOS app)
The company I worked for then used it as an application server, running DOS DB and other software on heavy duty PCs and serving up instances of it to less powerful workstations.
Read the details: it's ONLY offered to families with young children. If you're single and down on your luck, you're still down on your luck; if you're an older couple with teenaged kids fallen on hard times, tough luck for you, too.
Ageism strikes again. Think of the children!
Riiiight... and if we took your profound advice, every stretch of road would be owned by some corporation, there would be no "highway neutrality", and we'd wind up paying multiple tolls to drive anywhere... because the government wouldn't be allowed to tax anyone to collectively buy off the builders of the roads for the ownership (and CONTROL) of them. Who do you suppose paid for all the roads you traverse every single day for free? The government... WITH TAXES. Exactly how would you propose crowdsourcing our streets and national highway system?
Why do you think we're having these endless debates about "network neutrality" now? It's precisely because the government - WE - didn't insist on retaining ownership of all the telegraph, telephone, and telecommunications wires that companies like AT&T have been laying for more than a century. It's shared infrastructure, just like highways, and it should have been our government - us - paying to retain ownership (and control) of those wires... with taxes If we had done that, we wouldn't be worrying about network neutrality now because the wires would be TRULY neutral.
This was part of my point; instead of expecting a higher standard of people and making sure they get the necessary training to achieve it, (our) governments expect LESS and are then amazed when people stoop to the occasion. Will people fight and bitch and complain about too much being expected of them? Hell, yes, just like children would choose NOT to go to school if given the choice; many adults are nothing more than upsized children. We - collectively - have to play meta-adult and MAKE them learn what is necessary to make our civilization function efficiently and safely. If they refuse or fail, then they don't get to drive! (Driver education here in the U.S. is profoundly ineffective now, aside from the extra focus that would be required to make roundabouts commonplace.)
Dirty Harry's off-the-cuff wisdom applies here:
"A man's gotta know his [and his vehicle's] limitations.
Sadly, far too many people don't recognize the limits of either. They think they can fly even when they're not high on LSD. The cars aren't the problem, nor is making them lighter/smaller; it's the ignorance of the people driving them. More fragile vehicles demand that people be less competitive, more cooperative, more observant, and if they aren't trained to behave that way they'll die or be maimed.
It's the same ignorance that makes the use of roundabouts instead of traffic signals more dangerous than they logically should be (in the U.S. at least). That's also a huge shame, because roundabouts require NO ENERGY and NO MAINTENANCE and are inherently more efficient than traffic signals. Traffic signals require electricity, waste gasoline, and require human maintenance, but they require much less awareness and cooperation because the signals are telling people what to do and when to do it. To function correctly - and safely - roundabouts require that people cooperate and observe; at least in the U.S., people have not been trained to do those things, and they are not instinctive for most.
The mean limits of human awareness and intelligence is the problem that needs a solution.
"... additional revenue through advertising based on mistyped URLs."
This is why perfect spelling is so important.
The proper mindful response to such criticism would be change the policies of the police department and the behavior of its officers such that no reasonable person would even briefly consider them credible.
As it is, the only reason for them to believe that a costly criminal trial is necessary is (a) because they themselves actually find the parody critiques credible and (b) they intend to discourage further criticism by vilifying the creator of the parodies.
This is not justice or rule of law in action. This is tribalism (police department and city officials being the tribe), abuse of the law, and abuse of authority. This is actual criminal behavior perpetrated by people sworn to protect and uphold. We know what they're attempting to protect, and it's not us.
I'm betting it's Chile and its Atacama Desert that comes to the rescue.
Haha, plebes.
There, fixed that for you.
(Dictated in Lynx.)
We here in the United States will try to teach you how to give the Fraternity the finger. For now... until we've marshaled the strength to put a stake through its dogmatic heart.
... when tumors infused with gold nanoparticles are the new chic for all the homeboys. Gold teeth are so yesterday, bro!