I'd say 45% would be perfect for the best diversity... 45% men, 45% women, 10% other where other constitutes cross-gender, no-gender, homosexual, self-sexual, bestial, and alien sexuality categories.
But then again, I'm not exactly what you'd call a 'proponent' of diversity... at least not for diversity's sake.
Indeed it will be free. Not sure if the term 'level' really applies with HL2 though. Technically speaking HL2 flows from map to map and has some arbitrary 'chapters' involved in the progression... but from a gameplay standpoint there isn't much to delineate 'levels' except perhaps the transition through the faulty teleporter (ie. time warp) towards the end.
So saying that Lost Coast is only one 'level' long doesn't really hold much meaning for me. Even if it is only one 'map' in the technical sense there's no telling yet just how expansive that one map will be (read: *I* don't know, anyways).
Obligatory 1st Post!
Personally I can't wait. HDR is a really fun thing to play around with and the current crop of games with it (if only a limited implementation) are gorgeous... and yes I'm a graphics freak.
The Emotional Overcharge has little to do with the arguments for or against the bill, and moreso with our politicians' need to fill their days with something other than droll legal literature. I mean... would YOU like to go through hundreds of pages of legalese mumbo jumbo and not have some way of venting all that otherwise pent up emotion? Why do you think they even ALLOW them to get up and speak? In today's day and age most of the work can be handled through electronic (or physical... *shudder*) paperwork without the need to talk to people about it. The only thing that talking to people provides is an outlet of emotional context.
I for one propose that we move to a legal system that is completely computerized so that you can simply go to a website like slashdot which displays issues, register your vote, and after a month all the votes are tallied and something is passed into law. It's not perfect, but it gets rid of the emotion... and more importantly it gets rid of politicians.
Fair point... though I'm inclined that the answer lies somewhere along the lines of "all of the above". Having universities become a C shop or Python shop (it *would* be nice if it was a language independent *theory* and *discipline* shop... but that's dreaming too much) still doesn't change my baseline qualms with Java, though.
C# actually puts in a lot of stupid coder pitfalls back in trying to 'fix' Java.
All too true, but that's what I'm lauding in part. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but I don't exactly consider myself and many of my colleagues to be in the "stupid coder" crowd. I don't even particularly prefer using C# at all... only that I prefer it to the likes of Java when forced to adopt a business's risk mitigation attempt to make the development process as stupid-proof as possible... not to mention it technically has an open source development platform (Mono) that, while not mature, is surprisingly functional and extensible when needed.
I personally think that Java is a great learning tool... something that our intro to programming and a handful of other introductory classes in college should adopt and use. Past that, however, I can only compare it to the likes of Visual Basic... almost as if it is only a language that only those who haven't been weaned (or don't want to be) off it and move onto more powerful languages (albeit, languages requiring more developer responsibility and vigilance).
In the end, I think the approach of creating stupid-proofing mechanisms into our languages is flawed... we'll only create better (worse) stupid people. Instead, take the correct (albeit far more difficult) course of pruning the development community of stupidity. Greater education rigor including principles and disciplines would do much more than the majority of our universities' current Java shop curriculums.
... benefits and detriments exist for both monolithic and micro flavors. I doubt a conclusion could ever be made about which one is 'better'... because it all depends on context. "How will the system be used?" "What kind of environment will the system be operating under?" "What are the performance goals of the system?" "What types of hardware will the system(s) need to support?"
Each system has benefits... but they almost always rely on the existence of certain assumptions.
Ever tried running Java on *BSD? It works to some extent, but it isn't pretty. Having an open implementation could mean that Java and Java Server Pages would become more widely accepted in servers running open systems.
To be honest, this is the case on *every* platform I've developed with / used Java on... but that is just my humble opinion. There are plenty of projects where I and my colleages were restricted to Java when we could have done a better and faster job using C or Python. The only thing that makes Java even remotely nice IMO is its ability to keep stupid programmers from doing things *too* stupidly... but these arbitrary barriers often only serve to get in the way once you've graduated from programmer pre-school.
In any case, I'd be more interested in going the C# route of stupid coder friendly languages... being that it essentially tries to 'fix' just about everything that is problematic in Java. I'm not saying its a perfect solution... it certainly has plenty of revisions or forks to go before we see anything resembling a holy grail of OO noob friendly programming languages....Even with an immature runtime as Mono to run C# apps on... it at least offers open-source portability to X platform.
Average Joe Schmoe who wants to make a quick buck by helping out with some advert company and decides to go the spamalot route. He gets fined $10,000 for the software he installs to make it easier to do thus... but only makes $1000 for all his trouble over the next 3 months.
The 'pro' who makes well above the initial cost of $10,000 really won't be affected by it... that $10,000 only constitutes a baseline starting cost of doing business... kinda like getting a license for spamming. It then becomes a win-win situation... the big-time spammers now get to work as usual and the government gets a small boost in revenue.
... Now if the language stated something to the effect of "the creators are liable to pay a $10,000 fine for every machine infected", that just might halt operations... assuming they get caught... and they're doing it in the country.
The question I have is that IF this was the case, and creators were liable, how would this affect Open Source software... particularly licensing models. Most licenses essentially say "Be nice, and give credit where its due." What happens when spam companies take open source software as a platform... make minor modifications to serve their spamming activities... would the original creators be liable in part? They would technically be co-creators of X company's spam software... albeit unintentionally.
It'd be interesting what kind of software Microsoft's 'malware' envelope covers. Not that I don't like a bunch of MS software, but this is starting to sound more and more like "you can only run approved software on windows"... though I'm sure that isn't actually the intent... yet.
From a strict software engineering standpoint, this can be dangerous and in many IT depts. that I've been in tend to look down on this "feature" of SF or otherwise OS software. Making changes to the software may break its intended function in a key way that may or may not be documented. There is also an underlying concept in software engineering that the only changes you should ever make are those that fix the software to be in line with the original architecture and design or those extensions of the software that rely on the original architecture and design as a basis for extention. If neither of these is the case then it is recommended to go back to the design phase so that you can redesign in an effort to include the desired functionality in the architecture defined... this usually means heavy code rewrite if not starting from scratch.
"Hack" jobs are generally looked down upon as unsafe software engineering. This is not to say that all source forge or open source projects don't follow good SE principles. A good handful do... but on the whole the majority of SourceForge projects are found to be in want.
The caveat to all this is that I've been employed largely by companies that don't mind throwing large quantities of money towards a project if it means 'getting it right' in the long term rather than simply providing immediate 'hack' functionality.
Unfortunately progress and innovations are in direct competition with personal gain... nor should progress and innovation trump personal gain by government mandate. Then again, neither should personal gain trump progress and innovation by government mandate. I think this is the current situation, but most 'remedies' to the situation i see are simply throwing the pendulum in the other direction rather than finding a proper balance.
I would also like to point out that innovation and progress do not always go hand in hand. Progress doesn't mean innovation had to take place, and neither does innovation mean that progress had to be made... though we'd like to think that both of these are the case the majority of the time. Also, what constitutes progress or innovation? Is it a requirement that progress and innovation actually be used when it is discovered? Can it not simply remain in archives of research to be implemented at a later time when the idea has possibly gone under heavy revision for improvement of both progress and innovation?
It would seem to me that most people of the FOSS community are simply looking for a near immediate 'alternative' that is either free or open source... usually both. This flies in the face of personal gain by someone who may have an actual claim on innovation and progress, even if it was poorly implemented and he's a greedy, stingy closed sourced evil basrad. FOSS should respect IP just like normal businesses do for an acceptable period of time (yet to be determined... today's definition is too long).
This is not to say that FOSS shouldn't work on things protected by IP in the interim... they just can't be released until it is a proper time. They can also further innovate on the technology during this interim. Just because you can't currently use a piece of software doesn't mean that progress can innovation can't be pushed towards.
As a side note, I think we can agree that not all IP (even if closed sourced) is bad. Take for instance the Microsoft's IP of the Clippy and friends Office helpers. Since nobody else could use them their own office apps have as a result been prevented from going down the same road of nasty degradation.
I actually liked the first two movies... the dialogue wasn't exactly mind blowing... even dull at times... but they were still very entertaining by and large. However, I have a feeling that, story aside, if Darth Vader had been in the first two movies I think they would have gotten a much bigger reception. All of the original trilogy had Vader in it in all his 3V1L L337 coolness, and all three of them were very good... the third only dropping off mildly from the first two.
Now that Vader is finally coming back onto the screen he has everybody fawning again. I have a sinking suspicion that the dialogue and acting is going to be similar to that of these last two movies (essentially what makes them 'horrible' in many people's eyes), but its got Lord Vader... so it's AAAAALLLLLL good. My $0.02.
Hmmmm.... Why haven't you volunteered to go fight for "freedom" in Rawanda, or Darfur yet? Oh that's right you are perfectly happy to say "we" have a duty to fix the world, as long as YOU don't have to risk your life for it. I just love people who talk about how we need to fix the world, as long as the potential cost is someone else.
You assume that I haven't been serving in the Air Force for the past few years after 9/11. There are many like me who joined the military for just the reasons you cite. Oh wait! I'm posting on/. *gasp* I must be a tree hugging hippie with only enough brain capacity to soak up political propaganda and preach open-source like it was the 2nd coming of Christ!
And yes, I am appalled at the general lack of intervention... and in many cases the reasons for the intervention at the highest levels. But that doesn't mean I support not intervening at all.
As for criticism worth the paper it is printed on:
Theodore Roosevelt:
"Criticism is necessary and useful; it is often indispensable; but it can never take the place of action, or be even a poor substitute for it. The function of the mere critic is of very subordinate usefulness. It is the doer of deeds who actually counts in the battle for life, and not the man who looks on and says how the fight ought to be fought, without himself sharing the stress and the danger."
It's as though americans believe we have a god given right to intervene around the world if we don't like a certain government, etc.
Citizenship in this country comes with the economic and political obligations inherent in being the United States (at least in this day, who knows decades from now). The US is essentially the defacto powerhouse of money and man power. The basic argument is, "If we don't interfere, then who the hell is?" It isn't a "god given right", it is an economic and political obligation to use our resources for the greater good of the world at large. If you don't like that idea, I'm sure you could move to Rwanda and be perfectly happy without all the responsibilities of being a US Citizen.
Lets assume for a second that we didn't interfere. Those people/states that are not strong enough to defend themselves would likely fall to foreign conquest. After said conquest, those in oppression as well as those who deemed themselves too weak to aid in the defense would look upon us and say, "Why the hell didn't you help them out?... You could've DONE something." If you can live with the ridicule and guilt of your nation NOT doing something that was considered so "wrong" to the rest of the world when you COULD HAVE... fine, I can't. It's as if you're saying that you want the nice cozy, moderately wealthy lifestyle that most americans live with. and yet not be recognized around the world as having power. Human rights isn't about American Human rights, or only when America can benefit... it is unqualified aid and intervention when a potential violation of those rights is forseen.
I'm not saying that we do it perfectly... there's plenty of intervention that i think we could stay out of and not be the worse for it, and at the same time I know there are plenty of circumstances that the US could intervene that it doesn't. The point is, if you don't like your country being recognized as a world super power with all the applicable responsibilities inherent in being such, then move somewhere that isn't.
For Intel, your argument definitely holds water. Their whole business plan has been based off of their vast number of production plants and relatively cheap process of putting hordes of chips on the market... hopefully making the chips pervasive enough to strike a profit level in the end (more like early mid-life with their price schemes though). It is only after a processor has been found tried and true that Intel migrates it to server land.
AMD on the other hand has always started out chips on the enthusiast / enterprise market because they simply don't have the fabrication capacity that Intel does. Thus they market first for the high end users and over time the processors find their way into the desktop market when they've been dated by yet another new, improved processor being marketed at the first group. Their whole revenue plan is based off of the 'rich' people niche (which includes many medium to large businesses). Based on their success, I'd say that they've done really well with this business model and continuing to do so would likely continue to work for them.
The common misnomer that is latched onto with many processor reviews nowadays is that both AMD and Intel are prodcing processors for the desktop platform, when in reality their business goals for their processors are on opposite spectrums. Intel starts desktop side, AMD starts server side. It is only after both have matured to some degree (and software caught up to both of them) that the processors can be meaningfully compared for the average joe user that just bought a new computer (or had one built for him).
Most people who go crazy over these new technologies are either wanting it for pure bragging rights, or simply aren't aware of how little it will actually do for them... or both in all liklihood.
People who consider Firefox 'just another browser' are those responsible enough not to visit sites that would otherwise infect their machines with virii and other garbage (read: visiting pr0n and warez sites). I like the whole tabbed browsing thing, but that's really the only thing that differentiates Firefox for me. If IE had tabs I'd probably still be using it since I don't tend to visit the aforementioned types of sites on any kind of regular basis. I'd also wager that a vast majority of people in "end user" land probably wouldn't use, or perhaps even know about, the tabbed browsing.
The only 'better' thing about firefox (from an end-user perspective) is that it is secure enough to allow semi-safe passage through pr0n/warez land with nothing but your eyes being scathed.
Except for the fact that education reports are also indicating loss of critical thinking skills in the maths and sciences across the board that many attribute to the introduction and, later, the integration of computers in the classroom. I made it all the way through school without seeing a computer until my junior year when i took a typing course (which I didn't need... i'd been typing papers on a typewriter for years by then). And I've turned out to be a computer scientist with a MS degree.
I considered my math and science courses to be particularly beneficial to me because after algebra 1 and a physical science class in the 8th grade, my school system did not allow the use of calculators, let alone a computer, for any of its higher math and science classes. Amazingly enough, when it came around to ACT time, I and many of my classmates were able to fly through the math and science parts without the use of a calculator, while student's from a neighboring system had their fancy TI calculators in hand and were struggling to finish on time.
My mother is also an elementary teacher (3rd through 5th depending on the year) these days and complains that the computers in her classroom serve nothing more than toys to entertain students and ends up getting in the way of teaching more important things that they will end up getting tested on down the road. The only 'useful' thing they do in the class (her's anyways) is learn to use powerpoint to make pretty presentations... though the usefulness is definitely arguable IMHO.
It's true that the 'training' these kids get with one product or another is going to be moot by the time they get in the work force. But how is replacing microsoft and other closed-source products with open-source products going to change the fact that what they're learning now will be useless in several years. I say, keep computers mostly out of the schools altogether with the possible exception of a word processing / business application intro class, and maybe an intro to programming class. The latter is questionable IMO since students that come out of those classes by and large do worse in the intro classes in college than do those with no prior computer training whatsoever... they've had a whole year or two of bad habits they now have to break before getting into a 'real' programming course. Not to mention that it is in college that students will be really learning the tools to be used later when they have a job, not elementary and secondary school.
My point is that, if you're going to save money (which all school systems need to do nowadays) don't dump sets of software for new software that might require more training no matter how cheap/free the new software is, but rather just dump using computers altogether. They're very unnecessary in elementary schools and only marginally useful in secondary schools.
Too many people are simply too hyped on what computers can do for them that they feel they need its presence thoroughly permeated throughout their lifestyle... pitiful really.
Unfortunately, microsoft's infiltration of standards here and there doesn't actually constitute monopolistic behaviour. The reason being that any other company can come along with their own non-standard file type and application and still try to compete... the only problem being that their file types would have to be equally protected by DMCA and IP to ensure that MSFT didn't encroach on their territory except for being able to 'open', not 'save', the data. The only problem with Open Source competing with the likes of Microsoft is that they are largely naive to what is considered 'fair' play in the business world.
Obviously I should have qualified my remark by saying a 'federally funded program promoting abstinence'. I mean, DUH. Churches and many other organizations have pushed the concept for ages, and those who have listened and given a damn were generally able to abide by such a simple concept as abstinence. However, to my knowledge (and I may be wrong here, I admit) there has not been a federally funded program directly promoting abstinence pushed and supported by the presidential administration before now.
This is an important point as the churches aren't the ones who fund sex education classes and such except perhaps in the smallest of towns. I don't know if you can remember your sex ed class when you were young, but in mine they filled the class with language of 'When you have sex...' rather than 'You should NOT have sex, but IF you do...'. The first suggests to those who have not otherwise been introduced to the issue properly that having sex is OK... even at a young age. I'll not debate the morality of it outside of marriage because that's another issue, but I think we can all pretty much agree that it's a bad idea for kids to have sex. I think that holds all the way through highschool and perhaps even through college. All that education serves a purpose of preparing you for getting a job... at which point you can actually pay on good faith for child support if you go boinking people every Friday and Saturday night, or *gasp* get married and actually be able to help support a family.
I'll grant you that no system is going to work, however, until the parents take a more active role in educating (and disciplining) their children. Its a chicken/egg scenario to be honest; to correctly condition the kids the parents likely need to have been conditioned themselves... but they weren't, and so the cycle repeats when the kids become parents. As much as I hate to say it, but it is situations like that which make envy the 'brainwashing' techniques depicted in Brave New World and other literature... assuming we could actually come up with an educational and social standard that everyone could agree on... but alas, yet another hopeless cause.
Of course, I might also point out that 'the church' as you term it doesn't really exist in the connotation that you suggest. 'The church' that you refer to are those politically wealthy enough to whisper sweet nothings in the President's ear concerning their own religious beliefs. THAT entity has existed for almost EVERY president, not just this one. Christianity as a whole has no such hold on Bush's actions, but rather Bush successfully uses Christianity as a handy dandy tool in his political utility belt.
To be fair, I should point out that the 'safe sex' policies lauded by prior administrations weren't exactly effective either. Better to try something new that doesn't work than stick with the same old that hasn't been working for decades.
On another note, any increase in student sex activity trends in the past few decades should be noted as 'documented' sex activity (ie. that which a student admits to or gets caught at). I guarantee you that when I was going to school there were more kids than I can count that I knew were having sex... even at the age of 12 to 14. It just wasn't something to brag about. Nowadays, student peers are finding sexuality more and more acceptable and are thus more likely to be open about their sexuality (and likely more active, which scares me).
I say all this to point out that maybe if all our students were spending less time making out during class, making babies in between and after class, and listening/watching to music/video that 'glamourizes' such behaviour, there might be room in their 'active' lifestyles to actually learn about and become interested in math, sciences, and the arts. A silly award is NOT what we need to revolutionize scientific popularity, it is a change in the entire social and academic atmosphere our kids grow up and learn in that will do the trick.
... is going to cut it from what I gather. Most engines, no matter what features they laud tend to do really well at certain functional aspects and only mediocre to dismal in others. Another thing to consider is that the engine as a whole will only be incorporating 3D visuals as the visualizations portion of the engine. I would gather that the networking portion of the engine would have to be very robust, efficient and all around top-notch if they're planning on doing a MMOG style persistent world.
This effects what your presentation portion needs to handle. Complex, smoothly animated avatars are probably NOT going to be something needed... especially when you consider large numbers of people congregating in any one are of the persistent world. Not only will you have to be keeping up with all that information, but you're going to have to render it too. What this means is that all the advanced graphics methods presented by engines similar to Doom3, HL2, or Unreal3 are probably overkill.
You also have to consider the types of machines that schools would purchase to access this world. Creating high demands on visualization and processing power in general means higher prices for not only the server and production machines, but the clients as well. And let me tell you, schools don't like paying big bucks for computers if they don't have to.
A Quake 2/3-like engine may suffice for visualization needs, but I guarantee you that the networking would still have to be loads better as neither engine scales well to extreme server populations (ie. 100+... they make the assumption that you need to keep track of all players at all times rather than only those players 'close-by'). Luckily the Q2 engine is GPL'd and so can be the subject of modification on that end... however there may be more suitable engines that I'm simply unaware of.
The only research I have have had on the subject came up in a Criminal Studies course I took in college years ago, I must admit. Fascinating stuff really, but i'm fairly sure sociopaths haven't changed that much in the past 10 years or so since the articles we studied were written, so take it as you will.
As to the cruelty inherent in my ideas for punishment, i admit that they are particularly harsh and definitely 'inhumane' by any standards of today's society. I was just making the point that a 'time out' of 25 years or more is hardly a punishment. Now, I will grant that in that 25 year 'time out' they may recieve their punishment through violent hardships that are characteristic of many prisons, but then that's assuming he's the victim and not the prognosticator the whole time.
This whole being watched for the rest of your life is a good start to a real 'punishment', but it really can't do much for the 2nd victim if the criminal decides to break his boundaries. I mean... how fast is the response time to something like this? Is it going to be 'lenient' for 'accidental' and 'temporary' violations of boundaries? It isn't a PREVENTATIVE punishment. It is only a mechanism to find the criminal easier and supply incriminating evidence, in the event that the criminal strikes again.
I don't know about you, but I'd prefer preventative punishment every time, no matter how damnably brutal, if it means we would never have to worry about the criminal creating another of the same type of victim... especially so when the victim is a child. The system as it stands now is designed to protect and aid the criminal who may actually be innocent rather than protect the victims. I mean... who the hell is more important to us? Crimnal or victim.
Since when is 25 years of time punishment to a sociopath? Isn't time in quarantine something that only enhances the emotions and actions of sociopaths? I'd hate to meet a child molestor that has been brooding for 25 years. Sure, there's a possibility that a handful of cases will actually 'see the light' and cure themselves of their sociopathic disfunction, but that doesn't make me feel any more comfortable with a convicted sociopathic child molestor having been recently released moving in next door when i have a 10 yr old child.
Time in jail in any case has been shown time and again to be more a slap on the wrist in recent decades what with the modernization of prisons and whatnot. Our society has allowed harsh cruelties to go largely unpunished, all in the name of being 'civilized and humane'... whatever that means. Now, i'm not necessarily up for offing anyone that's ever convicted of a crime just to prevent them from doing it ever again, but there are some 'brutal' punishments I would actually consider for some of the more henious crimes.
I'd totally be in favor of castrating (or otherwise sexually sterilize) sex offenders in addition to gouging their eyes out. The first to somewhat rehabilitate their sexual tendencies (this method has been fairly well documented as reducing sexual drive), and the second to punish them for their offenses and stands as a future (ie. blindness prevents them from physically looking at an object of their obsession ever agin). Perhaps its a bit harsh, but then I thought that's what "punishment" was supposed to be.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say 45% would be perfect for the best diversity... 45% men, 45% women, 10% other where other constitutes cross-gender, no-gender, homosexual, self-sexual, bestial, and alien sexuality categories.
But then again, I'm not exactly what you'd call a 'proponent' of diversity... at least not for diversity's sake.
Indeed it will be free. Not sure if the term 'level' really applies with HL2 though. Technically speaking HL2 flows from map to map and has some arbitrary 'chapters' involved in the progression... but from a gameplay standpoint there isn't much to delineate 'levels' except perhaps the transition through the faulty teleporter (ie. time warp) towards the end.
So saying that Lost Coast is only one 'level' long doesn't really hold much meaning for me. Even if it is only one 'map' in the technical sense there's no telling yet just how expansive that one map will be (read: *I* don't know, anyways).
Obligatory 1st Post! Personally I can't wait. HDR is a really fun thing to play around with and the current crop of games with it (if only a limited implementation) are gorgeous... and yes I'm a graphics freak.
The Emotional Overcharge has little to do with the arguments for or against the bill, and moreso with our politicians' need to fill their days with something other than droll legal literature. I mean... would YOU like to go through hundreds of pages of legalese mumbo jumbo and not have some way of venting all that otherwise pent up emotion? Why do you think they even ALLOW them to get up and speak? In today's day and age most of the work can be handled through electronic (or physical... *shudder*) paperwork without the need to talk to people about it. The only thing that talking to people provides is an outlet of emotional context.
I for one propose that we move to a legal system that is completely computerized so that you can simply go to a website like slashdot which displays issues, register your vote, and after a month all the votes are tallied and something is passed into law. It's not perfect, but it gets rid of the emotion... and more importantly it gets rid of politicians.
Fair point... though I'm inclined that the answer lies somewhere along the lines of "all of the above". Having universities become a C shop or Python shop (it *would* be nice if it was a language independent *theory* and *discipline* shop... but that's dreaming too much) still doesn't change my baseline qualms with Java, though.
C# actually puts in a lot of stupid coder pitfalls back in trying to 'fix' Java.
All too true, but that's what I'm lauding in part. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but I don't exactly consider myself and many of my colleagues to be in the "stupid coder" crowd. I don't even particularly prefer using C# at all... only that I prefer it to the likes of Java when forced to adopt a business's risk mitigation attempt to make the development process as stupid-proof as possible... not to mention it technically has an open source development platform (Mono) that, while not mature, is surprisingly functional and extensible when needed.
I personally think that Java is a great learning tool... something that our intro to programming and a handful of other introductory classes in college should adopt and use. Past that, however, I can only compare it to the likes of Visual Basic... almost as if it is only a language that only those who haven't been weaned (or don't want to be) off it and move onto more powerful languages (albeit, languages requiring more developer responsibility and vigilance).
In the end, I think the approach of creating stupid-proofing mechanisms into our languages is flawed... we'll only create better (worse) stupid people. Instead, take the correct (albeit far more difficult) course of pruning the development community of stupidity. Greater education rigor including principles and disciplines would do much more than the majority of our universities' current Java shop curriculums.
... benefits and detriments exist for both monolithic and micro flavors. I doubt a conclusion could ever be made about which one is 'better'... because it all depends on context. "How will the system be used?" "What kind of environment will the system be operating under?" "What are the performance goals of the system?" "What types of hardware will the system(s) need to support?"
Each system has benefits... but they almost always rely on the existence of certain assumptions.
Ever tried running Java on *BSD? It works to some extent, but it isn't pretty. Having an open implementation could mean that Java and Java Server Pages would become more widely accepted in servers running open systems.
...Even with an immature runtime as Mono to run C# apps on... it at least offers open-source portability to X platform.
To be honest, this is the case on *every* platform I've developed with / used Java on... but that is just my humble opinion. There are plenty of projects where I and my colleages were restricted to Java when we could have done a better and faster job using C or Python. The only thing that makes Java even remotely nice IMO is its ability to keep stupid programmers from doing things *too* stupidly... but these arbitrary barriers often only serve to get in the way once you've graduated from programmer pre-school.
In any case, I'd be more interested in going the C# route of stupid coder friendly languages... being that it essentially tries to 'fix' just about everything that is problematic in Java. I'm not saying its a perfect solution... it certainly has plenty of revisions or forks to go before we see anything resembling a holy grail of OO noob friendly programming languages.
Average Joe Schmoe who wants to make a quick buck by helping out with some advert company and decides to go the spamalot route. He gets fined $10,000 for the software he installs to make it easier to do thus... but only makes $1000 for all his trouble over the next 3 months.
... Now if the language stated something to the effect of "the creators are liable to pay a $10,000 fine for every machine infected", that just might halt operations... assuming they get caught... and they're doing it in the country.
The 'pro' who makes well above the initial cost of $10,000 really won't be affected by it... that $10,000 only constitutes a baseline starting cost of doing business... kinda like getting a license for spamming. It then becomes a win-win situation... the big-time spammers now get to work as usual and the government gets a small boost in revenue.
The question I have is that IF this was the case, and creators were liable, how would this affect Open Source software... particularly licensing models. Most licenses essentially say "Be nice, and give credit where its due." What happens when spam companies take open source software as a platform... make minor modifications to serve their spamming activities... would the original creators be liable in part? They would technically be co-creators of X company's spam software... albeit unintentionally.
It'd be interesting what kind of software Microsoft's 'malware' envelope covers. Not that I don't like a bunch of MS software, but this is starting to sound more and more like "you can only run approved software on windows"... though I'm sure that isn't actually the intent... yet.
From a strict software engineering standpoint, this can be dangerous and in many IT depts. that I've been in tend to look down on this "feature" of SF or otherwise OS software. Making changes to the software may break its intended function in a key way that may or may not be documented. There is also an underlying concept in software engineering that the only changes you should ever make are those that fix the software to be in line with the original architecture and design or those extensions of the software that rely on the original architecture and design as a basis for extention. If neither of these is the case then it is recommended to go back to the design phase so that you can redesign in an effort to include the desired functionality in the architecture defined... this usually means heavy code rewrite if not starting from scratch.
"Hack" jobs are generally looked down upon as unsafe software engineering. This is not to say that all source forge or open source projects don't follow good SE principles. A good handful do... but on the whole the majority of SourceForge projects are found to be in want.
The caveat to all this is that I've been employed largely by companies that don't mind throwing large quantities of money towards a project if it means 'getting it right' in the long term rather than simply providing immediate 'hack' functionality.
Unfortunately progress and innovations are in direct competition with personal gain... nor should progress and innovation trump personal gain by government mandate. Then again, neither should personal gain trump progress and innovation by government mandate. I think this is the current situation, but most 'remedies' to the situation i see are simply throwing the pendulum in the other direction rather than finding a proper balance.
I would also like to point out that innovation and progress do not always go hand in hand. Progress doesn't mean innovation had to take place, and neither does innovation mean that progress had to be made... though we'd like to think that both of these are the case the majority of the time. Also, what constitutes progress or innovation? Is it a requirement that progress and innovation actually be used when it is discovered? Can it not simply remain in archives of research to be implemented at a later time when the idea has possibly gone under heavy revision for improvement of both progress and innovation?
It would seem to me that most people of the FOSS community are simply looking for a near immediate 'alternative' that is either free or open source... usually both. This flies in the face of personal gain by someone who may have an actual claim on innovation and progress, even if it was poorly implemented and he's a greedy, stingy closed sourced evil basrad. FOSS should respect IP just like normal businesses do for an acceptable period of time (yet to be determined... today's definition is too long).
This is not to say that FOSS shouldn't work on things protected by IP in the interim... they just can't be released until it is a proper time. They can also further innovate on the technology during this interim. Just because you can't currently use a piece of software doesn't mean that progress can innovation can't be pushed towards.
As a side note, I think we can agree that not all IP (even if closed sourced) is bad. Take for instance the Microsoft's IP of the Clippy and friends Office helpers. Since nobody else could use them their own office apps have as a result been prevented from going down the same road of nasty degradation.
I actually liked the first two movies... the dialogue wasn't exactly mind blowing... even dull at times... but they were still very entertaining by and large. However, I have a feeling that, story aside, if Darth Vader had been in the first two movies I think they would have gotten a much bigger reception. All of the original trilogy had Vader in it in all his 3V1L L337 coolness, and all three of them were very good... the third only dropping off mildly from the first two.
Now that Vader is finally coming back onto the screen he has everybody fawning again. I have a sinking suspicion that the dialogue and acting is going to be similar to that of these last two movies (essentially what makes them 'horrible' in many people's eyes), but its got Lord Vader... so it's AAAAALLLLLL good. My $0.02.
Hmmmm.... Why haven't you volunteered to go fight for "freedom" in Rawanda, or Darfur yet? Oh that's right you are perfectly happy to say "we" have a duty to fix the world, as long as YOU don't have to risk your life for it. I just love people who talk about how we need to fix the world, as long as the potential cost is someone else.
/. *gasp* I must be a tree hugging hippie with only enough brain capacity to soak up political propaganda and preach open-source like it was the 2nd coming of Christ!
You assume that I haven't been serving in the Air Force for the past few years after 9/11. There are many like me who joined the military for just the reasons you cite. Oh wait! I'm posting on
And yes, I am appalled at the general lack of intervention... and in many cases the reasons for the intervention at the highest levels. But that doesn't mean I support not intervening at all.
As for criticism worth the paper it is printed on:
Theodore Roosevelt: "Criticism is necessary and useful; it is often indispensable; but it can never take the place of action, or be even a poor substitute for it. The function of the mere critic is of very subordinate usefulness. It is the doer of deeds who actually counts in the battle for life, and not the man who looks on and says how the fight ought to be fought, without himself sharing the stress and the danger."
It's as though americans believe we have a god given right to intervene around the world if we don't like a certain government, etc.
Citizenship in this country comes with the economic and political obligations inherent in being the United States (at least in this day, who knows decades from now). The US is essentially the defacto powerhouse of money and man power. The basic argument is, "If we don't interfere, then who the hell is?" It isn't a "god given right", it is an economic and political obligation to use our resources for the greater good of the world at large. If you don't like that idea, I'm sure you could move to Rwanda and be perfectly happy without all the responsibilities of being a US Citizen.
Lets assume for a second that we didn't interfere. Those people/states that are not strong enough to defend themselves would likely fall to foreign conquest. After said conquest, those in oppression as well as those who deemed themselves too weak to aid in the defense would look upon us and say, "Why the hell didn't you help them out?... You could've DONE something." If you can live with the ridicule and guilt of your nation NOT doing something that was considered so "wrong" to the rest of the world when you COULD HAVE... fine, I can't. It's as if you're saying that you want the nice cozy, moderately wealthy lifestyle that most americans live with. and yet not be recognized around the world as having power. Human rights isn't about American Human rights, or only when America can benefit... it is unqualified aid and intervention when a potential violation of those rights is forseen.
I'm not saying that we do it perfectly... there's plenty of intervention that i think we could stay out of and not be the worse for it, and at the same time I know there are plenty of circumstances that the US could intervene that it doesn't. The point is, if you don't like your country being recognized as a world super power with all the applicable responsibilities inherent in being such, then move somewhere that isn't.
For Intel, your argument definitely holds water. Their whole business plan has been based off of their vast number of production plants and relatively cheap process of putting hordes of chips on the market... hopefully making the chips pervasive enough to strike a profit level in the end (more like early mid-life with their price schemes though). It is only after a processor has been found tried and true that Intel migrates it to server land.
AMD on the other hand has always started out chips on the enthusiast / enterprise market because they simply don't have the fabrication capacity that Intel does. Thus they market first for the high end users and over time the processors find their way into the desktop market when they've been dated by yet another new, improved processor being marketed at the first group. Their whole revenue plan is based off of the 'rich' people niche (which includes many medium to large businesses). Based on their success, I'd say that they've done really well with this business model and continuing to do so would likely continue to work for them.
The common misnomer that is latched onto with many processor reviews nowadays is that both AMD and Intel are prodcing processors for the desktop platform, when in reality their business goals for their processors are on opposite spectrums. Intel starts desktop side, AMD starts server side. It is only after both have matured to some degree (and software caught up to both of them) that the processors can be meaningfully compared for the average joe user that just bought a new computer (or had one built for him).
Most people who go crazy over these new technologies are either wanting it for pure bragging rights, or simply aren't aware of how little it will actually do for them... or both in all liklihood.
People who consider Firefox 'just another browser' are those responsible enough not to visit sites that would otherwise infect their machines with virii and other garbage (read: visiting pr0n and warez sites). I like the whole tabbed browsing thing, but that's really the only thing that differentiates Firefox for me. If IE had tabs I'd probably still be using it since I don't tend to visit the aforementioned types of sites on any kind of regular basis. I'd also wager that a vast majority of people in "end user" land probably wouldn't use, or perhaps even know about, the tabbed browsing.
The only 'better' thing about firefox (from an end-user perspective) is that it is secure enough to allow semi-safe passage through pr0n/warez land with nothing but your eyes being scathed.
Except for the fact that education reports are also indicating loss of critical thinking skills in the maths and sciences across the board that many attribute to the introduction and, later, the integration of computers in the classroom. I made it all the way through school without seeing a computer until my junior year when i took a typing course (which I didn't need... i'd been typing papers on a typewriter for years by then). And I've turned out to be a computer scientist with a MS degree.
I considered my math and science courses to be particularly beneficial to me because after algebra 1 and a physical science class in the 8th grade, my school system did not allow the use of calculators, let alone a computer, for any of its higher math and science classes. Amazingly enough, when it came around to ACT time, I and many of my classmates were able to fly through the math and science parts without the use of a calculator, while student's from a neighboring system had their fancy TI calculators in hand and were struggling to finish on time.
My mother is also an elementary teacher (3rd through 5th depending on the year) these days and complains that the computers in her classroom serve nothing more than toys to entertain students and ends up getting in the way of teaching more important things that they will end up getting tested on down the road. The only 'useful' thing they do in the class (her's anyways) is learn to use powerpoint to make pretty presentations... though the usefulness is definitely arguable IMHO.
It's true that the 'training' these kids get with one product or another is going to be moot by the time they get in the work force. But how is replacing microsoft and other closed-source products with open-source products going to change the fact that what they're learning now will be useless in several years. I say, keep computers mostly out of the schools altogether with the possible exception of a word processing / business application intro class, and maybe an intro to programming class. The latter is questionable IMO since students that come out of those classes by and large do worse in the intro classes in college than do those with no prior computer training whatsoever... they've had a whole year or two of bad habits they now have to break before getting into a 'real' programming course. Not to mention that it is in college that students will be really learning the tools to be used later when they have a job, not elementary and secondary school.
My point is that, if you're going to save money (which all school systems need to do nowadays) don't dump sets of software for new software that might require more training no matter how cheap/free the new software is, but rather just dump using computers altogether. They're very unnecessary in elementary schools and only marginally useful in secondary schools.
Too many people are simply too hyped on what computers can do for them that they feel they need its presence thoroughly permeated throughout their lifestyle... pitiful really.
"Behind Flooded Lines" sounds catchier... or perhaps "Lord of the Pings"... maybe even "Saving Packet Ryan".
Unfortunately, microsoft's infiltration of standards here and there doesn't actually constitute monopolistic behaviour. The reason being that any other company can come along with their own non-standard file type and application and still try to compete... the only problem being that their file types would have to be equally protected by DMCA and IP to ensure that MSFT didn't encroach on their territory except for being able to 'open', not 'save', the data. The only problem with Open Source competing with the likes of Microsoft is that they are largely naive to what is considered 'fair' play in the business world.
Obviously I should have qualified my remark by saying a 'federally funded program promoting abstinence'. I mean, DUH. Churches and many other organizations have pushed the concept for ages, and those who have listened and given a damn were generally able to abide by such a simple concept as abstinence. However, to my knowledge (and I may be wrong here, I admit) there has not been a federally funded program directly promoting abstinence pushed and supported by the presidential administration before now.
This is an important point as the churches aren't the ones who fund sex education classes and such except perhaps in the smallest of towns. I don't know if you can remember your sex ed class when you were young, but in mine they filled the class with language of 'When you have sex...' rather than 'You should NOT have sex, but IF you do...'. The first suggests to those who have not otherwise been introduced to the issue properly that having sex is OK... even at a young age. I'll not debate the morality of it outside of marriage because that's another issue, but I think we can all pretty much agree that it's a bad idea for kids to have sex. I think that holds all the way through highschool and perhaps even through college. All that education serves a purpose of preparing you for getting a job... at which point you can actually pay on good faith for child support if you go boinking people every Friday and Saturday night, or *gasp* get married and actually be able to help support a family.
I'll grant you that no system is going to work, however, until the parents take a more active role in educating (and disciplining) their children. Its a chicken/egg scenario to be honest; to correctly condition the kids the parents likely need to have been conditioned themselves... but they weren't, and so the cycle repeats when the kids become parents. As much as I hate to say it, but it is situations like that which make envy the 'brainwashing' techniques depicted in Brave New World and other literature... assuming we could actually come up with an educational and social standard that everyone could agree on... but alas, yet another hopeless cause.
Of course, I might also point out that 'the church' as you term it doesn't really exist in the connotation that you suggest. 'The church' that you refer to are those politically wealthy enough to whisper sweet nothings in the President's ear concerning their own religious beliefs. THAT entity has existed for almost EVERY president, not just this one. Christianity as a whole has no such hold on Bush's actions, but rather Bush successfully uses Christianity as a handy dandy tool in his political utility belt.
To be fair, I should point out that the 'safe sex' policies lauded by prior administrations weren't exactly effective either. Better to try something new that doesn't work than stick with the same old that hasn't been working for decades.
On another note, any increase in student sex activity trends in the past few decades should be noted as 'documented' sex activity (ie. that which a student admits to or gets caught at). I guarantee you that when I was going to school there were more kids than I can count that I knew were having sex... even at the age of 12 to 14. It just wasn't something to brag about. Nowadays, student peers are finding sexuality more and more acceptable and are thus more likely to be open about their sexuality (and likely more active, which scares me).
I say all this to point out that maybe if all our students were spending less time making out during class, making babies in between and after class, and listening/watching to music/video that 'glamourizes' such behaviour, there might be room in their 'active' lifestyles to actually learn about and become interested in math, sciences, and the arts. A silly award is NOT what we need to revolutionize scientific popularity, it is a change in the entire social and academic atmosphere our kids grow up and learn in that will do the trick.
... is going to cut it from what I gather. Most engines, no matter what features they laud tend to do really well at certain functional aspects and only mediocre to dismal in others. Another thing to consider is that the engine as a whole will only be incorporating 3D visuals as the visualizations portion of the engine. I would gather that the networking portion of the engine would have to be very robust, efficient and all around top-notch if they're planning on doing a MMOG style persistent world.
This effects what your presentation portion needs to handle. Complex, smoothly animated avatars are probably NOT going to be something needed... especially when you consider large numbers of people congregating in any one are of the persistent world. Not only will you have to be keeping up with all that information, but you're going to have to render it too. What this means is that all the advanced graphics methods presented by engines similar to Doom3, HL2, or Unreal3 are probably overkill.
You also have to consider the types of machines that schools would purchase to access this world. Creating high demands on visualization and processing power in general means higher prices for not only the server and production machines, but the clients as well. And let me tell you, schools don't like paying big bucks for computers if they don't have to.
A Quake 2/3-like engine may suffice for visualization needs, but I guarantee you that the networking would still have to be loads better as neither engine scales well to extreme server populations (ie. 100+... they make the assumption that you need to keep track of all players at all times rather than only those players 'close-by'). Luckily the Q2 engine is GPL'd and so can be the subject of modification on that end... however there may be more suitable engines that I'm simply unaware of.
The only research I have have had on the subject came up in a Criminal Studies course I took in college years ago, I must admit. Fascinating stuff really, but i'm fairly sure sociopaths haven't changed that much in the past 10 years or so since the articles we studied were written, so take it as you will.
As to the cruelty inherent in my ideas for punishment, i admit that they are particularly harsh and definitely 'inhumane' by any standards of today's society. I was just making the point that a 'time out' of 25 years or more is hardly a punishment. Now, I will grant that in that 25 year 'time out' they may recieve their punishment through violent hardships that are characteristic of many prisons, but then that's assuming he's the victim and not the prognosticator the whole time.
This whole being watched for the rest of your life is a good start to a real 'punishment', but it really can't do much for the 2nd victim if the criminal decides to break his boundaries. I mean... how fast is the response time to something like this? Is it going to be 'lenient' for 'accidental' and 'temporary' violations of boundaries? It isn't a PREVENTATIVE punishment. It is only a mechanism to find the criminal easier and supply incriminating evidence, in the event that the criminal strikes again.
I don't know about you, but I'd prefer preventative punishment every time, no matter how damnably brutal, if it means we would never have to worry about the criminal creating another of the same type of victim... especially so when the victim is a child. The system as it stands now is designed to protect and aid the criminal who may actually be innocent rather than protect the victims. I mean... who the hell is more important to us? Crimnal or victim.
Since when is 25 years of time punishment to a sociopath? Isn't time in quarantine something that only enhances the emotions and actions of sociopaths? I'd hate to meet a child molestor that has been brooding for 25 years. Sure, there's a possibility that a handful of cases will actually 'see the light' and cure themselves of their sociopathic disfunction, but that doesn't make me feel any more comfortable with a convicted sociopathic child molestor having been recently released moving in next door when i have a 10 yr old child.
Time in jail in any case has been shown time and again to be more a slap on the wrist in recent decades what with the modernization of prisons and whatnot. Our society has allowed harsh cruelties to go largely unpunished, all in the name of being 'civilized and humane'... whatever that means. Now, i'm not necessarily up for offing anyone that's ever convicted of a crime just to prevent them from doing it ever again, but there are some 'brutal' punishments I would actually consider for some of the more henious crimes.
I'd totally be in favor of castrating (or otherwise sexually sterilize) sex offenders in addition to gouging their eyes out. The first to somewhat rehabilitate their sexual tendencies (this method has been fairly well documented as reducing sexual drive), and the second to punish them for their offenses and stands as a future (ie. blindness prevents them from physically looking at an object of their obsession ever agin). Perhaps its a bit harsh, but then I thought that's what "punishment" was supposed to be.