"The thing that bothers me about this "experiment" is that it presumes to assert that people can control a machine that generates random events, without describing the algorithm by which those random events are produced..."
I believe their algorithm for producing random numbers was sound - it was based on completely unpredictable world events of extreme importance. Oh, wait...
Does anyone share the growing feeling of concern and unease that I have about Google?
I thought the days of single online providers (Compuserve) was over but now it seems like Google wants to be the entire internet. They 'own' web searching (and therefore in the current state of affairs the web itself), they 'own' image searching and Usenet. Instead of loging onto the 'net it's becoming increasingly the case that you boot up Google instead.
Wikipedia looks like it could become the next major online success (and Google's actions kinda endorse this prediction) but instead of being happy with this state of affairs I'm wondering how long it will be before I only have one page in my 'sites to check daily' folder: Google.
Of course if you take a Capitalist kind of viewpoint this all looks very good for Google: it's taking over *because* it's so good. It's success is justifed - well done Google - no problem here.
My problem is that I see a rather nasty monopoly at the end of all this. If it is Google's intention to expand into every online nook it will not be a good thing for the internet as a whole. In fact a single critical set of servers seems to me to be exactly the opposite of what was intended. Aside from the already massive over-reliance on Google for both business and personal use, the ever increasing tempation for them to abuse their position as the gatekeepers of information in general and the damage done to the internet design philosphy as a whole, my major concern would be governmental interference*: let's face it, governments want control of people and Google's servers already give a quite stunning amount of insight into what is going through our collective heads. Even if you believe that Google (the company) is incorruptible, a single centre of such power would be viewed with great envy by a shit load of people who are.
Remember that feeling when the 'net was still young - you had it because there was no single dominant hierarchy in control. Already that feeling is fading fast - don't let it disappear altogether. The associative information held on Google is already too bloody dangerous to be kept a secret. Open it up guys - then I'll believe how much you care.
* There is a theory that this has already happened!
I've found that there are two types of problems that I get asked to solve:
1) OMG! My computers fecked and I've got a report to do and OMG! the hard drive light was flickering away for an hour and now all my work's disappeared and OMG! It won't boot, all I did was clear out some files and OMG! Look my desktop's so full of crap that starts itself automatically that it takes 20 minutes to start up! etc etc
2) I bought this cheap computer/monitor/software/ it was an absolute bargan - now all I want you do to is to fix it/set it up/debug it/find and install drivers so that I can have something for nothing.
I'll basically sort out 1) for just about anyone - doesn't even have to be friends or family. Hell, I'm just that kinda guy.;)
However I've noticed I've been getting covered in whole lot of number 2 of late. For some reason people don't get that their 'bargan' was only that because it lacked something - often technical knowledge. Of course this is fine if you have the knowledge to put it right, but you wouldn't go and buy a knacked up car for nothing just because you knew someone who had the ability to fix it for you.
Unfortunately people with problem no 2) often present themselves as people with problem no 1). It kinda makes me suspicious, paranoid and generally cranky when people ask me for computer help.
Wow, get the people who *watch* a program to fund it! What a great idea! However, instead of getting people to donate their cash directly why don't the tv execs just split the program up into bits and sell off the gaps to other guys who want to sell the fans stuff?
Hey, they could even maybe record the programs onto CDs with like bigger capactity (lets call them DCDs (dense CDs)) and then sell these directly to the fans themselves.
In these ways popular programs could actually be funded by the people who want to watch them!!! Of course though there is a down side: occasionally a program will be so duff that none of the fans will want to watch the ads, or buy the disks and it'll have to be canned. Never mind though - *if the program was so shit that not even the die-hard fans want to bother to watch it* then it deserves to be dumped. Naturally the money saved can then be put towards other more deserving programs - perhaps those with a more 'Western in space' like feel.
..his ship looked roughly like Apollo's command and service modules, was roughly the same size, carried a three-person crew, was named Columbia, and was launched from the coast of Florida....
...Robert Goddard was laughed at for believing that a rocket would function in a vacuum, for instance) and Verne's stories were dismissed as fantasy (nuclear-powered submarines!? Are you crazy!?) they came true, in time....
I found I enjoyed your post a lot more when I sang: "It's been a LONG road, getting from there to here" as I read it.:)
Hi, I really enjoyed your post (I'm the author of the message you replied to).
I'm a real newb programmer, but even I know that the 'everything in assembly' idea is just not an option.
Of course if I wanted to be cheeky at this point I'd say that everything already *is* programmed in assembly language/machine code it's just that some of us write in it directly. Instead I'll just say that there's a whole lot of received wisdom flying around CS and that it's best to make up your own mind having tried everything out for yourself.
Speaking personally, I have been completely amazed at just how small you can make an algorithm (I'm talking bytes here) therefore if people want more space and less bloat then there is a way. I've also been impressed by how you can take a great algorithm and make it run fantastically fast, and further I've seen how the *selection* of an algorithm itself can be governed by a low level understanding of the machine. So, if people want more processor cycles they could have them.
Now, I suppose whether users really *want* these extra cycles and whether it is in the interests of programmers to give them up isn't really my point. I'm just here to remind everyone where some of these cycles actually ended up. Our choices as a programming community have had an effect.
Even though learners have far greater access to computers, it's just no longer natural or even practical to learn low-level machine workings properly.
Depending on your personality, this attitude could take all the fun out of computing. Personally, I found that I could (if I wanted to) spend my entire programming life gluing together other people's code: in libraries; interrupts; in hardware; in network protocols; and in programming languages; and never actually produce something that I could really call my own. Also, irritatingly, a lot of the interfaces I had to work with were braindead, inconsistent and changed about all the fucking time.
It's only my opinion but I say that there's more joy to be had in computing if you can a) program at any level in a few different languages b) know how and when to apply the cool algorithms (you know the ones) and c) know the hardware you're writing for inside out.
Anyhow that's the joy of programming for you - if you want anything more than that then all I can recommend is a Quadgasm.
Sorry guys and gals there's one main reason for compos being slower than they should be: the overhead required by more and more levels of abstraction. These extra levels bring me close to tiers(sic) because they are for the *programmer's* convenience not the user's.
The frankly stunning levels of indirection that the computer is required to travel to achieve even the simplest of task slows everything down to a crawl.
The C programming language is responsible for a at least one level of abstraction (disassembly demonstrates huge numbers of function calls which are unnecessary for the program to work but are there for the programmer's benefit (think: modularization; portability and reuse (none of which directly improve the user's lot but are there to help the programmer and *come at a price*))).
OOP adds in a further level and encorages programmers to ignore how things are actually achieved by the machine. In the worst case this all becomes like a plumber working with nothing but bath tubs when there's a shit load of plain and simple pipe sitting in his van.
The idea that algorithm wins over optimization actually seems to me to be an argument for using a higher level language than C or C++ (however this is rarely the context in which you read it). If algorithm really were king we should all program in LISP. In the end, as with all sweeping statements, the truth is that there is a complex and dynamic boundary here, in this case between our use of abstraction and our desire to optimize for the target machine, (utility for programmers and utility for users). Choosing where to set these boundaries requires intelligence and that requires revision where necessary.
The fact that people (users) are wondering where their cycles have gone to suggests to me that the boundary has been pushed way too far in one direction: make it easy for us (the programmers) and fuck the users - they can just buy faster machines.
Even speaking in commercial (rather than professional or dare I say it, moral) terms this practice seems insecure: if there is a way of doing exactly what your program does but faster it leaves you open to attack. We can debate the size of this chink in our armour but we can't debate the fact that it is there: you do not get the benefits of abstraction without paying for it in terms of optimization.
Two things that piss me off about my work machine: when it's slow for no very good reason and when the software it's running breaks. Ironically, a better understanding of how high level languages are translated into machine code would help sort both problems, we might even be able to trim away some of the fat at the same time. We are not moving towards this future. We are moving away from it. Fast. Never mind... let's pull into that drive thru and fill up on more crap.
"We can have security OR compatability. We can have low prices OR product quality... etc..
Bullshit. You can have both. The visionary companies described in this book DO get both, because they live by what the book describes "Genius of the 'AND'". You CAN have it both ways - it just takes hard work, dediction, and thinking outside of the box."
This kind of nonsense has really got to stop. It reminds me of the rubbish always talked about C that you could have portablity AND speed AND efficiency AND small code size AND this AND that AND the other AND ffs.
At some point in design, and indeed in life, you have to make choices and you are forced to make these choices when it becomes impossible to have *everything* you want at one time.
While it is of course extremely valuable to put off making choices until the last possible moment - to make something other than vapour in this universe you have to actually put pen to paper - and start making choices.
I'm a UK citizen and was recently alarmed to find that my vote in the last election was not counted. On further investigation I find that I'm actually not allowed to vote at all! I don't understand, George W Bush took my country to war and for some reason I'm unable to vote him out of office. Can anyone explain this to me?
In regard to the topic: the idea of speeding up so called 'antiquated' voting systems with modern technology is clearly flawed. Speed up the voting = speed up the voting fraud. Voting should be something that is as slow and painful as the act of being governed itself. But then that doesn't make for good tv.
"Second, any urls that are dead should be deleted, or moved to a folder of dead links that I can try to revive."
I'm liking the article but this rather stood out as something wrong (for me, ie my opinion, ie that which I think that you do not necessarily have to agree with but can if you so wish).
A browser that moved or deleted my bookmarks automatically (for its own dumb reasons) would get tossed pretty quickly.
Consider a duff link - is it totally useless? No, it represents something that: a) you might want to look for again; b) may well be available on http://www.archive.org/; c) may contain a relatively unique file name so that a search will instantly bring you its new address.
But, no, no you just go ahead and delete my bookmarks why don't you. *But* when I delete sodding Outlook express, hey, feel free to magically and silently bring *those* files back!!!
Even if bookmarks were resorted into a 'duff links' folder rather being dumped entirely you'd loose any filing information that you'd made for that link and let's face it, if you can't find a bookmark quicker than you can re-google for the site itself then there wasn't much point in making it, keeping it, or sorting it in the first place.
A bit more respect for users would be nice - this article reeks of 'users don't know jack': Apparently we need help even *generating* our own bookmarks (ie from our history) and we're not even trusted to set our home page correctly!!
Personally, on a Windows machine I just create short-cuts to web pages and sort and search them - I almost never go near the 'Favorites' menu if I can help it. Heh, and this is me when I'm liking and article...;)
Companies should compete on their implementation of ideas rather than the ideas themselves. Amazon's implementation of 1-click is so excellent that it makes me want to shop there rather than anywhere else. Amazon's attempt to patent 1-click makes me want to shop elsewhere.
I hereby claim my patent: 1-stick.
"A method that allows multiple users to, using a single mouse operation, to stick their finger up at Amazon."
Yep. Too much spawning pretty soon feels like a delaying tactic and gets tedious.
The trouble is that D^3 is just too much like DOOM2. Having replayed the latter and various old WADs in anticipation of No.3 I realised that lots of levels in D2 were tedious in the same way too.
The joy of the orginal DOOM was that they actually bothered to hide the monsters in the walls - two imps appearing from a secret room is far more exciting than creature after creature appearing from nowhere.
D^3 does have some really nicely placed zombies but these can often feel like set pieces - once you've seen the trick you're never fooled by it again. DOOM1 managed on occasion to present variations to the game play whether it be the unexpected reappearance round a corner of a monster you'd missed before or finding yourself getting really bogged down in a section that you're previously breezed through.
I won't replay D^3 for a while because I expect it'll be exactly the same game the second time around.
8:00 AM ZERO-G Experience check-in
9:00 AM Ground training and astronaut presentation
11:30 AM Light lunch with ZERO-G Coaches and Crew
**Not** from http://nogravity.com:
01:00 PM Spew light lunch over inside of plane
01:01 PM Enjoy spectacle of zero-g lunch globs
01:02 PM Watch with glee as light lunch 'regains its weight' and lands on someone's head.
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly how to represent or render any part of DNA's universe, he will instantly disappear and replace it with something even more unimaginable and expensive.
There is another theory which states that this is already happening.
The future of the World Wide Web? It has no future. The question is meaningless. It's a bit like saying "What's the future of email?". Email is and always will be simple text with the useful extension of being able to attach files. Anything else is just tinkering (think about the true utility of HTML email and auto-executing scripts). That's it. There is no more to see here. Likewise the WWW is simply hypertext documents with the useful addition of images and tables. In the same way that email has been/is being extended unnecessarily, so too the web: tedious flash; javascript pricking around and now the joy that is CSS.
Taking CSS as an example (to counter the pro CSS bias in the article): if I want to separate formatting information from content then I'll make that choice and write in that manner locally. Just because you can't think of websites where the style and content are unified doesn't mean that I can't. Further, does CSS solve the most important Web related issue? Does it enable your non-techno-obsessed friends/relatives onto the web? No. It simply makes it more confusing and makes them further reliant on software that they simply have no interest in buying. I am bored sick of reading web pages by the kind of people who would read the CSS specs. *I've* read the specs and I already know all about people like me. I want the web to be filled with cool stuff written by non-tech literate people. Further more, if that means that I have to wade through sites written in #ff0000 on #ffff00, then fine, bring it on.
The deeper point here is that the whole idea of creating setting web-standards from on-high is a bit silly really. You cannot and should not be able to control what happens out there. You certainly can't do it in an autocratic (top-down) way, especially when you used bottom up as your initial model. The harsh truth is that things just 'happen' to be great/useful whatever. It of course helps if the originator's been clear/accurate in his description, but it isn't strictly necessary. You most certainly *do not* just don't get this kind of stuff as a product of 5 years of committees.
I have to say the original article strikes me as whining from someone who's just realised that no-one can be arsed to fully implement all the CSS specs (and other W3C dross) he wants. My reaction: "Great!". I for one am well pleased that MS is leaving the Web alone for a while. If we have a new version of IE every year, we wouldn't be able to go to any website without getting some dumbass virus. Also, I am *really* pleased that the guys who have to actually fork out for the coding time are realising that there simply isn't any return on their investment anymore. The Web *is already* what it was designed to be: hypertext pages (and URL). It's had some nice additions - a *long time ago*- but stop already!
The next big thing? The thing to replace the WWW? Here's a clue: it ain't the Semantic Web.
Sorry about any attitude, I've got a mother of a cold today.
Then the plants are harvested for their metal content. The plants aren't bio-engineered - he's taking advantage of the natural tendency for certain plants to accumulate heavy metals."
Kinda reminds me of the 'knife plants' in 'Saucer Wisdom' by Rudy Rucker.
Eg:
"Jose and Amparo are no longer careful about harvesting every last knife. Here and there dried stalks rustle, with rusting knives..."
The book's an excellent 'stab' at what the future may bring - recommended to/.ers.
This issue is not simply a matter of invasion of privacy. The screening will of course be automated. This means computers. The task of working out who is a possible communist, sorry, I mean 'terrorist', is uncomputable and therefore yet another totally idiotic use to try to put them to.
Practical example for no reason: Consider credit card fraud. The heuristics run on my bank's computer have many times stopped me from making legitimate purchases but have twice failed to stop actual fraud. I have learned that I simply cannot rely on any of my credit cards functioning at any given time. Do I now have to get used to the idea that I might at any time be prevented from flying or be held without trial for being a 'terrorist'? Just because of an illconceived computer program?
While I might consider giving up some of my individual rights to privacy for the general good, giving them up to governments who think that computers are up to the job of monitoring would... Aw, discussing it won't stop it happening. We're boned.
>The worst that happens to flesh exposed to vacuum is a modest amount of cell damage at the surfrace...
>Heck, large quantities of youths get smallish (~1 square inch) regions
>of flesh exposed to near vacuum conditions all the time with nothing worse than a red welt to show for it.
Yeah, but on a larger scale... well that'd be one hell of a hickey!
"End of Life" (as defined by Microsoft) on December 31, 2002.
Nah, right day but wrong year. 2099's the end of DOS - well, according to it's 'DATE' command.
Funny how something's suddenly 'dead' just because it got a bit old. I bet you guys won't be so quick to pronounce 'Unix is dead' when it's crystal starts flashing... [Note for the slow: think 'Logan's Run']
Today's new word: Obiturize. (Vb) To write an obituary with the intent of killing the subject.
Slashdot Mirror
"The thing that bothers me about this "experiment" is that it presumes to assert that people can control a machine that generates random events, without describing the algorithm by which those random events are produced..."
I believe their algorithm for producing random numbers was sound - it was based on completely unpredictable world events of extreme importance. Oh, wait...
"No, honey, move a little to the left, right a bit - okay - smile! Hold it"
[pause]
"What's up?"
"It's saying that it won't take the picture... copyright infringement or something"
"Now it's saying that we've willfully broken our 'Bond of Trust'."
"Now it's saying we're terrorists and all our assets will be striped"
"Huh?"
"Step away from the monument!!! Put down the camera - or we fire!!!"
Does anyone share the growing feeling of concern and unease that I have about Google?
I thought the days of single online providers (Compuserve) was over but now it seems like Google wants to be the entire internet. They 'own' web searching (and therefore in the current state of affairs the web itself), they 'own' image searching and Usenet. Instead of loging onto the 'net it's becoming increasingly the case that you boot up Google instead.
Wikipedia looks like it could become the next major online success (and Google's actions kinda endorse this prediction) but instead of being happy with this state of affairs I'm wondering how long it will be before I only have one page in my 'sites to check daily' folder: Google.
Of course if you take a Capitalist kind of viewpoint this all looks very good for Google: it's taking over *because* it's so good. It's success is justifed - well done Google - no problem here.
My problem is that I see a rather nasty monopoly at the end of all this. If it is Google's intention to expand into every online nook it will not be a good thing for the internet as a whole. In fact a single critical set of servers seems to me to be exactly the opposite of what was intended. Aside from the already massive over-reliance on Google for both business and personal use, the ever increasing tempation for them to abuse their position as the gatekeepers of information in general and the damage done to the internet design philosphy as a whole, my major concern would be governmental interference*: let's face it, governments want control of people and Google's servers already give a quite stunning amount of insight into what is going through our collective heads. Even if you believe that Google (the company) is incorruptible, a single centre of such power would be viewed with great envy by a shit load of people who are.
Remember that feeling when the 'net was still young - you had it because there was no single dominant hierarchy in control. Already that feeling is fading fast - don't let it disappear altogether. The associative information held on Google is already too bloody dangerous to be kept a secret. Open it up guys - then I'll believe how much you care.
* There is a theory that this has already happened!
I've found that there are two types of problems that I get asked to solve:
1) OMG! My computers fecked and I've got a report to do and OMG! the hard drive light was flickering away for an hour and now all my work's disappeared and OMG! It won't boot, all I did was clear out some files and OMG! Look my desktop's so full of crap that starts itself automatically that it takes 20 minutes to start up! etc etc
2) I bought this cheap computer/monitor/software/ it was an absolute bargan - now all I want you do to is to fix it/set it up/debug it/find and install drivers so that I can have something for nothing.
I'll basically sort out 1) for just about anyone - doesn't even have to be friends or family. Hell, I'm just that kinda guy.
However I've noticed I've been getting covered in whole lot of number 2 of late. For some reason people don't get that their 'bargan' was only that because it lacked something - often technical knowledge. Of course this is fine if you have the knowledge to put it right, but you wouldn't go and buy a knacked up car for nothing just because you knew someone who had the ability to fix it for you.
Unfortunately people with problem no 2) often present themselves as people with problem no 1). It kinda makes me suspicious, paranoid and generally cranky when people ask me for computer help.
Wow, get the people who *watch* a program to fund it! What a great idea! However, instead of getting people to donate their cash directly why don't the tv execs just split the program up into bits and sell off the gaps to other guys who want to sell the fans stuff?
Hey, they could even maybe record the programs onto CDs with like bigger capactity (lets call them DCDs (dense CDs)) and then sell these directly to the fans themselves.
In these ways popular programs could actually be funded by the people who want to watch them!!! Of course though there is a down side: occasionally a program will be so duff that none of the fans will want to watch the ads, or buy the disks and it'll have to be canned. Never mind though - *if the program was so shit that not even the die-hard fans want to bother to watch it* then it deserves to be dumped. Naturally the money saved can then be put towards other more deserving programs - perhaps those with a more 'Western in space' like feel.
I found I enjoyed your post a lot more when I sang: "It's been a LONG road, getting from there to here" as I read it.
Hi, I really enjoyed your post (I'm the author of the message you replied to).
I'm a real newb programmer, but even I know that the 'everything in assembly' idea is just not an option.
Of course if I wanted to be cheeky at this point I'd say that everything already *is* programmed in assembly language/machine code it's just that some of us write in it directly. Instead I'll just say that there's a whole lot of received wisdom flying around CS and that it's best to make up your own mind having tried everything out for yourself.
Speaking personally, I have been completely amazed at just how small you can make an algorithm (I'm talking bytes here) therefore if people want more space and less bloat then there is a way. I've also been impressed by how you can take a great algorithm and make it run fantastically fast, and further I've seen how the *selection* of an algorithm itself can be governed by a low level understanding of the machine. So, if people want more processor cycles they could have them.
Now, I suppose whether users really *want* these extra cycles and whether it is in the interests of programmers to give them up isn't really my point. I'm just here to remind everyone where some of these cycles actually ended up. Our choices as a programming community have had an effect.
Even though learners have far greater access to computers, it's just no longer natural or even practical to learn low-level machine workings properly.
Depending on your personality, this attitude could take all the fun out of computing. Personally, I found that I could (if I wanted to) spend my entire programming life gluing together other people's code: in libraries; interrupts; in hardware; in network protocols; and in programming languages; and never actually produce something that I could really call my own. Also, irritatingly, a lot of the interfaces I had to work with were braindead, inconsistent and changed about all the fucking time.
It's only my opinion but I say that there's more joy to be had in computing if you can a) program at any level in a few different languages b) know how and when to apply the cool algorithms (you know the ones) and c) know the hardware you're writing for inside out.
Anyhow that's the joy of programming for you - if you want anything more than that then all I can recommend is a Quadgasm.
Sorry guys and gals there's one main reason for compos being slower than they should be: the overhead required by more and more levels of abstraction. These extra levels bring me close to tiers(sic) because they are for the *programmer's* convenience not the user's.
The frankly stunning levels of indirection that the computer is required to travel to achieve even the simplest of task slows everything down to a crawl.
The C programming language is responsible for a at least one level of abstraction (disassembly demonstrates huge numbers of function calls which are unnecessary for the program to work but are there for the programmer's benefit (think: modularization; portability and reuse (none of which directly improve the user's lot but are there to help the programmer and *come at a price*))).
OOP adds in a further level and encorages programmers to ignore how things are actually achieved by the machine. In the worst case this all becomes like a plumber working with nothing but bath tubs when there's a shit load of plain and simple pipe sitting in his van.
The idea that algorithm wins over optimization actually seems to me to be an argument for using a higher level language than C or C++ (however this is rarely the context in which you read it). If algorithm really were king we should all program in LISP. In the end, as with all sweeping statements, the truth is that there is a complex and dynamic boundary here, in this case between our use of abstraction and our desire to optimize for the target machine, (utility for programmers and utility for users). Choosing where to set these boundaries requires intelligence and that requires revision where necessary.
The fact that people (users) are wondering where their cycles have gone to suggests to me that the boundary has been pushed way too far in one direction: make it easy for us (the programmers) and fuck the users - they can just buy faster machines. Even speaking in commercial (rather than professional or dare I say it, moral) terms this practice seems insecure: if there is a way of doing exactly what your program does but faster it leaves you open to attack. We can debate the size of this chink in our armour but we can't debate the fact that it is there: you do not get the benefits of abstraction without paying for it in terms of optimization.
Two things that piss me off about my work machine: when it's slow for no very good reason and when the software it's running breaks. Ironically, a better understanding of how high level languages are translated into machine code would help sort both problems, we might even be able to trim away some of the fat at the same time. We are not moving towards this future. We are moving away from it. Fast. Never mind... let's pull into that drive thru and fill up on more crap.
"Supersize me!".
"We can have security OR compatability. We can have low prices OR product quality... etc..
Bullshit. You can have both. The visionary companies described in this book DO get both, because they live by what the book describes "Genius of the 'AND'". You CAN have it both ways - it just takes hard work, dediction, and thinking outside of the box."
This kind of nonsense has really got to stop. It reminds me of the rubbish always talked about C that you could have portablity AND speed AND efficiency AND small code size AND this AND that AND the other AND ffs.
At some point in design, and indeed in life, you have to make choices and you are forced to make these choices when it becomes impossible to have *everything* you want at one time.
While it is of course extremely valuable to put off making choices until the last possible moment - to make something other than vapour in this universe you have to actually put pen to paper - and start making choices.
Now, would you like a tea or a coffee?
Make a choice or I withdraw the offer...
I'm a UK citizen and was recently alarmed to find that my vote in the last election was not counted. On further investigation I find that I'm actually not allowed to vote at all! I don't understand, George W Bush took my country to war and for some reason I'm unable to vote him out of office. Can anyone explain this to me?
In regard to the topic: the idea of speeding up so called 'antiquated' voting systems with modern technology is clearly flawed. Speed up the voting = speed up the voting fraud. Voting should be something that is as slow and painful as the act of being governed itself. But then that doesn't make for good tv.
"Second, any urls that are dead should be deleted, or moved to a folder of dead links that I can try to revive."
I'm liking the article but this rather stood out as something wrong (for me, ie my opinion, ie that which I think that you do not necessarily have to agree with but can if you so wish).
A browser that moved or deleted my bookmarks automatically (for its own dumb reasons) would get tossed pretty quickly.
Consider a duff link - is it totally useless? No, it represents something that: a) you might want to look for again; b) may well be available on http://www.archive.org/; c) may contain a relatively unique file name so that a search will instantly bring you its new address.
But, no, no you just go ahead and delete my bookmarks why don't you. *But* when I delete sodding Outlook express, hey, feel free to magically and silently bring *those* files back!!!
Even if bookmarks were resorted into a 'duff links' folder rather being dumped entirely you'd loose any filing information that you'd made for that link and let's face it, if you can't find a bookmark quicker than you can re-google for the site itself then there wasn't much point in making it, keeping it, or sorting it in the first place.
A bit more respect for users would be nice - this article reeks of 'users don't know jack': Apparently we need help even *generating* our own bookmarks (ie from our history) and we're not even trusted to set our home page correctly!!
Personally, on a Windows machine I just create short-cuts to web pages and sort and search them - I almost never go near the 'Favorites' menu if I can help it. Heh, and this is me when I'm liking and article...
> It is a bad thing to ruin a good series of movies by making a bad sequel just for money.
;)
Yeah, we know the 'Temple of Doom' sucked, but we're talking about the new movie...
Companies should compete on their implementation of ideas rather than the ideas themselves. Amazon's implementation of 1-click is so excellent that it makes me want to shop there rather than anywhere else. Amazon's attempt to patent 1-click makes me want to shop elsewhere.
I hereby claim my patent: 1-stick.
"A method that allows multiple users to, using a single mouse operation, to stick their finger up at Amazon."
Yep. Too much spawning pretty soon feels like a delaying tactic and gets tedious.
The trouble is that D^3 is just too much like DOOM2. Having replayed the latter and various old WADs in anticipation of No.3 I realised that lots of levels in D2 were tedious in the same way too.
The joy of the orginal DOOM was that they actually bothered to hide the monsters in the walls - two imps appearing from a secret room is far more exciting than creature after creature appearing from nowhere.
D^3 does have some really nicely placed zombies but these can often feel like set pieces - once you've seen the trick you're never fooled by it again. DOOM1 managed on occasion to present variations to the game play whether it be the unexpected reappearance round a corner of a monster you'd missed before or finding yourself getting really bogged down in a section that you're previously breezed through.
I won't replay D^3 for a while because I expect it'll be exactly the same game the second time around.
From http://nogravity.com:
What is the schedule for the ZERO-G Experience?
8:00 AM ZERO-G Experience check-in
9:00 AM Ground training and astronaut presentation
11:30 AM Light lunch with ZERO-G Coaches and Crew
**Not** from http://nogravity.com:
01:00 PM Spew light lunch over inside of plane
01:01 PM Enjoy spectacle of zero-g lunch globs
01:02 PM Watch with glee as light lunch 'regains its weight' and lands on someone's head.
Seriously, I'd be up for it.
'Laugh as you Barf'.
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly how to represent or render any part of DNA's universe, he will instantly disappear and replace it with something even more unimaginable and expensive.
There is another theory which states that this is already happening.
The future of the World Wide Web? It has no future. The question is meaningless. It's a bit like saying "What's the future of email?". Email is and always will be simple text with the useful extension of being able to attach files. Anything else is just tinkering (think about the true utility of HTML email and auto-executing scripts). That's it. There is no more to see here. Likewise the WWW is simply hypertext documents with the useful addition of images and tables. In the same way that email has been/is being extended unnecessarily, so too the web: tedious flash; javascript pricking around and now the joy that is CSS.
Taking CSS as an example (to counter the pro CSS bias in the article): if I want to separate formatting information from content then I'll make that choice and write in that manner locally. Just because you can't think of websites where the style and content are unified doesn't mean that I can't. Further, does CSS solve the most important Web related issue? Does it enable your non-techno-obsessed friends/relatives onto the web? No. It simply makes it more confusing and makes them further reliant on software that they simply have no interest in buying. I am bored sick of reading web pages by the kind of people who would read the CSS specs. *I've* read the specs and I already know all about people like me. I want the web to be filled with cool stuff written by non-tech literate people. Further more, if that means that I have to wade through sites written in #ff0000 on #ffff00, then fine, bring it on.
The deeper point here is that the whole idea of creating setting web-standards from on-high is a bit silly really. You cannot and should not be able to control what happens out there. You certainly can't do it in an autocratic (top-down) way, especially when you used bottom up as your initial model. The harsh truth is that things just 'happen' to be great/useful whatever. It of course helps if the originator's been clear/accurate in his description, but it isn't strictly necessary. You most certainly *do not* just don't get this kind of stuff as a product of 5 years of committees.
I have to say the original article strikes me as whining from someone who's just realised that no-one can be arsed to fully implement all the CSS specs (and other W3C dross) he wants. My reaction: "Great!". I for one am well pleased that MS is leaving the Web alone for a while. If we have a new version of IE every year, we wouldn't be able to go to any website without getting some dumbass virus. Also, I am *really* pleased that the guys who have to actually fork out for the coding time are realising that there simply isn't any return on their investment anymore. The Web *is already* what it was designed to be: hypertext pages (and URL). It's had some nice additions - a *long time ago*- but stop already!
The next big thing? The thing to replace the WWW? Here's a clue: it ain't the Semantic Web.
Sorry about any attitude, I've got a mother of a cold today.
Then the plants are harvested for their metal content. The plants aren't bio-engineered - he's taking advantage of the natural tendency for certain plants to accumulate heavy metals."
Kinda reminds me of the 'knife plants' in 'Saucer Wisdom' by Rudy Rucker.
Eg: "Jose and Amparo are no longer careful about harvesting every last knife. Here and there dried stalks rustle, with rusting knives..."
The book's an excellent 'stab' at what the future may bring - recommended to
This issue is not simply a matter of invasion of privacy. The screening will of course be automated. This means computers. The task of working out who is a possible communist, sorry, I mean 'terrorist', is uncomputable and therefore yet another totally idiotic use to try to put them to. Practical example for no reason: Consider credit card fraud. The heuristics run on my bank's computer have many times stopped me from making legitimate purchases but have twice failed to stop actual fraud. I have learned that I simply cannot rely on any of my credit cards functioning at any given time. Do I now have to get used to the idea that I might at any time be prevented from flying or be held without trial for being a 'terrorist'? Just because of an illconceived computer program? While I might consider giving up some of my individual rights to privacy for the general good, giving them up to governments who think that computers are up to the job of monitoring would... Aw, discussing it won't stop it happening. We're boned.
>The worst that happens to flesh exposed to vacuum is a modest amount of cell damage at the surfrace...
>Heck, large quantities of youths get smallish (~1 square inch) regions
>of flesh exposed to near vacuum conditions all the time with nothing worse than a red welt to show for it.
Yeah, but on a larger scale... well that'd be one hell of a hickey!
In space no-one can hear you scream...
Dilbert: "Shift happens".
Dogbert: "Fire it up!"
"End of Life" (as defined by Microsoft) on December 31, 2002.
Nah, right day but wrong year. 2099's the end of DOS - well, according to it's 'DATE' command.
Funny how something's suddenly 'dead' just because it got a bit old. I bet you guys won't be so quick to pronounce 'Unix is dead' when it's crystal starts flashing... [Note for the slow: think 'Logan's Run']
Today's new word: Obiturize. (Vb) To write an obituary with the intent of killing the subject.