I already served my time on active duty thanks. You? Doubt it.
Sorry buddy. A story submission doesn't seem like the proper place to make a whitty attempt at humor over a couply of tragedies. Do people joke about thinks like this at times? Sure. You think it's fine anwhere at anytime? Great for you. It's called discussion. I offered my view on it. Sure. I remember chuckling at the Need Another Seven Astronaut joke even if I was a tad younger at the time. But if I were making a speech to NASA brass I certainly would think it would be proper to use that one. Somewhere betwee drinking with your buddies at the bar and talking to NASA brass lays a story on/.
And I don't care how many people whine about me voicing my personal opinion in a polite and concise manner. I'll keep on doing it even if people like you don't like it.
And what's even sadder is apparently I'm not even allowed to say I think something is in poor taste without assholes like you and some others acting like I just am some ulta-offended, always PC, yuippity up.
No, I thought something was in poor taste and said so. I vigorously defend the rights of people to say what they want. This isn't about denying tragedy. This is about beliving something was in poor taste and exercising my right to say so. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Yeah, I'm so wrong. I don't really think a story submission that will be read by millions is a great place to make a subtle joke about events where people died, and all I stated was that I thought it was in poor taste. How fucking PC of me.
I believe a submission shouldn't treat events that led to the deaths of several brave men and women as a opportunity to crack a joke.
I thought it was in poor taste and said so. I do not however believe I should be protected from being offended. In fact, I wasn't offended by it in the common use of the word. I thought it was in poor taste but it didn't "hurt my feelings" or anything. I just do not believe it was proper.
There's a very large difference between positing my opinion on something that I don't agree with and asking that people never do things that I don't agree with.
Yes, it is. Obviously you're either being negative due to a bias or not speaking from experience. I'll assume the former.
True, either way someone will need to know the command when writing it themselves and neither way would qualify as a priori knowledge.
However, "get-process" is far more obvious as to intent, most likely easier to remember, and will be much more obvious when read in it's normal context (meaning there's a lot commands and other junk written around it). A complete newcomer could read someone else's script and know exactly was "get-process" meant, where as "ps" might not be clear.
This isn't new thinking here. Would you name variables a, aa, b, BB, etc....? I suppose you would based on your statement above. Myself, I'll take the name who's intent is obvious any day of the week. Especially when you can alias the commands yourself should you want to.
The nice thing would have been if some government had funded him. None did
I'm not sure if I agree with that. I don't think tax money should go to "well, couldn't finance this through other means" business models.
It wasn't a charity. If there we're already government funds through programs he could have gotten, that's one thing. But then it would be his fault for not getting what was already available.
Thus he works for Microsoft. I imagine he is sadly bitter about it all.
Might as well assimilate now. I have little doubt one day in the not so far future, MS will have their own distro and it will eventually become the most common one.
So while your conclusion on the article is correct your logic is flawed/lacking knowledge/ or just poisoning the well.
No, you just replied to a tangent of your own making and not what I wrote. A power user should be able to keep window's up no problem. If you're going to get in and really monkey around with software and hardware, sure you could crash the machine. But you know that going in and it's not, as you yourself mention, a problem owned soley by MS OS's. Overall though, it's rather easy if you're a decent computer user to keep window's up and clean.
Where the problem comes in, and where support is always going to be needed (for other areas as well, but in this context we'll stick to the point), is for people like my wife. She can't keep window's clean. It would be much easier for me if she would use Linux. But she won't. Of course, it's not really her fault because she uses a computer mostly for editing of digital photos. Not exactly a strong area of Linux. Truely a Mac would be nice (my own tangent here), but I consider them more evil then MS, and I refuse to overpay for their curves and proprietary offerings.
What I was referring to is the oh-so-common/.'er that overstates their problems with Windows (2000/XP/2003) in an attempt to put down MS, when what they're really saying is they're an idiot since it really isn't hard to keep MS clean and stable should you want to.
As has been pointed out by others word doesn't open anywhere near that slow. The author's either lying or a moron who's machine is borked up beyond belief.
It amazes that when people here go out of their way to criticize MS products they are basically saying, "I'm a total idiot that can't use a computer". MS has products that totally suck for joe-blow that doesn't know crap. But a power user can and *should* be keeping windows (since 2000 anyways) clean and stable. If you're not, you're a moron. Should MS make it easier to do so and better? Hell yes. But it doesn't take rocket science to keep it up and clean. People that apparently can admin linux boxes in 31 different flavors are too fucking stupid too keep windows up. Or they're lying.
I think I'll safely say the later is the correct choice.
Windows/Word has enough issues, we don't need to resort to FUD and lies though.
Everyone is "different". Everyone has a justification. No one has done it yet.
Obviously you aren't speaking with any knowledge of MMORPGs. Don't tell me you are. You aren't. You might have played a ton of 'em. You might have been a DM for some piddly-esque crap mud. I don't care.
It isn't that they wouldn't want to. It's that these things cost money. These things create issues themselves. These things take resources.
Every fucking MMORPG that has come out has promised this shit and failed. And your little "you don't know what you're talking about" routine coupled with the "this time it's different" can go take a flying leap. Call me a troll, call me mean, call me ignorant. It still doesn't change the fact that every MMORPG has promised this crap and not delivered. And the way this story is done is not making out Hero's Journey to be another little Gemstone. Their past isn't going to help them come through on this promise any more then Mythic's did.
If I had a nickle for every person that used that same line you're using for an MMORPG that didn't deliver this exact promise, I'd have well over a dollar by now.
The difference between Hero's Journey and any other modern MMO is in Simutronics' most prized possessions: its GMs. Given a powerful suite of tools, these creative geniuses are given license to alter the game world in any way they choose to tell a tale.
OK, so the difference is a promise to use GM's to make dynamic content and events? Like I haven't heard that before.
It's all fun and games till the GM takes control of a level 12 troll to attack some lowbie village where the lowbies would love to band together to fight back. Oh, but then some level 50 dude running through the area sees it and nukes it hoping it has phat lewts.
Or they spawn some massive event and half the people complain because it totally screwed up their xp'ing for the night.
I don't know the full details. Hell, I couldn't find the full details. But I'm not giddy over promises of GM's doing great things. Every game promises that and yet you can barely even find a GM to help with a show-stopping bug let along hope one has the free time to be the wonderfull DM-esque content creator.
You might not agree with the blog entry, but it certainly doesn't posit logic that would lead to your statement. Please let me know if you need a further explaination. But I'm pretty sure that after you've taken a moment of reflection you'll understand why your initial response was not accurate.
Are you suggesting there's some verse that states something along the lines of:
And he said to them, "Go unto the hot spot of the largest moon of the body in the sky with the large ring"
I really don't see how that was supposed to help people to start taking the scriptures literally. Are you sure you're just not doing a "The Bible said God created everything. Everything exists. Therefore God did it. And the Bible is once again proven correct."?
It's not just an economic problem. Not every malady can be cured by throwing money on it. Some? Sure. But not all.
And Terry Schiavo being kept alive had little to do with money flowing in as in this country she would have been kept alive regardless (and as I understand it was at times in fact) if someone was paying. Although you can still argue it is the economics of the country, it's also the science and the culture, et al.
You can have all the money in the world and people still die. And not everyone reproduces. Money or not. That's the reality of it and that's enough for evolution to work. Heck, we could become imortal through science and variable reproduction rates would still be enough room for evolution to work in. In fact, as science and medicine improves I'm sure people will make sure we don't stop swapping genes and allowing possible mutations to occur (even if they are filtered). Natural and synthetic. Humans aren't the end-game of evolution. We're a step. You know, chimp is to human as human is to ___ . There's no reason to think there isn't more out there for us to become one day.
What sad is we got the original post telling us that natural evolution will no longer occur in humans currently locked in at +5 since the thread is old, and about 20 replies responding to that post telling it how wrong it is locked or even modded down in some cases by some know-nothing moderator who will hopefully get caught in meta-moderation.
One would have really hoped for some more basic understanding of a very common process on a site that leans towards the scientific community.
What you completely miss is that at any moment a mutation could occur that gives a human an advantage in reproduction.
Let's take an easy one. A small mutation that leads to larger pectoral muscles in men and breasts in women (remember, this is a made up mutation).
While the chances of having offspring without this mutation might be 75%, but those with it have a much better chance at having offspring, say 90%. The peacock got its plumes from evolution afterall.
This hypothetical is evolution. And there's nothing going on now that would stop it. That 15% difference over 1000's of years is a huge numerical advantage for that mutation.
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by converging meaning nothing. What did you think they were trying to prove with it? I mean obviously convergence is an aspect of evolution. That we can so easily converge due to our ability to easily travel is a "duh" but it is still relevant.
It seems to me that people are having a hard time grasping evolution. They point out little pieces of it (potential mutations) that might not, at the present, give a huge advantage. But they fail to notice the little advantages that they do give, and they fail to notice all the other possible changes that could occur.
In humans evolution is alive and kicking. Some might even say thriving. But it certainly isn't dead.
Does any of the information you present answer any of the questions I asked?
No? Thank you.
Does it even all pretain to the orginal submission which is what was being discussed here. No again.
The only thing for me to see here is people like you who want to have a pissing contest.
Don't even give me the "Default install problem. Minimal user interaction." as real details.
Minimal user interacation? That could mean anything. Without the details this could be a "Who cares?" or an "OMG!". We don't know.
It's not that this stuff shouldn't be reported and run up the proper channels. It's that there's nothing this type of story can lead to expect for +funny comments, some IE vs Firefox flame wars. Some Win95 jokes, and some very generic security discussions that won't even center around the flaws in question (since people don't know enough to discuss them).
What holes? Can you explain to me just how serious these holes are? Can you explain to me what they do? Can you explain to me if threat of these being exploited is real?
I eagerly await you reponse. Because that is the information I would like to have and feel the need to have in order to discuss them. Without that information we're left to make assumptions.
The linked article with the flaws is about as useful as lipstick on a pig. So even when there's something to see there's still nothing to see. I think there's some Taoist wisdom in there somewhere.
Science can not cure everything. You say science can overcome just about anything, but it can't right now. If that were true, infant mortality rates would be about zero. They are not. And let us not forget that a very large part of the world's population doesn't live in world similar to your typical/. poster where medical care is top notch.
Second of all, survival without reproduction doesn't mean much. If people with faulty livers end up on average reproducing less (something like that could easily effect attractiveness due to potential limitation of the person even if they do survive) then we're still in the same process more or less as if they weren't surviving.
Third, you're ignoring mutations. That's evolution, which you say will occur no further. If you are born with a mutation and you pass it on, well, what do you want to call it now since you say evolution isn't occuring anymore? Me, I'll stick to just calling that evolution.
The gist of it is that no further evolution will occur unless humans can be separated into isolated groups
No, the gist is that we won't have two seperate species of humans without isolation. Evolution doesn't stop.
Not only is that a very basic and obvious concept, it says exactly that in TFA.
FTFA: "Evolution is still at work. But instead of diverging, our gene pool has been converging for tens of thousands of years -- and Stuart Pimm, an expert on biodiversity at Duke University, says that trend may well be accelerating."
And at this point, not only do we have natural mutations that could be dominant, we also have the ability to alter evolution through our own means.
Not to mention that really, Linux in it's current state on the desktop is not meant for everyone (and I'm not just talking about games).
Furthermore, while many people are Mac happy, the submitter already expressed a desire to buy his own parts. How "un-Macish". Apple is the proprietary king afterall. And while to some that's a strength, to others it's a weakness.
For all the crap Windows gets, there's a reason it got to the top. And it wasn't just marketing. It's not as if Linux in 1995 was ready for the home. It's not as if Apple didn't have it's chance but it's tight control on everything was it's achilles heal.
So once google owns the entire internet...
on
Google Web Accelerator
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
what are they going to do with it?
Not that I'm anti-google. But it's amazing all the things they've gotten themselves into. Now they're apparently going to cache (pieces of) the internet for us.
Though this might finally be a usefull tool to get around the/. effect.
The article doesn't appear to anything more then talk of user feedback. Which really isn't open or closed source specific.
For example FTFA:
Boeing Co., for example, solicits feedback from its airline customers on new jumbo jet configurations and is heavily involved with its machine tool suppliers on the design of new production equipment. ''What you see is economic activity shifting to the side of use," von Hippel said.
The medical example is similar. Passengers aren't using Boeing's Open Source Jet to modify their own. Instead, Boeing is *gasp* taking into account passenger feedback. Likewise, suppliers for Boeing are, *gasp*, listening to Boeing.
The one part that gets into the area at least is:
"The social efficiency of a system in which individual innovations are developed by individual users is increased if users somehow diffuse what they have developed to others,"
Which I agree with. But the examples given weren't up that alley. Furthermore, I think a vast majority of organizations leverage software that is open source because it's free, not because they care for the source. I know we have pieces of OSS no one is *allowed* to touch. Ever. We didn't get it to modify, we got it because it worked. If we had to modify it we would'nt have used it. Of course, not everyone is in this situation. And not all OSS I have is like that. And that does leave us the choice, which is good even if now we don't touch it. But I think a vast majority of developer OSS use is Free Software they won't ever touch. I think the true use of the Source in Open Source is the exception, not the norm.
The book might be more "Open Sourcey". I'll wait for the movie.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you answered your own question then.
Don't upgrade if you don't think it's worth it.
Myself, I'm also very happy with XP. I'll have to decide if some of the new features in Longhorn are worth it. If they aren't, then I won't upgrade.
It's just common sense.
I don't think the comet detected the incoming projectile and made evasive maneuvers though.
Which would have added a whole new layer of complexity.
Talk to some veterans of wars
/.
I already served my time on active duty thanks. You? Doubt it.
Sorry buddy. A story submission doesn't seem like the proper place to make a whitty attempt at humor over a couply of tragedies. Do people joke about thinks like this at times? Sure. You think it's fine anwhere at anytime? Great for you. It's called discussion. I offered my view on it. Sure. I remember chuckling at the Need Another Seven Astronaut joke even if I was a tad younger at the time. But if I were making a speech to NASA brass I certainly would think it would be proper to use that one. Somewhere betwee drinking with your buddies at the bar and talking to NASA brass lays a story on
And I don't care how many people whine about me voicing my personal opinion in a polite and concise manner. I'll keep on doing it even if people like you don't like it.
And what's even sadder is apparently I'm not even allowed to say I think something is in poor taste without assholes like you and some others acting like I just am some ulta-offended, always PC, yuippity up.
No, I thought something was in poor taste and said so. I vigorously defend the rights of people to say what they want. This isn't about denying tragedy. This is about beliving something was in poor taste and exercising my right to say so. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Yeah, I'm so wrong. I don't really think a story submission that will be read by millions is a great place to make a subtle joke about events where people died, and all I stated was that I thought it was in poor taste. How fucking PC of me.
No, you're confused.
I believe a submission shouldn't treat events that led to the deaths of several brave men and women as a opportunity to crack a joke.
I thought it was in poor taste and said so. I do not however believe I should be protected from being offended. In fact, I wasn't offended by it in the common use of the word. I thought it was in poor taste but it didn't "hurt my feelings" or anything. I just do not believe it was proper.
There's a very large difference between positing my opinion on something that I don't agree with and asking that people never do things that I don't agree with.
Of course, they plan to leave the exploding parts out of their next versions.
Maybe it's just me, but I didn't find that attempt at humor cute. It's in poor taste and I don't believe it was proper for a submission.
Yes, it is. Obviously you're either being negative due to a bias or not speaking from experience. I'll assume the former.
True, either way someone will need to know the command when writing it themselves and neither way would qualify as a priori knowledge.
However, "get-process" is far more obvious as to intent, most likely easier to remember, and will be much more obvious when read in it's normal context (meaning there's a lot commands and other junk written around it). A complete newcomer could read someone else's script and know exactly was "get-process" meant, where as "ps" might not be clear.
This isn't new thinking here. Would you name variables a, aa, b, BB, etc....? I suppose you would based on your statement above. Myself, I'll take the name who's intent is obvious any day of the week. Especially when you can alias the commands yourself should you want to.
The nice thing would have been if some government had funded him. None did
I'm not sure if I agree with that. I don't think tax money should go to "well, couldn't finance this through other means" business models.
It wasn't a charity. If there we're already government funds through programs he could have gotten, that's one thing. But then it would be his fault for not getting what was already available.
Thus he works for Microsoft. I imagine he is sadly bitter about it all.
Might as well assimilate now. I have little doubt one day in the not so far future, MS will have their own distro and it will eventually become the most common one.
Topic's a little old but...
/.'er that overstates their problems with Windows (2000/XP/2003) in an attempt to put down MS, when what they're really saying is they're an idiot since it really isn't hard to keep MS clean and stable should you want to.
So while your conclusion on the article is correct your logic is flawed/lacking knowledge/ or just poisoning the well.
No, you just replied to a tangent of your own making and not what I wrote. A power user should be able to keep window's up no problem. If you're going to get in and really monkey around with software and hardware, sure you could crash the machine. But you know that going in and it's not, as you yourself mention, a problem owned soley by MS OS's. Overall though, it's rather easy if you're a decent computer user to keep window's up and clean.
Where the problem comes in, and where support is always going to be needed (for other areas as well, but in this context we'll stick to the point), is for people like my wife. She can't keep window's clean. It would be much easier for me if she would use Linux. But she won't. Of course, it's not really her fault because she uses a computer mostly for editing of digital photos. Not exactly a strong area of Linux. Truely a Mac would be nice (my own tangent here), but I consider them more evil then MS, and I refuse to overpay for their curves and proprietary offerings.
What I was referring to is the oh-so-common
No, people don't put up with that.
As has been pointed out by others word doesn't open anywhere near that slow. The author's either lying or a moron who's machine is borked up beyond belief.
It amazes that when people here go out of their way to criticize MS products they are basically saying, "I'm a total idiot that can't use a computer". MS has products that totally suck for joe-blow that doesn't know crap. But a power user can and *should* be keeping windows (since 2000 anyways) clean and stable. If you're not, you're a moron. Should MS make it easier to do so and better? Hell yes. But it doesn't take rocket science to keep it up and clean. People that apparently can admin linux boxes in 31 different flavors are too fucking stupid too keep windows up. Or they're lying.
I think I'll safely say the later is the correct choice.
Windows/Word has enough issues, we don't need to resort to FUD and lies though.
Everyone is "different". Everyone has a justification.
No one has done it yet.
Obviously you aren't speaking with any knowledge of MMORPGs. Don't tell me you are. You aren't. You might have played a ton of 'em. You might have been a DM for some piddly-esque crap mud. I don't care.
It isn't that they wouldn't want to. It's that these things cost money. These things create issues themselves. These things take resources.
Every fucking MMORPG that has come out has promised this shit and failed. And your little "you don't know what you're talking about" routine coupled with the "this time it's different" can go take a flying leap. Call me a troll, call me mean, call me ignorant. It still doesn't change the fact that every MMORPG has promised this crap and not delivered. And the way this story is done is not making out Hero's Journey to be another little Gemstone. Their past isn't going to help them come through on this promise any more then Mythic's did.
If I had a nickle for every person that used that same line you're using for an MMORPG that didn't deliver this exact promise, I'd have well over a dollar by now.
The difference between Hero's Journey and any other modern MMO is in Simutronics' most prized possessions: its GMs. Given a powerful suite of tools, these creative geniuses are given license to alter the game world in any way they choose to tell a tale.
OK, so the difference is a promise to use GM's to make dynamic content and events? Like I haven't heard that before.
It's all fun and games till the GM takes control of a level 12 troll to attack some lowbie village where the lowbies would love to band together to fight back. Oh, but then some level 50 dude running through the area sees it and nukes it hoping it has phat lewts.
Or they spawn some massive event and half the people complain because it totally screwed up their xp'ing for the night.
I don't know the full details. Hell, I couldn't find the full details. But I'm not giddy over promises of GM's doing great things. Every game promises that and yet you can barely even find a GM to help with a show-stopping bug let along hope one has the free time to be the wonderfull DM-esque content creator.
I don't think logic leads to your statement.
You might not agree with the blog entry, but it certainly doesn't posit logic that would lead to your statement. Please let me know if you need a further explaination. But I'm pretty sure that after you've taken a moment of reflection you'll understand why your initial response was not accurate.
Are you suggesting there's some verse that states something along the lines of:
And he said to them, "Go unto the hot spot of the largest moon of the body in the sky with the large ring"
I really don't see how that was supposed to help people to start taking the scriptures literally. Are you sure you're just not doing a "The Bible said God created everything. Everything exists. Therefore God did it. And the Bible is once again proven correct."?
It's not just an economic problem. Not every malady can be cured by throwing money on it. Some? Sure. But not all.
And Terry Schiavo being kept alive had little to do with money flowing in as in this country she would have been kept alive regardless (and as I understand it was at times in fact) if someone was paying. Although you can still argue it is the economics of the country, it's also the science and the culture, et al.
You can have all the money in the world and people still die. And not everyone reproduces. Money or not. That's the reality of it and that's enough for evolution to work. Heck, we could become imortal through science and variable reproduction rates would still be enough room for evolution to work in. In fact, as science and medicine improves I'm sure people will make sure we don't stop swapping genes and allowing possible mutations to occur (even if they are filtered). Natural and synthetic. Humans aren't the end-game of evolution. We're a step. You know, chimp is to human as human is to ___ . There's no reason to think there isn't more out there for us to become one day.
What sad is we got the original post telling us that natural evolution will no longer occur in humans currently locked in at +5 since the thread is old, and about 20 replies responding to that post telling it how wrong it is locked or even modded down in some cases by some know-nothing moderator who will hopefully get caught in meta-moderation.
One would have really hoped for some more basic understanding of a very common process on a site that leans towards the scientific community.
What you completely miss is that at any moment a mutation could occur that gives a human an advantage in reproduction.
Let's take an easy one. A small mutation that leads to larger pectoral muscles in men and breasts in women (remember, this is a made up mutation).
While the chances of having offspring without this mutation might be 75%, but those with it have a much better chance at having offspring, say 90%. The peacock got its plumes from evolution afterall.
This hypothetical is evolution. And there's nothing going on now that would stop it. That 15% difference over 1000's of years is a huge numerical advantage for that mutation.
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by converging meaning nothing. What did you think they were trying to prove with it? I mean obviously convergence is an aspect of evolution. That we can so easily converge due to our ability to easily travel is a "duh" but it is still relevant.
It seems to me that people are having a hard time grasping evolution. They point out little pieces of it (potential mutations) that might not, at the present, give a huge advantage. But they fail to notice the little advantages that they do give, and they fail to notice all the other possible changes that could occur.
In humans evolution is alive and kicking. Some might even say thriving. But it certainly isn't dead.
Does any of the information you present answer any of the questions I asked?
No? Thank you.
Does it even all pretain to the orginal submission which is what was being discussed here. No again.
The only thing for me to see here is people like you who want to have a pissing contest.
Don't even give me the "Default install problem. Minimal user interaction." as real details.
Minimal user interacation? That could mean anything. Without the details this could be a "Who cares?" or an "OMG!". We don't know.
It's not that this stuff shouldn't be reported and run up the proper channels. It's that there's nothing this type of story can lead to expect for +funny comments, some IE vs Firefox flame wars. Some Win95 jokes, and some very generic security discussions that won't even center around the flaws in question (since people don't know enough to discuss them).
What holes? Can you explain to me just how serious these holes are? Can you explain to me what they do? Can you explain to me if threat of these being exploited is real?
I eagerly await you reponse. Because that is the information I would like to have and feel the need to have in order to discuss them. Without that information we're left to make assumptions.
Which is fine for them and MS, but that still leaves us with nothing to discuss in regards to the flaws so there was no point in posting the story.
Yes, it is.
The linked article with the flaws is about as useful as lipstick on a pig. So even when there's something to see there's still nothing to see. I think there's some Taoist wisdom in there somewhere.
Not true in the slightest bit.
/. poster where medical care is top notch.
Science can not cure everything. You say science can overcome just about anything, but it can't right now. If that were true, infant mortality rates would be about zero. They are not. And let us not forget that a very large part of the world's population doesn't live in world similar to your typical
Second of all, survival without reproduction doesn't mean much. If people with faulty livers end up on average reproducing less (something like that could easily effect attractiveness due to potential limitation of the person even if they do survive) then we're still in the same process more or less as if they weren't surviving.
Third, you're ignoring mutations. That's evolution, which you say will occur no further. If you are born with a mutation and you pass it on, well, what do you want to call it now since you say evolution isn't occuring anymore? Me, I'll stick to just calling that evolution.
The gist of it is that no further evolution will occur unless humans can be separated into isolated groups
No, the gist is that we won't have two seperate species of humans without isolation. Evolution doesn't stop.
Not only is that a very basic and obvious concept, it says exactly that in TFA.
FTFA:
"Evolution is still at work. But instead of diverging, our gene pool has been converging for tens of thousands of years -- and Stuart Pimm, an expert on biodiversity at Duke University, says that trend may well be accelerating."
And at this point, not only do we have natural mutations that could be dominant, we also have the ability to alter evolution through our own means.
Not to mention that really, Linux in it's current state on the desktop is not meant for everyone (and I'm not just talking about games).
Furthermore, while many people are Mac happy, the submitter already expressed a desire to buy his own parts. How "un-Macish". Apple is the proprietary king afterall. And while to some that's a strength, to others it's a weakness.
For all the crap Windows gets, there's a reason it got to the top. And it wasn't just marketing. It's not as if Linux in 1995 was ready for the home. It's not as if Apple didn't have it's chance but it's tight control on everything was it's achilles heal.
what are they going to do with it?
/. effect.
Not that I'm anti-google. But it's amazing all the things they've gotten themselves into. Now they're apparently going to cache (pieces of) the internet for us.
Though this might finally be a usefull tool to get around the
Yes, it's similar to the Fermi paradox. Though I don't think we need MIT's meeting to prove this to us.
If time-travels exist, why don't see evidence of it?
Similarly, one can deduce that no deity/civilization ever becomes, or was, omnipotent and benevolent.
I RTFA, but I did not RTFB.
The article doesn't appear to anything more then talk of user feedback. Which really isn't open or closed source specific.
For example FTFA:
Boeing Co., for example, solicits feedback from its airline customers on new jumbo jet configurations and is heavily involved with its machine tool suppliers on the design of new production equipment. ''What you see is economic activity shifting to the side of use," von Hippel said.
The medical example is similar. Passengers aren't using Boeing's Open Source Jet to modify their own. Instead, Boeing is *gasp* taking into account passenger feedback. Likewise, suppliers for Boeing are, *gasp*, listening to Boeing.
The one part that gets into the area at least is:
"The social efficiency of a system in which individual innovations are developed by individual users is increased if users somehow diffuse what they have developed to others,"
Which I agree with. But the examples given weren't up that alley. Furthermore, I think a vast majority of organizations leverage software that is open source because it's free, not because they care for the source. I know we have pieces of OSS no one is *allowed* to touch. Ever. We didn't get it to modify, we got it because it worked. If we had to modify it we would'nt have used it. Of course, not everyone is in this situation. And not all OSS I have is like that. And that does leave us the choice, which is good even if now we don't touch it. But I think a vast majority of developer OSS use is Free Software they won't ever touch. I think the true use of the Source in Open Source is the exception, not the norm.
The book might be more "Open Sourcey". I'll wait for the movie.