It's a true and famous story. 911 wasn't called in part because 911 didn't exist at the time but, beyond that, people were afraid to "get involved" (and indeed this incident is responsible for the fame of that phrase).
The global environment is a chaos system. You cannot predict its behavior, and therefore you cannot predict how it will respond to particular stimuli.
This may come as a surprise to you, but this is exactly the point of view held by those "global warming nuts" (err... climatologists) who suggest we err on the side of caution if we err at all.
Global warming is a fact. The degree to which we contribute to it is arguable, but non-zero.
Most importantly, we can't be certain what the effect will be for the very reasons you state. The reasonable response? Slow down pace at which we execute this particular experiment in atmospheric chemistry.
There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that we were on the verge of an ice age due to pollutants. That's a lie made up by those on the right who wish to discredit the current scientific consensus in regard to global warming.
Scientists, by any modern definition, have never argued that the earth is flat. In fact the earth has been known to be round for thousands of years, and in fact attempts were made to measure its diameter.
Scientists proved that the earth isn't the center of the Universe. It certainly wasn't the Pope who discovered this.
You are right that some scientists were active in the eugenics movement. Far more weren't.
The fact that the estimate of the age of the earth has varied over time is evidence of science at work. Do you have a problem with this?
It actually takes much, much less energy to recycle aluminum than to make it. It makes economic sense to recycle aluminum for this very reason.
Glass, on the other hand, is an entirely different story. Melt sand, or melt glass - both roughly comparible. Glass is heavy, hauling it requires energy. Of course it is important to remember that the energy cost of hauling it is the same whether it is recycled or disposed of at the end point, so there's really no getting around that cost.
If your point is that reducing consumption is better than recycling, well, sure. The same folks who push for recycling push for reducing uneccessary packaging.
Both recycling and reduction of consumption can work to lower the stream of crap being disposed by landfill. Cities don't push in this direction for simple knee-jerk fuzzy-wuzzy environmental reasons. My city (Portland, OR), for instance, ran out of real estate for landfills about a decade ago and now sends its garbage to a landfill 90 miles away. This is relatively expensive. Diverting material from landfills not only reduces that expense but equally important it extends the lifetime of our current landfill facility.
Most of the anti-recycling analyses I've seen ignore these benefits. If recycling had been in place throughout the postwar years here in Portland we'd still be trucking our garbage five miles to the landfill, rather than 90.
Actually SA didn't indicate that "science is something that takes a position of advocacy on complex issues".
They simply published a series of rebuttals by experts that pointed out factual and analytical errors in the book.
It's not that science should take a position of advocacy, but rather that science shouldn't be misinterpreted in order to strengthen a position of advocacy.
And that's exactly what Lomberg's done - he's misinterpreted science in order to push his own beliefs.
Bullshit. SA *was* defending science because the book attacks scientific results through extremely shoddy tactics. It is no different than defending science by pointing out the blatant lies and factual errors trotted out as science by so-called "creation scientists".
Lomberg takes a similar position towards science as creation scientists do - he's in essence claiming that scientists are misleading the world by making claims refuted by their own research. Scientists do need to defend themselves against such claims.
Lomberg's not a scientist and his book contains no scientific work. "proper application of science" to refute his non-scientific work is an oxymoronic suggestion. The "proper application of science" would've involved Lomberg's subjecting his work to peer review by scientists who are experts in the various fields *before* publication.
Of course, in this case his various claims would've been shredded in advance and the book not published at all if he were an intellectually honest man. It is easy to understand why he chose to publish his critique without giving experts the opportunity to explain why he's full of it.
Oh, the problems are real. Malheur Lake (one of the largest lakes in the Great Basin) rose about ten feet in the early 80s and in the ensuing years slowly dropped back to its normal level. The surrounding land is very flat, and wave erosion exposed artifacts previously buried in the silty soil.
This lake is part of one of the most significant wildlife refuges in the country. This is only important to make clear that it has always harbored abundant waterfowl, attracting Native American tribes from throughout the region.
Anyway, to make a long story short "pot-hunters" quickly showed up to exploit this new resource. "Pot-hunters" who show up with backhoes, large sifters, and other large-scale aids aren't amateurs, they're harvesting artifacts for illegal sale.
It's Native American heritage that is (literally) stolen, and our National heritage as well, when people poach artifacts on public lands. These lands belong to the citizenry, so stealing artifacts amounts to stealing from the citizenry.
At least legal mine patents result in a whopping $2.50/acre windfall for the taxpayer ($5.00/acre in some cases, and in all cases regardless of the mineral wealth underlying the land being sold).
Outright theft such as that practiced by professional sellers of illegal artifacts returns $0 to the taxpayer.
It has been licensed for the 32 years I've been in the industry.
Since the underlying protection mechanism is copyright, companies don't really want to sell it. I mean it would be really great to own Windows XP for a few hundred bucks and then to tell MicroSoft to cease and desist selling MY SOFTWARE. I'd love that. Ain't going to happen.
Just like I don't sell the photos I freelance to publishers, I license them. Exactly the same thing. I may sell them a slide dupe along with the license but they don't own the photo, just a copy of it and their rights are restricted by license.
Same deal if I sell you a print of one of my photos. You don't own the right to scan it and sell it to others or to publishers. Sorry 'bout that.
Not true at all. The EPA uses WordPerfect, for instance, because MS lost a competitive bid to supply the government with word processing software.
For years the Forest Service used Data General systems in all their offices, networked together (early achievers in that regard) but not via TCP/IP (they gateway'd back and forth eventually so they could talk to the rest of the world after the rest of the world started talking via e-mail). Again, it was another won bid scenario.
That, not "lobbyists lining a politician's pocket" , is typically how large purchasing decisions are made in the federal government, at least.
This does, actually, have certainly in the past worked against Open Source solutions. Now that there are sizable companies standing behind such solutions adoption may slowly follow. Sun, for instance, can bid Start Office when it finally releases and when existing contracts are up for renewal. If you don't think IBM will bid Linux servers in response to government bid auctions you're not watching enough TV and are missing out on some great commercials targetted towards executives everywhere.
I have another suggestion - rather than put up with this crap, maybe they should just change their minds and lock it up. If they hadn't released the source in the first place, no one would've had anything bad to say about them.
I'm sorry we can't afford to be idealistic in this respect. But the toolkit didn't get to where it is simply because of idealism. A lot of money went into making it what it is. A lot of money goes into the improvements we make.
Well, fuckhead, even I, the person who leads the OpenACS effort can't be idealistic in this respect. That's why I support my community invovlement with consulting income (thanks, everyone!) And I'm not alone.
You're FUDing. How do you think the consulting businesses that *are* contributing to the collaborative effort pay their chits, eh?
We (myself and mine) pull down $200/hr and if you're doing better, and still can't afford to participate, there's something seriously wrong with your world view. For my billing rate I can easily afford a 2:1 ratio of unbilled to billed hours for the project.
You guys keep burying yourself deeper and deeper and will never benefit from the community presence, because you can't look past yesterday's bar bill.
Who ARE these turkeys who think we OpenACS people all work for free, all the time? We all do sometimes, and sometimes we don't, but wee all do one or the other as we need do to live.
Boy, seven production sites, including half-assed Christian Club ABC sites, man, impress me!
If you're not picking up our (GPL'd) improvements to the toolkit, well, praise be to God for your stupidity.
We're not super-rich people, and we're not really looking to be. We're just looking to use our skills to make great sites and earn good money. Well, we're not super-rich people either, but at least we're not fucking assholes like Ybos. Your so-called skills? Well, if true, wouldn't the troups be rallying behind you, rather than OpenACS.org?
You'll be toast, soon enough, if you travel down this pass. I always wondered why Peter/Ybos refused to participate in the community. You envision yourself as the second coming of aD and without doubt, you will be soon. Being even less "rich people" than you are today.
BTW for Open Source enthusiasts, I make my living not as manager of the project (for which I'm not paid), but as one of several dozen people who make their living as consultants using our toolkit)
Well, I manage the OpenACS project, and none of us have heard anything from RH that would indicate that our presence has anything to do with the decision. Let me amend that, AFAIK none of us have heard anything at all from RH. I can't think of any reason why there'd be a connection, RH buying aD doesn't affect the OpenACS project one way or another.
aD's path was totally separate than ours, after all, once they dropped ACS/Tcl in favor of Java.
I think the client list is indeed the key thing RH is buying. As you mention, the World Bank is certainly a large, high-profile customer.
Something is missing from this thread that should be said. Whether or not you like Philip, his writing, his photography, or his software a lot of interesting and fun people have been attracted to the stuff he does. Photo.net's been a vibrant community for years, and aD, despite its flaws, spawned a vibrant community of its own.
So... thanks for that, Philip. No one can take that away from you.
And... best of luck to all those aDers who have lost, or are losing, their jobs as a result of aD's demise.
Actually, Peter, ACES 3.5 is alive and well, and just made available recently by Malte Sussedorf.
It includes a bunch of stuff I (Don) did for Sloan last summer. Malte's an ex-AD, now OpenACS guy, just in case
you're so out of the loop that you don't recognize his name.
We weren't "dismissive", then "scrambling to take over". We made no attempt to "take over", we're too busy with our own projects. Instead, we worked to facilitate getting those who care organized. Which, thanks to Malte, has happened. The fact that you're unaware of it says something about your lack of help with the process.
Our community gives plenty of support for people using the older, Oracle-only versions of the toolkit. Of course, we also help those who want to move to the OpenACS 4 platform, which supports both Oracle and Postgres., as well as our older, Postgres-only version.
There are several consulting companies doing ACS Tcl work, most who have either switched or are switching to OpenACS. I have no idea if Ybos is larger than any of those companies, but clearly you play a minor role compared to all of them put together.
OpenACS is a great example of how small businesses can cooperate in a way beneficial to all of them, by collaboratively working to improve a piece of software used by all. We work together, on occassion drink beer together, and of course at times compete against each other.
And what path does Ybos take? You seem to be going out of your way piss off those companies participating in the OpenACS project. Do you think this will help Ybox in the long run?
And, for the record, I know of at least three production sites running OpenACS 4/PostgreSQL.
Yes, it's true that until a couple of months ago it wasn't ready for prime time, and it's true that we've not cut our first offical release yet. That's largely because aD releases were so buggy and unusable that we've decided to take a very conservative approach.
I don't know where you get your misinformation. If you were an active part of the community of ACS/Tcl users, like each and every one of the other small companies specializing in such work, you'd be better informed.
Well... I'd agree that it's a bit late in that they really deserved to have received this prize years ago.
But seeing as they didn't, it's a fine choice for today. Simula's introduction of classes was a very significant contribution to language design and they deserve to be rewarded for it now.
While they're still alive.
This is about 35 years after they developed Simula, and when I saw Ole Dahl speak back in 1980 he wasn't exactly a kid by any means.
Well, yes, you've struck upon a problem that conservationists the world over are aware of. In the US, at least, we call creatures like the panda "charismatic megafauna". Big, cute animals, in other words.
It's relatively easy to get people excited about conserving such species.
It's relatively hard to get people excited about conserving other species. It's especially hard to get people excited about plants, insects, bats, and the like.
And... while the thousands of variants undoubtably have a lot of genetic overlap (as do all organisms) sifting out the unique from the redundant, and correlating genetic information with expressed traits is extremely complex. Think of the time and money spent sequencing the genome from a single human. Think about the fact that this sequencing will be followed by a much harder task of determining the proteins the various bits of the genome code for, and then and then and then... you get the idea. This is hard stuff.
The day may come when these "building blocks for the engineering projects of the future" can be cheaply and easily distilled from the thousands of variant strains being stored.
Until (or if) that far-off day come, though, keeping the seeds around is the one way we have to maintain this genetic diversity.
Re:cold + malnutrition + stupidity + foolishness
on
The Coldest March
·
· Score: 2
And Shackleton,who knew Scott and I believed had served under Scott in other circumstances (not the ill-fated expedition) had:
1. Men trained on skiis
2. Lots of dogs
3. No tractors
4. No ponies
In other words, explicit acknowledgement that Scott planned poorly while Amundsen planned well.
Even the Englishmen can learn given half a chance:) Seriously, Shackleton understood, like Amundsen, that you had to learn which technology fit the job, rather than try to fit the job to the technology you were familiar with.
Scott did not.
Of course, Shackleton's expedition never got on the ground despite being well-prepared. But that preparedness was the key to survival after catastrophe struck, along with sound leadership and a crew which brought a wide range of skills to the table as well as an ability to put up with almost unbelievable hardship.
Re:Endurance: Shackleton's Incredible Voyage
on
The Coldest March
·
· Score: 4, Informative
As a photographer myself, one who sells on occassion to national magazines, has a few book covers (and a book) to my name, etc... yeah, Fred Hurley's photography on the Shackleton Expedition was stunning.
All that large-format B&W stuff taken until they set off on foot after losing the ship was especially amazing. A year or so ago I was in Boston and ran up to the museum in Salem, MA where there was an exhibit of Hurley's photography. Beautiful 16x20, 20x24'ish prints from those big, beautiful B&W negatives. Just stunning.
The most famous, perhaps, and my favorites at least are those he took during the long hours of darkness they experienced at those latitudes when the ship was icebound, but before the spring shifting of the ice crushed it. These are the exposures that make the ship seem almost ghost-like, made by putting his large-format camera on a tripod, opening the shutter, then walking around popping off his flash equipment.
The same technique is a popular and overworked trick used perhaps too frequently today, but Hurley's use would've seemed fresh to his audience. The images are mysterious and compelling and far superior to most of those made today using this technique.
Even more interesting in some ways were the collection of COLOR transparencies he took, using an early color process (I forget which, unfortunately, though I bet a few minutes in Google could uncover the answer). Somehow seeing the scenes in color made the human connection that much more vivid, though as photographs go the B&W ones were much stronger.
Unfortunately, when they left on foot they couldn't keep all of Hurley's negatives (remember, they were glass plates back in those days). They kept 150 of the best and destroyed the rest. Shackleton made certain they were destroyed because he feared that Hurley might secretly try to bring them along, one of many hard decisions made by Shackleton during their adventure.
And of course the unused plates, large-format camera and the motion picture camera were all left behind. All Hurley had available was a Kodak Vestpocket with a single load of film, a few tens of exposures only.
He used them carefully and wisely as he still had a few unexposed frames left when Shackleton finally rescued those left behind when he'd gone off to South Georgia Island seeking help. As he got there too late to get a ship in time to rescue his crew that winter, those left behind had to survive several more months waiting for "The Boss" to return, not knowing if he'd succeeded in his cross-ocean travel in the ship's boat they'd modified for the trip.
Hurley's grainy, poor-quality shots are incredibly poignant, with the crew, who'd nearly given up hope, waving from shore and the rescue ship steaming towards them in the distance. "Poor quality", in this context, refers only to the technical quality of the prints. Think "disposable camera" to get some idea of the crudity of the small Kodak Vestpocket.
Now... as to all the photographic equipment, large store of glass plates, motion picture film, etc... if you're curious as to why it was along, the answer's a very simple one. Shackleton's intent was to repay the expenses of the expedition on the lecture tour (thus the film), and by writing a book about it afterwards. This meant that Hurley's duties were, at first, solely photographic though later, of course, he had to pitch in and work for survival just like everyone else. We're fortunate that he was able to concentrate on his photography until they left the ship and struck out over the ice.
And while the Shackleton work is by far Hurley's most famous work, he had a solid career as a photographer for some decades afterwards.
The simple, legal argument is that the first amendment does not stand alone but is part of a larger document which as a whole forms the Constitution, parts of which provide the hook upon which some limitations on free speech are permissable.
The deeply thougth-out legal arguments you provide ("I'm right, they're wrong") are irrelevant.
Since scientists are obviously idiots, they never thought about this until you (or was that Fred Hoyle?) brought it to their attention, right?
Bah. The problem with simplistic explanations as to why "abiogenesis is impossible" is that scientists have very good answers such so-called proof of impossibility.
The short story: you can prove anything if you start with a false premise. And unfortunately, the premise underlying your supposed proof of impossibility is false.
Those who are actually interested in the science of biology rather than creationist dogma might be interested in this page.
Except apparently they put the *binaries* in the public domain. Instead of assuming the person posting this is a clueless idiot, why not probe a bit deeper with a click of your mouse to find out the whole story?
Slashdot Mirror
It's a true and famous story. 911 wasn't called in part because 911 didn't exist at the time but, beyond that, people were afraid to "get involved" (and indeed this incident is responsible for the fame of that phrase).
This may come as a surprise to you, but this is exactly the point of view held by those "global warming nuts" (err ... climatologists) who suggest we err on the side of caution if we err at all.
Global warming is a fact. The degree to which we contribute to it is arguable, but non-zero.
Most importantly, we can't be certain what the effect will be for the very reasons you state. The reasonable response? Slow down pace at which we execute this particular experiment in atmospheric chemistry.
There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that we were on the verge of an ice age due to pollutants. That's a lie made up by those on the right who wish to discredit the current scientific consensus in regard to global warming.
Scientists, by any modern definition, have never argued that the earth is flat. In fact the earth has been known to be round for thousands of years, and in fact attempts were made to measure its diameter.
Scientists proved that the earth isn't the center of the Universe. It certainly wasn't the Pope who discovered this.
You are right that some scientists were active in the eugenics movement. Far more weren't.
The fact that the estimate of the age of the earth has varied over time is evidence of science at work. Do you have a problem with this?
It actually takes much, much less energy to recycle aluminum than to make it. It makes economic sense to recycle aluminum for this very reason.
Glass, on the other hand, is an entirely different story. Melt sand, or melt glass - both roughly comparible. Glass is heavy, hauling it requires energy. Of course it is important to remember that the energy cost of hauling it is the same whether it is recycled or disposed of at the end point, so there's really no getting around that cost.
If your point is that reducing consumption is better than recycling, well, sure. The same folks who push for recycling push for reducing uneccessary packaging.
Both recycling and reduction of consumption can work to lower the stream of crap being disposed by landfill. Cities don't push in this direction for simple knee-jerk fuzzy-wuzzy environmental reasons. My city (Portland, OR), for instance, ran out of real estate for landfills about a decade ago and now sends its garbage to a landfill 90 miles away. This is relatively expensive. Diverting material from landfills not only reduces that expense but equally important it extends the lifetime of our current landfill facility.
Most of the anti-recycling analyses I've seen ignore these benefits. If recycling had been in place throughout the postwar years here in Portland we'd still be trucking our garbage five miles to the landfill, rather than 90.
Actually the book itself is a pack of lies. Learn to think and read critically.
Actually SA didn't indicate that "science is something that takes a position of advocacy on complex issues".
They simply published a series of rebuttals by experts that pointed out factual and analytical errors in the book.
It's not that science should take a position of advocacy, but rather that science shouldn't be misinterpreted in order to strengthen a position of advocacy.
And that's exactly what Lomberg's done - he's misinterpreted science in order to push his own beliefs.
Bullshit. SA *was* defending science because the book attacks scientific results through extremely shoddy tactics. It is no different than defending science by pointing out the blatant lies and factual errors trotted out as science by so-called "creation scientists".
Lomberg takes a similar position towards science as creation scientists do - he's in essence claiming that scientists are misleading the world by making claims refuted by their own research. Scientists do need to defend themselves against such claims.
Lomberg's not a scientist and his book contains no scientific work. "proper application of science" to refute his non-scientific work is an oxymoronic suggestion. The "proper application of science" would've involved Lomberg's subjecting his work to peer review by scientists who are experts in the various fields *before* publication.
Of course, in this case his various claims would've been shredded in advance and the book not published at all if he were an intellectually honest man. It is easy to understand why he chose to publish his critique without giving experts the opportunity to explain why he's full of it.
Oh, the problems are real. Malheur Lake (one of the largest lakes in the Great Basin) rose about ten feet in the early 80s and in the ensuing years slowly dropped back to its normal level. The surrounding land is very flat, and wave erosion exposed artifacts previously buried in the silty soil.
This lake is part of one of the most significant wildlife refuges in the country. This is only important to make clear that it has always harbored abundant waterfowl, attracting Native American tribes from throughout the region.
Anyway, to make a long story short "pot-hunters" quickly showed up to exploit this new resource. "Pot-hunters" who show up with backhoes, large sifters, and other large-scale aids aren't amateurs, they're harvesting artifacts for illegal sale.
It's Native American heritage that is (literally) stolen, and our National heritage as well, when people poach artifacts on public lands. These lands belong to the citizenry, so stealing artifacts amounts to stealing from the citizenry.
At least legal mine patents result in a whopping $2.50/acre windfall for the taxpayer ($5.00/acre in some cases, and in all cases regardless of the mineral wealth underlying the land being sold).
Outright theft such as that practiced by professional sellers of illegal artifacts returns $0 to the taxpayer.
It has been licensed for the 32 years I've been in the industry.
Since the underlying protection mechanism is copyright, companies don't really want to sell it. I mean it would be really great to own Windows XP for a few hundred bucks and then to tell MicroSoft to cease and desist selling MY SOFTWARE. I'd love that. Ain't going to happen.
Just like I don't sell the photos I freelance to publishers, I license them. Exactly the same thing. I may sell them a slide dupe along with the license but they don't own the photo, just a copy of it and their rights are restricted by license.
Same deal if I sell you a print of one of my photos. You don't own the right to scan it and sell it to others or to publishers. Sorry 'bout that.
Not true at all. The EPA uses WordPerfect, for instance, because MS lost a competitive bid to supply the government with word processing software.
For years the Forest Service used Data General systems in all their offices, networked together (early achievers in that regard) but not via TCP/IP (they gateway'd back and forth eventually so they could talk to the rest of the world after the rest of the world started talking via e-mail). Again, it was another won bid scenario.
That, not "lobbyists lining a politician's pocket" , is typically how large purchasing decisions are made in the federal government, at least.
This does, actually, have certainly in the past worked against Open Source solutions. Now that there are sizable companies standing behind such solutions adoption may slowly follow. Sun, for instance, can bid Start Office when it finally releases and when existing contracts are up for renewal. If you don't think IBM will bid Linux servers in response to government bid auctions you're not watching enough TV and are missing out on some great commercials targetted towards executives everywhere.
The point you're missing is that while it is optional now, the wording in the license makes it possible for MS to make it non-optional in the future.
And you are already bound by that agreement to let them do so if they decide to do so (if you're buying in bulk under that license).
The article is about the *license*, not about existing versions of the operating system.
Will they ever take advantage of this change in license? No one knows, least of all you.
I have another suggestion - rather than put up with this crap, maybe they should just change their minds and lock it up. If they hadn't released the source in the first place, no one would've had anything bad to say about them.
Sheesh, talk about misguided fanaticism.
Well, fuckhead, even I, the person who leads the OpenACS effort can't be idealistic in this respect. That's why I support my community invovlement with consulting income (thanks, everyone!) And I'm not alone.
You're FUDing. How do you think the consulting businesses that *are* contributing to the collaborative effort pay their chits, eh?
We (myself and mine) pull down $200/hr and if you're doing better, and still can't afford to participate, there's something seriously wrong with your world view. For my billing rate I can easily afford a 2:1 ratio of unbilled to billed hours for the project.
You guys keep burying yourself deeper and deeper and will never benefit from the community presence, because you can't look past yesterday's bar bill.
Who ARE these turkeys who think we OpenACS people all work for free, all the time? We all do sometimes, and sometimes we don't, but wee all do one or the other as we need do to live.
Boy, seven production sites, including half-assed Christian Club ABC sites, man, impress me!
If you're not picking up our (GPL'd) improvements to the toolkit, well, praise be to God for your stupidity.
We're not super-rich people, and we're not really looking to be. We're just looking to use our skills to make great sites and earn good money.
Well, we're not super-rich people either, but at least we're not fucking assholes like Ybos. Your so-called skills? Well, if true, wouldn't the troups be rallying behind you, rather than OpenACS.org?
You'll be toast, soon enough, if you travel down this pass. I always wondered why Peter/Ybos refused to participate in the community. You envision yourself as the second coming of aD and without doubt, you will be soon. Being even less "rich people" than you are today.
BTW for Open Source enthusiasts, I make my living not as manager of the project (for which I'm not paid), but as one of several dozen people who make their living as consultants using our toolkit)
Well, I manage the OpenACS project, and none of us have heard anything from RH that would indicate that our presence has anything to do with the decision. Let me amend that, AFAIK none of us have heard anything at all from RH. I can't think of any reason why there'd be a connection, RH buying aD doesn't affect the OpenACS project one way or another.
... thanks for that, Philip. No one can take that away from you.
... best of luck to all those aDers who have lost, or are losing, their jobs as a result of aD's demise.
aD's path was totally separate than ours, after all, once they dropped ACS/Tcl in favor of Java.
I think the client list is indeed the key thing RH is buying. As you mention, the World Bank is certainly a large, high-profile customer.
Something is missing from this thread that should be said. Whether or not you like Philip, his writing, his photography, or his software a lot of interesting and fun people have been attracted to the stuff he does. Photo.net's been a vibrant community for years, and aD, despite its flaws, spawned a vibrant community of its own.
So
And
Actually, Peter, ACES 3.5 is alive and well, and just made available recently by Malte Sussedorf.
It includes a bunch of stuff I (Don) did for Sloan last summer. Malte's an ex-AD, now OpenACS guy, just in case
you're so out of the loop that you don't recognize his name.
We weren't "dismissive", then "scrambling to take over". We made no attempt to "take over", we're too busy with our own projects. Instead, we worked to facilitate getting those who care organized. Which, thanks to Malte, has happened. The fact that you're unaware of it says something about your lack of help with the process.
Our community gives plenty of support for people using the older, Oracle-only versions of the toolkit. Of course, we also help those who want to move to the OpenACS 4 platform, which supports both Oracle and Postgres., as well as our older, Postgres-only version.
There are several consulting companies doing ACS Tcl work, most who have either switched or are switching to OpenACS. I have no idea if Ybos is larger than any of those companies, but clearly you play a minor role compared to all of them put together.
OpenACS is a great example of how small businesses can cooperate in a way beneficial to all of them, by collaboratively working to improve a piece of software used by all. We work together, on occassion drink beer together, and of course at times compete against each other.
And what path does Ybos take? You seem to be going out of your way piss off those companies participating in the OpenACS project. Do you think this will help Ybox in the long run?
And, for the record, I know of at least three production sites running OpenACS 4/PostgreSQL.
Yes, it's true that until a couple of months ago it wasn't ready for prime time, and it's true that we've not cut our first offical release yet. That's largely because aD releases were so buggy and unusable that we've decided to take a very conservative approach.
I don't know where you get your misinformation. If you were an active part of the community of ACS/Tcl users, like each and every one of the other small companies specializing in such work, you'd be better informed.
Well ... I'd agree that it's a bit late in that they really deserved to have received this prize years ago.
But seeing as they didn't, it's a fine choice for today. Simula's introduction of classes was a very significant contribution to language design and they deserve to be rewarded for it now.
While they're still alive.
This is about 35 years after they developed Simula, and when I saw Ole Dahl speak back in 1980 he wasn't exactly a kid by any means.
Well, yes, you've struck upon a problem that conservationists the world over are aware of. In the US, at least, we call creatures like the panda "charismatic megafauna". Big, cute animals, in other words.
It's relatively easy to get people excited about conserving such species.
It's relatively hard to get people excited about conserving other species. It's especially hard to get people excited about plants, insects, bats, and the like.
And ... while the thousands of variants undoubtably have a lot of genetic overlap (as do all organisms) sifting out the unique from the redundant, and correlating genetic information with expressed traits is extremely complex. Think of the time and money spent sequencing the genome from a single human. Think about the fact that this sequencing will be followed by a much harder task of determining the proteins the various bits of the genome code for, and then and then and then ... you get the idea. This is hard stuff.
The day may come when these "building blocks for the engineering projects of the future" can be cheaply and easily distilled from the thousands of variant strains being stored.
Until (or if) that far-off day come, though, keeping the seeds around is the one way we have to maintain this genetic diversity.
And Shackleton,who knew Scott and I believed had served under Scott in other circumstances (not the ill-fated expedition) had:
:) Seriously, Shackleton understood, like Amundsen, that you had to learn which technology fit the job, rather than try to fit the job to the technology you were familiar with.
1. Men trained on skiis
2. Lots of dogs
3. No tractors
4. No ponies
In other words, explicit acknowledgement that Scott planned poorly while Amundsen planned well.
Even the Englishmen can learn given half a chance
Scott did not.
Of course, Shackleton's expedition never got on the ground despite being well-prepared. But that preparedness was the key to survival after catastrophe struck, along with sound leadership and a crew which brought a wide range of skills to the table as well as an ability to put up with almost unbelievable hardship.
As a photographer myself, one who sells on occassion to national magazines, has a few book covers (and a book) to my name, etc ... yeah, Fred Hurley's photography on the Shackleton Expedition was stunning.
... as to all the photographic equipment, large store of glass plates, motion picture film, etc ... if you're curious as to why it was along, the answer's a very simple one. Shackleton's intent was to repay the expenses of the expedition on the lecture tour (thus the film), and by writing a book about it afterwards. This meant that Hurley's duties were, at first, solely photographic though later, of course, he had to pitch in and work for survival just like everyone else. We're fortunate that he was able to concentrate on his photography until they left the ship and struck out over the ice.
... enough about Hurley, back to hacking!
All that large-format B&W stuff taken until they set off on foot after losing the ship was especially amazing. A year or so ago I was in Boston and ran up to the museum in Salem, MA where there was an exhibit of Hurley's photography. Beautiful 16x20, 20x24'ish prints from those big, beautiful B&W negatives. Just stunning.
The most famous, perhaps, and my favorites at least are those he took during the long hours of darkness they experienced at those latitudes when the ship was icebound, but before the spring shifting of the ice crushed it. These are the exposures that make the ship seem almost ghost-like, made by putting his large-format camera on a tripod, opening the shutter, then walking around popping off his flash equipment.
The same technique is a popular and overworked trick used perhaps too frequently today, but Hurley's use would've seemed fresh to his audience. The images are mysterious and compelling and far superior to most of those made today using this technique.
Even more interesting in some ways were the collection of COLOR transparencies he took, using an early color process (I forget which, unfortunately, though I bet a few minutes in Google could uncover the answer). Somehow seeing the scenes in color made the human connection that much more vivid, though as photographs go the B&W ones were much stronger.
Unfortunately, when they left on foot they couldn't keep all of Hurley's negatives (remember, they were glass plates back in those days). They kept 150 of the best and destroyed the rest. Shackleton made certain they were destroyed because he feared that Hurley might secretly try to bring them along, one of many hard decisions made by Shackleton during their adventure.
And of course the unused plates, large-format camera and the motion picture camera were all left behind. All Hurley had available was a Kodak Vestpocket with a single load of film, a few tens of exposures only.
He used them carefully and wisely as he still had a few unexposed frames left when Shackleton finally rescued those left behind when he'd gone off to South Georgia Island seeking help. As he got there too late to get a ship in time to rescue his crew that winter, those left behind had to survive several more months waiting for "The Boss" to return, not knowing if he'd succeeded in his cross-ocean travel in the ship's boat they'd modified for the trip.
Hurley's grainy, poor-quality shots are incredibly poignant, with the crew, who'd nearly given up hope, waving from shore and the rescue ship steaming towards them in the distance. "Poor quality", in this context, refers only to the technical quality of the prints. Think "disposable camera" to get some idea of the crudity of the small Kodak Vestpocket.
Now
And while the Shackleton work is by far Hurley's most famous work, he had a solid career as a photographer for some decades afterwards.
OK
Uh ... how do you know that they didn't read him his rights and that he didn't voluntarily waive his right to have a lawyer present?
The simple, legal argument is that the first amendment does not stand alone but is part of a larger document which as a whole forms the Constitution, parts of which provide the hook upon which some limitations on free speech are permissable.
The deeply thougth-out legal arguments you provide ("I'm right, they're wrong") are irrelevant.
Since scientists are obviously idiots, they never thought about this until you (or was that Fred Hoyle?) brought it to their attention, right?
Bah. The problem with simplistic explanations as to why "abiogenesis is impossible" is that scientists have very good answers such so-called proof of impossibility.
The short story: you can prove anything if you start with a false premise. And unfortunately, the premise underlying your supposed proof of impossibility is false.
Those who are actually interested in the science of biology rather than creationist dogma might be interested in this page.
I didn't call him a clueless idiot. I said *he* shouldn't assume the person posting this is a clueless idiot.
Can't you ead renglish?
Except apparently they put the *binaries* in the public domain. Instead of assuming the person posting this is a clueless idiot, why not probe a bit deeper with a click of your mouse to find out the whole story?