It's like installing a 1.x kernel and saying, "I want it to do this so I'm gonna code that" when it's already in a later release
No, it's more like saying "I don't like the Linux kernel, so I'm going to code my own kernel instead of trying to work with it." Sometimes it's easier and, dare I say, better to start anew rather than trying to reform an older project.
There are other email programs out there. Should I base mine on one of them or contribute to one of them when their philosophy is so obviously contrary to mine (when it comes to MUAs)? Should I contribute if their codebase is so bloated as to make it easier to simply implement anew than to reimpliment functions within the existing framework?
If you buy Windows 99 beer, you must also buy Windows 2000 or Millenium.
Every case of Windows 99 beer will come with a copy of Internet Explorer.
The windows version of Emacs will also stop complaining about beer in the fridge. However, Windows itself will complain if you don't have any Windows 99 in the house.
If you say something I'm doing is immoral, and I disagree, I'm not going to stop because of what you think. I don't care what you think, unless it's backed up by a logical argument. This isn't true for people that I know, because I have reason to trust their opinion; after all, they've been right in the past.
I might stop because of what you will do because of what you think, depending on the possible consequences. ---
It doesn't invade your territory without your permission.
Ever heard of the "network effect"? I'm sure you have, Slashdot reader and all.
The network effect is what makes people use Office: Because everyone else uses it. If you don't use it, you can't exchange documents with them.
"So what?" you say. "I *want* everyone to use GPL'd software, and to GPL their software." Because after all, you use the licence.
But to then also make the claim that "it doesn't prevent you for doing your own way", well. That doesn't quite work, does it? The GPL does prevent me from doing things my own way, or will. Because one day, I will need a certain bit of code, or a library, or a class, for a program. And the only way to get it is to go to a GPL'd program. If I don't want GPL, I'm screwed.
Go right ahead and use the GPL. But don't sit there and tell me that it's not an attack, merely a refusal to help. ---
This is just what I don't get: why do some people think that the GPL is immoral?
Because for them, it is. Morals are a personal thing.
The author isn't trying to say "you must do things this way", he's saying "I'd rather do things this way, and that other people do things this way". His morality seems to be rather like the Wiccan Crede (short version): An it harm no one, do as thou wilt. I agree, personally. ---
I've noticed many people saying that it will be hard to see some things with this system. What they don't seem to be thinking about is the fact that a HUD is overlayed above normal vision: you can still see anything you could before, just with an extra transparent layer in between.
Also note the "not an actual representation" text on the page with comparisons of low/high beams to the night vision. ---
The Landover Baptist Church also has a review of this movie up. Very very amusing... not for the easily offended Christian crowd (not-so-easily-offended Christians should also be amused, though...). ---
You neglect the possibility that the initial biological molecules on Earth did not develop here (through spontaneous biogenesis), but rather were "dropped" whether by debris or intelligent life. Unlikely, yes, but possible.
Convergent evolution is also possible, as many examples on earth show us (I can't think of any offhand, but I'm sure a search on Google will find it pretty quick). ---
The networked appliances, as they currently exist, are not terribly useful. After all, they only save a little bit of time. Mostly they're just scheduling.
If I could say, "House, make me a salami on rye, with lettuce, tomato, and mayonaise. No wait, no mayo, just mustard." If I could say that, and it would happen, that would be useful. Who cares if I can tell my coffee maker to make coffee when it gets a message from my car that I'm almost home? That's not useful. If the house would also get the ingredients and put them in the coffee maker, then it becomes more useful.
I know that a lot of the Unix philosophy is "small tools that can be linked together to perform larger tasks". That's still possible, but it needs to integrate. Each device provides one function, and the central house logic hooks them all together to perform the given task.
Of course, this requires the house logic to understand the task, even if only in a very limited way. Most of this is very simple, though, at least for the majority of tasks. It 'knows' (from it's database of knowlege) that "Make me a salami on rye" is a request for a sandwhich, from the pattern. on . When it hears a word or pattern it doesn't understand, it asks for a definition. "What type of object is 'rye'?" "Rye is a type of bread, specifically rye bread."
In this way it could build up its database as needed. A large knowlege database would come preprogrammed in, and the rest would be learned.
This would require, as described, voice recognition. It could be done with the current handwriting recognition and PADDs, though. A PADD, for those who don't know, is a lot like a PDA with a wireless network link to a computer.
After that, it requires a fairly fast computer (to run the relational database) and a fair amount of storage, to remember all the devices and their functions and to remember all of the 'knowlege'.
All in all, a very large problem. But one that is, I think, almost possible today (excepting the voice recognition). It's just waiting for someone to implement it. ---
There is almost nothing at all innovative in the Linux universe. Any real innovation is brought in from the Unix world in general (where innovation does occur, which Linux shares in)
Who gives a damn about innovation? If one product has a feature that I want, and another doesn't, I sure as hell want the second product to "steal" that feature! It's the combination of features that matters, not whether they are new. ---
What if you're running computation heavy applications? Applications (and I don't mean programs) that today run on dual or quad or oct or whatever computers will be able to run on fewer, faster chips. ---
While the clock speed might be faster, the chip itself is not. Hell, the K6-III even beats the P3 at the same clockspeeds, and the K7 beats the P3 even when clocked lower. Just because it's doing more cycles every second doesn't mean it's going to perform better.
I can carry one grain of sand at a time thousands of times per second (or minute, or whatever) than someone carrying a bucket at a time, and I will lose, unless I am many orders of magnitude faster. ---
I'm glad you are therefore helping to update and write new API documentation, instead of just whining about it.
I don't want to write API docs, I want to write programs. I don't want to document the programs I use, I want to use them. If it is easier for me to use program A than program B because A is better documented (despite B being better otherwise), I will probably use A.
I don't want to deal with it, I just want it to work. It's the same reason I use Linux instead of MS-Windows. It just works. ---
Slashdot Mirror
It's like installing a 1.x kernel and saying, "I want it to do this so I'm gonna code that" when it's already in a later release
No, it's more like saying "I don't like the Linux kernel, so I'm going to code my own kernel instead of trying to work with it." Sometimes it's easier and, dare I say, better to start anew rather than trying to reform an older project.
There are other email programs out there. Should I base mine on one of them or contribute to one of them when their philosophy is so obviously contrary to mine (when it comes to MUAs)? Should I contribute if their codebase is so bloated as to make it easier to simply implement anew than to reimpliment functions within the existing framework?
I think not.
---
If you buy Windows 99 beer, you must also buy Windows 2000 or Millenium.
Every case of Windows 99 beer will come with a copy of Internet Explorer.
The windows version of Emacs will also stop complaining about beer in the fridge. However, Windows itself will complain if you don't have any Windows 99 in the house.
---
click where you want to cut off the URL. shift-end. delete. return. done.
---
If you say something I'm doing is immoral, and I disagree, I'm not going to stop because of what you think. I don't care what you think, unless it's backed up by a logical argument. This isn't true for people that I know, because I have reason to trust their opinion; after all, they've been right in the past.
I might stop because of what you will do because of what you think, depending on the possible consequences.
---
junk DNA" (some studies show it might no be as useless as once thought)
Nature's version of MD5?
---
It doesn't invade your territory without your permission.
Ever heard of the "network effect"? I'm sure you have, Slashdot reader and all.
The network effect is what makes people use Office: Because everyone else uses it. If you don't use it, you can't exchange documents with them.
"So what?" you say. "I *want* everyone to use GPL'd software, and to GPL their software." Because after all, you use the licence.
But to then also make the claim that "it doesn't prevent you for doing your own way", well. That doesn't quite work, does it? The GPL does prevent me from doing things my own way, or will. Because one day, I will need a certain bit of code, or a library, or a class, for a program. And the only way to get it is to go to a GPL'd program. If I don't want GPL, I'm screwed.
Go right ahead and use the GPL. But don't sit there and tell me that it's not an attack, merely a refusal to help.
---
This is just what I don't get: why do some people think that the GPL is immoral?
Because for them, it is. Morals are a personal thing.
The author isn't trying to say "you must do things this way", he's saying "I'd rather do things this way, and that other people do things this way". His morality seems to be rather like the Wiccan Crede (short version): An it harm no one, do as thou wilt. I agree, personally.
---
I use "O/Sen", pronounced "Oh Ess En" (O S N), and have seen many others use the same.
---
I've noticed many people saying that it will be hard to see some things with this system. What they don't seem to be thinking about is the fact that a HUD is overlayed above normal vision: you can still see anything you could before, just with an extra transparent layer in between.
Also note the "not an actual representation" text on the page with comparisons of low/high beams to the night vision.
---
NetWare: It's just like WetWare, only... not.
---
Satire is almost always exaggerated, and is usually of the extremes.
---
The Landover Baptist Church also has a review of this movie up. Very very amusing... not for the easily offended Christian crowd (not-so-easily-offended Christians should also be amused, though...).
---
You neglect the possibility that the initial biological molecules on Earth did not develop here (through spontaneous biogenesis), but rather were "dropped" whether by debris or intelligent life. Unlikely, yes, but possible.
Convergent evolution is also possible, as many examples on earth show us (I can't think of any offhand, but I'm sure a search on Google will find it pretty quick).
---
The networked appliances, as they currently exist, are not terribly useful. After all, they only save a little bit of time. Mostly they're just scheduling.
If I could say, "House, make me a salami on rye, with lettuce, tomato, and mayonaise. No wait, no mayo, just mustard." If I could say that, and it would happen, that would be useful. Who cares if I can tell my coffee maker to make coffee when it gets a message from my car that I'm almost home? That's not useful. If the house would also get the ingredients and put them in the coffee maker, then it becomes more useful.
I know that a lot of the Unix philosophy is "small tools that can be linked together to perform larger tasks". That's still possible, but it needs to integrate. Each device provides one function, and the central house logic hooks them all together to perform the given task.
Of course, this requires the house logic to understand the task, even if only in a very limited way. Most of this is very simple, though, at least for the majority of tasks. It 'knows' (from it's database of knowlege) that "Make me a salami on rye" is a request for a sandwhich, from the pattern. on . When it hears a word or pattern it doesn't understand, it asks for a definition. "What type of object is 'rye'?" "Rye is a type of bread, specifically rye bread."
In this way it could build up its database as needed. A large knowlege database would come preprogrammed in, and the rest would be learned.
This would require, as described, voice recognition. It could be done with the current handwriting recognition and PADDs, though. A PADD, for those who don't know, is a lot like a PDA with a wireless network link to a computer.
After that, it requires a fairly fast computer (to run the relational database) and a fair amount of storage, to remember all the devices and their functions and to remember all of the 'knowlege'.
All in all, a very large problem. But one that is, I think, almost possible today (excepting the voice recognition). It's just waiting for someone to implement it.
---
Except that you can't make a phone call on underwear.
No, don't tell me. I don't want to know. I really don't.
---
Opera supports Java, with a plugin.
Wouldn't it be great if all browsers used the same Java VM?
---
If someone is prevented from using it, then they are controlling who can use it. And they are certainly controlling *how* people can use it.
---
There is almost nothing at all innovative in the Linux universe. Any real innovation is brought in from the Unix world in general (where innovation does occur, which Linux shares in)
Who gives a damn about innovation? If one product has a feature that I want, and another doesn't, I sure as hell want the second product to "steal" that feature! It's the combination of features that matters, not whether they are new.
---
Coding is best done alone. Breeding is best done in pairs. Never try to put the two together.
Except when you are working with genetic algorithms.
---
But for gamers, the largest home market for fast processors, a real OS won't do, since it isn't Win9x.
I don't know what the ratio is from business to home, but I'm guessing that it's tilted far in the favor of business.
---
cypherphunk/cypherphunk
---
What if you're running computation heavy applications? Applications (and I don't mean programs) that today run on dual or quad or oct or whatever computers will be able to run on fewer, faster chips.
---
While the clock speed might be faster, the chip itself is not. Hell, the K6-III even beats the P3 at the same clockspeeds, and the K7 beats the P3 even when clocked lower. Just because it's doing more cycles every second doesn't mean it's going to perform better.
I can carry one grain of sand at a time thousands of times per second (or minute, or whatever) than someone carrying a bucket at a time, and I will lose, unless I am many orders of magnitude faster.
---
Not only is Dalnet for sale on EBay, it's been sold, for the price of $10,000,000. Youch!
e m&item=171769565
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewIt
Could anyone tell us about the circumstances surrounding the sale? Will Dalnet remain the same under its new ownership?
---
I'm glad you are therefore helping to update and write new API documentation, instead of just whining about it.
I don't want to write API docs, I want to write programs. I don't want to document the programs I use, I want to use them. If it is easier for me to use program A than program B because A is better documented (despite B being better otherwise), I will probably use A.
I don't want to deal with it, I just want it to work. It's the same reason I use Linux instead of MS-Windows. It just works.
---