There are no standards for standards. Because of this, there's no recursion - when something new is required, it can break from standards, but it must be worthwhile enough to stand on it's own merits - and possibly create a new standard.
Blindly following standards doesn't stifle creativity. The people who are creative recognize standards for what they are, and either conform or don't. If they choose not to conform, they take a risk.
As applications become more diverse, the role of traditional institutions such as the FDA grows more vague. Redefining them is a possible answer.
I think the proper answer is to highlight ethics in engineering again. I recall for Y2k, the Chinese supposedly had engineers riding on the planes at the stroke of midnight. Though maybe a bit harsh, such an act does bring the levity of the situation to people who often spend their time working on the product in an enclosed room.
In the case of the dive computer, I would hope that the engineers working on it actually dive, and understand the dangers normally involved with diving.
But... the U.S. Navy dive charts are still the best reference for the sport diver. The PADI certification requires that the diver understand diving, and not be reliant on dive computers - last time I checked.
This isn't an insulin pump. Dive certification is for people who wish to dive; it's a choice and those that make that choice need to understand the implications of the choice. Everything can screw up underwater. Divers should know that. With an insulin pump, the risks are different because people don't have a CHOICE to be diabetic or not; I would think that they are trained in the use of the pump... yet they must continue to monitor their blood sugar.
In essence, yes, there must be responsibility and accountability for equipment that we put our lives on the line with. But that doesn't mean we, as users, don't have some responsibility. Understanding how things work is important, especially if your life depends on it.
In this case, if these people did a cover up... They are liable for attempted murder, in my eyes.
If I'm living in the Caribbean, I have to put up with car insurance offers and other geo-specific SpamSlop because the U.S. may say "Spamming within certain conditions is cool"?
Seems like every country needs SPAM laws for the U.S. to realize that it's an INTERNATIONAL problem. And it originates from one main country.
I have an idea. Have Oregon and other states make SPAM 'improper use of a computer' so it becomes a terrorism issue. Spamming is probably more of a terrorist act than some of the things on the list.
If SCO is just about to sell out, and is attempting to inflate it's 'intellectual property equity' in the hope that someone with money may buy them? Or maybe there are already talks underway?
If not, this appears to be a horrid act of desperation.
(1) Standalone CDs - With what I've read on Longhorn, this shouldn't be an issue - since the traditional file system will be replaced by a registry type database. However, for massively multimedia intensive games, there will be a physical need for installation - unless they mean DVD instead of CD.
(2) Standardization of a PC controller - this could be fun, because if they actually standardize, it would mean that people could build their own controllers... *if* they make it an Open Standard. History says no.
(3) With DirectX 9 stalled and 64 bit processors due out shortly, I wonder if the hooks for utilizing the 64 bit instruction set for the new Intel are already there - or if Microsoft is handing AMD a nice swing at a juicy ball.
(4) Centralization of game patch updates is interesting in that it means that game manufacturers may become inspired to put out shoddy first releases so that people need to go through the Update server to get the fixes that make things work... and if they didn't buy the title... Well, think about it.
(5) "adding sophisticated matchmaking into Microsoft Messenger and parental controls over which users can play certain games" adds to point 4, but also demonstrates that they are also doing something naughty that the DoJ had something to say about.
In all... Just more Microsoft. No really *good* news.
I would gladly pay for Free/Open Source software. I'd love to purchase Starcraft or something like that and have the source code there with it so I could tweak it, and so on.
As long as the Battle.net standards are kept in the code, Blizzard could actually serve as an ASP.
Hmm. That's one example.
Truth is that the majority of people who game don't really tweak code... Having the source code would probably make for some interesting games.
I don't know why people keep saying "Open Source is free". It's not always free. Money can be made, just look outside of the traditional approaches...
Scientific journalism is a modern oxymoron, given that journalism is not as clean and ethical as it was originally intended.
Science is about questioning - and the journalism associated with Science should give that to the reader. It should promote discussion; it should ask questions - and it should be objective (unlike all other forms of journalism that is mucked about with politics, etc.).
Scientific journalism should educate, and should allow the educated reader to ask questions. There should be no sensationalism - which I fear Popular Science has gone to get more circulation.
Constantly trying to increase demographics (in journalism) dilutes science. The audience of scientific works ebbs and flows, and so should the circulation.
This is why I read Scientific American, New Scientist - and why I have stopped reading Popular Science.
Slashdot Mirror
The communities on MMORPGs are all about tweaking. No originality.
Anarchy run amok.
There are no standards for standards. Because of this, there's no recursion - when something new is required, it can break from standards, but it must be worthwhile enough to stand on it's own merits - and possibly create a new standard.
Blindly following standards doesn't stifle creativity. The people who are creative recognize standards for what they are, and either conform or don't. If they choose not to conform, they take a risk.
One standard doesn't fit all.
to a level that may approach $1 billion annually in the next three to four years
This must be the marketshare they expect to lose otherwise.
Quick! Someone mod him!
As applications become more diverse, the role of traditional institutions such as the FDA grows more vague. Redefining them is a possible answer.
I think the proper answer is to highlight ethics in engineering again. I recall for Y2k, the Chinese supposedly had engineers riding on the planes at the stroke of midnight. Though maybe a bit harsh, such an act does bring the levity of the situation to people who often spend their time working on the product in an enclosed room.
In the case of the dive computer, I would hope that the engineers working on it actually dive, and understand the dangers normally involved with diving.
But... the U.S. Navy dive charts are still the best reference for the sport diver. The PADI certification requires that the diver understand diving, and not be reliant on dive computers - last time I checked.
This isn't an insulin pump. Dive certification is for people who wish to dive; it's a choice and those that make that choice need to understand the implications of the choice. Everything can screw up underwater. Divers should know that. With an insulin pump, the risks are different because people don't have a CHOICE to be diabetic or not; I would think that they are trained in the use of the pump... yet they must continue to monitor their blood sugar.
In essence, yes, there must be responsibility and accountability for equipment that we put our lives on the line with. But that doesn't mean we, as users, don't have some responsibility. Understanding how things work is important, especially if your life depends on it.
In this case, if these people did a cover up... They are liable for attempted murder, in my eyes.
I'll have to build one :) Thanks for sharing. Might even try a serial interface eventually. Hmm.
Next up, a pulse ox monitor.
If I'm living in the Caribbean, I have to put up with car insurance offers and other geo-specific SpamSlop because the U.S. may say "Spamming within certain conditions is cool"?
Seems like every country needs SPAM laws for the U.S. to realize that it's an INTERNATIONAL problem. And it originates from one main country.
I have an idea. Have Oregon and other states make SPAM 'improper use of a computer' so it becomes a terrorism issue. Spamming is probably more of a terrorist act than some of the things on the list.
1/70th of a second. The difference is 4/70ths of a second.
Seems like a challenge. Who wants to create a FOSS-architecture?
Lesson learned: Some mailing lists only get regurgitated 1 hour later.
IMHO, your response should have been modded up. This is one of the best individual reasons to write Free Software/Open Source software.
:)
Some software developers do better in a petri dish. In my experience, most developers do better running wild
True.
I get my quota of 40% Spam, though... dunno that I want to go around registering for more stuff when that will put me over that threshold...
If anyone is willing to take the SPAM for me... let me know. :)
Yeah, it stinx0r. Or you can do the 'One Day Pass'. Posting it may break some copyright. This is the future...
Freedom of the press, but not the readers...
Now will someone post how I can build my own satellite and get it into orbit? :)
Cost reductions mean you can buy more for less.
Cost reductions mean unemployed people can hope for more and pay for less
Who wants the cost reductions? Oh... that would be the previously unemployed person...
Got Stock?
Limits their consumers to markets where everyone has internet access...Not all game players are jacked in.
Despite excellent marketing, the majority of the world does not have broad band.
If SCO is just about to sell out, and is attempting to inflate it's 'intellectual property equity' in the hope that someone with money may buy them? Or maybe there are already talks underway?
If not, this appears to be a horrid act of desperation.
Conversely, we could say that Free Software and Open Source are not helping terrorists because they cannot be pirated...
So, we could say that proprietary software is evil.
And there's a War on Evil!
Do they really think these things through?
(1) Standalone CDs - With what I've read on Longhorn, this shouldn't be an issue - since the traditional file system will be replaced by a registry type database. However, for massively multimedia intensive games, there will be a physical need for installation - unless they mean DVD instead of CD.
(2) Standardization of a PC controller - this could be fun, because if they actually standardize, it would mean that people could build their own controllers... *if* they make it an Open Standard. History says no.
(3) With DirectX 9 stalled and 64 bit processors due out shortly, I wonder if the hooks for utilizing the 64 bit instruction set for the new Intel are already there - or if Microsoft is handing AMD a nice swing at a juicy ball.
(4) Centralization of game patch updates is interesting in that it means that game manufacturers may become inspired to put out shoddy first releases so that people need to go through the Update server to get the fixes that make things work... and if they didn't buy the title... Well, think about it.
(5) "adding sophisticated matchmaking into Microsoft Messenger and parental controls over which users can play certain games" adds to point 4, but also demonstrates that they are also doing something naughty that the DoJ had something to say about.
In all... Just more Microsoft. No really *good* news.
My bad, sorry :)
Once beaten, twice shy. :D
What's the status of the Fritz Chip w.r.t. this 64 bit processor?
Is whether the Fritz chip will be on AMD motherboards? If so, Mandrake may be in a corner.
http://www.notcpa.org/members.html?PHPSESSID=8641e 28acdce91511fd69a42ffdb05a7
http://antitcpa.alsherok.net/phpnuke/html/
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF -8&q=AMD+%22Fritz+chip%22&btnG=Google+Sear ch
That means AMD users will be in a corner as well.
I would gladly pay for Free/Open Source software. I'd love to purchase Starcraft or something like that and have the source code there with it so I could tweak it, and so on. As long as the Battle.net standards are kept in the code, Blizzard could actually serve as an ASP. Hmm. That's one example. Truth is that the majority of people who game don't really tweak code... Having the source code would probably make for some interesting games. I don't know why people keep saying "Open Source is free". It's not always free. Money can be made, just look outside of the traditional approaches...
in some parts of the world.
Scientific journalism is a modern oxymoron, given that journalism is not as clean and ethical as it was originally intended.
Science is about questioning - and the journalism associated with Science should give that to the reader. It should promote discussion; it should ask questions - and it should be objective (unlike all other forms of journalism that is mucked about with politics, etc.).
Scientific journalism should educate, and should allow the educated reader to ask questions. There should be no sensationalism - which I fear Popular Science has gone to get more circulation.
Constantly trying to increase demographics (in journalism) dilutes science. The audience of scientific works ebbs and flows, and so should the circulation.
This is why I read Scientific American, New Scientist - and why I have stopped reading Popular Science.
Now if they opened the source....