I'm certainly not attempting to detract from OS developers, but I really don't see the point in drawing a line here except to open up some sort of this camp is better than that camp can of worms.
I have nothing against closed-source developer -- I've even been one from time to time.
However, closed source developers are doig their job for money. They get renumeration by seeing the numbers in their bank account increase every few weeks. And they may get recognition inside their company as well for a job well done.
Open Source developers, by and large, don't make any money for their code, and don't win any awards. They often work just as hard as the closed source developer, but don't make much (if any) money for their efforts, don't get a yearly bonus, and don't get a plaque to hand on their wall for a job well done.
I personally felt it was time to recognise some of these people for the work they've done which we've benifitted from, even if in a very small way.
Yaz.
Re:The device isn't usually the issue for me
on
Palmtop Nirvana?
·
· Score: 1
Anyway, it's ridiculous that I currently have to manually update 2-3 address books on my windows laptop alone, not to mention trying to keep them up to date on my linux server or mac.
Things seem to be much better in this regard on the Mac, as the Mac has its built-in Address Book, iCal, iSync, and Safari which are nicely integrated both together and with the OS. Lots of OS X applications will rely on the built-in Address Book instead of re-inventing the wheel (the notable bad exception to this being the Palm Desktop for the Mac -- something I intend to remedy with my jSyncManager once I get my hands on the iSync SDK promised by Apple at the WWDC earlier this year).
As someone who deal with this sort of thing all the time, the thing that bugs me the most is that every application out there feels the need to re-invent the wheel and come up with its own way of storing address and calendar data, when the associated data rarely (if ever) changes. It's a waste. We need a standard database for storing these two data types that PIMs can simply share, and the problem will be completely solved. OS X comes close. Linux could do this easily. However, so long as each and every application using such data decides it needs to have its own databases/data files to store this information, and its own format for the information, we're going to be saddled with such problems.
Brad BARCLAY
Lead Developer & Project Administrator,
The jSyncManager Project.
How can you give away the source for free, yet also charge for the software? What stops people just downloading the source and compiling it, without paying? Or do you just rely on people/companies being good enough to CHOOSE to pay for it, when then don't actually have to?
If you're distributing an end-user product targeted towards non-techies, many of them simply don't want to be bothered with having to compile and set-up everything. They don't want to have to ensure they have a compiler installed (remember: other than Linux/*BSD/OSX, most consumer OS's of the last 10 years don't come with a compiler), and all of the necessary pre-reqs to do the build. They want something that comes packaged inside a nice installer that just works, and in many cases couldn't care less if they could get it for free if "free" means having to go through a whole pile of complex mumbo-jumbo they don't care about.
That's the situation my project, the jSyncManager is in. To build everything, you need the Java2 SDK v1.3 or better, Apache Ant, the Java Communications API, the Java USB API, the jUSB API, jDOM, Java Help, Java Mail, and Java Activation. To run the jSyncManager, you need many of the same APIs installed (although we've coded things to make some of these packages optional -- if you don't have Java Help installed, for example, the Help option is simply greyed out). You can download the three JARs for the jSyncManager, and put them into the right directories and create the necessary desktop icons yourself if you want -- but many of our potential users get confused at "Java" -- nevermind all the rest.
We do have some bundles with all the right cross-platform APIs present and accounted for, and are hoping to put together some platform-specific bundles with nice installers and the platform-specific libraries (like javax.comm and javax.usb) -- but it's a lot of work. We have lots of users (and potential users) who would be happy to pay a small fee to have us put everything together in an easy-to-install package so they don't need to know the underlying magic incantations, and they don't have to go around to half a dozen (or more) different websites to download and set-up pre-reqs.
Sure, advanced users will simply download the parts and put things together themselves, paying nothing -- that's what I expect them to do. But there are people out there willing to pay for convienence as well. And why shouldn't I make a bit of money to give them what they want/need?
Brad BARCLAY
Lead Developer & Project Administrator,
The jSyncManager Project.
I used to work for IBM in the division that developed DB2 for Windows, OS/2, Linux, and various Unicies (but not OS/400 or other "big iron" systems) three years ago, and worked on code for DB2 v6 through to v8.
At that time, our Linux testing was primarily against Red Hat and a few others (from hazy memory, Turbo Linux, Red Flag, and one other I don't recall at the moment). Debian was not tested at all for any of their products. Red Hat was their primary focus, and seemed to be the Linux platform most of the developers ha on their desktop systems (although a lot of the Unix development was actually done through AIX-based systems).
Things may have changed since this time, but I haven't seen any outside evidence of this. Do you really want to try running these applications on platforms and with packages that the original vendor hasn't done any testing with? The IBM products you mention are not cheap -- why risk having them break by running them on an unsupported platform?
If you're a big account, talk to your IBM account rep and tell them you'd like to move to Debian. You'd be suprised how much IBM will do for a big account (or, at least, would do when I was there).
I'm considering doing just this with my jSyncManager Project, which is licensed under the GPL/LGPL (the API is LGPL'ed, the applications built on top of it are GPL'ed).
While I already provide the source for free online, along with binaries, it's a Java application, and it requires several pre-requisites which are platform-specific (like the Java Communications API, and/or the Java USB API). Users can go out and get all of the parts that are specific to their platform, but many of them find this too much of a hassle.
So I'm thinking of putting together some bundles with some platform-specific plug-ins for different platforms and charging a small fee for them (as I put a lot of effort and money into this project, and wouldn't mind making something back from it all), wrapped in platform-specific installers to make things really easy for end-users. Power users would still have the option of putting everything together themselves -- compiled binaries for the parts would still be made available for download -- but for those users who need a more traditional installable program that just works, I'd like to make the option available for them at a reasonable price, without changing the licenses at all.
Brad BARCLAY
Lead Developer & Project Adminsitrator,
The jSyncManager Project.
At least in terms of literacy, the US tends to fail on the lowest levels of competency, but excels [literacynet.org] at the highest level of competency. Only Sweden does better.
Actually, according to your own quote it is Canada that bests the United States at the highest level of competency:
Of the 11 other countries that participated in the International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS), only Sweden exceeded the United States in the percentage of adults scoring at the highest levels of literacy in any of the three domains; the only exception was Canada, which had a greater proportion of adults scoring at or above level 4 on the document scale than did the United States.
Sweden is the only country to exceed the US in all three scales, however Canada exceeds the US in overall proportion of those who are at level 4 or higher in one of the scales (although looking at the chart, Canada also exceeds the US by 0.3% in the Prose scale. In the third -- Quantative Scale, the US bests Canada by only 0.4%).
But I can forgive you for this little reading error. After all, I'm Candaian, and you're (presumably) American...;).
Okay -- all kidding aside, this figure dilutes your hypothesis concerning immigrtion bringing the average down. Canada's population growth would be negative if it weren't for immigration. Indeed, Canada contains the most multicultural major city in the world -- Toronto. And the huge bulk of immigrants to Canada aren't from other westernized countries -- they're typically from Asia and Africa. And yet Canada has roughly 5% fewer adults who fall into the Level 1 categories than the US.
As such, I don't think the survey was particularily unfair to the US. Canada is in a similar situation, and yet still scores better overall. There has to be other factors at play here.
(Note: the statistics in question are actually from 1996, even through the report was from 1998).
Why do Canadians seem to have such an attitude about heavens forbid anyone think we might like the US.
You read far too much into my message. It wasn't intended to be anti-American, only anti the idea that most Canadians live with a few hundred kilometres of the border because they feel some compelling need to be close to the US. This is completely untrue. Indeed, it's worth noting that these places were also amongst the most heavily settled regions even long before there was a border.
And if you look at a globe, you'll see that Canada is indeed wider than the US. But regardless, the more important point is that the land surface area if the bottom 5 degrees of Canada is still larger than most countries in the world. It's easy to trivialize the size by saying "most people live within 5 degrees of the border", but the reality is this is still a huge surface area.
Yeah, but in Canada, 95% of the population is less than 5 degrees north of the 49th, and that population tend to clump near the cities.
That's 5 degrees in one plane only. It's approximately 90 degrees in the other dimension. That is still a huge landmass to cover -- particularily when you consider there are major centres strung out through that area.
Canada is a big place. Quite a bit bigger than the US. The difference in population density may help wiring the major centres themselves, but makes it much more expensive to inter-connect those centres.
Canada has always been an innovator in the area of telecommunications. When you have a country that covers 90 degrees of the globe at the 49th parallel you have to be good at telecommunications.
(we love to hug the border)
Statements like this have always bugged me, because with only two exceptions, the reason why the highest population density is close to the border has nothing to do with the assumption most Americans make that Canada's population is this way because it wants to be close to the US.
We don't particularily "love to hug the border" -- it's more that the border is placed along areas where it makes sense for higher population density. If you were to look at a map of Canada showing population density, the highest density areas are along the corridor following the St. Lawrence Seaway/Great Lakes. This makes sense if you think of how the continent was originally colonized, and how important water was to travel and commerce. Historically large population centres grew in areas with maritime access.
It's also the area where the best land for growing crops is. You don't farm in the tundra, and the original settlers of Canada relied heavily upon farming (and fishing) for their food.
The two exceptions I mentioned above were:
The United Empire Loyalists -- Americans who emigrated from the US to Canada between the US War of Independence and the War of 1812. Many of these people settled in areas just across the border from the US (presumably because their goal was to leave the US -- the trip for some of them would have been extensive, so once they got into Canada, why keep going?), and
Former US slaves who escaped to Canada via the Underground Railroad. Again -- once they crossed the border, there wasn't any reason to keep running, so many of them settled down in border areas like St. Catharines and Windsor.
As such, it's not so much that we love to hug the border because of the sake of the border. Indeed, these areas were heavily settled even before there was a border, and the border cuts through regions condusive to commerce and travel. If the border were 1000km further south, I'm willing to bet you'd see the same population density as already exists between our two countries.
Again, the root account doesn't need to exist/be usable on its own for a user to get root privileges.
That's just what I was tryin to get at. You can be an "Admin" user without that user being "root" -- they can effectively take on root privledges as they need them, but without the problems associated of actually being root at all times.
Adopt Unix user conventions. OS X is based on Unix. You need to have a root (admin) account and an everyday use account.
Just a clarification here. On OS X, there is a distinction between "Admin" and "root".
Any user can be an Admin, allowing them to do things as if they were root (when their password is supplied). Effectively it's the same as being setup for sudo access on a Unix system with sudo available.
"root" is something completely different, as it's a specific account -- one that doesn't really even exist by default. In the default OS X install, you can't login as root, as root won't have a password. To enable the root account, you'll need to go innto your Utilities folder and run the NetInfo Manager. In the menu bar, select Security -> Enable Root User.
For most people, you shouldn't even need to enable the root user -- just use sudo to do things as root (and if you need a root command line, run sudo with the "-s" parameter from the Terminal).
Yaz.
Re:The device isn't usually the issue for me
on
Palmtop Nirvana?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Would it really be so hard to sync to Palm Desktop AND Thunderbird at the same time?
Yes, in fact, it is. Three-way synchronization is exceedingly difficult to manage and get right. It's much better to simply have a single host-side database to synchronize against, and simply have each application use it for their data storage. Having three different calendar applications each with their own unique databases and ways to correlate their records with the records on the other PIMs and then trying to synchronize the three is often disasterous.
If all of the synchronizations are two-way, for N applications you need to run through N! synchronizations. And with each application having its own data format, and then having to correlate each record with its matching record (IF it's present) in the other application -- well, we're talking about quite a lot of complexity.
A simple two-way synchronization is difficult enough -- just take a look at how many existing conduits regularily get things wrong (it doesn't help that most calendars also have different mechanisms for handling repeating entries, but don't get me started on THAT subject...).
If anyone is interested in writing some decent Mozilla PalmOS sync code, go and take a look at the jSyncManager. It's an Open Source, pure Java PalmOS data synchronization solution which, as it has its own protocol stacks, runs on any Java-enabled platform, and has its own Java-based jConduit plug-in specification. A Mozilla jConduit set could run the same on Windows, MacOS, Linux, OS/2, and every other Mozilla supported environment with little (or no) code modification.
(We do have an outstanding RFE to add Mozilla sync facilities, but we don't have the developer resources to do this. The project has two developers who regularily work on the code base, and most of our time is spent working on the jSyncManager itself. So if there are any Open Source Java developers out there who want to tackle this problem, let me know -- we'd love to have you aboard).
Brad BARCLAY
Lead Developer & Project Administrator,
The jSyncManager Project
That's it, unless you can find a way to install some form of ultra-massive gravity in your dorm room that causes all light to bend towards it (and away from your eyes), although on second thought this would probably destroy all your stuff in the process.
But seriously, don't bring too many expensive devices, and if you have to, don't show off them in the public.
Not showing stuff off in public view is always good security advice.
But as for not taking too many expensive devices, this can be difficult if you're studying computer science. Indeed, today most subjects are going to assume you have access to a computer, and if your university has limited computer lab seats for just running a word processor, having your own PC is going to be of huge benifit.
Dorm size and security really depends on where you go to school as well. I lived in residence for three years at university in an on-campus townhouse residence. Everyone had their own private room, each with their own deadbolts and keys (and in-room ethernet:) ).
So if I can add some advice, it would be to go and take a look at where you're going to be living (if you haven't already) to get an idea what what sort of security is available in room for any non-portable electronics.
For portable electronics, your best protection is being aware of your surroundings, keeping them on your person at all times, and use them in well-lit public places as much as possible.
Additionally, check your school library -- they may have small private offices that students can rent for a term. I know my university did -- they were basically big enough to fit a study desk and one chair, but they had a lockable door. The walls were a bit flimsy, so I wouldn't advocate using them for storage of expensive equipment. However, they can be good places to sit down and use your laptop or other portable devices to do work if you're concerned about someone trying to rip you off while you work.
And if all else fails, nothing is better than insurance. You'd be suprised at how little it can cost you to insure your belongings (in my last apartment, I was paying $10 CDN per month for roughly $15000 CDN in equipment).
That's not much of a plot -- especially for such a long movie.
Except what you provided isn't really a plot, but synopsis.
Plot == "Here are the ideas and themes that the movie is about"
Synopsis == "Here is a list of stufff that happens in the movie".
2001 does indeed have a complex plot -- which is why most people don't get it. They get hung up on the bits of story, never puting them together to understand the central ideas and themes.
He's here in Canada, where there is nothing illegal about such software. The RIAA has no standing here, so they can't touch him. Neither can XM. We have no dumbass DCMA-esque legislation. "Fair use" is pretty well established here in favour of the consumer.
I think their lawyers know this, and hope to scare him sufficiently to get him to give up the list of people who have purchased his software so they can go after the ones in the US.
I hope he holds his ground. Canadians don't intimidate that easily.
The DVD edition of 2001 in the Stanley Kubrick Collection has the video of a talk Arthur C. Clarke gave at an MGM dinner for the launch (or announcement -- I don't recall which) about the future of space travel and technology, specifically by 2001.
He's an excellent speaker, and you can't help but feel that the plans and timelines he espouses are realistic. You start to feel that humanity could indeed get together and achieve these ends.
Then you realize that his future is now, and we haven't achieved much of anything compared to Clarke's vision. And that's just depressing.
As to its scientific accuracy, someone else already debunked that, but I think it's irrelevant.
Nobody "debunked" anything. Someone simply provided four examples of the fiction portion of the movie and claimed they weren't backed by science. Well duh -- that's why it's fiction in the first place. They also unfortunately avoided all the areas where it was scientifically accurate. I can hardly consider that "debunking" anything.
And it is somewhat relevant. No, good science isn't strictly necessary to make a good science fiction movie (ref: any Star Wars movie), but it does makee a good scifi movie like 2001 better, and allows it to withstand the test of time (just think of how many scifi movies from the 80's seem campy now -- and 2001 pre-dated many of them by more than a decade).
Hate to break it to ya, but that has absolutely nothing to do with making a good SF movie. There's that tricky little word "fiction" to account for.
I disagree. Most people want some form of believable fiction. If you ask the audience to suspend their belief for the possible too far, they won't take your work seriously.
That having been said, scientific believability has allowed this movie to stand on it's own much longer than any other. Think back to any science fiction movie from that era -- virtually none of them have stood the test of time, because they're simply unbelievable.
I agree that a high level of scientific probability isn't necessary to make good fiction -- but when present it does make good fiction better, and does allow it to btter withstand the test of time.
Sure, why not. I have some extra time on my hands tonight:).
Stargates - no scientific basis whatesoever, then or now.
And yet for some reason they remain a staple of science fiction. Note the fiction portion of "science fiction". This is not science fact.
Basides which, there have been theories (some of which have been disproven since) that would make such a system posssible. Many cosmic theorists have postulated that there may be "shortcuts" between two points in space.
Note, however, that of the three monoliths we see, only one is actually a stargate -- and it's several kilometres across. The small units never once are shown to be star gates of any sort -- the first one on earth simply has an effect on the apes living in its vicinity, and the one on the moon only sends a signal out towards Jupiter.
Invisible interference with the apes.
The movie purposefully leaves the method of interference to the viewer. Indeed, I'd say that DNA manipulation would have been the last things on Clarke's mind when developing the movie. A more likely scenario would be something akin to telepathy (note that this whole scene is expanded upon in the book -- the monolith does indeed take control of various proto-humans to run tests and experiments on them, and uses imagery to teach them some basic skills in an attempt to see if they can jump-start evolution).
Radical transformation of conciousness
Again, a staple of science fiction -- and part of the "fiction" part of the movie.
Most arguable in my opinion, HAL itself.
Humanity itself seems to prove that HAL should be possible. The more important part of HAL's sub-plot, however, is the questions it forces the viewer to ask themselves which are important parts of modern computer science (see my other posting on this topic -- I'm not going to repeat it all here).
You seem to have picked on the "fiction" portions of the movie pretty good, missing almost completely the science aspects. Note that I didn't claim that the movie was 100% scientifically accurate -- otherwise we wouldn't call it "science fiction" (sorry to belabour that point). Some of the parts that are rather scientifically accurate (or at least possible) include:
The orbiting space station, and it's use of centripedal motion in the creation of simulated gravity (later revisited in the Discovery),
The design of the earth-to-orbit ship (shuttle-like),
The complete lack of aerodynamics for ships that are never intended to fly through an atmosphere (it's unnecessary),
The complete lack of sound in space (Poole only hears his own breath when attempting to change the antenna dish control unit),
The zero gravity toilet (an early book about the movie actually had a reprint of the directions in it),
The use of velcro in zero-gravity environments to enhance human mobility,
The food (sticky goopy items that stay stuck to plates),
The long length of time it takes to travel from Earth to the moon, or from Earth to Jupiter,
The communications delays involved in communicating across these long distances,
Realistic propulsion methods,
...and many more (hey, I said I had some free time -- not the rest of the night!;) ).
These elements make it vastly more scientifically accurate than most scifi movies. Or do you think those movies that involve instantaneous travel between star systems with aerodynamically styled ships using impossible propulsion mechanisms with lasers that travel slower than the speed of light and emit loud sounds in the vaccuum of space are more realistic?:)
I'm struck by how much these comments also apply to Blade Runner.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not knocking Blade Runner, which is a fine piece of film on its own. I'm merely countering those who don't think 2001 should have been on the list (which can't be all that hard -- after all apparently I have 60 of the most influential scientists behind me on that one:) ).
Realistic computer science in 2001? Dude, one of the major characters was an AI the likes of which we've never seen.
It deals with some theoretical AI issues that have been bandied about by computer scientists since Turing. What is it to be sentient? Can computers be sentient? If we give them artificial intelligence, can we control them? Will we be able to produce a knowable result?
These are the areas where 2001 shows some scientific acccuracy in the realm of computer science. True, it is fantasy, and it is dealing with only one possible outcome. But all of these topics are dealt with. in the BBC interview, we learn that while HAL appears to simulate a person, he is viewed as non-sentient, but instead as merely a complex simulation. At the same time (which we learn later), HAL is given conflicting programming (no distortion or withholding of information, the protection and health of the crew, the need to complete the mission at all costs, and the keeping of the true nature of the mission a secret from the crew). These orders come into conflict.
Now if we do create a human-like AI system like HAL, how will it react to conflicting orders? Conflicts in programming in current "dumb" systems usually results in a dead-lock situation, but what if the machine can make a value judgement to resolve that deadlock? Will it make the right choice?
In this case, HAL made what most people would consider a wrong choice. Faced with the need to keep a secret and violate his primary design in doing so, he became, for lack of a better description, psychotically ill.
It is still fiction of course -- but these remain important questions and aspects of modern computer science. Clarke thought that by 2001 we'd be wrestling with the practical implications of these questions -- but instead we're still wrestling with them in the theoretical realm.
the 30 minute acid trip was..... trippy.. and the star child..... out of this world.....
Indeed. But there was a purpose and mesage behind both of them.
Admittedly with modern special effects there may have been some better ways to get that message across. I think one of the reasons why some people today "don't get it" is because the special effects in the move are generally so good that it's easy to compare it to your expectations for a modern movie.
The "acid trip" (which isn't 30 minutes long -- closer to 20:) ) is supposed to represent Dave Bowman seeing wonders of the universe he can't properly comprehend. He's seeing these things, but the best his mind can percieve of them are a bunch of swirly colours, odd planetscapes, the birth and death of stellar phenomenon, etc.
The star child is supposed to be as different as you and I as the apes in "The Dawn of Man" are to you and I. We can't comprehend what Bowman has become through alien influence. How are you supposed to realistically show someething that doesn't exist, and which, by definition, the audience (as humans) can't comprehend? Maybe they should have taken the Star Trek route and had him turn into a green vapour cloud with flashing lights and had some doctor step in at the end to point at him and say he's evolved beyond humanity -- but that ending would have sucked:).
Slashdot Mirror
Try "about:credits".
Yaz.
I have nothing against closed-source developer -- I've even been one from time to time.
However, closed source developers are doig their job for money. They get renumeration by seeing the numbers in their bank account increase every few weeks. And they may get recognition inside their company as well for a job well done.
Open Source developers, by and large, don't make any money for their code, and don't win any awards. They often work just as hard as the closed source developer, but don't make much (if any) money for their efforts, don't get a yearly bonus, and don't get a plaque to hand on their wall for a job well done.
I personally felt it was time to recognise some of these people for the work they've done which we've benifitted from, even if in a very small way.
Yaz.
Things seem to be much better in this regard on the Mac, as the Mac has its built-in Address Book, iCal, iSync, and Safari which are nicely integrated both together and with the OS. Lots of OS X applications will rely on the built-in Address Book instead of re-inventing the wheel (the notable bad exception to this being the Palm Desktop for the Mac -- something I intend to remedy with my jSyncManager once I get my hands on the iSync SDK promised by Apple at the WWDC earlier this year).
As someone who deal with this sort of thing all the time, the thing that bugs me the most is that every application out there feels the need to re-invent the wheel and come up with its own way of storing address and calendar data, when the associated data rarely (if ever) changes. It's a waste. We need a standard database for storing these two data types that PIMs can simply share, and the problem will be completely solved. OS X comes close. Linux could do this easily. However, so long as each and every application using such data decides it needs to have its own databases/data files to store this information, and its own format for the information, we're going to be saddled with such problems.
Brad BARCLAY
Lead Developer & Project Administrator,
The jSyncManager Project.
If you're distributing an end-user product targeted towards non-techies, many of them simply don't want to be bothered with having to compile and set-up everything. They don't want to have to ensure they have a compiler installed (remember: other than Linux/*BSD/OSX, most consumer OS's of the last 10 years don't come with a compiler), and all of the necessary pre-reqs to do the build. They want something that comes packaged inside a nice installer that just works, and in many cases couldn't care less if they could get it for free if "free" means having to go through a whole pile of complex mumbo-jumbo they don't care about.
That's the situation my project, the jSyncManager is in. To build everything, you need the Java2 SDK v1.3 or better, Apache Ant, the Java Communications API, the Java USB API, the jUSB API, jDOM, Java Help, Java Mail, and Java Activation. To run the jSyncManager, you need many of the same APIs installed (although we've coded things to make some of these packages optional -- if you don't have Java Help installed, for example, the Help option is simply greyed out). You can download the three JARs for the jSyncManager, and put them into the right directories and create the necessary desktop icons yourself if you want -- but many of our potential users get confused at "Java" -- nevermind all the rest.
We do have some bundles with all the right cross-platform APIs present and accounted for, and are hoping to put together some platform-specific bundles with nice installers and the platform-specific libraries (like javax.comm and javax.usb) -- but it's a lot of work. We have lots of users (and potential users) who would be happy to pay a small fee to have us put everything together in an easy-to-install package so they don't need to know the underlying magic incantations, and they don't have to go around to half a dozen (or more) different websites to download and set-up pre-reqs.
Sure, advanced users will simply download the parts and put things together themselves, paying nothing -- that's what I expect them to do. But there are people out there willing to pay for convienence as well. And why shouldn't I make a bit of money to give them what they want/need?
Brad BARCLAY
Lead Developer & Project Administrator,
The jSyncManager Project.
Just a quick reply to myself -- thinking about it some more, I'm sure we also tested on Mandrake, and I think on Slackware. But certainly not Debian.
Yaz.
I used to work for IBM in the division that developed DB2 for Windows, OS/2, Linux, and various Unicies (but not OS/400 or other "big iron" systems) three years ago, and worked on code for DB2 v6 through to v8.
At that time, our Linux testing was primarily against Red Hat and a few others (from hazy memory, Turbo Linux, Red Flag, and one other I don't recall at the moment). Debian was not tested at all for any of their products. Red Hat was their primary focus, and seemed to be the Linux platform most of the developers ha on their desktop systems (although a lot of the Unix development was actually done through AIX-based systems).
Things may have changed since this time, but I haven't seen any outside evidence of this. Do you really want to try running these applications on platforms and with packages that the original vendor hasn't done any testing with? The IBM products you mention are not cheap -- why risk having them break by running them on an unsupported platform?
If you're a big account, talk to your IBM account rep and tell them you'd like to move to Debian. You'd be suprised how much IBM will do for a big account (or, at least, would do when I was there).
Yaz.
I'm considering doing just this with my jSyncManager Project, which is licensed under the GPL/LGPL (the API is LGPL'ed, the applications built on top of it are GPL'ed).
While I already provide the source for free online, along with binaries, it's a Java application, and it requires several pre-requisites which are platform-specific (like the Java Communications API, and/or the Java USB API). Users can go out and get all of the parts that are specific to their platform, but many of them find this too much of a hassle.
So I'm thinking of putting together some bundles with some platform-specific plug-ins for different platforms and charging a small fee for them (as I put a lot of effort and money into this project, and wouldn't mind making something back from it all), wrapped in platform-specific installers to make things really easy for end-users. Power users would still have the option of putting everything together themselves -- compiled binaries for the parts would still be made available for download -- but for those users who need a more traditional installable program that just works, I'd like to make the option available for them at a reasonable price, without changing the licenses at all.
Brad BARCLAY
Lead Developer & Project Adminsitrator,
The jSyncManager Project.
Actually, according to your own quote it is Canada that bests the United States at the highest level of competency:
Sweden is the only country to exceed the US in all three scales, however Canada exceeds the US in overall proportion of those who are at level 4 or higher in one of the scales (although looking at the chart, Canada also exceeds the US by 0.3% in the Prose scale. In the third -- Quantative Scale, the US bests Canada by only 0.4%).
But I can forgive you for this little reading error. After all, I'm Candaian, and you're (presumably) American... ;).
Okay -- all kidding aside, this figure dilutes your hypothesis concerning immigrtion bringing the average down. Canada's population growth would be negative if it weren't for immigration. Indeed, Canada contains the most multicultural major city in the world -- Toronto. And the huge bulk of immigrants to Canada aren't from other westernized countries -- they're typically from Asia and Africa. And yet Canada has roughly 5% fewer adults who fall into the Level 1 categories than the US.
As such, I don't think the survey was particularily unfair to the US. Canada is in a similar situation, and yet still scores better overall. There has to be other factors at play here.
(Note: the statistics in question are actually from 1996, even through the report was from 1998).
Yaz.
That explains why it won't accept my power brick serial number on their website, even though it has the same part number, and is for a 1161U.
Back into the plug you go...
Yaz.
You read far too much into my message. It wasn't intended to be anti-American, only anti the idea that most Canadians live with a few hundred kilometres of the border because they feel some compelling need to be close to the US. This is completely untrue. Indeed, it's worth noting that these places were also amongst the most heavily settled regions even long before there was a border.
And if you look at a globe, you'll see that Canada is indeed wider than the US. But regardless, the more important point is that the land surface area if the bottom 5 degrees of Canada is still larger than most countries in the world. It's easy to trivialize the size by saying "most people live within 5 degrees of the border", but the reality is this is still a huge surface area.
Yaz.
That's 5 degrees in one plane only. It's approximately 90 degrees in the other dimension. That is still a huge landmass to cover -- particularily when you consider there are major centres strung out through that area.
Canada is a big place. Quite a bit bigger than the US. The difference in population density may help wiring the major centres themselves, but makes it much more expensive to inter-connect those centres.
Canada has always been an innovator in the area of telecommunications. When you have a country that covers 90 degrees of the globe at the 49th parallel you have to be good at telecommunications.
Statements like this have always bugged me, because with only two exceptions, the reason why the highest population density is close to the border has nothing to do with the assumption most Americans make that Canada's population is this way because it wants to be close to the US.
We don't particularily "love to hug the border" -- it's more that the border is placed along areas where it makes sense for higher population density. If you were to look at a map of Canada showing population density, the highest density areas are along the corridor following the St. Lawrence Seaway/Great Lakes. This makes sense if you think of how the continent was originally colonized, and how important water was to travel and commerce. Historically large population centres grew in areas with maritime access.
It's also the area where the best land for growing crops is. You don't farm in the tundra, and the original settlers of Canada relied heavily upon farming (and fishing) for their food.
The two exceptions I mentioned above were:
As such, it's not so much that we love to hug the border because of the sake of the border. Indeed, these areas were heavily settled even before there was a border, and the border cuts through regions condusive to commerce and travel. If the border were 1000km further south, I'm willing to bet you'd see the same population density as already exists between our two countries.
Yaz.
That's just what I was tryin to get at. You can be an "Admin" user without that user being "root" -- they can effectively take on root privledges as they need them, but without the problems associated of actually being root at all times.
Thanks for helping to amplify that distinction.
Yaz.
Just a clarification here. On OS X, there is a distinction between "Admin" and "root".
Any user can be an Admin, allowing them to do things as if they were root (when their password is supplied). Effectively it's the same as being setup for sudo access on a Unix system with sudo available.
"root" is something completely different, as it's a specific account -- one that doesn't really even exist by default. In the default OS X install, you can't login as root, as root won't have a password. To enable the root account, you'll need to go innto your Utilities folder and run the NetInfo Manager. In the menu bar, select Security -> Enable Root User.
For most people, you shouldn't even need to enable the root user -- just use sudo to do things as root (and if you need a root command line, run sudo with the "-s" parameter from the Terminal).
Yaz.
Yes, in fact, it is. Three-way synchronization is exceedingly difficult to manage and get right. It's much better to simply have a single host-side database to synchronize against, and simply have each application use it for their data storage. Having three different calendar applications each with their own unique databases and ways to correlate their records with the records on the other PIMs and then trying to synchronize the three is often disasterous.
If all of the synchronizations are two-way, for N applications you need to run through N! synchronizations. And with each application having its own data format, and then having to correlate each record with its matching record (IF it's present) in the other application -- well, we're talking about quite a lot of complexity.
A simple two-way synchronization is difficult enough -- just take a look at how many existing conduits regularily get things wrong (it doesn't help that most calendars also have different mechanisms for handling repeating entries, but don't get me started on THAT subject...).
If anyone is interested in writing some decent Mozilla PalmOS sync code, go and take a look at the jSyncManager. It's an Open Source, pure Java PalmOS data synchronization solution which, as it has its own protocol stacks, runs on any Java-enabled platform, and has its own Java-based jConduit plug-in specification. A Mozilla jConduit set could run the same on Windows, MacOS, Linux, OS/2, and every other Mozilla supported environment with little (or no) code modification.
(We do have an outstanding RFE to add Mozilla sync facilities, but we don't have the developer resources to do this. The project has two developers who regularily work on the code base, and most of our time is spent working on the jSyncManager itself. So if there are any Open Source Java developers out there who want to tackle this problem, let me know -- we'd love to have you aboard).
Brad BARCLAY
Lead Developer & Project Administrator,
The jSyncManager Project
Here are your options, in a nutshell:
That's it, unless you can find a way to install some form of ultra-massive gravity in your dorm room that causes all light to bend towards it (and away from your eyes), although on second thought this would probably destroy all your stuff in the process.
Yaz.
Not showing stuff off in public view is always good security advice.
But as for not taking too many expensive devices, this can be difficult if you're studying computer science. Indeed, today most subjects are going to assume you have access to a computer, and if your university has limited computer lab seats for just running a word processor, having your own PC is going to be of huge benifit.
Dorm size and security really depends on where you go to school as well. I lived in residence for three years at university in an on-campus townhouse residence. Everyone had their own private room, each with their own deadbolts and keys (and in-room ethernet :) ).
So if I can add some advice, it would be to go and take a look at where you're going to be living (if you haven't already) to get an idea what what sort of security is available in room for any non-portable electronics.
For portable electronics, your best protection is being aware of your surroundings, keeping them on your person at all times, and use them in well-lit public places as much as possible.
Additionally, check your school library -- they may have small private offices that students can rent for a term. I know my university did -- they were basically big enough to fit a study desk and one chair, but they had a lockable door. The walls were a bit flimsy, so I wouldn't advocate using them for storage of expensive equipment. However, they can be good places to sit down and use your laptop or other portable devices to do work if you're concerned about someone trying to rip you off while you work.
And if all else fails, nothing is better than insurance. You'd be suprised at how little it can cost you to insure your belongings (in my last apartment, I was paying $10 CDN per month for roughly $15000 CDN in equipment).
Yaz.
Except what you provided isn't really a plot, but synopsis.
Plot == "Here are the ideas and themes that the movie is about"
Synopsis == "Here is a list of stufff that happens in the movie".
2001 does indeed have a complex plot -- which is why most people don't get it. They get hung up on the bits of story, never puting them together to understand the central ideas and themes.
Yaz.
...I would simply laugh in their faces.
He's here in Canada, where there is nothing illegal about such software. The RIAA has no standing here, so they can't touch him. Neither can XM. We have no dumbass DCMA-esque legislation. "Fair use" is pretty well established here in favour of the consumer.
I think their lawyers know this, and hope to scare him sufficiently to get him to give up the list of people who have purchased his software so they can go after the ones in the US.
I hope he holds his ground. Canadians don't intimidate that easily.
Yaz.
The DVD edition of 2001 in the Stanley Kubrick Collection has the video of a talk Arthur C. Clarke gave at an MGM dinner for the launch (or announcement -- I don't recall which) about the future of space travel and technology, specifically by 2001.
He's an excellent speaker, and you can't help but feel that the plans and timelines he espouses are realistic. You start to feel that humanity could indeed get together and achieve these ends.
Then you realize that his future is now, and we haven't achieved much of anything compared to Clarke's vision. And that's just depressing.
Yaz.
Nobody "debunked" anything. Someone simply provided four examples of the fiction portion of the movie and claimed they weren't backed by science. Well duh -- that's why it's fiction in the first place. They also unfortunately avoided all the areas where it was scientifically accurate. I can hardly consider that "debunking" anything.
And it is somewhat relevant. No, good science isn't strictly necessary to make a good science fiction movie (ref: any Star Wars movie), but it does makee a good scifi movie like 2001 better, and allows it to withstand the test of time (just think of how many scifi movies from the 80's seem campy now -- and 2001 pre-dated many of them by more than a decade).
Yaz.
No. Agree with me now or die! :).
Yaz.
I disagree. Most people want some form of believable fiction. If you ask the audience to suspend their belief for the possible too far, they won't take your work seriously.
That having been said, scientific believability has allowed this movie to stand on it's own much longer than any other. Think back to any science fiction movie from that era -- virtually none of them have stood the test of time, because they're simply unbelievable.
I agree that a high level of scientific probability isn't necessary to make good fiction -- but when present it does make good fiction better, and does allow it to btter withstand the test of time.
Yaz
Sure, why not. I have some extra time on my hands tonight :).
Stargates - no scientific basis whatesoever, then or now. And yet for some reason they remain a staple of science fiction. Note the fiction portion of "science fiction". This is not science fact.Basides which, there have been theories (some of which have been disproven since) that would make such a system posssible. Many cosmic theorists have postulated that there may be "shortcuts" between two points in space.
Note, however, that of the three monoliths we see, only one is actually a stargate -- and it's several kilometres across. The small units never once are shown to be star gates of any sort -- the first one on earth simply has an effect on the apes living in its vicinity, and the one on the moon only sends a signal out towards Jupiter.
Invisible interference with the apes. The movie purposefully leaves the method of interference to the viewer. Indeed, I'd say that DNA manipulation would have been the last things on Clarke's mind when developing the movie. A more likely scenario would be something akin to telepathy (note that this whole scene is expanded upon in the book -- the monolith does indeed take control of various proto-humans to run tests and experiments on them, and uses imagery to teach them some basic skills in an attempt to see if they can jump-start evolution). Radical transformation of conciousness Again, a staple of science fiction -- and part of the "fiction" part of the movie. Most arguable in my opinion, HAL itself. Humanity itself seems to prove that HAL should be possible. The more important part of HAL's sub-plot, however, is the questions it forces the viewer to ask themselves which are important parts of modern computer science (see my other posting on this topic -- I'm not going to repeat it all here).You seem to have picked on the "fiction" portions of the movie pretty good, missing almost completely the science aspects. Note that I didn't claim that the movie was 100% scientifically accurate -- otherwise we wouldn't call it "science fiction" (sorry to belabour that point). Some of the parts that are rather scientifically accurate (or at least possible) include:
These elements make it vastly more scientifically accurate than most scifi movies. Or do you think those movies that involve instantaneous travel between star systems with aerodynamically styled ships using impossible propulsion mechanisms with lasers that travel slower than the speed of light and emit loud sounds in the vaccuum of space are more realistic? :)
Yaz.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not knocking Blade Runner, which is a fine piece of film on its own. I'm merely countering those who don't think 2001 should have been on the list (which can't be all that hard -- after all apparently I have 60 of the most influential scientists behind me on that one :) ).
It deals with some theoretical AI issues that have been bandied about by computer scientists since Turing. What is it to be sentient? Can computers be sentient? If we give them artificial intelligence, can we control them? Will we be able to produce a knowable result?
These are the areas where 2001 shows some scientific acccuracy in the realm of computer science. True, it is fantasy, and it is dealing with only one possible outcome. But all of these topics are dealt with. in the BBC interview, we learn that while HAL appears to simulate a person, he is viewed as non-sentient, but instead as merely a complex simulation. At the same time (which we learn later), HAL is given conflicting programming (no distortion or withholding of information, the protection and health of the crew, the need to complete the mission at all costs, and the keeping of the true nature of the mission a secret from the crew). These orders come into conflict.
Now if we do create a human-like AI system like HAL, how will it react to conflicting orders? Conflicts in programming in current "dumb" systems usually results in a dead-lock situation, but what if the machine can make a value judgement to resolve that deadlock? Will it make the right choice?
In this case, HAL made what most people would consider a wrong choice. Faced with the need to keep a secret and violate his primary design in doing so, he became, for lack of a better description, psychotically ill.
It is still fiction of course -- but these remain important questions and aspects of modern computer science. Clarke thought that by 2001 we'd be wrestling with the practical implications of these questions -- but instead we're still wrestling with them in the theoretical realm.
Yaz.
Indeed. But there was a purpose and mesage behind both of them.
Admittedly with modern special effects there may have been some better ways to get that message across. I think one of the reasons why some people today "don't get it" is because the special effects in the move are generally so good that it's easy to compare it to your expectations for a modern movie.
The "acid trip" (which isn't 30 minutes long -- closer to 20 :) ) is supposed to represent Dave Bowman seeing wonders of the universe he can't properly comprehend. He's seeing these things, but the best his mind can percieve of them are a bunch of swirly colours, odd planetscapes, the birth and death of stellar phenomenon, etc.
The star child is supposed to be as different as you and I as the apes in "The Dawn of Man" are to you and I. We can't comprehend what Bowman has become through alien influence. How are you supposed to realistically show someething that doesn't exist, and which, by definition, the audience (as humans) can't comprehend? Maybe they should have taken the Star Trek route and had him turn into a green vapour cloud with flashing lights and had some doctor step in at the end to point at him and say he's evolved beyond humanity -- but that ending would have sucked :).
Yaz.