DS9 was great in a lot of ways--notably, it got a lot of the drama right, which was something earlier trek hadn't done much. By which I mean it had multi-episode story arcs, in part in response to Babylon 5's competition. And "multi-episode," for the first time, didn't mean a two-parter.
On the downside, the dominion war also shifted the writer's mindsets too much--and trek became more about shooting things and less about the characters when the next series came along. (The characters in DS9 were good, with interesting long-term growth, and with good interpersonal dynamics. The characters in Voyager were cardboard, poorly designed, poorly written, and with little knowledge of cadence. The good point in Voyager (hard to find them, but there) was Robert Picardo. (Who wasn't used terribly well in Stargate.))
The accompanying graphic is surreal for a moment, until you connect the dots. Hehem: "Illinois is near the equator."
For a moment, you think, like Pluto not being a planet any longer, someone has changed the rules of the game. Did we throw Mercator maps out the window? Are we using real maps now, that show the world as it is, and it's not really a globe at all? What is Illinois, really? And why is it at the equator?
----- (Yes, continental drift. I know. But surreal, for that moment. And therefore fun.)
The major tech companies wanted the patent reform--they tend to be victims of spurious patent cases. Microsoft, CISCO, Intel, Etc... (And Time Warner) are more concerned about protecting themselves from being sued by a patent squatter than they are about most of their own patents. Also, this lets them hijack other people's ideas more easily.
The major drug companies didn't want the reform, because patents are their life blood. It will get harder for them to patent obvious changes to medicine, such as combining multiple medications in one pill. (Though in some cases they'd still get away with it, I'd imagine, if they can demonstrate that there's some kind of real innovation going on in the time-delay mechanism or something. Or at least they'll argue that...)
Censorship in the US works rather differently. Watch Good Night, and Good Luck or look for the interviews with ex-Fox reporters about Monsanto. The government here rarely censors directly, with the exception of things it claims fall under the rubrick of National Security. Instead, most censorship happens according to the interests of major corporations, and isn't government sponsored. A lot of things are also censored almost by default--third party candidates barred from presidential debates, for example. There's a tremendous amount of social, psychological, political, and financial inertia that--while not technically censorship--make it very difficult to spread information or viewpoints that don't conform to the norm. (And the norm, sadly, is generally addressed to the Lowest Common Denominator.)
The censorship in the US is subtle--and of a different kind, so that in a sense it's not really censorship at all. You can still stand on a street corner and talk to the stranger next to you and not worry much about being locked up. Even if the stranger's a cop, or a Fed, for that matter.
(We won't censor the messages, btw. We'll build an enormous super-secret database of them. Is that better or worse than explicit censorship?)
I didn't criticize the OLPC folks; I criticized those who respond "windows? Oh, dear!" to the project, who see the third world penetration of open source apps and operating systems as the important part of an initiative like OLPC.
P.S. Don't be mean.
P.P.S. Beagle described fantasy, in Tolkien's case at least, as "A green day's alternative to each days madness, here in a poisoned world." I prefer a less escapist approach--fantasy, in its best forms, is about one of two things (or both together)--(1) exploring the human condition, and (2) inspiring the ideal, exploring the potential nobility of man. Fantasy it a part of what teaches the dreamer to dream. In an oft-cynical world, that is a nontrivial thing.
1) I made no argument against technological leap-frogging.
2) I made no statement indicating that developing countries are homogenous; I indicated that there were bigger problems to worry about in the set of developing countries than what kind of operating system was in use on these laptops.
3) I didn't suggest the project was a bad idea--I criticized slashdot's response. Good news for nerds ought to include things like development economics more than we do here, and the way slashdot's groupthink issues a windows-is-terrible gut response--rather than saying `does this make sense?' or talking about the project itself--is quite narrowminded.
4) In fact, my point is more the opposite of patronizing. It's patronizing to assume linux is the answer for them just because it is for most of us.
"Those in Control" is basically an old-boy network in each party, which is influenced (in each case) by legal (and sometimes illegal) bribery. The members of this network also have some (limited, almost by definition) independent will of their own.
Also, I think they wouldn't like it if Mike Gravel got in, and he was on the stage... probably just allowed up there because he's a maverick they figure can never win, though. (Which he knows, of course.)
Twelve hundred children an hour die, largely in said world, and mostly preventable deaths. (Source: UNICEF). That's things like malnutrition, lack of access to clean water, etc...
No offense meant, but can you imagine how much we shouldn't care what kind of operating system these countries are using? There are bigger problems to worry about.
There is little argument nearly so good against bigotry as the exposure of that bigotry in its naked form. You want to see something that will sicken, and make you realize how truly small-minded these people are? Visit the forums of white supremacists, anti-semites, or anyone that such a law would legitimately be used against.
Show people the worst malformed logic and ranting and hatred of that world, so they know better to check themselves of its beginnings.
systems like this which need to survive under massive data spikes ought to be designed to handle them--meaning that the software, rather than simply timing out after fifteen seconds, out to be acting more-or-less like TCP/IP: use exponential backoff. If it can't connect in 15 seconds, wait 30 and try again, then wait 60, then 120, etc... up to some maximum timeout value. The spacing gives turbotax's servers a chance to keep up (by spreading out the submissions over a longer period of time) and keeps the user from having to click "retry" for the next two hours.
They're still in a bad way if their servers can't handle the crunch before the deadline passes, but it would be better than the way it is now.
The leaker was arrogant/foolish enough to use his real name.
Probably, at least. Granted, you'd think he was just being a Richard and it needn't have anything to do with his name, but think about--someone leaked MS's follow-up email to people named Richard. Might it have been the Richard we're looking for?:)
A week in jail is not a piddling time if someone hasn't been in before--for many, perhaps even most, the fact that they've been arrested at all is a big deal, and can go a long way towards encouraging someone to deal with his or her behavior.
Actually, come to think of it, I'm a bit curious about the research in the area... but I do hope there's some science involved in the decision about how long it makes sense to hold someone in order to encourage them to change, rather than just a judge's guess based on a politician's guideline.
Most states allow for emergency vehicles to violate standard traffic law--legally--in case of an emergency. The article is about ticketing policemen (or firemen) who violate the law when there isn't an emergency involved.
The law exists for a reason. Allowing someone to ignore it--particularly when that person is responsible for enforcing it--undermines its authority.
Period. They should not be exempted from any law, unless there is a compelling argument that exempting them from the law is in the public interest. And if that is the case, then the law ought to be amended. There should not be a double-standard.
He's pointing out that most of the psychological reassurances (the security blankets, we might ball them) that are presented to customers/consumers/flyers/etc... are just that--psychological reassurances.
We'd better be careful. This kid is dangerous. He could dismantle our entire society! Wait to see what happens when he points out that money is fictitious.
I would find this a lot less disingenuous if it weren't a second American tech company that were being investigated right off, rather than a company in a different market sector or a non-American company. This smacks too much of "We got money from Microsoft, so who else can we get it from?"
Of course, maybe they have worked against companies as large in other market sectors, or from other nations, and it simply doesn't make the news over here. But I'm skeptical. It seems too much like the state DA's visible money-grabbing that goes on in a lot of the US, to look good on the records of wanna-be politicians and bring extra money into state budgets that's been paid largely by the consumers in other states of the products or services of the company they're going after.
'twas outrage or exasperation counched in seeming disbelief. My naivete is limited to more useful topics, which I can't think of right now but which probably have something to do with soft fuzzy toys, shiny knick-knacks, or chocolate bunnies.
Oh, sorry: The National Debt. I meant the national credit card, which it effectively is.
(Although they should, certainly, be doing more about credit card debt than they are. Governments do have a responsibility to regulate capitalism, and many credit card issuers need to be seriously looked at. Usurious it the term, I believe.)
Are you kidding? Our Congress is investigating why google has made a change in its maps? And they're fishing for someone to start a political brawl with?
Don't we have... I don't know, something related to government services that they should be doing? Or, if it's going to be related to business, related to business that has a significant impact on consumers? Or poverty? Or taxes? Or services? Or the debt? We (as a nation) have a nine trillion dollar credit card debt, and we're worried about whether google's mapping decision was something we can get into a political scuffle about?
Slashdot Mirror
=)
DS9 was great in a lot of ways--notably, it got a lot of the drama right, which was something earlier trek hadn't done much. By which I mean it had multi-episode story arcs, in part in response to Babylon 5's competition. And "multi-episode," for the first time, didn't mean a two-parter.
On the downside, the dominion war also shifted the writer's mindsets too much--and trek became more about shooting things and less about the characters when the next series came along. (The characters in DS9 were good, with interesting long-term growth, and with good interpersonal dynamics. The characters in Voyager were cardboard, poorly designed, poorly written, and with little knowledge of cadence. The good point in Voyager (hard to find them, but there) was Robert Picardo. (Who wasn't used terribly well in Stargate.))
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0A 0B 0C 0D 0E 0F 11
See?
The accompanying graphic is surreal for a moment, until you connect the dots. Hehem: "Illinois is near the equator."
For a moment, you think, like Pluto not being a planet any longer, someone has changed the rules of the game. Did we throw Mercator maps out the window? Are we using real maps now, that show the world as it is, and it's not really a globe at all? What is Illinois, really? And why is it at the equator?
-----
(Yes, continental drift. I know. But surreal, for that moment. And therefore fun.)
The major tech companies wanted the patent reform--they tend to be victims of spurious patent cases. Microsoft, CISCO, Intel, Etc... (And Time Warner) are more concerned about protecting themselves from being sued by a patent squatter than they are about most of their own patents. Also, this lets them hijack other people's ideas more easily.
The major drug companies didn't want the reform, because patents are their life blood. It will get harder for them to patent obvious changes to medicine, such as combining multiple medications in one pill. (Though in some cases they'd still get away with it, I'd imagine, if they can demonstrate that there's some kind of real innovation going on in the time-delay mechanism or something. Or at least they'll argue that...)
Censorship in the US works rather differently. Watch Good Night, and Good Luck or look for the interviews with ex-Fox reporters about Monsanto. The government here rarely censors directly, with the exception of things it claims fall under the rubrick of National Security. Instead, most censorship happens according to the interests of major corporations, and isn't government sponsored. A lot of things are also censored almost by default--third party candidates barred from presidential debates, for example. There's a tremendous amount of social, psychological, political, and financial inertia that--while not technically censorship--make it very difficult to spread information or viewpoints that don't conform to the norm. (And the norm, sadly, is generally addressed to the Lowest Common Denominator.)
The censorship in the US is subtle--and of a different kind, so that in a sense it's not really censorship at all. You can still stand on a street corner and talk to the stranger next to you and not worry much about being locked up. Even if the stranger's a cop, or a Fed, for that matter.
(We won't censor the messages, btw. We'll build an enormous super-secret database of them. Is that better or worse than explicit censorship?)
I didn't criticize the OLPC folks; I criticized those who respond "windows? Oh, dear!" to the project, who see the third world penetration of open source apps and operating systems as the important part of an initiative like OLPC.
P.S. Don't be mean.
P.P.S. Beagle described fantasy, in Tolkien's case at least, as "A green day's alternative to each days madness, here in a poisoned world." I prefer a less escapist approach--fantasy, in its best forms, is about one of two things (or both together)--(1) exploring the human condition, and (2) inspiring the ideal, exploring the potential nobility of man. Fantasy it a part of what teaches the dreamer to dream. In an oft-cynical world, that is a nontrivial thing.
1) I made no argument against technological leap-frogging.
2) I made no statement indicating that developing countries are homogenous; I indicated that there were bigger problems to worry about in the set of developing countries than what kind of operating system was in use on these laptops.
3) I didn't suggest the project was a bad idea--I criticized slashdot's response. Good news for nerds ought to include things like development economics more than we do here, and the way slashdot's groupthink issues a windows-is-terrible gut response--rather than saying `does this make sense?' or talking about the project itself--is quite narrowminded.
4) In fact, my point is more the opposite of patronizing. It's patronizing to assume linux is the answer for them just because it is for most of us.
5) Be polite.
"Those in Control" is basically an old-boy network in each party, which is influenced (in each case) by legal (and sometimes illegal) bribery. The members of this network also have some (limited, almost by definition) independent will of their own.
Also, I think they wouldn't like it if Mike Gravel got in, and he was on the stage... probably just allowed up there because he's a maverick they figure can never win, though. (Which he knows, of course.)
> is Linux in the developing world in trouble?"
Twelve hundred children an hour die, largely in said world, and mostly preventable deaths. (Source: UNICEF). That's things like malnutrition, lack of access to clean water, etc...
No offense meant, but can you imagine how much we shouldn't care what kind of operating system these countries are using? There are bigger problems to worry about.
> says that practical fusion power could now be 20 years off.
Twenty years off what? And are they light years or dog years?
There is little argument nearly so good against bigotry as the exposure of that bigotry in its naked form. You want to see something that will sicken, and make you realize how truly small-minded these people are? Visit the forums of white supremacists, anti-semites, or anyone that such a law would legitimately be used against.
Show people the worst malformed logic and ranting and hatred of that world, so they know better to check themselves of its beginnings.
systems like this which need to survive under massive data spikes ought to be designed to handle them--meaning that the software, rather than simply timing out after fifteen seconds, out to be acting more-or-less like TCP/IP: use exponential backoff. If it can't connect in 15 seconds, wait 30 and try again, then wait 60, then 120, etc... up to some maximum timeout value. The spacing gives turbotax's servers a chance to keep up (by spreading out the submissions over a longer period of time) and keeps the user from having to click "retry" for the next two hours.
They're still in a bad way if their servers can't handle the crunch before the deadline passes, but it would be better than the way it is now.
Yes, but someone who received the email (meaning someone named Richard) then leaked the email.
The leaker was arrogant/foolish enough to use his real name.
:)
Probably, at least. Granted, you'd think he was just being a Richard and it needn't have anything to do with his name, but think about--someone leaked MS's follow-up email to people named Richard. Might it have been the Richard we're looking for?
A week in jail is not a piddling time if someone hasn't been in before--for many, perhaps even most, the fact that they've been arrested at all is a big deal, and can go a long way towards encouraging someone to deal with his or her behavior.
Actually, come to think of it, I'm a bit curious about the research in the area... but I do hope there's some science involved in the decision about how long it makes sense to hold someone in order to encourage them to change, rather than just a judge's guess based on a politician's guideline.
Most states allow for emergency vehicles to violate standard traffic law--legally--in case of an emergency. The article is about ticketing policemen (or firemen) who violate the law when there isn't an emergency involved.
The law exists for a reason. Allowing someone to ignore it--particularly when that person is responsible for enforcing it--undermines its authority.
Period. They should not be exempted from any law, unless there is a compelling argument that exempting them from the law is in the public interest. And if that is the case, then the law ought to be amended. There should not be a double-standard.
He's pointing out that most of the psychological reassurances (the security blankets, we might ball them) that are presented to customers/consumers/flyers/etc... are just that--psychological reassurances.
We'd better be careful. This kid is dangerous. He could dismantle our entire society! Wait to see what happens when he points out that money is fictitious.
"The fruit stand is now closed."
Most. Surreal. Slashdot. Summary. Ever.
They have a copy of the internet! A COPY! How much of that do you think is copyrighted?
I would find this a lot less disingenuous if it weren't a second American tech company that were being investigated right off, rather than a company in a different market sector or a non-American company. This smacks too much of "We got money from Microsoft, so who else can we get it from?"
Of course, maybe they have worked against companies as large in other market sectors, or from other nations, and it simply doesn't make the news over here. But I'm skeptical. It seems too much like the state DA's visible money-grabbing that goes on in a lot of the US, to look good on the records of wanna-be politicians and bring extra money into state budgets that's been paid largely by the consumers in other states of the products or services of the company they're going after.
'twas outrage or exasperation counched in seeming disbelief. My naivete is limited to more useful topics, which I can't think of right now but which probably have something to do with soft fuzzy toys, shiny knick-knacks, or chocolate bunnies.
Oh, sorry: The National Debt. I meant the national credit card, which it effectively is.
(Although they should, certainly, be doing more about credit card debt than they are. Governments do have a responsibility to regulate capitalism, and many credit card issuers need to be seriously looked at. Usurious it the term, I believe.)
Are you kidding? Our Congress is investigating why google has made a change in its maps? And they're fishing for someone to start a political brawl with?
Don't we have... I don't know, something related to government services that they should be doing? Or, if it's going to be related to business, related to business that has a significant impact on consumers? Or poverty? Or taxes? Or services? Or the debt? We (as a nation) have a nine trillion dollar credit card debt, and we're worried about whether google's mapping decision was something we can get into a political scuffle about?
> it's just plain stupid to try to talk on the phone while driving. Period. Studies have conclusively demonstrated it,
I wanna be a stupidiologist when I grow up. Then I can do those studies!