Anyone who ses?s this tech coming to the linux world a bad thing is blinded by there own linux cult paranoia.
I hope I'm not paranoid if I say it's a mixed blessing. I see good points:
Increasing application base
Paving the road to portable applications
However, I also see bad points:
Less motivation to ensure portability
Closed source and expensive liscensing
Encouraging use of expensive, closed IDEs
I hope we don't see more developers moving excusively to a Win32 environment. The more developers are familiar with multiple environments, the better they can choose the right environment for the job. Does that make sense?
...linux is a collective piece of betaware...
Betaware? Now, Linux is still in development (much like Windows), but it's not in beta. The development progress for Linux and other open-source software is much more... um... open, than that of closed programs. You can download the development version of a program, but that's not the same as a beta version. "Beta" usually means that a final release hasn't been made, and that the software may still be prone to crashes and numerous bugs. As far as I can tell, Linux hasn't been in beta since... the 1.0 release.
...built on 30 year old tech...
That is to say, technology that's had three decades to prove it's worth, and grow to fill the needs presented to it. UNIX isn't on it's way out... not yet. In fact, I hear all the time about how Linux (at least one UNIX) usage is growing! It seems you're implying that by not being new, something is second-best. Did I misinterpret that?
...that is not suitable for most desktops.
This part is much more debatable than the last bits. Over it's three decades, UNIX hasn't penetrated very far into the desktop. That's changing now, however. As more people see a need for UNIX on the desktop, it will grow to be a good, useable system on the desktop, just as it's a very good, useable system on the server. Personally, I think Linux is doing just fine on my desktop- I like the control it lends me over my computer. Much more flexible and useable than Windows.
...unless they get more things like mainsoft catering to it, it?s going to burn out and die.
What are your goals? World domination, or will you settle for a system that _you_ can use? For now, I'll just settle for a system I can use, which I have right now. No Win32 implementation required. That may change, at which time I'll be part of the demand for this product- or it's competitors. I don't think the lack of a Windows emulator will cause Linux to whither away. It was, from the beginning, made to be a useable system, and doesn't need this to be useable. All they're doing is inceasing the useability. That's all good... except for the part about expensive licensing and closed source. If anything, that only serves to decrease useability.
I'm disappointed that ZDNet didn't mention WINE in their article. You'd think they'd make an effort to make a more complete report- they mentioned Bristol, which sounds like a slightly different project.
This almost reminds me of something I saw this summer... I worked a comapny which routinely uses SAMBA when deploying mixed UNIX/Windows networks for clients. We recieved plenty of advertising for a product that did exactly what SAMBA did- for a price, of course. One of the quotes in the brochure was supposedly from a CEO who said something along the lines of "Our projects are too valuable to trust to free software..."
We all shared a good laugh over that one. Who has experience with this? Is it a way better product than WINE? Or can we laugh at this, also?
I might be a bit more nervous about strapping myself in within a foot or so of thousands of little explosions per minute. And think of my children! What an evil parent I must be to position them within feet of gallons of highly explosive gasoline!
Not so much the gasoline and internal combustion that makes me nervous, but rather the number of accidents that occur every day. New technology is cool, old technology tends to be taken for granted; people don't always think responsibly.
On the whole, automobiles are pretty useful. If people just acted a little more responsibly, we eouldn't have nearly so many problems. I'm sure nanotech will have some problems, but that's no reason to shun it. Instead we should work out those problems and move ahead.
I'm not sure if I like the idea of incredibly tiny machines self-replicating..by themselves they probably don't have much individual intelligence, but as a collective..(or is this one of the aims of nanotechnology, to build `hive' computer minds?)
Is that a bit of a Frankenstein Complex I hear? Are you afraid of intelligence just because it's not human? Why is this a bad thing?
PI==3 by a state's legislature IS NOT a FALSE idea. This has happened before, and considering Kansas' silly choice, by analogy (extension/metaphor) it has happened AGAIN!
The point I'm about to make has been raised in this discussion already, and undoubtedly will be again, so I may be moderated down as "Redundant." However, I'm not sure you noticed it, so...
The decision can be interpreted (at least) two different ways.
They're trying to promote teaching of Creationism instead of Evolution, which seems awfully lame, and Judeo-Christian centric. Not something most people look for in a school, especially not a public one.
They don't think either should be required. This is way different from the first one; it allows the decision to filter down to a lower level. Do you see the distinction I'm trying to make? One way, they're telling people what to think; the other way, they're allowing people to make their own decisions. The Pi incident was of the former, while I'd like to think of the Kansas decision as being in the latter category. This way I can approve of it, instead of being disgusted by it.
Truth is a weak foundation. Mathematics is on no firmer ground than evolution. Godel and Tarski howed that mathematics isn't about truth, it's about logical relationships between statements. Your system is never any better than your axioms, and no finite set of axioms can ever suffice.
If, for whatever reason, some value x is no longer equal to itself, then everything we know about math (thus physics, chemistry, and anything applying to the natural laws of the universe) is thrown off. Now, I can't comprehend how this could be, but who's to say that there's no set of natural laws that holds together, while lacking that rule? Am I correctly interpreting what you said?
I'm not quite sure what you meant in the second paragraph. I think you're saying that both ideas (evolution/creation) can be useful in different situations?
The danger isn't in studying either evolution or creationism. It's in asserting that either is truth eternal or claiming that one necessarily negates the other.
*applause* I happen to live in Kansas (at least until I find a job I like elsewhere) and was very disappointed by the BOE. One more thing to add to the list of reasons to move out of the state. Not because of the decision they made, but rather the reasons behind it. I'd like to be free to pursue my education as I see fit (not that the decision applies to me, but if I were a student in Kansas' schools), whether that be evolution or creationism. I'd rather not be forced to study one or the other, but I would like to study both- of my own will. Actually, I'd also like to learn of other cultures' "creation stories." Judeo-Christians are so self-centered sometimes. Of course, so am I.:)
As soon as I get some money, perhaps I'll invest some of it in books regarding the issue. I have some Christian friends who like to recommend books to me, but I have yet to purchase any. Unfortunately, none of my other friends take much interest in the issue. Thus, I'm on my own to find literature taking the opposite stance.
I believe you should say "How does NT perform on NFS shares?" since NFS is the "native" UNIX method for sharing files. At least, it's most comparable to SMB shares.
You won't need BO2K. Just tell someone to load the new beta version of Windows- they'll be walking down the street, stop all of a sudden and fall down. A coule minutes later,after they reboot, they'll get up and go about their business.
Our computer labs are mostly NT, as well. However, virtually every server on campus runs Solaris. We've got one Linux file server in an engineering lab, where we triple boot workstations between DOS, NT, and RedHat. We're the only lab that does this, although I believe one of the CIS (Computing & Information Science) labs is considering moving to dual-boot Linux & NT. We do have a couple labs of Sun terminals, but they're never used by underclassmen.
What I find really amusing is that one of my professors uses Windows on his Laptop, but in class, when he hooks it up to the projector, he starts an X-Server and runs everything he needs for class off the UNIX servers!
Look, pretend for a second you are Bill G. You've got a ton of cash up the wazoo, you -really- like computers and spend all your time thinking up ways for technology to advance in forms like wearable computers...
Right. Now, I don't profess to know Mr. Gates personally, but I doubt you've got the right impression of him. I'm given to understand that he likes to win, not mess with computers.
About spending the entire day thinking up ways for technology to advance, well, I don't think he does that either. Instead, I'd think that he watches others for good ideas, processes those, and adds to them or changes things a bit until he can use them. What kind of ideas? Ideas that will make his company, Microsoft, larger and more powerful, and win him more fame and fortune.
My feeling is that anybody who has a genuine interest in technology- or, for that matter, any field- would not push a shoddy product as top-of-the-line.
He's going to go balls to the wall developing and OS that takes things to a new level, learning from Linux and the thousands of developers that work on it for free and stealing the ideas behind them all without the slightest repercussion...
That takes a lot of work. It took Linux 8 years to become as popular, feature-rich, and useable as it has, and I think Linus & Co. have had a few more resources than Microsoft- in terms of skilled, willing programmers, not in terms of cash, etc.
Now, I don't doubt the part about "stealing" from Linux (it's what open source is good for, after all), but it will take some time to build a stable, full-featured operating system from the ground up. More likely, Microsoft will keep building on what they've got- NT & DOS. When was the last time either of those was scrapped and re-written from scratch?
...he'll soon stop developing exclusively for the AOLuddites and other technophobes and work on an OS that everyone can use, one that doesn't crash, is cheap, is portable, and can win.
Uh-huh. Sure he (they) will. Don't forget, Microsoft makes money off support, as well. If they rolled out a product that worked perfectly off the shelf, was intuitive to use, and required little effort to work in a cross-platform environment, then they wouldn't have to offer support.
If I were in charge of a corporation whose goal was more to make money than to advance culture and knowledge, then I'd not be putting R&D into vapourware, I'd instead stay with what works- offering products that are "good enough" for most people, play on my "familiarity" (after all, everyone uses Microsoft!), and last, but not least, strike deals where I can to increase my exposure to people who are still learning their preferences.
Of course, both of these comments are off-topic... weren't we suposed to be discussing MS putting itself into universities?
Also, with Linux one can slip in a kernel module at any time. Is anything else comparable?
On NT, there's application aplenty that require a reboot. For some unfathomable reason, apps designed for MS-Windows tend to pack their own libraries that they like to stick in the system directories, then make you reboot before you can use the application.
Have you ever installed anything on Linux/UNIX that requires a reboot (besides a new kernel)?
Sure, I can see it now: we drop off a few thousand single-cell life forms on a turbulent, relatively new planet in some distant solar system. Then, thousands of thousands of millenia later, our unrecognizable (what will another three or four billion years do to us, especially since we can accelarate the pace of evolution?) descendants come by to pick up the new intelligence- "How ya doin', cuz?"
I see a different future, where we take three paths to understand life:
Genetic Engineering: we take what's already here, change it slightly, and see what happens.
Synthetic Life: what prompted this post. We make new, unique organisms. How might they fit into out biosphere?
Artificial Life: a la John Conway. It doesn't bear any kind of resemblence to what we know today, but how many of you saw the episode of Star Trek where Moriarti wanted off the holodeck? Take that to a different level; we can create organisms that aren't necessarily tied to matter.
It has nothing to do with supplanting God, or reducing his influence. If anything, it seems we're getting closer to him. Is "playing God" a bad thing? Perhaps we're just in training...
In much less than several billion years, we can find ways to create new races. If you're worried about corrupting Earth's biosphere, then we'll just have to find a way to travel between stars. I think we can do it, but perhaps I'm an unreasonable optimist.
On the other hand, the fact that this is Windows 2000 (a relatively new operating system) means there might not be as many known exploits out there as there would be otherwise.
Pardon me for butting in... what do you mean, Windows 2000 is a relatively new operating system??? Correct me if I'm wrong (please!) but isn't Win2k a.k.a. NT 5? I'm pretty sure that it's "built on NT technology" (which is redundant, given what NT stands for, but that's okay, this is MS). What does this mean? Windows 2000 is not new, it's using a kernel that's been around for several years (I'm sure NT is at least as old as Linux, but I don't know, can anybody help me out here?). Of course, it has supposedly been improved over time, but I'm not sure...
Like anything that uses Tcl/Tk. I use the free version of MI/X at work to run apps off my home machine. Any program that uses Tcl/Tk has indecipherable text. Other than that, I've not had a single problem with it, but I wish it had a better window manager than twm. I can run one (i.e. Enlightenment) off my home machine, but it's a lot slower then. It would be much better to have a real window manager ported to Win32 for use with PC X-servers. Although, I suppose it wouldn't be cross-compatible between servers from different manufacturers. Ah, well, Windows sucks anyway. I should just put Linux on my work machine, too (I wonder if my boss would have a fit...?).
How about encouraging someone slightly more mainstream to use the soapbox as well? The tit-for-tat opinions would provide a more balanced view and we might start attracting the type of well considered attention (as opposed to the screaming-penguins) that will drive Linux further into the market and more programmers into the Linux world...
I don't know that I'd necessarily emphasize "mainstream," but other than that, I'm all for a more diverse selection of writers! It seems as though most every Feature or Review on Slashdot nowadays is authored by Jon Kats. I don't think he's a particularly unbalanced individual (not any more so than the rest of us). I just think he's the most visible (ergo most praised and hated) writer featured on Slashdot.
If I thought I could write an interesting, informative piece about "news for nerds" I'd be trying my best to stuff Rob's mailbox with my deathless prose. Unfortunately (or fortunately as the case may be) I don't think much of my writing/researching skill and am somewhat too timid yet to write a feature for Slashdot. As for anyone else considering it [writing], I say "do it!" As soon as I can rack up the courage to be shot down for my poor writing skill, I'll be joining the ranks.
BTW, I've observed Katz as a factually sloppy, intellectually dishonest fruitcake with delusions of relevance. The fact that Rob & Hemos continue to foist this knothead's opinions on us as 'features' might be a sign that Slashdot isn't about community discussion but is becoming increasingly about a codified agenda.
I disagree. I think it's more like Kats is just about the only material available to post. Of course, I could be wrong. How many articles have you written that have been rejected by Rob/Hemos due to their codified agenda?
This isn't what would scare me. Hitler sounds like he had the potential to be a really cool guy. The problem I see is that someone might try to raise 1000 Hitlers.
Nature vs. Nurture... I think that Nature is what gives us potential; Nurture is what focuses us on a particular path. As in, you're born (and even clones are born, today anyway) to be any of a million or billion possible individuals. You're nurtured to be exactly one of these.
Hitler's genes didn't lead the Nazi to war- it was his personality.
Nature isn't like a sculpture, or painting. It's not a fixed thing that you can observe without influencing. It's a constantly changing thing, a strange mix of balance and imbalance, an equilibrium of change.
Um, what he said. I agree completely. Ever hear of a fellow named Heisenberg? He came up with this neat idea that You can't observe something without changing it. (paraphrased).
He was talking about particles at the time, but I think it applies to more than quantum theory. We're not just oberving Earth, though, we're part of it. What's done is done, and until somebody finds a way to affect the past, we're stuck in the now.
Technology isn't going to go away. Especially not something that attracts as much attention as cloning. I think the best we can hope to do is use it responsibly. What, I ask, is more responsible than cleaning up your own mess? If we don't succeed this time, then somebody will try again, somewhere else, with another species. You can count on it. As someone pointed out earlier, Australia's done fine without the bird for years. So if this attempt fails, we won't have done any terrible damage.
If it succeeds, then we know more about the technology. The next time we use it, we'll know more about just what we're doing. We'll learn more about how species integrate into an ecosystem.
"Whoops! That SCSI controller died. Better go buy a new CPU for that server..."
Exactly what I'm thinking. Hmm, well, that 4MB video card that came with my computer isn't good enough for Quake 3. I plan to go out and buy a TNT2 Ultra. But in this brave new world of integration, I'd have to get a PIII-550 (do you really think they'd stick a TNT2 on anything less?), a SB-Live!, an even newer (but not much different) 10/100 card... forget it. After buying my new PCOAC, I don't have enough to get Q3.
I doubt this will ever come to servers, though. Graphics and sound (the to big components of integration right now) aren't of much use on a server. I think that most administrators would stay away from integrated controllers, as well- for just the reason you mention.
Personally, I'd never, ever, get integrated components on a motherboard. I wouldn't trust the makers of my motherboard with making my video- I'd rather they spend that time on improving the bus architecture (sp?). I like being able to take the old SB16 ISA card (which I think is plenty good sound) from my old 486 and stick it into the new bare-bones K6-2 350 I just got. It's the same reason I dislike laptops- no facility for upgrading (or rather, very little).
Next thing you know, we'll be getting computers with the case welded shut. Sorry, you can't get inside this box. Oh, you want better video? Well, you can get this new computer for only $500. Nope, no getting a new video card for $150. After that, you'll get a solid-state black box with a slot for whatever removable media is the standard. Or better yet, just stick it on the bottom of the monitor! That way, you can't even get that 17" you've had your eye on without also getting that extra baggage they call "integration."
I hope this day never, ever, comes. I'll fight this kind of "integration" to the end. It's almost like MS "integrating" IE into Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope I'm not paranoid if I say it's a mixed blessing. I see good points:
- Increasing application base
- Paving the road to portable applications
However, I also see bad points:- Less motivation to ensure portability
- Closed source and expensive liscensing
- Encouraging use of expensive, closed IDEs
I hope we don't see more developers moving excusively to a Win32 environment. The more developers are familiar with multiple environments, the better they can choose the right environment for the job. Does that make sense?Betaware? Now, Linux is still in development (much like Windows), but it's not in beta. The development progress for Linux and other open-source software is much more... um... open, than that of closed programs. You can download the development version of a program, but that's not the same as a beta version. "Beta" usually means that a final release hasn't been made, and that the software may still be prone to crashes and numerous bugs. As far as I can tell, Linux hasn't been in beta since... the 1.0 release.
That is to say, technology that's had three decades to prove it's worth, and grow to fill the needs presented to it. UNIX isn't on it's way out... not yet. In fact, I hear all the time about how Linux (at least one UNIX) usage is growing! It seems you're implying that by not being new, something is second-best. Did I misinterpret that?
This part is much more debatable than the last bits. Over it's three decades, UNIX hasn't penetrated very far into the desktop. That's changing now, however. As more people see a need for UNIX on the desktop, it will grow to be a good, useable system on the desktop, just as it's a very good, useable system on the server. Personally, I think Linux is doing just fine on my desktop- I like the control it lends me over my computer. Much more flexible and useable than Windows.
What are your goals? World domination, or will you settle for a system that _you_ can use? For now, I'll just settle for a system I can use, which I have right now. No Win32 implementation required. That may change, at which time I'll be part of the demand for this product- or it's competitors. I don't think the lack of a Windows emulator will cause Linux to whither away. It was, from the beginning, made to be a useable system, and doesn't need this to be useable. All they're doing is inceasing the useability. That's all good... except for the part about expensive licensing and closed source. If anything, that only serves to decrease useability.
I'm disappointed that ZDNet didn't mention WINE in their article. You'd think they'd make an effort to make a more complete report- they mentioned Bristol, which sounds like a slightly different project.
This almost reminds me of something I saw this summer... I worked a comapny which routinely uses SAMBA when deploying mixed UNIX/Windows networks for clients. We recieved plenty of advertising for a product that did exactly what SAMBA did- for a price, of course. One of the quotes in the brochure was supposedly from a CEO who said something along the lines of "Our projects are too valuable to trust to free software..."
We all shared a good laugh over that one. Who has experience with this? Is it a way better product than WINE? Or can we laugh at this, also?
Not so much the gasoline and internal combustion that makes me nervous, but rather the number of accidents that occur every day. New technology is cool, old technology tends to be taken for granted; people don't always think responsibly.
On the whole, automobiles are pretty useful. If people just acted a little more responsibly, we eouldn't have nearly so many problems. I'm sure nanotech will have some problems, but that's no reason to shun it. Instead we should work out those problems and move ahead.
Is that a bit of a Frankenstein Complex I hear? Are you afraid of intelligence just because it's not human? Why is this a bad thing?
I'd have to disagree with you on this one.
The point I'm about to make has been raised in this discussion already, and undoubtedly will be again, so I may be moderated down as "Redundant." However, I'm not sure you noticed it, so...
The decision can be interpreted (at least) two different ways.
They're trying to promote teaching of Creationism instead of Evolution, which seems awfully lame, and Judeo-Christian centric. Not something most people look for in a school, especially not a public one.
They don't think either should be required. This is way different from the first one; it allows the decision to filter down to a lower level. Do you see the distinction I'm trying to make? One way, they're telling people what to think; the other way, they're allowing people to make their own decisions. The Pi incident was of the former, while I'd like to think of the Kansas decision as being in the latter category. This way I can approve of it, instead of being disgusted by it.
If, for whatever reason, some value x is no longer equal to itself, then everything we know about math (thus physics, chemistry, and anything applying to the natural laws of the universe) is thrown off. Now, I can't comprehend how this could be, but who's to say that there's no set of natural laws that holds together, while lacking that rule? Am I correctly interpreting what you said?
I'm not quite sure what you meant in the second paragraph. I think you're saying that both ideas (evolution/creation) can be useful in different situations?
*applause* I happen to live in Kansas (at least until I find a job I like elsewhere) and was very disappointed by the BOE. One more thing to add to the list of reasons to move out of the state. Not because of the decision they made, but rather the reasons behind it. I'd like to be free to pursue my education as I see fit (not that the decision applies to me, but if I were a student in Kansas' schools), whether that be evolution or creationism. I'd rather not be forced to study one or the other, but I would like to study both- of my own will. Actually, I'd also like to learn of other cultures' "creation stories." Judeo-Christians are so self-centered sometimes. Of course, so am I. :)
As soon as I get some money, perhaps I'll invest some of it in books regarding the issue. I have some Christian friends who like to recommend books to me, but I have yet to purchase any. Unfortunately, none of my other friends take much interest in the issue. Thus, I'm on my own to find literature taking the opposite stance.
I believe you should say "How does NT perform on NFS shares?" since NFS is the "native" UNIX method for sharing files. At least, it's most comparable to SMB shares.
BO2K? That only works in Windows... oh, I see.
You won't need BO2K. Just tell someone to load the new beta version of Windows- they'll be walking down the street, stop all of a sudden and fall down. A coule minutes later,after they reboot, they'll get up and go about their business.
Now that would be a pain in the ass.
Our computer labs are mostly NT, as well. However, virtually every server on campus runs Solaris. We've got one Linux file server in an engineering lab, where we triple boot workstations between DOS, NT, and RedHat. We're the only lab that does this, although I believe one of the CIS (Computing & Information Science) labs is considering moving to dual-boot Linux & NT. We do have a couple labs of Sun terminals, but they're never used by underclassmen.
What I find really amusing is that one of my professors uses Windows on his Laptop, but in class, when he hooks it up to the projector, he starts an X-Server and runs everything he needs for class off the UNIX servers!
Right. Now, I don't profess to know Mr. Gates personally, but I doubt you've got the right impression of him. I'm given to understand that he likes to win, not mess with computers.
About spending the entire day thinking up ways for technology to advance, well, I don't think he does that either. Instead, I'd think that he watches others for good ideas, processes those, and adds to them or changes things a bit until he can use them. What kind of ideas? Ideas that will make his company, Microsoft, larger and more powerful, and win him more fame and fortune.
My feeling is that anybody who has a genuine interest in technology- or, for that matter, any field- would not push a shoddy product as top-of-the-line.
That takes a lot of work. It took Linux 8 years to become as popular, feature-rich, and useable as it has, and I think Linus & Co. have had a few more resources than Microsoft- in terms of skilled, willing programmers, not in terms of cash, etc.
Now, I don't doubt the part about "stealing" from Linux (it's what open source is good for, after all), but it will take some time to build a stable, full-featured operating system from the ground up. More likely, Microsoft will keep building on what they've got- NT & DOS. When was the last time either of those was scrapped and re-written from scratch?
Uh-huh. Sure he (they) will. Don't forget, Microsoft makes money off support, as well. If they rolled out a product that worked perfectly off the shelf, was intuitive to use, and required little effort to work in a cross-platform environment, then they wouldn't have to offer support.
If I were in charge of a corporation whose goal was more to make money than to advance culture and knowledge, then I'd not be putting R&D into vapourware, I'd instead stay with what works- offering products that are "good enough" for most people, play on my "familiarity" (after all, everyone uses Microsoft!), and last, but not least, strike deals where I can to increase my exposure to people who are still learning their preferences.
Of course, both of these comments are off-topic... weren't we suposed to be discussing MS putting itself into universities?
Also, with Linux one can slip in a kernel module at any time. Is anything else comparable?
On NT, there's application aplenty that require a reboot. For some unfathomable reason, apps designed for MS-Windows tend to pack their own libraries that they like to stick in the system directories, then make you reboot before you can use the application.
Have you ever installed anything on Linux/UNIX that requires a reboot (besides a new kernel)?
Sure, I can see it now: we drop off a few thousand single-cell life forms on a turbulent, relatively new planet in some distant solar system. Then, thousands of thousands of millenia later, our unrecognizable (what will another three or four billion years do to us, especially since we can accelarate the pace of evolution?) descendants come by to pick up the new intelligence-
"How ya doin', cuz?"
I see a different future, where we take three paths to understand life:
Genetic Engineering: we take what's already here, change it slightly, and see what happens.
Synthetic Life: what prompted this post. We make new, unique organisms. How might they fit into out biosphere?
Artificial Life: a la John Conway. It doesn't bear any kind of resemblence to what we know today, but how many of you saw the episode of Star Trek where Moriarti wanted off the holodeck? Take that to a different level; we can create organisms that aren't necessarily tied to matter.
It has nothing to do with supplanting God, or reducing his influence. If anything, it seems we're getting closer to him. Is "playing God" a bad thing? Perhaps we're just in training...
In much less than several billion years, we can find ways to create new races. If you're worried about corrupting Earth's biosphere, then we'll just have to find a way to travel between stars. I think we can do it, but perhaps I'm an unreasonable optimist.
Pardon me for butting in... what do you mean, Windows 2000 is a relatively new operating system??? Correct me if I'm wrong (please!) but isn't Win2k a.k.a. NT 5? I'm pretty sure that it's "built on NT technology" (which is redundant, given what NT stands for, but that's okay, this is MS). What does this mean? Windows 2000 is not new, it's using a kernel that's been around for several years (I'm sure NT is at least as old as Linux, but I don't know, can anybody help me out here?). Of course, it has supposedly been improved over time, but I'm not sure...
Like anything that uses Tcl/Tk. I use the free version of MI/X at work to run apps off my home machine. Any program that uses Tcl/Tk has indecipherable text. Other than that, I've not had a single problem with it, but I wish it had a better window manager than twm. I can run one (i.e. Enlightenment) off my home machine, but it's a lot slower then. It would be much better to have a real window manager ported to Win32 for use with PC X-servers. Although, I suppose it wouldn't be cross-compatible between servers from different manufacturers. Ah, well, Windows sucks anyway. I should just put Linux on my work machine, too (I wonder if my boss would have a fit...?).
I don't know that I'd necessarily emphasize "mainstream," but other than that, I'm all for a more diverse selection of writers! It seems as though most every Feature or Review on Slashdot nowadays is authored by Jon Kats. I don't think he's a particularly unbalanced individual (not any more so than the rest of us). I just think he's the most visible (ergo most praised and hated) writer featured on Slashdot.
If I thought I could write an interesting, informative piece about "news for nerds" I'd be trying my best to stuff Rob's mailbox with my deathless prose. Unfortunately (or fortunately as the case may be) I don't think much of my writing/researching skill and am somewhat too timid yet to write a feature for Slashdot. As for anyone else considering it [writing], I say "do it!" As soon as I can rack up the courage to be shot down for my poor writing skill, I'll be joining the ranks.
I disagree. I think it's more like Kats is just about the only material available to post. Of course, I could be wrong. How many articles have you written that have been rejected by Rob/Hemos due to their codified agenda?
Well, using normal e-mail might be pretty dumb. On the other hand, what if they used PGP? Or some other encryption scheme?
I wonder if you could encrypt the car when you send it by email...?
-MattThis isn't what would scare me. Hitler sounds like he had the potential to be a really cool guy. The problem I see is that someone might try to raise 1000 Hitlers.
Nature vs. Nurture... I think that Nature is what gives us potential; Nurture is what focuses us on a particular path. As in, you're born (and even clones are born, today anyway) to be any of a million or billion possible individuals. You're nurtured to be exactly one of these.
Hitler's genes didn't lead the Nazi to war- it was his personality.
Um, what he said. I agree completely. Ever hear of a fellow named Heisenberg? He came up with this neat idea that You can't observe something without changing it. (paraphrased).
He was talking about particles at the time, but I think it applies to more than quantum theory. We're not just oberving Earth, though, we're part of it. What's done is done, and until somebody finds a way to affect the past, we're stuck in the now.
Technology isn't going to go away. Especially not something that attracts as much attention as cloning. I think the best we can hope to do is use it responsibly. What, I ask, is more responsible than cleaning up your own mess? If we don't succeed this time, then somebody will try again, somewhere else, with another species. You can count on it.
As someone pointed out earlier, Australia's done fine without the bird for years. So if this attempt fails, we won't have done any terrible damage.
If it succeeds, then we know more about the technology. The next time we use it, we'll know more about just what we're doing. We'll learn more about how species integrate into an ecosystem.
How is this a bad thing?
Exactly what I'm thinking. Hmm, well, that 4MB video card that came with my computer isn't good enough for Quake 3. I plan to go out and buy a TNT2 Ultra. But in this brave new world of integration, I'd have to get a PIII-550 (do you really think they'd stick a TNT2 on anything less?), a SB-Live!, an even newer (but not much different) 10/100 card... forget it. After buying my new PCOAC, I don't have enough to get Q3.
I doubt this will ever come to servers, though. Graphics and sound (the to big components of integration right now) aren't of much use on a server. I think that most administrators would stay away from integrated controllers, as well- for just the reason you mention.
Personally, I'd never, ever, get integrated components on a motherboard. I wouldn't trust the makers of my motherboard with making my video- I'd rather they spend that time on improving the bus architecture (sp?). I like being able to take the old SB16 ISA card (which I think is plenty good sound) from my old 486 and stick it into the new bare-bones K6-2 350 I just got. It's the same reason I dislike laptops- no facility for upgrading (or rather, very little).
Next thing you know, we'll be getting computers with the case welded shut. Sorry, you can't get inside this box. Oh, you want better video? Well, you can get this new computer for only $500. Nope, no getting a new video card for $150. After that, you'll get a solid-state black box with a slot for whatever removable media is the standard. Or better yet, just stick it on the bottom of the monitor! That way, you can't even get that 17" you've had your eye on without also getting that extra baggage they call "integration."
I hope this day never, ever, comes. I'll fight this kind of "integration" to the end. It's almost like MS "integrating" IE into Windows.
-Matt Stegmanmas9483@ksu.edu