America's not really considering switching to IPv6. We just want places like China, Korea, and Russia to switch to IPv6, and then we can filter SPAM that much more easily. Just block all mail from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx... which would work great, unless you want email from somebody in China.
Now, if it could file patents and lawsuits, it would be ready to enter today's world of technology.
Oh, snap!
the system, dubbed the "Robot Scientist" by its creators,
These guys invent possibly the most creative computer setup so far and this is their title for it?
This seems especially true when the actual name should be "Robot Research Assistant". Yes, this thing will do many of the things that biology students would do, but that spoils so many things. First of all, they say that the machine is designed to follow the rules, and that's the very problem, and its greatest limitation. A true scientist is not going to be limited in this particular manner, rather feel free to work outside of the rules. This robot will be bound to some universe of rules and principles and not be free to discover something new. I.e. the "Robot Scientist" would prove time and again (perhaps in different manners) that Newtonian gravity was correct, but would be unable to theorize that quantum physics might exist. It took humans to figure that out.
And the other problem is that by having robots take care of many of these experiments you are destroying one of the most valuable aspects of the educational process. Namely, allowing students to design, conduct, and analyze their own experiments. When I go to college and have to program an AI for Othello (something that has been done many times before), I don't do it to trailblaze, but to develop my programming ability. Likewise, when these biology students are running these experiments and conducting these tests, they are supposed to be gaining knowledge and experience regarding that nature of biology and experimentation. And likewise, since many of these students work for free (or little, or credit-hours), I don't really see a cost advantage (unless corporations... but let's not think of that).
It's cool, but I don't know what's going to happen as a result of it.
With all the free time, and freed resources, animators and Disney execs can watch Miyazaki's work. Spirited Away was marvelous.
Of course, you could make the argument that Disney owns Miramax which licenses the American releases of Miyazaki's work, but does Disney *really* know about his work?
Now we know they have no intention of releasing passengers safely, so you will die if you let them do what they want. Passengers will fight back, because if they fight back, the odds are still better that they'll survive.
This is horrible news for the run-of-the-mill non-martyr hijackers who just want to scare some people for a couple of hours and get their million bucks, with no real intent of hurting anybody. Has anybody thought of them?
In a related story, many national governments have commented that horses are "long due for extinction" as they have "overstayed their welcome". Certainly, with the advent of the automobile, the utility of horses was much diminished, and now with another natural, stronger, and less invasive glue source, horses have simply become "useless in our society".
Hey, how about something every other game uses as a "standard": once you complete a mission (or the game) you get to play whichever mission you want.
I remember finishing (or my roommate finishing) a really fun mission only to be prevented from replaying the mission, unless I go through the whole game all over.
I mean, I don't think it'd be too tough, and it would do a lot to making me want to pop it back into the PlayStation.
Yeah, I think the article makes some serious presumptions about the technology awareness of its readers. As a result we see all the silliness about FTP being primarily a piracy protocol (God forbid anybody should use it to backup personal files, or transmit documents or whatever!). And likewise the article makes the Internet appear to be an enigmatic and fearsome place, with much a life of its own. The internet's just like the mafia where nobody knows what's going on and people are brought in and killed on a whim! Be afraid! I think the article is just pandering to the sensibilities of its constituent (the ordinary Kazaa user, a Hollywood somebody-or-another, whatever).
Kind of reminds me of a recent Wired cover proclaiming "Amazon's secret plan to turn books into bits". Secret plan? You can hardly navigate Amazon without being assaulted by the "Look inside" (a different feature, yes, because those pages are scanned and not searchable), but my point is that I don't think it's such a big secret on account Bezos wants to advertise this to draw customers. Wired was just trying to make technology seem more mysterious and greater than perhaps it is. Looks like it's the same with the LA Times.
Well, I guess the "God forbid" *is* sort of a jab at how Crystal Pepsi seems like it shouldn't be decently discussed. I actually thought Crystal Pepsi was cool, and was enthralled by it (of course, I was in 4th grade or so at the time), but I do think it tasted a little different.
I think mostly I was looking for an example of something that noticeably failed or bankrupted itself, but which may have had significant support or fans (not that this is Linux's fate). I could possibly have used the Sega Dreamcast (which I hear was pretty cool, but just didn't catch). Just the first thing I came up with.
I am an American also, but I agree that if an American (person, even) is faced with something they need but have no clue about they are inclined to act like sheep. I am this way with cars, and if mechanics had a forum, they'd likely be poking at it right now. Given that you don't have a clue, but you need to make a decision, well:
1) Go with what everybody else is using (Windows)
2) Use what's prettiest (Windows)
3) Go with what's got more money (...)
4) Go where the lawyers are (...) ...
and the list continues with options except for "Go with the better product" because these things are easier to determine (it's easier to determine the prettier or more popular product than the superior one).
I agree with you in some respects, but IP law is tough. As you (and anybody on slashdot) would probably agree, it's sometimes difficult to justify patents on things that are "trivial". I mean, it would upset pretty many people if somebody patented "communal location for the preparation, sale and consumption of various food products" (though maybe I'll look into that patent), yet Amazon can apparently patent "One-Click Shopping".
The fact is that the TimeWarp is something that I've (and many others, I'm sure) have done for a while, now. The TimeWarp is simply recording something on the VCR while you watch something on the TV. I've done that dozens of times (granted TiVo does it without a cumbersome tape and that obnoxious whirring). I do grant that the TrickPlay is pretty savvy, being able to manipulate things in real time, but I come from the camp that you shouldn't be able to patent ideas, but things. I don't think you should patent a method to clip fingernails, but a particular design of fingernail clipper.
It doesn't specifically say if EchoStar imitates the feature or the technology. But I personally would support EchoStar if they use the feature (implemented perhaps differently) and support TiVo if EchoStar just ripped off the technology about verbatim.
Additionally, the popularity of a product that has piss-poor standards support is degrading the whole internet. Now I get script errors all the time when surfing web pages and everything, and who knows what the hell would be going on with IE on these pages. Perhaps violating some of these standards isn't a big deal all the time, but that doesn't mean that our software (especially the "premier" software) shouldn't be the precise model of these standards.
Some would say that as long as you can look at your web page there's no problem, but the standards are there for a reason, be it modularity (not everybody uses IE, after all) or upgradeability, or readability or whatever, and the fact that IE doesn't rigorously obey these would seemingly slow the growth and progress and integration on the online community.
All right, that's enough ranting, but the point is that what another person chooses to buy (or use, for free) does have a significant impact on what everybody else uses.
There's a reason, for example, why there are whole shelves dedicated to Britney Spears at Best Buy, whether you like her (music) or not.
If someone doesn't run Linux, that's no skin off anyone's back but their own. Let them pay for their poor choice and move on with your life.
Yes, but it does impact other users. IF Windows is inferior (er... hypothetically, let's pretend) well, they've managed to hype and market and move an inferior product, garnering billions of dollars in the process. All of this is money that could be going into Linux and OSS for development. I'm not saying we should capitalize and proprietarize Linux, but Bill Gates is buying islands and building mansions (and stocking schools with Windows boxes) with money that could be used to develop a cheaper kernel into something more secure, usable, or flashy (or whatever). Hell, there'd probably be plenty to get the schools even MORE, BETTER computers running a free and communally supported OS.
Let's say (God forbid) that you really loved Crystal Pepsi. You can buy it all you want and drink it and love it, but if nobody else buys it, the product will be discontinued and you'll end up losing a product you enjoyed because the market moved that way. Yeah, it's the way of the world, and that economics and free enterprise, but that doesn't mean we won't lose a potentially better product in the process.
... and in the commercials for the "Pepsi Challenge" with a blind taste-test, I see that everybody who participated (including Sammy Sosa) preferred Pepsi.
Bombay Beats Washington, D.C. from the only-a-matter-of-time dept.
Dukael_Mikakis write "The inevitable has happened. Americans have now resorted to outsourcing their political positions to India, making Bombay (or 'Mumbai', the new Washington, D.C. A proponent was cited, saying, 'Most politicians are out of touch with their constituents anyway, so whether they're in D.C. or by the Indian Sea, it probably won't have too much of an impact' in response to concerns over the responsiveness of Indian politicians.
'And, as a cost-cutting measure, it only makes sense,' the same source continued, 'because Indian politicians are corrupt for substantially less money than their American counterparts. And, while Americans are no slouches, Indian politicians are very familiar with rolling over at a corporate beck and call. This is a glorious achievement for American business.'
Opponents have also raised national security concerns over having an Indian president operating out of India, but these were also dismissed. 'Indians are loyal, hard-working, and will only be corrupt to the advantage of America. They wouldn't possibly shirk their duties. And with today's communication technology, it will almost be as if the politicians are in our living rooms. Trust me, there is nothing to worry about, unless you are an American politician.'
Exxon and Halliburton executives seemed enthusiastic about the idea, saying, 'I wonder if they've got much oil.'"
I don't like the idea of Yahoo! storing all this data in the first place. How do I know that they won't sell this data to marketers? (Most privacy policies are bullshit.) Or give it to government officials looking for terrorists and political opponents and the such?
Yeah, if Yahoo starts doing all this we might end up with another google.
When my dad grew up (b 1944), every hardware store and mass merchant sold guns and ammunition freely. Kids grew up with guns all around, got their own rifles at a young age, hunted after school, shot rats at the dump, you get the idea - they were everywhere. How many mass shootings occurred then?
Well, I would hate to come off as some conservative and agree, but I think I agree. There has been an "awakening" as to the danger and (now) unnecessity of guns. People increasingly don't need guns (because they don't need to hunt for food any longer) and guns have shifted from a tool to a sort of taboo. When guns (or drugs or sex or anything) are everything they lose their interest and appeal and perhaps even become commonplace. Just go to Amsterdam where the locals don't seem to bat an eye around such sinful items (in fact, those drooling in the Red Light District are likely -- American -- tourists -- college kids). Not to say that inundating our society with these vices is a solution because in Amsterdam you'll find guys on the street offering you any kind of hard drug imaginable, but perhaps the Dutch are better equipped to decide not to use such things. Perhaps if hammers weren't so useful and were banned because they were dangerous we would all be ranting and raving about the hammer problem, and Hammer Control would be a banner political issue.
While I couldn't tell you how many mass shootings were going on back then (it's tough to verify because of selective history, less media presence, among other factors) but I do imagine there were fewer, and this is because children were raised knowing how to handle guns and of the risks and everything. It wasn't suddenly interesting to stumble upon a gun, because you see them all over.
The irony (and perhaps this is a stretch) is that maybe these violent games are actually doing the reverse of what all these curmudgeons claim. Perhaps these games are giving our children some exposure to guns and sex and such things in a manner that is less harmful. These games typically don't make and secrets out of what guns do and everything, and many kids can probably get some sort of inkling that guns do kill people because these guns do kill people in the games.
But this is a difficult side to defend also because these kids also don't see any direct consequences of their actions. Only pixels are getting shot up in GTA, much different from actual guns.
I think it comes down to two things:
1) You have people trying to rationalize and allocate the blame for the horrible things that happen. A shooting occurs and we scramble to explain why it occurred. But this is fallacy. I've played such games and I have no (little) inclination towards violence, and no intent on ever handling a gun (especially any of the sorts in these games). I'm sure the case is the same for many of you. Likewise, there are the most violent people who've never played a violent game (or watched a violent movie or anything in their lives). There was violence before video games in fact (and possibly even more violence).
2) And the consensus seems to be (rightly so) that it's all about the parenting. If a parent screws up then these games could very well trigger something violent within a child and if a parent raises their children properly, the kids should be able to play such games responsibly. I don't doubt that tens of thousands of kids have played these games without any major incident. You can't blame Rockstar for triggering moral deficiency in children just as you can't blame a pornographer or an author or anybody for the moral deficiencies it incites in another. Free speech is free speech. The rest is accountability.
I don't know, but it seemed like to me that Microsoft was sort of bailing on its old product lines, with the more infrequent service packs and everything (it seemed like they were trying to grow and brach out with digital watches and iLoos and video game systems -- and let us not forget Longhorn). Of course, it does take a little competition to force some support for its OS and web browser.
Of course I have the standard sorts of issues with vulnerability and everything else (this is normal), but from a user endpoint it seems like they are getting rid of the savvy tech user demographic. Microsoft seems to be trying to form itself into the corporate solution, and ignoring those users who know what they are doing.
Why, for instance, do they still insist on making Windows so bulky and intrusive? With good ol' Linux you get to pick and choose your packages. And what does get me is how outdated IE is. Of course no pop-up blocker, and then the plug-in community seems all but invisible (is it propietary? Must google pay or something of the like to have a google toolbar?), while I can run Firebird on minimal hard disk with plug-ins to support mouse gestures, blocking of colors, images, java, flash, and who knows what else is out there.
But then it seems like Microsoft is all but waving their hands at us in resignation. Microsoft once again proves that it has no interest in the more informed, more loyal customer and is going for the easy buck (at least until some other company -- Microsoft release 2.0 -- comes along).
I think maybe you're being more than a little unfair in it all. While it's very likely that the whole categorization and whatever that these alternate search engines use are going to slow the system down versus standard google, I think you're comparing apples to oranges. Or rather a Civic to a Viper.
I don't think that Vivisimo would have as much raw computing power and as refined a Linux farm as google. Remember that google's been around for a while, and is Stanford-backed and so it's got a big engine under it's hood. What you should compare would be Vivisimo's performance if it had google's resources. If the times are comparable, but the concept parsing really improves the categorization of results (sort of like google groups, but with page searches) then you're onto something. If the algorithm is, any way you code it, a resource hog, then maybe it's not all we think it is.
So what I'm saying is give Vivisimo a huge bank of distributed Linux servers and Terabytes of storage space and lookup tables and a refined page-rank or whatever (I'm assuming a Page-Rank-esque algorithm would still be useful within groups), and then see how Vivisimo holds up.
And additionally, I love all the criticism about the user this and the user that and computer illiteracy and everything. You can rant and rave all you want about how users should be educated and everything, but the point is that people can't always know everything about computers. If a person doesn't know to quote search or use "+" and "-" that's reprehensible, yes, but that won't stop companies like Vivisimo or Grokker from refining such things.
In fact, recognizing the very fact that many people couldn't hack their way out of a command prompt was the very thing that made Microsoft (and Apple) very huge companies. Can I get around in a Linux command prompt? Yeah. Are others willing to pay money so that they don't have to? Yeah.
Can I google reasonably effectively? Yeah. Would others switch to another search engine that does the refinement for them (and they don't even have to learn how)? I think they would.
And finally, the branding of "google" into a dictionary word does give it clout, but it sort of makes the brand generic also. I could buy "Puffs" or some generic brand of facial tissue and call it "Kleenex" without a thought. I'm sure it helps, but there are ways in which it could backfire.
But I guess my point is, never underestimate anybody's desire not to have to learn anything, or do extra work. You'll get very rich if you capitalize on that.
In many cases, the way that government works is that the budget-busters will wnd up getting more funding (despite being called to make cuts and everything). This is especially true if you're facing "essential" government expenditures such as the military (notorious for paying $100 for toilet seats and such). It would simply be too difficult for any politician to justify slashing funds to a military at its budgetary "capacity", especially these days, and this is why the Army is giving Microsoft huge and (in my opinion) bloated contracts, so that when they need fighter jets or nukes they can say, "See we're operating at capacity, and you can't seriously *not* give us funding, right?"
It's the first trick in the bureaucratic hnadbook: spending money makes you look busy so that you can get more money and look even busier. Government agencies are like parasites that just consume as much as they can and continue to consume more (not that we don't need these agencies, per se).
This is why a giant surplus was effectively erased by Bush as a result of a substantial wealthy-heavy tax cut and exorbitant funding on this corporate-sponsored war effort.
Call it my paranoia. But in a word, open source would be great for our (and any government), but open source isn't precisely what governments want. I think they are looking more for the happy median where they can still break the bank a bit, without becoming too bloated. It's like walking the fine line between losing funding for not spending enough (and having unused cash in your account) and getting cut for spending too much (and looking bad and calling into question how "necessary" certain things are).
Which is why it is ideal (and why we see very often "looking into" open source but contracting a discounted Microsoft deal.
Re:SCO only getting 1 paragraph understandable...
on
The Year In Tech Law
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Okay, so I don't have unending faith in CNet, but I'd at least expect some savviness to at least know about Linux (CNet does acknowledge the SCO case as "Perhaps the most far-reaching high-technology legal issue in 2003"), so they're not blind. The problem is that the public, the average Windows-Hotmail-IE-Kazaa computer user has no idea that the case is significant.
It's sad, because it certainly is significant to the ordinary computer user. What happens if open source is allowed to collapse like this (and it won't)? Well, much of the present software developed has been more than a little derived from open source or open research (IE derived from Mosaic or even modern UIs hijacked from Xerox research).
Sure, the ordinary user doesn't care about Linux for his or her own system, but what will happen to these users if open source folds?
All the servers and other systems that form the framework of the internet could become increasingly propietary by rogue distributors like SCO and make the Internet more costly to run/access, whatever. Researchers wouldn't be willing to develop formerly open source software because they'll simply be padding Darl's pockets for free, so there could be a sort of stagnation of new and creative ideas (users didn't think all the UI innovations were Microsoft's idea, did they?). Decreased (albeit somewhat slight) competition for Microsoft's monolithic OS. The list goes on....
Basically, it's sad to see CNet (a technology portal) give more face time to an (avoidable and preventable -- with Mozilla or blockers) issue like Pop-Ups (and misleading domain names, etc...) than to something at the core of the computer revolution (and hence at the basis of all these issues) as the open source case. CNet should be trying to educate users, not pandering to their sensibilities.
But I guess I know what Linux and SCO is and everything, so I have a different perspective.
I agree with the parent. While it is great to have a direct pipeline for information exchange and collaboration, 100 Mbps (or MBps) does seem pitiably small, though who knows precisely what volume of traffic will run on the line. And not to mention the degradation of the connection over the distance.
If they're just going to be establishing something like this, shouldn't they shoot for the high end and avoid immediate obsolecence?
Somehow, this seems only logical to me, to have our significant and major research to be conducted on the highest technology (i.e. technology that I couldn't rig at home). 100 Mbps is fast, sure, but we can do better.
Slashdot Mirror
America's not really considering switching to IPv6. We just want places like China, Korea, and Russia to switch to IPv6, and then we can filter SPAM that much more easily. Just block all mail from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx ... which would work great, unless you want email from somebody in China.
Now, if it could file patents and lawsuits, it would be ready to enter today's world of technology.
... but let's not think of that).
Oh, snap!
the system, dubbed the "Robot Scientist" by its creators,
These guys invent possibly the most creative computer setup so far and this is their title for it?
This seems especially true when the actual name should be "Robot Research Assistant". Yes, this thing will do many of the things that biology students would do, but that spoils so many things. First of all, they say that the machine is designed to follow the rules, and that's the very problem, and its greatest limitation. A true scientist is not going to be limited in this particular manner, rather feel free to work outside of the rules. This robot will be bound to some universe of rules and principles and not be free to discover something new. I.e. the "Robot Scientist" would prove time and again (perhaps in different manners) that Newtonian gravity was correct, but would be unable to theorize that quantum physics might exist. It took humans to figure that out.
And the other problem is that by having robots take care of many of these experiments you are destroying one of the most valuable aspects of the educational process. Namely, allowing students to design, conduct, and analyze their own experiments. When I go to college and have to program an AI for Othello (something that has been done many times before), I don't do it to trailblaze, but to develop my programming ability. Likewise, when these biology students are running these experiments and conducting these tests, they are supposed to be gaining knowledge and experience regarding that nature of biology and experimentation. And likewise, since many of these students work for free (or little, or credit-hours), I don't really see a cost advantage (unless corporations
It's cool, but I don't know what's going to happen as a result of it.
I've got a logo that NetBSD could use for free ... well, in a couple of months or so. Just change the 'S', 'C', and 'O' to a 'B', 'S', and a 'D'.
If people want religious, I don't think you can get much more religious than Utah, where (I hear) this logo comes from.
With all the free time, and freed resources, animators and Disney execs can watch Miyazaki's work. Spirited Away was marvelous.
Of course, you could make the argument that Disney owns Miramax which licenses the American releases of Miyazaki's work, but does Disney *really* know about his work?
The information provided to establish your color code doesn't appear to be anything that's not available in public records anyway.
And besides, everybody will get irritated at all the "color-code whores" that will inevitably arise because of this.
Frank: Jim, are you sending in your bills on time?
Jim: Yeah, why?
Frank: Bitch. Is that a Boy Scout's uniform your wearing?
Now we know they have no intention of releasing passengers safely, so you will die if you let them do what they want. Passengers will fight back, because if they fight back, the odds are still better that they'll survive.
This is horrible news for the run-of-the-mill non-martyr hijackers who just want to scare some people for a couple of hours and get their million bucks, with no real intent of hurting anybody. Has anybody thought of them?
In a related story, many national governments have commented that horses are "long due for extinction" as they have "overstayed their welcome". Certainly, with the advent of the automobile, the utility of horses was much diminished, and now with another natural, stronger, and less invasive glue source, horses have simply become "useless in our society".
Many were apathetic regarding the issue.
Mr. Ed was not available for comment.
Hey, how about something every other game uses as a "standard": once you complete a mission (or the game) you get to play whichever mission you want.
I remember finishing (or my roommate finishing) a really fun mission only to be prevented from replaying the mission, unless I go through the whole game all over.
I mean, I don't think it'd be too tough, and it would do a lot to making me want to pop it back into the PlayStation.
Yeah, I think the article makes some serious presumptions about the technology awareness of its readers. As a result we see all the silliness about FTP being primarily a piracy protocol (God forbid anybody should use it to backup personal files, or transmit documents or whatever!). And likewise the article makes the Internet appear to be an enigmatic and fearsome place, with much a life of its own. The internet's just like the mafia where nobody knows what's going on and people are brought in and killed on a whim! Be afraid! I think the article is just pandering to the sensibilities of its constituent (the ordinary Kazaa user, a Hollywood somebody-or-another, whatever).
Kind of reminds me of a recent Wired cover proclaiming "Amazon's secret plan to turn books into bits". Secret plan? You can hardly navigate Amazon without being assaulted by the "Look inside" (a different feature, yes, because those pages are scanned and not searchable), but my point is that I don't think it's such a big secret on account Bezos wants to advertise this to draw customers. Wired was just trying to make technology seem more mysterious and greater than perhaps it is. Looks like it's the same with the LA Times.
Well, I guess the "God forbid" *is* sort of a jab at how Crystal Pepsi seems like it shouldn't be decently discussed. I actually thought Crystal Pepsi was cool, and was enthralled by it (of course, I was in 4th grade or so at the time), but I do think it tasted a little different.
...
I think mostly I was looking for an example of something that noticeably failed or bankrupted itself, but which may have had significant support or fans (not that this is Linux's fate). I could possibly have used the Sega Dreamcast (which I hear was pretty cool, but just didn't catch). Just the first thing I came up with.
I am an American also, but I agree that if an American (person, even) is faced with something they need but have no clue about they are inclined to act like sheep. I am this way with cars, and if mechanics had a forum, they'd likely be poking at it right now. Given that you don't have a clue, but you need to make a decision, well:
1) Go with what everybody else is using (Windows)
2) Use what's prettiest (Windows)
3) Go with what's got more money (...)
4) Go where the lawyers are (...)
and the list continues with options except for "Go with the better product" because these things are easier to determine (it's easier to determine the prettier or more popular product than the superior one).
I agree with you in some respects, but IP law is tough. As you (and anybody on slashdot) would probably agree, it's sometimes difficult to justify patents on things that are "trivial". I mean, it would upset pretty many people if somebody patented "communal location for the preparation, sale and consumption of various food products" (though maybe I'll look into that patent), yet Amazon can apparently patent "One-Click Shopping".
The fact is that the TimeWarp is something that I've (and many others, I'm sure) have done for a while, now. The TimeWarp is simply recording something on the VCR while you watch something on the TV. I've done that dozens of times (granted TiVo does it without a cumbersome tape and that obnoxious whirring). I do grant that the TrickPlay is pretty savvy, being able to manipulate things in real time, but I come from the camp that you shouldn't be able to patent ideas, but things. I don't think you should patent a method to clip fingernails, but a particular design of fingernail clipper.
It doesn't specifically say if EchoStar imitates the feature or the technology. But I personally would support EchoStar if they use the feature (implemented perhaps differently) and support TiVo if EchoStar just ripped off the technology about verbatim.
... Darl McBride and Jeff Bezos (among others).
Good example, mod parent up.
Additionally, the popularity of a product that has piss-poor standards support is degrading the whole internet. Now I get script errors all the time when surfing web pages and everything, and who knows what the hell would be going on with IE on these pages. Perhaps violating some of these standards isn't a big deal all the time, but that doesn't mean that our software (especially the "premier" software) shouldn't be the precise model of these standards.
Some would say that as long as you can look at your web page there's no problem, but the standards are there for a reason, be it modularity (not everybody uses IE, after all) or upgradeability, or readability or whatever, and the fact that IE doesn't rigorously obey these would seemingly slow the growth and progress and integration on the online community.
All right, that's enough ranting, but the point is that what another person chooses to buy (or use, for free) does have a significant impact on what everybody else uses.
There's a reason, for example, why there are whole shelves dedicated to Britney Spears at Best Buy, whether you like her (music) or not.
Interestingly, that's what I call my wang.
It's free for any (chick) to use, got pretty good support, and runs smooth as hell.
Don't worry, I don't have FreeSTD, I have Red Hat for you protection (for preventing spawned child processes illicitly).
Eh, I've run out of material.
If someone doesn't run Linux, that's no skin off anyone's back but their own. Let them pay for their poor choice and move on with your life.
... hypothetically, let's pretend) well, they've managed to hype and market and move an inferior product, garnering billions of dollars in the process. All of this is money that could be going into Linux and OSS for development. I'm not saying we should capitalize and proprietarize Linux, but Bill Gates is buying islands and building mansions (and stocking schools with Windows boxes) with money that could be used to develop a cheaper kernel into something more secure, usable, or flashy (or whatever). Hell, there'd probably be plenty to get the schools even MORE, BETTER computers running a free and communally supported OS.
Yes, but it does impact other users. IF Windows is inferior (er
Let's say (God forbid) that you really loved Crystal Pepsi. You can buy it all you want and drink it and love it, but if nobody else buys it, the product will be discontinued and you'll end up losing a product you enjoyed because the market moved that way. Yeah, it's the way of the world, and that economics and free enterprise, but that doesn't mean we won't lose a potentially better product in the process.
... and in the commercials for the "Pepsi Challenge" with a blind taste-test, I see that everybody who participated (including Sammy Sosa) preferred Pepsi.
Of course it's objective, right?
Bombay Beats Washington, D.C.
from the only-a-matter-of-time dept.
Dukael_Mikakis write "The inevitable has happened. Americans have now resorted to outsourcing their political positions to India, making Bombay (or 'Mumbai', the new Washington, D.C. A proponent was cited, saying, 'Most politicians are out of touch with their constituents anyway, so whether they're in D.C. or by the Indian Sea, it probably won't have too much of an impact' in response to concerns over the responsiveness of Indian politicians.
'And, as a cost-cutting measure, it only makes sense,' the same source continued, 'because Indian politicians are corrupt for substantially less money than their American counterparts. And, while Americans are no slouches, Indian politicians are very familiar with rolling over at a corporate beck and call. This is a glorious achievement for American business.'
Opponents have also raised national security concerns over having an Indian president operating out of India, but these were also dismissed. 'Indians are loyal, hard-working, and will only be corrupt to the advantage of America. They wouldn't possibly shirk their duties. And with today's communication technology, it will almost be as if the politicians are in our living rooms. Trust me, there is nothing to worry about, unless you are an American politician.'
Exxon and Halliburton executives seemed enthusiastic about the idea, saying, 'I wonder if they've got much oil.'"
I don't like the idea of Yahoo! storing all this data in the first place. How do I know that they won't sell this data to marketers? (Most privacy policies are bullshit.) Or give it to government officials looking for terrorists and political opponents and the such?
Yeah, if Yahoo starts doing all this we might end up with another google.
When my dad grew up (b 1944), every hardware store and mass merchant sold guns and ammunition freely. Kids grew up with guns all around, got their own rifles at a young age, hunted after school, shot rats at the dump, you get the idea - they were everywhere. How many mass shootings occurred then?
Well, I would hate to come off as some conservative and agree, but I think I agree. There has been an "awakening" as to the danger and (now) unnecessity of guns. People increasingly don't need guns (because they don't need to hunt for food any longer) and guns have shifted from a tool to a sort of taboo. When guns (or drugs or sex or anything) are everything they lose their interest and appeal and perhaps even become commonplace. Just go to Amsterdam where the locals don't seem to bat an eye around such sinful items (in fact, those drooling in the Red Light District are likely -- American -- tourists -- college kids). Not to say that inundating our society with these vices is a solution because in Amsterdam you'll find guys on the street offering you any kind of hard drug imaginable, but perhaps the Dutch are better equipped to decide not to use such things. Perhaps if hammers weren't so useful and were banned because they were dangerous we would all be ranting and raving about the hammer problem, and Hammer Control would be a banner political issue.
While I couldn't tell you how many mass shootings were going on back then (it's tough to verify because of selective history, less media presence, among other factors) but I do imagine there were fewer, and this is because children were raised knowing how to handle guns and of the risks and everything. It wasn't suddenly interesting to stumble upon a gun, because you see them all over.
The irony (and perhaps this is a stretch) is that maybe these violent games are actually doing the reverse of what all these curmudgeons claim. Perhaps these games are giving our children some exposure to guns and sex and such things in a manner that is less harmful. These games typically don't make and secrets out of what guns do and everything, and many kids can probably get some sort of inkling that guns do kill people because these guns do kill people in the games.
But this is a difficult side to defend also because these kids also don't see any direct consequences of their actions. Only pixels are getting shot up in GTA, much different from actual guns.
I think it comes down to two things:
1) You have people trying to rationalize and allocate the blame for the horrible things that happen. A shooting occurs and we scramble to explain why it occurred. But this is fallacy. I've played such games and I have no (little) inclination towards violence, and no intent on ever handling a gun (especially any of the sorts in these games). I'm sure the case is the same for many of you. Likewise, there are the most violent people who've never played a violent game (or watched a violent movie or anything in their lives). There was violence before video games in fact (and possibly even more violence).
2) And the consensus seems to be (rightly so) that it's all about the parenting. If a parent screws up then these games could very well trigger something violent within a child and if a parent raises their children properly, the kids should be able to play such games responsibly. I don't doubt that tens of thousands of kids have played these games without any major incident. You can't blame Rockstar for triggering moral deficiency in children just as you can't blame a pornographer or an author or anybody for the moral deficiencies it incites in another. Free speech is free speech. The rest is accountability.
I don't know, but it seemed like to me that Microsoft was sort of bailing on its old product lines, with the more infrequent service packs and everything (it seemed like they were trying to grow and brach out with digital watches and iLoos and video game systems -- and let us not forget Longhorn). Of course, it does take a little competition to force some support for its OS and web browser.
Of course I have the standard sorts of issues with vulnerability and everything else (this is normal), but from a user endpoint it seems like they are getting rid of the savvy tech user demographic. Microsoft seems to be trying to form itself into the corporate solution, and ignoring those users who know what they are doing.
Why, for instance, do they still insist on making Windows so bulky and intrusive? With good ol' Linux you get to pick and choose your packages. And what does get me is how outdated IE is. Of course no pop-up blocker, and then the plug-in community seems all but invisible (is it propietary? Must google pay or something of the like to have a google toolbar?), while I can run Firebird on minimal hard disk with plug-ins to support mouse gestures, blocking of colors, images, java, flash, and who knows what else is out there.
But then it seems like Microsoft is all but waving their hands at us in resignation. Microsoft once again proves that it has no interest in the more informed, more loyal customer and is going for the easy buck (at least until some other company -- Microsoft release 2.0 -- comes along).
I think maybe you're being more than a little unfair in it all. While it's very likely that the whole categorization and whatever that these alternate search engines use are going to slow the system down versus standard google, I think you're comparing apples to oranges. Or rather a Civic to a Viper.
I don't think that Vivisimo would have as much raw computing power and as refined a Linux farm as google. Remember that google's been around for a while, and is Stanford-backed and so it's got a big engine under it's hood. What you should compare would be Vivisimo's performance if it had google's resources. If the times are comparable, but the concept parsing really improves the categorization of results (sort of like google groups, but with page searches) then you're onto something. If the algorithm is, any way you code it, a resource hog, then maybe it's not all we think it is.
So what I'm saying is give Vivisimo a huge bank of distributed Linux servers and Terabytes of storage space and lookup tables and a refined page-rank or whatever (I'm assuming a Page-Rank-esque algorithm would still be useful within groups), and then see how Vivisimo holds up.
And additionally, I love all the criticism about the user this and the user that and computer illiteracy and everything. You can rant and rave all you want about how users should be educated and everything, but the point is that people can't always know everything about computers. If a person doesn't know to quote search or use "+" and "-" that's reprehensible, yes, but that won't stop companies like Vivisimo or Grokker from refining such things.
In fact, recognizing the very fact that many people couldn't hack their way out of a command prompt was the very thing that made Microsoft (and Apple) very huge companies. Can I get around in a Linux command prompt? Yeah. Are others willing to pay money so that they don't have to? Yeah.
Can I google reasonably effectively? Yeah. Would others switch to another search engine that does the refinement for them (and they don't even have to learn how)? I think they would.
And finally, the branding of "google" into a dictionary word does give it clout, but it sort of makes the brand generic also. I could buy "Puffs" or some generic brand of facial tissue and call it "Kleenex" without a thought. I'm sure it helps, but there are ways in which it could backfire.
But I guess my point is, never underestimate anybody's desire not to have to learn anything, or do extra work. You'll get very rich if you capitalize on that.
I agree with the parent.
In many cases, the way that government works is that the budget-busters will wnd up getting more funding (despite being called to make cuts and everything). This is especially true if you're facing "essential" government expenditures such as the military (notorious for paying $100 for toilet seats and such). It would simply be too difficult for any politician to justify slashing funds to a military at its budgetary "capacity", especially these days, and this is why the Army is giving Microsoft huge and (in my opinion) bloated contracts, so that when they need fighter jets or nukes they can say, "See we're operating at capacity, and you can't seriously *not* give us funding, right?"
It's the first trick in the bureaucratic hnadbook: spending money makes you look busy so that you can get more money and look even busier. Government agencies are like parasites that just consume as much as they can and continue to consume more (not that we don't need these agencies, per se).
This is why a giant surplus was effectively erased by Bush as a result of a substantial wealthy-heavy tax cut and exorbitant funding on this corporate-sponsored war effort.
Call it my paranoia. But in a word, open source would be great for our (and any government), but open source isn't precisely what governments want. I think they are looking more for the happy median where they can still break the bank a bit, without becoming too bloated. It's like walking the fine line between losing funding for not spending enough (and having unused cash in your account) and getting cut for spending too much (and looking bad and calling into question how "necessary" certain things are).
Which is why it is ideal (and why we see very often "looking into" open source but contracting a discounted Microsoft deal.
Okay, so I don't have unending faith in CNet, but I'd at least expect some savviness to at least know about Linux (CNet does acknowledge the SCO case as "Perhaps the most far-reaching high-technology legal issue in 2003"), so they're not blind. The problem is that the public, the average Windows-Hotmail-IE-Kazaa computer user has no idea that the case is significant.
....
...) than to something at the core of the computer revolution (and hence at the basis of all these issues) as the open source case. CNet should be trying to educate users, not pandering to their sensibilities.
It's sad, because it certainly is significant to the ordinary computer user. What happens if open source is allowed to collapse like this (and it won't)? Well, much of the present software developed has been more than a little derived from open source or open research (IE derived from Mosaic or even modern UIs hijacked from Xerox research).
Sure, the ordinary user doesn't care about Linux for his or her own system, but what will happen to these users if open source folds?
All the servers and other systems that form the framework of the internet could become increasingly propietary by rogue distributors like SCO and make the Internet more costly to run/access, whatever. Researchers wouldn't be willing to develop formerly open source software because they'll simply be padding Darl's pockets for free, so there could be a sort of stagnation of new and creative ideas (users didn't think all the UI innovations were Microsoft's idea, did they?). Decreased (albeit somewhat slight) competition for Microsoft's monolithic OS. The list goes on
Basically, it's sad to see CNet (a technology portal) give more face time to an (avoidable and preventable -- with Mozilla or blockers) issue like Pop-Ups (and misleading domain names, etc
But I guess I know what Linux and SCO is and everything, so I have a different perspective.
Hmm ... it seems like an awful lot of trouble to throw the biggest LAN party we've ever seen.
But, from the article:
while Russia and China often exchanged scientific information by meeting in Chicago
It looks like Russia and China have bigger problems, like meeting in Chicago instead of, say, Russia or China? Silly Easterners.
I agree with the parent. While it is great to have a direct pipeline for information exchange and collaboration, 100 Mbps (or MBps) does seem pitiably small, though who knows precisely what volume of traffic will run on the line. And not to mention the degradation of the connection over the distance.
If they're just going to be establishing something like this, shouldn't they shoot for the high end and avoid immediate obsolecence?
Somehow, this seems only logical to me, to have our significant and major research to be conducted on the highest technology (i.e. technology that I couldn't rig at home). 100 Mbps is fast, sure, but we can do better.