Hm. Didn't know who this guy was before. His article seemed like it was written by someone who just doesn't *get* the concepts behind free software.
The bit about outsourcing was hilarious. Linux causes outsourcing. Right. A more accurate statement would be that, in an effort to reduce costs, a number of companies switched to linux and outsourced their IT - two actions unconnected by anything aside from their change in relative expense.
Now outsourcing is slowing and reversing (and the job market's looking sweeter for it), but I don't see the 'switch back to UNIX' he was talking about. Perhaps I'm blind, but IBM, HP, et al are still Linux shops in the servers market.
His tirade on 'Openness' was hilarious. Of course if you shill against the baby of a bazillion IT workers, a percentage of them are going to rail against you. It's not a strike team; it's public opinion. Besides, if you think that's bad for you, check the number of page hits you get whenever you bash Linux, since I understand you've got a history of it. You may change your mind.
Also, I don't know where he gets the idea that discussion isn't allowed. He's got this big shiny soap box to be "Rob Pretenderle" on. As if he's prevented from saying what he says. Douche.
I also noted that Ubuntu was suspiciously missing from the Desktop comparisons, even though it's the most grandma-friendly variant.
Lastly, this is the best example of the *definition* of FUD I've ever seen: "Linux exists in an environment where there is broad collaboration, but no effort to validate the collaborators so the opportunity for traditional, old style, data breach is immeasurable."
Yeah. Except that the CODE is validated before it's merged in. The collaborators' credentials aren't needed; even a bonded shop can go rogue, but as long as you're checking out the product, you're good.
You know, this whole thing gave me the idea to google my name.
There's at least seven other "Bryan Elliott"'s with a more apparent web presence than I. And one of 'em, "J. Bryan Elliott" is a North Carolina lawyer.
Well, I work at UPenn, and lemme tell you: if she's applying for jobs here, she's going to have a very hard time figuring out what's going on.
Of course, that's true of many lawfirms, too.
Really, I think it's funny that a journalist gave credence to the kind of paranoia people have about their online rep - you know, the one that truly doesn't matter?
Question: does this site allow properly anonymous posting, or is it some journalist referring to a login that isn't your actual name as 'anonymous'?
If it's the latter, this is a non story. If it's the former, AutoAdmit needs to disallow anon posting; it's almost always a bad idea (unless you're, say, a popular news site. I do get a kick out of Slashdot's ACs)
There's no discussion. That's an accepted fact. Jack Thompson *IS* an arrogant ass.
Now, if you had said, "Jack Thompson Rapes Babies", there would be a discussion; I personally think it's unlikely that Mr. Thompson rapes babies, but without evidence to the contrary, who knows?
I'd be really curious to see how such a stat was derived; while the logic of it seems sound, I doubt the direct correlation between college graduates and the GDP.
Well, considering that: 1) Free speech does include the right to insult, berate, and otherwise bitch at or about any person or concept. 2) Lawyers, in general, are competitive and confrontational; ie: assholes. 3) Assholes in large groups contain one or more 'whiny' assholes.
It can be shown that: There will be at least one 'whiny' asshole who is bitching and whining about how bad things are in assholeland, and who for some reason, can't or won't deal with the competitive/confrontational attitudes he meets on the same professional asshole level as the rest of them.
"The jump from micro to macro seems a difficult problem that is rarely addressed or even differentiated. When you cannot observe something, it moves outside the realm of science. When have we observed macro-evolution?"
Hah! Attempting to differentiate between micro- and macro-evolution. There is no difference; small change*lots of time = large change.
If you MUST ask the question, though, ask it right: Have we observed a species diverge into two separate breeding pools that cannot breed with one another? The answer's "yes". Over a very long period of time, one would guess this leads to a heirarchy of flora and fauna, and soo-prize, soo-prize, that's what we have.
"I might argue that some of the greatest scientists that ever lived believed strongly in God (take Newton or Einstein for example)"
Um. Einstein was a deist at best. He had the Church all over him for telling them he was misquoted. He believed in the wonderful complexity of the universe, and referred to that as 'God', in the philosophical sense.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein (Google 'Einstein Religion'; it's on the first link there).
"My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for God."
As for Newton; one can hardly blame a guy in the 16- and 1700's for being religious. There was little choice. Philosophically, you might say that's why atheism is becoming a 'problem' in modern times; lack of church control.
Still, especially in the field of biology, established religion and science are usually at odds. When this conflict occurs, I'm sorry but Science must win out if there is to be any progress.
That's not to say that Einstein's particular breed of spirituality can't come along for the ride - that's not an established religion - but the direly ignorant rules and regulations of the God of Abraham (Judaism, Islam and Christianity) should generally be ignored in favor of a simple set of ethical rules (no making clones and killing them, stuff like that).
"And say that in a Democracy, which is what America always has been, right? And that's what we promote in the world right? In a Democracy, it's up to not the Policy Makers, it's up to the Public. It's the public who has the power of what goes on in their community and it's effects on the world."
I don't know who you think you're fooling, but the public doesn't set policy. They influence policy by determining which policy makers get to set policy, and by telling those people what they want. Ultimately, it IS up to the policy makers to make decisions - be they right or wrong - and face the political consequences of those decisions.
That said, you've proven my point for me. Awareness-raising is also important in the public's decisions that affect any issue. For example, the public does have the power to limit and offset their emissions, adopt green technologies, and other such things. Some do, some don't.
On to China, at a purely anthropological level, competition is a good thing if its forseeable results are of a social benefit to the competing parties. When the results are not, competition will often take a backseat to dialogue and sharing of knowledge, to further optimize benefits for the two parties. This happens on all levels by default, which is why there are antitrust laws governing that sort of lets-lock-out-the-other guy behavior for corporations.
Meanwhile, there are only trade treaties of that sort governing between-country relationships. I'm not aware of any that say we can't show China how to build thorium reactors (for example), except that our own country skimmed over them and went for light-water nuke plants instead; teaching another country how to make a cleaner technology would be an embarrassment.
Because often, that's the plot device. It's a law of physics you're specifically asked to stretch. Usually, you're given an explanation as to how they're stretched and what the limits are. These new rules may or may not make sense, and the _plausability_ of them is often an indicator of the quality of the 'science' aspect of sci-fi.
As for time travel... numerous possibilities abound - but they're not really relevant. One thing I thought was funny in Timeline is that, in the movie, the adventure was started when in an 'alternate' universe, one character left an artifact. Which is then found in *this* universe??
If anyone feels the need to reply to something I've said, paragraph breaks are essential. Without them, I am very likely to skim over your blob of text, decide - upon noting the lack of thought-separation - that you're a blithering idiot, and go on about my day.
Still, you attempt to make a good point, but failed to see mine. All I said is that a physical state doesn't need belief to be true. When it's both true and known to enough constituency to inconvenience enough policy makers, something will be done that's better than the useless gestures like the Kyoto Protocol and market-based permits.
"The implications associated with something like a major hurricane practically bulldozing over a leading US cultural city are immense."
True, and the event you're referring to raised awareness of global warming as a threat long enough to make Al Gore a fortune in the movie business - a fortune he's using to raise awareness about global warming further.
While the policymakers are generally refusing to believe that climate change could have been the cause of Katrina (I'm a bit dubious myself), this is more important than you think.
See, we may or may not have much time, but we do have an estimated minimum of 25 years before change comes too late. Because of the stubbornness of your average policymaker, making - and more importantly, keeping - the public aware of the problem - specifically through voting season - is of primary importance.
Of course, we SHOULD be doing something about China; there has to be a way to convince them it's economically efficient to skip the industrial revolution technologies and jump directly into the post nuclear age, with things like Thorium reactors and fuel cells. This stupid competition we've got with them is going to be the ruin of the ecology, among other things.
Why bother when you can get all the glitz for much less resource (and cashish) using Linux/Beryl, or all the functionality at the same low resource with Win XP?
You mean as a culture. There are other cultures that are much better at doing what's good for the community. Don't spray your western weaknesses all over everyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
Hm. Didn't know who this guy was before. His article seemed like it was written by someone who just doesn't *get* the concepts behind free software.
The bit about outsourcing was hilarious. Linux causes outsourcing. Right. A more accurate statement would be that, in an effort to reduce costs, a number of companies switched to linux and outsourced their IT - two actions unconnected by anything aside from their change in relative expense.
Now outsourcing is slowing and reversing (and the job market's looking sweeter for it), but I don't see the 'switch back to UNIX' he was talking about. Perhaps I'm blind, but IBM, HP, et al are still Linux shops in the servers market.
His tirade on 'Openness' was hilarious. Of course if you shill against the baby of a bazillion IT workers, a percentage of them are going to rail against you. It's not a strike team; it's public opinion. Besides, if you think that's bad for you, check the number of page hits you get whenever you bash Linux, since I understand you've got a history of it. You may change your mind.
Also, I don't know where he gets the idea that discussion isn't allowed. He's got this big shiny soap box to be "Rob Pretenderle" on. As if he's prevented from saying what he says. Douche.
I also noted that Ubuntu was suspiciously missing from the Desktop comparisons, even though it's the most grandma-friendly variant.
Lastly, this is the best example of the *definition* of FUD I've ever seen:
"Linux exists in an environment where there is broad collaboration, but no effort to validate the collaborators so the opportunity for traditional, old style, data breach is immeasurable."
Yeah. Except that the CODE is validated before it's merged in. The collaborators' credentials aren't needed; even a bonded shop can go rogue, but as long as you're checking out the product, you're good.
They HAVE gone too far, damnit!
I mean, free speech is one thing, but who thought it was a good idea to let LAWYERS speak?! No good can come of this.
You know, this whole thing gave me the idea to google my name.
There's at least seven other "Bryan Elliott"'s with a more apparent web presence than I. And one of 'em, "J. Bryan Elliott" is a North Carolina lawyer.
I just think that's funny.
Hm.
Well, I work at UPenn, and lemme tell you: if she's applying for jobs here, she's going to have a very hard time figuring out what's going on.
Of course, that's true of many lawfirms, too.
Really, I think it's funny that a journalist gave credence to the kind of paranoia people have about their online rep - you know, the one that truly doesn't matter?
Um.
Question: does this site allow properly anonymous posting, or is it some journalist referring to a login that isn't your actual name as 'anonymous'?
If it's the latter, this is a non story. If it's the former, AutoAdmit needs to disallow anon posting; it's almost always a bad idea (unless you're, say, a popular news site. I do get a kick out of Slashdot's ACs)
There's no discussion. That's an accepted fact. Jack Thompson *IS* an arrogant ass.
Now, if you had said, "Jack Thompson Rapes Babies", there would be a discussion; I personally think it's unlikely that Mr. Thompson rapes babies, but without evidence to the contrary, who knows?
An AC posting about the perils and problems with permissive anonymity on forums.
I smell irony!
I'd be really curious to see how such a stat was derived; while the logic of it seems sound, I doubt the direct correlation between college graduates and the GDP.
"Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish."
Addendum: For this rule, blogs don't count as 'reading'
"they fail the old test of having a nugget of truth at the center to anchor the whole thing"
You're telling me that "Normal Person + Anonymitiy + Audience != Total Fuckwad"?
Wow. Tell that to the AC's.
Well, considering that:
1) Free speech does include the right to insult, berate, and otherwise bitch at or about any person or concept.
2) Lawyers, in general, are competitive and confrontational; ie: assholes.
3) Assholes in large groups contain one or more 'whiny' assholes.
It can be shown that:
There will be at least one 'whiny' asshole who is bitching and whining about how bad things are in assholeland, and who for some reason, can't or won't deal with the competitive/confrontational attitudes he meets on the same professional asshole level as the rest of them.
Yeah, but we get to experience 'Bastard Bureaucrats', 'Cunning Congressmen', 'Dodgy Delegates', and 'Ethic Evaders' until July 2009.
Yes?
That's brilliant!
Add release dates. We're not running US Gov't 'Cunning Congress' until Jan 12, 2008. For the moment, we're running 'Artful Assembly'.
So, you're saying that the people who make our laws can't be expected to read them?
It strikes me as an appalling lack of governance in a governing body.
"The jump from micro to macro seems a difficult problem that is rarely addressed or even differentiated. When you cannot observe something, it moves outside the realm of science. When have we observed macro-evolution?"
Hah! Attempting to differentiate between micro- and macro-evolution. There is no difference; small change*lots of time = large change.
If you MUST ask the question, though, ask it right: Have we observed a species diverge into two separate breeding pools that cannot breed with one another? The answer's "yes". Over a very long period of time, one would guess this leads to a heirarchy of flora and fauna, and soo-prize, soo-prize, that's what we have.
"I might argue that some of the greatest scientists that ever lived believed strongly in God (take Newton or Einstein for example)"
Um. Einstein was a deist at best. He had the Church all over him for telling them he was misquoted. He believed in the wonderful complexity of the universe, and referred to that as 'God', in the philosophical sense.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein (Google 'Einstein Religion'; it's on the first link there).
"My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for God."
As for Newton; one can hardly blame a guy in the 16- and 1700's for being religious. There was little choice. Philosophically, you might say that's why atheism is becoming a 'problem' in modern times; lack of church control.
Still, especially in the field of biology, established religion and science are usually at odds. When this conflict occurs, I'm sorry but Science must win out if there is to be any progress.
That's not to say that Einstein's particular breed of spirituality can't come along for the ride - that's not an established religion - but the direly ignorant rules and regulations of the God of Abraham (Judaism, Islam and Christianity) should generally be ignored in favor of a simple set of ethical rules (no making clones and killing them, stuff like that).
"And say that in a Democracy, which is what America always has been, right? And that's what we promote in the world right? In a Democracy, it's up to not the Policy Makers, it's up to the Public. It's the public who has the power of what goes on in their community and it's effects on the world."
I don't know who you think you're fooling, but the public doesn't set policy. They influence policy by determining which policy makers get to set policy, and by telling those people what they want. Ultimately, it IS up to the policy makers to make decisions - be they right or wrong - and face the political consequences of those decisions.
That said, you've proven my point for me. Awareness-raising is also important in the public's decisions that affect any issue. For example, the public does have the power to limit and offset their emissions, adopt green technologies, and other such things. Some do, some don't.
On to China, at a purely anthropological level, competition is a good thing if its forseeable results are of a social benefit to the competing parties. When the results are not, competition will often take a backseat to dialogue and sharing of knowledge, to further optimize benefits for the two parties. This happens on all levels by default, which is why there are antitrust laws governing that sort of lets-lock-out-the-other guy behavior for corporations.
Meanwhile, there are only trade treaties of that sort governing between-country relationships. I'm not aware of any that say we can't show China how to build thorium reactors (for example), except that our own country skimmed over them and went for light-water nuke plants instead; teaching another country how to make a cleaner technology would be an embarrassment.
Because often, that's the plot device. It's a law of physics you're specifically asked to stretch. Usually, you're given an explanation as to how they're stretched and what the limits are. These new rules may or may not make sense, and the _plausability_ of them is often an indicator of the quality of the 'science' aspect of sci-fi.
As for time travel... numerous possibilities abound - but they're not really relevant. One thing I thought was funny in Timeline is that, in the movie, the adventure was started when in an 'alternate' universe, one character left an artifact. Which is then found in *this* universe??
Well, GP was talking about mere gigs of site backups. If he's backing it up monthly, it'll be untold moons before he hits the limit of 7z.
May want to start compressing that shit. Use 7z; it's really good at noticing redundancies in logs and backups.
Attention:
If anyone feels the need to reply to something I've said, paragraph breaks are essential. Without them, I am very likely to skim over your blob of text, decide - upon noting the lack of thought-separation - that you're a blithering idiot, and go on about my day.
Still, you attempt to make a good point, but failed to see mine. All I said is that a physical state doesn't need belief to be true. When it's both true and known to enough constituency to inconvenience enough policy makers, something will be done that's better than the useless gestures like the Kyoto Protocol and market-based permits.
"The implications associated with something like a major hurricane practically bulldozing over a leading US cultural city are immense."
True, and the event you're referring to raised awareness of global warming as a threat long enough to make Al Gore a fortune in the movie business - a fortune he's using to raise awareness about global warming further.
While the policymakers are generally refusing to believe that climate change could have been the cause of Katrina (I'm a bit dubious myself), this is more important than you think.
See, we may or may not have much time, but we do have an estimated minimum of 25 years before change comes too late. Because of the stubbornness of your average policymaker, making - and more importantly, keeping - the public aware of the problem - specifically through voting season - is of primary importance.
Of course, we SHOULD be doing something about China; there has to be a way to convince them it's economically efficient to skip the industrial revolution technologies and jump directly into the post nuclear age, with things like Thorium reactors and fuel cells. This stupid competition we've got with them is going to be the ruin of the ecology, among other things.
Hi. You missed my point entirely, then went on your own agendized rant. You may go now.
I don't know about the iMacs. They weren't even SBC's, let alone SCC's.
Have no intention of doing so ... ever.
Why bother when you can get all the glitz for much less resource (and cashish) using Linux/Beryl, or all the functionality at the same low resource with Win XP?
You mean as a culture. There are other cultures that are much better at doing what's good for the community. Don't spray your western weaknesses all over everyone else.