This reminds me of the excellent documentary Startup.com.
I recommend it to anybody who's interested in seeing from the inside what the glory days of the dot com bubble looked like. Starting from nothing with a cool idea, getting millions from venture capitalists, and then the fall from grace.
Great stuff.
In another vein, I recommend the other documentary by the same girl.
These things work or don't work based on the public's perception, which is why I think it's very important not to fall into the trap of falling into the "frame" used by those pushing for these measures.
Lets argue against "restrictions on our freedom to use what we buy" and "arbitrary limitations on how we use things", not against "trusted computing".
To the common person, it sound bad to say that you are againsttrusted computing.
By using the words "trusted computing" they are trying to vehicle a certain sub-text, just like when certain people use "tax relief" instead of "tax cuts" or "death tax" instead of "tax on estates of over 1 million dollars".
George Lakoff would have a lot to say about this...
Well, maybe that, but it's probably more that Google has started officialy supporting Firefox in most things (there's even a rumor about a GBrowser based on Firefox), so Yahoo couldn't be left behind on that.
Oh, like we don't already have a monopoly in the operating system market with Microsoft? More competition is almost always a good thing.
Well, I don't think that what Google plans to do will quite replace Windows; I suspect that people will access Google's online apps on a Windows computer.
Since when are we happy about monopolies in the making? Google is cool now, but can we trust them to stay that way indefinitely?
Well, it's not done yet and they still have competition, but I'd feel a lot better if these next generation things that are supposed to be used by the whole internet community were open and democratic like Wikipedia and not close and proprietary - however cool they are - like Google.
I sometimes wonder if it is ethical to attract the employees of a rival organization (maybe by offering better perks)
Hmm, isn't it what Microsoft does all the time (attracting them.. but also just buying out their competitors).
Besides, it's not like after you've worked somewhere you must refrain from ever again working anywhere else ever. Contracts usually have no-competition clauses, but they have to be limited to reasonable demands. Google will just use Marc in ways that don't go agains the clause..
Or maybe it's just that I haven't seen the other threads in which people talked about the issue and I didn't know, but I did know that slashdot's HTML was pretty arhaic and messy from other discussions.
Now I know. I never was trying to blindly defend Firefox.
www.spreadFirefox.com and Ada's blog at mozillazine.org have most of the information about Firefox's marketshare and marketing campaigns.
I just installed 1.0.1 and everything seems to be working... Except that they haven't fixed the slashdot rendering bug yet (well, to be fair it's probably slashdot's HTML's fault -- I don't know why they haven't switched to CSS yet. They'd save gigs of bandwidth).
What's so bad about creating a word in your language?
The English language is full of englicized foreign word.
I really don't get why the "email -> courriel" ("email" stands for "electronic mail" and "courriel" stands for "courrier electronique" -- same logic) example gets thrown around as if it was evidence of something really terrible.
Umh, not at all on both counts (besides, wave-power is not supposed to replace 100% of energy supply.. it's supposed to go with other measures such as wind, solar (which gets more efficient all the time, esp. thanks to nano-tech), geothermal.. higher efficiency buildings, cars, industries, etc).
I suggest you get informed on the subject.. Starting with this.
You don't seem to realize just how big the planet is compared to these things.. The cargo ships and oil tankers are thousands and thousands and thousands on our seas.. Do they have a big impact?
Did tall buildings in cities stop all the wind? Forest?*sigh*
These things would actually replace coal plants and other crappy sources.. That would have a NET POSITIVE EFFECT on the planet.
Why are people so quick to complain about any minuscule disadvantage of a green source, but they never talk about coal and oil and such? Because it's new? I thought slashdot users liked new things..
All the cargo ships and oil tankers have more impact on the ocean than even thousands and thousands of wave-generator farms would ever have, and those would actually replace coal plants that do HAVE a negative impact on all life on earth.
Yeah, and wind turbines will suck out all of the wind on earth. *sigh*
Ever considered that the boats we have sailing around the earth - including massive huge mountain-like things - probably disrupt the ocean a lot more than even 10,000 installations of these wave-generators would?
Ever thought that tall buildings and forests probably disrupt the wind paterns a lot more than even thousands of wind-turbine farms?
And even if they did have a negative effect on the ocean and life in general, it would be almost imperceptible compared to the effect that the coal plants they would replace have.
Slashdot Mirror
This reminds me of the excellent documentary Startup.com.
I recommend it to anybody who's interested in seeing from the inside what the glory days of the dot com bubble looked like. Starting from nothing with a cool idea, getting millions from venture capitalists, and then the fall from grace.
Great stuff.
In another vein, I recommend the other documentary by the same girl.
Exactly!
These things work or don't work based on the public's perception, which is why I think it's very important not to fall into the trap of falling into the "frame" used by those pushing for these measures.
Lets argue against "restrictions on our freedom to use what we buy" and "arbitrary limitations on how we use things", not against "trusted computing".
To the common person, it sound bad to say that you are against trusted computing.
No, it's an estate tax. Not every person who dies gets it. Only people with over 1$ million.
The birth tax though - because of the deficit every newborn owns 33K$ - is imposed to every person born.
I believe the correct term is "treacherous computing." (Not my idea -- Stallman's, I think.)
My suggestion would be not to go too overboard because it's harder to be taken seriously.
Something like "limited computing" or "rent-a-computer" would be good.
Lets not use the language of the opposition.
By using the words "trusted computing" they are trying to vehicle a certain sub-text, just like when certain people use "tax relief" instead of "tax cuts" or "death tax" instead of "tax on estates of over 1 million dollars".
George Lakoff would have a lot to say about this...
Well, maybe that, but it's probably more that Google has started officialy supporting Firefox in most things (there's even a rumor about a GBrowser based on Firefox), so Yahoo couldn't be left behind on that.
Oh, like we don't already have a monopoly in the operating system market with Microsoft? More competition is almost always a good thing.
Well, I don't think that what Google plans to do will quite replace Windows; I suspect that people will access Google's online apps on a Windows computer.
..that Linux is unscalable.
Since when are we happy about monopolies in the making? Google is cool now, but can we trust them to stay that way indefinitely?
Well, it's not done yet and they still have competition, but I'd feel a lot better if these next generation things that are supposed to be used by the whole internet community were open and democratic like Wikipedia and not close and proprietary - however cool they are - like Google.
Wait. Journalists still research their articles?
Not very often in the U.S., anyway...
why does it matter what the versioning scheme is?
What it is; not so important.
People knowing what it is and agreeing on what it should be; yeah, that's pretty important.
I sometimes wonder if it is ethical to attract the employees of a rival organization (maybe by offering better perks)
Hmm, isn't it what Microsoft does all the time (attracting them.. but also just buying out their competitors).
Besides, it's not like after you've worked somewhere you must refrain from ever again working anywhere else ever. Contracts usually have no-competition clauses, but they have to be limited to reasonable demands. Google will just use Marc in ways that don't go agains the clause..
What comes around goes around...
Are we done with empty phrases now?
Or maybe it's just that I haven't seen the other threads in which people talked about the issue and I didn't know, but I did know that slashdot's HTML was pretty arhaic and messy from other discussions.
Now I know. I never was trying to blindly defend Firefox.
www.spreadFirefox.com and Ada's blog at mozillazine.org have most of the information about Firefox's marketshare and marketing campaigns.
I just installed 1.0.1 and everything seems to be working... Except that they haven't fixed the slashdot rendering bug yet (well, to be fair it's probably slashdot's HTML's fault -- I don't know why they haven't switched to CSS yet. They'd save gigs of bandwidth).
How do you know it's not running the web site?
On steroids, yeah.. Except that it's disqualified from running OS X (the main reason people buy Mac Minis, I guess).
What's so bad about creating a word in your language?
The English language is full of englicized foreign word.
I really don't get why the "email -> courriel" ("email" stands for "electronic mail" and "courriel" stands for "courrier electronique" -- same logic) example gets thrown around as if it was evidence of something really terrible.
Exactly. Ads make my blood boil, and that could bring a healtcare cost.
You call that working hard? With less than a percent done after all that time! ;P
But my CPU cycles go to climateprediction.net now.
Umh, not at all on both counts (besides, wave-power is not supposed to replace 100% of energy supply.. it's supposed to go with other measures such as wind, solar (which gets more efficient all the time, esp. thanks to nano-tech), geothermal.. higher efficiency buildings, cars, industries, etc).
I suggest you get informed on the subject.. Starting with this.
Not this again?
You don't seem to realize just how big the planet is compared to these things.. The cargo ships and oil tankers are thousands and thousands and thousands on our seas.. Do they have a big impact?
Did tall buildings in cities stop all the wind? Forest?*sigh*
These things would actually replace coal plants and other crappy sources.. That would have a NET POSITIVE EFFECT on the planet.
Why are people so quick to complain about any minuscule disadvantage of a green source, but they never talk about coal and oil and such? Because it's new? I thought slashdot users liked new things..
I hope this was a joke :D
All the cargo ships and oil tankers have more impact on the ocean than even thousands and thousands of wave-generator farms would ever have, and those would actually replace coal plants that do HAVE a negative impact on all life on earth.
Yeah, and wind turbines will suck out all of the wind on earth. *sigh*
Ever considered that the boats we have sailing around the earth - including massive huge mountain-like things - probably disrupt the ocean a lot more than even 10,000 installations of these wave-generators would?
Ever thought that tall buildings and forests probably disrupt the wind paterns a lot more than even thousands of wind-turbine farms?
And even if they did have a negative effect on the ocean and life in general, it would be almost imperceptible compared to the effect that the coal plants they would replace have.