This has absolutely nothing to do with the Anit-Mac interface. If you actually read the 1996 article, it is something that goes well beyond the combination of GUI and CLI. It is about using your computer in a more "interactive" manner. You let go of some control to rid yourself of mundane tasks. Agents take care of then for you. CLI is more like a conversation with your computer, rather than explicitly running commands. BeOS has nothing to do with that. It is a very nice OS, but it isn't the Anti-Mac interface at all. Anti-Mac is going well beyond what any current interface does. However, as the Advogato article points out, some GNOME software is beginning to head in that direction. We should be moving in a direction where we don't care what the filesystem looks like. Everything should be virtualized from a high-level interface (like vFolders in Evolution and Nautilus). Icons that reflect their contents, rather than just a few stock icons that are hardcoded for certain things, is another area where Nautilus is beginning to show how some Anti-Mac ideas. Anti-Mac is a cool set of goals to strive for. BeOS is not really headed in that direction at this point.
Cyberterrorism is a completely different paradigm than CBRN warfare. With CBRN or even conventional warfare, costs are much higher: weapons and training for weapons usage are extremely expensive. However, Cyberwarfare does not necessarily require sophisticated computer equipment - it simply requires sufficient knowledge. There is no real "Commercial, off-the-shelf" software that is directly used for cracking computers or attacking C3I targets. However, if a person or group is motivated, and has the necessary computer knowledge, such attacks are entirely possible. The means by which this would be done varies from case to case; it depends on the target, and how its network is set up. Most critical systems are not directly connected to the Internet, but that does not mean that they are impervious to attack: unless they are completely un-networked, with no means for remote access are they truly safe, assuming that there is adquate physical security. The US, as it depends on computers far more than other nations, is especially vulnerable to attack. As President Clinton recently validated the use of cyberwarfare in our dealings in eastern Europe, that opens the door to us being attacked. We can recover from attacks - any computer system can be restored. But we need to focus on improving security to prevent attacks from being successful. The knowledge and motivation for terrorists exist - it is simply a matter of time. That said, I would still argue that terrorists are more likely to want to use conventional means of attack - such attacks provide a more pointed and direct (and perhaps symbolic) attack against their perceived enemy. Using cyberwarfare would only be motivated by the desire to display power and technical prowess.
Has anyone actually read about the gnome 1.2/2.0?
on
The Future of GNOME
·
· Score: 2
I am disappointed to see the high amount of flames and trolls taking place. If people actually take the time to read about what Gnome is doing with CORBA, XML, and bonobo. People are immediately assuming that bonobo and CORBA are going to bring on more bloat, but the idea behind these concepts is to reduce bloat and increase power. I have been following Gnome development fairly carefully, and I am very impressed with what they are coming up with. They are making great effort to implement everything correctly and elegantly. They are redoing their file manager to make it more powerful, faster, and more embeddable. Their new mailer is going to be truly next-generation. Their gnome-workshop will include the Gimp and Gnumeric, which are both already very advanced applications, as well as AbiWord, which is developing nicely. They are also working with the LyX people to do a *correct* gnome port, rather than how the KDE people did it; they will be using the LyX gui abstraction code to do things cleanly. Gnome is an extremely nice environment, and it is very configurable. Gnome 1.2 and Gnome 2.0 will be very impressive products, and they will be far more streamlined and faster than the previous generation. Please withold your flames until you actually research what GNOME is up to.
I fail to see the logic of people (not just Jon Katz) rallying around all things "Geek". Non-Geeks enjoy movies. Geeks aren't subversive revolutionaries. Geeks are people who bite heads off of live chickens at carnivals. In today's slang, a Geek is basically a loser with a lack of social skills. I don't know why someone would be proud of such a title. If you are discriminated against for being a geek, you shouldn't empower your geekdom - you should learn how to go outside and talk to normal people, not shun them. Geeks aren't always technically inclined, nor do they see our technology-enhanced future any better than non-geeks. They are, in essense, people who can't function in normal society, so they write here as if they wield great power to make up for a feeling of powerlessness. That is fine, but don't aggrandize it. Geeks don't have any magic abilities that are making them more useful in modern society. People who are smart, or are technically inclined do. If you want to cal them nerds, go ahead. But realize that rallying around a derogatory description of yourself is foolish.
Re:Ad Astra Per Aspera
on
NASA's X-37
·
· Score: 1
Your translation is blatantly wrong. Ad Astra Per Aspera is Latin for "To the stars through hopes"
Slashdot Mirror
ORBit never has relied on GNOME. It uses glib, but that's it. It is already decoupled from any GUI. It is just a fast CORBA ORB.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the Anit-Mac interface. If you actually read the 1996 article, it is something that goes well beyond the combination of GUI and CLI. It is about using your computer in a more "interactive" manner. You let go of some control to rid yourself of mundane tasks. Agents take care of then for you. CLI is more like a conversation with your computer, rather than explicitly running commands. BeOS has nothing to do with that. It is a very nice OS, but it isn't the Anti-Mac interface at all. Anti-Mac is going well beyond what any current interface does. However, as the Advogato article points out, some GNOME software is beginning to head in that direction. We should be moving in a direction where we don't care what the filesystem looks like. Everything should be virtualized from a high-level interface (like vFolders in Evolution and Nautilus). Icons that reflect their contents, rather than just a few stock icons that are hardcoded for certain things, is another area where Nautilus is beginning to show how some Anti-Mac ideas. Anti-Mac is a cool set of goals to strive for. BeOS is not really headed in that direction at this point.
Cyberterrorism is a completely different paradigm than CBRN warfare. With CBRN or even conventional warfare, costs are much higher: weapons and training for weapons usage are extremely expensive. However, Cyberwarfare does not necessarily require sophisticated computer equipment - it simply requires sufficient knowledge. There is no real "Commercial, off-the-shelf" software that is directly used for cracking computers or attacking C3I targets. However, if a person or group is motivated, and has the necessary computer knowledge, such attacks are entirely possible. The means by which this would be done varies from case to case; it depends on the target, and how its network is set up. Most critical systems are not directly connected to the Internet, but that does not mean that they are impervious to attack: unless they are completely un-networked, with no means for remote access are they truly safe, assuming that there is adquate physical security. The US, as it depends on computers far more than other nations, is especially vulnerable to attack. As President Clinton recently validated the use of cyberwarfare in our dealings in eastern Europe, that opens the door to us being attacked. We can recover from attacks - any computer system can be restored. But we need to focus on improving security to prevent attacks from being successful. The knowledge and motivation for terrorists exist - it is simply a matter of time. That said, I would still argue that terrorists are more likely to want to use conventional means of attack - such attacks provide a more pointed and direct (and perhaps symbolic) attack against their perceived enemy. Using cyberwarfare would only be motivated by the desire to display power and technical prowess.
I am disappointed to see the high amount of flames and trolls taking place. If people actually take the time to read about what Gnome is doing with CORBA, XML, and bonobo. People are immediately assuming that bonobo and CORBA are going to bring on more bloat, but the idea behind these concepts is to reduce bloat and increase power. I have been following Gnome development fairly carefully, and I am very impressed with what they are coming up with. They are making great effort to implement everything correctly and elegantly. They are redoing their file manager to make it more powerful, faster, and more embeddable. Their new mailer is going to be truly next-generation. Their gnome-workshop will include the Gimp and Gnumeric, which are both already very advanced applications, as well as AbiWord, which is developing nicely. They are also working with the LyX people to do a *correct* gnome port, rather than how the KDE people did it; they will be using the LyX gui abstraction code to do things cleanly. Gnome is an extremely nice environment, and it is very configurable. Gnome 1.2 and Gnome 2.0 will be very impressive products, and they will be far more streamlined and faster than the previous generation. Please withold your flames until you actually research what GNOME is up to.
I fail to see the logic of people (not just Jon Katz) rallying around all things "Geek". Non-Geeks enjoy movies. Geeks aren't subversive revolutionaries. Geeks are people who bite heads off of live chickens at carnivals. In today's slang, a Geek is basically a loser with a lack of social skills. I don't know why someone would be proud of such a title. If you are discriminated against for being a geek, you shouldn't empower your geekdom - you should learn how to go outside and talk to normal people, not shun them. Geeks aren't always technically inclined, nor do they see our technology-enhanced future any better than non-geeks. They are, in essense, people who can't function in normal society, so they write here as if they wield great power to make up for a feeling of powerlessness. That is fine, but don't aggrandize it. Geeks don't have any magic abilities that are making them more useful in modern society. People who are smart, or are technically inclined do. If you want to cal them nerds, go ahead. But realize that rallying around a derogatory description of yourself is foolish.
Your translation is blatantly wrong.
Ad Astra Per Aspera is Latin for "To the stars through hopes"