From the: It-gets-more-dented-the-older-it-gets dept.
I think perhaps one of the largest problems in the computer industry and others is the incorrect idea that many people have about the depreciation rate of software and hardware.
Everyone knows if you buy a new car, the moment you drive that thing off the dealer's lot, you can almost watch the value fall out the back of the car. It's called "depreciation", a feature which also occurs as a car/house/anything ages.
What I've found as a vintage computer collector is that people don't see computer hardware/software depreciating fast enough. Heck, if the thing was new 2 years ago, it should be at least 75% of its new value! WRONG.
This is a similar aspect with abandonware. These companies can't see that their major sales will come from the new games, that people will always buy new games, and so to keep their claws tight on their old titles is a silly waste of time and energy. This software really does depreciate in value, and the only value it retains after a long enough time is nostalgic. (Like Frogger. Man, what a game.)
It's really sad that these great technologies can't be released to the appreciative public (collectors, etc.) to be enjoyed on the older hardware.
Ideas that are only popular among a small part of the populace are generally not the kinds of ideas that should become laws.
Why not? The general populace does not always have the best ideas in mind, and oftentimes it is the radicals, the one-voice-in-a-million's that have the right ideas (Galileo, Einstein, pick your favorite radical).
Perhaps, then, the majority of/.ers are radical people, have unique and new ideas that do not agree with the majority of sheeple in the nation, and therefore have a right to feel apathetic about the elections, because, as you state, if [they] are unwilling to cooperate with other people to forward the issues that [they] care most about, then [they] will never be heard. While I agree with this statement, I'm willing to bet that a lot of people in these forums (Slashdot,et al) have concerns outside of those presented by the major political parties in their platforms.
Hence, their voicelessness and resultant disinterest.
If you don't take the time to use the little bit of influence you have...
Exactly. The problem with politics is the force of your influence. If I am voicing my opinion to a local government, my influence has some decent power. If I'm at a state gov't, my voice has a little power. At the national level, my voice has little or no power whatsoever significant. To make your voice be heard in large government, there has got to be more than one of you. Period. If you can't say it as a group, there's no point in saying it (in large gov't).
Hence, this is my apathy towards national politics. Do I have an opinion? Yes. Would I like it to be heard? Yes. However, there is no medium for my voice to gain the appropriate recognition (unless I join a group of some sort and adopt their ideals and politics, something I abhor) and so my disinterest increases.
Government is just a game, you are but a chesspiece.
From the: If-it-runs-without-help,-why-bother-it? dept.
One of the main reasons that people in the industry I'm in don't switch from Novell to something else is its reliability and stability, even when running on old, dusty hardware. Sure, very few of my clients know how to configure a Novell server, but they don't have to. The same box that they bought 3 years ago is still sitting in the same old corner, headless, and has been messed with perhaps twice when some over-zealous cleaning lady tried to dust it. That's it. It's a reliable fileserver, never crashes, and requires no maintenance. Doesn't lose its shares, data, etc. The backup runs nightly and reliably.
Sure, Linux has some of these great features, too. But why change over when what you got is working? Some of my clients have moved. They've moved to NT. Suddenly they are suprised that they need to buy a top-of-the-line computer, monitor, etc., and it takes hours and hours of man-work to set up. And even then, it requires routine maintenance, needs rebooting, resetting, and maintenance. They feel cheated, blame their hardware provider, and go storming off to their CEO with death in their eyes.
Novell has a chance still because of this. Novell-lovers will upgrade to a higher version of Novell more than moving to a different OS. Bigger companies, sure, they have IT depts. and need the extra work an NT machine has to offer.:P~ But the smaller ma-and-pa shops aren't going to stand for it. They want their dusty little box in the corner.
although this does require the actual installation of a copy of windows.
If I'm right, Virtual PC doesn't have to run Windows, it can also run Linux or any other i86 compiled OS. Hence, you could run MacOSX, Virtual PC on that, Linux on that, Wine on that, and whalah! M$ Word on your OSX boxen.
I'm surprised, astonished really, that everyone is so concerned about the presidential election. I don't say this blindly, here's why:
Local Elections: Folks, your vote counts in your local elections. Get your butt off your chair from behind the glowing monitor and get downtown and vote. It's worth it to your community. It's the one last real haven of decent democracy.
State Elections: Your vote still counts, although to somewhat lesser degree. I would still encourage conscientious voting.
Federal Elections: Count? HA. Right. Like your one vote makes a difference. Well, we all know it doesn't. (God bless the Electoral College) But that's not even the point. The point is....the election itself doesn't count. Nope. Not a whole lot, really.
Haven't you realized it yet? Can't you see the game that everyone is playing? We're in the biggest game of the century, one that even Regis Philbin can't figure out: Who Wants to Be President? Think about it, Slash-people. When has an elected president really changed the course of this country? I mean, really changed it. FDR? Probably. You could say that he was the last great president because he helped yank everyone out of the Great Depression. But he's probably the last great hurrah in the whole thing. On the whole, this country has been headed uphill in terms of prosperity, power, and world political influence for about the past 60 years or so. New presidents haven't changed the flow of that any more than dropping a cow into Lake Michigan changes the way the waves are moving. No president has of yet tried to take over the country, turn us to communism, make murder legal, or any other really revolutionary crap. They change some policies, appoint some judges, and make foreign policy over cups of tea with the King of Taiwan.
So, in light of all this, does it really matter who you vote for in the presidential election? Not unless you have specific issues and your candidate stands for one of them. You want to get rid of the DMCA? Good for you. Find a candidate that has that opinion and go for it. But don't expect that you'll find a end-all-be-all presidential candidate. Most of the best people for the job won't run. I wouldn't. And don't expect that whoever gets in there will do any real damage and/or benefit. It's all a game, my dear friend, and you are but the chesspiece. Make your move, sit back, grab a cold one, and watch what happens. It's not worth losing a kidney over the thing out of excessive worrying.
Re:AT&T Better Fix The Broadband For Customers Fir
on
High-Speed Greed
·
· Score: 1
From the: Wow,-I've-never-had-problems,-really dept.
I find it amazing that so many people who have AT&T broadband cable service have so many problems. I've had it since June and have had two downtimes, each lasting 15 mins. And that's it. Huge speed, little slowdown, I can run servers, websites (I run a webcam), telnet, anything....the technician that installed it even said they didn't care what I did unless I used the entirety of their 4 T1 lines' bandwidth. Come to my area! Or, I'll run CAT5 to your place!:)
I feel almost bad about it...my service is well worth the $45/month I pay, while it seems other people are just getting raped with a sandpaper-wrapped broomstick.
From the: I-could've-swore-you-said-you-knew-assembly dept.
I went to a four-year college and do not feel that a) my time was wasted, or b) I came out with an overinflated ego. I realize now that college did not teach me how to do computers, it taught me how to be a human being in a lot of ways, and also gave me the bare tools to be able to teach myself any technology that I would care to pick up.
The problem that most people out of college have is that:
The system insists that to get a job, you must have a 3.0, or 3.5 or higher GPA. Period. I did not graduate with a 3.0 or higher. And because of this, there were IT companies that wouldn't even look at my resume, let alone give me a chance to prove that I knew something or was trainable. I came to like companies that did not use numbers to define me.
However, the push to have good grades is still very high, so colleges inflate the "average" level up to a B, B+, or A- and suddenly everyone is doing well. Amazing.
The advertisements for job openings offer such odd and hard-to-get requirements, you must try and fabricate anything you can to get those on your resume somehow. I hadn't had formal, professional HTML design, but had done it for a few years for myself and others, so I put that down. I had a one-semester class in Smalltalk, so I put that down. I once taught the IP protocol to a hamster, so I wrote that down. Egos are often driven by the industry's demands on what you have to have. Honesty would be a big help here.
All in all, I wouldn't count my years as lost. I work for a Ma&Pop company because it's friendly, it's my best option right now, and I'm doing ok. I want to learn before I'm thrust into a job that I'm far too underqualified for.
In the words of George Carlin, I don't think you have the right to complain if you vote. If you vote and elect a guy in, you were the one who did it, shut up and go with it. If you voted and the other guy got in, then you picked the loser. Congrats. If you don't vote at all, then you can complain about anything. Not that it matters anymore nowadays if you vote or not. I vote, but only out of curiosity and a sense of "playing the game" along with a lot of other Americans. Voting doesn't really do much in the long run at large levels...only at small gov't levels does your vote really count. (thank you, electoral college)
Fact is, goverment will always try to step on the rights of good, decent ppl like you and me, and we will always fight to keep them in check. It's a balancing act more than anything. If either side got leeway, we'd have havoc. (too many rights is just as bad as too few)
The popular sites made money. And when we came out with ways that...the Web, it all came out of the wrong places....a lot of the economics had turned into something quite bizarre -- in which the advertising world tends to benefit the large-scale publishers....But the royalty system of books has preserved a diversity of book publishing that is unparalleled in magazines, newspapers, video.
I believe that Kahle is speaking erroneously about this subject, because he is speaking of oranges and apples.
The royalty system of economic gain on products works for such things as newspapers, books, and hard-matter videos. This is because they are tangible, solid objects. If I want a paper, I can't just go download one -- not in paper format, mind you. Just in digital. Hence, when I have to either subscribe or drop a quarter into the hand of a street-side vendor, I'm paying that royalty on something distinct,tangible, and traceable, three aspects which I believe make it hard to do the same internet-wise.
Granted, porn sites seem to be making a decent living because they charge for content. But really, how would you like to have to subscribe to read Slashdot? You wouldn't. You'd wait till your buddy, who gets/., would email you the story/link/comments/etc. Or you'd share a subscription. I lived in college once, there was no end to how cheap cable TV could get if you had enough coax and splitters.
Digital content isn't tangible. You can't HOLD it. You can't walk with it to the checkout counter. It just wouldn't work as well, using traditional royalty models, to try and make money off of content, because there are too many ways around it and people do not receive that tangibility as a reward for their money. Sure, some of us might pay a few cents to read a good paper online, but my father would think it ludicrous to pay $0.25 to access a website. However, he'll easily drop $0.75 on a paper, because he can hold it. It's amazing what reality can do to people.
I'm not all against someone figuring out how to charge for content if it is done properly and fairly. (granted, everything free is great, and honestly, I like the idea that I pay one flat fee to get everything) I just don't think that our traditional ways of thinking about it will suffice.
There has been for awhile an effort to create "Computer Shelters", lists of people willing to take in and house computers that were no longer wanted by others. This is still a large effort, and I urge you if you have interest in this to sign up at one, or all of, the shelters available. It doesn't mean that you have to take any computer offered, but it does get your name and contact info out there to people looking to give computers to a better home.
Some of the shelter members use the computers themselves around the house, others clean them up and repair/upgrade them and then give them to charitable causes, relatives, etc. Apparently on the east and west coast a lot of shelters have given away compact Macs to a lot of kids who think they are the greatest! It's good to think that this older hardware is up to something good.
Good call. Yes, well, no doubt one man's old shirt is another man's gold brick. Must be nice to be in the dough. Andover.net, wanna buy this old piece of bread I have? Please??
I'm not missing the point. I realize humor when I see it. I laughed at the post, really. But there are a lot of posts lately who seem to be arguing the fact that the only reason certain posts are made to/. is for the proliferation of that particular company's merchandise. I don't agree with those opinions, there are good reasons for mentioning items, stories, etc., and although they may involve money aren't centered around trying to sell anything.
I apologize if I tread upon your post by bringing up that side of it, I had just meant to do so for awhile, it ticked me off.
Add to this the fact you're once again rubbing your money in our face, and I'm wondering if you won't rename Slashdot 'News for nouveau riches. Stuff that costs a leg' soon.
I think you're missing the point. The point is not for/. to be touting some new product to gain the $$ of their readers (like they get commissions or something) but to show you the newest, coolest in geek. Yeah, the Rio costs $99. $140 + extras is probably still not cheap. (unless you have the parts laying around) Granted. But the point is that you, the independent, educated consumer, now has yet another choice in how your music is delivered to you. And by hell, if you want to build the darn thing yourself, get out your soldering iron!
It's like a kernel. Sure, it's less time to just use the default that comes with your distro. Or, if you like, download and recompile one. Or write your own. Or rewrite it. It's more the attitude that you can, not so much that you must or should. It's just dang cool to say, "Hey, look: an MP3 player board. Instructions on how to make it. It takes standard computer parts (amazing in itself). WOO!" Nothing less than exciting about that. Three cheers for geeks and all they do.
The only problem, of course, with killing off PR ppl and having the programmers and front-liners talk to the public is that they general don't want to!:) I mean, if I'm coding, let me code. I don't want to talk to the public about it. It's tough (especially to talk non-technical), time-intensive, and generally not-fun. That's why I let my marketing people do the talking for me.
Now, I will agree intensely that lying PR people ought to be drug into the street and shot. No question about that. Being radical by just having your programmers talk to the public is kinda asking for it, though.
From the: Gee,-is-that-all-the-better-ya-got-up-your-sleeve? dept.
Honestly, I didn't expect such a mind-numbing breakthrough to happen to a Palm. Gee, what next, a handy-carrying case? In all seriousness, yeah, having a removable memory stick is interesting. I can see some applications for that. But honestly, just having upgradable memory would be enough. I don't slip the DIMMs out of my PC every time they fill up (granted, different kind of idea, since the RAM is the storage space), but wouldn't they be better off coming up with some sort of storage other than flash memory? Say maybe a small harddisk, or secondary memory where you could store backups? That sounds like a handier deal than swapable memory.
From the: I'll-do-whatever-the-hell-I-want-with-my-connectio n-thank-you! dept.
An interesting note: The guy who came to install my cable connection (AT&T@Home) was a really nice guy, we got to talk a bit. I asked him about running services and his reply was: "Yeah, it says not to, but we don't really care. We only care if you're hogging all of the bandwidth on the network. One kid did that at 3am, had all 4 T1s humming at 85% capacity. We gave him what-for. "
So apparently they have it in the agreement (at least in my area) just for the legality of it and emergency situations, but not for any sort of regular enforcement.
From the: Why-the-hell-can't-I-find-my-toes? dept.
I suppose that this multi-head phenomenon is a step in the direction of a VR type of setup, monitors all around and the person in the center. Which sounds cool......really cool.
The question is, do the architectures that we currently have do multi-head readily? Or will we start having such things as video servers? I can see a future where you have one computer whose sole job is to house 25 video cards and keep them powered. Its mobo would have the chips on it to communicate to the main gaming server via a gigabyte fiber connection, which it would take the signal and demultiplex it so it would run on all video cards, thus giving you awesome multi-head capabilities.
From the: Betcha-can't-do-that-with-only-a-stick-of-gum dept.
In the course of my education there have been two overriding things that have helped me the best in learning. While these do not always point to the best way to teach, they are certainly something to consider, and many projects can stem from them.
Individualized Learning - Find out what some of the individual students in the class would like to learn. No doubt many of them have no clue. But some just might, and they might have neat projects in mind. For instance, when I was in HS, I sure would have liked to dabble with Apple Assembly, but of course we couldn't deviate from the pre-prescribed curriculum. I'd suggest some talking with the students. They want to learn HTML? Have them teach themselves! (individual or group, teach them to work in a software team)
Group Projects - Group projects, while sounding cliche-ish, are actually a good medium in which to learn technology as well as excellent people skills. So many of us are used to communicating with an electronic entity that when we have to communicate with the wetware in the world it is a less-than-ideal situation. Programming a game can be fun and educational. Everyone likes a neat game, but to actually do it, get it planned, figure out the specifics, etc., can be a big project!
Make It Real - If you don't make the meaning of the project apparent to Real Life(tm), students will be turned off from it. I hated abstract math when it was explained in a purely theoretical viewpoint and had no relevance to what I might use it for someday. Have them program or design a tool - recipe book, game, inventory calculator, webpage analyzer, etc. Even something silly (bubble-gum speed calculator) can teach skills and bring motivation to the students if presented correctly.
From the What-do-you-mean-the-coffee-maker-stopped-respondi ng? dept.
The true success of a distributed OS will be in the applications in which it is applied. Obviously, if you don't have need for the advantages that a distOS brings to your computing, then you don't need a distOS, however cool it might be. My mother (who finally checks her email every night, bless her technologically-crippled heart) does not need the problems associated with attempting a distOS. What she does would not benefit from the extra resources.
Of course, supporters of this idea (and I'm not saying I'm not one) would state that you don't think you need the distOS because we haven't actually made a reason yet to need it. Kind of like how everyone didn't NEED the Internet until, of course, we had it. Now there are sites like/. full of caffeine-enhanced techno-addicts. The presence created the need.
This is true, I think, in many ways. However, I think when implementing such an OS consideration needs to be had for exactly what is being accomplished by it being distributed. I can see mainframe-like systems being extremely benefitted by such a system. A game system could really benefit from the extra horsepower, given that the connections were strong enough. Playing music, DVDs, etc...all very high CPU and memory applications could see some interesting benefits.
How about stability and redundancy? How would you like an OS that ran even if a bomb knocked out part of its system? Rewrote and/or re-routed itself to account for the damage and still get the job done? Wow! What a disaster-safe way to compute! Of course, you have one of these OSes inside your head right now......
End fact is: Good idea, needs lots of consideration into the practical application of such a thing so that we aren't playing solitaire with a distOS.
There is an interesting point that people should start to realize, and it will be a point of education to get them to do so: CPUs do not have a static speed setting.
Believe it or not, it took me several years to get this stamped into my head. What? Overclock? You can do that? Huh.....um...isn't that bad for it? No, and we know that now. It's the amount of people who don't know it that are causing the problems. If the attitude was that every chip can be flexed in terms of speed, the problem would lessen. Then you run monitors to check the CPU speed and protect yourself against having a burnout. Simple. (supposedly)
If you run a chip slower than rated, it lasts longer because it's cooler. If you run it AT rated, it lasts for about its specified lifetime. Run it faster than rated, it'll most likely burn out before its rated lifetime. But then again, in most instances, rated lifetime far exceeds the practical usage of CPUs in the marketplace. So run 'em fast! Sure, they'll burn out, but not likely before you get a new one anyway.
Really, I do see the point that AMD is trying to make. I understand the concern for dork-shops overclocking computers to make that extra buck, and I applaud that effort. However, seems to me that there has to be a better way as opposed to limiting those who want to turbo-charge their CPUs.
From the where-in-the-hell-did-I-put-that-spare-blue-gene dept.
Katz both rants and proclaims some excellent questions and truths. Interestingly enough, this project will probably be more relevant to the older generation for the political problems it will involve and moral and ethical issues. I see some basic points evolving here:
The development or demise of the technology concerning the genome project will be economically driven, period. It's all about the money, folks. Screw ethics, screw morality, if the almighty buck does not prevail, nothing will. You don't get computer upgrades just because they are cute, you know.
This is most definately the generation that must decide the ethical/moral issues. Why? Because when we get old, it's going to be OUR butts that will have to be saved by medical technology. But by that time our voice will have been diminished.
Everyone seems to be saying that the presence of technology doesn't necessarily mean that it will be used for our demise. I agree, that's a true statement; however, technology and money combined have a way of corrupting someone, anyone, to do something not beneficial. In the theme of MI:2, if you don't have a problem, you don't need the cure. Look for more of that to be present.
This technology will not be the "miracle cure" for everything. Just when we thought we had erradicated tuberculosis, it's back, and a different form in some cases that's making it tough to treat. Several different forms of staph and pneumonia are making themselves present that are completely or almost completely resistant to all known antibiotics. Yet we use the antibiotics more frequently than ever, thus accelerating this problem.
Creating "perfect" human beings will be a detriment to everyone. Defects in nature occur from a mixing of the gene pool. If all of a sudden we stop this mixing, we will lose out on the inate functions that keep us resistant to disease. Got cancer? I'm sorry, but nature says you're a product of the gene mixing. People who are defective die out, people who are not live. Simple as that. If we suddenly make people perfect, tougher disease will prevail due to the lack of that natural "culling" process that keeps us strong against defects. Sure it's harsh, it's reality.
Katz makes some good points. There are obviously many more, and most people are ignoring them. I imagine it will get worse before it gets better. Technology: GOOD Technology in the Hands of People: Potentially Nasty Technology at Microsoft:Awful Need I say more?
Slashdot Mirror
...shouldn't that be: e-Lection?
Kudos to Wired for waking us up.
Please note: This is NOT a script that will get you any bush, just an indicator of how much bush this country is going to get. :)
From the: It-gets-more-dented-the-older-it-gets dept.
I think perhaps one of the largest problems in the computer industry and others is the incorrect idea that many people have about the depreciation rate of software and hardware.
Everyone knows if you buy a new car, the moment you drive that thing off the dealer's lot, you can almost watch the value fall out the back of the car. It's called "depreciation", a feature which also occurs as a car/house/anything ages.
What I've found as a vintage computer collector is that people don't see computer hardware/software depreciating fast enough. Heck, if the thing was new 2 years ago, it should be at least 75% of its new value! WRONG.
This is a similar aspect with abandonware. These companies can't see that their major sales will come from the new games, that people will always buy new games, and so to keep their claws tight on their old titles is a silly waste of time and energy. This software really does depreciate in value, and the only value it retains after a long enough time is nostalgic. (Like Frogger. Man, what a game.)
It's really sad that these great technologies can't be released to the appreciative public (collectors, etc.) to be enjoyed on the older hardware.
Ideas that are only popular among a small part of the populace are generally not the kinds of ideas that should become laws.
/.ers are radical people, have unique and new ideas that do not agree with the majority of sheeple in the nation, and therefore have a right to feel apathetic about the elections, because, as you state, if [they] are unwilling to cooperate with other people to forward the issues that [they] care most about, then [they] will never be heard. While I agree with this statement, I'm willing to bet that a lot of people in these forums (Slashdot,et al) have concerns outside of those presented by the major political parties in their platforms.
Why not? The general populace does not always have the best ideas in mind, and oftentimes it is the radicals, the one-voice-in-a-million's that have the right ideas (Galileo, Einstein, pick your favorite radical).
Perhaps, then, the majority of
Hence, their voicelessness and resultant disinterest.
If you don't take the time to use the little bit of influence you have...
Exactly. The problem with politics is the force of your influence. If I am voicing my opinion to a local government, my influence has some decent power. If I'm at a state gov't, my voice has a little power. At the national level, my voice has little or no power whatsoever significant. To make your voice be heard in large government, there has got to be more than one of you. Period. If you can't say it as a group, there's no point in saying it (in large gov't).
Hence, this is my apathy towards national politics. Do I have an opinion? Yes. Would I like it to be heard? Yes. However, there is no medium for my voice to gain the appropriate recognition (unless I join a group of some sort and adopt their ideals and politics, something I abhor) and so my disinterest increases.
Government is just a game, you are but a chesspiece.
From the: If-it-runs-without-help,-why-bother-it? dept.
:P~ But the smaller ma-and-pa shops aren't going to stand for it. They want their dusty little box in the corner.
One of the main reasons that people in the industry I'm in don't switch from Novell to something else is its reliability and stability, even when running on old, dusty hardware. Sure, very few of my clients know how to configure a Novell server, but they don't have to. The same box that they bought 3 years ago is still sitting in the same old corner, headless, and has been messed with perhaps twice when some over-zealous cleaning lady tried to dust it. That's it. It's a reliable fileserver, never crashes, and requires no maintenance. Doesn't lose its shares, data, etc. The backup runs nightly and reliably.
Sure, Linux has some of these great features, too. But why change over when what you got is working? Some of my clients have moved. They've moved to NT. Suddenly they are suprised that they need to buy a top-of-the-line computer, monitor, etc., and it takes hours and hours of man-work to set up. And even then, it requires routine maintenance, needs rebooting, resetting, and maintenance. They feel cheated, blame their hardware provider, and go storming off to their CEO with death in their eyes.
Novell has a chance still because of this. Novell-lovers will upgrade to a higher version of Novell more than moving to a different OS. Bigger companies, sure, they have IT depts. and need the extra work an NT machine has to offer.
although this does require the actual installation of a copy of windows.
If I'm right, Virtual PC doesn't have to run Windows, it can also run Linux or any other i86 compiled OS. Hence, you could run MacOSX, Virtual PC on that, Linux on that, Wine on that, and whalah! M$ Word on your OSX boxen.
So much for reducing overhead. INCOMING!!!
I'm surprised, astonished really, that everyone is so concerned about the presidential election. I don't say this blindly, here's why:
Haven't you realized it yet? Can't you see the game that everyone is playing? We're in the biggest game of the century, one that even Regis Philbin can't figure out: Who Wants to Be President? Think about it, Slash-people. When has an elected president really changed the course of this country? I mean, really changed it. FDR? Probably. You could say that he was the last great president because he helped yank everyone out of the Great Depression. But he's probably the last great hurrah in the whole thing. On the whole, this country has been headed uphill in terms of prosperity, power, and world political influence for about the past 60 years or so. New presidents haven't changed the flow of that any more than dropping a cow into Lake Michigan changes the way the waves are moving. No president has of yet tried to take over the country, turn us to communism, make murder legal, or any other really revolutionary crap. They change some policies, appoint some judges, and make foreign policy over cups of tea with the King of Taiwan.
So, in light of all this, does it really matter who you vote for in the presidential election? Not unless you have specific issues and your candidate stands for one of them. You want to get rid of the DMCA? Good for you. Find a candidate that has that opinion and go for it. But don't expect that you'll find a end-all-be-all presidential candidate. Most of the best people for the job won't run. I wouldn't. And don't expect that whoever gets in there will do any real damage and/or benefit. It's all a game, my dear friend, and you are but the chesspiece. Make your move, sit back, grab a cold one, and watch what happens. It's not worth losing a kidney over the thing out of excessive worrying.
From the: Wow,-I've-never-had-problems,-really dept.
:)
I find it amazing that so many people who have AT&T broadband cable service have so many problems. I've had it since June and have had two downtimes, each lasting 15 mins. And that's it. Huge speed, little slowdown, I can run servers, websites (I run a webcam), telnet, anything....the technician that installed it even said they didn't care what I did unless I used the entirety of their 4 T1 lines' bandwidth. Come to my area! Or, I'll run CAT5 to your place!
I feel almost bad about it...my service is well worth the $45/month I pay, while it seems other people are just getting raped with a sandpaper-wrapped broomstick.
I went to a four-year college and do not feel that a) my time was wasted, or b) I came out with an overinflated ego. I realize now that college did not teach me how to do computers, it taught me how to be a human being in a lot of ways, and also gave me the bare tools to be able to teach myself any technology that I would care to pick up.
The problem that most people out of college have is that:
- The system insists that to get a job, you must have a 3.0, or 3.5 or higher GPA. Period. I did not graduate with a 3.0 or higher. And because of this, there were IT companies that wouldn't even look at my resume, let alone give me a chance to prove that I knew something or was trainable. I came to like companies that did not use numbers to define me.
- The advertisements for job openings offer such odd and hard-to-get requirements, you must try and fabricate anything you can to get those on your resume somehow. I hadn't had formal, professional HTML design, but had done it for a few years for myself and others, so I put that down. I had a one-semester class in Smalltalk, so I put that down. I once taught the IP protocol to a hamster, so I wrote that down. Egos are often driven by the industry's demands on what you have to have. Honesty would be a big help here.
All in all, I wouldn't count my years as lost. I work for a Ma&Pop company because it's friendly, it's my best option right now, and I'm doing ok. I want to learn before I'm thrust into a job that I'm far too underqualified for.However, the push to have good grades is still very high, so colleges inflate the "average" level up to a B, B+, or A- and suddenly everyone is doing well. Amazing.
From the: Path-of-least-resistance Dept.
In the words of George Carlin, I don't think you have the right to complain if you vote. If you vote and elect a guy in, you were the one who did it, shut up and go with it. If you voted and the other guy got in, then you picked the loser. Congrats. If you don't vote at all, then you can complain about anything. Not that it matters anymore nowadays if you vote or not. I vote, but only out of curiosity and a sense of "playing the game" along with a lot of other Americans. Voting doesn't really do much in the long run at large levels...only at small gov't levels does your vote really count. (thank you, electoral college)
Fact is, goverment will always try to step on the rights of good, decent ppl like you and me, and we will always fight to keep them in check. It's a balancing act more than anything. If either side got leeway, we'd have havoc. (too many rights is just as bad as too few)
So join the game! Vote today.
From the: Separate-but-equal-things dept.
...a lot of the economics had turned into something quite bizarre -- in which the advertising world tends to benefit the large-scale publishers. ...But the royalty system of books has preserved a diversity of book publishing that is unparalleled in magazines, newspapers, video.
/., would email you the story/link/comments/etc. Or you'd share a subscription. I lived in college once, there was no end to how cheap cable TV could get if you had enough coax and splitters.
The popular sites made money. And when we came out with ways that...the Web, it all came out of the wrong places.
I believe that Kahle is speaking erroneously about this subject, because he is speaking of oranges and apples.
The royalty system of economic gain on products works for such things as newspapers, books, and hard-matter videos. This is because they are tangible, solid objects. If I want a paper, I can't just go download one -- not in paper format, mind you. Just in digital. Hence, when I have to either subscribe or drop a quarter into the hand of a street-side vendor, I'm paying that royalty on something distinct,tangible, and traceable, three aspects which I believe make it hard to do the same internet-wise.
Granted, porn sites seem to be making a decent living because they charge for content. But really, how would you like to have to subscribe to read Slashdot? You wouldn't. You'd wait till your buddy, who gets
Digital content isn't tangible. You can't HOLD it. You can't walk with it to the checkout counter. It just wouldn't work as well, using traditional royalty models, to try and make money off of content, because there are too many ways around it and people do not receive that tangibility as a reward for their money. Sure, some of us might pay a few cents to read a good paper online, but my father would think it ludicrous to pay $0.25 to access a website. However, he'll easily drop $0.75 on a paper, because he can hold it. It's amazing what reality can do to people.
I'm not all against someone figuring out how to charge for content if it is done properly and fairly. (granted, everything free is great, and honestly, I like the idea that I pay one flat fee to get everything) I just don't think that our traditional ways of thinking about it will suffice.
From the: It's-too-darn-cute-to-throw-away! dept.
:)
There has been for awhile an effort to create "Computer Shelters", lists of people willing to take in and house computers that were no longer wanted by others. This is still a large effort, and I urge you if you have interest in this to sign up at one, or all of, the shelters available. It doesn't mean that you have to take any computer offered, but it does get your name and contact info out there to people looking to give computers to a better home.
Some of the shelter members use the computers themselves around the house, others clean them up and repair/upgrade them and then give them to charitable causes, relatives, etc. Apparently on the east and west coast a lot of shelters have given away compact Macs to a lot of kids who think they are the greatest! It's good to think that this older hardware is up to something good.
Here is the list of available resources that I know of dealing with Abandoned Computer Shelters, etc.:
Jessicat's JMUG Shelter List, although this is down right now, you can view the cached copy HERE
Tarsi's Abandoned Computer Shelter List
California Computer Recycling
Share the Technology
No good reason to throw them away when they're wanted!
Good call. Yes, well, no doubt one man's old shirt is another man's gold brick. Must be nice to be in the dough. Andover.net, wanna buy this old piece of bread I have? Please??
I'm not missing the point. I realize humor when I see it. I laughed at the post, really. But there are a lot of posts lately who seem to be arguing the fact that the only reason certain posts are made to /. is for the proliferation of that particular company's merchandise. I don't agree with those opinions, there are good reasons for mentioning items, stories, etc., and although they may involve money aren't centered around trying to sell anything.
I apologize if I tread upon your post by bringing up that side of it, I had just meant to do so for awhile, it ticked me off.
From the: C'mon-now,-this-is-just-cool! dept.
/. to be touting some new product to gain the $$ of their readers (like they get commissions or something) but to show you the newest, coolest in geek. Yeah, the Rio costs $99. $140 + extras is probably still not cheap. (unless you have the parts laying around) Granted. But the point is that you, the independent, educated consumer, now has yet another choice in how your music is delivered to you. And by hell, if you want to build the darn thing yourself, get out your soldering iron!
Add to this the fact you're once again rubbing your money in our face, and I'm wondering if you won't rename Slashdot 'News for nouveau riches. Stuff that costs a leg' soon.
I think you're missing the point. The point is not for
It's like a kernel. Sure, it's less time to just use the default that comes with your distro. Or, if you like, download and recompile one. Or write your own. Or rewrite it. It's more the attitude that you can, not so much that you must or should. It's just dang cool to say, "Hey, look: an MP3 player board. Instructions on how to make it. It takes standard computer parts (amazing in itself). WOO!" Nothing less than exciting about that. Three cheers for geeks and all they do.
Keep tinkering, boys. You make the world fun.
From the: But-I-don't-wanna! dept.
:) I mean, if I'm coding, let me code. I don't want to talk to the public about it. It's tough (especially to talk non-technical), time-intensive, and generally not-fun. That's why I let my marketing people do the talking for me.
The only problem, of course, with killing off PR ppl and having the programmers and front-liners talk to the public is that they general don't want to!
Now, I will agree intensely that lying PR people ought to be drug into the street and shot. No question about that. Being radical by just having your programmers talk to the public is kinda asking for it, though.
From the: Gee,-is-that-all-the-better-ya-got-up-your-sleeve? dept.
Honestly, I didn't expect such a mind-numbing breakthrough to happen to a Palm. Gee, what next, a handy-carrying case? In all seriousness, yeah, having a removable memory stick is interesting. I can see some applications for that. But honestly, just having upgradable memory would be enough. I don't slip the DIMMs out of my PC every time they fill up (granted, different kind of idea, since the RAM is the storage space), but wouldn't they be better off coming up with some sort of storage other than flash memory? Say maybe a small harddisk, or secondary memory where you could store backups? That sounds like a handier deal than swapable memory.
From the: I'll-do-whatever-the-hell-I-want-with-my-connectio n-thank-you! dept.
An interesting note: The guy who came to install my cable connection (AT&T@Home) was a really nice guy, we got to talk a bit. I asked him about running services and his reply was: "Yeah, it says not to, but we don't really care. We only care if you're hogging all of the bandwidth on the network. One kid did that at 3am, had all 4 T1s humming at 85% capacity. We gave him what-for. "
So apparently they have it in the agreement (at least in my area) just for the legality of it and emergency situations, but not for any sort of regular enforcement.
From the: Why-the-hell-can't-I-find-my-toes? dept.
I suppose that this multi-head phenomenon is a step in the direction of a VR type of setup, monitors all around and the person in the center. Which sounds cool......really cool.
The question is, do the architectures that we currently have do multi-head readily? Or will we start having such things as video servers? I can see a future where you have one computer whose sole job is to house 25 video cards and keep them powered. Its mobo would have the chips on it to communicate to the main gaming server via a gigabyte fiber connection, which it would take the signal and demultiplex it so it would run on all video cards, thus giving you awesome multi-head capabilities.
Why hasn't anyone come up with this stuff?
From the: Betcha-can't-do-that-with-only-a-stick-of-gum dept.
In the course of my education there have been two overriding things that have helped me the best in learning. While these do not always point to the best way to teach, they are certainly something to consider, and many projects can stem from them.
Just my $0.02 as usual. Some good considerations.
From the What-do-you-mean-the-coffee-maker-stopped-respondi ng? dept.
/. full of caffeine-enhanced techno-addicts. The presence created the need.
The true success of a distributed OS will be in the applications in which it is applied. Obviously, if you don't have need for the advantages that a distOS brings to your computing, then you don't need a distOS, however cool it might be. My mother (who finally checks her email every night, bless her technologically-crippled heart) does not need the problems associated with attempting a distOS. What she does would not benefit from the extra resources.
Of course, supporters of this idea (and I'm not saying I'm not one) would state that you don't think you need the distOS because we haven't actually made a reason yet to need it. Kind of like how everyone didn't NEED the Internet until, of course, we had it. Now there are sites like
This is true, I think, in many ways. However, I think when implementing such an OS consideration needs to be had for exactly what is being accomplished by it being distributed. I can see mainframe-like systems being extremely benefitted by such a system. A game system could really benefit from the extra horsepower, given that the connections were strong enough. Playing music, DVDs, etc...all very high CPU and memory applications could see some interesting benefits.
How about stability and redundancy? How would you like an OS that ran even if a bomb knocked out part of its system? Rewrote and/or re-routed itself to account for the damage and still get the job done? Wow! What a disaster-safe way to compute! Of course, you have one of these OSes inside your head right now......
End fact is: Good idea, needs lots of consideration into the practical application of such a thing so that we aren't playing solitaire with a distOS.
From the mine-runs-hotter-than-yours-does dept.
There is an interesting point that people should start to realize, and it will be a point of education to get them to do so: CPUs do not have a static speed setting.
Believe it or not, it took me several years to get this stamped into my head. What? Overclock? You can do that? Huh.....um...isn't that bad for it? No, and we know that now. It's the amount of people who don't know it that are causing the problems. If the attitude was that every chip can be flexed in terms of speed, the problem would lessen. Then you run monitors to check the CPU speed and protect yourself against having a burnout. Simple. (supposedly)
If you run a chip slower than rated, it lasts longer because it's cooler. If you run it AT rated, it lasts for about its specified lifetime. Run it faster than rated, it'll most likely burn out before its rated lifetime. But then again, in most instances, rated lifetime far exceeds the practical usage of CPUs in the marketplace. So run 'em fast! Sure, they'll burn out, but not likely before you get a new one anyway.
Really, I do see the point that AMD is trying to make. I understand the concern for dork-shops overclocking computers to make that extra buck, and I applaud that effort. However, seems to me that there has to be a better way as opposed to limiting those who want to turbo-charge their CPUs.
What sort of protocol would a frog use? Kermit?
Katz both rants and proclaims some excellent questions and truths. Interestingly enough, this project will probably be more relevant to the older generation for the political problems it will involve and moral and ethical issues. I see some basic points evolving here:
- The development or demise of the technology concerning the genome project will be economically driven, period. It's all about the money, folks. Screw ethics, screw morality, if the almighty buck does not prevail, nothing will. You don't get computer upgrades just because they are cute, you know.
- This is most definately the generation that must decide the ethical/moral issues. Why? Because when we get old, it's going to be OUR butts that will have to be saved by medical technology. But by that time our voice will have been diminished.
- Everyone seems to be saying that the presence of technology doesn't necessarily mean that it will be used for our demise. I agree, that's a true statement; however, technology and money combined have a way of corrupting someone, anyone, to do something not beneficial. In the theme of MI:2, if you don't have a problem, you don't need the cure. Look for more of that to be present.
- This technology will not be the "miracle cure" for everything. Just when we thought we had erradicated tuberculosis, it's back, and a different form in some cases that's making it tough to treat. Several different forms of staph and pneumonia are making themselves present that are completely or almost completely resistant to all known antibiotics. Yet we use the antibiotics more frequently than ever, thus accelerating this problem.
- Creating "perfect" human beings will be a detriment to everyone. Defects in nature occur from a mixing of the gene pool. If all of a sudden we stop this mixing, we will lose out on the inate functions that keep us resistant to disease. Got cancer? I'm sorry, but nature says you're a product of the gene mixing. People who are defective die out, people who are not live. Simple as that. If we suddenly make people perfect, tougher disease will prevail due to the lack of that natural "culling" process that keeps us strong against defects. Sure it's harsh, it's reality.
Katz makes some good points. There are obviously many more, and most people are ignoring them. I imagine it will get worse before it gets better.Technology: GOOD
Technology in the Hands of People: Potentially Nasty
Technology at Microsoft:Awful
Need I say more?