Lemme get this straight: You are refusing to do your bit to help the environment because it negatively impacts your ability to listen to the high fidelity auditory experience that is AM radio?
You're obviously about as cluey in geopolitics as Uncle Joe is in global monetary policy interactions.
Where was this happening before September 11th? Before the Kobar Towers bombing? Before the Cole? Before the Kenya attack? WTC '93?
Where were the aggressive actions before 911/Cole/Sudan? Try the creation of Panama (1903), the enslavement of central Americans by William Walker (1856), the installation of Pinnochet in Chile (1973) and the rampant abuse that US corporations (Nike, Monsanto, Pfizer, GE, Bechtel, Exxon etc etc ad nauseam) have been engaging in the end of the Civil War just for tasters. There's a list longer than your arm.
Get off your moral high horse and take a look at what your people are doing to the rest of the world. Then you'd realize why desperate members of the third world look at their people with starving children and want to kill you. It's got nothing to do with them hating your freedom, they just want you, your government and your corporations to leave them the hell alone.
It turns out historically the one way to end fanaticism is to kill enough fanatics.
Well I have news for you. America's self-appointed mission to give divine capitalism to every corner of the globe is fanatical. They have the same view of you.
The dolalrs that American tourists bring into third world economies are orders of magnitude less than the dollars that American corporations "repatriate" out of them.
Yes, I know that it is often convenient to treat collections as objects for the puposes of analysis. However I am talking about the strict definition of the word object. When a normal person, or even a physicist hears "largest obeject discovered" the first thing that comes to mind is J-Los ass. Even an astro-physicist would not infer the "colection as an object" definition unless it was supplied to distinguish between that famous rear and a collection of galaxies.
What I am saying is that TFA is stupid and deserving of ridicule. I don't mind when the media gets sensationalist in the trash tabloids, but scientists? I think we ought to demand a higher degree of professional clarity and restraint when making research announcements. What's next? Cure for cancer found.*
* A bullet to the head has been found to prevent 100% of cancer deaths.
Come on, lets be clear about what we mean. Qualifications buried under article crud is for Cosmo, not science journals.
Agreed. On a cosmic level we have no way of knowing if the known universe is just a small part of a larger structure. As such, all of the known universe could be "single object", so lets be serious about the way we define things, especially in physics.
In my opinion, TFA is a load of crud. An "object" is a single item. To use an astrophysics definition, it is a parcel of matter of contiguous structure bound by atomic or molecular forces (but not magnetic or gravitic) incorporating solid or liquid state matter, but not gasses or plasmas.
Following this definition:
Earth is an object, but its atmosphere is not part of it.
The outer gasseous atmosphere of Jupiter is not part of the planet itself, which is made up of liquid and presumably solids as well.
When the Sun casts off gas in solar flares, that gas ceases to be "part" of the Sun.
A full baloon is an object that does NOT incorporate the gas it contains.
Many have spoken of "escape velocities" being the tie that causes an object to become "one" with another. BS BS BS. The Earth and its moon are not one object, nor are the Sun and the Earth.
Dust is a collection of very many tiny objects. Yes, its a little hard to think of a "dust cloud" as many small objects, but thats the way it is, so deal with it.
Stop with the hyperbole already. A collection of galaxies and gasses and the missing brains of Slashdot readers is not a single object. Calling it one is just an excuse to attract attention to a "hey my discovered object is bigger than yours" competition.
I'd like to see you up to your knees in gasolene testing that.
If you can say something like that you obviously were hever 13 years old on a farm. I remember when I was 13 I'd syphon gas out of the ride on lawn mower to make nice big fires sure to bring my dad running with a wet grain sack.
Re:That's great and all, but...
on
Growing Insulin
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps you may find this to be pretty sweet reading (ridiculously idiotic pun intended).
Researchers are using stem cells to regrow the damaged or missing pancreatic tissue to treat diabetics such that their Islets' functions are enhanced or completely replaced if necessary.
Re:You are wrong
on
Growing Insulin
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The "evolution" of the DNA molecule finished millions of years ago. There are only 1-2% different genes between you and a monkey. Perhaps 5% difference between me and my pet cat, and in response to your how the hell you can believe a human shares genes with a plant question, there's about 50% shared genes between me and the banana I just ate. Read that article.
This discussion was always about the mainstream use of technology. While full privacy was lost years ago, Internet users are still able to type documents, surf the web, carry out their business operations and watch movies in relative privacy without being watched, especially if they are performing local tasks. I agree that it is unlikely in the forseeable future that any organization or government will be able to eliminate local computing, but its the ramifications to the public at large that concern me.
What I am afraid of, and I mean really, truly afraid, is the power that would come to the government if it were able to obtain a database that contained the minute to minute actions of the vast majority of the population while they were using any PC.
Even for those who don't "plug in", this would give the government virtual omniscience, with an automated, easy to access population spying system, making the Stazi look like my aunties gossipping at a family dinner.
So you're saying that users only use 1% of their PC in one breath, and saying that they would have more reasources at their disposal with network computing in another? Dude, think about it. For more than 1 second.
If I'm only using 1% of my PCs resources (which is probably true) then I don't give two turds if my web browser loads in 2 seconds or 3. Application launches occur very infrequently compared to in-app operations, and so a dely of a second is immaterial. And that's assuming that networking your PCs would achieve an improvement in app launch times, which I hotly dispute. Networking your apps would definitely lead to higher latency for keystrokes and in-app operations, which is a FAR more important aspect of performance than app load times. Imagine you could get a 5 second load time bonus from MS Word, but had to put up with a 100ms lag for keystrokes as you typed? Here, take your 5 seconds and get the hell out of my PC, thankyou very much.
Furthermore, the guts aren't the largest component of PC cost. Decent displays usually cost more by double the price of the CPU. If you can cut in half the price of the electronics in the main PC unit, you've only cut the price of the PC by about 20%. Maybe. Also, do you really want computing power to be subject to the same issues as bandwidth? I.e., do you want your game to run laggy at 7pm on Friday night? Or your business apps to provide abysmal latency during peak business hours? No thanks.
Finally, there is no way that you are going to be able to distribute on-demand processing like loading of a web browser or word processor between 5 remote systems. Distributed processing only works if the data is small but the processing is large, e.g., with encryption cracking, signal processing or equation solving. A situation where an application binary is being launched is all about fecthing the binary from disk, a task which cannot be distributed effectively unless the network is faster than the local bus, a situation which will never be true. Even thin clients have busses many times faster than any broadband connection, and those new ultra cheap Mini-ITX solutions that are replacing thin clients are fully fledged PCs, and are as powerful as top end PCs from a few years ago, with local bus capacity in the gigabits.
No, online OSes are not the way, and I seriously hope the idea flops this time like it has every other time its been suggested since the early 90's.
It's the potential for privacy that goes out the window. I agree tha most people still operate well and truly in the public domain, their fiddly bits naked in their glory for marketers and government officials to oogle to their hearts' content.
However if I want to operate a private operation, or if I want to protect my business secrets, then I'd like to be able to. I don't want that option taken off the table, which is what online OSes will do.
Basically what you're saying is "protect the users machines because they are more important than the ones that control the services they rely on". The Internet hums along despite the issues? You've never heard of Melissa, Blaster or ILoveYou? And you're saying there is no intelligence in the infrastructure? So the global, load balanced, DNS system is a trivial part of the network and the Internet would be just fine if there was no security surrounding the root servers? The internet works because of the security at the endpoints you say. So large scale Windows virusses have never caused monetary loss at a company due to network-wide downtime?
Oh, and "fusterated"?
You obviously know nothing about IT security or how "fusterating" it is for IT admins to make things work for end users who only end up spitting in their faces accusing them of being lazy.
I said NetOSes were bad because they were a flawed concept, but I also said that the idea could be made to work by corporations seeking to dominate the way people compute. It was the possibility of success with the idea, rather than the certainty of its failure, that concerns me the most.
What do you think will happen when the kindly predator runs out of industries to eat? do you think the big predator and small fry consumers will live happily ever after?
In 1993 you looked at Mosaic and called it a waste of time? That's it. I'm banning you from thinking. A brain in your head is like a gun in a kid's hands.
Slashdot is more than a web page. It is an Internet Application
Coughing up hyperbolic crap that sounds like marketing makes you sound stupider. Web apps are NOT what they mean when they talk about "software as a service". There's a big difference. Just so as you know, I'm the lead coder and system administrator on our company's unified internal management system, which is essentially a CSS/XHTML web app written in PHP back ended with PostgreSQL. Don't be telling me I don't know what a web app is.
Seeing as you still seem to think that Slashdot is some kind of application comparable to the "software as a service" they're talking about in this article, I'll go back to my initial retort:
So you can't see a distinction between a web page and a network booted operating system that may not even need a HDD to run?
When I said I think "Software as a service" was flawed and bogus, you replied with:
You use Slashdot, don't you?
Now I want you to tell me what part of your point I'm missing, which concept I'm not understanding, or which word in that sentence I'm not reading that would enable me to understand that yes, in fact, Slashdot *can* replace my operating system.
Slashdot Mirror
Lemme get this straight: You are refusing to do your bit to help the environment because it negatively impacts your ability to listen to the high fidelity auditory experience that is AM radio?
Don't say that, you're giving them ideas.
Where on earth did you grow up that old wives talk about knife-fighting while wearing kevlar?
You're obviously about as cluey in geopolitics as Uncle Joe is in global monetary policy interactions.
Where were the aggressive actions before 911/Cole/Sudan? Try the creation of Panama (1903), the enslavement of central Americans by William Walker (1856), the installation of Pinnochet in Chile (1973) and the rampant abuse that US corporations (Nike, Monsanto, Pfizer, GE, Bechtel, Exxon etc etc ad nauseam) have been engaging in the end of the Civil War just for tasters. There's a list longer than your arm.
Get off your moral high horse and take a look at what your people are doing to the rest of the world. Then you'd realize why desperate members of the third world look at their people with starving children and want to kill you. It's got nothing to do with them hating your freedom, they just want you, your government and your corporations to leave them the hell alone.
Well I have news for you. America's self-appointed mission to give divine capitalism to every corner of the globe is fanatical. They have the same view of you.
The dolalrs that American tourists bring into third world economies are orders of magnitude less than the dollars that American corporations "repatriate" out of them.
Oh quiet you two :P
Insightful? What on EARTH is going on here? This guy is about as insightful as a porcupine with rabies, and even less friendly.
Yes, I know that it is often convenient to treat collections as objects for the puposes of analysis. However I am talking about the strict definition of the word object. When a normal person, or even a physicist hears "largest obeject discovered" the first thing that comes to mind is J-Los ass. Even an astro-physicist would not infer the "colection as an object" definition unless it was supplied to distinguish between that famous rear and a collection of galaxies.
What I am saying is that TFA is stupid and deserving of ridicule. I don't mind when the media gets sensationalist in the trash tabloids, but scientists? I think we ought to demand a higher degree of professional clarity and restraint when making research announcements. What's next? Cure for cancer found.*
* A bullet to the head has been found to prevent 100% of cancer deaths.
Come on, lets be clear about what we mean. Qualifications buried under article crud is for Cosmo, not science journals.
Agreed. On a cosmic level we have no way of knowing if the known universe is just a small part of a larger structure. As such, all of the known universe could be "single object", so lets be serious about the way we define things, especially in physics.
In my opinion, TFA is a load of crud. An "object" is a single item. To use an astrophysics definition, it is a parcel of matter of contiguous structure bound by atomic or molecular forces (but not magnetic or gravitic) incorporating solid or liquid state matter, but not gasses or plasmas.
Following this definition:
Stop with the hyperbole already. A collection of galaxies and gasses and the missing brains of Slashdot readers is not a single object. Calling it one is just an excuse to attract attention to a "hey my discovered object is bigger than yours" competition.
What, you mean like AIDS or cancer or something?
What do you call the audience at a Dave Letterman show?
I'd like to see you up to your knees in gasolene testing that.
If you can say something like that you obviously were hever 13 years old on a farm. I remember when I was 13 I'd syphon gas out of the ride on lawn mower to make nice big fires sure to bring my dad running with a wet grain sack.
Perhaps you may find this to be pretty sweet reading (ridiculously idiotic pun intended).
Researchers are using stem cells to regrow the damaged or missing pancreatic tissue to treat diabetics such that their Islets' functions are enhanced or completely replaced if necessary.
The "evolution" of the DNA molecule finished millions of years ago. There are only 1-2% different genes between you and a monkey. Perhaps 5% difference between me and my pet cat, and in response to your how the hell you can believe a human shares genes with a plant question, there's about 50% shared genes between me and the banana I just ate. Read that article.
This discussion was always about the mainstream use of technology. While full privacy was lost years ago, Internet users are still able to type documents, surf the web, carry out their business operations and watch movies in relative privacy without being watched, especially if they are performing local tasks. I agree that it is unlikely in the forseeable future that any organization or government will be able to eliminate local computing, but its the ramifications to the public at large that concern me.
What I am afraid of, and I mean really, truly afraid, is the power that would come to the government if it were able to obtain a database that contained the minute to minute actions of the vast majority of the population while they were using any PC.
Even for those who don't "plug in", this would give the government virtual omniscience, with an automated, easy to access population spying system, making the Stazi look like my aunties gossipping at a family dinner.
So you're saying that users only use 1% of their PC in one breath, and saying that they would have more reasources at their disposal with network computing in another? Dude, think about it. For more than 1 second.
If I'm only using 1% of my PCs resources (which is probably true) then I don't give two turds if my web browser loads in 2 seconds or 3. Application launches occur very infrequently compared to in-app operations, and so a dely of a second is immaterial. And that's assuming that networking your PCs would achieve an improvement in app launch times, which I hotly dispute. Networking your apps would definitely lead to higher latency for keystrokes and in-app operations, which is a FAR more important aspect of performance than app load times. Imagine you could get a 5 second load time bonus from MS Word, but had to put up with a 100ms lag for keystrokes as you typed? Here, take your 5 seconds and get the hell out of my PC, thankyou very much.
Furthermore, the guts aren't the largest component of PC cost. Decent displays usually cost more by double the price of the CPU. If you can cut in half the price of the electronics in the main PC unit, you've only cut the price of the PC by about 20%. Maybe. Also, do you really want computing power to be subject to the same issues as bandwidth? I.e., do you want your game to run laggy at 7pm on Friday night? Or your business apps to provide abysmal latency during peak business hours? No thanks.
Finally, there is no way that you are going to be able to distribute on-demand processing like loading of a web browser or word processor between 5 remote systems. Distributed processing only works if the data is small but the processing is large, e.g., with encryption cracking, signal processing or equation solving. A situation where an application binary is being launched is all about fecthing the binary from disk, a task which cannot be distributed effectively unless the network is faster than the local bus, a situation which will never be true. Even thin clients have busses many times faster than any broadband connection, and those new ultra cheap Mini-ITX solutions that are replacing thin clients are fully fledged PCs, and are as powerful as top end PCs from a few years ago, with local bus capacity in the gigabits.
No, online OSes are not the way, and I seriously hope the idea flops this time like it has every other time its been suggested since the early 90's.
It's the potential for privacy that goes out the window. I agree tha most people still operate well and truly in the public domain, their fiddly bits naked in their glory for marketers and government officials to oogle to their hearts' content.
However if I want to operate a private operation, or if I want to protect my business secrets, then I'd like to be able to. I don't want that option taken off the table, which is what online OSes will do.
Basically what you're saying is "protect the users machines because they are more important than the ones that control the services they rely on". The Internet hums along despite the issues? You've never heard of Melissa, Blaster or ILoveYou? And you're saying there is no intelligence in the infrastructure? So the global, load balanced, DNS system is a trivial part of the network and the Internet would be just fine if there was no security surrounding the root servers? The internet works because of the security at the endpoints you say. So large scale Windows virusses have never caused monetary loss at a company due to network-wide downtime?
Oh, and "fusterated"?
You obviously know nothing about IT security or how "fusterating" it is for IT admins to make things work for end users who only end up spitting in their faces accusing them of being lazy.
Again, your stupidity shines through.
I said NetOSes were bad because they were a flawed concept, but I also said that the idea could be made to work by corporations seeking to dominate the way people compute. It was the possibility of success with the idea, rather than the certainty of its failure, that concerns me the most.
Reading comprehension FTW.
What do you think will happen when the kindly predator runs out of industries to eat? do you think the big predator and small fry consumers will live happily ever after?
*mumbles something about welcoming centrifuge raised chicken overlords*
How do you know Linus is small?
Slashdot is more than a web page. It is an Internet Application
Coughing up hyperbolic crap that sounds like marketing makes you sound stupider. Web apps are NOT what they mean when they talk about "software as a service". There's a big difference. Just so as you know, I'm the lead coder and system administrator on our company's unified internal management system, which is essentially a CSS/XHTML web app written in PHP back ended with PostgreSQL. Don't be telling me I don't know what a web app is.
Seeing as you still seem to think that Slashdot is some kind of application comparable to the "software as a service" they're talking about in this article, I'll go back to my initial retort:
Now I want you to tell me what part of your point I'm missing, which concept I'm not understanding, or which word in that sentence I'm not reading that would enable me to understand that yes, in fact, Slashdot *can* replace my operating system.
Ok, what part of "a web site is not an operating system" am I not understanding then?