Yes, this is true, but there is no guaranttee that
it will remain exceptional
This is not written in stone, we are not inheriently "superior", what disturbs me most about other Americans using this mantra, is that they fail to realize, or simply refuse to admit, that we got to this point more out of the luck of geography and geopolitics, and just plain happenstance, than anything else. For anyone from a country that is only ~230 years old to say we are inheriently exceptional is just plain arrogant, as well as ignorant of history.
Uh, the Maginot Line actually worked. Its purpose was not to protect France from the entire world forever, it was to stop the Germans from attacking from the East, which it did.
When people refer to France's ML, they are really referring to the false hope of a static defense, which fails utterly if the enemy finds a new route/method/strategy to attack you with/from. While the ML didn't fail technically, it did fail in the larger sense that France believed it was safe from Germany because of the ML, when it obviously wasn't. Worse, the French were so confident in the ML, that they allowed their conventional military to degrade relative to the Germans. Also, although not well known, the Germans did penetrate the ML in a few places to the north. It took time of course, it wasn't like the blitzkrieg through the Low countries, but once they got behind the ML, no matter how, the ML was doomed. The lesson learned from this is that in modern times (post-gunpowder), almost any enemy, given enough time, can defeat any static line defense, i.e., the *best* defense is *always* a good *offense*.
It's the same urge that drives everyone to hate Microsoft.
While I generally agree with the point about those in dominant positions are often hated *because* of their position, I don't hate MS, I don't even hated BG. However, I do hate it when my government fails to enforce the anti-trust laws and allows a monopoly to *abuse* its *position*.
So much for safe, clean, and efficient nuclear power
Nuclear power has 3 problems: 1) it generates waste that is toxic for a long period of time, 2) it was over-sold and over-hyped when it was first introduced in the US, which led us to jump into this technology before we were competent with it, and 3) in the minds of average people its hopelessly linked to nuclear weapons, and the fear of mass destruction, even though the technology and goals are completely different between the 2 disciplines.
If you want to bash it on those reasons, especially the waste problem, fine, I can understand that, but I'm tired of hearing people use Chernobyl as the example of why nuclear power is "too dangerous".
There was *never* any such thing as a safe, clean, and efficient *anything* in the old Soviet Union. They routinely built nuclear reactors (and a hell of a lot of other buildings for that matter) that would never have been built in the West because of their atrocious design and lack of safety. Chernobyl isn't proof that nuclear power is too dangerous to use, its just proof that a communistic system of government is a greater threat to its own people than any outside "enemy".
NP can be safely used now, now that we've had 30+ years of experience. Look at France and Japan. Heck, did you read about the experimental mini-reactor being used by a village in Alaska? Totally self-contained and safe, its interior is sealed at the factory and isn't opened again until its decommissioned 15-20 years later when its fuel is exhausted. It can't melt-down or have a run-away reaction because there literally isn't enough fuel in the system to reach critical mass. The thing is about the size of a trailer, transportable, and thus removeable after its core is depleted. The company that makes it just comes back once its core is gone, takes it back to the factory for dismantling and salvaging/reprocessing. The irony may be that NP really is an answer to some of our problems, our mistake was spending 30 years thinking "big", when we should have been thinking *small*.
I can understand the criticism of the 1st and 2nd generation nuclear power plants (NPP), but while the US has virtually stopped development of NPPs, the rest of the world is working on the 4th and 5th generations of NPP design, just when they are starting to get *really* good.
As for NP technology *today*, as opposed to 30 years ago? When the founder of Greenpeace changes his mind and becomes pro-NP after his initial fanatical opposition to it, that should make a lot of people stop and reevaluate it, I think, at least those people still rational and open-minded enough to consider changing their minds on this subject.
If Java was opene sourced, who would be the people most likely to contribute anything useful to it? It would be people like IBM and other big Java/J2EE companies.
Actually, I think the open source community itself would contribute substantially. Your implicit equating of IBM and the FOSS people doesn't actually make sense. Sure, IBM and other profit-motivated companies may have unspoken goals/ideas here, but the FOSS people simply want Sun to let go of the Java source code so they can not only use it, but *develop* it as well.
They would get to contribute without paying Sun.
If Sun were in a position of strength then I might agree with you. Unfortunately, they are not anywhere *near* a position of strength on this.
Sun could still control Java, because they control the trademark and who can use it, so open-sourcing the code for their *implementation* doesn't mean they lose control of the *language*. If forks occurred they wouldn't be able to call themselves Java, so Sun could still control Java's future. Because of that, I don't think the issue of control is what is really important here.
The problem here is that Sun is in denial. They can't admit what everyone else has already figured out: MS with its.NET and C# will beat Java in the end, simply because MS, as always, can bundle things to their OS to kill the competition. IBM knows this, and the FOSS people know this. Java is doomed to just fade into computing history unless Sun does something radical, and the best way to save Java is to free it so it can become ubiquitous. Java as a standard system component on *every* Linux distro in existance would give Java influence and reach that it has never had to this point, and probably never will. Linux, because of its open nature, is the only real threat to MS's monopoly position. IBM has figured that out, that's why they decided to "join them rather than fight them". Sun could push Java dramatically forward if they latch onto Linux as the springboard for Java into the mainstream desktop realm, instead of just the smaller server-side world. For Sun, freeing up Java now would mean giving up some income in the short run, but would mean gaining income in the long run. Sun apparently doesn't want to give up the short term income though, despite the inevitability that this income will deteriorate in the future.
Personally, I don't care what happens to Java, I've never used it because its not free, same as I'll never use C#. With Perl, and especially Python, Java is not an *essential* need for anyone (and if you aren't essential, you can't beat a monopoly). Sun has decided, as the captain of a sinking ship, to stay at their posts to the bitter end. While that makes a great ending to a Hollywood movie, its still an *ending*. An ending that leaves MS to claim the battlefield in victory, and that doesn't help *anyone*.
As Eric Raymond said, they had a choice between control or ubiquity, and they have chosen control, but control over a relatively small empire that is only going to get smaller, the same decision Apple made, and it will have the same results in the long run: irrelevancy. Java will still be seen on the server side for years to come, just as Apple continues to struggle on, but it now has no chance to be a major influence on the computer industry, particularly an industry dominated by a monopoly using scorched-earth tactics to guaranttee Java's failure in the long run. Java will end up being marginalized just as Apple has become marginalized as a computer maker (5% market share and fading). I know the Java fans will label me a troll, but the truth is now simply unavoidable: Java is a dead man walking.
What I'm afraid of is that it will become the only way content is available. Phase out un-encrypted CDs. Fix the DVD-CSS security hole. Voila! No more fair-use.
And how does MS/RIAA force DRM on everyone, if everyone has the option to not buy it? I'm not concerned about DRM itself, I myself simply won't use it, and by definition therefore, won't use any service/content that depends on it. If enough people avoid it, the content makers will get the message and provide their content by other ways, after all, they have to convince us to pay them for their content, if we don't pay, they don't make any money. The only danger I foresee is these folks managing to convince the government to *mandate* DRM usage. That would be a problem.
You can either buy Apple or some mothboard from a shady manufacturer.
I am flabbergasted by this. At this point I'm going to have to turn the mod point display off so I don't get so steamed when clueless folk mod garbage up as "insightful". Moderators, just what in the hell are you thinking here?
Apple is going to save us from the big bad MS? Oh please, this kinda reminds me of PJ on Groklaw getting so giddy in her cheerleading for IBM, apparently too young to remember when IBM was doing its damndest to dictate to the PC market and shove inferior crap like MicroChannel down everyone's throat, just as MS controls it now, and as Apple controls the "Apple market". The only difference is that IBM failed to maintain its monopoly, due to a lack of foresight, whereas Apple succeeded, because Apple (and BillG) realized that to control the platform you had to control the OS.
Apple is no more a "good guy" now than IBM is. You think IBM got the FOSS religion? Hardly, this time its just IBM's turn to have an insight into a newly emerging technology, and they've made a cold hard business decision to leverage that new technology for their own profit, not because they've had a change of heart, or want to be "good guys" now, they just realized that commoditizing the OS has a lot of synergy with their own business plans. When the synergy disappears, so will IBM's committment to FOSS.
And Apple? Doing this to be the good guy? ROFL! Apple can afford to buck MS, simply because they are already irrelevent in the "personal computer industry" (all computer types, not just PC compatible), with less than 5% market share. They literally have nothing to lose, if they can convince just a few people like you that they are now the company "looking out for the little guy", they could cash in big, because just 2% of the total market would expand their market by at least 50%!
It's careful act of observation and prediction.
More like careless.
I think the problem with the/. crowd is they are composed of too many young idealists, who haven't aged enough to learn the value in cynicism, and have a distressingly weak command of history. How else can you explain people who bash MS viciously over monopoly-like tactics, and turn around and boost Apple constantly when they are just as guilty as MS? Is the message here its ok to be a monopolist, just as long as the market you monopolize is a tiny one? Its astonishing to me to see people bitch about MS dictatorial control over the PC market, but in the same breath claim that Apple's ability to "vertically integrate" their market is a good thing. Huh? Hell man, can't you see that the reason Apple has less than 5% of market share is precisely because of their "vertical integration"!?!?! God, where is my blood pressure medication....
The reason MS has 95% of the personal computer market is because IBM's monopoly on the hardware side *was* broken, allowing, for a period of time, some real competition to happen on the hardware side, which in turn led to more innovation and better price/performance ratios. Early on in this process we had real competition on the OS side too, with 3 different, mostly compatible, versions of DOS from 3 different companies, which kept the OS price down also. Eric Raymond's remark to Sun about having to choose between control or ubiquity applies to Apple here in *spades*. Apple chose control: and became irrelevent. The PC compatible market, because of serendipity, not any enlightened thought from IBM, ended up being for awhile controlled by no one, and *it* is what became ubiquitous. How can you Apple fans ignore the most fundamental rule of market economics: where there is competiton the consumer *benefits*, where there is no competition the consumer *suffers*. In this case, consumers had a choice, and 95% of them went with the platform that HAD THE COMPETITION!
Does anyone else believe as I do that if the respective marke
This is common practive already on many OEM computers
In the early 90's, my father bought a Gateway, and it turned out to be a good machine... until he wanted to increase the ram. Gateway had used a proprietary daughterboard arrangement to add more memory, so you ended up having to go back to Gateway (and only Gateway) and pay twice, once for the memory and once for the daughterboard to put the memory on.
I've stuck with PC compatible hardware because of the real competition that exists, and thus relatively high performance for a relatively lower price, but I don't buy "branded" PCs either, and never will. Its the same old lock-in story, just on a smaller scale. I build my own computers with hardware that I've investigated and know to be designed to the relevant standards for that hardware type, with no "gotchas". I'm actually paying more than I would getting the entire box from one company, but in the end its worth it, especially when it comes to future upgrading. I still believe people are better off buying PC hardware because of the competition, but you *have* to investigate the hardware *before* buying it.
How often does artillery come into play in a coup?
I think the other poster answered this.
There are lots of reasons a government might hesitate to shell its own towns.
A repressive government wanting to maintain power is willing to do just about anything when push comes to shove, e.g. Tiennamien Square.
Look at the Vietnam war. Weren't normal rifles more useful to the Vietnamese than artillery?
Please don't compare apples to oranges. Read the part of my first post about most rebellions only being successful when those rebelling had outside support. Now read up on the Vietnam conflict, especially about the part where it describes *two* Vietnams, the North and the South, and the level of military support coming from the USSR and China at the time. You might also want to ask some combat vets about the differences between the Viet Minh (guerrillas, the "VC") and the NVA (North Vietnamese Regular Army). There are other obvious differences too, like the civilians in question not being the same nationality as the occupying military force.
Besides, it wasn't rifles that drove out the French before we showed up. Read up on the battle of Dien Bien Phu. The use of Chinese artillery was crucial for the Viet Minh's victory over the French.
By the time there is a serious enough divide to cause an uprising, the government and military will also be somewhat divided.
First, I don't know what your point is by mentioning this, but I'll go ahead and say there is never any guaranttee that the military will be as divided as the civilian populace. In many countries, the military is often the greater threat to the civilians than the government is, or rather, the military runs the government. Despite the vast protests in Iran by the civilians, there is no evidence its military will side with its people. I could also mention Tiennamien again here. Even with us, our military was indeed demoralized by the dispute over Vietnam, but not to the point of rebellion, and in fact they were still willing to kill unarmed American kids when ordered to do so (the 4 college student demonstrators at Kent State, Ohio).
If the citizens need parity with the military, it's not in artillery but in c3i
I used artillery just as *one* example of why the gun advocate's argument falls apart, c3i is another good example too, but IMO, the artillery was the first historical military technology that, unlike hunting rifles and many personal weapons, has no use by the civilian population, and indeed would be a destabilizing element if so many civilians had access to that kind of destructive technology.
I think a small group of trained soldiers can win over a large group of untrained people with the same equipment.
That is certainly true today given the complexity of modern military equipment, however...
That was probably equally true in 1776.
I believe things were significantly different back then. The most complex thing a soldier needed to know about was his musket, something not nearly as complex as today's M16 or AK64. In fact, many people then had hunting rifles which were better at shooting than the military muskets, their weakness was not being designed to mount a bayonet. The initial weakness of the Americans then was their inability to fight the British regulars at close quarters due mainly to lack of training and proper equipment. Artillery was not used in large numbers by anyone then and wasn't the efficient infantry killer it became later, and it rarely played a crucial role in a given battle of the time.
However, even lacking the discipline and training needed to defeat the British quickly, they could still, as essentially rebelling civilians, keep the rebellion going on for several years, time enough to not only train themselves, and get
Ok, let's agree that stupid people will get hurt no matter what OS they use if they don't use their OS properly. Given however, a home user that is reasonably competent and isn't an idiot that runs his machine regularly as root when connected to the net, you haven't yet given a reasonable explanation for Linux's future failures.
I never said it would be immune, I'm just wanting to understand your theory that it will be as bad as Windows. Most of Window's weaknesses have been because of stupidity: MS never concerned itself about security and the net where everyone can't be trusted, because they were oriented towards the individual desktop user, and didn't pay attention to security fundamentals. I imagine they'll get better now, but there are still thousands of copies of Win95/98 out there that are effectively naked when connected to the net, MS still has IE defaulting to automatically run stuff from the net, and the recent exploitation of a messenging service provided by Windows' API is another example of MS not thinking about network security before adding a "feature".
Unlike Windows, Unix was born as a networking OS, security has been important from the very beginning. There are exploits possible with Windows (at least up till XP) that have NEVER BEEN POSSIBLE on Unix since its AT&T days. Aside from idiot users, I still can't see how it will be as bad. If the user isn't sure about something they should install it with a temporary user used for testing and run the software that way and see what it tries to do. The ability to test software in a "sandbox" is something Windows was never able to do until recently. This is the point you seem to be missing: with Linux you don't *need* to be root to try out new software.
Your entire argument assumes the user will give the unknown, untrusted app root access to the system, even when its not necessary. Most people coming to Linux however quickly become aware of the issue of security and trust because its important to Linux. Some Linux software will actually *complain* if you're running it as root because of the dangers involved. That's the difference it seems to me, its the attitude and perspective of the people who put the OS together.
Most Linux distros come with most networking features locked down, requiring the user to explicitly turn these things on. Windows tends to still default to turning everything on, and leaving things open to remote activation. Most Linux distros will warn the user about running as root and have the user create a normal account for regular use. Many Linux distros even insist on you using a password for your normal user, never mind root. With Windows XP this basic kind of preventative measures are still optional, Windows and MS doesn't seem to care whether you shoot yourself in the foot or not.
I believe people coming to Linux will *tend* to be less likely to do stupid things because the OS and the people using it are willing to *tell* them they're being an idiot when they're being an idiot. MS doesn't care what happens after you've given them your money, their standard answer to most problems is to reinstall anyway, but when you go to a Linux related newsgroup or forum and tell them you run regularly as root they'll correct your ignorance real quick.
That's what it boils down to. MS has shown by its behavior that they are only interested in making more money, they know that most people will have to buy their OS anyway to be able to run the majority of apps out there. I think that its different with Linux distros, who don't have the monopoly leverage to force you to come to them, I know its different with Debian Linux, which doesn't ask you for money anyway, although donations are welcome:), they are concerned that the OS work for you, since they themselves are also regular users, but when you're being stupid, they're not afraid to tell you that either.
I wish just one of the people always saying Linux/Unix will be hit just as bad as Windows has by spyware and virii when it gets as popular, would explain to us just exactly how this is going to happen, because I'm *really* interested in this theory. Windows is vulnerable because of its design, history, and intended audience. Linux, OTOH, was *born* in the networked multiuser world where not everyone can be trusted, its had features from the very beginning that Windows has gotten only recently. Sure *nix isn't immune, but I'm still waiting to hear the evidence for it being "just as vulnerable" as Windows.
So, you would need heavy weapons to have a chance in an uprising.
You do realize the insanity that this line of thought leads to, don't you? The need for the civilian to protect himself from an abusive government is an understood problem, but is the solution to this problem really allowing anyone unrestricted access to M60 machine guns, Stinger and Hellfire missiles, 500lb bombs, napalm, fighter jets, tanks, etc, etc? While an abusive government is a possibilty, typically civilians are FAR MORE likely to suffer at the hands of other *civilians*, and in fact, many suffer at the hands of *relatives*, not strangers.
This is where the gun freaks' argument breaks down, because warfare, and the weapons of war, are VASTLY MORE LETHAL AND DESTRUCTIVE now than they were in the 18th century, which leads to a massive increase in the level of mayhem and slaughter that one person, or a few people, can cause in a large dense population. The need to protect the good citizens from other citizens using heavy weaponry today now *trumps* the ideal of giving the civilian populace the *theoretical* ability to use force against an abusive government.
And I emphasize the word "theoretical" here, since most successful rebellions involve support from outside sources and often foreign military assistance. How quickly we Americans have forgotten the French blood that was spilled at Yorktown fighting for *our* liberty, and that was a time when military weapons were essentially the same as civilian firearms and explosives were still fairly primitive and rare.
IMO, our Founding Fathers' ideal about a strong citizenry being able to protect itself from an abusive government, as noble and understandable as it was, simply *died* with the advent of advanced artillery, among other things. Modern heavy artillery is the "queen of the battlefield", devastating against light infantry (such as armed civilians), and its the first historical example of a specialized heavy weapon that is expensive to maintain, has no civilian purpose or role, and can only be used effectively by trained personnel (professional soldiers). Just about everyone could figure out how to use a pistol if they were handed one, but how many people would be able to figure out how to operate and aim a 155mm howitzer? I wish it were otherwise, but it isn't, so its high time for the gun freaks to face reality: their argument was rendered obsolete nearly a century ago. I'm not much concerned about hunting rifles and the like, but I vote to let the Army be the only one to have Stinger missiles and cluster munitions, despite the risk, because I don't want wanton destruction to be so easily accomplished by the next Timothy McVeigh.
IIRC, regulations nearly killed the US car manufacturers, who already enough problems with quality control. I'd say only in the last five years have US cars really gotten pretty good. I hesitate to say "really good", because the Japanese are still ahead.
I don't really disagree with your main point about regulation, but your example is wrong, I believe. US car makers were nearly killed by new *competition*, not regulation. You're argument breaks down when you realize the Japanese had to make their cars according to *our* regulations and standards too, in order to sell them here. The US car industry simply lost touch with its customers, and paid the price when someone else showed up with a fresh, different, quality product that appealed to people more than Detroit's metal boxes did.
IIRC, their design meant that the liquid they used as the fail-safe actually entered the core itself and not only stopped the reaction but also was what cooled the core down by absorbing the heat. Unfortunately, its been so long, I can't remember the details.
Its only when she gets older that she'll realize how stupid she was to drive an open motorcycle through the dead zone without protective gear.
If you had read her article, you'd know that she wasn't being stupid. The radiation fallout didn't "stick" to the asphault, so it has become quite safe to enter the area as long as you stay outside the buildings and on the asphault/concrete. Why else would the government even allow tour buses, much less folks on motorcycles, to enter the area?
A dosimeter is no protection - it only tells you how much you have ALREADY BEEN irradiated.
You sound as if you are thinking that any radiation is bad or that radiation itself is bad. The danger from radiation, is mostly a matter of how long you were exposed to it, *not* that you were exposed at all. In extreme cases, of course, like being in the reactor core itself, just being there for a fraction of a second is enough to kill you (later), but for the most part you can enter a radiated area and still be safe as long as you don't stay in the area long enough to accumulate a lethal dose of radiation. Radiation is something that happens every second of every day to every thing on the planet, it is a natural occuring phenomenon, but just like many other things, too much of it can be a bad thing. Note there is a big difference between entering a radiated area, and coming into contact with radioactive fallout, especially if the contact includes inhaling radioatice dust. Its been 18 years since the disaster, the radioactivity is now in the ground and buildings but not in the air (and has also been washed clean from flat hard outside surfaces like concrete and asphault).
Some time back, I read about a reactor design that only depended on gravity to provide the fail-safe, and not even the operator could interfere with the fail-safe process.
Something about the core being surrounded by a liquid which had the property of greatly expanding its volume as it got hotter. If the core got too hot the expanding liquid would rise up to the lip of the core and starting pouring in to kill the reaction (through some chemical process based on the nature of the liquid; can't remember the details anymore). There was no built-in ability to drain the liquid, so it wasn't possible to accidentally reduce the amount of liquid.
The cleanup after a fail safe event would be difficult and expensive because of its design, but the design also meant that a meltdown was just about impossible.
So I think it is possible to design a reactor that even takes the fallibility of its operator into account.
Now, you can come charging in with all the bright-eyed wonder, insisting that a userland app should never be able to take down an OS.
Well, it *shouldn't*! The OS's most important goal is to allow apps to co-exist at runtime without one killing the other or the OS itself! After all these years Windows *still* can't achieve that goal. You seem to be implying that everyone should just make an exception for Windows because its Windows, but to me that just sounds like an apology for MS's incompetence. For all of Linux's usability problems, I'm still amazed out how stable its become in so short a time. MS could/should spend a couple of *years* just working on stability, but instead they continually add features and "improve" things to the point that the OS is never stable at any point. The OP was just pointing out what most Linux and *BSD users already know: Window's instability IS NOT NORMAL for an operating system!
Debian is working towards this, and there are packages like apt-src, apt-build, and others that do for source packages what apt does for binary packages, but the issue of your own customized compile flags seems unresolved. For the debian packages I wanted to build myself, I downloaded with "apt-get source [pkg]" (you need a 'deb-src' line in sources.list for this to work), but then built them manually, as I couldn't figure out the "proper" way to insert my own customization flags into Debian's build process. The lack of documentation on the whole issue of managing source packages is a killer right now. So, it can be done, but doing things similar to Gentoo is still a work-in-progress for Debian.
I did say what's bad about what Stallman does, and since it's comparable to what SCO is doing, I draw the comparison.
And this is why everyone is labeling you a troll, because it is NOT COMPARABLE, no matter how loudly and how often you scream this, it still isn't true.
he will refuse to speak with any journalist that doesn't agree up front to his demand, for example. Yes, it's not in the same league as suing them, but there are consequences just the same
not talking with reporters != 5 billion dollar lawsuit
Ignoring for the moment that Debian is objectionable to no small number of us because of their explicit kowtowing to Stallman...
This tells me you are completely clueless as to what Debian is, and Stallman's relationship with it. Debian and the FSF are actually at logger-heads right now over the Free Documentation License and the non-free section of Debian.
# Can you conclude that "Gentoo is faster than Mandrake?" No. This is a limited test. It is likely that Mandrake is faster for some things. Also, we tested load-time performance only.
So who's trolling now?
The OP is still correct, recompiling for a later x86 version doesn't make a substantial difference for *most* apps. In the cases where it does, distros like Debian are providing optimized libraries for those (e.g. glibc). The bottom line still remains that for many people the time spent recompiling the world isn't worth the minor (if not insignificant) gains from doing so. Most people who don't want to spend hours and hours tweaking their system are better off with a binary distro, and just recompiling the few apps that make a real difference, or simply relying on the distro maker to figure out which apps really benefit, and using optimized binaries provided by the distro that they don't have to compile themselves.
Java is absolutely the best language to develop for web
I dare you to make this claim on comp.lang.python.:)
Seriously, you can find quite a few ex-Java users that use Python as their "glue" language for web development now, and most will be happy to tell you the horror story that caused them to switch. Python's only real disadvantage to Java is the lack of JIT compiling technology as part of the "platform", although if you are using Python on x86 hardware, there is a kind of JIT compiler called Psycho, that pretty much closes the gap.
Slashdot Mirror
s/Smart/Paranoid/
and you were going SO well until you got to this point, what a pity...
Yes, this is true, but there is no guaranttee that
This is not written in stone, we are not inheriently "superior", what disturbs me most about other Americans using this mantra, is that they fail to realize, or simply refuse to admit, that we got to this point more out of the luck of geography and geopolitics, and just plain happenstance, than anything else. For anyone from a country that is only ~230 years old to say we are inheriently exceptional is just plain arrogant, as well as ignorant of history.
When people refer to France's ML, they are really referring to the false hope of a static defense, which fails utterly if the enemy finds a new route/method/strategy to attack you with/from. While the ML didn't fail technically, it did fail in the larger sense that France believed it was safe from Germany because of the ML, when it obviously wasn't. Worse, the French were so confident in the ML, that they allowed their conventional military to degrade relative to the Germans. Also, although not well known, the Germans did penetrate the ML in a few places to the north. It took time of course, it wasn't like the blitzkrieg through the Low countries, but once they got behind the ML, no matter how, the ML was doomed. The lesson learned from this is that in modern times (post-gunpowder), almost any enemy, given enough time, can defeat any static line defense, i.e., the *best* defense is *always* a good *offense*.
While I generally agree with the point about those in dominant positions are often hated *because* of their position, I don't hate MS, I don't even hated BG. However, I do hate it when my government fails to enforce the anti-trust laws and allows a monopoly to *abuse* its *position*.
Nuclear power has 3 problems: 1) it generates waste that is toxic for a long period of time, 2) it was over-sold and over-hyped when it was first introduced in the US, which led us to jump into this technology before we were competent with it, and 3) in the minds of average people its hopelessly linked to nuclear weapons, and the fear of mass destruction, even though the technology and goals are completely different between the 2 disciplines.
If you want to bash it on those reasons, especially the waste problem, fine, I can understand that, but I'm tired of hearing people use Chernobyl as the example of why nuclear power is "too dangerous".
There was *never* any such thing as a safe, clean, and efficient *anything* in the old Soviet Union. They routinely built nuclear reactors (and a hell of a lot of other buildings for that matter) that would never have been built in the West because of their atrocious design and lack of safety. Chernobyl isn't proof that nuclear power is too dangerous to use, its just proof that a communistic system of government is a greater threat to its own people than any outside "enemy".
NP can be safely used now, now that we've had 30+ years of experience. Look at France and Japan. Heck, did you read about the experimental mini-reactor being used by a village in Alaska? Totally self-contained and safe, its interior is sealed at the factory and isn't opened again until its decommissioned 15-20 years later when its fuel is exhausted. It can't melt-down or have a run-away reaction because there literally isn't enough fuel in the system to reach critical mass. The thing is about the size of a trailer, transportable, and thus removeable after its core is depleted. The company that makes it just comes back once its core is gone, takes it back to the factory for dismantling and salvaging/reprocessing. The irony may be that NP really is an answer to some of our problems, our mistake was spending 30 years thinking "big", when we should have been thinking *small*.
I can understand the criticism of the 1st and 2nd generation nuclear power plants (NPP), but while the US has virtually stopped development of NPPs, the rest of the world is working on the 4th and 5th generations of NPP design, just when they are starting to get *really* good.
As for NP technology *today*, as opposed to 30 years ago? When the founder of Greenpeace changes his mind and becomes pro-NP after his initial fanatical opposition to it, that should make a lot of people stop and reevaluate it, I think, at least those people still rational and open-minded enough to consider changing their minds on this subject.
Actually, I think the open source community itself would contribute substantially. Your implicit equating of IBM and the FOSS people doesn't actually make sense. Sure, IBM and other profit-motivated companies may have unspoken goals/ideas here, but the FOSS people simply want Sun to let go of the Java source code so they can not only use it, but *develop* it as well.
If Sun were in a position of strength then I might agree with you. Unfortunately, they are not anywhere *near* a position of strength on this.
Sun could still control Java, because they control the trademark and who can use it, so open-sourcing the code for their *implementation* doesn't mean they lose control of the *language*. If forks occurred they wouldn't be able to call themselves Java, so Sun could still control Java's future. Because of that, I don't think the issue of control is what is really important here.
The problem here is that Sun is in denial. They can't admit what everyone else has already figured out: MS with its
Personally, I don't care what happens to Java, I've never used it because its not free, same as I'll never use C#. With Perl, and especially Python, Java is not an *essential* need for anyone (and if you aren't essential, you can't beat a monopoly). Sun has decided, as the captain of a sinking ship, to stay at their posts to the bitter end. While that makes a great ending to a Hollywood movie, its still an *ending*. An ending that leaves MS to claim the battlefield in victory, and that doesn't help *anyone*.
As Eric Raymond said, they had a choice between control or ubiquity, and they have chosen control, but control over a relatively small empire that is only going to get smaller, the same decision Apple made, and it will have the same results in the long run: irrelevancy. Java will still be seen on the server side for years to come, just as Apple continues to struggle on, but it now has no chance to be a major influence on the computer industry, particularly an industry dominated by a monopoly using scorched-earth tactics to guaranttee Java's failure in the long run. Java will end up being marginalized just as Apple has become marginalized as a computer maker (5% market share and fading). I know the Java fans will label me a troll, but the truth is now simply unavoidable: Java is a dead man walking.
And how does MS/RIAA force DRM on everyone, if everyone has the option to not buy it? I'm not concerned about DRM itself, I myself simply won't use it, and by definition therefore, won't use any service/content that depends on it. If enough people avoid it, the content makers will get the message and provide their content by other ways, after all, they have to convince us to pay them for their content, if we don't pay, they don't make any money. The only danger I foresee is these folks managing to convince the government to *mandate* DRM usage. That would be a problem.
I am flabbergasted by this. At this point I'm going to have to turn the mod point display off so I don't get so steamed when clueless folk mod garbage up as "insightful". Moderators, just what in the hell are you thinking here?
Apple is going to save us from the big bad MS? Oh please, this kinda reminds me of PJ on Groklaw getting so giddy in her cheerleading for IBM, apparently too young to remember when IBM was doing its damndest to dictate to the PC market and shove inferior crap like MicroChannel down everyone's throat, just as MS controls it now, and as Apple controls the "Apple market". The only difference is that IBM failed to maintain its monopoly, due to a lack of foresight, whereas Apple succeeded, because Apple (and BillG) realized that to control the platform you had to control the OS.
Apple is no more a "good guy" now than IBM is. You think IBM got the FOSS religion? Hardly, this time its just IBM's turn to have an insight into a newly emerging technology, and they've made a cold hard business decision to leverage that new technology for their own profit, not because they've had a change of heart, or want to be "good guys" now, they just realized that commoditizing the OS has a lot of synergy with their own business plans. When the synergy disappears, so will IBM's committment to FOSS.
And Apple? Doing this to be the good guy? ROFL! Apple can afford to buck MS, simply because they are already irrelevent in the "personal computer industry" (all computer types, not just PC compatible), with less than 5% market share. They literally have nothing to lose, if they can convince just a few people like you that they are now the company "looking out for the little guy", they could cash in big, because just 2% of the total market would expand their market by at least 50%!
More like careless.
/. crowd is they are composed of too many young idealists, who haven't aged enough to learn the value in cynicism, and have a distressingly weak command of history. How else can you explain people who bash MS viciously over monopoly-like tactics, and turn around and boost Apple constantly when they are just as guilty as MS? Is the message here its ok to be a monopolist, just as long as the market you monopolize is a tiny one? Its astonishing to me to see people bitch about MS dictatorial control over the PC market, but in the same breath claim that Apple's ability to "vertically integrate" their market is a good thing. Huh? Hell man, can't you see that the reason Apple has less than 5% of market share is precisely because of their "vertical integration"!?!?! God, where is my blood pressure medication....
I think the problem with the
The reason MS has 95% of the personal computer market is because IBM's monopoly on the hardware side *was* broken, allowing, for a period of time, some real competition to happen on the hardware side, which in turn led to more innovation and better price/performance ratios. Early on in this process we had real competition on the OS side too, with 3 different, mostly compatible, versions of DOS from 3 different companies, which kept the OS price down also. Eric Raymond's remark to Sun about having to choose between control or ubiquity applies to Apple here in *spades*. Apple chose control: and became irrelevent. The PC compatible market, because of serendipity, not any enlightened thought from IBM, ended up being for awhile controlled by no one, and *it* is what became ubiquitous. How can you Apple fans ignore the most fundamental rule of market economics: where there is competiton the consumer *benefits*, where there is no competition the consumer *suffers*. In this case, consumers had a choice, and 95% of them went with the platform that HAD THE COMPETITION!
Does anyone else believe as I do that if the respective marke
In the early 90's, my father bought a Gateway, and it turned out to be a good machine... until he wanted to increase the ram. Gateway had used a proprietary daughterboard arrangement to add more memory, so you ended up having to go back to Gateway (and only Gateway) and pay twice, once for the memory and once for the daughterboard to put the memory on.
I've stuck with PC compatible hardware because of the real competition that exists, and thus relatively high performance for a relatively lower price, but I don't buy "branded" PCs either, and never will. Its the same old lock-in story, just on a smaller scale. I build my own computers with hardware that I've investigated and know to be designed to the relevant standards for that hardware type, with no "gotchas". I'm actually paying more than I would getting the entire box from one company, but in the end its worth it, especially when it comes to future upgrading. I still believe people are better off buying PC hardware because of the competition, but you *have* to investigate the hardware *before* buying it.
I think the other poster answered this.
A repressive government wanting to maintain power is willing to do just about anything when push comes to shove, e.g. Tiennamien Square.
Please don't compare apples to oranges. Read the part of my first post about most rebellions only being successful when those rebelling had outside support. Now read up on the Vietnam conflict, especially about the part where it describes *two* Vietnams, the North and the South, and the level of military support coming from the USSR and China at the time. You might also want to ask some combat vets about the differences between the Viet Minh (guerrillas, the "VC") and the NVA (North Vietnamese Regular Army). There are other obvious differences too, like the civilians in question not being the same nationality as the occupying military force.
Besides, it wasn't rifles that drove out the French before we showed up. Read up on the battle of Dien Bien Phu. The use of Chinese artillery was crucial for the Viet Minh's victory over the French.
First, I don't know what your point is by mentioning this, but I'll go ahead and say there is never any guaranttee that the military will be as divided as the civilian populace. In many countries, the military is often the greater threat to the civilians than the government is, or rather, the military runs the government. Despite the vast protests in Iran by the civilians, there is no evidence its military will side with its people. I could also mention Tiennamien again here. Even with us, our military was indeed demoralized by the dispute over Vietnam, but not to the point of rebellion, and in fact they were still willing to kill unarmed American kids when ordered to do so (the 4 college student demonstrators at Kent State, Ohio).
I used artillery just as *one* example of why the gun advocate's argument falls apart, c3i is another good example too, but IMO, the artillery was the first historical military technology that, unlike hunting rifles and many personal weapons, has no use by the civilian population, and indeed would be a destabilizing element if so many civilians had access to that kind of destructive technology.
That is certainly true today given the complexity of modern military equipment, however...
I believe things were significantly different back then. The most complex thing a soldier needed to know about was his musket, something not nearly as complex as today's M16 or AK64. In fact, many people then had hunting rifles which were better at shooting than the military muskets, their weakness was not being designed to mount a bayonet. The initial weakness of the Americans then was their inability to fight the British regulars at close quarters due mainly to lack of training and proper equipment. Artillery was not used in large numbers by anyone then and wasn't the efficient infantry killer it became later, and it rarely played a crucial role in a given battle of the time.
However, even lacking the discipline and training needed to defeat the British quickly, they could still, as essentially rebelling civilians, keep the rebellion going on for several years, time enough to not only train themselves, and get
Ok, let's agree that stupid people will get hurt no matter what OS they use if they don't use their OS properly. Given however, a home user that is reasonably competent and isn't an idiot that runs his machine regularly as root when connected to the net, you haven't yet given a reasonable explanation for Linux's future failures.
:), they are concerned that the OS work for you, since they themselves are also regular users, but when you're being stupid, they're not afraid to tell you that either.
I never said it would be immune, I'm just wanting to understand your theory that it will be as bad as Windows. Most of Window's weaknesses have been because of stupidity: MS never concerned itself about security and the net where everyone can't be trusted, because they were oriented towards the individual desktop user, and didn't pay attention to security fundamentals. I imagine they'll get better now, but there are still thousands of copies of Win95/98 out there that are effectively naked when connected to the net, MS still has IE defaulting to automatically run stuff from the net, and the recent exploitation of a messenging service provided by Windows' API is another example of MS not thinking about network security before adding a "feature".
Unlike Windows, Unix was born as a networking OS, security has been important from the very beginning. There are exploits possible with Windows (at least up till XP) that have NEVER BEEN POSSIBLE on Unix since its AT&T days. Aside from idiot users, I still can't see how it will be as bad. If the user isn't sure about something they should install it with a temporary user used for testing and run the software that way and see what it tries to do. The ability to test software in a "sandbox" is something Windows was never able to do until recently. This is the point you seem to be missing: with Linux you don't *need* to be root to try out new software.
Your entire argument assumes the user will give the unknown, untrusted app root access to the system, even when its not necessary. Most people coming to Linux however quickly become aware of the issue of security and trust because its important to Linux. Some Linux software will actually *complain* if you're running it as root because of the dangers involved. That's the difference it seems to me, its the attitude and perspective of the people who put the OS together.
Most Linux distros come with most networking features locked down, requiring the user to explicitly turn these things on. Windows tends to still default to turning everything on, and leaving things open to remote activation. Most Linux distros will warn the user about running as root and have the user create a normal account for regular use. Many Linux distros even insist on you using a password for your normal user, never mind root. With Windows XP this basic kind of preventative measures are still optional, Windows and MS doesn't seem to care whether you shoot yourself in the foot or not.
I believe people coming to Linux will *tend* to be less likely to do stupid things because the OS and the people using it are willing to *tell* them they're being an idiot when they're being an idiot. MS doesn't care what happens after you've given them your money, their standard answer to most problems is to reinstall anyway, but when you go to a Linux related newsgroup or forum and tell them you run regularly as root they'll correct your ignorance real quick.
That's what it boils down to. MS has shown by its behavior that they are only interested in making more money, they know that most people will have to buy their OS anyway to be able to run the majority of apps out there. I think that its different with Linux distros, who don't have the monopoly leverage to force you to come to them, I know its different with Debian Linux, which doesn't ask you for money anyway, although donations are welcome
I wish just one of the people always saying Linux/Unix will be hit just as bad as Windows has by spyware and virii when it gets as popular, would explain to us just exactly how this is going to happen, because I'm *really* interested in this theory. Windows is vulnerable because of its design, history, and intended audience. Linux, OTOH, was *born* in the networked multiuser world where not everyone can be trusted, its had features from the very beginning that Windows has gotten only recently. Sure *nix isn't immune, but I'm still waiting to hear the evidence for it being "just as vulnerable" as Windows.
You do realize the insanity that this line of thought leads to, don't you? The need for the civilian to protect himself from an abusive government is an understood problem, but is the solution to this problem really allowing anyone unrestricted access to M60 machine guns, Stinger and Hellfire missiles, 500lb bombs, napalm, fighter jets, tanks, etc, etc? While an abusive government is a possibilty, typically civilians are FAR MORE likely to suffer at the hands of other *civilians*, and in fact, many suffer at the hands of *relatives*, not strangers.
This is where the gun freaks' argument breaks down, because warfare, and the weapons of war, are VASTLY MORE LETHAL AND DESTRUCTIVE now than they were in the 18th century, which leads to a massive increase in the level of mayhem and slaughter that one person, or a few people, can cause in a large dense population. The need to protect the good citizens from other citizens using heavy weaponry today now *trumps* the ideal of giving the civilian populace the *theoretical* ability to use force against an abusive government.
And I emphasize the word "theoretical" here, since most successful rebellions involve support from outside sources and often foreign military assistance. How quickly we Americans have forgotten the French blood that was spilled at Yorktown fighting for *our* liberty, and that was a time when military weapons were essentially the same as civilian firearms and explosives were still fairly primitive and rare.
IMO, our Founding Fathers' ideal about a strong citizenry being able to protect itself from an abusive government, as noble and understandable as it was, simply *died* with the advent of advanced artillery, among other things. Modern heavy artillery is the "queen of the battlefield", devastating against light infantry (such as armed civilians), and its the first historical example of a specialized heavy weapon that is expensive to maintain, has no civilian purpose or role, and can only be used effectively by trained personnel (professional soldiers). Just about everyone could figure out how to use a pistol if they were handed one, but how many people would be able to figure out how to operate and aim a 155mm howitzer? I wish it were otherwise, but it isn't, so its high time for the gun freaks to face reality: their argument was rendered obsolete nearly a century ago. I'm not much concerned about hunting rifles and the like, but I vote to let the Army be the only one to have Stinger missiles and cluster munitions, despite the risk, because I don't want wanton destruction to be so easily accomplished by the next Timothy McVeigh.
I don't really disagree with your main point about regulation, but your example is wrong, I believe. US car makers were nearly killed by new *competition*, not regulation. You're argument breaks down when you realize the Japanese had to make their cars according to *our* regulations and standards too, in order to sell them here. The US car industry simply lost touch with its customers, and paid the price when someone else showed up with a fresh, different, quality product that appealed to people more than Detroit's metal boxes did.
IIRC, their design meant that the liquid they used as the fail-safe actually entered the core itself and not only stopped the reaction but also was what cooled the core down by absorbing the heat. Unfortunately, its been so long, I can't remember the details.
If you had read her article, you'd know that she wasn't being stupid. The radiation fallout didn't "stick" to the asphault, so it has become quite safe to enter the area as long as you stay outside the buildings and on the asphault/concrete. Why else would the government even allow tour buses, much less folks on motorcycles, to enter the area?
You sound as if you are thinking that any radiation is bad or that radiation itself is bad. The danger from radiation, is mostly a matter of how long you were exposed to it, *not* that you were exposed at all. In extreme cases, of course, like being in the reactor core itself, just being there for a fraction of a second is enough to kill you (later), but for the most part you can enter a radiated area and still be safe as long as you don't stay in the area long enough to accumulate a lethal dose of radiation. Radiation is something that happens every second of every day to every thing on the planet, it is a natural occuring phenomenon, but just like many other things, too much of it can be a bad thing. Note there is a big difference between entering a radiated area, and coming into contact with radioactive fallout, especially if the contact includes inhaling radioatice dust. Its been 18 years since the disaster, the radioactivity is now in the ground and buildings but not in the air (and has also been washed clean from flat hard outside surfaces like concrete and asphault).
Even Greenpeace's founder has changed his mind about nuclear power.
Some time back, I read about a reactor design that only depended on gravity to provide the fail-safe, and not even the operator could interfere with the fail-safe process.
Something about the core being surrounded by a liquid which had the property of greatly expanding its volume as it got hotter. If the core got too hot the expanding liquid would rise up to the lip of the core and starting pouring in to kill the reaction (through some chemical process based on the nature of the liquid; can't remember the details anymore). There was no built-in ability to drain the liquid, so it wasn't possible to accidentally reduce the amount of liquid.
The cleanup after a fail safe event would be difficult and expensive because of its design, but the design also meant that a meltdown was just about impossible.
So I think it is possible to design a reactor that even takes the fallibility of its operator into account.
Well, it *shouldn't*! The OS's most important goal is to allow apps to co-exist at runtime without one killing the other or the OS itself! After all these years Windows *still* can't achieve that goal. You seem to be implying that everyone should just make an exception for Windows because its Windows, but to me that just sounds like an apology for MS's incompetence. For all of Linux's usability problems, I'm still amazed out how stable its become in so short a time. MS could/should spend a couple of *years* just working on stability, but instead they continually add features and "improve" things to the point that the OS is never stable at any point. The OP was just pointing out what most Linux and *BSD users already know: Window's instability IS NOT NORMAL for an operating system!
Debian is working towards this, and there are packages like apt-src, apt-build, and others that do for source packages what apt does for binary packages, but the issue of your own customized compile flags seems unresolved. For the debian packages I wanted to build myself, I downloaded with "apt-get source [pkg]" (you need a 'deb-src' line in sources.list for this to work), but then built them manually, as I couldn't figure out the "proper" way to insert my own customization flags into Debian's build process. The lack of documentation on the whole issue of managing source packages is a killer right now. So, it can be done, but doing things similar to Gentoo is still a work-in-progress for Debian.
And this is why everyone is labeling you a troll, because it is NOT COMPARABLE, no matter how loudly and how often you scream this, it still isn't true.
not talking with reporters != 5 billion dollar lawsuit
You *are* a troll, sir.
This tells me you are completely clueless as to what Debian is, and Stallman's relationship with it. Debian and the FSF are actually at logger-heads right now over the Free Documentation License and the non-free section of Debian.
So who's trolling now?
The OP is still correct, recompiling for a later x86 version doesn't make a substantial difference for *most* apps. In the cases where it does, distros like Debian are providing optimized libraries for those (e.g. glibc). The bottom line still remains that for many people the time spent recompiling the world isn't worth the minor (if not insignificant) gains from doing so. Most people who don't want to spend hours and hours tweaking their system are better off with a binary distro, and just recompiling the few apps that make a real difference, or simply relying on the distro maker to figure out which apps really benefit, and using optimized binaries provided by the distro that they don't have to compile themselves.
I dare you to make this claim on comp.lang.python.
Seriously, you can find quite a few ex-Java users that use Python as their "glue" language for web development now, and most will be happy to tell you the horror story that caused them to switch. Python's only real disadvantage to Java is the lack of JIT compiling technology as part of the "platform", although if you are using Python on x86 hardware, there is a kind of JIT compiler called Psycho, that pretty much closes the gap.