I was able to get to the main paper (at least, I think it was the right one), but the focus seems to be on UI and the disembodiment thereof, not on any of the actual trivialities of interpretation and response. Next to last page has a sentence on the challenges of giving verbal commands to such a system (10 words a minute--not really a conversation).
And to slip in "personalities" and the genetic algorithm business just muddies the waters.
There's absolutely nothing in here about AI. I do think the UI stuff--the locality of personalities is interesting, so that might be somewhat original...
--Agreed. As in, "you cannot respect the power of your turbocharged V8 engine unless you can break it down and put it back together within an hour".
What BS. Computers should be easy to use--and if you happen to be able to make them to do things above and beyond a standard user, fan-friggen-tastic. You're cool. And that probably applies to most people here who understand and "respect" the technology.
But if that's not what you're trying to get out of it, it doesn't matter.
For once I *disagree* with Professor Frink--Not everyone has to enjoy it on as many levels as him.
I absolutely agree it's a problem... what with the Dems in persistent majority control, it would completely undermine the entire negotiation process...
I'm new to Cali, been living in SD for a few months, so I might be wrong, but couldn't the governor still veto those tax increases?
Not like Arnold will be around for that much longer...
First, I'd like to point out there's no way Stokey would be able to install Linux to all of his workstations by Monday 8 am in a weekend.:)
I am familiar with most of the arguments for OSS on the desktop, having made them as a sysadmin in a M$ dominated network at my previous job. You look at the services deployed on the server, the applications running on the desktop, the database and start thinking... hey, I know! We'll run sendmail instead of Exchange, OpenOffice instead of Word, Mozilla instead of IE and mySQL instead of SQL server! And we can probably all consolidate it onto one system which also acts as a gateway and a firewall with ipchains--
I'll save them about a billion dollars over the next 10 years and they'll worship me as their GOD!
And even in a small environment, that would take some time. Interoperability issues aside (document formats, drivers for that old tape backup-drive? forgot about those) you're looking at a whole new psychology change (getting used to a new GUI, "Where's my internet" kinds of questions), and that will make the end users hate you and the management hate you as well (as everything will seem "broken" to them). Sure, *if* you got them migrated seemlessly, you'd be saving money. Eventually.
But in an enterprise? Forget it. I mean sure deploy OSS on some test servers where they're used to UNIX anyways or whatever, but replacing all the desktops across the entire enterprise would be just crippling in (re)training costs alone. Not just for the users (wasted time) but for the Tier 1 folks as well.
My (admittedly unsolicited) advice would be to give OSS just enough of a reputation that someone says, "Hmmm. We should look at this." Then it'll be piloted somewhere in his organization. Once the kinks have gotten worked out, then he could actually have the company-specific data to induce a global change.
Insofar as there's still a community/social element in existence, yeah, there's a non-economic force at work. Like when McDonald's responded to consumer demand, stopped using styrofoam and started using cardboard, to appear more "environmentally friendly". But that's not capitalism per se, that's marketing.
Point is, response to market demand--not ethical or "responsible" behavior. Captialism, as it is, only responds to the bottom line of consumer demand. If we demand cheap things made in an unethical fashion, we'll get them. If we demand things made in an environmentally/socially conscious way, we'll get them. Capitalism itself doesn't care. It just wants to make sure that there's a market for the product, and doesn't care what the product is.
You're right, but it's also the AV companies' fault for holding onto a method (email back the person who sent it) that's no longer useful (when was the first address spoofing virus released)? A smarter method would be for the scanner to mail abuse@whatever.xyz, so if there is an infection on the admin's network, he'll be notified instead of a user (and has to interpret one of those "your mail has been rejected" messages themselves... gargh).
Or, at the very least, check to see if it's an address spoofing worm before emailing! That wouldn't be hard.
Slashdot Mirror
In Junior's defense, the above was from his father's election campaign in 1987.
Pretty incredible stuff. The apple apparently didn't fall too far from that tree. --EC
Now it's on the record that they a) haven't bothered producing a compliant site and b) they've shut sites that *are* compliant down.
Isn't that going to cause them liability problems?
That's a sure way to make sure the standard isn't adopted. (snicker)
I wish this hadn't gotten lost in the radio noise.
I was able to get to the main paper (at least, I think it was the right one), but the focus seems to be on UI and the disembodiment thereof, not on any of the actual trivialities of interpretation and response. Next to last page has a sentence on the challenges of giving verbal commands to such a system (10 words a minute--not really a conversation).
And to slip in "personalities" and the genetic algorithm business just muddies the waters.
There's absolutely nothing in here about AI. I do think the UI stuff--the locality of personalities is interesting, so that might be somewhat original...
the rest is just so much fluff.
--Agreed. As in, "you cannot respect the power of your turbocharged V8 engine unless you can break it down and put it back together within an hour". What BS. Computers should be easy to use--and if you happen to be able to make them to do things above and beyond a standard user, fan-friggen-tastic. You're cool. And that probably applies to most people here who understand and "respect" the technology. But if that's not what you're trying to get out of it, it doesn't matter. For once I *disagree* with Professor Frink--Not everyone has to enjoy it on as many levels as him.
I'm new to Cali, been living in SD for a few months, so I might be wrong, but couldn't the governor still veto those tax increases?
Not like Arnold will be around for that much longer...
I am familiar with most of the arguments for OSS on the desktop, having made them as a sysadmin in a M$ dominated network at my previous job. You look at the services deployed on the server, the applications running on the desktop, the database and start thinking... hey, I know! We'll run sendmail instead of Exchange, OpenOffice instead of Word, Mozilla instead of IE and mySQL instead of SQL server! And we can probably all consolidate it onto one system which also acts as a gateway and a firewall with ipchains--
I'll save them about a billion dollars over the next 10 years and they'll worship me as their GOD!
And even in a small environment, that would take some time. Interoperability issues aside (document formats, drivers for that old tape backup-drive? forgot about those) you're looking at a whole new psychology change (getting used to a new GUI, "Where's my internet" kinds of questions), and that will make the end users hate you and the management hate you as well (as everything will seem "broken" to them). Sure, *if* you got them migrated seemlessly, you'd be saving money. Eventually.
But in an enterprise? Forget it. I mean sure deploy OSS on some test servers where they're used to UNIX anyways or whatever, but replacing all the desktops across the entire enterprise would be just crippling in (re)training costs alone. Not just for the users (wasted time) but for the Tier 1 folks as well.
My (admittedly unsolicited) advice would be to give OSS just enough of a reputation that someone says, "Hmmm. We should look at this." Then it'll be piloted somewhere in his organization. Once the kinks have gotten worked out, then he could actually have the company-specific data to induce a global change.
Insofar as there's still a community/social element in existence, yeah, there's a non-economic force at work. Like when McDonald's responded to consumer demand, stopped using styrofoam and started using cardboard, to appear more "environmentally friendly". But that's not capitalism per se, that's marketing.
Point is, response to market demand--not ethical or "responsible" behavior. Captialism, as it is, only responds to the bottom line of consumer demand. If we demand cheap things made in an unethical fashion, we'll get them. If we demand things made in an environmentally/socially conscious way, we'll get them. Capitalism itself doesn't care. It just wants to make sure that there's a market for the product, and doesn't care what the product is.
Because captialism rewards those things so well... --EC
Or, at the very least, check to see if it's an address spoofing worm before emailing! That wouldn't be hard.