A lot of Netscape employees were unhappy with the buyout. Some felt AOL is Satan, some just thought the culture would change into something they wouldn't like, some I'm sure had other reasons I'm not aware of. But for whatever reasons, a lot of Netscape employees decided to leave when they heard AOL was buying the company. So if they were going to leave, they had to find other housing.
If anyone else has any other good info about the AOL/Netscape thing, please feel free to add to/correct my comment:)
It's not making a killing at all. If your salary is 50% more than you'd make elsewhere, but housing costs 100% more, gas costs more, pretty much *everything* costs more (especially with the high taxes), that money disappears in no time. And that's assuming you can even *find* housing over there. Do you think these people are living in shelters because they think it's a swell place to live?! I don't.
It just goes to show that one's salary is not necesarily indicative of quality of life. Things like the cost of living, transportation, etc. often have a greater impact than most people realize.
Besides, SV is a bad place to go if you're a single guy. The single men outnumber single women 3:1! (in Boston, the women outnumber the men:)
Disclaimer: I don't live in either SV or Boston (I'm from the Buffalo, NY area).
I don't think the UN was really created to be a tool of US policy. Just basically to stop the world's countries from starting another World War. Two was quite enough for everyone, I think. The US didn't want to have to go through that again, and neither did the Europeans or anybody else. Hence the UN. The structure of the UN, particularly the Security Council (where most of the real power is) made it impossible for the US to use the UN as a tool (Russia, China, Britain, France, and US all have veto power. How often do they all agree? It doesn't get a whole lot rarer than that!)
As for why the US doesn't like the UN sometimes, look at the genocide in Kosovo. The UN wasn't doing a thing (in large part due to the Russians, who support Serbia and have veto power). If NATO hadn't stepped in, there might not be any Kosovar Albanians left. The UN is supposed to prevent genocides and such from happening, but it's too slow and ineffective. Trying to get any group of people to agree is difficult, and trying to get a bunch of stubborn diplomats who all have veto power in the Security Council to do so is nearly impossible.
The UN is useful as a place for countries to vent their frustrations. Sort of a group therapy for their countries' collective egos. Helps keep everyone calm and not marching off to war. If you can keep everyone occupied doing nothing but talking, then they can't fight each other. Problem is, while they're doing nothing, they're not dealing with the world's other problems. Like Kosovo.
And on those occasions where the UN actually does get its act together (like in Iraq) to do something, who ends up supplying most of the military force? The US, usually. Which makes the politicians wonder why we're paying the UN so that we can fight the UN's battles. They don't see that while the UN has plenty of problems, it's better than nothing.
Still, the UN demonstrates why we still need to have groups like NATO around, particularly for regional problems...less size == less beaurocratic crap == faster, effective action.
Last I heard, it was the *total* US debt that was about 5 trillion. I don't know what the US debt to the UN is, but I'm sure that with the economy as good as it is, it wouldn't be a big deal to raise the money. But instead, our esteemed politicians feel the need to play politics rather than actually accomplish something (like paying off those debts that we've accumulated). Every Congressman's gotta try and fund his pet project, which are usually unnecessary and of no use to the general public. Even when the Democrats and Republicans aren't far apart on an issue, they'd rather do nothing so they can point the finger at the other party next election.
And so, our UN debt continues. And we look like a country of idiots who are too damn cheap to pay our UN tab.
I bet if we took 50 random Slashdotters, put them in a room and told them to solve the country's problems, we'd get a lot more done than the US Senate has gotten done in the past several years. Hell, you could probably take 50 random people off the street and still do better than the government...at least the people off the street would be looking to do the right thing rather than trying to further a political career.
Enough rambling for one night. I gotta work tomorrow:)
Hmm...the only group with the power to institute some sort of eugenics program would be the government. Now, considering the morons of dubious ethics that end up in most elected (and probably non-elected too) , do you really want THEM to be deciding anything having to do with a eugenics program?
Now THAT is a far scarier thought than any Y2K-related panic.
Things some people in academia have to lose if cold fusion works:
1) Federal research grants - if CF becomes the new "hot" technology, then it stands to reason that the "old" technology isn't going to get as much funding. There's only so much $$ to go around.
2) Prestige/pride - all those who dismissed CF as the product of quacks would suddenly find themselves in a rather uncomfortable situation. Most people just hate being proven wrong - especially if they've been very vocal about it. It would be kinda like going on national television back in the 40s to claim an atomic bomb was impossible, and then the next day the US drops the bomb on Japan... people would have a hard time taking you all that seriously afterwards.
This doesn't require any sort of conspiracy, just people looking after their own self-interests. I doubt the oil companies are conspiring with the hot fusion folks, but it's quite possible that each tries to dismiss CF because if it were to be developed/researched, it could pose a threat to them.
Any troubles the University of Utah may have with giving away the rights to that research is not evidence against cold fusion. It is just as likely that researchers have founded better processes. Or perhaps they saw how P&F were labeled as quacks and would rather try to avoid a repeat by avoiding that process (due more to politics than science). Or it could be as you say. But there is no obvious way to distinguish which is the case. Which, I think, is why we need further research into these areas.
Even if it takes 100-120 years to get the technology working well enough to be a viable source of energy, it could very well be worth the time (and money). Consider:
1. Fossil fuels don't last forever ( I don't know if they'll even last that 120 years...if someone has numbers please post them). Hydrogen, OTOH, is the most abundant element in the universe. In the long-term, fusion makes a lot of sense.
2. Fusion as an energy source is better by far than anything we've got. Tremendous amounts of energy for what you put in, and it doesn't pollute like fossil fuels or fission reactions.
3. If you can do *cold* fusion (which is obviously a subject of debate at the moment), then you may have found a way to make it a practical energy source.
So what if we sink a century of work into something that could be a useful power source for millennia?
I'd also note that while funding is limited, funding a little cold fusion research doesn't mean we have to drop everything else. And somehow I don't see fossil fuel research as having a whole lot of relevance compared to fusion, since we're well on our way to using up those fossil fuels. If we needed to cut money from somewhere to fund fusion, why not that (political lobbying aside)?
since you if you want them originally (say you know you're going to be viewing a lot of Japanese pages) then you can choose to install them when you install IE5 (or at anytime thereafter through WindowsUpdate). But if you don't know if you'll need it or not, you can just not install them (saving yourself from having extra bloat) and then IE5 will give you the option of downloading and installing the fonts when you get to a page that needs them. A good feature, IMO. The number of languages IE5 supports is pretty impressive too.
I have the right to speak, but that does not equal the right to be heard. If I go to the middle of town and start shouting all sorts of crap really loud, such that it is a nuisance to those around me, I can be found to be "disturbing the peace" and forced to stop, because I would be infringing on the right of the public to not be harassed.
Basically, the spammer's rights end at the point they begin to infringe upon the rights of others. They have the right of free speech, but they do NOT have the right to harass people with spam.
It isn't declaring itself to be pro-spam, but by doing this opt-out policy (which we all know does not work) the EU politicians are giving a tacit approval to spam. That may not be the intent, but it is the effect.
The problem here is that there is no middle ground. Doing nothing favors spammers by failing to require them to be accountable for the costs they force upon users and their ISPs. Thus the legislation IS pro-spam, it just doesn't bill itself that way (it doesn't make your constituents very happy to hear "yeah, today we passed legislation that does nothing to help you. In fact, it hurts you since you have to opt-out every time someone spams you. Next, we're thinking that we're going to amend our assault laws. If someone beats you up, you have to tell them you want to 'opt-out'. So if they do it again, maybe then you can take action against them. Oh, and BTW this is going to make our area look really attractive to bullies...". Yeah, the public will like to hear *that* one.)
IANAL, but from reading the opinion of the court online, it seems that the question is essentially whether or not source code is considered "expression" under the Constitution (and thus entitled to full 1st Amendment protections) or if it is to be considered "conduct" (from what I could tell this seems to mean something which has expressive properties but is mainly functional in nature, and thus entitled to a lesser 1st Amendment protection).
Two of the three appellate judges (Fletcher and Bright)in this case decided that source code, since it was designed to be read by humans, and often used to communicate ideas, should be considered "expression". The dissenting member (Nelson) of the panel considered it to be "conduct", since he believed its primary purpose was to be run through a compiler to generate machine code.
A brief excerpt (from Fletcher):
We emphasize the narrowness of our First Amendment holding. We do not hold that all software is expressive. Much of it surely is not. Nor need we resolve whether the challenged regulations constitute content-based restrictions, subject to the strictest constitutional scrutiny, or whether they are, instead, content-neutral restrictions meriting less exacting scrutiny. We hold merely that because the prepublication licensing regime challenged here applies directly to scientific expression, vests boundless discretion in government officials, and lacks adequate procedural safeguards, it constitutes an impermissible prior restraint on speech.
However, the fight may not be over yet. Bright states:
I join Judge Fletcher's opinion. I do so because the speech aspects of encryption source code represent communication between computer programmers. I do, however, recognize the validity of Judge Nelson's view that encryption source code also has the functional purpose of controlling computers and in that regard does not command protection under the First Amendment. The importance of this case suggests that it may be appropriate for review by the United States Supreme Court.
So the Supreme Court may end up reviewing this one. Especially since in a similar case (Junger vs government) a different district court had ruled the opposite of in this case. In fact, the dissenting judge in this case cites the Junger ruling in his commentary.
I think what's happening here is that Thompson and you have somewhat different criteria for careers. I really don't think he cares all that much about the money; it's the opportunity to be on the frontiers of a new field. Computing really doesn't have much of that anymore, it's starting to mature and a lot of the fundamental work has been done. Biotech, OTOH, is very new, and there's a bigger chance to have a major impact on the field by doing that fundamental sort of stuff.
So no, you may not make as much money, but you get the chance to do some really exciting stuff (at least for people such as Thompson, it seems).
I do think Thompson may be wrong about all the interesting stuff being gone from computer work. Quantum computing, anyone?
well, neither do I...but if one could recover credit card info or whatever, a criminal could find it a very profitable wait. 10 weeks later, most people will still have the same credit cards...
and that "acceptance of social diversity" apparently doesn't apply to "frat boys"? Being a member of a fraternity myself, I'm rather frustrated with this "frat boy" stereotype that a lot of people seem to have. We're not all drunken, rude, insensitive, stupid "jock" types, you know. In fact, most aren't. Most are pretty nice guys, if you'd actually get to know them. It's ironic how those who presumably suffer from stereotyping still stereotype others.
Actually, as far as facts go, the GPA of fraternity members is HIGHER than average nationwide (US). Something like 85% of Fortune 500 CEOs were fraternity members. Doesn't really seem like it fits the stereotype, now does it?
And I bet a bunch of us "frat boys" could beat a lot of "geeks" in Quake, too:-)
I think one point he was trying to make is that a lot of people here on/. seem to think that different necessarily equals good; but this is not the case. Often it is good, there is a lot to be said for diversity. At the same time, there are some lifestyle choices that are different but *not* good, and can ruin someone's life.
Problem is, a lot of times people don't say anything about the problems that can arise because they fear being labeled "intolerant" or whatever-ist. This is the "ethical relativism" he spoke of, where rather than go out on a limb, people just sort of look the other way, pretending (maybe coming to believe) all choices are equal. Which, I think, is just as dangerous to society as stereotyping. Stereotyping is generally a result of ignorance. Ignorance can be overcome with education (though it may take some time). Ethical relativism, on the other hand, often seems to be a result of apathy. Few care enough to speak out. How can you make someone care?
I suppose in a way, "ethical relativism" is a result of stereotyping. The only difference being, the group being stereotyped is critics, rather than a race or other group. Criticize, and you're "intolerant". Which in this day and age is like a kiss of death.
It's as if society never really learns. They find out discriminating against people because of race is wrong, and become gung-ho in criticizing racism. But then, people have to fight the same battle all over again. Maybe this time it's age discrimination. Or discrimination by gender. Or dissenters. Or one of dozens of groups. Society never seems to realize that the problem is not what groups it's discriminating against, but that's it's doing so in the first place.
My rationale there was that since the market for OSes on x86 was the area MS' illegal tactics have hurt, that should be where the money is used. To use it to try to attack the x86 processor market (ie mostly Intel, AMD, and a few others) would be punishing companies who haven't been found guilty of anything.
ah, but if you break up the company into groups based on products, what you very likely will get is multiple companies with monopolies. So we get a few Baby Bills (at least in Apps [Office] and OS [Windows], possibly others). I don't see this giving much additional choice to consumers. The company consumers get the product from may differ, but the choices are pretty much the same.
If a MS breakup occurred, more software would be developed for these platforms, making platforms with inexpensive, well developed, effective software
Why do you think that more software would be developed for these Windows descendants than would be developed for the current Windows product? If the product becomes balkanized, as it probably would in a MS breakup, then developers are going to have to develop for what essentially becomes a few more different platforms. You'd be getting all the problems of the fractured Unix market, without the technical superiority that allowed Unix to survive. It would seem to me that developers would often have to pick one "flavor" of Windows to develop for (due to lack of resources to do all). This would decrease the availability of new software, not increase it.
Suppose through some method the new Windows vendors decided to maintain a common API between them to ensure compatibility. Then, it would seem that you would have the same amount of software developed for Windows. Developers would still choose Windows as their primary target platform due to market size considerations. I doubt you're going to suddenly find hordes of new Windows developers just because there are X number of companies selling Windows rather than 1. The price of Windows might decrease, but this is really doesn't have any significant effect on the developers or the amount/quality of software they produce.
Plus, if you have to do this Windows-by-committee approach, you will run into two problems. The first is that new Windows technology would be vastly delayed in being implemented, since all the other Windows vendors would have to come up with their own implementation in order that all versions remain compatible. Which tends to remove any incentive for these new companies to improve the product, since they would not be able to differentiate their product significantly. This in turn would lead to problem number 2, a balkanization of the product as each Windows firm got tired of the situation and decided to add its own features independently.
You could get around some of that nastiness by releasing the code under the GPL. The biggest problem though with GPL'ing it, as I see it, is that the product may quickly stagnate. There are only so many OSS developers out there. How many of them do you think are going to want to switch from their current projects to work on Windows, which more often than not has been the object of their scorn? An OSS project can only be successful if it has sufficient development efforts behind it. This means a lot of volunteers. I don't see Windows getting enough there, even if software companies were to employ some people to work on it (much as RedHat does with Linux). In which case, Windows doesn't get much better, and consumers suffer *more* than if M$ had been at the helm.
It seems to me that a breakup would indeed decrease the availability of software and quite possibly increase the cost to consumers (due to increased development costs). An open-sourced Windows would likely stagnate due to lack of developers, and consumers would again suffer.
I think what should be the primary consideration in deciding what remedies should be taken is what is best for the consumer, NOT how to "punish" Microsoft. We don't want the punishment of MS to screw over consumers. Breaking up the company would punish MS, but I fail to see any real benefit coming out of it (as I discussed above). For this reason I think regulatory measures are what is needed in this situation. They can both help consumers and punish MS.
My suggestion for a better (IMHO) way to deal with the M$ situation is this: require a standard Windows pricing for all OEMs. Require all the APIs to be fully open and documented, so that M$ applications developers don't have any advantage over the competition due to also making the OS. Do not allow MS to require one product to be bundled with another. Do not allow exclusive deals (i.e., allow alternate OS and dual-boot configurations without the OEM being at risk of losing the Windows license). Require that their OEM deals be on a per-copy-of-product, rather than per-machine, basis (IIRC, this may have been in the consent decree, but I don't remember exactly). Forbid all those other anti-competitive contractual issues that M$ was criticized for. Slap them with a large fine (something that will be significant to a company of MS's size, not merely a slap on the wrist). An interesting idea would be for the fine to be used to help fund the development of other OSes on x86 (though that might be rather complicated to administer well, it could work out if handled properly).
This way you eliminate the anti-competitive behaviour, punish MS, and don't screw over consumers.
in regards to Win98 2nd Edition, all the bug fixes that appear there are downloadable for free from the Windows Update website. This includes IE5. There actually are a few (but not many!) new features in the new version, like Internet connection sharing.
For those who can't afford to spend hours and hours downloading things from the Net, getting the CD (which supposedly was going to be fairly cheap for current 98 users, rather than full upgrade price) may very well be worth it.
It's selling the convenience of having everything on the CD, plus some new features, rather than the bug fixes themselves.
well, the P3s are roughly 10% faster than a P2 at the same clock rate. Plus you get the SSE instructions (which nobody really uses yet, so there's no immediate benefit from SSE at this time, except graphics drivers which I've heard can get boosts of 25%).
Dual 350s or so would be better, as far as cost/performance I'd imagine (the slower FSB on the 333s would probably make the 350s a better deal). But then you have to run an SMP-aware OS, which is no biggie for most of us, but might be for all those people who want to run Win98 so they can play those games they can't get running well under NT or WINE)
You make some good points, and for the most part I agree with them. However, I don't think Intel's asking Symantec to include the exploit in their virus list is an attempt to undermine ZeroKnowledge, but rather is an attempt to protect the owners of PIIIs. There's no way to avoid someone malicious from using the exact same exploit to steal people's ID numbers. If the antivirus program can warn about it, then people won't get taken advantage of by sites whose purpose is not legitimate.
Of course, life would be much better for all involved if ActiveX were to die a quick death. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
yeah, I've found it's generally easier/faster to run a query through Altavista wheneveer I need to find something from MS Knowledge Base...and the Altavista search is usually closer to what I'm looking for than MS's results are.
Well, certainly the accounts are capable of doing more than just "volunteer activities", and may be used beyond the time allocated for volunteering. And so I'd have to agree that the accounts have the same value as every other AOL account. But is this because AOL was trying to barter the account for labor, or because it was simply more efficient to do that than create a separate type of account where usage would be tracked and non-volunteer services would be restricted? I tend to think it was the latter, though having that extra value was probably useful in persuading some of the moderators to volunteer.
Consider this, though. Suppose you volunteer at a local church barbeque. In my experience, the church usually lets the volunteers who make the event possible have a free lunch at the event. Should we then say that the church bartered for the volunteers' labor, and when some of the volunteers get tired of it should they go to the Department of Labor and complain? Suppose that after a few years of the barbeque, the church reduces the price of all-you-can-eat tickets. Yet the volunteers still get the ability to eat all they can for free as a benefit of volunteering. Has the benefit to the volunteers really decreased (as the disgruntled AOL volunteers seem to believe)? After all, they are receiving the same service; it is just that the cost of the service to non-volunteers has decreased. Granted, AOL is not your local church; but the spirit of volunteering for the good of the community is the same, I think.
As for how AOL "sold" the moderator idea to people, I'd imagine it was something inbetween your two choices. Getting free AOL was probably a help, but I think many of the volunteers were members of those communities already and felt they could help by being a moderator. Much like the church analogy, they volunteered in large part because they felt it would benefit their community, and the free lunch was an added benefit. How much of each aspect influenced a volunteer probably depended in large part upon that person's history and personality. So did some people volunteer just for the account? Quite possibly. Did some volunteer just for the sake of enhancing their community, and gaining the respect of their peers? That's also quite possible.
I think what's happening now is that the people who joined up simply for the free account have become tired of doing it, and want to get paid for their efforts. But communities work by people volunteering time and effort towards a common cause. There are sufficient numbers of volunteers who are willing to donate their time to help, so AOL doesn't need or want the people who are just in it for themselves. It's better to have people running the forums who actually care about the community than people in it just for some economic benefit. Plus, the article said there were some 10,000 volunteers. Were AOL forced to pay that many additional people (even part-time) the costs of the service would skyrocket, which also would be bad for the communities on AOL. And the majority of the 10,000 volunteers seem to agree, since you don't see any complaints except from a small but vocal minority.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of Netscape employees were unhappy with the buyout. Some felt AOL is Satan, some just thought the culture would change into something they wouldn't like, some I'm sure had other reasons I'm not aware of. But for whatever reasons, a lot of Netscape employees decided to leave when they heard AOL was buying the company. So if they were going to leave, they had to find other housing.
:)
If anyone else has any other good info about the AOL/Netscape thing, please feel free to add to/correct my comment
It's not making a killing at all. If your salary is 50% more than you'd make elsewhere, but housing costs 100% more, gas costs more, pretty much *everything* costs more (especially with the high taxes), that money disappears in no time. And that's assuming you can even *find* housing over there. Do you think these people are living in shelters because they think it's a swell place to live?! I don't.
:)
It just goes to show that one's salary is not necesarily indicative of quality of life. Things like the cost of living, transportation, etc. often have a greater impact than most people realize.
Besides, SV is a bad place to go if you're a single guy. The single men outnumber single women 3:1! (in Boston, the women outnumber the men
Disclaimer: I don't live in either SV or Boston (I'm from the Buffalo, NY area).
I don't think the UN was really created to be a tool of US policy. Just basically to stop the world's countries from starting another World War. Two was quite enough for everyone, I think. The US didn't want to have to go through that again, and neither did the Europeans or anybody else. Hence the UN. The structure of the UN, particularly the Security Council (where most of the real power is) made it impossible for the US to use the UN as a tool (Russia, China, Britain, France, and US all have veto power. How often do they all agree? It doesn't get a whole lot rarer than that!)
As for why the US doesn't like the UN sometimes, look at the genocide in Kosovo. The UN wasn't doing a thing (in large part due to the Russians, who support Serbia and have veto power). If NATO hadn't stepped in, there might not be any Kosovar Albanians left. The UN is supposed to prevent genocides and such from happening, but it's too slow and ineffective. Trying to get any group of people to agree is difficult, and trying to get a bunch of stubborn diplomats who all have veto power in the Security Council to do so is nearly impossible.
The UN is useful as a place for countries to vent their frustrations. Sort of a group therapy for their countries' collective egos. Helps keep everyone calm and not marching off to war. If you can keep everyone occupied doing nothing but talking, then they can't fight each other. Problem is, while they're doing nothing, they're not dealing with the world's other problems. Like Kosovo.
And on those occasions where the UN actually does get its act together (like in Iraq) to do something, who ends up supplying most of the military force? The US, usually. Which makes the politicians wonder why we're paying the UN so that we can fight the UN's battles. They don't see that while the UN has plenty of problems, it's better than nothing.
Still, the UN demonstrates why we still need to have groups like NATO around, particularly for regional problems...less size == less beaurocratic crap == faster, effective action.
Last I heard, it was the *total* US debt that was about 5 trillion. I don't know what the US debt to the UN is, but I'm sure that with the economy as good as it is, it wouldn't be a big deal to raise the money. But instead, our esteemed politicians feel the need to play politics rather than actually accomplish something (like paying off those debts that we've accumulated). Every Congressman's gotta try and fund his pet project, which are usually unnecessary and of no use to the general public. Even when the Democrats and Republicans aren't far apart on an issue, they'd rather do nothing so they can point the finger at the other party next election.
:)
And so, our UN debt continues. And we look like a country of idiots who are too damn cheap to pay our UN tab.
I bet if we took 50 random Slashdotters, put them in a room and told them to solve the country's problems, we'd get a lot more done than the US Senate has gotten done in the past several years. Hell, you could probably take 50 random people off the street and still do better than the government...at least the people off the street would be looking to do the right thing rather than trying to further a political career.
Enough rambling for one night. I gotta work tomorrow
Hmm...the only group with the power to institute some sort of eugenics program would be the government. Now, considering the morons of dubious ethics that end up in most elected (and probably non-elected too) , do you really want THEM to be deciding anything having to do with a eugenics program?
Now THAT is a far scarier thought than any Y2K-related panic.
Things some people in academia have to lose if cold fusion works:
1) Federal research grants - if CF becomes the new "hot" technology, then it stands to reason that the "old" technology isn't going to get as much funding. There's only so much $$ to go around.
2) Prestige/pride - all those who dismissed CF as the product of quacks would suddenly find themselves in a rather uncomfortable situation. Most people just hate being proven wrong - especially if they've been very vocal about it. It would be kinda like going on national television back in the 40s to claim an atomic bomb was impossible, and then the next day the US drops the bomb on Japan... people would have a hard time taking you all that seriously afterwards.
This doesn't require any sort of conspiracy, just people looking after their own self-interests. I doubt the oil companies are conspiring with the hot fusion folks, but it's quite possible that each tries to dismiss CF because if it were to be developed/researched, it could pose a threat to them.
Any troubles the University of Utah may have with giving away the rights to that research is not evidence against cold fusion. It is just as likely that researchers have founded better processes. Or perhaps they saw how P&F were labeled as quacks and would rather try to avoid a repeat by avoiding that process (due more to politics than science). Or it could be as you say. But there is no obvious way to distinguish which is the case. Which, I think, is why we need further research into these areas.
Even if it takes 100-120 years to get the technology working well enough to be a viable source of energy, it could very well be worth the time (and money). Consider:
1. Fossil fuels don't last forever ( I don't know if they'll even last that 120 years...if someone has numbers please post them). Hydrogen, OTOH, is the most abundant element in the universe. In the long-term, fusion makes a lot of sense.
2. Fusion as an energy source is better by far than anything we've got. Tremendous amounts of energy for what you put in, and it doesn't pollute like fossil fuels or fission reactions.
3. If you can do *cold* fusion (which is obviously a subject of debate at the moment), then you may have found a way to make it a practical energy source.
So what if we sink a century of work into something that could be a useful power source for millennia?
I'd also note that while funding is limited, funding a little cold fusion research doesn't mean we have to drop everything else. And somehow I don't see fossil fuel research as having a whole lot of relevance compared to fusion, since we're well on our way to using up those fossil fuels. If we needed to cut money from somewhere to fund fusion, why not that (political lobbying aside)?
since you if you want them originally (say you know you're going to be viewing a lot of Japanese pages) then you can choose to install them when you install IE5 (or at anytime thereafter through WindowsUpdate). But if you don't know if you'll need it or not, you can just not install them (saving yourself from having extra bloat) and then IE5 will give you the option of downloading and installing the fonts when you get to a page that needs them. A good feature, IMO. The number of languages IE5 supports is pretty impressive too.
could someone please point out where I could find out which domains are on the RBL? Thanks.
I have the right to speak, but that does not equal the right to be heard. If I go to the middle of town and start shouting all sorts of crap really loud, such that it is a nuisance to those around me, I can be found to be "disturbing the peace" and forced to stop, because I would be infringing on the right of the public to not be harassed.
Basically, the spammer's rights end at the point they begin to infringe upon the rights of others. They have the right of free speech, but they do NOT have the right to harass people with spam.
It isn't declaring itself to be pro-spam, but by doing this opt-out policy (which we all know does not work) the EU politicians are giving a tacit approval to spam. That may not be the intent, but it is the effect.
The problem here is that there is no middle ground. Doing nothing favors spammers by failing to require them to be accountable for the costs they force upon users and their ISPs. Thus the legislation IS pro-spam, it just doesn't bill itself that way (it doesn't make your constituents very happy to hear "yeah, today we passed legislation that does nothing to help you. In fact, it hurts you since you have to opt-out every time someone spams you. Next, we're thinking that we're going to amend our assault laws. If someone beats you up, you have to tell them you want to 'opt-out'. So if they do it again, maybe then you can take action against them. Oh, and BTW this is going to make our area look really attractive to bullies...". Yeah, the public will like to hear *that* one.)
IANAL, but from reading the opinion of the court online, it seems that the question is essentially whether or not source code is considered "expression" under the Constitution (and thus entitled to full 1st Amendment protections) or if it is to be considered "conduct" (from what I could tell this seems to mean something which has expressive properties but is mainly functional in nature, and thus entitled to a lesser 1st Amendment protection).
Two of the three appellate judges (Fletcher and Bright)in this case decided that source code, since it was designed to be read by humans, and often used to communicate ideas, should be considered "expression". The dissenting member (Nelson) of the panel considered it to be "conduct", since he believed its primary purpose was to be run through a compiler to generate machine code.
A brief excerpt (from Fletcher):
We emphasize the narrowness of our First Amendment holding. We do not hold that all software is expressive. Much of it surely is not. Nor need we resolve whether the challenged regulations constitute content-based restrictions, subject to the strictest constitutional scrutiny, or whether they are, instead, content-neutral restrictions meriting less exacting scrutiny. We hold merely that because the prepublication licensing regime challenged here applies directly to scientific expression, vests boundless discretion in government officials, and lacks adequate procedural safeguards, it constitutes an impermissible prior restraint on speech.
However, the fight may not be over yet. Bright states:
I join Judge Fletcher's opinion. I do so because the speech aspects of encryption source code represent communication between computer programmers. I do, however, recognize the validity of Judge Nelson's view that encryption source code also has the functional purpose of controlling computers and in that regard does not command protection under the First Amendment. The importance of this case suggests that it may be appropriate for review by the United States Supreme Court.
So the Supreme Court may end up reviewing this one. Especially since in a similar case (Junger vs government) a different district court had ruled the opposite of in this case. In fact, the dissenting judge in this case cites the Junger ruling in his commentary.
it's more fun with high tech :)
I think what's happening here is that Thompson and you have somewhat different criteria for careers. I really don't think he cares all that much about the money; it's the opportunity to be on the frontiers of a new field. Computing really doesn't have much of that anymore, it's starting to mature and a lot of the fundamental work has been done. Biotech, OTOH, is very new, and there's a bigger chance to have a major impact on the field by doing that fundamental sort of stuff.
So no, you may not make as much money, but you get the chance to do some really exciting stuff (at least for people such as Thompson, it seems).
I do think Thompson may be wrong about all the interesting stuff being gone from computer work. Quantum computing, anyone?
well, neither do I...but if one could recover credit card info or whatever, a criminal could find it a very profitable wait. 10 weeks later, most people will still have the same credit cards...
and that "acceptance of social diversity" apparently doesn't apply to "frat boys"? Being a member of a fraternity myself, I'm rather frustrated with this "frat boy" stereotype that a lot of people seem to have. We're not all drunken, rude, insensitive, stupid "jock" types, you know. In fact, most aren't. Most are pretty nice guys, if you'd actually get to know them. It's ironic how those who presumably suffer from stereotyping still stereotype others.
:-)
Actually, as far as facts go, the GPA of fraternity members is HIGHER than average nationwide (US). Something like 85% of Fortune 500 CEOs were fraternity members. Doesn't really seem like it fits the stereotype, now does it?
And I bet a bunch of us "frat boys" could beat a lot of "geeks" in Quake, too
I think one point he was trying to make is that a lot of people here on /. seem to think that different necessarily equals good; but this is not the case. Often it is good, there is a lot to be said for diversity. At the same time, there are some lifestyle choices that are different but *not* good, and can ruin someone's life.
:-)
Problem is, a lot of times people don't say anything about the problems that can arise because they fear being labeled "intolerant" or whatever-ist. This is the "ethical relativism" he spoke of, where rather than go out on a limb, people just sort of look the other way, pretending (maybe coming to believe) all choices are equal. Which, I think, is just as dangerous to society as stereotyping. Stereotyping is generally a result of ignorance. Ignorance can be overcome with education (though it may take some time). Ethical relativism, on the other hand, often seems to be a result of apathy. Few care enough to speak out. How can you make someone care?
I suppose in a way, "ethical relativism" is a result of stereotyping. The only difference being, the group being stereotyped is critics, rather than a race or other group. Criticize, and you're "intolerant". Which in this day and age is like a kiss of death.
It's as if society never really learns. They find out discriminating against people because of race is wrong, and become gung-ho in criticizing racism. But then, people have to fight the same battle all over again. Maybe this time it's age discrimination. Or discrimination by gender. Or dissenters. Or one of dozens of groups. Society never seems to realize that the problem is not what groups it's discriminating against, but that's it's doing so in the first place.
I guess that's the end of my rant
My rationale there was that since the market for OSes on x86 was the area MS' illegal tactics have hurt, that should be where the money is used. To use it to try to attack the x86 processor market (ie mostly Intel, AMD, and a few others) would be punishing companies who haven't been found guilty of anything.
ah, but if you break up the company into groups based on products, what you very likely will get is multiple companies with monopolies. So we get a few Baby Bills (at least in Apps [Office] and OS [Windows], possibly others). I don't see this giving much additional choice to consumers. The company consumers get the product from may differ, but the choices are pretty much the same.
If a MS breakup occurred, more software would be developed for these platforms, making platforms with inexpensive, well developed, effective software
Why do you think that more software would be developed for these Windows descendants than would be developed for the current Windows product? If the product becomes balkanized, as it probably would in a MS breakup, then developers are going to have to develop for what essentially becomes a few more different platforms. You'd be getting all the problems of the fractured Unix market, without the technical superiority that allowed Unix to survive. It would seem to me that developers would often have to pick one "flavor" of Windows to develop for (due to lack of resources to do all). This would decrease the availability of new software, not increase it.
Suppose through some method the new Windows vendors decided to maintain a common API between them to ensure compatibility. Then, it would seem that you would have the same amount of software developed for Windows. Developers would still choose Windows as their primary target platform due to market size considerations. I doubt you're going to suddenly find hordes of new Windows developers just because there are X number of companies selling Windows rather than 1. The price of Windows might decrease, but this is really doesn't have any significant effect on the developers or the amount/quality of software they produce.
Plus, if you have to do this Windows-by-committee approach, you will run into two problems. The first is that new Windows technology would be vastly delayed in being implemented, since all the other Windows vendors would have to come up with their own implementation in order that all versions remain compatible. Which tends to remove any incentive for these new companies to improve the product, since they would not be able to differentiate their product significantly. This in turn would lead to problem number 2, a balkanization of the product as each Windows firm got tired of the situation and decided to add its own features independently.
You could get around some of that nastiness by releasing the code under the GPL. The biggest problem though with GPL'ing it, as I see it, is that the product may quickly stagnate. There are only so many OSS developers out there. How many of them do you think are going to want to switch from their current projects to work on Windows, which more often than not has been the object of their scorn? An OSS project can only be successful if it has sufficient development efforts behind it. This means a lot of volunteers. I don't see Windows getting enough there, even if software companies were to employ some people to work on it (much as RedHat does with Linux). In which case, Windows doesn't get much better, and consumers suffer *more* than if M$ had been at the helm.
It seems to me that a breakup would indeed decrease the availability of software and quite possibly increase the cost to consumers (due to increased development costs). An open-sourced Windows would likely stagnate due to lack of developers, and consumers would again suffer.
I think what should be the primary consideration in deciding what remedies should be taken is what is best for the consumer, NOT how to "punish" Microsoft. We don't want the punishment of MS to screw over consumers. Breaking up the company would punish MS, but I fail to see any real benefit coming out of it (as I discussed above). For this reason I think regulatory measures are what is needed in this situation. They can both help consumers and punish MS.
My suggestion for a better (IMHO) way to deal with the M$ situation is this: require a standard Windows pricing for all OEMs. Require all the APIs to be fully open and documented, so that M$ applications developers don't have any advantage over the competition due to also making the OS. Do not allow MS to require one product to be bundled with another. Do not allow exclusive deals (i.e., allow alternate OS and dual-boot configurations without the OEM being at risk of losing the Windows license). Require that their OEM deals be on a per-copy-of-product, rather than per-machine, basis (IIRC, this may have been in the consent decree, but I don't remember exactly). Forbid all those other anti-competitive contractual issues that M$ was criticized for. Slap them with a large fine (something that will be significant to a company of MS's size, not merely a slap on the wrist). An interesting idea would be for the fine to be used to help fund the development of other OSes on x86 (though that might be rather complicated to administer well, it could work out if handled properly).
This way you eliminate the anti-competitive behaviour, punish MS, and don't screw over consumers.
in regards to Win98 2nd Edition, all the bug fixes that appear there are downloadable for free from the Windows Update website. This includes IE5. There actually are a few (but not many!) new features in the new version, like Internet connection sharing.
For those who can't afford to spend hours and hours downloading things from the Net, getting the CD (which supposedly was going to be fairly cheap for current 98 users, rather than full upgrade price) may very well be worth it.
It's selling the convenience of having everything on the CD, plus some new features, rather than the bug fixes themselves.
well, the P3s are roughly 10% faster than a P2 at the same clock rate. Plus you get the SSE instructions (which nobody really uses yet, so there's no immediate benefit from SSE at this time, except graphics drivers which I've heard can get boosts of 25%).
Dual 350s or so would be better, as far as cost/performance I'd imagine (the slower FSB on the 333s would probably make the 350s a better deal). But then you have to run an SMP-aware OS, which is no biggie for most of us, but might be for all those people who want to run Win98 so they can play those games they can't get running well under NT or WINE)
You make some good points, and for the most part I agree with them. However, I don't think Intel's asking Symantec to include the exploit in their virus list is an attempt to undermine ZeroKnowledge, but rather is an attempt to protect the owners of PIIIs. There's no way to avoid someone malicious from using the exact same exploit to steal people's ID numbers. If the antivirus program can warn about it, then people won't get taken advantage of by sites whose purpose is not legitimate.
Of course, life would be much better for all involved if ActiveX were to die a quick death. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
yeah, I've found it's generally easier/faster to run a query through Altavista wheneveer I need to find something from MS Knowledge Base...and the Altavista search is usually closer to what I'm looking for than MS's results are.
Well, certainly the accounts are capable of doing more than just "volunteer activities", and may be used beyond the time allocated for volunteering. And so I'd have to agree that the accounts have the same value as every other AOL account. But is this because AOL was trying to barter the account for labor, or because it was simply more efficient to do that than create a separate type of account where usage would be tracked and non-volunteer services would be restricted? I tend to think it was the latter, though having that extra value was probably useful in persuading some of the moderators to volunteer.
Consider this, though. Suppose you volunteer at a local church barbeque. In my experience, the church usually lets the volunteers who make the event possible have a free lunch at the event. Should we then say that the church bartered for the volunteers' labor, and when some of the volunteers get tired of it should they go to the Department of Labor and complain? Suppose that after a few years of the barbeque, the church reduces the price of all-you-can-eat tickets. Yet the volunteers still get the ability to eat all they can for free as a benefit of volunteering. Has the benefit to the volunteers really decreased (as the disgruntled AOL volunteers seem to believe)? After all, they are receiving the same service; it is just that the cost of the service to non-volunteers has decreased. Granted, AOL is not your local church; but the spirit of volunteering for the good of the community is the same, I think.
As for how AOL "sold" the moderator idea to people, I'd imagine it was something inbetween your two choices. Getting free AOL was probably a help, but I think many of the volunteers were members of those communities already and felt they could help by being a moderator. Much like the church analogy, they volunteered in large part because they felt it would benefit their community, and the free lunch was an added benefit. How much of each aspect influenced a volunteer probably depended in large part upon that person's history and personality. So did some people volunteer just for the account? Quite possibly. Did some volunteer just for the sake of enhancing their community, and gaining the respect of their peers? That's also quite possible.
I think what's happening now is that the people who joined up simply for the free account have become tired of doing it, and want to get paid for their efforts. But communities work by people volunteering time and effort towards a common cause. There are sufficient numbers of volunteers who are willing to donate their time to help, so AOL doesn't need or want the people who are just in it for themselves. It's better to have people running the forums who actually care about the community than people in it just for some economic benefit. Plus, the article said there were some 10,000 volunteers. Were AOL forced to pay that many additional people (even part-time) the costs of the service would skyrocket, which also would be bad for the communities on AOL. And the majority of the 10,000 volunteers seem to agree, since you don't see any complaints except from a small but vocal minority.