I wasn't disagreeing with the reasons you pointed out. I was merely trying to illustrate why a comparison between a fixed system on known hardware with limited functionality should not be compared to something that runs with variable hardware, variable software, is user-customizable, and contains copious amounts of functionality.:)
It should be kept in mind though that the more complex the system is, the harder (and more expensive) it is to know every possible scenario that will occur in the code.
Open source is becoming attractive because companies are beginning to learn that paying the tech to fix an open source problem is at worst the same cost as trying to get MS to fix a problem. And there is no guarentee MS would fix the problem.
However, in a real competition driven market MS would bend over backward to fix the problem because if they didn't said company would just go with someone else.
You're comparing an OS to a piece of sofware that was written for a single purpose with known hardware constraints. I'm sorry, but that just simply is not a fair comparison.
An OS is far more complicated. Linux/Windows/OSX/ etc. needs to support numerous configuration, with various hardware and software. I don't see many cars out there that allow you to go in and add programs or logic to the engine control system (legitimately). There's also big disclaimers saying that the manufacturer cannot be held responsible if you alter your car and it stops working.
If you want your software to be guarenteed to never crash, you build a box of hardware that cannot be changed. You make an OS that cannot be modified. Then you write all your programs on that machine and beat the hell out of them. You basically lock the system from user modifcation.
Of course, that makes for a real shitty product. So we have these customizable boxes with customizeable hardware and customizeable software. Unless you expect MS to test every possible piece of hardware and software, then there will eventually be problems.
And I won't even get into the complexity of the code for the OS itself. How much code is in that EEC module again?
I also notice that you're quick to fire off at MS. I would just like to point out this is a problem with ALL operating systems. I've had windows and linux both crash and take my system with it. It happens.
But given the choice between something fairly stable, flexible, and inexpensive vs. an uber-expensive steel-clad mono-box I'll take the former.
"...if Bush and co keep screwing up that eventually will work..."
Welcome to The Diebold Voting Machine! Please make your selection:
1. George Bush Jr., our illustrious leader! 2. Jeb Bush, because our illustrous leader deserves a 4 year vacation! 3. Laura Bush, the gentle mother of our homeland! 4. George Bush Senior, the wise! 5. Write in candidate (note, you may be tried for treason or terrorism): ___________________ 6. Send me to Guantanamo Bay!
Look, does anyone really think that hostile aliens would actually invade our planet? It would be a waste of resources.
If an alien species capable of interstellar flight really wanted to take over our planet, it would be far more effective to just lug an asteroid into a collision course with earth. No muss, no fuss.
I was not disagreeing with your statements. I was merely pointing out what the thinking was at the time.
If Clinton had backed it, it would have never gotten out of comitee. Not only that, but the republicans would have used it for fodder putting the worst possible spin on it.
Even if he had backed it and somehow it did make it through commitee and through the house and senate, you know damn well the Bush administration would have shut it down the first day they were in office.
My point was simply that you can't pin this all on Clinton.
As far as energy crisis go, we'll either sink or swim. We're not going to wake up one morning and say OMG!!!1!! The oil is gone!!! It's going to happen gradually. During that time, we'll see oil go to $100 to $200 to $ 300 etc. At some point, oil coal, etc. will no longer be viable for energy as they would be too expensive. Countries will switch. Smart countries would start now.
No one can predict the future, but I don't think it's all doom and gloom quite yet. When oil is at $300 a barrel then suddenly solar will start looking mighty attractive. When the drilling bucks get changed over to research bucks, we'll see some great strides in the technology.
Of course, your scenario and my scenario make an assumption about the world that seems less likely every year: that we won't wipe ourselves out before that point. On some days, a giant asteroid seems almost like a comforting thought.:P
Yeah the reactor was great idea, so now where to build it.........
And therin lies the problem. NIMBY.
You could come up with the best power source ever, but if people don't want it around then it just isn't going to be built. Notice how no one is exactly clamoring for a nuke plant in their state.
At the time, Clinton was stating the obvious. Nukes were a no go, and alternatives would not keep pace with demand. At the time, fossil fuels would be the only source to "economically" keep up with energy demand.
You know damn well if Clinton started allocating billions for alternative research the Republicans would have been all over his ass. Not that he would have gotten it anyway as the Republicans controlled congress.
This wasn't just a Clinton problem, it was an EVERYONE problem.
Soon, we'll have no choice but to build nuke reactors and do more research into alternatives. If we don't though, you can rest assured that there won't be any energy wars as none of the war machines work all that well without fuel.
No matter what, eventually the expensive alternatives will become economical in comparison to sticking with the traditional fossil fuels. At that point, people will switch.
Until then, we'll continue to burn the fossils, pollute the atmosphere, etc. History has shown that humans usually don't do anything until they absolutely have to. This is no exception, unfortunately
And after we pull of that miraculous feat, we'll teach sheep how to mine for gold!
The public has made it clear that it does not want to be educated. The American public are quite happy being ignorant and really don't want to be bothered.
Fear and complacency are great ways to keep a populace under control.
I fully expect China, India, Japan, et al. to surpass the US technologically in the very near future.
Before, people/corps were out to innovate to make a buck. Now, people/corps want to make a buck without innovating. And to ensure this, people/corps are pushing ludicrous amount of legislation through so they can be guaranteed no competition and plenty of profits.
The "war on science" that seems to be happening only makes this worse.
I give it another decade or so. We're already trailing most developed nations in education and healthcare.
How fun is cheating? Well you get the instant gratification, that's true. But how many times can you do that before it loses its luster? How many times have you gone into a Game in GOD MODE to just kick some ass?
It gets old. It gets boring. You eventually get tired of it.
Life is no different. The number of rich and succesful people (those at the "top")who end up destroying their lives is amazing.
Sure they can take YouTube. Then they'll charge you $X to post a video. If it contains clips from a movie, a music video, or contains a soundtrack that belongs to the *AA, you'll either have to pay $XX to post or they'll take your ass to court and get $XXXXX.
Either way, YouTube and similar services will become, at best, pay services. Most likely though, they will be killed off.
As another poster noted, the types of collisions the hadron collider will produce are similar to some of th collisons that happen when cosmic rays hit our atmosphere.
If mini-black holes were really that dangerous, there's a good chance the Universe wouldn't have made it out of infancy.
So you'd pay twice as much for more DRM, not that much of a jump over regular DVDs, and you can't even play at full res unless you bend over for the MPAA?
Linux in the business environment has a shot at making a dent in the windows base. But where it still lacks is the average end user desktop system. That's where the majority goes.
It doesn't matter to J. Sixpack that Linux is "technically" better than Windows (though this is debateable, as a system really is only as secure as the person using it). What matters to Mr. Sixpack is whether or not it does what he wants it to when he wants to do it.
It doesn't matter if Linus or God (some consider them the same) made the OS, if it doesn't do what the user wants then the user will not use it.
There is too much fragmentation (how many distros are there, how many different installers, etc.) and not enough hardware support. If Linux is to be a serious competitor to Windows in the home market, not only does it need to become more user friendly, it has to become more vendor friendly.
Until then, at least in the home market, Linux will always lag Windows by a significant margin. Not because Windows is better, but because it is not catering to the average end-user's needs.
In the server market however, I think Linux will be making larger strides in the near future.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, because history has shown repeatedly that by hiding a problem you can make it go away.
~X~
I wasn't disagreeing with the reasons you pointed out. I was merely trying to illustrate why a comparison between a fixed system on known hardware with limited functionality should not be compared to something that runs with variable hardware, variable software, is user-customizable, and contains copious amounts of functionality. :)
It should be kept in mind though that the more complex the system is, the harder (and more expensive) it is to know every possible scenario that will occur in the code.
Open source is becoming attractive because companies are beginning to learn that paying the tech to fix an open source problem is at worst the same cost as trying to get MS to fix a problem. And there is no guarentee MS would fix the problem.
However, in a real competition driven market MS would bend over backward to fix the problem because if they didn't said company would just go with someone else.
~X~
You're comparing an OS to a piece of sofware that was written for a single purpose with known hardware constraints. I'm sorry, but that just simply is not a fair comparison.
An OS is far more complicated. Linux/Windows/OSX/ etc. needs to support numerous configuration, with various hardware and software. I don't see many cars out there that allow you to go in and add programs or logic to the engine control system (legitimately). There's also big disclaimers saying that the manufacturer cannot be held responsible if you alter your car and it stops working.
If you want your software to be guarenteed to never crash, you build a box of hardware that cannot be changed. You make an OS that cannot be modified. Then you write all your programs on that machine and beat the hell out of them. You basically lock the system from user modifcation.
Of course, that makes for a real shitty product. So we have these customizable boxes with customizeable hardware and customizeable software. Unless you expect MS to test every possible piece of hardware and software, then there will eventually be problems.
And I won't even get into the complexity of the code for the OS itself. How much code is in that EEC module again?
I also notice that you're quick to fire off at MS. I would just like to point out this is a problem with ALL operating systems. I've had windows and linux both crash and take my system with it. It happens.
But given the choice between something fairly stable, flexible, and inexpensive vs. an uber-expensive steel-clad mono-box I'll take the former.
~X~
"...if Bush and co keep screwing up that eventually will work..."
Welcome to The Diebold Voting Machine! Please make your selection:
1. George Bush Jr., our illustrious leader!
2. Jeb Bush, because our illustrous leader deserves a 4 year vacation!
3. Laura Bush, the gentle mother of our homeland!
4. George Bush Senior, the wise!
5. Write in candidate (note, you may be tried for treason or terrorism): ___________________
6. Send me to Guantanamo Bay!
Thank You for using Diebold Voting Machines!
~X~
Look, does anyone really think that hostile aliens would actually invade our planet? It would be a waste of resources.
If an alien species capable of interstellar flight really wanted to take over our planet, it would be far more effective to just lug an asteroid into a collision course with earth. No muss, no fuss.
~X~
I was not disagreeing with your statements. I was merely pointing out what the thinking was at the time.
:P
If Clinton had backed it, it would have never gotten out of comitee. Not only that, but the republicans would have used it for fodder putting the worst possible spin on it.
Even if he had backed it and somehow it did make it through commitee and through the house and senate, you know damn well the Bush administration would have shut it down the first day they were in office.
My point was simply that you can't pin this all on Clinton.
As far as energy crisis go, we'll either sink or swim. We're not going to wake up one morning and say OMG!!!1!! The oil is gone!!! It's going to happen gradually. During that time, we'll see oil go to $100 to $200 to $ 300 etc. At some point, oil coal, etc. will no longer be viable for energy as they would be too expensive. Countries will switch. Smart countries would start now.
No one can predict the future, but I don't think it's all doom and gloom quite yet. When oil is at $300 a barrel then suddenly solar will start looking mighty attractive. When the drilling bucks get changed over to research bucks, we'll see some great strides in the technology.
Of course, your scenario and my scenario make an assumption about the world that seems less likely every year: that we won't wipe ourselves out before that point. On some days, a giant asteroid seems almost like a comforting thought.
~X~
Agreed. This is like watching two inmates fighting it out for who gets the rights to your dumper.
:P
You can only hope they knock eachother out.
~X~
Yeah the reactor was great idea, so now where to build it.........
And therin lies the problem. NIMBY.
You could come up with the best power source ever, but if people don't want it around then it just isn't going to be built. Notice how no one is exactly clamoring for a nuke plant in their state.
At the time, Clinton was stating the obvious. Nukes were a no go, and alternatives would not keep pace with demand. At the time, fossil fuels would be the only source to "economically" keep up with energy demand.
You know damn well if Clinton started allocating billions for alternative research the Republicans would have been all over his ass. Not that he would have gotten it anyway as the Republicans controlled congress.
This wasn't just a Clinton problem, it was an EVERYONE problem.
Soon, we'll have no choice but to build nuke reactors and do more research into alternatives. If we don't though, you can rest assured that there won't be any energy wars as none of the war machines work all that well without fuel.
No matter what, eventually the expensive alternatives will become economical in comparison to sticking with the traditional fossil fuels. At that point, people will switch.
Until then, we'll continue to burn the fossils, pollute the atmosphere, etc. History has shown that humans usually don't do anything until they absolutely have to. This is no exception, unfortunately
You should know better than to ask such questions in the new Republik. Next time you will be deterred as a TERRORIST.
~X~
"What happened to morals?"
Money.
"... and ethics?"
Money.
" Honor?"
Money.
" Integrity?"
Money.
Your Welcome,
~X~
"Get to work people and educate the public."
:P
And after we pull of that miraculous feat, we'll teach sheep how to mine for gold!
The public has made it clear that it does not want to be educated. The American public are quite happy being ignorant and really don't want to be bothered.
Fear and complacency are great ways to keep a populace under control.
Sorry for the cynicism. It's been a long day.
~X~
I fully expect China, India, Japan, et al. to surpass the US technologically in the very near future.
Before, people/corps were out to innovate to make a buck. Now, people/corps want to make a buck without innovating. And to ensure this, people/corps are pushing ludicrous amount of legislation through so they can be guaranteed no competition and plenty of profits.
The "war on science" that seems to be happening only makes this worse.
I give it another decade or so. We're already trailing most developed nations in education and healthcare.
~X~
My last two years of high school were essentially all AP courses, including two years of Calculus and one year of physics.
:P
Number of those credits allowed to transfer to my college: 0.
Even after pointing out the fact that the classes I took USED THE SAME DAMN TEXTBOOK!
It's hit or miss when it comes to colleges accepting AP credits from high school. It's even hit or miss when transferring from one college to another.
This kid got lucky. I don't know of any college or university that would accept 72 credits of AP.
~X~
Fried mini-seagull snack?
~X~
And of course, therein lies the problem.
How fun is cheating? Well you get the instant gratification, that's true. But how many times can you do that before it loses its luster? How many times have you gone into a Game in GOD MODE to just kick some ass?
It gets old. It gets boring. You eventually get tired of it.
Life is no different. The number of rich and succesful people (those at the "top")who end up destroying their lives is amazing.
~X~
"Think of it like a tube full of marbles."
I hear the internet is made of tubes. A senator told me that.
~X~
Just click your heels three times and say: "There's no place like Soviet Russia."
~X~
Sure they can take YouTube. Then they'll charge you $X to post a video. If it contains clips from a movie, a music video, or contains a soundtrack that belongs to the *AA, you'll either have to pay $XX to post or they'll take your ass to court and get $XXXXX.
Either way, YouTube and similar services will become, at best, pay services. Most likely though, they will be killed off.
Which is exactly what the *AA wants.
~X~
The problem with evil is there is just too much damn money to be made.
~X~
Some do, most don't.
Keep the majority thinking that they're happy, and you could slaughter innocent civilians and get away with.
For reference, see Iraq War 2.
~X~
As another poster noted, the types of collisions the hadron collider will produce are similar to some of th collisons that happen when cosmic rays hit our atmosphere.
If mini-black holes were really that dangerous, there's a good chance the Universe wouldn't have made it out of infancy.
~X~
The black holes that would be generated by this thing would have event horizions less than the radius of an atom.
Please people, grow a brain.
~X~
So you'd pay twice as much for more DRM, not that much of a jump over regular DVDs, and you can't even play at full res unless you bend over for the MPAA?
*sigh*
~X~
You're missing the big picture.
Linux in the business environment has a shot at making a dent in the windows base. But where it still lacks is the average end user desktop system. That's where the majority goes.
It doesn't matter to J. Sixpack that Linux is "technically" better than Windows (though this is debateable, as a system really is only as secure as the person using it). What matters to Mr. Sixpack is whether or not it does what he wants it to when he wants to do it.
It doesn't matter if Linus or God (some consider them the same) made the OS, if it doesn't do what the user wants then the user will not use it.
There is too much fragmentation (how many distros are there, how many different installers, etc.) and not enough hardware support. If Linux is to be a serious competitor to Windows in the home market, not only does it need to become more user friendly, it has to become more vendor friendly.
Until then, at least in the home market, Linux will always lag Windows by a significant margin. Not because Windows is better, but because it is not catering to the average end-user's needs.
In the server market however, I think Linux will be making larger strides in the near future.
~X~
No shit, just look at Congress.
Oh...
~X~