Of all my experiences in school with anti-drug programs, there was only incident that would have convinced me not to do drugs if I ever had the desire. A recovering drug addict came to our class one day, and gave a speech about drug use/abuse. Instead of starting out with the normal "all drugs are bad - they'll instantly screw you up" opening, he told us that if we went a smoked pot or did crack at that very moment, we would feel better than we did at that moment. Everyone was stunnedm, since we had never heard anything like this from an anti-drug proponent. However, he went on to tell us that although we would feel better for a short period of time, it would suck in the long run, and he used himself as an example. His method really got the point across.
Anti-drug programs like DARE need to acknowledge the fact that drugs DO make you feel better in the short term, but the long term consequences are terrible. This is like acknowledging that it is pleasant to jump of a building, as you have the sensation of weightlessness, but once you reach the cement below, it's not so pretty. Kids shouldn't be blatantly decieved, but rather should be told the complete truth. This would be more effective than any DARE-like program.
-Peter
Just because Apple releases the Code to MacOS X/Darwin or whatever other components it's releasing, doesn't mean that it will release compiled binaries for free, or even allow the distribution of free binaries. This would create an obstacle for the vast majority of Mac users, who would rather just buy an easy-install CD. However, serious MacOS developers could get a much more intimate picture of the core of the OS, hence improving application performance, or making more effective OS modules. In this way, Open Source !=(freeware for most), yet provides benefits for developers, and creates a better application base. Better OS, better apps, same or increased profit. Peter Pawlowski
One major problem with the whole thing, is the huge reliance on the server. Technologies like ICQ, for example, rely minimally on server-based apps, letting Netscape give it away for free... When you use Napster, you can tell the immense server load: it takes almost 5 minutes to load the list of chatrooms, and even longer to find a file. With the law suits, I wonder how Napster is supporting this entire enterprise... I see no advertising in the program, and they give it away from free... hmm...
I see much celebration, and in fact I celebrate as well. However, I also see an immense bias against Microsoft, which is mostly well based, but I disagree on one point. The integration of Windows and IE isn't a *bad* thing. I find it a lot easier to click "My Computer" and type in an URL, and be at where ever I'm heading, than to wait 20 seconds for NC4.7 to load up, and everytime I close the windows, load up again. Browser-OS intergration is a brilliant idea, and in fact, IE5 is the best browser you will find for Windows. Its fast and fairly stable, stabler than NC4.x(we'll see with Mozilla). All in all, while MS is a monopoly, you can't automatically brand their every idea as 'bad'.
(note: if I had money, I would short sell MS, and fast!)
Peter Pawlowski
Uses other than data...
on
VDSL Demoed
·
· Score: 1
As much as most of the people on slashdot will like to gobble data, the main reason telcos will ever implement VDSL is not for 60Mbps data transmission, but for television. It would allow the telcos to directly compete with the cable companies. I qoute USWEST's VDSL Site:
Choice TV and OnLine - Developed to compete head-on with the cable companies, U S WEST's Choice TV[VDSL] and OnLine represents the nation's first and only full-scale rollout of integrated digital TV and online services using VDSL technology.
The telcos are going to use their existing infrastructure to compete with the cable companies. The system isn't designed to give every person in America 60Mbps internet access, as others had saig, the existing backbone isn't fast enough, rather, its going to give the telcos instant access into a sector they have traditionally stayed out of. Competition, yummy.
Do you believe that an effective Client/Server encryption model can exist, at the current stage of progress, without a trusted 3rd party? If no, what is your opinion on what this 3rd party should be? What other alternatives do you see?
Linux is defined in itself by the fact that it's open source. For this very reason, it's pointless to ask... What if the transistor had never been invented? What if Bill Gates had been killed in a car accident when he was 15... What if... what if... unless you seriously want linux to become a close OS(which it virtually can't) these are not things to speculate about. There is no way linux could have developed so quickly if it had not been Open Source. Linus would not have had the time or the energies to write and maintain a complete operating system. We, all the linux users of the world, have shown that it is very possible to write a full-fledged OS in Opec Source. Otherwise, linux would simply be another *nix. Therefore, be happy open source is here. Be happy you are part of the movement.
--- "First they ignore you, they they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Ghandi
When DOS/Windows first came out, they were the best around... are you telling me that if someone just pulled Netscape Communicator 4.x out of the sky, you would use it? Its slow and not too stable, but it has the reputation of once being an excellent product, and runs on the same concept Windows: once you get the reputation, you keep it.
No matter how good the team, and no matter how much money you have, if the prodcut is flawed, the company will crash and burn. The only thing that abundant talent and money assure is success IF you have a good product. Many times, bad management has contributed to the downfall of a good prodcut, but very rarely is the opposite true. If he has a good idea, he will suceed, unless, of course, Microsoft or AOL buy him out first.
There's this common protocol called IPX. It uses MAC addresses as part of the logical addressing. I hear no outpours of protest.
Either way, why does it matter? Its easier to trace an IP address than MAC address. IPs are registered with your ISP, while MAC addresses are reigistered with the manufacturer: all they know is that your NIC is made by Novell or Cisco. And anyway, a few minutes and a large hammer will elimate all proof of a MAC address. Try doing that with an IP!
If you're going to give a Nobel to Linus, as some are suggesting, you might as well give a Nobel to Gates and Jobs. Those people didn't do Nobel level stuff...
As for your statement about computing being evolutionary, all Science is. You can't get Quarks without Atoms. You can't get Mitochondrea without cells. You can't multiplay before adding. All Science is evolutionary. However, I still believe that Computer Science is a field that deserves a stand-alone Nobel. Not much we can do about it, though.
Nobel wanted fields that were practical. As you said, Math is the root. Physics, Chemistry, and Biology spring from Math. However, in itself, Math doesn't have an application, it is pure abstracts. The whole point of the Nobel prize is to award the best 'applicators'.
Nobel was a practical man. He himself devised dynamite. He wanted people to be rewarded for things that had direct application to the real world. As much as you might like mathematics, very rarely does it have a direct application to the real world, unless this application is done through Physics, Chemistry or Medicine(which get prizes). Computing is a very practical field. Its applications usually have a very direct and tangible usage. Therefore the field deserves a prize.
Don't improve the human condition? How does the better understanding of electoweak forces benefit humanity? Why can't something profitable benefit humanity?
Are you seriously telling me that life would be the same, or better, without computing?
I challenge you to describe the world without computing.
Around one hundred years ago, or whenever Alfred Nobel gave all his money to the Nobel Foundation, the computer was not forseen. I propose a new addition to the array of prizes, a prize for computing. Some of the most influential advances in technology happen in or because of the field of computing. Shouldn't the people who spend their lives bettering the field, which very directly affects science, get a Nobel prize as well?
Its been a long time since I've celeberated the release of a new software version. It usually means bigger binaries, buggier code, and slower execution.
For example, if I compare my GUI in Linux(enlightenmend) to the GUI in Windows, Windows has a much more mature design. Even on my 350 Mhz, Enlightenment can get very choppy, and dragging a windows can bog down the entire system, while Windows GUI functions are much more transparent. This doesn't say anything about the rest of the OS, but for the mainstream, GUI is a large part of what matters.
Lets hope the new version is a step up, not a step down.
Lets get a few things cleared up. First of all, I am a strong believer in the Theory of(or as your website put it, fact Therom of) Evolution. All that I am saying is that its still a theory. Logical thought points to the gradual change of genetic information over time, but no one has actually proven it.
You also referred to fossils. If the earth suddenly appeared (or was created in six days), which I'm not saying it was, then why couldn't all the fossils be there in order to mislead people. And although this can spark a totally different debate, if you could prove Creationism, it would take the whole point out of religion, which is based primarily on faith.
All I am saying is that you can't simply assume that his happened or this happened, like you did. As good of a theory as it may be, its still a theory, and you have to explore alternative possibilties.
What I find the funniest, it that you assume the evolution is the way it was. Four hundred years ago, the earth was flat. It was a fact. Every one knew it. Then it was proven that the earth was round. There is no concrete proof either way. Everything you say that proves Darwin's Theory, I can turn around and make it prove or point towards Creationism. There is no real, right answer. But people have to choose anyway. Personally, I don't believe its the duty of the state to do such a thing as to force my choice.
It all might look like a big deal at the national or state level, but at the level where it's actually taught, this Creationism/Darwinism dilemna isn't a big problem.
No matter what legislators think, the teachers don't ingrain either into the minds of students. For example, at my High School, whenever the issue of "How did we get here?" comes up, the teacher takes an extremely neutral position. Little, if any, debate occurs on this issue, mainly because students recognize that there are two sides of the issue, and nothing that they can say will change other's views on such deep issues.
As for what is officially taught, evolutions is presented not as the actual truth, but rather as a theroy, and faults of Darwin's Theory as stressed as much as the actual evolution. Teachers don't want to risk their jobs and money trying to teach students theories, rather they simply let students think what they want. This is where the parents come in. The issue of origin is rooted deeply in religion, and just like abortion or the death penatly, it is the job of the parent to help form the opinion of the child. School will not teach you a choice on abortion, just like it's not the job of the school to teach you your stance on evolution. Students are made aware of the theory of evolution, but their stance is shaped primarily by their parents and faith.
Personally, I've seen benchmarks showing that almost everything is better than everything:
MacOS is faster than Windows Windows is faster than MacOS Linux is faster than MacOS MacOS is faster than Linux Linux is faster than NT NT is faster than Linux ...etc...
The list goes on, and on. However, the method always works, because overall we live in a computer illiterate society, and the larger number is always be considered better.
Knowing Intel, the Merceded, or Ita-whatever, will most likely only run on proproetary Intel motherboards(similarly as plans for the Celeron)...
Another thing you have to consider is cost... If the P3 is a consumer chip and it costs $800, how much will this "Internet Chip" cost? You could probably get an entire AMD-based system for the cost of one Mercedes chip.
Will it actually be worth it? Or will it be another chip the Intel cranks out, and they know people will buy it because they're Intel, and they're "the best".
Slashdot Mirror
Of all my experiences in school with anti-drug programs, there was only incident that would have convinced me not to do drugs if I ever had the desire. A recovering drug addict came to our class one day, and gave a speech about drug use/abuse. Instead of starting out with the normal "all drugs are bad - they'll instantly screw you up" opening, he told us that if we went a smoked pot or did crack at that very moment, we would feel better than we did at that moment. Everyone was stunnedm, since we had never heard anything like this from an anti-drug proponent. However, he went on to tell us that although we would feel better for a short period of time, it would suck in the long run, and he used himself as an example. His method really got the point across. Anti-drug programs like DARE need to acknowledge the fact that drugs DO make you feel better in the short term, but the long term consequences are terrible. This is like acknowledging that it is pleasant to jump of a building, as you have the sensation of weightlessness, but once you reach the cement below, it's not so pretty. Kids shouldn't be blatantly decieved, but rather should be told the complete truth. This would be more effective than any DARE-like program. -Peter
Just because Apple releases the Code to MacOS X/Darwin or whatever other components it's releasing, doesn't mean that it will release compiled binaries for free, or even allow the distribution of free binaries. This would create an obstacle for the vast majority of Mac users, who would rather just buy an easy-install CD. However, serious MacOS developers could get a much more intimate picture of the core of the OS, hence improving application performance, or making more effective OS modules. In this way, Open Source !=(freeware for most), yet provides benefits for developers, and creates a better application base. Better OS, better apps, same or increased profit. Peter Pawlowski
What was she thinking?
One major problem with the whole thing, is the huge reliance on the server. Technologies like ICQ, for example, rely minimally on server-based apps, letting Netscape give it away for free... When you use Napster, you can tell the immense server load: it takes almost 5 minutes to load the list of chatrooms, and even longer to find a file. With the law suits, I wonder how Napster is supporting this entire enterprise... I see no advertising in the program, and they give it away from free... hmm...
I see much celebration, and in fact I celebrate as well. However, I also see an immense bias against Microsoft, which is mostly well based, but I disagree on one point. The integration of Windows and IE isn't a *bad* thing. I find it a lot easier to click "My Computer" and type in an URL, and be at where ever I'm heading, than to wait 20 seconds for NC4.7 to load up, and everytime I close the windows, load up again. Browser-OS intergration is a brilliant idea, and in fact, IE5 is the best browser you will find for Windows. Its fast and fairly stable, stabler than NC4.x(we'll see with Mozilla). All in all, while MS is a monopoly, you can't automatically brand their every idea as 'bad'.
(note: if I had money, I would short sell MS, and fast!)
Peter Pawlowski
Choice TV and OnLine - Developed to compete head-on with the cable companies, U S WEST's Choice TV[VDSL] and OnLine represents the nation's first and only full-scale rollout of integrated digital TV and online services using VDSL technology.
The telcos are going to use their existing infrastructure to compete with the cable companies. The system isn't designed to give every person in America 60Mbps internet access, as others had saig, the existing backbone isn't fast enough, rather, its going to give the telcos instant access into a sector they have traditionally stayed out of. Competition, yummy.
Peter Pawlowski
When I click the link, I get:
removed
This article has been removed.
interesting... how valid are these claims?
Peter Pawlowski
Looks like the Win2k test wasn't too successful after all... or maybe they just fixed *some* of the bugs... or maybe its a MSBackdoor(r)...
Peter Pawlowski
Do you believe that an effective Client/Server encryption model can exist, at the current stage of progress, without a trusted 3rd party? If no, what is your opinion on what this 3rd party should be? What other alternatives do you see?
Peter Pawlowski
Linux is defined in itself by the fact that it's open source. For this very reason, it's pointless to ask... What if the transistor had never been invented? What if Bill Gates had been killed in a car accident when he was 15... What if... what if... unless you seriously want linux to become a close OS(which it virtually can't) these are not things to speculate about.
There is no way linux could have developed so quickly if it had not been Open Source. Linus would not have had the time or the energies to write and maintain a complete operating system. We, all the linux users of the world, have shown that it is very possible to write a full-fledged OS in Opec Source. Otherwise, linux would simply be another *nix. Therefore, be happy open source is here. Be happy you are part of the movement.
---
"First they ignore you, they they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Ghandi
When DOS/Windows first came out, they were the best around... are you telling me that if someone just pulled Netscape Communicator 4.x out of the sky, you would use it? Its slow and not too stable, but it has the reputation of once being an excellent product, and runs on the same concept Windows: once you get the reputation, you keep it.
Peter Pawlowski
No matter how good the team, and no matter how much money you have, if the prodcut is flawed, the company will crash and burn. The only thing that abundant talent and money assure is success IF you have a good product. Many times, bad management has contributed to the downfall of a good prodcut, but very rarely is the opposite true. If he has a good idea, he will suceed, unless, of course, Microsoft or AOL buy him out first.
Peter Pawlowski
There's this common protocol called IPX. It uses MAC addresses as part of the logical addressing. I hear no outpours of protest.
Either way, why does it matter? Its easier to trace an IP address than MAC address. IPs are registered with your ISP, while MAC addresses are reigistered with the manufacturer: all they know is that your NIC is made by Novell or Cisco. And anyway, a few minutes and a large hammer will elimate all proof of a MAC address. Try doing that with an IP!
Peter Pawlowski
If you're going to give a Nobel to Linus, as some are suggesting, you might as well give a Nobel to Gates and Jobs. Those people didn't do Nobel level stuff...
As for your statement about computing being evolutionary, all Science is. You can't get Quarks without Atoms. You can't get Mitochondrea without cells. You can't multiplay before adding. All Science is evolutionary. However, I still believe that Computer Science is a field that deserves a stand-alone Nobel. Not much we can do about it, though.
Peter Pawlowski
Nobel wanted fields that were practical. As you said, Math is the root. Physics, Chemistry, and Biology spring from Math. However, in itself, Math doesn't have an application, it is pure abstracts. The whole point of the Nobel prize is to award the best 'applicators'.
Peter Pawlowski
Nobel was a practical man. He himself devised dynamite. He wanted people to be rewarded for things that had direct application to the real world. As much as you might like mathematics, very rarely does it have a direct application to the real world, unless this application is done through Physics, Chemistry or Medicine(which get prizes). Computing is a very practical field. Its applications usually have a very direct and tangible usage. Therefore the field deserves a prize.
Peter Pawlowski
Don't improve the human condition? How does the better understanding of electoweak forces benefit humanity? Why can't something profitable benefit humanity?
Are you seriously telling me that life would be the same, or better, without computing?
I challenge you to describe the world without computing.
Peter Pawlowski
Around one hundred years ago, or whenever Alfred Nobel gave all his money to the Nobel Foundation, the computer was not forseen. I propose a new addition to the array of prizes, a prize for computing. Some of the most influential advances in technology happen in or because of the field of computing. Shouldn't the people who spend their lives bettering the field, which very directly affects science, get a Nobel prize as well?
I say yes.
Guess who I'd nominate first?
Peter Pawlowski
Since when does Cyrix make the K6(hint: AMD does)? Before you know it, it'll be Microsoft Linux!
Peter Pawlowski
Its been a long time since I've celeberated the release of a new software version. It usually means bigger binaries, buggier code, and slower execution.
For example, if I compare my GUI in Linux(enlightenmend) to the GUI in Windows, Windows has a much more mature design. Even on my 350 Mhz, Enlightenment can get very choppy, and dragging a windows can bog down the entire system, while Windows GUI functions are much more transparent. This doesn't say anything about the rest of the OS, but for the mainstream, GUI is a large part of what matters.
Lets hope the new version is a step up, not a step down.
Lets get a few things cleared up. First of all, I am a strong believer in the Theory of(or as your website put it, fact Therom of) Evolution. All that I am saying is that its still a theory. Logical thought points to the gradual change of genetic information over time, but no one has actually proven it.
You also referred to fossils. If the earth suddenly appeared (or was created in six days), which I'm not saying it was, then why couldn't all the fossils be there in order to mislead people. And although this can spark a totally different debate, if you could prove Creationism, it would take the whole point out of religion, which is based primarily on faith.
All I am saying is that you can't simply assume that his happened or this happened, like you did. As good of a theory as it may be, its still a theory, and you have to explore alternative possibilties.
Peter Pawlowski
What I find the funniest, it that you assume the evolution is the way it was. Four hundred years ago, the earth was flat. It was a fact. Every one knew it. Then it was proven that the earth was round.
There is no concrete proof either way. Everything you say that proves Darwin's Theory, I can turn around and make it prove or point towards Creationism. There is no real, right answer. But people have to choose anyway. Personally, I don't believe its the duty of the state to do such a thing as to force my choice.
Peter Pawlowski
No matter what legislators think, the teachers don't ingrain either into the minds of students. For example, at my High School, whenever the issue of "How did we get here?" comes up, the teacher takes an extremely neutral position. Little, if any, debate occurs on this issue, mainly because students recognize that there are two sides of the issue, and nothing that they can say will change other's views on such deep issues.
As for what is officially taught, evolutions is presented not as the actual truth, but rather as a theroy, and faults of Darwin's Theory as stressed as much as the actual evolution. Teachers don't want to risk their jobs and money trying to teach students theories, rather they simply let students think what they want. This is where the parents come in. The issue of origin is rooted deeply in religion, and just like abortion or the death penatly, it is the job of the parent to help form the opinion of the child. School will not teach you a choice on abortion, just like it's not the job of the school to teach you your stance on evolution. Students are made aware of the theory of evolution, but their stance is shaped primarily by their parents and faith.
Peter Pawlowski
Personally, I've seen benchmarks showing that almost everything is better than everything:
MacOS is faster than Windows
Windows is faster than MacOS
Linux is faster than MacOS
MacOS is faster than Linux
Linux is faster than NT
NT is faster than Linux
...etc...
The list goes on, and on. However, the method always works, because overall we live in a computer illiterate society, and the larger number is always be considered better.
Knowing Intel, the Merceded, or Ita-whatever, will most likely only run on proproetary Intel motherboards(similarly as plans for the Celeron)...
Another thing you have to consider is cost... If the P3 is a consumer chip and it costs $800, how much will this "Internet Chip" cost? You could probably get an entire AMD-based system for the cost of one Mercedes chip.
Will it actually be worth it? Or will it be another chip the Intel cranks out, and they know people will buy it because they're Intel, and they're "the best".