And they are perfectly free to be such unless they plan or act on these beliefs in a way which breaks US law. It's called freedom, something it seems the US may not have for long if people like you are an indication of the future.
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. -Pastor Martin Niemöller
As amusing statement given that I've never even used this software (or coded much in Java period).
Why would an open source project submit themselves to this?
Because it does the job better? Because it works and it's free? Because they're not blind zealots who can't comprehend that OSS isn't always the best solution? Who knows.
As I said I have no idea about the quality of this software however the grandparent has vouched for it, and given that they stay in business it may be quite good.
This is not even in the slightest sense an "open" model.
Amazing a commercial non open source piece of software not being open, simply amazing. It is a nice business model however, get people hooked on the software while they do OSS work and then they'll keep using it (and pay) when they do commercial work.
Conversely, people who chose to use open source software can:
Yes they can, however this isn't OSS simply a commercial application which OSS developers can use for free. And as I said above, why would they use an inferior product simply because they can alter it? I guess it's a nice way of making sure that whatever OSS app they WANT to code never gets finished as they're mucking with and trying to get their IDE to work properly. I doubt most coder, oss or otherwise, alter the code of their oss IDEs anyway so it's a moot point for most.
2)Companies that chose to use OSS do not have to pay $500 per seat.
More expensive software exists and companies pay for it, and if you're a big enough company I'm sure volume discount exists. If it does the job better than the alternatives then it may be worth the price. Amazingly enough $500 may be nothing compared to what they save in future problems and efficiency.
"This is inconsistent with their refusal to take OS X when it was offered to them; if that wasn't ego-driven, then I don't know what that means."
Christ, will the Apple fanboys ever shut up? Yes, they refused to use a proprietary OS with unknown strings, with potentially problematic contracts and with unknown future support options. An OS whose requirements are much greater than other choices and which cannot be as easily optimized for their cpu (and for any future upgrades).
So it seems they can control egos, as they managed to contain any apple fanboys on staff and their egos already.
...you're using a comparison of a 65nm Processor optimized for low pwoer consumption with dual cores against a desktop 90nm processor not optimized for low power consumption...wow. Right now the mobile AMDs are almost at Intel's levels, and since the Yonah is Intel's next gen we will have to wait and see. Also since Intel seems to just love the P-4 for desktops we probably won't see Yonah on any except Apple's.
You still haven't looked at it recently, recently being the last year or two. Things change, when someone rebuts your comment you may wish to make sure they haven't change since last time you checked before making another mistake.
The Prescott (newest P4) is a monster (nuclear reactor is an apt term), the older P4s are better but not by much. The Athlon 64 is cooler (as in heat production), faster and (if you don't go dual core) cheaper. The Pentium M used to beat everything in terms of performance/watt, however the mobile amd (whatever it is) seems to be catching up/caught up. Intel is keeping the P-M off desktops (except Apple ones, they're not stupid) and trying to push the P-4 despite its horrendous heat production and lackluster performance. And that is the last two years in computing more or less (I probably missed some things and made a few mistakes but it's a slashdot comment so who cares).
The Soyuz already exists and can do that, although if they can get the CXV to work it may be cheaper than anything else planned. That is a big if imho, it's an interesting design and that usually means "there are a lot of new things that can and will go wrong" (and with a low-mass/low-cost design the consequences may not be pretty). I'm not sure how much Kliper will cost however it is bound to be a pretty penny, mostly for the rockets which alone cost more than the $20mil that they claim CXV will cost. (which I am also skeptical of). Either way we'll know in 4 to 5 years.
I doubt whatever NASA is planning will compare to either design (CXV or Kliper) however they'll use it anyway. Between needing to convert rockets to something they weren't designed for, designing something they have little experience with, massive bureaucracy and no desire to make something which is useful I doubt the result will be anything but another shuttle-like disaster.
Also, the Shuttle's main job right now is to sit in a hanger. It's main job while flying is two fold from now on: 1) Bring large sections of the ISS to orbit, perform work on the ISS (ie: attach the sections), bring cargo to ISS 2) Bring large experiments/general garbage down to Earth.
Sending people up and down can be done by Soyuz; the Shuttle is usually used because it's being sent up anyway and because otherwise it'd have nothing to do.
I am in general a bit weary of Russian designs, especially now that they're low on funding. Look at the Soyuz, darn thing seems to be able to survive anything and get it's occupants down alive. That would be a good thing if hadn't had to use those large margins multiple times already. In other words a good design yet lacking in implementation and attention to details. Granted the newest revision seems to be working problem free or close to it. I'd still trust the Russians over anything NASA builds in this area, by a large margin.
Personally I find the Kliper design very interesting, at least the newest one. You have a very good safety mechanism like the Soyuz, where launch failures don't kill the crew. In addition, it's re-usable in all the right ways unlike the shuttle. The crew vehicle is launched separately and is the bare-minimum, meaning that any extra safety margins require the least cost. The parts you don't need to send back to Earth aren't sent back or burned up (ie: everything beyond the bare minimum), so you don't need to send them up over and over.
In essence: the Kliper does only what it needs to do, get people to and from orbit, without trying to be a jack-of-all-trade/shitty-at-everything. Moving things within orbit is separate, as it should be, and isn't sent up over-and-over. Living and experimentation is yet again separate, maybe they'll finally use the ISS for something.
The only thing which bothers me is the amount of parts and that some will stay in orbit, which makes things more complicated and introduces potential problems that are hard to deal with.
Not really, depends on how it's designed/trained. In the end if it's more intelligent than any human we simply can't comprehend much less predict its actions in anything but the most abstract sense.
Keep in mind that humans have certain inherent and social ways of thinking in them, which an AI need not have at all. Human life could be meaningless to it, and only the success of the "nation" is of any value.
As one of Asimov's short stories mentions the AI may decide than an agrarian society is the best for humanity, although lacking Asimov's three laws it may decide a well planned war is the fastest means to that end.
As for putting guns down in a more common sense, would it really? That just means the other side will decimate you, which may be much worse than the cost of the war.
So who is the user? Should high end cad programs be written so anyone who starts it up knows exactly how to use it?
Also why? Why should someone doing an open source project in their free time give a rats ass about Joe Average.
In other words: if you can't get it to work then you're not the intended user. Some projects want to aim at more people and others at less, there are advantages to both approaches. OSS is free and as such there is no direct material reason why an OSS programer has to accomodate the largest possible group of users.
Never underestimate a human's ability to find loopholes given enough time. Anarchocapitalism resulting in feudalism probably. A lot of systems work very well in the beginning and then bog down into inefficiency and stagnation.
1. A 100% gold-backed currency. Wars are fought and corporations are built on counterfeit money.
And wars were fought over gold as well in the past, much easier to fight for gold than paper currency.
2. No politician serving more than 15,000 citizens. I think I'd rather have one representative who knows me rather than 35 who don't.
So no federal government or organizations of local governments of any sort then?
4. No law can be more than 150 words.
5. All laws must sunset after 4 years.
Won't work imho. 4 will result in many short laws instead of one big one or simply more loopholes that can be abused. 5 will result in automatic lists that are voted on every 4 years. Not to mention the best filibusters ever known, valid laws suddenly going off the books because a group of politicians wanted to make a point.
The effort required to review laws every 4 years would grind a country into stagnation. The country may last longer I will admit assuming it doesn't collapse because another country didn't have so much bureaucracy. Oh and there would be a lot of bureaucracy, constantly increasing to deal with the increasing number of laws.
My town has 70 church organizations. Competition. I was slave to 4 governments at once. Big difference
There are over 100 nations on this planet, plenty of competition. Just because you don't want to move or something doesn't mean there isn't competition.
Where do you draw the line? How much do they need to pollute your land for it to be trespass. Factories in China are probably polluting your land, a very small amount however they still do. What type of pollution do you consider? Does the smell from a sewege treatment plant count? What about the sound from a nice airport?
A loan is a contract so any interest rate is fair as long as the rate is market driven and no Greenspan mandated.
Ever since the government got more involved in the economy through the Fed the percentage of recessions to expansions has plummeted (not counting the Great Depression).
I didn't say admire. Respect your parents is different. Even with abuse there a ways to do this (my Pastor's child was abused by a grandrelative and he had a sermon on it).
Except it's respect because someone tells you to respect them, worthless and counterproductive.
ICANN needs money to operate. Any money it gains from this will be money it does not need to get from other sources. As such we all benefit as ICANN's oeprations are generally quite invovled with the function of the internet.
Single letter domains either need to cost a lot or be given out to pre-selected institutions/individuals. Otherwise, it'd be a madhouse and they'd cost a lot anyway except the public wouldn't get any benefit from the high cost.
Which works great unless the person who dials 911 can't speak or is unable to transmit all the information before being disconnected. THIS is what the "big brotherism" is there for, which seems to happen at least often enough to warrant it.
If something happens it's much faster to dial 911 than to dial 911 AND then tell the person where you are.
There is also the possibility of the operator simply not understanding you (at least not the first time), which if you have an accent or a lisp is a definite possibility.
From what I remember the system will be small, enough to stop some rougue nuke from say Iran but not enough to stop most of the nukes from even China. Russia has a shit load of nukes and icbms, china has 20 that can reach us (from what I hear they were planning to add more anyway).
In which case why do we even care? We cannot predict how they would attack us, and more likely than not they can simply send a bunch of.999c DU rods at our planet if they wanted to get rid of us. They could have already replaced out politicians with fakes under their control, so how paranoid do you want to be? What measures to you take to counter threats you cannot even imagine, if they exist? Anything you do will probably be worthless, anyway:
Assuming FTL travel means they're already here so none of this matters as they can infect systems through millions of other means other than SETI. Assuming no FTL travel they have a decent time gap of probably decades, and as such are going mostly blind. Granted, they can already be here (even at STL) in which case it doesn't matter.
Your analogy fails because it's simply data, it doesn't come with any of their advanced technology. A better analogy would be that a modern person is thrown into the gladiator arena. You know the general state of the Roman Empire 100+ years ago (say you read a history book by some roman historian from 100 years before) and you need to fight your way out. You need to from your limited information predict the weaknesses of your opponents, as well as simpler questions like the type of combat you will be in. You then need to from your 100 year old information create a strategy to exploit these weaknesses.
Another analogy would be having this broad 100 year old information, and having to put a single un-armed covert ops person there. You of course know nothing of Roman History although you have some trends on human development from china. Your operative then needs to survive and take over the empire. Oh right, he is also dropped of in an airtight metal box and must first find a way out of it or die.
Heck, if you consider SETI a problem then you better kill of all satellites and anything capable of picking up signals from space (radio probably; probably anything electronic). Any one of them could pick up such a signal and infect a computer as a result, and then it's viral all the way down. If they're advanced enough to infect through SETI then they're advanced enough to infect everyone from a single computer imho.
Second of all, am I the only one who finds it ironic that a DRM program designed to protect someone's copyrighted information is itself infringing on someone's copyright? I guess if Sony wants to fight those evil copyright violators they should start by putting themselves in jail.
ATI is well known to have shitty Linux drivers, if you wish to complain then please send a letter to ATI asking them to make better linux drivers. In general, for desktop linux you need to pick hardware which will work with it.
Slashdot Mirror
And they are perfectly free to be such unless they plan or act on these beliefs in a way which breaks US law. It's called freedom, something it seems the US may not have for long if people like you are an indication of the future.
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
-Pastor Martin Niemöller
Your license is restricitve:
As amusing statement given that I've never even used this software (or coded much in Java period).
Why would an open source project submit themselves to this?
Because it does the job better? Because it works and it's free? Because they're not blind zealots who can't comprehend that OSS isn't always the best solution? Who knows.
As I said I have no idea about the quality of this software however the grandparent has vouched for it, and given that they stay in business it may be quite good.
This is not even in the slightest sense an "open" model.
Amazing a commercial non open source piece of software not being open, simply amazing. It is a nice business model however, get people hooked on the software while they do OSS work and then they'll keep using it (and pay) when they do commercial work.
Conversely, people who chose to use open source software can:
Yes they can, however this isn't OSS simply a commercial application which OSS developers can use for free. And as I said above, why would they use an inferior product simply because they can alter it? I guess it's a nice way of making sure that whatever OSS app they WANT to code never gets finished as they're mucking with and trying to get their IDE to work properly. I doubt most coder, oss or otherwise, alter the code of their oss IDEs anyway so it's a moot point for most.
2)Companies that chose to use OSS do not have to pay $500 per seat.
More expensive software exists and companies pay for it, and if you're a big enough company I'm sure volume discount exists. If it does the job better than the alternatives then it may be worth the price. Amazingly enough $500 may be nothing compared to what they save in future problems and efficiency.
Depends on your project and status:c e.html
http://www.jetbrains.com/idea/opensource/opensour
http://www.jetbrains.com/idea/buy/academic.html
"This is inconsistent with their refusal to take OS X when it was offered to them; if that wasn't ego-driven, then I don't know what that means."
Christ, will the Apple fanboys ever shut up? Yes, they refused to use a proprietary OS with unknown strings, with potentially problematic contracts and with unknown future support options. An OS whose requirements are much greater than other choices and which cannot be as easily optimized for their cpu (and for any future upgrades).
So it seems they can control egos, as they managed to contain any apple fanboys on staff and their egos already.
...you're using a comparison of a 65nm Processor optimized for low pwoer consumption with dual cores against a desktop 90nm processor not optimized for low power consumption...wow. Right now the mobile AMDs are almost at Intel's levels, and since the Yonah is Intel's next gen we will have to wait and see. Also since Intel seems to just love the P-4 for desktops we probably won't see Yonah on any except Apple's.
You still haven't looked at it recently, recently being the last year or two. Things change, when someone rebuts your comment you may wish to make sure they haven't change since last time you checked before making another mistake.
The Prescott (newest P4) is a monster (nuclear reactor is an apt term), the older P4s are better but not by much. The Athlon 64 is cooler (as in heat production), faster and (if you don't go dual core) cheaper. The Pentium M used to beat everything in terms of performance/watt, however the mobile amd (whatever it is) seems to be catching up/caught up. Intel is keeping the P-M off desktops (except Apple ones, they're not stupid) and trying to push the P-4 despite its horrendous heat production and lackluster performance. And that is the last two years in computing more or less (I probably missed some things and made a few mistakes but it's a slashdot comment so who cares).
The Soyuz already exists and can do that, although if they can get the CXV to work it may be cheaper than anything else planned. That is a big if imho, it's an interesting design and that usually means "there are a lot of new things that can and will go wrong" (and with a low-mass/low-cost design the consequences may not be pretty). I'm not sure how much Kliper will cost however it is bound to be a pretty penny, mostly for the rockets which alone cost more than the $20mil that they claim CXV will cost. (which I am also skeptical of). Either way we'll know in 4 to 5 years.
I doubt whatever NASA is planning will compare to either design (CXV or Kliper) however they'll use it anyway. Between needing to convert rockets to something they weren't designed for, designing something they have little experience with, massive bureaucracy and no desire to make something which is useful I doubt the result will be anything but another shuttle-like disaster.
Also, the Shuttle's main job right now is to sit in a hanger. It's main job while flying is two fold from now on:
1) Bring large sections of the ISS to orbit, perform work on the ISS (ie: attach the sections), bring cargo to ISS
2) Bring large experiments/general garbage down to Earth.
Sending people up and down can be done by Soyuz; the Shuttle is usually used because it's being sent up anyway and because otherwise it'd have nothing to do.
I am in general a bit weary of Russian designs, especially now that they're low on funding. Look at the Soyuz, darn thing seems to be able to survive anything and get it's occupants down alive. That would be a good thing if hadn't had to use those large margins multiple times already. In other words a good design yet lacking in implementation and attention to details. Granted the newest revision seems to be working problem free or close to it. I'd still trust the Russians over anything NASA builds in this area, by a large margin.
Personally I find the Kliper design very interesting, at least the newest one. You have a very good safety mechanism like the Soyuz, where launch failures don't kill the crew. In addition, it's re-usable in all the right ways unlike the shuttle. The crew vehicle is launched separately and is the bare-minimum, meaning that any extra safety margins require the least cost. The parts you don't need to send back to Earth aren't sent back or burned up (ie: everything beyond the bare minimum), so you don't need to send them up over and over.
In essence: the Kliper does only what it needs to do, get people to and from orbit, without trying to be a jack-of-all-trade/shitty-at-everything. Moving things within orbit is separate, as it should be, and isn't sent up over-and-over. Living and experimentation is yet again separate, maybe they'll finally use the ISS for something.
The only thing which bothers me is the amount of parts and that some will stay in orbit, which makes things more complicated and introduces potential problems that are hard to deal with.
Not really, depends on how it's designed/trained. In the end if it's more intelligent than any human we simply can't comprehend much less predict its actions in anything but the most abstract sense.
Keep in mind that humans have certain inherent and social ways of thinking in them, which an AI need not have at all. Human life could be meaningless to it, and only the success of the "nation" is of any value.
As one of Asimov's short stories mentions the AI may decide than an agrarian society is the best for humanity, although lacking Asimov's three laws it may decide a well planned war is the fastest means to that end.
As for putting guns down in a more common sense, would it really? That just means the other side will decimate you, which may be much worse than the cost of the war.
You don't understand humans very well then it seems.
So who is the user? Should high end cad programs be written so anyone who starts it up knows exactly how to use it?
Also why? Why should someone doing an open source project in their free time give a rats ass about Joe Average.
In other words: if you can't get it to work then you're not the intended user. Some projects want to aim at more people and others at less, there are advantages to both approaches. OSS is free and as such there is no direct material reason why an OSS programer has to accomodate the largest possible group of users.
Never underestimate a human's ability to find loopholes given enough time. Anarchocapitalism resulting in feudalism probably. A lot of systems work very well in the beginning and then bog down into inefficiency and stagnation.
1. A 100% gold-backed currency. Wars are fought and corporations are built on counterfeit money.
And wars were fought over gold as well in the past, much easier to fight for gold than paper currency.
2. No politician serving more than 15,000 citizens. I think I'd rather have one representative who knows me rather than 35 who don't.
So no federal government or organizations of local governments of any sort then?
4. No law can be more than 150 words.
5. All laws must sunset after 4 years.
Won't work imho. 4 will result in many short laws instead of one big one or simply more loopholes that can be abused. 5 will result in automatic lists that are voted on every 4 years. Not to mention the best filibusters ever known, valid laws suddenly going off the books because a group of politicians wanted to make a point.
The effort required to review laws every 4 years would grind a country into stagnation. The country may last longer I will admit assuming it doesn't collapse because another country didn't have so much bureaucracy. Oh and there would be a lot of bureaucracy, constantly increasing to deal with the increasing number of laws.
My town has 70 church organizations. Competition. I was slave to 4 governments at once. Big difference
There are over 100 nations on this planet, plenty of competition. Just because you don't want to move or something doesn't mean there isn't competition.
If they pollute your land, it is trespass.
Where do you draw the line? How much do they need to pollute your land for it to be trespass. Factories in China are probably polluting your land, a very small amount however they still do. What type of pollution do you consider? Does the smell from a sewege treatment plant count? What about the sound from a nice airport?
A loan is a contract so any interest rate is fair as long as the rate is market driven and no Greenspan mandated.
Ever since the government got more involved in the economy through the Fed the percentage of recessions to expansions has plummeted (not counting the Great Depression).
I didn't say admire. Respect your parents is different. Even with abuse there a ways to do this (my Pastor's child was abused by a grandrelative and he had a sermon on it).
Except it's respect because someone tells you to respect them, worthless and counterproductive.
ICANN needs money to operate. Any money it gains from this will be money it does not need to get from other sources. As such we all benefit as ICANN's oeprations are generally quite invovled with the function of the internet.
Single letter domains either need to cost a lot or be given out to pre-selected institutions/individuals. Otherwise, it'd be a madhouse and they'd cost a lot anyway except the public wouldn't get any benefit from the high cost.
Which works great unless the person who dials 911 can't speak or is unable to transmit all the information before being disconnected. THIS is what the "big brotherism" is there for, which seems to happen at least often enough to warrant it.
If something happens it's much faster to dial 911 than to dial 911 AND then tell the person where you are.
There is also the possibility of the operator simply not understanding you (at least not the first time), which if you have an accent or a lisp is a definite possibility.
So are large diamonds and top of the line cars, your point being?
From what I remember the system will be small, enough to stop some rougue nuke from say Iran but not enough to stop most of the nukes from even China. Russia has a shit load of nukes and icbms, china has 20 that can reach us (from what I hear they were planning to add more anyway).
In which case why do we even care? We cannot predict how they would attack us, and more likely than not they can simply send a bunch of .999c DU rods at our planet if they wanted to get rid of us. They could have already replaced out politicians with fakes under their control, so how paranoid do you want to be? What measures to you take to counter threats you cannot even imagine, if they exist? Anything you do will probably be worthless, anyway:
Assuming FTL travel means they're already here so none of this matters as they can infect systems through millions of other means other than SETI. Assuming no FTL travel they have a decent time gap of probably decades, and as such are going mostly blind. Granted, they can already be here (even at STL) in which case it doesn't matter.
Your analogy fails because it's simply data, it doesn't come with any of their advanced technology. A better analogy would be that a modern person is thrown into the gladiator arena. You know the general state of the Roman Empire 100+ years ago (say you read a history book by some roman historian from 100 years before) and you need to fight your way out. You need to from your limited information predict the weaknesses of your opponents, as well as simpler questions like the type of combat you will be in. You then need to from your 100 year old information create a strategy to exploit these weaknesses.
Another analogy would be having this broad 100 year old information, and having to put a single un-armed covert ops person there. You of course know nothing of Roman History although you have some trends on human development from china. Your operative then needs to survive and take over the empire. Oh right, he is also dropped of in an airtight metal box and must first find a way out of it or die.
Heck, if you consider SETI a problem then you better kill of all satellites and anything capable of picking up signals from space (radio probably; probably anything electronic). Any one of them could pick up such a signal and infect a computer as a result, and then it's viral all the way down. If they're advanced enough to infect through SETI then they're advanced enough to infect everyone from a single computer imho.
You browsing Slashdot is also probably a great waste of time that could be used to great benefit.
Patents don't do that, a bad implementation of patents does that. I believe the phrase is "throwing out the baby with the bath water."
First of all it seems that there is more than just LAME in there: http://hack.fi/~muzzy/sony-drm/
Second of all, am I the only one who finds it ironic that a DRM program designed to protect someone's copyrighted information is itself infringing on someone's copyright? I guess if Sony wants to fight those evil copyright violators they should start by putting themselves in jail.
"128mb ATI 9800 system"
ATI is well known to have shitty Linux drivers, if you wish to complain then please send a letter to ATI asking them to make better linux drivers. In general, for desktop linux you need to pick hardware which will work with it.
"But a live cd configures xorg.conf dynamically each boot"
So why would that not work with a usb boot device?
"If we can clone humans, what do we need the wombs of women for?"
Carrying the fetuses to term. A more accurate statement is:
"If we can clone humans, what do we need men for?"