No. I'd like to talk to someone who's familiar with the issues.
However people do own things. I can buy something and I then have that something. Nothing changes just perceptions of it.
*smirk* Unless it has "digital content" in it. Then you go to jail for calling it "your" property.
I am not in engineering so I don't know. What I think is the case is that most likely a workable solution that can allow for changing values of various elements would be best served with such an approach.
I'm not an engineer either, I just like the methodology. Another good quote: "better" is the enemy of "good enough".
I like a good philosophy debate. However I would love to know more about AI without being a professor in it.
Me too. 'twould be great to take a class/lecture or have lunch with him. But, given the choice between asking him a question about philosophy or AI.. I'd take philosophy. Afterall.. a few years in the field and it's enough to make anyone believe in God.
I see an inexorable movement towards dispossessionism, both coming from the "right," with UCITA, secured digital rights, anti-crypto-tampering in the DMCA, and ASP subscription models, and coming from the "left", with ideas that we should give our writing up into free collectivist projects.
Whoah. That paragraph alone deserves an article. Geeks, in their attempts to free themselves from society, gave away their work for free, not realizing it's almost the same thing the other side is clamoring for... nobody owns anything anymore. Isn't it a rule of engineering to mistrust extremes because the answer usually lies somwhere in the middle?
I wish we could have had an interview of you on philosophy instead of AI.. it would have been much more interesting..
I represent the MPAA/AOL/Time-Warner/US Government/Sun/Echelon super-mega-international conglomerate, and I am hereby suing you. By giving away your work, you are encouraging other people to do the same, and hurting the consumer (actually, our profit margin, but that's our story and we're sticking to it!). We'll have nothing of it, and effective immediately we're filing lawsuits in 32 states, 3 canadian providences, and a few other countries. The President in a high-level summit assured us Congress will pass legislation making it illegal to distribute legal video and the UN has called a special convention to discuss the use of tactical nukes on the deviant artists. We'll have no deviant artistic talent in this country!
By reading this post, you consent to be bound by it's terms. TERMS: You must moderate this +1 if reading on slashdot, or reply saying something posititive if viewing on another medium or do not have moderator points. You further agree with the poster in all respects and will not visit the site, or download any video not MPAA Approved. Failure to do so will result in your monitor exploding and your speakers melting (thanks intel!).
Your compliance is appreciated,
~ The MPAA
Re:Freedom without responsibility?
on
CFP 2000 Wrapup
·
· Score: 3
There are some legitimate reasons why we cannot add responsibility. Take, for example, an online forum dedicated to helping people recover from rape/molestation. It's an unmoderated forum (for legal reasons) and an anonymous one (for psychological reasons). It's anonymous for a damn good reason, actually - it's to *prevent* people from disclosing their identities.
Now, obviously a forum like this could be easily abused. Somebody could post snide insulting things. Somebody might masqarade as someone/something they are not. This is true for any anonymous forum.
However, nothing short of providing methods to uncover the identity of all involved parties will provide/any/ responsibility. Yet, the freedom is there. As is the potential for abuse.
You see, freedom and responsibility aren't attached at the hip. One can exist without the other. Ask any teenager. Or anyone who uses crypto. There's alot of examples where it works in reverse - you get the responsibility without the freedom. I have to pay taxes every year.. for stuff I'll never use. Maybe even stuff I find morally reprehensible. Conversely, I'm a mouse-click away from posting this anonymously. Will my clicking that box affect your judgement of me?
One might argue we don't have much freedom in the Real World, hence the strong demand for it here in the online one. In the Real World, speaking your mind can get you slapped with a lawsuit. Acting on your morals can get you thrown in jail.. and sometimes even doing something as simple as making a copy of your Matrix soundtrack so you can put the original in a box at home (incase your car gets stolen!) can be illegal..
I'll leave you with a quote... "A free society is one in which it is safe to be unpopular". Given the global political climate.. anonymity may be the only way to ensure you can be safe.. and unpopular.
Flash forward to the future YRO Slashdot Summit...
Malda gets up on stage for the keynote and thanks his readers for attending the conference and promises that the schedule will be released to everyone real soon. "Don't ask me about it again though or I'll delay it another day!" he said. Then the stage is turned over to a random journalist who comments about how little privacy they have. Suddenly, 20 hooded trolls jump forward and shoot him with their petrification raygun. Natalie portman is caught in the crossfire and coincidentally was streaking across stage when this happened. The random journalist continues talking about the paradigm shift linux is going through and how it'll revolutionize the industry. Several people nod their head in agreement, except for a short guy in red with a tail who mutters something about heretical literature.
While Malda and Hemos are busy shooting their SuperMod guns at the trolls, the rest of slashdot is busy arguing whether ninja taco burritos are heated more efficiently with dual celerons or an overclocked Athlon processor. Eric Raymond and Richard Stallman sit quietly in a corner glaring at each other. The reporter finally finishes and is then promptly zapped into the -1 regions of the conference as a trapdoor opens, dropping him into the FUD Chasm.
Jon Katz gets up to say how this is all because the troll outcasts were neglected during their high school career and are seeking retribution. Halfway through his speech, in a desperate attempt to save humanity his major intestine leaps up to strangle him to death. The trolls start cheering and Malda begins throwing perl scripts at them. At this point, the room lights go out and we hear thousands of tacos raining down on the audience.
And so here I was sucking down my 32nd can of mountain dew having been awake for about 60 hours staring at my laptop's screen which now had nothing but 30 pointers pointing to structures of pointers which in turn were calls to pure virtual functions.. and that's when the conference really got wierd. So I hit submit and posted my notes to slashdot.
I suppose you don't consider putting a dozen webservers into a round-robin a cluster, either...
Well, anyway.. "clustering" can mean just about anything to anyone, given the context. A system administrator probably thinks clustering is taking the same network resource and distributing it across several machines (which typically appear on the network as one logical object). A physics major might think clustering is a huge room full of SGIs all doing rendering and particle analysis... and an anonymous coward might think that clustering allows them to download pictures of natalie portman pouring hot grits down her pants. The point is that it means different things to different people.
Boiled down to the basics, a cluster is simply a group of machines working towards a common goal (whether it be filesharing, parallel computations, or whatnot). There may only be 4 types now, but next week, there'll be 6.
Nobody is bashing christians. They're bashing a political group that happens to have the word "Christian" in it. I can call myself religious and christian all I want.. does that make me so? No! Stop falling for their trap - they're about as pious as demons.
Well, since their marketing department failed miserably in their legal defense, now they're going to use their legal department to lobby for political changes...
It doesn't matter how fast it can switch - you're still limited by the speed of light. As most computing today still works serially this means that you *still* need to wait while the data threads it's way through your "terahertz transistors" and then get stored back out on the memory.
The CPU is only as fast as it's slowest link: namely, it's been the memory lately. Now, if somebody can design memory that can charge/discharge a few trillion times a second THEN we'll be on to something! =) I'll give 'ya a hint: optics and magnets.
Jon.. repeat after me: Women are not a minority. Women are not a minority. Women ARE NOT a minority. They represent 60% of the population. Further, there are no barriers being put up by us [geeks] to having them enter this field. From everything I have seen, women are generally respected and dealt with as equals by fellow geeks. The only "barrier" I can see is one of interest-level.. and I'm not about to go out and start advocating we pour millions of dollars for a project like that - if they're not interested, they are not interested.
Second, women have been online for some time. You can't wire up 50% of this country and make it exclusively guys. Yes, I know the politically correct amongst us would have us believe that women are somehow "misrepresented", but it's a complete joke. Now, enough of the opinion, time for some empirical evidence..
The underlying crux of your article can best be summed up with my personal experience - all of my online (male) friends are out gaming online, participating in discussions like this, and communicating with new people all the time. However, all of my mom's friends are online. Women, it seems, carry the Real World into e-mail. Yes, there are some on IRC or here on slashdot, but most of them already have a large base of friends and simply use the internet as a new medium to carry the same message - the day to day chit-chat that they constantly are engaged in. I don't know of anyone of the opposite-sex who met someone online and decided to be friends. For whatever reason, that isn't happening often. But that's a topic of another Jon Katz article...
So yes, they're communicating. They're out there, and they very much are online. You're just not looking in the right places.
The United States Government has long been the leader in efforts to limit the development and dissemination of encryption. For the past twenty years, the US has attempted to suppress development of encryption through manipulating standards, recommending legislation, and imposing export controls. In the past several years, as electronic commerce has become an important aspect of the American economy, the US government has begun backing away from these efforts, which have not been successful and had generated considerable controversy and opposition.
Well, that's the story for the US. By the looks of things.. all things considered, they should be a "green light" in about 2 years. For crypto. The rest of our privacy laws are woefully lacking. In this respect, I consider the progress the EU and it's member nation's to be making substantial progress - moreso than the US. For a country that prides itself on technical and economic superiority, it comes as a mild shock that we haven't been more quick to adopt EU-like specifications to encourage e-commerce on a wider scale.
I guess though there are some parts of our government which are more interested in "national security" than economic prosperity. All and all, an excellent paper, and one I'll definately be referring to when I set my web server(s) up in the near future.
No, those skills are collectively referred to as "persuasion". Arm twisting, compromises, strong-arming, CYA maneuvering, manipulating, persuading, etc. are examples of getting things done without "politicing". Politicing IMO is more about hierarchal organizations, obedience / authority and the always-present "I'm better than you are attitude". Politicing to me is the opposite of the cooperative anarchy that is typical between peer groups (and 'net communities like the so-called open source and free software communities).
Well... no, it's called "hedging your bets" and it's anything but new. Take any tech analyst firm and ask them whether you should deploy W2K (just an example). You'll get both answers. The logical consequence of this is that a) they can't be wrong, but b) they don't tell you anything new you already didn't know.
Result: analysts are only brought in when someone who can afford them doesn't have the majority of people behind him/her and wants to "change the tide". Soooo.. all this money is wasted and so-called analysts get rich as a natural by-product of management squabbling!
I ignore these types of articles, for the most part.. the few times that I do notice them I either hold them to be contemptuous BS or completely irrelevant. If a company is so desperate so that they actually take these people seriously (as opposed to the aforementioned 'political reasons') then they need to hire a few engineers NOW.
News flash: Not serving in public office or contributing in any way to the day to day politic'ing that goes on in, say, your office is generally indicative of a normal, well-adjusted individual. It's only the wierd ones that develop a taste for politics and pursue it, hence the popular quote "Every now and then an innocent man is sent to congress".
Hell, I say we erect a statue for the lady - she resisted every attempt to become political in the face of incredible odds - a tribute to how sane this person is! =)
This reply neatly avoided one question I have - how do you ensure integrity of the files this thing distributes? It's all fine and dandy that you *can* put files out there, but if somebody poisons the thing, there's no way to distinguish slashdot-0.9.tar.gz 490381 bytes from slashdot-0.9.tar.gz 490381 bytes (which happens to have a root compromise in install.sh).
There are just a *ton* of tech issues to resolve to get this thing off the ground.. only some of them have been addressed. The harder ones are on the human interfacing... you're putting data on a network with no way to ensure integrity. Then again, in an anonymous net what would be the point? Hrrrmmm...
They crowded into the Sputnik conference room? I knew it! Those Mozilla open source people are a bunch of commies working to undermine the glorious american way by destroying the free market! Burn in hell freedom-loving programming bastards!:)
Notice as required by slashdot: The above was humor. It was only humor. It is not to be confused with anything but humor. If you saw anything besides humor, that is your fault.. the poster disclaims any liability for anything except the humorous content of this post. Poster's maximum liability is to have the reader mildly irritated. In no event shall... blah.. blah.. blah...
Most slashdotters here can't seem to see the forest from the trees. The majority of the people in Boston were AGAINST the boston tea party. Only a MINORITY of people wanted to seperate from Britain. Most people were HAPPY with their lives being merchants, trading, and going on with their day to day business.
It was a bunch of social miscreants that started the revolution.. a bunch of outcasts. Jefferson was a communist, Benjamin got hit by lightning and then tried to create a method of organizing his thoughts (see also: franklin series "day planners")... and George Washington was doing the same thing Clinton was this past year.
Nonetheless, we benefited from their work.. for a few years anyway. Then the corporations took over large sections of our government, subverted the law, and generally raised hell. And before anyone knew it.. ah, well.. they're too rich to stop now!
So.. shall we find a bunch of social outcasts again and start a revolution? That seems to be how these things work...
go out on a limb and state that the reason for this is because slashdot has deals with book sellers
Which is true.. unless that link to fatbrain just disappeared. What that means for slashdot revenue, I don't know.. but it's there by agreement.
And I don't know andover.net policy. Despite what the official word is (that they maintain complete control over slashdot) - I know better than to trust "official word". They might be bound by contract not to say anything bad about andover.net or it's policies. Maybe it's a catch-22 I don't know about. How the f-ck would I know? Since Hemos has now posted and stated WHY he doesn't do bad book reviews, it makes alittle more sense. Just because I state an opinion and then I turn out to be wrong doesn't mean I can't go and say "I was wrong" and change my mind. What's so bad about that?!?!?!
Slashdot Mirror
No. I'd like to talk to someone who's familiar with the issues.
However people do own things. I can buy something and I then have that something. Nothing changes just perceptions of it.
*smirk* Unless it has "digital content" in it. Then you go to jail for calling it "your" property.
I am not in engineering so I don't know. What I think is the case is that most likely a workable solution that can allow for changing values of various elements would be best served with such an approach.
I'm not an engineer either, I just like the methodology. Another good quote: "better" is the enemy of "good enough".
I like a good philosophy debate. However I would love to know more about AI without being a professor in it.
Me too. 'twould be great to take a class/lecture or have lunch with him. But, given the choice between asking him a question about philosophy or AI.. I'd take philosophy. Afterall.. a few years in the field and it's enough to make anyone believe in God.
Whoah. That paragraph alone deserves an article. Geeks, in their attempts to free themselves from society, gave away their work for free, not realizing it's almost the same thing the other side is clamoring for... nobody owns anything anymore. Isn't it a rule of engineering to mistrust extremes because the answer usually lies somwhere in the middle?
I wish we could have had an interview of you on philosophy instead of AI.. it would have been much more interesting..
I wasn't planning on putting /all/ the troll tags in there... but next time I'll try harder. :P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
By reading this post, you consent to be bound by it's terms. TERMS: You must moderate this +1 if reading on slashdot, or reply saying something posititive if viewing on another medium or do not have moderator points. You further agree with the poster in all respects and will not visit the site, or download any video not MPAA Approved. Failure to do so will result in your monitor exploding and your speakers melting (thanks intel!).
Your compliance is appreciated,
~ The MPAA
Now, obviously a forum like this could be easily abused. Somebody could post snide insulting things. Somebody might masqarade as someone/something they are not. This is true for any anonymous forum.
However, nothing short of providing methods to uncover the identity of all involved parties will provide /any/ responsibility. Yet, the freedom is there. As is the potential for abuse.
You see, freedom and responsibility aren't attached at the hip. One can exist without the other. Ask any teenager. Or anyone who uses crypto. There's alot of examples where it works in reverse - you get the responsibility without the freedom. I have to pay taxes every year.. for stuff I'll never use. Maybe even stuff I find morally reprehensible. Conversely, I'm a mouse-click away from posting this anonymously. Will my clicking that box affect your judgement of me?
One might argue we don't have much freedom in the Real World, hence the strong demand for it here in the online one. In the Real World, speaking your mind can get you slapped with a lawsuit. Acting on your morals can get you thrown in jail.. and sometimes even doing something as simple as making a copy of your Matrix soundtrack so you can put the original in a box at home (incase your car gets stolen!) can be illegal..
I'll leave you with a quote... "A free society is one in which it is safe to be unpopular". Given the global political climate.. anonymity may be the only way to ensure you can be safe.. and unpopular.
Flash forward to the future YRO Slashdot Summit...
Malda gets up on stage for the keynote and thanks his readers for attending the conference and promises that the schedule will be released to everyone real soon. "Don't ask me about it again though or I'll delay it another day!" he said. Then the stage is turned over to a random journalist who comments about how little privacy they have. Suddenly, 20 hooded trolls jump forward and shoot him with their petrification raygun. Natalie portman is caught in the crossfire and coincidentally was streaking across stage when this happened. The random journalist continues talking about the paradigm shift linux is going through and how it'll revolutionize the industry. Several people nod their head in agreement, except for a short guy in red with a tail who mutters something about heretical literature.
While Malda and Hemos are busy shooting their SuperMod guns at the trolls, the rest of slashdot is busy arguing whether ninja taco burritos are heated more efficiently with dual celerons or an overclocked Athlon processor. Eric Raymond and Richard Stallman sit quietly in a corner glaring at each other. The reporter finally finishes and is then promptly zapped into the -1 regions of the conference as a trapdoor opens, dropping him into the FUD Chasm.
Jon Katz gets up to say how this is all because the troll outcasts were neglected during their high school career and are seeking retribution. Halfway through his speech, in a desperate attempt to save humanity his major intestine leaps up to strangle him to death. The trolls start cheering and Malda begins throwing perl scripts at them. At this point, the room lights go out and we hear thousands of tacos raining down on the audience.
And so here I was sucking down my 32nd can of mountain dew having been awake for about 60 hours staring at my laptop's screen which now had nothing but 30 pointers pointing to structures of pointers which in turn were calls to pure virtual functions.. and that's when the conference really got wierd. So I hit submit and posted my notes to slashdot.
Anyone else find the title of that article alittle bit like vogon poetry?
Well, anyway.. "clustering" can mean just about anything to anyone, given the context. A system administrator probably thinks clustering is taking the same network resource and distributing it across several machines (which typically appear on the network as one logical object). A physics major might think clustering is a huge room full of SGIs all doing rendering and particle analysis... and an anonymous coward might think that clustering allows them to download pictures of natalie portman pouring hot grits down her pants. The point is that it means different things to different people.
Boiled down to the basics, a cluster is simply a group of machines working towards a common goal (whether it be filesharing, parallel computations, or whatnot). There may only be 4 types now, but next week, there'll be 6.
Nobody is bashing christians. They're bashing a political group that happens to have the word "Christian" in it. I can call myself religious and christian all I want.. does that make me so? No! Stop falling for their trap - they're about as pious as demons.
Eh.. Microsoft.. you catch on so slow...
The CPU is only as fast as it's slowest link: namely, it's been the memory lately. Now, if somebody can design memory that can charge/discharge a few trillion times a second THEN we'll be on to something! =) I'll give 'ya a hint: optics and magnets.
Second, women have been online for some time. You can't wire up 50% of this country and make it exclusively guys. Yes, I know the politically correct amongst us would have us believe that women are somehow "misrepresented", but it's a complete joke. Now, enough of the opinion, time for some empirical evidence..
The underlying crux of your article can best be summed up with my personal experience - all of my online (male) friends are out gaming online, participating in discussions like this, and communicating with new people all the time. However, all of my mom's friends are online. Women, it seems, carry the Real World into e-mail. Yes, there are some on IRC or here on slashdot, but most of them already have a large base of friends and simply use the internet as a new medium to carry the same message - the day to day chit-chat that they constantly are engaged in. I don't know of anyone of the opposite-sex who met someone online and decided to be friends. For whatever reason, that isn't happening often. But that's a topic of another Jon Katz article...
So yes, they're communicating. They're out there, and they very much are online. You're just not looking in the right places.
Enigma. WWII. Next!
Well, that's the story for the US. By the looks of things.. all things considered, they should be a "green light" in about 2 years. For crypto. The rest of our privacy laws are woefully lacking. In this respect, I consider the progress the EU and it's member nation's to be making substantial progress - moreso than the US. For a country that prides itself on technical and economic superiority, it comes as a mild shock that we haven't been more quick to adopt EU-like specifications to encourage e-commerce on a wider scale.
I guess though there are some parts of our government which are more interested in "national security" than economic prosperity. All and all, an excellent paper, and one I'll definately be referring to when I set my web server(s) up in the near future.
No, those skills are collectively referred to as "persuasion". Arm twisting, compromises, strong-arming, CYA maneuvering, manipulating, persuading, etc. are examples of getting things done without "politicing". Politicing IMO is more about hierarchal organizations, obedience / authority and the always-present "I'm better than you are attitude". Politicing to me is the opposite of the cooperative anarchy that is typical between peer groups (and 'net communities like the so-called open source and free software communities).
Result: analysts are only brought in when someone who can afford them doesn't have the majority of people behind him/her and wants to "change the tide". Soooo.. all this money is wasted and so-called analysts get rich as a natural by-product of management squabbling!
I ignore these types of articles, for the most part.. the few times that I do notice them I either hold them to be contemptuous BS or completely irrelevant. If a company is so desperate so that they actually take these people seriously (as opposed to the aforementioned 'political reasons') then they need to hire a few engineers NOW.
News flash: Not serving in public office or contributing in any way to the day to day politic'ing that goes on in, say, your office is generally indicative of a normal, well-adjusted individual. It's only the wierd ones that develop a taste for politics and pursue it, hence the popular quote "Every now and then an innocent man is sent to congress".
Hell, I say we erect a statue for the lady - she resisted every attempt to become political in the face of incredible odds - a tribute to how sane this person is! =)
The mystery company is almost doubtlessly Seagate, who's headquarters is based right next door to where I work.
There are just a *ton* of tech issues to resolve to get this thing off the ground.. only some of them have been addressed. The harder ones are on the human interfacing... you're putting data on a network with no way to ensure integrity. Then again, in an anonymous net what would be the point? Hrrrmmm...
Notice as required by slashdot: The above was humor. It was only humor. It is not to be confused with anything but humor. If you saw anything besides humor, that is your fault.. the poster disclaims any liability for anything except the humorous content of this post. Poster's maximum liability is to have the reader mildly irritated. In no event shall... blah.. blah.. blah...
I think it's because the IRC servers were shut down today and they ran out of uninteresting things to post...
It was a bunch of social miscreants that started the revolution.. a bunch of outcasts. Jefferson was a communist, Benjamin got hit by lightning and then tried to create a method of organizing his thoughts (see also: franklin series "day planners")... and George Washington was doing the same thing Clinton was this past year.
Nonetheless, we benefited from their work.. for a few years anyway. Then the corporations took over large sections of our government, subverted the law, and generally raised hell. And before anyone knew it.. ah, well.. they're too rich to stop now!
So.. shall we find a bunch of social outcasts again and start a revolution? That seems to be how these things work...
Nope. You're still wrong.
2A packets of bits in the net, 2A packets of bits.. do a checksum and /dev/null the run, 29 packets of bits on the net....
Which is true.. unless that link to fatbrain just disappeared. What that means for slashdot revenue, I don't know.. but it's there by agreement.
And I don't know andover.net policy. Despite what the official word is (that they maintain complete control over slashdot) - I know better than to trust "official word". They might be bound by contract not to say anything bad about andover.net or it's policies. Maybe it's a catch-22 I don't know about. How the f-ck would I know? Since Hemos has now posted and stated WHY he doesn't do bad book reviews, it makes alittle more sense. Just because I state an opinion and then I turn out to be wrong doesn't mean I can't go and say "I was wrong" and change my mind. What's so bad about that?!?!?!