According to Space Today, the U.S. space endurance record holder is former ISS commander Michael Foale, with a total of 375 days spent in space (note that it's the record for cumulative time spent in space. The longest time spent in space on a single mission is 438 days).
Really, it seems that the event itself was just as boring as the writeup. I would have at least expected a description of the (rumored) fistfight between Linus Torvalds and Bruce Perens over (and in) the patent pool.
It also highlights some of the problems with community-edited encyclopedias. First, if you look at the article history, you'll see that it's been edited something like five hundred times in the course of the past three days, vandalised in many cases (I wonder if the last ones were due to the Slashdotting?). Secondly, he overwhelming reaction of the community to the creation of such an entry about a fictional character seems to be "Delete! Delete!" which is really stupid (it's a lot wiser IMO to keep it in its current state, noting the controversy over the creation of the entry).
These two problems are really just different sides of the same coin: the first reactions to practically any news will be irrational. On news sites that allow the users comment on the news, there'll always be a billion people screaming bloody murder over anything, instead of giving it a couple of moments' thought. And the reactions to negative news are always the same: throw them to jail! Banish! Destroy! The same thing happened with this Wikipedia entry. Someone read about it on Slashdot and quickly vandalised it, thinking (well, not really thinking) that they'd be doing the community a favour by this. Of course the entry was restored just as quickly, but this doesn't make the problem -- that people do not realise that there are other ways of dealing with problematic things than just "shooting" them -- disappear.
Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse, Taco managed to outdo himself with the next Apple-related article posted on the front page: Baher Al Hakim writes "The Street suggests in a recent article that Apple is about to announce a deal with Google, to a
In my experience, when the article is about a patent application, one should never trust the summary, as the typical submitter only reads the first two lines of the application before he starts to scream bloody murder and posts an article to Slashdot where he claims that [random unix system utility] did this thirty years ago. Of course, had he bothered to read the whole paragraph, he would have discovered that it isn't so. I must confess that i almost never get past the first paragraph, as all these patent applications are simply way too technical for me, but even reading the description of the patent in question tends to be enough to invalidate the claims made in these articles.
Is it really that hard to write a three-line summary that actually says what the patent is about? I actually had to read the patent application to find out what the article is about.
You do realize that to get all this information, one would have had to read all of the original article? Tut, tut. Yeah, the article might be kind of dupish, but in my opinion, it's justified this time (even though the article is quite boring).
Anyway, I think TBL was saying that just like when a group of people get together and try to create a government which will support their ideals, the population of the internet needs to come together to ensure that the internet supports their ideals.
What he says sounds like a Marxist utopia for me -- the people on the internet will come together and build a perfect society on top of it. But which part of the population of the internet should be the one to decide it? I find it hard to believe that all of the people on the net will ever agree on what the ideals are that the internet should support, or what "the sort of society that we want to build on top of it" would be like.
There is no "us". There's just some (power-hungry?) guy speaking in "our" name.
I've news for you. In case you haven't noticed, Europe is not a single state. There are many countries in Europe, and different countries have different policies for software patents. For how long will this situation last, i do not know.
Well, i thought that his lack of understanding would be obvious to anyone who has read the article, but seeing that it wasn't, i might just as well take the time to give some examples.
First of all, talking about the European Commission, Stallman says: The Hungarian representative voted for software patents even as his prime minister said Hungary was against them. The point he's missing is that the Hungarian representative in the commission does not have to (and is not supposed to) follow his government's orders, as he's acting in the interest of the whole union, not just those of his country.
Then he proposes that [t]he unelected European commission and the national governments that cannot stand up to business pressure should have no role in forming EU directives. Instead, every directive should start in the European parliament. If approved there, it should go for ratification by an "upper house" representing the people of Europe by means of referendums. There are many reasons why this is unreasonable (the main reason, of course, being that it would simply not work on such a large scale), but what makes the proposition especially absurd is that he wants to change a system that has been proven to work by the very same patents decision Stallman is ranting about. Stallman's proposition would, however, eliminate one step from the legislative process, seriously distorting the balance of powers, as there would be noone keeping the "upper house" in check (who keeps an eye on the people?); it would still, however, be quite easily manipulable (the EU referendums all around Europe are a good example of this).
You know, i was actually going to mod that comment up, since it was a good question and all, but then i scrolled down and saw your comment, and decided to personally tell you off -- instead of anonymously modding you down -- for being such a slashbot.
This battle has implications far beyond the software field. Our years-long fight has shown how undemocratic the EU is. It is a system in which bureaucrats can make decisions that, practically speaking, the public can never reverse.
The FSF isn't exactly a paragon of democracy, either. Even though Stallman claims to be supporting freedom, the way he does it is more akin to a dictatorship (and the FSF is a great example of how a bureaucratic state-in-state does not really function too well -- it's been 20 years now, but the GNU OS is still not in sight (Stallman's putting GNU in front of Linux does not count as creating a working GNU operating system)). This was clearly illustrated by the first version of Eric S. Raymond's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar", directed against Stallman's way of running things.
You've got to ask yourself, is it really freedom Stallman's after, or is it some sort of a bizarre society of anonymous zombies, all working for free (free as in 'no beer') under his command.
seems to have a handle on the EU situation at large.
Interestingly, the impression i got was exactly the opposite. Stallman seems to lack knowledge of how the EU works. This is best illustrated by his "proposal" for changes in the legislative process.
I didn't read your post properly the first time and (mis-)took it for the usual "I don't want to start a holy war here..." troll. And then my head exploded, and now there are tiny bits of skull bone and brain tissue all over the room. Luckily, it turns out i can manage just as well even without a brain.
Slashdot Mirror
According to Space Today, the U.S. space endurance record holder is former ISS commander Michael Foale, with a total of 375 days spent in space (note that it's the record for cumulative time spent in space. The longest time spent in space on a single mission is 438 days).
(And Sergei, man, I'm so sorry you had to hear about it like this...)
It's pretty much as if you hired me to babysit, and instead of asking money for my services, I would simply eat one of your children when you're away.
Really, it seems that the event itself was just as boring as the writeup. I would have at least expected a description of the (rumored) fistfight between Linus Torvalds and Bruce Perens over (and in) the patent pool.
Not to mention that he is quite openly proclaiming what his intentions are -- what other is the 'Id' in Id Games than a reference to the Freudian Id?
It was I that ate your children.
I'm so sorry you had to find out about it like this, but I couldn't stand living like this any longer.
Again, I'm sorry.
These two problems are really just different sides of the same coin: the first reactions to practically any news will be irrational. On news sites that allow the users comment on the news, there'll always be a billion people screaming bloody murder over anything, instead of giving it a couple of moments' thought. And the reactions to negative news are always the same: throw them to jail! Banish! Destroy! The same thing happened with this Wikipedia entry. Someone read about it on Slashdot and quickly vandalised it, thinking (well, not really thinking) that they'd be doing the community a favour by this. Of course the entry was restored just as quickly, but this doesn't make the problem -- that people do not realise that there are other ways of dealing with problematic things than just "shooting" them -- disappear.
WTF.
In my experience, when the article is about a patent application, one should never trust the summary, as the typical submitter only reads the first two lines of the application before he starts to scream bloody murder and posts an article to Slashdot where he claims that [random unix system utility] did this thirty years ago. Of course, had he bothered to read the whole paragraph, he would have discovered that it isn't so. I must confess that i almost never get past the first paragraph, as all these patent applications are simply way too technical for me, but even reading the description of the patent in question tends to be enough to invalidate the claims made in these articles.
Only as much as the rest of the holes in Windows 2000 are.
You do realize that to get all this information, one would have had to read all of the original article? Tut, tut. Yeah, the article might be kind of dupish, but in my opinion, it's justified this time (even though the article is quite boring).
Sir, I dub thee 'The Boy that Cried "Dupe!"
Obviously, he's talking in the name of his vast armies of zombie bloggers.
What he says sounds like a Marxist utopia for me -- the people on the internet will come together and build a perfect society on top of it. But which part of the population of the internet should be the one to decide it? I find it hard to believe that all of the people on the net will ever agree on what the ideals are that the internet should support, or what "the sort of society that we want to build on top of it" would be like.
There is no "us". There's just some (power-hungry?) guy speaking in "our" name.
I've news for you. In case you haven't noticed, Europe is not a single state. There are many countries in Europe, and different countries have different policies for software patents. For how long will this situation last, i do not know.
A Baskerville?
Exactly. Why isn't anyone doing anything about all the bloody trolls sneaking into the country on cargo ships from Norway?
First of all, talking about the European Commission, Stallman says: The Hungarian representative voted for software patents even as his prime minister said Hungary was against them. The point he's missing is that the Hungarian representative in the commission does not have to (and is not supposed to) follow his government's orders, as he's acting in the interest of the whole union, not just those of his country.
Then he proposes that [t]he unelected European commission and the national governments that cannot stand up to business pressure should have no role in forming EU directives. Instead, every directive should start in the European parliament. If approved there, it should go for ratification by an "upper house" representing the people of Europe by means of referendums. There are many reasons why this is unreasonable (the main reason, of course, being that it would simply not work on such a large scale), but what makes the proposition especially absurd is that he wants to change a system that has been proven to work by the very same patents decision Stallman is ranting about. Stallman's proposition would, however, eliminate one step from the legislative process, seriously distorting the balance of powers, as there would be noone keeping the "upper house" in check (who keeps an eye on the people?); it would still, however, be quite easily manipulable (the EU referendums all around Europe are a good example of this).
Idiot.
The FSF isn't exactly a paragon of democracy, either. Even though Stallman claims to be supporting freedom, the way he does it is more akin to a dictatorship (and the FSF is a great example of how a bureaucratic state-in-state does not really function too well -- it's been 20 years now, but the GNU OS is still not in sight (Stallman's putting GNU in front of Linux does not count as creating a working GNU operating system)). This was clearly illustrated by the first version of Eric S. Raymond's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar", directed against Stallman's way of running things.
You've got to ask yourself, is it really freedom Stallman's after, or is it some sort of a bizarre society of anonymous zombies, all working for free (free as in 'no beer') under his command.
Because that someone else didn't put any resources into developing the idea, but you did. It's as simple as that.
Interestingly, the impression i got was exactly the opposite. Stallman seems to lack knowledge of how the EU works. This is best illustrated by his "proposal" for changes in the legislative process.
I didn't read your post properly the first time and (mis-)took it for the usual "I don't want to start a holy war here..." troll. And then my head exploded, and now there are tiny bits of skull bone and brain tissue all over the room. Luckily, it turns out i can manage just as well even without a brain.
And you didn't even need the support of a software agent in making this decision! Rawk!