Bravo.
I wrote a short play called "The Effigy".
It was very short.
It was never produced.
Basically at the point of wanting to burn the effigy the effigy speaks and is reformed. The effigy is converted and regrets the harm it did.
I have often said that the best way to change the politicians that run the world is to change them in their minds and in their souls. They will be the same people but enlightened and practicing better government.
From my understanding of the way that applications are migrating from the monolithic desktop model to the distributed server model, It shouldn't matter what OS you run. And that is the way that most OSs are designed, you have the browser be the client and the server serves up beautiful pages of http formated text that lets you run the application from anywhere and spider it as well (if you design it right).
The need for open standards ought to be clear.
If you can't get at these beautiful server apps (which ought be hostable on any operating system) from a specific species of operating system that means that the species in question doesn't have the correct protocols.
In that case you get those protocols and load them on your machine (by installing the correct 'package' or 'module').
And if you understand software like that you start to see the MS OS as one where there are modules that are bolted on and then the bolts are welded shut. That is what the MS OS is like (a methaphor).
It would be like buying a car that has the trunk welded shut.
If you are fearful of having multiple operating systems in your organization, and you don't understand the LEAP paradigm and how easy cross-platform comparibility is, then I would question why you are an IT manager (if that is really what you do)
I hate being cruel to the clueless. But if you are really running an IT organization then you need to hear what I am about to say:
If you don't get that served apps are cross-platform, and you don't understand that for the DOT net thing to be worth anything that one ought to be able to get at the served apps from any browser on any box that follows known and published public protocols, then you really ought not to have signature authority for purchases or be designing networks and contracting for bandwidth, etc.
So, it isn't microsoft or Linux or open source that has a problem in this case. It is your company who has hired a person whose point of view has ossified.
Tell your vender (microsoft) that you will only keep buying their OS (which does have good points) if they place nice with browsers and clients from other operating systems.
My guess is that you just don't know enough about the subject to make an informed decision. And I have never seen that apps hosted from an MS box have incompatability when following public standards. So your comment is not just false, but also insulting to microsoft people.
OR: you are a troll sent to spread fear and you really aren't an IT person at all.
I have often thought that the pendantic application of rules of grammer and spelling may be an urge for elitism.
Is it not true that there are many brillient folks who just don't know how to spell?
Would you prevent them from expressing their views at all just because they made a typo?
I agree that when a post is reviewed, and the spelling corrected, then it is often easier to get something out of it.
And in the case when a word is ambiguous then it is important to footnote and clarify.
But in the case of these casual rants that we furiously type in slash dot, do we really need to be grammatarians to post these?
Humor often arrises from intential or unintentional errors in speach or writing. Like the time in 11th grade when the stoner girl (who I liked) said 'human orgasm' when she meant to say 'human organism'.
It was very funny to a bunch of 16 year olds.
When the communication is unclear then request a 'resubmit'.
If you really think that the 'offending' poster was 'abstaining from food', then you are the one who needs to review his concepts of language.
The intentional misunderstanding of another is often humourous. But it is annoying as hell when a person who agrees to disagree mangles the words of someone who speaks with a different dialect.
Often times our misunderstanding of another reveals our own predjudices. What kind of prejudice does someone have if they prevent someone from talking because they missed an 'o' at the end of a word?
Only in the case of legal contracts or for directions or formal discussion is such attention to grammer and spelling warrented.
If we really didnt' understand what the poster was saying, then we could then post that we don't understand and he could repost something explaining himself.
His post is not a noose and you are not a hangman. (or are you. ..?)
I think that in order to be effective and secret you don't want a standard for p2p.
If you want secure communications you really want to obscure the mechanism.
It should be so obscure that others (non users) don't even know that it is there. If you publish a standard then you are saying "here it is, my secret thing. and here is data that you can use to violate my secrecy.
As far as your general conclusion that there are no standards and that standardization is dead: If that were so then how is it that I can read your post and comment on it?
I don't use the fast lane on the Massachusetts Turnpike unless I haven't eaten for a few days. . .
You weren't really confused by what he wrote, were you?
The kind of pedantic attention to grammer and spelling that you show in your post is really only necessary for directions or for contracts.
As the post was neither then I rate your comment as 'pedantic'.
If a server is on a blade it does not need to be removed from the blade in order to get a copy of it's contents. If a server is thus removed it is thus a violation of the idea of free speach as far as some folks view it.
It seems unreasonable to me to take down a whole blade. I do agree that it might be that there is a reason. But in a free society the reason should be known.
There are powers that are very fearful and they do what they can get away with.
I, for one, think it is unreasonable to shut down every site on a server because there is something a facist in Switzerland doesn't like.
I also think that it is unreasonable to blanket refuse to take down information from a site that might cause someone to be killed who is working for law enforcement.
I err on the side of saving life as the courts in Europe obviously did concerning Indymedia.
Incidental use of the product in question sounds like more shameless plugging.
Here is another (possibly) made up story:
"Saw an old guy have a heart attack on a (fill in product name that trolls are plugging here) near a swimming pool. Seems he leaned forward which made the (fill in product here) move towards the pool. A little infant screeeeeemmmeeed as he fell into the pool and electrocuted everyone in it."
Remember the above story is just as phony as the marketing for this over-price product.
Should Slash Dot allow these obvious product plug postings?
If someone does such a shameless plug, then there ought to be disclosure of what their interest is in the product in question.
There is a level of inauthentisity about this subject.
The fundamentals of what others are now calling 'social software' were fully available in source control software from over ten or fifteen years ago.
Was the software development team the species from which the modern blog evolved?
Seems like it to me.
I believe that the author is discussing the linquistics and terminology of a certain group of acedemics. The point I was seeing was that the use of a term, 'social software' has only recently been added to the lexicon of certain social scientists.
Social scientists typically study other people and sell their data to marketting and industrial think tank types.
I think this author realizes that all software is somehow social. But when was the term 'social software' first used?
I suppose the logical thing to do if one really cares is to search for that term and see what the oldest hit is. . .
I agree that Lucas is part of the mainline Movie industry that many/. folk are at war with.
But how much time do you need to spend documenting what you see as his flaws?
Will your documenting his flaws show up on a list of your flaws?
I love his movies because they are easy and fun.
I can love the movies and then question his business ethics.
But the level of detail that you present for someone that you probably don't even know makes me wonder if you do the same kind of brutal analysis of yourself?
I would love to see that post.
I learned in film classes in college twenty years ago that movies can often be mutable.
It is totally within the right of the film-maker to do this.
Films are often changed before being released.
Soviet Film makers used to make it easy to cut parts out of their films.
A movie about Lenin and Stalin turned into a movie just about Lenin after Stalin was dead.
What Lucas is doing is his deal.
Why are some posters so hateful towards him?
Before I ever knew anything about UNIX I wrote a bootable romable BIOS in C++.
I would say that C definitely supercedes UNIX.
But could you make an OS without C?
Must be because people used to do it.
Unix needs C. C would exist without Unix.
I always thought that if the quality for VOIP was good enough, and if there were no time lags between the send and the recieve, then it would be possible to have orchestras that exist in cyber space.
Everyone who is in the group would get a feed from everyone else adn then mix it through their sound system.
That is a good use for VOIP. But the bandwidth needs to be there.
If you do all of your thought in application space as web pages and server processes, or deamons and applications that talk to server processes, Like, for example LEAP paradigm, then you already know that the OS is irrelevant.
Sure you need one, and it is important what it is. But if you design your applications with open architectures and stop looking for a big-brother operating system, then you will know that you can sleep and not worry. You will be able to do what you need to do. They can't stop you.
What if you made this your swap drive? It can not act like a real harddrive. My quess is that the driver for it uses the local swap space to cache data before, during and after transfer.
Let's see if it runs from a device that has no local storage. I bet it would have a very hard time without some kind of large memory cache at the client.
I am pretty sure that the whole thing could be on 12 volt power.
You are correct in worrying about the problem of electricution.
This whole idea seems like a farse to me, webserfing from a bathtub.
I want a bathroom with a ten thousand tiles. Each tile will be an LCD display with an independant feed . . .
The crapper of ten thousand websites
Slashdot Mirror
Bravo. I wrote a short play called "The Effigy". It was very short. It was never produced. Basically at the point of wanting to burn the effigy the effigy speaks and is reformed. The effigy is converted and regrets the harm it did. I have often said that the best way to change the politicians that run the world is to change them in their minds and in their souls. They will be the same people but enlightened and practicing better government.
I thought a hero was a type of food.
so youngster studying this stuff will be half way there. . .
From my understanding of the way that applications are migrating from the monolithic desktop model to the distributed server model, It shouldn't matter what OS you run. And that is the way that most OSs are designed, you have the browser be the client and the server serves up beautiful pages of http formated text that lets you run the application from anywhere and spider it as well (if you design it right). The need for open standards ought to be clear. If you can't get at these beautiful server apps (which ought be hostable on any operating system) from a specific species of operating system that means that the species in question doesn't have the correct protocols. In that case you get those protocols and load them on your machine (by installing the correct 'package' or 'module'). And if you understand software like that you start to see the MS OS as one where there are modules that are bolted on and then the bolts are welded shut. That is what the MS OS is like (a methaphor). It would be like buying a car that has the trunk welded shut. If you are fearful of having multiple operating systems in your organization, and you don't understand the LEAP paradigm and how easy cross-platform comparibility is, then I would question why you are an IT manager (if that is really what you do) I hate being cruel to the clueless. But if you are really running an IT organization then you need to hear what I am about to say: If you don't get that served apps are cross-platform, and you don't understand that for the DOT net thing to be worth anything that one ought to be able to get at the served apps from any browser on any box that follows known and published public protocols, then you really ought not to have signature authority for purchases or be designing networks and contracting for bandwidth, etc. So, it isn't microsoft or Linux or open source that has a problem in this case. It is your company who has hired a person whose point of view has ossified. Tell your vender (microsoft) that you will only keep buying their OS (which does have good points) if they place nice with browsers and clients from other operating systems. My guess is that you just don't know enough about the subject to make an informed decision. And I have never seen that apps hosted from an MS box have incompatability when following public standards. So your comment is not just false, but also insulting to microsoft people. OR: you are a troll sent to spread fear and you really aren't an IT person at all.
That kind of monumental and over-composed style of music also gives me shakes. I guess that the music is OK, but I am very sick of it.
OK, my bad.
I agree that within the body of an article published as a finished product the author should have corrected that spelling error.
Oh, what a fool I am.
I have often thought that the pendantic application of rules of grammer and spelling may be an urge for elitism. Is it not true that there are many brillient folks who just don't know how to spell? Would you prevent them from expressing their views at all just because they made a typo? I agree that when a post is reviewed, and the spelling corrected, then it is often easier to get something out of it. And in the case when a word is ambiguous then it is important to footnote and clarify. But in the case of these casual rants that we furiously type in slash dot, do we really need to be grammatarians to post these? Humor often arrises from intential or unintentional errors in speach or writing. Like the time in 11th grade when the stoner girl (who I liked) said 'human orgasm' when she meant to say 'human organism'. It was very funny to a bunch of 16 year olds. When the communication is unclear then request a 'resubmit'. If you really think that the 'offending' poster was 'abstaining from food', then you are the one who needs to review his concepts of language. The intentional misunderstanding of another is often humourous. But it is annoying as hell when a person who agrees to disagree mangles the words of someone who speaks with a different dialect. Often times our misunderstanding of another reveals our own predjudices. What kind of prejudice does someone have if they prevent someone from talking because they missed an 'o' at the end of a word? Only in the case of legal contracts or for directions or formal discussion is such attention to grammer and spelling warrented. If we really didnt' understand what the poster was saying, then we could then post that we don't understand and he could repost something explaining himself. His post is not a noose and you are not a hangman. (or are you. . .?)
I think that in order to be effective and secret you don't want a standard for p2p.
If you want secure communications you really want to obscure the mechanism.
It should be so obscure that others (non users) don't even know that it is there.
If you publish a standard then you are saying "here it is, my secret thing. and here is data that you can use to violate my secrecy.
As far as your general conclusion that there are no standards and that standardization is dead:
If that were so then how is it that I can read your post and comment on it?
I don't use the fast lane on the Massachusetts Turnpike unless I haven't eaten for a few days. . . You weren't really confused by what he wrote, were you? The kind of pedantic attention to grammer and spelling that you show in your post is really only necessary for directions or for contracts. As the post was neither then I rate your comment as 'pedantic'.
Who the hell cares what USA editorial page says? anyone?
If a server is on a blade it does not need to be removed from the blade in order to get a copy of it's contents. If a server is thus removed it is thus a violation of the idea of free speach as far as some folks view it.
It seems unreasonable to me to take down a whole blade. I do agree that it might be that there is a reason. But in a free society the reason should be known.
There are powers that are very fearful and they do what they can get away with.
I, for one, think it is unreasonable to shut down every site on a server because there is something a facist in Switzerland doesn't like.
I also think that it is unreasonable to blanket refuse to take down information from a site that might cause someone to be killed who is working for law enforcement. I err on the side of saving life as the courts in Europe obviously did concerning Indymedia.Incidental use of the product in question sounds like more shameless plugging. Here is another (possibly) made up story: "Saw an old guy have a heart attack on a (fill in product name that trolls are plugging here) near a swimming pool. Seems he leaned forward which made the (fill in product here) move towards the pool. A little infant screeeeeemmmeeed as he fell into the pool and electrocuted everyone in it." Remember the above story is just as phony as the marketing for this over-price product.
Should Slash Dot allow these obvious product plug postings? If someone does such a shameless plug, then there ought to be disclosure of what their interest is in the product in question. There is a level of inauthentisity about this subject.
The fundamentals of what others are now calling 'social software' were fully available in source control software from over ten or fifteen years ago. Was the software development team the species from which the modern blog evolved? Seems like it to me.
I believe that the author is discussing the linquistics and terminology of a certain group of acedemics. The point I was seeing was that the use of a term, 'social software' has only recently been added to the lexicon of certain social scientists. Social scientists typically study other people and sell their data to marketting and industrial think tank types. I think this author realizes that all software is somehow social. But when was the term 'social software' first used? I suppose the logical thing to do if one really cares is to search for that term and see what the oldest hit is. . .
I agree that Lucas is part of the mainline Movie industry that many /. folk are at war with.
But how much time do you need to spend documenting what you see as his flaws?
Will your documenting his flaws show up on a list of your flaws?
I love his movies because they are easy and fun.
I can love the movies and then question his business ethics.
But the level of detail that you present for someone that you probably don't even know makes me wonder if you do the same kind of brutal analysis of yourself?
I would love to see that post.
I learned in film classes in college twenty years ago that movies can often be mutable. It is totally within the right of the film-maker to do this. Films are often changed before being released. Soviet Film makers used to make it easy to cut parts out of their films. A movie about Lenin and Stalin turned into a movie just about Lenin after Stalin was dead. What Lucas is doing is his deal. Why are some posters so hateful towards him?
Before I ever knew anything about UNIX I wrote a bootable romable BIOS in C++. I would say that C definitely supercedes UNIX. But could you make an OS without C? Must be because people used to do it. Unix needs C. C would exist without Unix.
I always thought that if the quality for VOIP was good enough, and if there were no time lags between the send and the recieve, then it would be possible to have orchestras that exist in cyber space. Everyone who is in the group would get a feed from everyone else adn then mix it through their sound system. That is a good use for VOIP. But the bandwidth needs to be there.
What you describe seems like the worse case description of any industry. There has to be good with the bad. Aren't you only looking at one side of it?
If you do all of your thought in application space as web pages and server processes, or deamons and applications that talk to server processes, Like, for example LEAP paradigm, then you already know that the OS is irrelevant. Sure you need one, and it is important what it is. But if you design your applications with open architectures and stop looking for a big-brother operating system, then you will know that you can sleep and not worry. You will be able to do what you need to do. They can't stop you.
flame bait. Property rights? The ruling of the United States is a property right of the ruling mafia from scull and bones?
What if you made this your swap drive? It can not act like a real harddrive. My quess is that the driver for it uses the local swap space to cache data before, during and after transfer. Let's see if it runs from a device that has no local storage. I bet it would have a very hard time without some kind of large memory cache at the client.
All software is a hack built on a hack. Human civilization is a hack built on a hack.
I am pretty sure that the whole thing could be on 12 volt power. You are correct in worrying about the problem of electricution. This whole idea seems like a farse to me, webserfing from a bathtub. I want a bathroom with a ten thousand tiles. Each tile will be an LCD display with an independant feed . . . The crapper of ten thousand websites