I think you missed my point. I was talking about technology and carelessness being very different and not allowing a dismissive "carry on" approach to the question of how might the species survive. In 300 years we've been careless with our rapidly increasing knowledge. Before then things were more localized. Infections may decimate a village or city, but with distance between establishments, and time for the body to develop a resistance (and in modern days, for medical research) was granted.
My point instead is that with our nearly instantaneous global communication networks, and with nations growing up with a dependance on manyt different technologies. With a single nuke, you can decimate the environment of a localized region and also the infrastructure within a blast radius. Support for things like distribution of food, medical services, communications and banking infrastructures may be heavily disrupted. With multiple cities the problem intensifies. And with enough nukes, you can have wonderful climate change from the effects of nuclear winter.
The thing is, With our technology we have the power, and the power doesn't necessarily involve legions of men, or viruses which can be addressed both by human cleverness and the evolutionary process of a virus. This power doesn't rely on the chance of natural disaster of which I never refuted in the first place. I suppose I should've proceeded my response with "nature willing," but I figured that would be implied. This power and threat is something which may be controlled by an extremely small subset of fallible human beings in the position to effectively "flip the switch."
We fly in outer space, have nearly instantaneous global communication networks, and have nations growing up with a dependance on the technology.
This technology... with a single blast you can decimate the environment of a region and also infrastructure within a blast radius. Support for things like distribution of food, medical services, communications and banking infrastructures. With multiple cities the problem intensifies. And with enough nukes, you can have wonderful climate change from the effects of nuclear winter.
The thing is, with our technology we have the power, and the power doesn't necessarily involve legions of men, or viruses which can be quarantined and vaccines built for. This power doesn't rely on the chance of natural disaster of which I never refuted in the first place. I suppose I should've proceeded my response with "nature willing," but I figured that would be implied. This power and threat is something which may be controlled by an extremely small subset of fallible human beings in the position to effectively "flip the switch."
Delusions of grandeur? I'd be happy if that's all it is, but I'm afraid the threat is all too real, sir.
100,000 years ago up until the 1930s, there were no nuclear bombs. We only had technology to inflict localized damage on our fellow man and planet. Now there are enough nukes to wreck the planet, advancement in biology such that we now have the capability to create biological weapons on a wide scale. Also, in the last 200 and 300 years, industrial society has exploded and we've seen rapid deforestation and ecological carelessness on a massively wide scale.
The situation is vastly different, and failing to acknowledge that is naive.
You claim that "all Apple has to do to succeed" is to listen to its customers. I propose that they *do* listen to their customers, which is why Apple does have such an incredible amount of customer loyalty. However, that doesn't mean Apple gives its customers everything they want.
As a programmer, if you comply and fill every consumer request as they come in, you're going to spend a lot of time and money with features that may be desired by only a small cross-section of people, or you'd put in features at a time when it takes too much time to add it. I propose that Apple watches its market and customers carefully, and maintains rankings of desired features and systems. Perhaps its cheaper to design a sleek, ultra-small computer that works incredibly well first, and then later add home theater PC capabilities as the platform matures, rather than jump into the HTPC market with a new platform and a whole set of code that hasn't had time to mature. We saw the mac mini released with PPC, and then the new intel version with a remote and front row. They're getting there, and I think it is a planned evolution of the mac mini platform to fill these niches.
And again, to the evolution of their platforms... by paying attention to their line, they can later extend as needed, rather than building whole new systems. It's very possible that in August, the new "Mac Pro" systems may have a specification that is well suited to a gamer.
Finally, I would like to propose that, as a skeptic, you provide references or qualify your claims, specifically the direct claim about Steve Jobs's arrogance and how it has implicitly prevented the company to become a success to the level you specify.
Legal proceedings take a *LOT* of time. 7 months is relatively little when it comes to this sort of thing. I'm sure in the earlier stages he felt much more positive about the chances of getting things straightened out.
In fact, it was only on May 1, 2006 that he received the news about the SLAPP. That and any discussions after that probably led him to draft this letter and go through a process with his lawyers to ensure they were ok with him posting it, and helping him edit the letter to ensure it doesn't jepordize his legal standings. They may attack harder because of it, but if it was written well (and it looks like it was) at least they won't face additional charges.
Problem with extended peripheral vision ? How about surround sound? The gap is already there. Someone wearing headphones or using standard 2(.1) channel sound is at a disadvantage against someone using 5.1+ who can literally hear their opponents' footsteps behind them.
... but most are left in the dust (Don't even remember name, but was one about space marines that was decent if not great, that I was sad to see go).
I believe you're thinking about a series called "Space Above and Beyond" which aired in 95-96 for just one season, which can be purchased on Amazon. It really was a great show -- I was also sad to see it go.
Start a Wiki from the get-go of the project and keep your notes. Over time, as the implementation changes, it'll be easier to keep the information (as your own reference) up to date as things proceed. Once you consider things usable, you can start forming official documentation using your Wiki as a guide.
As another said, "All I can suggest is: keep a strict separation between features and implementation. do some use cases that describe how the most important part (the user) will handle the program."
All of those tests were done on 256M of RAM and sub gigahertz machines... even a 400mhz G4 processor in the Mac side. I feel in several cases that results may've been skewed due to swapping at cold start. (The main thing that comes to mind is the MacOSX Firefox 1.0 cold start time.)
I would love to see the same type of results performed on modern hardware.. 1.5GHz G4, dual 2.5GHz G5, P4/Ath64 3800, 1GB+ RAM, etc.
Ban the guns, so gun crime will be reduced (not go away) and other crime in general will increase?
Besides, shooting off guns in the city is already illegal, but that's not stopping the people who continue to do it anyway.
This phrase is so used out, but I guess it's time to brush off the dust and fling it around one more time:
"If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns."
Re:Go back to sleep. You have no "natural allies"
on
Sun-isms Debunked
·
· Score: 1
100% agreed.
Re:Go back to sleep. You have no "natural allies"
on
Sun-isms Debunked
·
· Score: 1
Now all those has-beens are suddenly pro-Linux and pro-open-standards, to get their righteous vengeance against MS. But if either got back on top, they'd start doing the same shit all over again.
The cool thing about this cycle is that, because of the GPL, Linux and open source in general continue to win by the tactics employed by these corporations. Once it's GPL'd, we've got the technology and the legal rights to work on it. Even if a company who provided a new piece of technology changes the license from GPL back to a proprietary one, we still have the GPL'd version. We benefit.
Let corporations continue to be greedy and continue to mess with the heads of consumers. Continue to let them work with the community by introducing their technology to fight their fights, so long as the greater community benefits.
In the end, we benefit, as do friends of open source. The fickle hypocrites, even those who've helped the community, are seen as such and are trusted accordingly.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you missed my point. I was talking about technology and carelessness being very different and not allowing a dismissive "carry on" approach to the question of how might the species survive. In 300 years we've been careless with our rapidly increasing knowledge. Before then things were more localized. Infections may decimate a village or city, but with distance between establishments, and time for the body to develop a resistance (and in modern days, for medical research) was granted.
My point instead is that with our nearly instantaneous global communication networks, and with nations growing up with a dependance on manyt different technologies. With a single nuke, you can decimate the environment of a localized region and also the infrastructure within a blast radius. Support for things like distribution of food, medical services, communications and banking infrastructures may be heavily disrupted. With multiple cities the problem intensifies. And with enough nukes, you can have wonderful climate change from the effects of nuclear winter.
The thing is, With our technology we have the power, and the power doesn't necessarily involve legions of men, or viruses which can be addressed both by human cleverness and the evolutionary process of a virus. This power doesn't rely on the chance of natural disaster of which I never refuted in the first place. I suppose I should've proceeded my response with "nature willing," but I figured that would be implied. This power and threat is something which may be controlled by an extremely small subset of fallible human beings in the position to effectively "flip the switch."
We fly in outer space, have nearly instantaneous global communication networks, and have nations growing up with a dependance on the technology. This technology... with a single blast you can decimate the environment of a region and also infrastructure within a blast radius. Support for things like distribution of food, medical services, communications and banking infrastructures. With multiple cities the problem intensifies. And with enough nukes, you can have wonderful climate change from the effects of nuclear winter. The thing is, with our technology we have the power, and the power doesn't necessarily involve legions of men, or viruses which can be quarantined and vaccines built for. This power doesn't rely on the chance of natural disaster of which I never refuted in the first place. I suppose I should've proceeded my response with "nature willing," but I figured that would be implied. This power and threat is something which may be controlled by an extremely small subset of fallible human beings in the position to effectively "flip the switch." Delusions of grandeur? I'd be happy if that's all it is, but I'm afraid the threat is all too real, sir.
100,000 years ago up until the 1930s, there were no nuclear bombs. We only had technology to inflict localized damage on our fellow man and planet. Now there are enough nukes to wreck the planet, advancement in biology such that we now have the capability to create biological weapons on a wide scale. Also, in the last 200 and 300 years, industrial society has exploded and we've seen rapid deforestation and ecological carelessness on a massively wide scale.
The situation is vastly different, and failing to acknowledge that is naive.
You claim that "all Apple has to do to succeed" is to listen to its customers. I propose that they *do* listen to their customers, which is why Apple does have such an incredible amount of customer loyalty. However, that doesn't mean Apple gives its customers everything they want.
As a programmer, if you comply and fill every consumer request as they come in, you're going to spend a lot of time and money with features that may be desired by only a small cross-section of people, or you'd put in features at a time when it takes too much time to add it. I propose that Apple watches its market and customers carefully, and maintains rankings of desired features and systems. Perhaps its cheaper to design a sleek, ultra-small computer that works incredibly well first, and then later add home theater PC capabilities as the platform matures, rather than jump into the HTPC market with a new platform and a whole set of code that hasn't had time to mature. We saw the mac mini released with PPC, and then the new intel version with a remote and front row. They're getting there, and I think it is a planned evolution of the mac mini platform to fill these niches.
And again, to the evolution of their platforms... by paying attention to their line, they can later extend as needed, rather than building whole new systems. It's very possible that in August, the new "Mac Pro" systems may have a specification that is well suited to a gamer.
Finally, I would like to propose that, as a skeptic, you provide references or qualify your claims, specifically the direct claim about Steve Jobs's arrogance and how it has implicitly prevented the company to become a success to the level you specify.
Legal proceedings take a *LOT* of time. 7 months is relatively little when it comes to this sort of thing. I'm sure in the earlier stages he felt much more positive about the chances of getting things straightened out.
In fact, it was only on May 1, 2006 that he received the news about the SLAPP. That and any discussions after that probably led him to draft this letter and go through a process with his lawyers to ensure they were ok with him posting it, and helping him edit the letter to ensure it doesn't jepordize his legal standings. They may attack harder because of it, but if it was written well (and it looks like it was) at least they won't face additional charges.
IANAL
It was kind of like an arms race... Well said.
Problem with extended peripheral vision ? How about surround sound? The gap is already there. Someone wearing headphones or using standard 2(.1) channel sound is at a disadvantage against someone using 5.1+ who can literally hear their opponents' footsteps behind them.
Could not connect: User root has already more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Except in terms of PR.
... but most are left in the dust (Don't even remember name, but was one about space marines that was decent if not great, that I was sad to see go).
I believe you're thinking about a series called "Space Above and Beyond" which aired in 95-96 for just one season, which can be purchased on Amazon. It really was a great show -- I was also sad to see it go.
Never heard of this until now, even though it's been around for > 10 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wreck
Start a Wiki from the get-go of the project and keep your notes. Over time, as the implementation changes, it'll be easier to keep the information (as your own reference) up to date as things proceed. Once you consider things usable, you can start forming official documentation using your Wiki as a guide.
As another said, "All I can suggest is: keep a strict separation between features and implementation. do some use cases that describe how the most important part (the user) will handle the program."
All of those tests were done on 256M of RAM and sub gigahertz machines... even a 400mhz G4 processor in the Mac side. I feel in several cases that results may've been skewed due to swapping at cold start. (The main thing that comes to mind is the MacOSX Firefox 1.0 cold start time.) I would love to see the same type of results performed on modern hardware.. 1.5GHz G4, dual 2.5GHz G5, P4/Ath64 3800, 1GB+ RAM, etc.
Myself and 178 others would sure love to download all these bastards in one punch.
c1, boredom must be overcome in some fashion. Fear the CS reference.
What am I gonna do, now that I can't update my blog!
Because Joe Blow pirates software too.
Ban the guns, so gun crime will be reduced (not go away) and other crime in general will increase? Besides, shooting off guns in the city is already illegal, but that's not stopping the people who continue to do it anyway. This phrase is so used out, but I guess it's time to brush off the dust and fling it around one more time: "If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns."
100% agreed.
The cool thing about this cycle is that, because of the GPL, Linux and open source in general continue to win by the tactics employed by these corporations. Once it's GPL'd, we've got the technology and the legal rights to work on it. Even if a company who provided a new piece of technology changes the license from GPL back to a proprietary one, we still have the GPL'd version. We benefit.
Let corporations continue to be greedy and continue to mess with the heads of consumers. Continue to let them work with the community by introducing their technology to fight their fights, so long as the greater community benefits.
In the end, we benefit, as do friends of open source. The fickle hypocrites, even those who've helped the community, are seen as such and are trusted accordingly.