I know slashdot's readership has a decidedly socalist leaning about many things, but what is wrong with people deciding to profit from what they have created? Why is foregoing said profit considered "noble"?
Wow. I'll admit, that was the first time I've looked at the "live.com" search.
Just a theory on how it came about: Web designer opens google, "file"->"save page as", has the art department come up with some uglyness to make it slightly different, webdesigner changes the links, and calls it done.
Nokia brick phone. It works. Its tough. Its battery life is decent. All of which are because it is a phone, not a phone + pda + camera + mp3 player + game system + whatever else marketing thinks a 12 year old wants in a phone.
While I am looking for a replacement for Sprint, the phone and quality of service have absolutely 0 to do with it -- Sprint's bililng deparment screwed up every single bill through the 2 year contract I had with them. Because of the monthly headache, I'm going elsewhere, and will be looking for another similar no-frills Nokia brick phone.
Which was my point, but thanks for spelling it out so people don't have to think for themselves.
The US doesn't really like to tell which satellites are designed for that particular mission, but they do like to point out the capability by using them for other semi-related things. In this case, the US says "we have a satellite that can detect fires, and its even 'smart' about it" and while the idiots say "hey spiffy, they can see fires" other countries get the message "it can spot launches, and record information on them, without people on the ground telling it what to do". In the past the US has sent similar messages to the former USSR by doing things like using ground-penetrating radar to map underwater rivers. The message wasn't "hey, here's a river" it was "hey, don't bother trying to hide your missile silos, we can still find them".
I'll agree its not really AI -- but it makes a nice "hook" to point out capabilites and make sure it gets into the press.
The Wikipedia project tried VERY HARD to put ITSELF into that box, beginning with its very name and slogans. Don't get pissy now that people see it in that box, and have certain expectations as a result.
"Main Page - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
And from the about page: "This Web site is a wiki, which means that anyone with access to an Internet-connected computer can edit, correct, or improve information throughout the encyclopedia..."
It may be all those things you mention IN ADDITION to an encyclopedia, but an encyclopedia is CLEARLY what they are trying to be.
Because, of course, satellites designed to do one thing are automatically capable of doing other things, and doing them well enough to be considered a "good" use of money.
This thing is designed to look for heat sources. Chances are it will suck at trying to determine crop yields, count WMDs in Iraq (or wherever they're supposedly at now), and will fail to determine wether Kim Jong Il managed to get ahold of a PS3 in violation of the latest round of sanctions -- although if sony makes the ps3 power supply like they do their batteries, it might succeed at that last bit.
A secondary role it MIGHT be good at is monitoring for weapon launches, as well as monitoring of other countries' space shots, depending on the software and resolution of sensors. Or that might be the primary mission and watching fires and volcanos is just what they tell us.
Sounds like me. Have a 51 hunter that I've been leveling off and on for 11 months (don't know how many hours, not going to log in to check), and have only been in three instances -- RFC, WC, and SFK. I skip quests I can't solo, unless I can group with some real-life friends that aren't assholes, don't screw up too often, and will put up with my mistakes without getting bitchy.
No argument with how it was used in this case -- its a great example of when a wiki truely is a useful collaboration tool, and NetBSD does generally have good documentation.
If only this was a sign that the "a wiki is the solution to EVERYTHING" mentality is dying off.
Mini-rant mode --
Open Source pet-peeve: using a wiki for documentation. Expecting the users (the oh-so-often-spoken-of "community") to write your documentation for you is lazy. I know developers usually prefer not to deal with documentation. I understand the appeal of throwing something out there and having the users document it so you don't have to. But please, PLEASE, let the wiki-as-documentation phenomenon die. There's nothing more annoying than trying to find out how to do something and get a one sentence "this entry is a stub, you can add more!" comment. If I KNEW how to use that feature, I wouldn't be searching for it.
Last time I went to the library? Yesterday. And the week before that. And the week before THAT.
Because the library is still a better source for a lot of information than the internet:
The source for information is documented.
Books are more accurate -- learned men and women have spent time researching (with sources cited) and analyizing the material.
It is easier to find the information you're looking for. No blogspam. No ads. No "here's the first three sentences, sign in to read the rest" information collection crap -- ok, libraries do have abstracts and subscription only journals to deal with, but thats different than wanting names and addresses to see more than catalog summaries. A functional if somewhat limited search system that isn't polluted by spurious entries.
I'll conceede that the internet is better for some topics where time is very important; but there are many, many more subjects for which the web is a poor substitute for a library.
Finally, and unrelated to why the library is better for most things -- I prefer paper. I spend 8+ hours every day looking at CRT or LCD monitors at work. I don't want to look at yet another monitor.
I've seen that commercial exactly once. I bought the DVD of Office Space, got home, saw that, and went right back to the store to return the movie. Amazingly enough, walmart WILL take opened DVDs back, for a refund (not "another copy"), if you claim it is defective and are patient enough to wait while they find the store manager. I explained that I had expectations of seeing the movie I paid for, not a 5 minute insult that I couldn't skip, and therefore the product was defective as designed, and another copy would not be acceptable.
I will not be buying any more DVDs. I already don't go to theaters. I just wish I could find contact information for Fox Home Entertainment to tell them WHY their anti-piracy insults have now hit their bottom line (even if it is only a few dollars / year).
I just bought an LCD HDTV last week -- not because I want HDTV, but because my old tv finally died, and the LCD HDTV was at a price point that I consider "reasonable" (not "great" but "reasonable").
Yeah, I've seen true HD content. Yeah, it looks better. But you know what? I DON'T CARE. For the same reason I don't care about any of the so-called next-gen game consoles. The "OOH SHINEY!" factor doesn't mean a damn thing to me. I watch approx. 1 hour of TV per day. Usually split between news when I'm getting up and news when I get home from work, although I do catch the occasional college football game. CNN's talking heads don't need HD. Their Handi-Cam- quality live-TV certaintly doesn't benefit from HD. The better picture argument, while valid, isn't relevant to people like me.
So you can go on and on about how great HD content is, and how anyone who's satisfied with SD is a moron, but keep in mind there are those of us who simply don't give a damn, and are only buying HDTVs because we need a replacement, and don't feel like buying something that will face legislated obsolesence in a year or two.
Then again my friends aren't the bunch of mouth-breathing, drooling, redneck idiots who will buy anything advertised on TV, don't plan their days around whats on TV, and generally don't watch much other than the news in the first place. To marketers, we don't count, since we're not gullible enough and don't spend enough time for repetition to drive their ad in. To entertainment programmers, we don't count, since we don't watch their crappy formulaic drivel. To news programmers, we STILL don't count, since what's "popular" (see foxnews and their coverage of random-missing-blonde-girl-of-the-day, or any coverage of "entertainment news", celebrities, etc) immedietly gets turned off, or the channel changed.
Anyway, I'm glad business is growing for you. Just be a little less condesending towards everyone who doesn't see a real NEED for a better quality picture, because the "OOH SHINEY!" factor simiply isn't a big motivator to everyone.
One of the reasons I'm considering moving to a Mac for my next laptop is that I'll be able to keep playing WoW with my real-life-yet-scattered-around-the-world friends for game night. I'm not a FPS person (though I admit I'll miss HalfLife) so lack of $LATEST_AND_GREATEST_FPS doesn't bother me.
I'm still looking for a good flight sim for Mac though. Then again, I can always dual-boot XP to get my MS FlightSim X fix until the virtualization abilities we've been promised finally appear.
Interesting link, but it still comes across as more of Stallman's 'my way or the highway' attitude about free software. And he's rightfully entitled to act that way.
I'm just curious if the man has ever said anything good about ANY software license other than GPL.
Slashdot Mirror
Makes sense, thanks for the straightfoward-yet-not-insulting answer.
I know slashdot's readership has a decidedly socalist leaning about many things, but what is wrong with people deciding to profit from what they have created? Why is foregoing said profit considered "noble"?
Wow. I'll admit, that was the first time I've looked at the "live.com" search.
Just a theory on how it came about: Web designer opens google, "file"->"save page as", has the art department come up with some uglyness to make it slightly different, webdesigner changes the links, and calls it done.
Same here.
Nokia brick phone. It works. Its tough. Its battery life is decent. All of which are because it is a phone, not a phone + pda + camera + mp3 player + game system + whatever else marketing thinks a 12 year old wants in a phone.
While I am looking for a replacement for Sprint, the phone and quality of service have absolutely 0 to do with it -- Sprint's bililng deparment screwed up every single bill through the 2 year contract I had with them. Because of the monthly headache, I'm going elsewhere, and will be looking for another similar no-frills Nokia brick phone.
Sadly, your post will not be modded up since you posted AC. Even if every single point has some truth behind it.
Since there's no precedent for any other group using large words included in the english language.
I don't particularly like lawyers in general, but that really was a cheap shot. I expect better out of the lawyer-bashing slashdot crowd.
So we're good then, right RIAA?
Which was my point, but thanks for spelling it out so people don't have to think for themselves.
The US doesn't really like to tell which satellites are designed for that particular mission, but they do like to point out the capability by using them for other semi-related things. In this case, the US says "we have a satellite that can detect fires, and its even 'smart' about it" and while the idiots say "hey spiffy, they can see fires" other countries get the message "it can spot launches, and record information on them, without people on the ground telling it what to do". In the past the US has sent similar messages to the former USSR by doing things like using ground-penetrating radar to map underwater rivers. The message wasn't "hey, here's a river" it was "hey, don't bother trying to hide your missile silos, we can still find them".
I'll agree its not really AI -- but it makes a nice "hook" to point out capabilites and make sure it gets into the press.
Don't put Wik into the encyclopedia box.
The Wikipedia project tried VERY HARD to put ITSELF into that box, beginning with its very name and slogans. Don't get pissy now that people see it in that box, and have certain expectations as a result.
"Main Page - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
And from the about page:
"This Web site is a wiki, which means that anyone with access to an Internet-connected computer can edit, correct, or improve information throughout the encyclopedia..."
It may be all those things you mention IN ADDITION to an encyclopedia, but an encyclopedia is CLEARLY what they are trying to be.
Because, of course, satellites designed to do one thing are automatically capable of doing other things, and doing them well enough to be considered a "good" use of money.
This thing is designed to look for heat sources. Chances are it will suck at trying to determine crop yields, count WMDs in Iraq (or wherever they're supposedly at now), and will fail to determine wether Kim Jong Il managed to get ahold of a PS3 in violation of the latest round of sanctions -- although if sony makes the ps3 power supply like they do their batteries, it might succeed at that last bit.
A secondary role it MIGHT be good at is monitoring for weapon launches, as well as monitoring of other countries' space shots, depending on the software and resolution of sensors. Or that might be the primary mission and watching fires and volcanos is just what they tell us.
Well, while I don't put the 'u' in color, I do at least spell humour and theatre correctly. :)
Thanks, but we SI impared people don't normally use decimals when measuring feet. We inherited this goofy unit called "inches".
And 300 pounds is a bit over 20 stones, if that helps your imagination any.
Sounds like me. Have a 51 hunter that I've been leveling off and on for 11 months (don't know how many hours, not going to log in to check), and have only been in three instances -- RFC, WC, and SFK. I skip quests I can't solo, unless I can group with some real-life friends that aren't assholes, don't screw up too often, and will put up with my mistakes without getting bitchy.
Yay, I'm a troll because I don't think a wiki is the magical solution to everything!
It has its place. But it makes a piss-poor substitution for real documentation.
No argument with how it was used in this case -- its a great example of when a wiki truely is a useful collaboration tool, and NetBSD does generally have good documentation.
If only this was a sign that the "a wiki is the solution to EVERYTHING" mentality is dying off.
Mini-rant mode --
Open Source pet-peeve: using a wiki for documentation. Expecting the users (the oh-so-often-spoken-of "community") to write your documentation for you is lazy. I know developers usually prefer not to deal with documentation. I understand the appeal of throwing something out there and having the users document it so you don't have to. But please, PLEASE, let the wiki-as-documentation phenomenon die. There's nothing more annoying than trying to find out how to do something and get a one sentence "this entry is a stub, you can add more!" comment. If I KNEW how to use that feature, I wouldn't be searching for it.
This is slashdot. Neutral does not exist with respect to linux, microsoft, and sco. Other topics may vary.
He says he's got his computer back, and will be getting the rest of his stuff back very soon.
But this is slashdot, where reading isn't a prerequisite to posting.
My google-foo is apparently very weak, oh masterful one. :)
Because the library is still a better source for a lot of information than the internet:
I'll conceede that the internet is better for some topics where time is very important; but there are many, many more subjects for which the web is a poor substitute for a library.
Finally, and unrelated to why the library is better for most things -- I prefer paper. I spend 8+ hours every day looking at CRT or LCD monitors at work. I don't want to look at yet another monitor.
I've seen that commercial exactly once. I bought the DVD of Office Space, got home, saw that, and went right back to the store to return the movie. Amazingly enough, walmart WILL take opened DVDs back, for a refund (not "another copy"), if you claim it is defective and are patient enough to wait while they find the store manager. I explained that I had expectations of seeing the movie I paid for, not a 5 minute insult that I couldn't skip, and therefore the product was defective as designed, and another copy would not be acceptable.
I will not be buying any more DVDs. I already don't go to theaters. I just wish I could find contact information for Fox Home Entertainment to tell them WHY their anti-piracy insults have now hit their bottom line (even if it is only a few dollars / year).
I just bought an LCD HDTV last week -- not because I want HDTV, but because my old tv finally died, and the LCD HDTV was at a price point that I consider "reasonable" (not "great" but "reasonable").
Yeah, I've seen true HD content. Yeah, it looks better. But you know what? I DON'T CARE. For the same reason I don't care about any of the so-called next-gen game consoles. The "OOH SHINEY!" factor doesn't mean a damn thing to me. I watch approx. 1 hour of TV per day. Usually split between news when I'm getting up and news when I get home from work, although I do catch the occasional college football game. CNN's talking heads don't need HD. Their Handi-Cam- quality live-TV certaintly doesn't benefit from HD. The better picture argument, while valid, isn't relevant to people like me.
So you can go on and on about how great HD content is, and how anyone who's satisfied with SD is a moron, but keep in mind there are those of us who simply don't give a damn, and are only buying HDTVs because we need a replacement, and don't feel like buying something that will face legislated obsolesence in a year or two.
Then again my friends aren't the bunch of mouth-breathing, drooling, redneck idiots who will buy anything advertised on TV, don't plan their days around whats on TV, and generally don't watch much other than the news in the first place. To marketers, we don't count, since we're not gullible enough and don't spend enough time for repetition to drive their ad in. To entertainment programmers, we don't count, since we don't watch their crappy formulaic drivel. To news programmers, we STILL don't count, since what's "popular" (see foxnews and their coverage of random-missing-blonde-girl-of-the-day, or any coverage of "entertainment news", celebrities, etc) immedietly gets turned off, or the channel changed.
Anyway, I'm glad business is growing for you. Just be a little less condesending towards everyone who doesn't see a real NEED for a better quality picture, because the "OOH SHINEY!" factor simiply isn't a big motivator to everyone.
One of the reasons I'm considering moving to a Mac for my next laptop is that I'll be able to keep playing WoW with my real-life-yet-scattered-around-the-world friends for game night. I'm not a FPS person (though I admit I'll miss HalfLife) so lack of $LATEST_AND_GREATEST_FPS doesn't bother me.
I'm still looking for a good flight sim for Mac though. Then again, I can always dual-boot XP to get my MS FlightSim X fix until the virtualization abilities we've been promised finally appear.
Ah, missed that -- only had time to give it a quick look-through.
Mea Culpa.
Interesting link, but it still comes across as more of Stallman's 'my way or the highway' attitude about free software. And he's rightfully entitled to act that way.
I'm just curious if the man has ever said anything good about ANY software license other than GPL.