...that Apple gives a flying fuck at a rolling donut what you do with your iPod, just so long as you paid for it? Jobs has repeatedly stated his opposition to DRM'ed music, and I suspect that this is just a fig-leaf to satisfy some ridiculous DMCA small print. Realistically speaking, this seems like a half-hearted attempt to lock the device to iTunes. I mean, come on: it's easily defeated by those who care enough about the issue to try.
The secondary effect of the lock-out is to entice the geeks with a semi-serious challenge so that they can continue to run Linux or whatever on it, boast about their mad skillz on Slashdot, and bitch about the lack of formats that the vast majority of users have never even heard of, much less care about. Sometimes I suspect that Apple is merely doing stuff like this for more free publicity for a device that's already the 800-lb gorilla of its market segment. We're still talking about it, aren't we?
"most average folks won't give FOSS a second look, no matter how worthwhile and valuable it may be to them, merely because they're turned off by the guy"
Wrong. Average folks just don't trust something because is free and rather steal something you ought to pay for.
You're absolutely correct in stating that average folks are leery of FOSS because it is in fact free. They're so used to paying exorbitant sums for software that they're automatically suspicious of anything claiming the same or greater functionality for zero retail cost: there must be something wrong with it. And I agree with you: it certainly is a major factor in the slow adoption of FOSS.
However, you're wrong if you think that it's the only factor, as your post suggests. You'll note in my original post that I said that RMS's personality, or should I say, perceived personality, was "one of the major inhibiting factors". There are others, including the fact that enemies of FOSS can spread FUD about it by holding RMS up as some sort of "communist". Which is why I cited him as one of the stumbling blocks to the adoption of FOSS, not because he's a danger to the public at large or any such crap, but because those with a vested interest in seeing FOSS fail can use him as a convenient bugbear to stir opposition to it. The very existence of the meme that he's some species of unwashed hippie is evidence of how low they will stoop.
For my part, I friggin' admire the guy. History will deem him to be one of the true giants of software, and I'm saying this as someone who has never used anything but a Macintosh. I'm fully aware of the part he played in much of the stuff that underpins OS X, and I thank him for it, and for reminding us that there are ideals for which we should always strive, no matter how we're viewed by the public. Humanity will always need such idealists.
Yes he's an idealist, but you know -- principles are important in life, regardless of how preachy the may seem from time to time.
Thank you for that insightful comment; very well said indeed. Principles are absolutely important, and idealists equally so. Like him or hate him, Stallman has stuck unwaveringly to his principles, and the software world would be a much, much poorer place for his absence.
What is sad is that RMS doesn't realize that he himself is one of the major inhibiting factors in the uptake of FOSS. Rightly or wrongly, a movement is typically defined by its most public face, and his abrasive and combative personality practically guarantees that most average folks won't give FOSS a second look, no matter how worthwhile and valuable it may be to them, merely because they're turned off by the guy. It's just human nature to resist being pushed, I guess. No one likes to be bullied and beaten over the head with principles, even if they're good for you.
Here I go, breaking a personal cardinal rule by replying to an AC....
Way to drum up it up even more. Quit spreading this movie drama crap. Leviathans of the deep? It's a fucking computer network. Do you know what the fuck you're talking about?
I'm sure that the people of the Republic of Estonia would wholeheartedly agree with you that it's just "a fucking computer network". That is, until their entire electronic infrastructure locked up tight for two whole weeks and as far as the rest of the world was concerned, Estonia simply vanished from the Internet. And they couldn't do a goddamned thing about it. A nuclear weapon is just a hunk of enriched uranium and triggering explosives mixed with a bunch of electronics in a metal casing. It's the intent of the owner we have to worry about, not the weapon itself.
Obviously you're just another mouth-breathing cretin hiding out in his mother's basement wanking to Internet porn, but you can't possibly be so fucking stupid as to think that things that can seriously hurt you don't exist just because you don't believe in them. Have you been following the activities of the Storm botnet, or are you just farting from the neck? Storm is a whole new ballgame moron, and clearly you belong to the head-in-the-sand variety of dolt, the type who thinks that it'll just go away if we don't talk about it, and that anyone who raises the more disturbing possibilities is spreading "movie drama crap".
And yes, I do know what the fuck I'm talking about; I still have friends deep in the U.S. Army IT command infrastructure whose very jobs involve countering exactly such threats, and envisioning potential threat scenarios that would make your atrophied scrotum wrinkle. And it damned sure ain't "movie drama crap", as you so charmingly put it. Now go back to jacking off on your Brittney posters; adults are trying to have a discussion here.
I love how they use words like 'evolve' to describe the actions of programs and viruses, it makes the internet seem like a primal battleground.
It's the perfect description of how the attacks are responding to changes in their operating environment, and developing gradually into more complex forms. And you're more correct than you give yourself credit for: the Internet is in fact a primal battleground, between criminals intent on exploiting weaknesses wherever they can find them, and security professionals and honest users trying to play catch-up. The Storm botnet is a frightening new development, and I must say that, as a former military man, I immediately thought of a number of ways that such a powerful grid could be used for covert or direct action against potential or real adversaries. And no, I won't say what I came up with; you can imagine scenarios for yourselves, but the Russia-Estonia cyberwar was only a minor foretaste.
There are many, many people in military service whom I consider much more intelligent than me, and much more amoral as well. I can guarantee that the military and intelligence communities worldwide thought about this years ago, and I'd be willing to bet your personal freedom that military botnets have existed for a long time unknown to most, lurking like unseen leviathans in deep, dark water, and doing things not worth thinking about if you want to sleep at night. More terrifying to me is the thought of a mercenary botnet offering its services to rogue states or terrorist organizations, and focusing its power against its enemies. This is an incredibly cost-effective way to wage supremely damaging warfare.
Judging by a couple politicians I've met, I'd say that the split hasn't yet occurred for some. Maybe they were hiding when it took place; can't say for sure.
Welcome to middle age, dude. But be careful whom and what you sell out to.
It still matters. Just might not seem like it for awhile.
Very well said, and I do agree with you. Yes, it does matter. I do think that we have a moral obligation to not only do no harm, but to also encourage others to be mindful that our actions and choices may harm others. That being said, we are so overwhelmed by goods, services, and information in modern industrialized societies that it's becoming more and more difficult to navigate a "moral" path among them. How do we make informed decisions if we can't trust the information (commercials etc)? Given the difficulty of thoroughly investigating each potential choice, are we then simply forced to choose and hope we made a moral decision? Is there a karma scale which allows us to offset an immoral decision with a moral one? As I asked in my original post, does installing an OS with a "moral advantage" offset the use of a pollutant-filled machine? Does the person to whom I replied investigate the history and record of each manufacturer before choosing the "morally superior" one, or like any self-respecting geek, he just goes for the sweetest rig he can find?
The point I'm laboring to make is that we are faced with so many choices that trying make a deliberate judgment about the morality of each and every single one would paralyze us. Obviously, some choices are no-brainers to the non-sociopath (felonies etc), but many are quite morally ambiguous. It really is a grayscale, not black-and-white, world. But I'm also certain that I told you nothing you didn't already know.
Am I missing some point, or is Apple just darling du jour?
Yes, you're missing the point, you and everyone else who fails to realize that it's not the feature list, it's the interface. And please don't talk to me about open alternatives; the average consumer doesn't care. Joe Sixpack only wants something that will work without fuss and look good doing it.
Ten years ago, I would have been all hot for something I could poke around and mess with. These days, I have different hobbies and greater demands on my time. I've become extremely miserly with my free time because I want to spend every possible second of it with my kids; they're teenagers now, and all three will be off to college over the course of the next three years. My priorities have changed, and I have neither the time nor inclination to spend hours digging into the guts of a machine or wading through configuration files. It is for this reason that I simply can't be bothered with Linux. I'm Mac user and I have nothing whatsoever against Linux; in fact I admire Linux and the Linux community, and I'm rooting for FOSS in general, so don't think that my personal decision not to use Linux is a rejection of Linux or open software. But when I weigh the time I would have to spend configuring everything to my satisfaction, including finding/testing/learning replacement software, against time I could be spending with my sons and daughter, there's no contest.
I should point out that I apply the same test to pretty much every single thing in the same fashion before deciding whether to embark on it: Is it worth the time away from my children? If I find an alternative that will produce the same result, with less demands on my time, then usually that's the path I take. With regard to operating systems, moral* and technical concerns aside, Linux and Windows both fail to meet that all-important criterion as far as I'm concerned.
* What exactly does "moral advantage" mean anyway, when used in a discussion of technology? How can an inanimate object be immoral? It's the use of that object that is moral or not. Is the iPhone somehow less "moral" than the computer I presume you're using? Does loading Linux on it make it somehow morally superior to a Mac or Windows machine, even if it was produced by a manufacturer with an extremely poor environmental record? If you're so concerned about the immoral nature of a product manufactured by a company that *gasp* doesn't hew to your party line, then how in the name of Christ do you even get through the day without using transportation manufactured by a greedy automaker and fueled by nature-raping oil companies; eating a meal of recombinant DNA patented by monstrous agribusinesses; wearing clothes and shoes bearing the fingerprints of Asian sweatshop workers; and -shocker!- using an evil, soul-sucking ISP to connect to the Internet so you can post your drivel to Slashdot? And if you think that your lifestyle and choices somehow insulates you from contact with "immoral" technology, then you're delusional. Like a right-wing politician seeking re-election, people who preach morality tend to do so out of convenience. Grow up.
So fire-bombing Tokyo was valid ? Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not murder ?
Of course the fire-bombing was an atrocity; of course the nuclear strikes were murder. In all three cases, civilians were deliberately targeted: that makes it murder as far as I'm concerned. What is so difficult to understand? The Tokyo fire-bombing and the nuclear strikes were carried out by the military certainly (who did you expect to do it? the 4H Club?), but they were strategic, not military, targets. That is, they had political value, their damage or destruction had no direct effect on the Japanese military's ability to wage war. Robert McNamara himself, one of the architects of the bombing campaign against Japan, has stated that if the Japanese had won the war, the entire leadership of the 8th Air Force would have been tried as war criminals for the fire-bombings, and rightfully so, in his opinion.
Of course the Pentagon is a valid military target; the big rooms filled with high-ranking officers ensure that it is. The World Trade Center was not; Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were not. And I'm sick to death of people trotting out the pathetic "freedom fighters vs. terrorists" argument when the discussion involves al Qaeda. In case it hasn't occurred to you, al Qaeda are the farthest thing from "freedom" fighters; they're not fighting to "free" anyone from anything. They're fighting to impose their own brand of fundamentalist fascism on the planet, starting with the Muslim world. You think it was a coincidence that the Taliban gave them safe haven?
Who says they were wrong?
World Trade Centre, centre for American economic imperialism.
It was a valid military target, when you think about it.
The World Trade Centre was not a valid military target, and I have thought about it. A military target is one whose destruction or incapacitation will directly affect the ability of a nation's armed forces to conduct combat operations. The World Trade Center contained nothing vital to the continued operation of the U.S. military; no military personnel or materiel; no operations center or communications nexus. It was a strategic target, and the aim of Al Qaeda was to sow terror, and with luck cause some economic disruption. Only the most hopelessly naive among the terrorist leadership could possibly have thought that knocking down two buildings in the U.S. would have somehow dealt America a crippling blow, and only the most blindly optimistic among them could not have foreseen the U.S. reaction.
And I say they were wrong. They meticulously planned an extremely sophisticated military-style operation and executed it with precision and unwavering courage. The clarity with which they acted was admirable, except for one thing: they deliberately targeted civilians. In my book, that makes them nothing but murderers. As a former soldier, I can speak firsthand of the motivation of those with whom I served, and I have yet to meet a soldier who thinks that deliberately targeting non-combatants is in any way, shape, or form, acceptable.
Any list of wonders that excludes Angkor Wat is a waste of time.
Not to mention including Christ the Redeemer and giving the Pyramids "honorary" status. What a joke. The whole "Wonders of the World" thing was just a way to interest the general (European) public in the amazing sights to be found in the far corners of what was then still a mysterious world, and there were seven of them because it dovetailed well with the romantic notion of "Seven Seas" and "Seven Continents". It was just basically all about publicity by and for the archaeologists and explorers. This "New Seven Wonders" shtick is about nothing more than publicity as well, because if I had to limit it to only seven, Christ the Redeemer would not be on it.
The case could easily be made for Angkor Wat, as well as many, many other sites of cultural, historical, and/or architectural significance, but AFAIK the "Forgotten Wonder" has never even been mentioned on any list of "World Wonders". I'm speaking about the Banaue Rice Terraces of the Philipine Cordilleras, which were named a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1995, and which have my vote as the most amazing civil engineering project in human history. The terraces certainly fit the "Wonder" criteria many times over: they're ancient, having been built between 6,000 and 2,000 years ago, predating any of the current or vanished wonders; they're colossal, covering almost 4,000 square miles of mountainside; they're a marvel of engineering, the entire vast system of walls, terraces, steps, not to mention the ancient irrigation system which brings water down from the rainforests above the terraces, were built by hand; and most incredibly of all, 2,000 years after completion they're still maintained and used by the descendants of the original builders.
Everything about the terraces is truly mind-boggling, including the idea of a people still pursuing the same cultural traditions for literally millennia, but I guess that a bunch of ancient mountain farmland in a remote part of Asia isn't as sexy as Jesus in Brazil.
Actually, clipping anything to your belt, whether it's a sliderule, calculator or phone looks stupid.
What about a holster? And a few grenades? My former colleagues at the post office didn't feel inclined to point out any fashion no-no's when I stopped by to pick up my severance check.
Glad you like it; lack of bitterness is a hallmark of Jamaica Blue Mountain coffee, but as with anything, it pretty much comes down to a matter of personal taste. I have friends here in Jamaica who don't like it because it's too smooth. And I agree with you, Blue Mountain coffee makes excellent espresso; regular brew tends to be too mild for my tastes. If you get the opportunity, you should sample Jamaica High Mountain coffees as well. They don't have the reputation of the Blue Mountain, but there are some excellent brews available at a fraction of the cost of Blue Mountain. The other classification is Jamaica Supreme, otherwise called Jamaica Low Mountain, which refers to coffee grown below 1,500 feet, and again, don't believe that it's down-market stuff because it lacks the Blue Mountain name. As I said in my original post, the vast majority of the prime Blue Mountain beans go to Japan, and the rest, much of which is marginally better than rat droppings, finds its way to the North American and European markets. I'm personally embarrassed that much of it commands the prices it does, merely because it can legitimately claim to be Blue Mountain coffee. Here's the Wikipedia page on the classifications, by the way. I was surprised to find it.
Jamaican Blue Mountain ranks right up there with Kona as the most overrated coffee on the market today. It has a weak body, insipid flavor, and a medium acidity that does not stand out in any way. It is equivalent to any private reserve Columbian.
Excellent and informative post about roasting coffee, but I absolutely disagree with you about the taste of Blue Mountain coffee. Where did you have Blue Mountain coffee, and how was it prepared? Was it a blend of seconds from different plantations, as is typically the case with the crap that's usually exported under the Blue Mountain cachet? "Blue Mountain" only refers to coffee grown in designated regions of the Blue Mountains, between 3,000 and 5,500 feet, and YMMV. I'm sure that you wouldn't be surprised to discover that some absolute rubbish beans qualify for the Blue Mountain name.
For some reason, about 95% of the Blue Mountain coffee crop winds up in Japan, and my brother was taken aback on a trip to Tokyo to find chilled cans of the stuff available from vending machines. Japanese buyers pay top dollar for the entire crops from select plantations sight unseen, and the second rate stuff, usually from the plethora of rural folk with some plants growing behind their houses, finds its way to the rest of the world at ridiculous prices. I should add that the interior of Jamaica is very hilly, and many, many homeowners will casually keep a couple coffee plants in their yards in the same way that many North Americans or Europeans will keep a kitchen garden, and expecting them to produce top-class beans is like expecting Mrs. Smith down the block to produce export-quality squash. But hey, they live in the designated growing areas, so they're technically growers of Blue Mountain Coffee(TM). I actually have a few plants in my yard and the coffee is pretty damned good, but since I live at about 2,000 feet above sea level and nowhere the Blue Mountains, it qualifies as "Jamaica High Mountain". Compared to the top quality beans, what is typically available in North America or Europe is an embarrassment to the Blue Mountain name, and I sincerely hope that your experience with Blue Mountain wasn't tainted by an encounter with this second-rate battery acid. I've had Kona, and Colombian, and they don't compare to top-class Blue Mountain.
I drink Blue Mountain coffee every morning, one of the perks [sorry!] of living in Jamaica (my user name is how locals fondly refer to our blessed, cursed homeland, "Jamrock" or "The Rock"). I am fortunate enough to be able to get the green beans of Blue Mountain coffee and I roast them exactly as stated in your excellent post, and grind them myself. I like a robust coffee, so I prefer a fine-ground dark roast, and I despise drip makers, because the water doesn't get hot enough. My favorite preparation method is the Moka Express, a much-battered example of which resides permanently on my stove. Best coffee maker EVAR. Blue Mountain generally has a mild flavor (certainly not "weak" or "insipid"), but it's anything but mild how I prepare it.
That being said, the very best coffee I've ever had wasn't Blue Mountain. It came from the farm of a friend of mine who lives about 20 miles away and 1,000 feet higher up than I do. He used to keep a couple acres of coffee for his personal use, and once in a blue moon he'd generously bestow a few pounds of green beans on each of his friends. Much to my horror, he eventually got sick of locals stripping his plants at night, and decided it was better for his blood pressure to cut them down and remove the temptation, rather than camp out with his shotgun and get himself into serious trouble.
It's always been somewhat interesting to me that the soil and climate of the hilly interior of Jamaica are so conducive to top quality specialty crops. The coffee of course, but Jamaican ginger also enjoys a global reputation for it's strong, sharp flavor. And not to mention the Indica variety of ganja, which has an unusual minty scent and highly aromatic smoke. Or so I've been told....
Hired killers? Is that your view of those who serve in the military? Soldiers kill if duty demands it, not because they enjoy it. Same with cops. By your definition, they're "hired killers" too. On behalf of my former Army and Marine Corps comrades, FUCK YOU.
Re:This is (now) a famous number-theory integer!
on
Censoring a Number
·
· Score: 1
Number theory is what it is.
Well, I guess you told us. You win, man. I'm simply flabbergasted that someone could be so blindly pedantic; you must be a riot at parties. And I can't believe that anyone thought that the phrase "It is what it is" was somehow cool, or catchy, or insightful, like......ever! I hope for your sake that you don't sprinkle your conversation with it; you're obviously intelligent, but it makes you sound like a moron.
"Our current view is that this is an arrangement which is imposed on Apple by the major record companies and we do not see a justification for it." - European Commision spokesman Jonathan Todd, April 3, 2007.
"As a side note, I've seen a couple interviews with Marilyn Manson and he comes across as surprisingly intelligent and well-spoken, even while still wearing the freaky makeup."
Florence Henderson (the mother in The Brady Bunch) said almost the exact same thing after meeting Marilyn Manson on Bill Maher's former show, Politically Incorrect. She was doing an interview and was asked how she felt about the incongruity of the two of them participating in a round table discussion, and she replied that she thoroughly enjoyed talking with him. She said that she was struck by how intelligent and articulate he was, and that she found him to be extremely charming.
Hang in there pal, I think your wish is going to come true this year. Ever since I saw the iPhone, I've had a gut-feeling that Apple has something big up their sleeve. Witness the "Welcome to 2007" announcement on their homepage just before the MacWorld Expo.
"its too bad that Apple is so shy of making a tablet."
Are you sure about that? No one but Apple's employees know with any certainty what's going inside Apple. Did you predict the iPhone's multi-touch interface? Did anyone? I've said before on this forum that I'd be extremely surprised if Apple didn't produce a Mac tablet, given the capabilities they showed with the iPhone. I think that the iPhone is just the tip of the iceberg of possibilities. I'm just waiting to see the "secret features" they've cooked up for Leopard [multi-touch Finder maybe?], and what hardware they have that will take advantage of these secret features.
I couldn't agree with you more, which is why I said "pretty much". Now yours is an insightful comment. Kudos. My comment was meant more tongue-in-cheek than anything; there are many, many here who keep the discourse on a civil and intelligent level. Which I suppose is also true of any forum.
"Whoever appeals to the general public and doesn't alienate themself with overly strong opinions. Someone who recognizes strengths and weaknesses in all platforms and summarizes that, but puts a spin on their own favorite platform."
Well, that pretty much disqualifies everyone on Slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
...that Apple gives a flying fuck at a rolling donut what you do with your iPod, just so long as you paid for it? Jobs has repeatedly stated his opposition to DRM'ed music, and I suspect that this is just a fig-leaf to satisfy some ridiculous DMCA small print. Realistically speaking, this seems like a half-hearted attempt to lock the device to iTunes. I mean, come on: it's easily defeated by those who care enough about the issue to try.
The secondary effect of the lock-out is to entice the geeks with a semi-serious challenge so that they can continue to run Linux or whatever on it, boast about their mad skillz on Slashdot, and bitch about the lack of formats that the vast majority of users have never even heard of, much less care about. Sometimes I suspect that Apple is merely doing stuff like this for more free publicity for a device that's already the 800-lb gorilla of its market segment. We're still talking about it, aren't we?
You're absolutely correct in stating that average folks are leery of FOSS because it is in fact free. They're so used to paying exorbitant sums for software that they're automatically suspicious of anything claiming the same or greater functionality for zero retail cost: there must be something wrong with it. And I agree with you: it certainly is a major factor in the slow adoption of FOSS.
However, you're wrong if you think that it's the only factor, as your post suggests. You'll note in my original post that I said that RMS's personality, or should I say, perceived personality, was "one of the major inhibiting factors". There are others, including the fact that enemies of FOSS can spread FUD about it by holding RMS up as some sort of "communist". Which is why I cited him as one of the stumbling blocks to the adoption of FOSS, not because he's a danger to the public at large or any such crap, but because those with a vested interest in seeing FOSS fail can use him as a convenient bugbear to stir opposition to it. The very existence of the meme that he's some species of unwashed hippie is evidence of how low they will stoop.
For my part, I friggin' admire the guy. History will deem him to be one of the true giants of software, and I'm saying this as someone who has never used anything but a Macintosh. I'm fully aware of the part he played in much of the stuff that underpins OS X, and I thank him for it, and for reminding us that there are ideals for which we should always strive, no matter how we're viewed by the public. Humanity will always need such idealists.
Thank you for that insightful comment; very well said indeed. Principles are absolutely important, and idealists equally so. Like him or hate him, Stallman has stuck unwaveringly to his principles, and the software world would be a much, much poorer place for his absence.
What is sad is that RMS doesn't realize that he himself is one of the major inhibiting factors in the uptake of FOSS. Rightly or wrongly, a movement is typically defined by its most public face, and his abrasive and combative personality practically guarantees that most average folks won't give FOSS a second look, no matter how worthwhile and valuable it may be to them, merely because they're turned off by the guy. It's just human nature to resist being pushed, I guess. No one likes to be bullied and beaten over the head with principles, even if they're good for you.
I'm sure that the people of the Republic of Estonia would wholeheartedly agree with you that it's just "a fucking computer network". That is, until their entire electronic infrastructure locked up tight for two whole weeks and as far as the rest of the world was concerned, Estonia simply vanished from the Internet. And they couldn't do a goddamned thing about it. A nuclear weapon is just a hunk of enriched uranium and triggering explosives mixed with a bunch of electronics in a metal casing. It's the intent of the owner we have to worry about, not the weapon itself.
Obviously you're just another mouth-breathing cretin hiding out in his mother's basement wanking to Internet porn, but you can't possibly be so fucking stupid as to think that things that can seriously hurt you don't exist just because you don't believe in them. Have you been following the activities of the Storm botnet, or are you just farting from the neck? Storm is a whole new ballgame moron, and clearly you belong to the head-in-the-sand variety of dolt, the type who thinks that it'll just go away if we don't talk about it, and that anyone who raises the more disturbing possibilities is spreading "movie drama crap".
And yes, I do know what the fuck I'm talking about; I still have friends deep in the U.S. Army IT command infrastructure whose very jobs involve countering exactly such threats, and envisioning potential threat scenarios that would make your atrophied scrotum wrinkle. And it damned sure ain't "movie drama crap", as you so charmingly put it. Now go back to jacking off on your Brittney posters; adults are trying to have a discussion here.
It's the perfect description of how the attacks are responding to changes in their operating environment, and developing gradually into more complex forms. And you're more correct than you give yourself credit for: the Internet is in fact a primal battleground, between criminals intent on exploiting weaknesses wherever they can find them, and security professionals and honest users trying to play catch-up. The Storm botnet is a frightening new development, and I must say that, as a former military man, I immediately thought of a number of ways that such a powerful grid could be used for covert or direct action against potential or real adversaries. And no, I won't say what I came up with; you can imagine scenarios for yourselves, but the Russia-Estonia cyberwar was only a minor foretaste.
There are many, many people in military service whom I consider much more intelligent than me, and much more amoral as well. I can guarantee that the military and intelligence communities worldwide thought about this years ago, and I'd be willing to bet your personal freedom that military botnets have existed for a long time unknown to most, lurking like unseen leviathans in deep, dark water, and doing things not worth thinking about if you want to sleep at night. More terrifying to me is the thought of a mercenary botnet offering its services to rogue states or terrorist organizations, and focusing its power against its enemies. This is an incredibly cost-effective way to wage supremely damaging warfare.
Judging by a couple politicians I've met, I'd say that the split hasn't yet occurred for some. Maybe they were hiding when it took place; can't say for sure.
Very well said, and I do agree with you. Yes, it does matter. I do think that we have a moral obligation to not only do no harm, but to also encourage others to be mindful that our actions and choices may harm others. That being said, we are so overwhelmed by goods, services, and information in modern industrialized societies that it's becoming more and more difficult to navigate a "moral" path among them. How do we make informed decisions if we can't trust the information (commercials etc)? Given the difficulty of thoroughly investigating each potential choice, are we then simply forced to choose and hope we made a moral decision? Is there a karma scale which allows us to offset an immoral decision with a moral one? As I asked in my original post, does installing an OS with a "moral advantage" offset the use of a pollutant-filled machine? Does the person to whom I replied investigate the history and record of each manufacturer before choosing the "morally superior" one, or like any self-respecting geek, he just goes for the sweetest rig he can find?
The point I'm laboring to make is that we are faced with so many choices that trying make a deliberate judgment about the morality of each and every single one would paralyze us. Obviously, some choices are no-brainers to the non-sociopath (felonies etc), but many are quite morally ambiguous. It really is a grayscale, not black-and-white, world. But I'm also certain that I told you nothing you didn't already know.
Yes, you're missing the point, you and everyone else who fails to realize that it's not the feature list, it's the interface. And please don't talk to me about open alternatives; the average consumer doesn't care. Joe Sixpack only wants something that will work without fuss and look good doing it.
Ten years ago, I would have been all hot for something I could poke around and mess with. These days, I have different hobbies and greater demands on my time. I've become extremely miserly with my free time because I want to spend every possible second of it with my kids; they're teenagers now, and all three will be off to college over the course of the next three years. My priorities have changed, and I have neither the time nor inclination to spend hours digging into the guts of a machine or wading through configuration files. It is for this reason that I simply can't be bothered with Linux. I'm Mac user and I have nothing whatsoever against Linux; in fact I admire Linux and the Linux community, and I'm rooting for FOSS in general, so don't think that my personal decision not to use Linux is a rejection of Linux or open software. But when I weigh the time I would have to spend configuring everything to my satisfaction, including finding/testing/learning replacement software, against time I could be spending with my sons and daughter, there's no contest.
I should point out that I apply the same test to pretty much every single thing in the same fashion before deciding whether to embark on it: Is it worth the time away from my children? If I find an alternative that will produce the same result, with less demands on my time, then usually that's the path I take. With regard to operating systems, moral* and technical concerns aside, Linux and Windows both fail to meet that all-important criterion as far as I'm concerned.
* What exactly does "moral advantage" mean anyway, when used in a discussion of technology? How can an inanimate object be immoral? It's the use of that object that is moral or not. Is the iPhone somehow less "moral" than the computer I presume you're using? Does loading Linux on it make it somehow morally superior to a Mac or Windows machine, even if it was produced by a manufacturer with an extremely poor environmental record? If you're so concerned about the immoral nature of a product manufactured by a company that *gasp* doesn't hew to your party line, then how in the name of Christ do you even get through the day without using transportation manufactured by a greedy automaker and fueled by nature-raping oil companies; eating a meal of recombinant DNA patented by monstrous agribusinesses; wearing clothes and shoes bearing the fingerprints of Asian sweatshop workers; and -shocker!- using an evil, soul-sucking ISP to connect to the Internet so you can post your drivel to Slashdot? And if you think that your lifestyle and choices somehow insulates you from contact with "immoral" technology, then you're delusional. Like a right-wing politician seeking re-election, people who preach morality tend to do so out of convenience. Grow up.
Of course the fire-bombing was an atrocity; of course the nuclear strikes were murder. In all three cases, civilians were deliberately targeted: that makes it murder as far as I'm concerned. What is so difficult to understand? The Tokyo fire-bombing and the nuclear strikes were carried out by the military certainly (who did you expect to do it? the 4H Club?), but they were strategic, not military, targets. That is, they had political value, their damage or destruction had no direct effect on the Japanese military's ability to wage war. Robert McNamara himself, one of the architects of the bombing campaign against Japan, has stated that if the Japanese had won the war, the entire leadership of the 8th Air Force would have been tried as war criminals for the fire-bombings, and rightfully so, in his opinion.
Of course the Pentagon is a valid military target; the big rooms filled with high-ranking officers ensure that it is. The World Trade Center was not; Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were not. And I'm sick to death of people trotting out the pathetic "freedom fighters vs. terrorists" argument when the discussion involves al Qaeda. In case it hasn't occurred to you, al Qaeda are the farthest thing from "freedom" fighters; they're not fighting to "free" anyone from anything. They're fighting to impose their own brand of fundamentalist fascism on the planet, starting with the Muslim world. You think it was a coincidence that the Taliban gave them safe haven?
The World Trade Centre was not a valid military target, and I have thought about it. A military target is one whose destruction or incapacitation will directly affect the ability of a nation's armed forces to conduct combat operations. The World Trade Center contained nothing vital to the continued operation of the U.S. military; no military personnel or materiel; no operations center or communications nexus. It was a strategic target, and the aim of Al Qaeda was to sow terror, and with luck cause some economic disruption. Only the most hopelessly naive among the terrorist leadership could possibly have thought that knocking down two buildings in the U.S. would have somehow dealt America a crippling blow, and only the most blindly optimistic among them could not have foreseen the U.S. reaction.
And I say they were wrong. They meticulously planned an extremely sophisticated military-style operation and executed it with precision and unwavering courage. The clarity with which they acted was admirable, except for one thing: they deliberately targeted civilians. In my book, that makes them nothing but murderers. As a former soldier, I can speak firsthand of the motivation of those with whom I served, and I have yet to meet a soldier who thinks that deliberately targeting non-combatants is in any way, shape, or form, acceptable.
Not to mention including Christ the Redeemer and giving the Pyramids "honorary" status. What a joke. The whole "Wonders of the World" thing was just a way to interest the general (European) public in the amazing sights to be found in the far corners of what was then still a mysterious world, and there were seven of them because it dovetailed well with the romantic notion of "Seven Seas" and "Seven Continents". It was just basically all about publicity by and for the archaeologists and explorers. This "New Seven Wonders" shtick is about nothing more than publicity as well, because if I had to limit it to only seven, Christ the Redeemer would not be on it.
The case could easily be made for Angkor Wat, as well as many, many other sites of cultural, historical, and/or architectural significance, but AFAIK the "Forgotten Wonder" has never even been mentioned on any list of "World Wonders". I'm speaking about the Banaue Rice Terraces of the Philipine Cordilleras, which were named a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1995, and which have my vote as the most amazing civil engineering project in human history. The terraces certainly fit the "Wonder" criteria many times over: they're ancient, having been built between 6,000 and 2,000 years ago, predating any of the current or vanished wonders; they're colossal, covering almost 4,000 square miles of mountainside; they're a marvel of engineering, the entire vast system of walls, terraces, steps, not to mention the ancient irrigation system which brings water down from the rainforests above the terraces, were built by hand; and most incredibly of all, 2,000 years after completion they're still maintained and used by the descendants of the original builders.
Everything about the terraces is truly mind-boggling, including the idea of a people still pursuing the same cultural traditions for literally millennia, but I guess that a bunch of ancient mountain farmland in a remote part of Asia isn't as sexy as Jesus in Brazil.
Glad you like it; lack of bitterness is a hallmark of Jamaica Blue Mountain coffee, but as with anything, it pretty much comes down to a matter of personal taste. I have friends here in Jamaica who don't like it because it's too smooth. And I agree with you, Blue Mountain coffee makes excellent espresso; regular brew tends to be too mild for my tastes. If you get the opportunity, you should sample Jamaica High Mountain coffees as well. They don't have the reputation of the Blue Mountain, but there are some excellent brews available at a fraction of the cost of Blue Mountain. The other classification is Jamaica Supreme, otherwise called Jamaica Low Mountain, which refers to coffee grown below 1,500 feet, and again, don't believe that it's down-market stuff because it lacks the Blue Mountain name. As I said in my original post, the vast majority of the prime Blue Mountain beans go to Japan, and the rest, much of which is marginally better than rat droppings, finds its way to the North American and European markets. I'm personally embarrassed that much of it commands the prices it does, merely because it can legitimately claim to be Blue Mountain coffee. Here's the Wikipedia page on the classifications, by the way. I was surprised to find it.
Excellent and informative post about roasting coffee, but I absolutely disagree with you about the taste of Blue Mountain coffee. Where did you have Blue Mountain coffee, and how was it prepared? Was it a blend of seconds from different plantations, as is typically the case with the crap that's usually exported under the Blue Mountain cachet? "Blue Mountain" only refers to coffee grown in designated regions of the Blue Mountains, between 3,000 and 5,500 feet, and YMMV. I'm sure that you wouldn't be surprised to discover that some absolute rubbish beans qualify for the Blue Mountain name.
For some reason, about 95% of the Blue Mountain coffee crop winds up in Japan, and my brother was taken aback on a trip to Tokyo to find chilled cans of the stuff available from vending machines. Japanese buyers pay top dollar for the entire crops from select plantations sight unseen, and the second rate stuff, usually from the plethora of rural folk with some plants growing behind their houses, finds its way to the rest of the world at ridiculous prices. I should add that the interior of Jamaica is very hilly, and many, many homeowners will casually keep a couple coffee plants in their yards in the same way that many North Americans or Europeans will keep a kitchen garden, and expecting them to produce top-class beans is like expecting Mrs. Smith down the block to produce export-quality squash. But hey, they live in the designated growing areas, so they're technically growers of Blue Mountain Coffee(TM). I actually have a few plants in my yard and the coffee is pretty damned good, but since I live at about 2,000 feet above sea level and nowhere the Blue Mountains, it qualifies as "Jamaica High Mountain". Compared to the top quality beans, what is typically available in North America or Europe is an embarrassment to the Blue Mountain name, and I sincerely hope that your experience with Blue Mountain wasn't tainted by an encounter with this second-rate battery acid. I've had Kona, and Colombian, and they don't compare to top-class Blue Mountain.
I drink Blue Mountain coffee every morning, one of the perks [sorry!] of living in Jamaica (my user name is how locals fondly refer to our blessed, cursed homeland, "Jamrock" or "The Rock"). I am fortunate enough to be able to get the green beans of Blue Mountain coffee and I roast them exactly as stated in your excellent post, and grind them myself. I like a robust coffee, so I prefer a fine-ground dark roast, and I despise drip makers, because the water doesn't get hot enough. My favorite preparation method is the Moka Express, a much-battered example of which resides permanently on my stove. Best coffee maker EVAR. Blue Mountain generally has a mild flavor (certainly not "weak" or "insipid"), but it's anything but mild how I prepare it.
That being said, the very best coffee I've ever had wasn't Blue Mountain. It came from the farm of a friend of mine who lives about 20 miles away and 1,000 feet higher up than I do. He used to keep a couple acres of coffee for his personal use, and once in a blue moon he'd generously bestow a few pounds of green beans on each of his friends. Much to my horror, he eventually got sick of locals stripping his plants at night, and decided it was better for his blood pressure to cut them down and remove the temptation, rather than camp out with his shotgun and get himself into serious trouble.
It's always been somewhat interesting to me that the soil and climate of the hilly interior of Jamaica are so conducive to top quality specialty crops. The coffee of course, but Jamaican ginger also enjoys a global reputation for it's strong, sharp flavor. And not to mention the Indica variety of ganja, which has an unusual minty scent and highly aromatic smoke. Or so I've been told....
"Our current view is that this is an arrangement which is imposed on Apple by the major record companies and we do not see a justification for it." - European Commision spokesman Jonathan Todd, April 3, 2007.
Here's the headline from the Reuters news service story (via Yahoo): "EU says record firms force iTunes to limit access."
"When they get to 51% human can you marry them?"
Only in Australia.
"As a side note, I've seen a couple interviews with Marilyn Manson and he comes across as surprisingly intelligent and well-spoken, even while still wearing the freaky makeup."
Florence Henderson (the mother in The Brady Bunch) said almost the exact same thing after meeting Marilyn Manson on Bill Maher's former show, Politically Incorrect. She was doing an interview and was asked how she felt about the incongruity of the two of them participating in a round table discussion, and she replied that she thoroughly enjoyed talking with him. She said that she was struck by how intelligent and articulate he was, and that she found him to be extremely charming.
Now all we need is for Michael Jackson to hear about this.
Hang in there pal, I think your wish is going to come true this year. Ever since I saw the iPhone, I've had a gut-feeling that Apple has something big up their sleeve. Witness the "Welcome to 2007" announcement on their homepage just before the MacWorld Expo.
"its too bad that Apple is so shy of making a tablet."
Are you sure about that? No one but Apple's employees know with any certainty what's going inside Apple. Did you predict the iPhone's multi-touch interface? Did anyone? I've said before on this forum that I'd be extremely surprised if Apple didn't produce a Mac tablet, given the capabilities they showed with the iPhone. I think that the iPhone is just the tip of the iceberg of possibilities. I'm just waiting to see the "secret features" they've cooked up for Leopard [multi-touch Finder maybe?], and what hardware they have that will take advantage of these secret features.
I couldn't agree with you more, which is why I said "pretty much". Now yours is an insightful comment. Kudos. My comment was meant more tongue-in-cheek than anything; there are many, many here who keep the discourse on a civil and intelligent level. Which I suppose is also true of any forum.
"Whoever appeals to the general public and doesn't alienate themself with overly strong opinions. Someone who recognizes strengths and weaknesses in all platforms and summarizes that, but puts a spin on their own favorite platform."
Well, that pretty much disqualifies everyone on Slashdot.