Watch Algore get happy as the few surviving members, on the planet he destroys, live in peace harmony with what's left of nature . .
living on leaves and tree bark. Think about it! No controling legal athority could tell you which tree to hug.
You begin by challenging the views of the earlier poster with a very excellent question: "Do you listen to everything that you hear???"
But finish your post by quoting "something you heard".
The lack of logic in this argument should be painfully obvious even to the most casual observer.
Fact is, Algore voted to fund a (at the time, really fast) backbone for internetworking super computers. One bill (albeit very important), at one point in time, along the evolution of the internet. What's not mentioned in the original post (and something I think is a serious issue) is Algores lack of self confidence to stand on his beliefs alone without "extending" himself into every situation in an effort to convince the listener that he's a player on the topic (when he's really just a punk).
The simplified version of the original poster question would be: Why does Algore want to filter what he invented?
Given the recent concern about internet privacy brought up by Simson Garfinkel in his book, What is your vision of the future of privacy laws in the US to protect US consumers from the wholesale distrobution of their "digital biobroghies"?
Only this kind of selfless dedication to the high ground of journalistic ethics can insure that the beloved/. reader gets nothing but the cream of the crop, the actual, factual skinny.
Edwin R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather would be proud of the kind of selfless dedication to their craft that makes the/. crew get up early on a saturday morning, tries to remember how many shots they had last night, click the first srory in the cue and go back to bed.
[with apologies to Walter Cronkite]
"I'm Rob Malda, and that's the way it is . . . [mumble] untill my hangover clears. . . what was her name?"
|--| == tar ball size. 70s
|-| == bandwidth to move it.
|----| == tarball size. 80s
|--| == bandwidth to move it.
|--------| == tarball size. 90s
|----| == bandwidth to move it.
Over the last 30 years of computing, we've always had more program than pipe to push it through. The only way to overcome this slowly increasing speed of affordable bandwidth, is to pay big bucks for a line that will be outdated in a few years.
In the not to distant past, todays game emulator ROMs used to be moved across the country in a game console containing a huuuuge amount of graphic hardware,. For the day, having a game that totaled more than 1 Meg in run time size was just gigantic, and now, we zip these same ROM images around the net in seconds.
In the very near future IP6 over Multi-Gps fixed wireless will make mirroring linus' balls of tar a trivial task. but, of course, by then, the "kernel" will be 200G;).
The lesson here is that affordable bandwidth, slowly and stedily has increased over the history of computing, and I see no reason why it should jump.
Part of the X33 design is to respond to the many threats NASA faced from private industry, over the past 8 years or so, that promised to reduce the cost to orbit by a factor of 10 ($10,000 to $1,000 per pound). They've done some truly revolutionary work on the linier aero-spike engine that not only efficiently provides lift from the pad jump to orbit, but also scales up very well (by adding more engines along the back side of the launch vehicle).
The real issue is that many of the private sector solutions to low cost to orbit have either chosen the wrong launch weight, run out of venture capitol, or just not proven to be as affordable and reliable as a NASA launch.
The other thing that needs to be considered about the X33 is that if you can afford to keep it feuled and on the pad, it can be looking down on anywhere on the planet in less than one hour! That's revolutionary.
From the article: "In the wake of last year's back-to-back Mars mission failures and repeated delays in constructing the space station, a high-profile success would help rehabilitate NASA's tarnished reputation. The X-33 could have produced that success, but for almost a year the space agency has kept the project out of the limelight."
*Nowhere* in the article did they mention the complete *success* of NASA in deploying the ISS. This is hardly a fair reading of the facts.
NASA is attempting to solve hard problems that take time and money to solve and NASA should be given the funding and time to succeed. When completed, this will put our countries space capabilities leaps and bounds ahead of everyone else, and will make projects like LEO comunication constellations finacially feasable.
You're absolutly right. These conversations are as grating as fingernails down the chalkboard in yoga class .."And then I was thinking maybe we're skipping the simple stuff, but just poping the stack? that's to easy..so then, when I went to adjust my chair, the little knob broke off and when I went to get another chair from an empty cubical, I thought I would call my cousin who works at the chair company, who can get us this really great deal on chairs, and I'm talking about the good kind, the kind his kid likes...and did I tell you his kid worked for netscape? pretty cool huh? of course, JWZ was the last cool guy to work there, they're all AOLheads now..and now my little sister got AOL and . .."
Listening, you feel your toes bunch up in your shoes, that little facial tick you only experianced once durring college finals starts to make your eyelid quiver, and you begin to contemplate the warm joy and solitude of being alone in your cubical and not listening to this conversation for another moment ..then you realise it's gotten so bad that you're pining to be back in the dilbert cube again. But just another 30 seconds, and the conversation drifts back to the topic at hand, and you gently remind him of the task to be done.
Total time? it may seam like a lifetime, but usually it's no more than an extra minute and, you've managed to get through the day without screaming "SHUT THE FUCK UP AND CODE!"
This is an insightfull post. I manage a teamand every day, regardless of what's on my plate, I make it a point to talk one on one with each of them, on any topic. I spend most of the conversation listening and watching body language for signs of stress, discomfort with co-workers, or frustration with the job. Just listening.
Some people are moody (think NT) and need to be 'rebooted' in order to keep working. Some people are rock solid (think Solaris) and work non-stop without intervention. It's important to know the differance. Why reboot the Solaris box when the NT box locked up?
I have one employee, in particular, that makes it a point to report to me, in fine grained detail, each and every little thing he has done since the last time I saw him. Is this really needed? No. But when I skipped a week listening, he pulled me aside and thought I was mad at him. The lesson? Reporting his position in a project orally gives him the chance to arrange his thoughts. It gives him a sence of accomplishment. If I tryed this with anybody else, they would quickly get bored and think I was micro-managing them to death, but for this particular person, it's needed.
That's really the trick, isn't it? Learning each individuals needs and wants, passions and desires, aspirations and weaknesses the same way software has resource requirements, interoperability issues, and conectivity shortcommings. You've spent years learning how computers work together, now it's time to start learning about a totally differant machine: People.
1) Catch them doing something well, and tell them.
2) Be Nice.
3) Don't let your personal feelings cloud your
judgement.
4) Be nice.
5) Keep things clear and concise for your group.
6) Be nice.
7) When they whine (and they will whine), smile, listen, don't look at your watch.
8) Be nice.
9) Get the whole team drunk every 2 months.
10) Above all, . . be nice.
" Your web site is dedicated to the dissemination of information to facilitate
and encourage the illegal copying of Sega's intellectual property. "
dissemination of information
Interesting terms, those. What does it mean? It means you're telling people what you know, what you've observed, what you've whitnessed, It's reporting, and they're trying to stomp that because the reporter is reporting the wrong news. Would Tom Brocaw(sp?) stand for this?
Facilitate and encourage
An interesting terms, those. This is suuuuch a lame excuse to threaten somebody with. The Washington post Facilitates and encourages people to be liberal every day! Do you see Rush L. asking them to cease and desist?? No. and neither should dcisos.com cease and desist from dissemination of information or Facilitating and encouraging people to do whatever they want.
I know this is offtopic, but there's interesting news today from the Clinton Administration about the people thay've had over for whitehouse coffees. http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Campaign_Finance/
The url is a typo . .that's a *little funny ? ? ?
on
Typosquatting
·
· Score: 1
The url is a typo ..that's a *little funny, isn't it?
"For those that don't know, Outlook was really designed to be run with MS Exchange server. "
This design philosophy is at the heart of micros~1, and it's the reason ms isn't allowed in many server rooms.
It's this ignorant disregard for other systems on a network, and the desire to force customers to change all other systems to an ms system, that just pisses people off.
ms hasn't added a single feature, in recent years, that hasn't *first* bolstered their position of power and dominance *before* considering conectivity, stability,security, useability and, the satisfaction of their customers, *second*.
Yes, it's this kind of thinking that got them a monopoly, and yes it's this kind of thinking that continues to allow them to abuse that monopoly, but I wasn't put on this planet to increase that companies visibility and position in the market, and I believe that people are starting to wake up to that fact (whitnessed by the pitifull w2k sales).
Of course *you* haven't had the problem, but how do you know your recipiennts haven't experianced problems?
Seperating style from content and using UUencode (a long standing and well documented standard) to send the style information as an attachment is a smart move. I applaude ms for their idea, but I abhore them for their implimentation. I'm sure that ms marketing droids will tell you that making the TNEF the default settings was done "to make it easy".
One thing I've learned when reading about any ms product is that anytime they use the word easy is to hide the fact that they've implemeted a proprietary, floated, buggy implemetation of bassackwards hack from a 12 year old they have chaned to a DOS box in the back room. They keep sliding pizza under the door, and the little kid keeps coming up with Kerberos "extentions", Propritary Outlook "extentions", Active directory [cringe], msBob [laugh].
Email, without other users to read is useless. Therefore, Outlook should not be deployed in a business critical application.
1) An installed base of users around the world with a lifetime of experience in computing.
2) An affordable way (the net) to connect all these users, to allow them to cut down on the complexity of comunication. (Remember, people still "mailed tapes" to move programs around).
3) An evil empire to rebel against (micros~1), thus making all the time hacking worth it in the end (that's just my own little take on it).
Open source software is a viable development model because these 3 thing are in place to empower the people involved. If you were to sit someone down in 1975 and explain to them that you want to be able to "tap the resources of the best and brightest from around the world to contribute code to a common Operating system that will be free for them, and anyone else, to use", they'de think you were nuts.
Bottom line is, BillG had a free ride for a long time because these basic tools for sharing information fast and affordably simply weren't there.
Slashdot Mirror
Watch Algore get happy as the few surviving members, on the planet he destroys, live in peace harmony with what's left of nature . .
living on leaves and tree bark. Think about it! No controling legal athority could tell you which tree to hug.
"Do you listen to everything that you hear???"
But finish your post by quoting "something you heard".
The lack of logic in this argument should be painfully obvious even to the most casual observer.
Fact is, Algore voted to fund a (at the time, really fast) backbone for internetworking super computers. One bill (albeit very important), at one point in time, along the evolution of the internet. What's not mentioned in the original post (and something I think is a serious issue) is Algores lack of self confidence to stand on his beliefs alone without "extending" himself into every situation in an effort to convince the listener that he's a player on the topic (when he's really just a punk).
The simplified version of the original poster question would be:
Why does Algore want to filter what he invented?
Given the recent concern about internet privacy brought up by Simson Garfinkel in his book, What is your vision of the future of privacy laws in the US to protect US consumers from the wholesale distrobution of their "digital biobroghies"?
The hyperlink streaming video (realplayer req.)
The XBox does not yet exist.
Only this kind of selfless dedication to the high ground of journalistic ethics can insure that the beloved /. reader gets nothing but the cream of the crop, the actual, factual skinny.
Edwin R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather would be proud of the kind of selfless dedication to their craft that makes the /. crew get up early on a saturday morning, tries to remember how many shots they had last night, click the first srory in the cue and go back to bed.
[with apologies to Walter Cronkite]
"I'm Rob Malda, and that's the way it is . . . [mumble] untill my hangover clears. . . what was her name?"
|-| == bandwidth to move it.
|----| == tarball size. 80s
|--| == bandwidth to move it.
|--------| == tarball size. 90s
|----| == bandwidth to move it.
Over the last 30 years of computing, we've always had more program than pipe to push it through. The only way to overcome this slowly increasing speed of affordable bandwidth, is to pay big bucks for a line that will be outdated in a few years.
In the not to distant past, todays game emulator ROMs used to be moved across the country in a game console containing a huuuuge amount of graphic hardware,. For the day, having a game that totaled more than 1 Meg in run time size was just gigantic, and now, we zip these same ROM images around the net in seconds.
In the very near future IP6 over Multi-Gps fixed wireless will make mirroring linus' balls of tar a trivial task. but, of course, by then, the "kernel" will be 200G ;).
The lesson here is that affordable bandwidth, slowly and stedily has increased over the history of computing, and I see no reason why it should jump.
The real issue is that many of the private sector solutions to low cost to orbit have either chosen the wrong launch weight, run out of venture capitol, or just not proven to be as affordable and reliable as a NASA launch.
The other thing that needs to be considered about the X33 is that if you can afford to keep it feuled and on the pad, it can be looking down on anywhere on the planet in less than one hour! That's revolutionary.
From the article:
"In the wake of last year's back-to-back Mars mission failures and repeated delays in constructing the space station, a high-profile success would help rehabilitate NASA's tarnished reputation. The X-33 could have produced that success, but for almost a year the space agency has kept the project out of the limelight."
*Nowhere* in the article did they mention the complete *success* of NASA in deploying the ISS. This is hardly a fair reading of the facts.
NASA is attempting to solve hard problems that take time and money to solve and NASA should be given the funding and time to succeed. When completed, this will put our countries space capabilities leaps and bounds ahead of everyone else, and will make projects like LEO comunication constellations finacially feasable.
Listening, you feel your toes bunch up in your shoes, that little facial tick you only experianced once durring college finals starts to make your eyelid quiver, and you begin to contemplate the warm joy and solitude of being alone in your cubical and not listening to this conversation for another moment . .then you realise it's gotten so bad that you're pining to be back in the dilbert cube again. But just another 30 seconds, and the conversation drifts back to the topic at hand, and you gently remind him of the task to be done.
Total time? it may seam like a lifetime, but usually it's no more than an extra minute and, you've managed to get through the day without screaming "SHUT THE FUCK UP AND CODE!"
Just knowing that you can check the code is enough.
Some people are moody (think NT) and need to be 'rebooted' in order to keep working. Some people are rock solid (think Solaris) and work non-stop without intervention. It's important to know the differance. Why reboot the Solaris box when the NT box locked up?
I have one employee, in particular, that makes it a point to report to me, in fine grained detail, each and every little thing he has done since the last time I saw him. Is this really needed? No. But when I skipped a week listening, he pulled me aside and thought I was mad at him. The lesson? Reporting his position in a project orally gives him the chance to arrange his thoughts. It gives him a sence of accomplishment. If I tryed this with anybody else, they would quickly get bored and think I was micro-managing them to death, but for this particular person, it's needed.
That's really the trick, isn't it? Learning each individuals needs and wants, passions and desires, aspirations and weaknesses the same way software has resource requirements, interoperability issues, and conectivity shortcommings. You've spent years learning how computers work together, now it's time to start learning about a totally differant machine: People.
1) Catch them doing something well, and tell them.
2) Be Nice.
3) Don't let your personal feelings cloud your judgement.
4) Be nice.
5) Keep things clear and concise for your group.
6) Be nice.
7) When they whine (and they will whine), smile, listen, don't look at your watch.
8) Be nice.
9) Get the whole team drunk every 2 months.
10) Above all, . . be nice.
" Your web site is dedicated to the dissemination of information to facilitate and encourage the illegal copying of Sega's intellectual property. "
dissemination of information
Interesting terms, those. What does it mean? It means you're telling people what you know, what you've observed, what you've whitnessed, It's reporting, and they're trying to stomp that because the reporter is reporting the wrong news. Would Tom Brocaw(sp?) stand for this?
Facilitate and encourage
An interesting terms, those.
This is suuuuch a lame excuse to threaten somebody with. The Washington post Facilitates and encourages people to be liberal every day! Do you see Rush L. asking them to cease and desist?? No. and neither should dcisos.com cease and desist from dissemination of information or Facilitating and encouraging people to do whatever they want.
I know this is offtopic, but there's interesting news today from the Clinton Administration about the people thay've had over for whitehouse coffees. http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US /Campaign_Finance/
The url is a typo . .that's a *little funny, isn't it?
Interestingly, slashdit.org is still available.
This design philosophy is at the heart of micros~1, and it's the reason ms isn't allowed in many server rooms.
It's this ignorant disregard for other systems on a network, and the desire to force customers to change all other systems to an ms system, that just pisses people off.
ms hasn't added a single feature, in recent years, that hasn't *first* bolstered their position of power and dominance *before* considering conectivity, stability,security, useability and, the satisfaction of their customers, *second*.
Yes, it's this kind of thinking that got them a monopoly, and yes it's this kind of thinking that continues to allow them to abuse that monopoly, but I wasn't put on this planet to increase that companies visibility and position in the market, and I believe that people are starting to wake up to that fact (whitnessed by the pitifull w2k sales).
Seperating style from content and using UUencode (a long standing and well documented standard) to send the style information as an attachment is a smart move. I applaude ms for their idea, but I abhore them for their implimentation. I'm sure that ms marketing droids will tell you that making the TNEF the default settings was done "to make it easy".
One thing I've learned when reading about any ms product is that anytime they use the word easy is to hide the fact that they've implemeted a proprietary, floated, buggy implemetation of bassackwards hack from a 12 year old they have chaned to a DOS box in the back room. They keep sliding pizza under the door, and the little kid keeps coming up with Kerberos "extentions", Propritary Outlook "extentions", Active directory [cringe], msBob [laugh].
Email, without other users to read is useless. Therefore, Outlook should not be deployed in a business critical application.
Wasn't Starcraft on the 2600?? ? . .I musta played the hell out of that game . .it was amazing.
Ahh yes I remember the day. :)
Now they're just big warm and fuzzy linux loveing lemmings from Itty Bitty Machines.
What a differance a multi-billion dollar anti-trust decision makes :)
http://www.pbs.org/nerds/transcript.html and in particular, http://www.pbs.org/nerds/part1.html has some pretty interesting somments from the people in computing from 1975 and the launch of the Altair.
1) An installed base of users around the world with a lifetime of experience in computing.
2) An affordable way (the net) to connect all these users, to allow them to cut down on the complexity of comunication. (Remember, people still "mailed tapes" to move programs around).
3) An evil empire to rebel against (micros~1), thus making all the time hacking worth it in the end (that's just my own little take on it).
Open source software is a viable development model because these 3 thing are in place to empower the people involved. If you were to sit someone down in 1975 and explain to them that you want to be able to "tap the resources of the best and brightest from around the world to contribute code to a common Operating system that will be free for them, and anyone else, to use", they'de think you were nuts.
Bottom line is, BillG had a free ride for a long time because these basic tools for sharing information fast and affordably simply weren't there.
Sounds like a job for slashcode, where each file addition to the achive can be a "story" with a short abstract of the addition.
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/ is the new link to the Metalab archive.
I really loooooooove reading liberals defending Clinton.