There is still dire need for good interactive quality assurance testing in all major open source projects. I know many talented QA guys out there that are not developers, and by not making binaries, you're effectively cutting them out of the early process. Every good development house leaves a QA build available, even early on, for black-box functional testing.
Transmeta's success--or lack thereof--is about anticipating when the processor model will take another about face. If you've anticipated that in years past, you're a rich man today.
It has happened every so many years since computers left the vacuum tube. DEC did it with the PDP-series, and Intel did it when people realized that their calculator chips made a great basis for the PC.
Most importantly, the Unix market took an about face when David Ditzel published his groundbreaking research on RISC computing--maybe you've heard of it? This is the most important part of Transmeta's marketing--Linus might inspire all the hype for the outside world, but the industry's counting on Ditzel's genius to lead Transmeta and the industry to an ideal new processor architecture.
Most likely I am the only person in this forum who is qualified to write on the subject.
Oh, so I guess if there's a post on murder and rape, convicted murderers and rapists are the only qualified posters. Get real.
It is true that every new media is exploited in polar opposite ways--from Gutenberg's 49-line Bible to Lady Chatterley's Lover. But just because these technologies have the potential for exploitation does not mean we should censure them. Social bandaids do not work--social education does.
Unfortunately Mr. Brin misses part of the issue while he's busy idealizing the world.
The entire argument rests on the assumption that scaled taxing is fair (and legal!), that I should have to give more of a slice if I make, or have, more of the money. This is the basis for inheritance tax, income tax, property tax, and just about every other overly complex tax law conceived by the liberal establishment.
The simple fact is that it is not a fair or logical practice. The top of Mr. Brin's so-called 'diamond' can sit on its money and still contribute as effectively to the economy as the sum of the middle and lower classes. Dollars on the stock market, money market, or just about anywhere short of under your bed contribute positively. Those investment dollars feed the economy. How do we reward this important facet of a functional capitalism? With steep capital gains and luxery tax. And God forbid you keep all your money on the Market or in the bank 'till the end, then we'll take up to 80% of that already-taxed money. (ever heard of that heinous piece of social engineering called the generation-skipping tax?)
The bottom line is, the rich can be just as discriminated against as the poor. Although this 'economic engineering' might fit our ideal vision of the world, does thi method really fit into the principles by which our country was founded?
I think his point was that 'anonymous communication' isn't just posting AC. It's everything we do on the internet. Although I have a slashdot ID, and an email associated with it, there is no traceable being in meatspace associated with this ID. I have no responsibility to it. You spam my email, I change emails. We've divorced much of our online personas from our 'real world' selves. 'To speak without responsibility for the content of the utterance' is an extension of this.
I think what the author is trying to say is that much of language is defined by man's inescapable personality. As soon as you remove a real person from an utterance, its true message is dilute. The most meaningful uses of language are those that the speaker knows they'll be held responsible for--and more importantly, the listener knows they'll be held responsible for.
Slashdot Mirror
It has happened every so many years since computers left the vacuum tube. DEC did it with the PDP-series, and Intel did it when people realized that their calculator chips made a great basis for the PC.
Most importantly, the Unix market took an about face when David Ditzel published his groundbreaking research on RISC computing--maybe you've heard of it? This is the most important part of Transmeta's marketing--Linus might inspire all the hype for the outside world, but the industry's counting on Ditzel's genius to lead Transmeta and the industry to an ideal new processor architecture.
Oh, so I guess if there's a post on murder and rape, convicted murderers and rapists are the only qualified posters. Get real.
It is true that every new media is exploited in polar opposite ways--from Gutenberg's 49-line Bible to Lady Chatterley's Lover. But just because these technologies have the potential for exploitation does not mean we should censure them. Social bandaids do not work--social education does.
S.O.B. somehow seems appropriate for you...
The entire argument rests on the assumption that scaled taxing is fair (and legal!), that I should have to give more of a slice if I make, or have, more of the money. This is the basis for inheritance tax, income tax, property tax, and just about every other overly complex tax law conceived by the liberal establishment.
The simple fact is that it is not a fair or logical practice. The top of Mr. Brin's so-called 'diamond' can sit on its money and still contribute as effectively to the economy as the sum of the middle and lower classes. Dollars on the stock market, money market, or just about anywhere short of under your bed contribute positively. Those investment dollars feed the economy. How do we reward this important facet of a functional capitalism? With steep capital gains and luxery tax. And God forbid you keep all your money on the Market or in the bank 'till the end, then we'll take up to 80% of that already-taxed money. (ever heard of that heinous piece of social engineering called the generation-skipping tax?)
The bottom line is, the rich can be just as discriminated against as the poor. Although this 'economic engineering' might fit our ideal vision of the world, does thi method really fit into the principles by which our country was founded?
I think what the author is trying to say is that much of language is defined by man's inescapable personality. As soon as you remove a real person from an utterance, its true message is dilute. The most meaningful uses of language are those that the speaker knows they'll be held responsible for--and more importantly, the listener knows they'll be held responsible for.