I'd rather spend my time working out reasons to lower taxes, increase education spending, get rid of dumb ass George Bush for president and get the economy back on scale
Well, good for you! I'd love to see these issues get taken care of too, but that's got nothing at all to do with how software is licensed. One can write GPL software and still spew rhetoric about fixing the economy and the presidency. No mutual exclusivism here.
How can software evolve if 500 people are using this piece of software in a different solution?
I don't know any two people who use MS word for exactly the same thing, but I can tell you that far more than 500 use it. Same goes for excel and any other MS (or other closed source) product. Software evolves to provide different solutions.
Is the community not only supposed to use thee software but support it as well?
It does both. That's how it works. If you don't believe me, file a bug report for your favorite buggy linux program and watch yourself be supported.
How can a computer be of assistance to people who want a solution rather then a piece of software for free?
Are free software and solutions mutually exclusive? Not in my experience, and if you've ever used free software you should understand this.
I've got a 1,200 dollar PC that can play MP3's, Watch DVD's, Surf the net, email friends, chat, do my taxes, play games, trade stocks, and most of all work.
Funny, so does my linux system. Strange how that works...
The point isn't whether or not it's BSD or GPL, but whether or not this sort of thing benefits Microsoft (see subject). For all those, I could have named other items like Mozilla or Gnome. The point is that these items, simply because they're free, don't hurt the little guy and benefit Microsoft. If you read posts for the ideas rather than the details, you may learn something.
Apple proves my point. They're using BSD-licensed code and it's probably going to be what keeps them alive.
I doubt the validity of this statement. Fancy marketing (iMacs contain no BSD-licensed code in their cute plastic shells yet) and a hard-core true-believer fanbase who loves well integrated easy to use software is what keeps Apple alive. BSD is making it a competitor again, true, but it didn't make them a competitor when they were way ahead of MS with all proprietary stuff, and it didn't help NeXT much either.
You cannot make money writing or publishing GPLed code. That's why all of the Linux companies are, one by one, failing. This was (and is) Richard Stallman's stated intent! (Read his "GNU Manifesto" for his most strident statement of that intent.)
For every small company that can't make money writing GPL software, there are 500 that can make money by using it. It saves a lot of money at my work that I can use perl for my scripting, apache for my webserver, and php for additional web stuff. I can get these items at no cost and I don't have to worry about them ever disappearing off the face of the earth, while MS can do what they please. So tell me again how this benefits MS and how this is killing companies?
whatever other opponent arises, the two (the GPL and Microsoft) will take him on together and win
You're assuming that the GPL is a single entity. The GPL is just a license, MS is a corporation. As such, a thousand OS's can rise and compete under the GPL while MS gets to play just how MS wants. GPL allows for competition, MS does not. And I'm sure we can agree that competition allows for better software, right? So what if someone wants to found a company based on their flashy OS idea and they want to take code from the Linux kernel to do it? So they can't make money. Big deal. Found a company based on something else and use your resources better.
The purpose of the GPL, to quote from the manifesto you so obviously enjoy referring to, is:
Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system software free, just like air.
Would you like to tell me what is wrong with this? There is nothing that I've ever seen that guarantees anyone the right to make money off OS or webserver sales, why shouldn't this sort of thing be guaranteed to everyone rather than just those who can afford it, so long as there are those who are perfectly happy to give them away?
In the end, I don't really care whether or not some tiny company can rise up and be our savior to fight MS. It's never worked before and it'll never work now. The only way to do it is by inverting the MS model, by totally removing the majority of the value from Microsoft's products, which is what the GPL does, for the good of the individual rather than the good of the corporation. If your sympathy is with the tiny OS or database company that could, mine is with the tiny webhosting company that does. Try to think about where the money (and other benefits for that matter) could go rather than where they would normally go.
I'm sorry, If you think that the GPL is the reason for BeOS going nowhere, I strongly suggest you take a look over at Apple. They have been a strong competitor with Microsoft for years, creating (for a while at least, and maybe again) a far superior product that just couldn't beat what was already in place. BeOS can't beat MS, no way no how, not the way they're going.
And if you think that the GPL isn't hurting MS, you have to consider the fact that a lot of coders like the GPL and will code for it. This means a lot of software is being released that is very good and can compete with Microsoft on a variety of levels. The gcc, the linux kernel, apache(I know, the apache license, whatever)... these products all compete with Microsoft and are freely available. No matter how much money MS throws at their stuff, these products will still compete because people like to code for them. If you don't think apache and linux is cutting in to NT and IIS sales, you'd better go check Netcraft.
And as for small developers, they're not going to be competing with MS any time soon either. Look at Netscape, the biggest little software developer there ever was. With all their resources, they couldn't beat MS, and now it's up to the Mozilla team to pick up the fight. Small developers can still make money using GPL'ed (and LGPL'ed) software. They just can't follow the Gates business plan. They'll just have to innovate and come up with a new one.
This is one of those posts that will generate a lot of noise with only one signal: "Yeah, big surprise. They can and do rip off BSD so of course that kind of OSS is OK."
I think the real important thing to remember, and this may throw some logs on the GPL vs. BSD debate (although I hope we can avoid that) is that the GPL is working as intended. It's scaring the crap out of the guys who aren't willing to support the kind of freedoms that the GPL is engineered towards. Meanwhile, the BSD license falls in to an area that's total freedom in which everyone can do what they like, which is perfect for the juggernaut from Redmond.
I think at this point it should be painfully clear that the distinctions between Linux and BSD on a technical level are becoming slimmer and slimmer as they grow towards each other in terms of implementation, while the ideological gap caused by their licenses grows wider and wider.
In the end, I suppose it comes down to how much you value the freedoms of your rulers (i.e. Microsoft). Because rulers get special powers (such as the force of a monopoly) do they get to retain the same rights that you have that are in place largely to protect the little guy? Your answer to that question pretty much determines the license you should release your code under and vice versa, so choose wisely.
I think you're right to a degree, that people are hard pressed to prove someone is smarter, but you have to consider factors that make a person "smart" as well as the tests for that intelligence.
The factors are largely environmental, I think we can all pretty much acknowledge that, especially if all men are created equal. There are some geniuses out there as well as a few mental incompetents, but on the whole our strengths balance with our weaknesses and we balance out (see Hobbes's "Leviathan" for this stuff.)
As such, if a test like the SAT is playing to certain strengths only (math and english skills) does this seem like a good measure of how "smart" someone is? What if they are incredible chemists, but terrible mathemeticians who can't formulate a proper sentence? Does that make them stupid? I don't know the answer to that, but if no one tests those factors you can't make a good judgement.
And let's face it, we may all be born more or less equal, but we don't grow up that way. I know I come from a priveledged background, and I simply didn't have to deal with the things that make school feel so irrelevant. Like my parents being out of work and me having to drop out to get a minimum wage job to support my family. Does that make me dumber? What if the only rich people I see who look like me are drug dealers and gangsters, so I do what I know and do the same in order to survive? Does that make me dumb? Conditions matter, and as such we do not all have equal opportunities. This has nothing to do with how "smart" or "dumb" someone is, but rather the opportunities they have actually been given, rather than the equal (or nearly equal, as you say) that they are supposed to have been given.
It's a shame/. linked to the Yahoo story, because it's really a biased one that makes it seem like they want to do away with standardized testing all together. This L.A. Times story is a much more balanced perspective. Especially telling is this line:
"In many ways, we are caught up in the educational equivalent of a nuclear arms race. We know that this overemphasis on test scores hurts all involved, especially students. But we also know that anyone or any institution opting out of the competition does so at considerable risk."
They are taking a big risk here. You, as many others, see this as a move that will harmfully affect you: "I'm NOT who he wants to help, I'm who he wants to hurt." This is absurd. He's not rying to hurt you. He's trying to help those who do deserve to get in to school get in. The only way to do this is to place less of an emphasis on the test. However, because they see it as an "arms race", the only way to do this is to opt out all together, because if they don't then emphasis will just continue to build on it.
I personally think it's absurd that the writers of the SAT got to choose my curriculum in high school, and I sure as hell don't believe that any one factor should hold so much sway over college admissions, especially not one that only counts for about 4 hours or so on one day.
Also, they are not totally planning on scrapping standardized testing, so there's no worry about those kids like your classmates. As the yahoo article points out, they are keeping the SAT II, which I think is a better indicator (as do the statistics, see the times article.) And there's also this:
"Atkinson is challenging test makers to come up with a new test that would be directly tied to college preparatory courses rather than to what he considers "an ill-defined measure of aptitude or intelligence" like the SAT."
They want a new test, one that they're not just going to start teaching right to. A fresh start would be a good thing for the stodgy old test anyways. I mean, if you're not particularly good at English or Math, but you're a chemistry, history, and foreign language wizard, why should you be punished for it?
The goal of this whole move is not to hurt anyone, particularly you! I agree, that you can provide opportunities to those without money. It's called affirmative action, and the UC system is prohibited from doing this via California law, enacted by the citizens themselves. This is a way to extend benefits to those who truly needed it.
Don't worry though, all the people who, like you, didn't work hard but are still smart enough to do Ok in college will still make it there. You may not get the best education there is, but then do you really deserve it if you didn't earn it?
Oh, and by the way, I can guarantee Atkinson has thought this situation through more than you
"He was the founding chairman of the National Research Council's Board on Testing and Assessment and was once a distinguished visiting scholar at the Educational Testing Service, which administers the SAT for the College Board."
Not too ignorant of the ins and outs of admissions and standardized testing in my opinion. He is The UC President after all...
This is only the beginning. In case no one knows, there is a strike coming real soon involving the writer's guild for Hollywood (I don't know the actual title.) It also is probably going to involve the directors and actors as well. The reason? They want residues from Internet Distribution.
That's right. The Major Studios are going to be distributing stuff on the internet soon, and it's going to be a big deal for the movie industry in terms of revenue and business model.
Stuff like this is like 1994, and as such it's only the beginning.
The real fear of this isn't that they can find one or two people with a genetic defect, like many people may believe, but that they are able to find everyone with one. As it turns out, each of us carries, on average, 8 real measurable defects even though we function normally. Insurance companies are going to find out very fast if they start genetic screening (and boy do they want to!) that everyone will be uninsurable and everyone's rates will skyrocket. This won't help anyone, which is why we need privacy laws firmly in place to prevent this sort of massive screening. It's good for some things, but insurance is not one of them.
I want them to release NEWS, that early X competitor that Gosling worked on that people still talk wistfully of as they curse X under their breath:-) I'd like to see what all the fuss is about.
This story is not of "no worth or interest" to a lot of us. Maybe you don't live on a college campus, but I do, and I don't like the idea of someone being able to bust in to my room because of a failed file transfer.
Perhaps it's not your "totalitarian meltdown" but it is a constant battle against erosion of rights. These guys weren't even doing anything and yet they had their home raided and their possesions taken from them simply because of a file transfer problem and some rhetoric.
If this was a private home or workplace then this would be completely absurd (and even possibly fall under your definition of "real problems"), but you seem to think that because it happens to undergraduates (with their "holier than thou serious attitude") that it just doesn't matter. Well, when they come for you, no one will be crying and then we'll see if these problems are "real".
Man... I loved Lemonade stand! It's probably still available too on abandonware. However, that game may be too simple and too close to what they study for it to work. If you're going to go simple, may as well go with something like Tetris as another poster mentioned.
I highly recommend freeciv for this one. It's got all the strategic elements of starcraft (and then some) and it will allow more actual planning rather than quick reflexes as starcraft requires. There are more dimensions to measure too, such as what successful academics spend their time researching, building, or planning in the game(i.e. what they value in the mock civilization could reflect what they value in the real civilizaion.) Plus, as the name says, the game's free:-)
I can see this being a good thing in terms of autoimmune diseases like arthritis, but heart attacks and cancer? Maybe some kinds of cancer, but certaintly, most of them are related to other problems like genes that regulate differentiation or growth rather than the immune system. This will have some far reaching consequences, mainly in unraveling the immune system's inner workings, but it's not the "Holy Grail" at all.
The point isn't really how good the game is, it's the spirit of the thing, and if they're releasing it then that's fantastic. Maybe there'll be some nice little games that'll come out at some point though.
True, entertainment may be escapism, but do you think that escapism represents the new paradigm of computing? Or new anything. I doubt it, since you mentioned the Depression. And the fact is, people still have those other things that they are escaping weighing them down, otherwise known as The Real World. The Real World isn't going away soon, and entertainment isn't going to wholly take over in people's minds. There's no shift here, just a reiteration.
I agree with much of what you're saying, but the point of the first paragraph was to show that without the requirements of our basic needs (i.e. the secretary working so she can eat and sleep comfortably) we can't even have the entertainment.
As such, the utilitarian purposes aren't going away at all. And while entertainment focused items may be added to a product, I don't think they come anywhere near representing a "new paradigm" for computing. It's obvious that entertaiment sells more stuff, but you can't play tribes without being able to code on your machine to pay those bills. This is the way it's been for a very long time, and it will continue to be so. Computing is too broad to be labeled as mainly for entertainment when it's also used for so many other things. This plurality isn't changing anytime soon, and this device doesn't represent any big new shifts in thinking.
I'd like to know what people think of the chances for this thing to do well. I mean... there's so many internet appliances, the most notable being WebTV, that everyone thought would just explode on to the scene, and in the end wound up making nary a dent. Sure, I'd love to see one take off, preferably with linux under the hood, but as it stands the market is pretty small for these.
There's a fair amount of optimism on this board for this thing, but I'm more skeptical simply because it hasn't worked in the past.
I personally think it's because when people think "internet" they think "computer" rather than "TV Top Box" and they go out and buy an iMac or an eMachine or something instead. Any thoughts?
I don't think this will really bring the Linux name to the front of "cool." It's for regular, home people who don't give a damn about the OS it runs, so long as they can get at their web page and their email. The same way AOL subscribers don't care what browser is in their AOL program, so long as it works, no one will care that it's Linux in this thing except us/. geeks:-)
I'd disagree. There's plenty of modes, and not one is dominant. Do you think the homeless guy on the street is worried more about entertainment or his next meal? Boredom or freezing that night? How about those people in the earthquake in El Salvador right now? Boredom? Or, a more mundane example, the secretary working on a contact list for the marketing division of your favorite corporation? There are more things going on than the alleviation of boredom, even in the world of computing.
And as for this being "the new paradigm of 21st century computing" I'd disagree there too. Computers have always provided some form of entertainment, from Space Invaders to Quake (and that's just the games) but they also provide other things that aren't just for fun like word processing or database access. People will still use computers for things like firewalls and print servers and DNA analysis because they're effective tools. These devices are not the new paradigm of computing simply because they're new and focused on fun. That's no different than a PC that people can program games and OS kernels on. The "new paradigm" of computing will be a plurality of functions, just like the "old paradigm."
I'm sorry, even if you've got the ability to make totipotent stem cells (as so many people here seem to be implying, despite the shady qualities of this announcement) it doesn't mean you'll be immortal.
Granted, you could replace a damaged heart, or liver, or whatnot... but your body is constantly undergoing wear and tear and reparation. Basically, your body only keeps itself up as long as it's capable and beneficial to do so. Jared Diamond talks about this in The Third Chimpanzee and I know he's got a ton of sources listed in the back of the book for each chapter. What it amounts to, is that your whole body is aging, and short of growing a new body and dumping your memories in to it "Sixth Day" style;-) you're not going to be able to remain immortal.
People like to talk about how your cells are constantly being rejuvinated, but they still age as a whole. Why doesn't the skin of an 80 year old look like that of a newborn? Why doesn't the vascular system remain as flexible? Why can't old men get erections without viagra easily? Because everything is aging and you really can't replace it all.
The ability to replace a poor heart or kidney will certaintly extend lives for those who can't get donors, and for things like bad joints, the replacement surgery can be painful and in some ways almost as bad as the problem itself, as is the case with hip replacements in the elderly.
So don't go looking for immortality just yet. I personally don't think we'll be there for a long time, if ever.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, good for you! I'd love to see these issues get taken care of too, but that's got nothing at all to do with how software is licensed. One can write GPL software and still spew rhetoric about fixing the economy and the presidency. No mutual exclusivism here.
I don't know any two people who use MS word for exactly the same thing, but I can tell you that far more than 500 use it. Same goes for excel and any other MS (or other closed source) product. Software evolves to provide different solutions.
It does both. That's how it works. If you don't believe me, file a bug report for your favorite buggy linux program and watch yourself be supported.
Are free software and solutions mutually exclusive? Not in my experience, and if you've ever used free software you should understand this.
Funny, so does my linux system. Strange how that works...
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
The point isn't whether or not it's BSD or GPL, but whether or not this sort of thing benefits Microsoft (see subject). For all those, I could have named other items like Mozilla or Gnome. The point is that these items, simply because they're free, don't hurt the little guy and benefit Microsoft. If you read posts for the ideas rather than the details, you may learn something.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Hey there moderators... get this post up there! It's poorly formatted, but it definitely doesn't deserve a 0 value just because it's AC!
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
For every small company that can't make money writing GPL software, there are 500 that can make money by using it. It saves a lot of money at my work that I can use perl for my scripting, apache for my webserver, and php for additional web stuff. I can get these items at no cost and I don't have to worry about them ever disappearing off the face of the earth, while MS can do what they please. So tell me again how this benefits MS and how this is killing companies?
You're assuming that the GPL is a single entity. The GPL is just a license, MS is a corporation. As such, a thousand OS's can rise and compete under the GPL while MS gets to play just how MS wants. GPL allows for competition, MS does not. And I'm sure we can agree that competition allows for better software, right? So what if someone wants to found a company based on their flashy OS idea and they want to take code from the Linux kernel to do it? So they can't make money. Big deal. Found a company based on something else and use your resources better.
The purpose of the GPL, to quote from the manifesto you so obviously enjoy referring to, is: Would you like to tell me what is wrong with this? There is nothing that I've ever seen that guarantees anyone the right to make money off OS or webserver sales, why shouldn't this sort of thing be guaranteed to everyone rather than just those who can afford it, so long as there are those who are perfectly happy to give them away?
In the end, I don't really care whether or not some tiny company can rise up and be our savior to fight MS. It's never worked before and it'll never work now. The only way to do it is by inverting the MS model, by totally removing the majority of the value from Microsoft's products, which is what the GPL does, for the good of the individual rather than the good of the corporation. If your sympathy is with the tiny OS or database company that could, mine is with the tiny webhosting company that does. Try to think about where the money (and other benefits for that matter) could go rather than where they would normally go.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
I'm sorry, If you think that the GPL is the reason for BeOS going nowhere, I strongly suggest you take a look over at Apple. They have been a strong competitor with Microsoft for years, creating (for a while at least, and maybe again) a far superior product that just couldn't beat what was already in place. BeOS can't beat MS, no way no how, not the way they're going.
And if you think that the GPL isn't hurting MS, you have to consider the fact that a lot of coders like the GPL and will code for it. This means a lot of software is being released that is very good and can compete with Microsoft on a variety of levels. The gcc, the linux kernel, apache(I know, the apache license, whatever)... these products all compete with Microsoft and are freely available. No matter how much money MS throws at their stuff, these products will still compete because people like to code for them. If you don't think apache and linux is cutting in to NT and IIS sales, you'd better go check Netcraft.
And as for small developers, they're not going to be competing with MS any time soon either. Look at Netscape, the biggest little software developer there ever was. With all their resources, they couldn't beat MS, and now it's up to the Mozilla team to pick up the fight. Small developers can still make money using GPL'ed (and LGPL'ed) software. They just can't follow the Gates business plan. They'll just have to innovate and come up with a new one.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
If I'm a taxpayer, and I Microsoft Windows XP$#&, does Microsoft Software become "taxpayer funded software" then? Oh... wait a minute... ;-)
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
This is one of those posts that will generate a lot of noise with only one signal: "Yeah, big surprise. They can and do rip off BSD so of course that kind of OSS is OK."
I think the real important thing to remember, and this may throw some logs on the GPL vs. BSD debate (although I hope we can avoid that) is that the GPL is working as intended. It's scaring the crap out of the guys who aren't willing to support the kind of freedoms that the GPL is engineered towards. Meanwhile, the BSD license falls in to an area that's total freedom in which everyone can do what they like, which is perfect for the juggernaut from Redmond.
I think at this point it should be painfully clear that the distinctions between Linux and BSD on a technical level are becoming slimmer and slimmer as they grow towards each other in terms of implementation, while the ideological gap caused by their licenses grows wider and wider.
In the end, I suppose it comes down to how much you value the freedoms of your rulers (i.e. Microsoft). Because rulers get special powers (such as the force of a monopoly) do they get to retain the same rights that you have that are in place largely to protect the little guy? Your answer to that question pretty much determines the license you should release your code under and vice versa, so choose wisely.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
I think you're right to a degree, that people are hard pressed to prove someone is smarter, but you have to consider factors that make a person "smart" as well as the tests for that intelligence.
The factors are largely environmental, I think we can all pretty much acknowledge that, especially if all men are created equal. There are some geniuses out there as well as a few mental incompetents, but on the whole our strengths balance with our weaknesses and we balance out (see Hobbes's "Leviathan" for this stuff.)
As such, if a test like the SAT is playing to certain strengths only (math and english skills) does this seem like a good measure of how "smart" someone is? What if they are incredible chemists, but terrible mathemeticians who can't formulate a proper sentence? Does that make them stupid? I don't know the answer to that, but if no one tests those factors you can't make a good judgement.
And let's face it, we may all be born more or less equal, but we don't grow up that way. I know I come from a priveledged background, and I simply didn't have to deal with the things that make school feel so irrelevant. Like my parents being out of work and me having to drop out to get a minimum wage job to support my family. Does that make me dumber? What if the only rich people I see who look like me are drug dealers and gangsters, so I do what I know and do the same in order to survive? Does that make me dumb? Conditions matter, and as such we do not all have equal opportunities. This has nothing to do with how "smart" or "dumb" someone is, but rather the opportunities they have actually been given, rather than the equal (or nearly equal, as you say) that they are supposed to have been given.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
They are taking a big risk here. You, as many others, see this as a move that will harmfully affect you: "I'm NOT who he wants to help, I'm who he wants to hurt." This is absurd. He's not rying to hurt you. He's trying to help those who do deserve to get in to school get in. The only way to do this is to place less of an emphasis on the test. However, because they see it as an "arms race", the only way to do this is to opt out all together, because if they don't then emphasis will just continue to build on it.
I personally think it's absurd that the writers of the SAT got to choose my curriculum in high school, and I sure as hell don't believe that any one factor should hold so much sway over college admissions, especially not one that only counts for about 4 hours or so on one day.
Also, they are not totally planning on scrapping standardized testing, so there's no worry about those kids like your classmates. As the yahoo article points out, they are keeping the SAT II, which I think is a better indicator (as do the statistics, see the times article.) And there's also this:
They want a new test, one that they're not just going to start teaching right to. A fresh start would be a good thing for the stodgy old test anyways. I mean, if you're not particularly good at English or Math, but you're a chemistry, history, and foreign language wizard, why should you be punished for it?
The goal of this whole move is not to hurt anyone, particularly you! I agree, that you can provide opportunities to those without money. It's called affirmative action, and the UC system is prohibited from doing this via California law, enacted by the citizens themselves. This is a way to extend benefits to those who truly needed it.
Don't worry though, all the people who, like you, didn't work hard but are still smart enough to do Ok in college will still make it there. You may not get the best education there is, but then do you really deserve it if you didn't earn it?
Oh, and by the way, I can guarantee Atkinson has thought this situation through more than you
Not too ignorant of the ins and outs of admissions and standardized testing in my opinion. He is The UC President after all...
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
This is only the beginning. In case no one knows, there is a strike coming real soon involving the writer's guild for Hollywood (I don't know the actual title.) It also is probably going to involve the directors and actors as well. The reason? They want residues from Internet Distribution.
That's right. The Major Studios are going to be distributing stuff on the internet soon, and it's going to be a big deal for the movie industry in terms of revenue and business model.
Stuff like this is like 1994, and as such it's only the beginning.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
When are they going to make a subsection of adult film archives? ;-)
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
The real fear of this isn't that they can find one or two people with a genetic defect, like many people may believe, but that they are able to find everyone with one. As it turns out, each of us carries, on average, 8 real measurable defects even though we function normally. Insurance companies are going to find out very fast if they start genetic screening (and boy do they want to!) that everyone will be uninsurable and everyone's rates will skyrocket. This won't help anyone, which is why we need privacy laws firmly in place to prevent this sort of massive screening. It's good for some things, but insurance is not one of them.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
I want them to release NEWS, that early X competitor that Gosling worked on that people still talk wistfully of as they curse X under their breath :-) I'd like to see what all the fuss is about.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
This story is not of "no worth or interest" to a lot of us. Maybe you don't live on a college campus, but I do, and I don't like the idea of someone being able to bust in to my room because of a failed file transfer.
Perhaps it's not your "totalitarian meltdown" but it is a constant battle against erosion of rights. These guys weren't even doing anything and yet they had their home raided and their possesions taken from them simply because of a file transfer problem and some rhetoric.
If this was a private home or workplace then this would be completely absurd (and even possibly fall under your definition of "real problems"), but you seem to think that because it happens to undergraduates (with their "holier than thou serious attitude") that it just doesn't matter. Well, when they come for you, no one will be crying and then we'll see if these problems are "real".
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Man... I loved Lemonade stand! It's probably still available too on abandonware. However, that game may be too simple and too close to what they study for it to work. If you're going to go simple, may as well go with something like Tetris as another poster mentioned.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
I highly recommend freeciv for this one. It's got all the strategic elements of starcraft (and then some) and it will allow more actual planning rather than quick reflexes as starcraft requires. There are more dimensions to measure too, such as what successful academics spend their time researching, building, or planning in the game(i.e. what they value in the mock civilization could reflect what they value in the real civilizaion.) Plus, as the name says, the game's free :-)
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
I can see this being a good thing in terms of autoimmune diseases like arthritis, but heart attacks and cancer? Maybe some kinds of cancer, but certaintly, most of them are related to other problems like genes that regulate differentiation or growth rather than the immune system. This will have some far reaching consequences, mainly in unraveling the immune system's inner workings, but it's not the "Holy Grail" at all.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
All right, I was wrong. Fair enough :-)
The point isn't really how good the game is, it's the spirit of the thing, and if they're releasing it then that's fantastic. Maybe there'll be some nice little games that'll come out at some point though.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
True, entertainment may be escapism, but do you think that escapism represents the new paradigm of computing? Or new anything. I doubt it, since you mentioned the Depression. And the fact is, people still have those other things that they are escaping weighing them down, otherwise known as The Real World. The Real World isn't going away soon, and entertainment isn't going to wholly take over in people's minds. There's no shift here, just a reiteration.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
I agree with much of what you're saying, but the point of the first paragraph was to show that without the requirements of our basic needs (i.e. the secretary working so she can eat and sleep comfortably) we can't even have the entertainment.
As such, the utilitarian purposes aren't going away at all. And while entertainment focused items may be added to a product, I don't think they come anywhere near representing a "new paradigm" for computing. It's obvious that entertaiment sells more stuff, but you can't play tribes without being able to code on your machine to pay those bills. This is the way it's been for a very long time, and it will continue to be so. Computing is too broad to be labeled as mainly for entertainment when it's also used for so many other things. This plurality isn't changing anytime soon, and this device doesn't represent any big new shifts in thinking.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
I'd like to know what people think of the chances for this thing to do well. I mean... there's so many internet appliances, the most notable being WebTV, that everyone thought would just explode on to the scene, and in the end wound up making nary a dent. Sure, I'd love to see one take off, preferably with linux under the hood, but as it stands the market is pretty small for these.
There's a fair amount of optimism on this board for this thing, but I'm more skeptical simply because it hasn't worked in the past. I personally think it's because when people think "internet" they think "computer" rather than "TV Top Box" and they go out and buy an iMac or an eMachine or something instead. Any thoughts?
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
How will this hurt Linux? Linux was built on sharing and cooperation, the very same "ideal and pleasant" thoughts that you find impractical.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
I don't think this will really bring the Linux name to the front of "cool." It's for regular, home people who don't give a damn about the OS it runs, so long as they can get at their web page and their email. The same way AOL subscribers don't care what browser is in their AOL program, so long as it works, no one will care that it's Linux in this thing except us /. geeks :-)
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
I'd disagree. There's plenty of modes, and not one is dominant. Do you think the homeless guy on the street is worried more about entertainment or his next meal? Boredom or freezing that night? How about those people in the earthquake in El Salvador right now? Boredom? Or, a more mundane example, the secretary working on a contact list for the marketing division of your favorite corporation? There are more things going on than the alleviation of boredom, even in the world of computing.
And as for this being "the new paradigm of 21st century computing" I'd disagree there too. Computers have always provided some form of entertainment, from Space Invaders to Quake (and that's just the games) but they also provide other things that aren't just for fun like word processing or database access. People will still use computers for things like firewalls and print servers and DNA analysis because they're effective tools. These devices are not the new paradigm of computing simply because they're new and focused on fun. That's no different than a PC that people can program games and OS kernels on. The "new paradigm" of computing will be a plurality of functions, just like the "old paradigm."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
I'm sorry, even if you've got the ability to make totipotent stem cells (as so many people here seem to be implying, despite the shady qualities of this announcement) it doesn't mean you'll be immortal.
;-) you're not going to be able to remain immortal.
Granted, you could replace a damaged heart, or liver, or whatnot... but your body is constantly undergoing wear and tear and reparation. Basically, your body only keeps itself up as long as it's capable and beneficial to do so. Jared Diamond talks about this in The Third Chimpanzee and I know he's got a ton of sources listed in the back of the book for each chapter. What it amounts to, is that your whole body is aging, and short of growing a new body and dumping your memories in to it "Sixth Day" style
People like to talk about how your cells are constantly being rejuvinated, but they still age as a whole. Why doesn't the skin of an 80 year old look like that of a newborn? Why doesn't the vascular system remain as flexible? Why can't old men get erections without viagra easily? Because everything is aging and you really can't replace it all.
The ability to replace a poor heart or kidney will certaintly extend lives for those who can't get donors, and for things like bad joints, the replacement surgery can be painful and in some ways almost as bad as the problem itself, as is the case with hip replacements in the elderly.
So don't go looking for immortality just yet. I personally don't think we'll be there for a long time, if ever.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."