I admit that I haven't read through the code, and I am not a programmer. But it seems to me that if this can be hosted and run by individual institutions, it could have a fairly large impact in higher education in the next few years. Employees could use this like intranet-lite, and alumni and students could use this the way Facebook was originally used -- a social network for the school itself. The only difference is that it could provide very useful data directly to the school instead of an individual.
I've also read a lot of complaints about how the project focused first on user interface instead of back-end programming. Isn't that similar to how Facebook itself started? I don't think there were a bunch of new protocols declared for the "Face book" launch.
As much as I agree with the fears of significant government intrusion, I also have to say that national cyberdefense is every bit as important, and rapidly more so, than national military defense. Without a unified strategy of national defense, we've left ourselves extraordinarily vulnerable to attack. And although we have some cyber 'militias' in the country, we have no such dedicated, professional group. Imagine getting paid well and fairly by the government to develop and promote secure systems!
I'm not defending the former display of angry apathy, but I won't claim any sympathy for pedophilia, and I'm frankly surprised to see it in the previous post. It certainly is a sickness, but hardly one for which any of us need create veils of compassion. Dateline, obviously, was looking for a headline. Their actions were deplorable and legally questionable.
But the parent post seems to be saying that, whether the man was guilty or not, pedophilia is a crime for which we should all be a little more understanding. I wholeheartedly disagree. I infrequently make this case, but there are some crimes for which forgiveness is not warranted. Perhaps you'll forgive me for not wanting my children around someone's "taboo" failing. I'd rather condemn that taboo then see someone's life ruined because of such "compassionate" negligence.
Absolutely well-said. I understand all about the principle of separating content from layout, but frankly there's far too much arrogance to go around about HOW to implement that concept.
Yeah, and I remember that when I installed Linux (because at the time it wasn't pre-installed), it didn't have an easy way to increase screen res, get wifi working, or office software that loads and has functionality like Microsoft Office. And it was a general pain in the ass.
And that was Ubuntu!
In all fairness, I'll admit that Linux is getting better, especially now that Ubuntu has come out on top in terms of pre-installations by a major company. But it still has a crapload of catching up to do.
I'm no web programmer, but (and correct me if I'm reading this wrong) I'm not a huge fan of the government using ANY kind of "web interfaces", enhanced or not. I don't think the problem is Microsoft, I don't think the problem is government, I think the problem is that any system is hackable. It's one thing for thousands of laptops to get encrypted, but it's another thing entirely to open your network up to potentially millions of people who want nothing more than to claim they "hacked" the U.S. government.
I suppose a thin client would work, but I'd want to make sure it was modified so extensively that no outside software or hardware could recognize it.
True, but I misrepresented my point. The Silmarillion was actually several different books, rather than notes, that Tolkien had been trying to work into comprehensive English mythology. But because of the never-ending editing that Tolkien performed on his own work, he was never satisfied and, despite his efforts to publish it, continued his editing notation on all of the books until the time of his death.
The Silmarillion was Christopher's "best guess" at the time it was published, and even he has said that, if had were able to do it over, the Silmarillion would be in very different form than it is today.
Right, well first, he didn't leave the Silmarillion "untouched". In fact, the Silmarillion, in current form, was a vast collection of disparate notes. Also, the "JRRT" editing you're referring to was more likely the editing of Tolkien's... what would you call it... EDITOR. Tolkien himself stated that his personal preference was for swaths of chit-chat between Hobbits, with much less emphasis on the grand literary style that we all love.
I'm just guessing that you really don't have a good idea of how J.R.R. and Christopher really were and are. His son reveres his father's work, and does not claim it as his own. The Unfinished Tales, Silmarillion, and various other books that have been put out under Tolkien's name, are mostly the various stages of Tolkien's works. If you ever bother to read them all (perhaps you have already?) you'll see an amazing cross-section of not only Tolkien's works, but his entire life. And for that, his son deserves thanks, not ridicule.
You don't seem too hardcore on this, which I congratulate, but the notion of allowing the U.N. to have dominance over control and direction of the internet (note the lower caps -- that is, ANY form of the overall package) is frightening. Perhaps you're only thinking of the U.N. of today, of right now. Given the role of the U.S.S.R. in the U.N. previously, do you imagine control of the internet wouldn't be used as a political tool? Sitting here in your sheltered technology-centered view of the world is easy for the moment, but wait for the first truly international crisis to break out and see how far this goes.
The point truly is, if you think internalization of American-spawned ideas is a good thing (and most people would back you up on this), that's fine. But remember that it probably isn't in our national interest to do it at this point. It isn't simply a case (likely as it will be, trust me) that other countries will naturally seek out dominance of the internet on their own. More, it is a case of the United States being forced to give up hosting something which, I think we can agree on in a general sense, has been working pretty damn well.
The real question is not (as wiser people in these forums have said) WHY should we keep it, but why NOT.
Slashdot Mirror
I admit that I haven't read through the code, and I am not a programmer. But it seems to me that if this can be hosted and run by individual institutions, it could have a fairly large impact in higher education in the next few years. Employees could use this like intranet-lite, and alumni and students could use this the way Facebook was originally used -- a social network for the school itself. The only difference is that it could provide very useful data directly to the school instead of an individual. I've also read a lot of complaints about how the project focused first on user interface instead of back-end programming. Isn't that similar to how Facebook itself started? I don't think there were a bunch of new protocols declared for the "Face book" launch.
As much as I agree with the fears of significant government intrusion, I also have to say that national cyberdefense is every bit as important, and rapidly more so, than national military defense. Without a unified strategy of national defense, we've left ourselves extraordinarily vulnerable to attack. And although we have some cyber 'militias' in the country, we have no such dedicated, professional group. Imagine getting paid well and fairly by the government to develop and promote secure systems!
I'm not defending the former display of angry apathy, but I won't claim any sympathy for pedophilia, and I'm frankly surprised to see it in the previous post. It certainly is a sickness, but hardly one for which any of us need create veils of compassion. Dateline, obviously, was looking for a headline. Their actions were deplorable and legally questionable.
But the parent post seems to be saying that, whether the man was guilty or not, pedophilia is a crime for which we should all be a little more understanding. I wholeheartedly disagree. I infrequently make this case, but there are some crimes for which forgiveness is not warranted. Perhaps you'll forgive me for not wanting my children around someone's "taboo" failing. I'd rather condemn that taboo then see someone's life ruined because of such "compassionate" negligence.
Absolutely well-said. I understand all about the principle of separating content from layout, but frankly there's far too much arrogance to go around about HOW to implement that concept.
Yeah, and I remember that when I installed Linux (because at the time it wasn't pre-installed), it didn't have an easy way to increase screen res, get wifi working, or office software that loads and has functionality like Microsoft Office. And it was a general pain in the ass.
And that was Ubuntu!
In all fairness, I'll admit that Linux is getting better, especially now that Ubuntu has come out on top in terms of pre-installations by a major company. But it still has a crapload of catching up to do.
I'm no web programmer, but (and correct me if I'm reading this wrong) I'm not a huge fan of the government using ANY kind of "web interfaces", enhanced or not. I don't think the problem is Microsoft, I don't think the problem is government, I think the problem is that any system is hackable. It's one thing for thousands of laptops to get encrypted, but it's another thing entirely to open your network up to potentially millions of people who want nothing more than to claim they "hacked" the U.S. government. I suppose a thin client would work, but I'd want to make sure it was modified so extensively that no outside software or hardware could recognize it.
True, but I misrepresented my point. The Silmarillion was actually several different books, rather than notes, that Tolkien had been trying to work into comprehensive English mythology. But because of the never-ending editing that Tolkien performed on his own work, he was never satisfied and, despite his efforts to publish it, continued his editing notation on all of the books until the time of his death.
The Silmarillion was Christopher's "best guess" at the time it was published, and even he has said that, if had were able to do it over, the Silmarillion would be in very different form than it is today.
Right, well first, he didn't leave the Silmarillion "untouched". In fact, the Silmarillion, in current form, was a vast collection of disparate notes. Also, the "JRRT" editing you're referring to was more likely the editing of Tolkien's ... what would you call it ... EDITOR. Tolkien himself stated that his personal preference was for swaths of chit-chat between Hobbits, with much less emphasis on the grand literary style that we all love.
I'm just guessing that you really don't have a good idea of how J.R.R. and Christopher really were and are. His son reveres his father's work, and does not claim it as his own. The Unfinished Tales, Silmarillion, and various other books that have been put out under Tolkien's name, are mostly the various stages of Tolkien's works. If you ever bother to read them all (perhaps you have already?) you'll see an amazing cross-section of not only Tolkien's works, but his entire life. And for that, his son deserves thanks, not ridicule.
You don't seem too hardcore on this, which I congratulate, but the notion of allowing the U.N. to have dominance over control and direction of the internet (note the lower caps -- that is, ANY form of the overall package) is frightening. Perhaps you're only thinking of the U.N. of today, of right now. Given the role of the U.S.S.R. in the U.N. previously, do you imagine control of the internet wouldn't be used as a political tool? Sitting here in your sheltered technology-centered view of the world is easy for the moment, but wait for the first truly international crisis to break out and see how far this goes. The point truly is, if you think internalization of American-spawned ideas is a good thing (and most people would back you up on this), that's fine. But remember that it probably isn't in our national interest to do it at this point. It isn't simply a case (likely as it will be, trust me) that other countries will naturally seek out dominance of the internet on their own. More, it is a case of the United States being forced to give up hosting something which, I think we can agree on in a general sense, has been working pretty damn well. The real question is not (as wiser people in these forums have said) WHY should we keep it, but why NOT.