If I could have one thing different I would have had my teachers and my parents expose me to nature. To the rest of the world.
Take him snorkelling, interest him in astronomy, take him hiking in the wilds, argue politics with him and make sure you don't take away his natural desire to play with the other kids.
It's taken me many bitter years to get beyond a gnawing unease that was simply caused by boredom.
Technology may be - in the context of society - to be considered difficult, challenging or hard - but ultimately it's a no-brainer with inherent limits.
Nothing compared to the complexity of a marine reef habitat or even a field of flowers.
Nothing compared to the complexity of LIFE.
To be taught as a child that life is merely a frivolous diversion from serious stuff like math and science is to have the best part of one's entire existence amputated.
Where borders cease to exist and you suddenly realise that ancient notions of evolutionary advantage due to geography no longer apply.
It's all one big ocean and you either learn to swim or you sink like a stone.
'Fair' or 'its my right' are no longer useful concepts.
But adaptability and co-operation are...
- antoine
a) Your ability to turn a vague idea into a concrete reality that addresses a real problem ?
b) A specific solution to a specific problem ?
If it is a) you will, by definition, always be one step in front of any imitators. If it is b) there is no power in the universe that will keep others from refining your specific solution to the point where your margins all but disappear.
Patents are a comfortable illusion for people who are not aware that reality is constantly changing.
Haven't seen any writings that explore this - the idea sounds pretty solid though.
In a world where the ability of a company to succeed is directly related to its ability to co-operate with other players in its industry this may well give it a decisive edge over any competitors.
Only downside is, if you get it right, you may not have any competitors left.
Under cobalt skies A young buck takes on the aging bull A flurry of horns and fur There will be a new leader tonight.
Or maybe not.
Be patient with Jon... He's just starting to see the world for the first time.
- antoine
Ayeeee ! De clones dey are comin' !
on
Frankenstein Time
·
· Score: 1
At last count the sky has been falling ever since I first decided to hump that other real cute unicellular organism floating next to me in the primordial ooze.
It's been billions of years now since I started the long and very slow process of becoming this unspeakably complex being that I am today.
And now, as I stare at the informational detritus of 5 billion years, which is me, in a handy xterm I can't help but reflect for a moment and go...
Whooooooooaaaaaaaaaa !
Neat !
Catch a wakeup JonKatz and take a bit of time to notice where, who and what we are.
You might want to look at the front of your four foot wide stack of reference works before you even consider OCR-ing it.
Most books have something along the following lines printed at the front:
All rights reserved. No part of this work covered by by the copyright hereon may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means - graphics, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information storaeg and retrieval systems - without the written permission of the publisher.
Oops. I hoped that didn't apply to the copyright notice I just pirated from my copy of SNMP versions 1&2, Theory and Practice ! - antoine
Evil are taking away all your power, impoverishing you and ruining your life !
And if you believe that, I have this really nice bridge I'd like to sell you...
Yes, every playground has it's bullies.
No, you don't fix the problem by making impassioned speaches, trying to rally support against some oppressive evil entity or passing laws against 'bad people', you fix the problem by punching the little fuck in the nose so hard that snot spews out of his asshole, then you help him up and become friends with him.
Evil only becomes evil when you stop seeing it for what it is.
And what is it ? Just another human being who is just as vulnerable as anyone else.
- antoine
Re:Spread the message, brothers
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 1
> c) The alternative software has to offer the same or better features that the propriatry software (With it's restrictive licencse) offers
It doesn't even have to offer the same or better features - it just has to offer the 10% of features used 90% of the time, a concept most of the free software developers still seem to be struggling with.:P
To justify your solution on factors that supposedly transcend the problem space is to take a philosophically untenable position.
Both Stallman and Meyers are equally guilty of this.
If they were being honest they would not claim that there exists a 'higher moral imperitive' that justifies their particular solution. Instead, they would admit that this so-called 'higher moral imperitive' is merely another factor within the problem space, a factor which is important enough to them that they would be willing to sacrifice factors that others may feel strongly about in order to attain it.
In other words, if they were being honest we would hear less talk of perfect solutions and far more talk about solutions which are open to discussion and external input.
The correct way to engineer solutions is not to hide or defend the imperfections of your solution but rather to give full disclosure and then full attention to external proposals.
While I agree with Mr Katz that there exists a disturbing trend on our planet towards a low common demoninator determined by a small group of people I would, however, take him to task about the core problem.
Historically, it should be apparent by now that most revolutions tend to follow a similiar pattern:
1) Become dissatisfied 2) Find someone to blame 3) Blame someone 4) Gather support 5) Revolt 6) Live happily ever after until someone decides _you_ are actually the one to blame.
To blame corporations, government, greedy people, evil people, kings and queens, neighbours, black people, geeks, criminals ad nauseum for the ills of our world may be a masterstroke of intuitive statistical correlation but it does very little to identify the underlying causality giving rise to the observed correlations.
I do not yet understand the underlying causality that has, as one effect:
* A lack of integrity in a society growing proportional to the number of members of that society.
Because I do not yet understand the underlying causality I will hold off and assigning blame and instead voice what little intuition I have on the effects I observe:
* As the numbers of members of a society increases the number of interactions required for consensus decision making increases exponentially.
* A lot of decisions have time-limits within which they have to be made.
* Decisions which do not have a lot of diverse opinion informing them often tend to be poor.
* Decisions made which exclude the opinions and needs of individuals concerned with the effects of that decision will often result in the individuals concerned feeling disempowered, angry and excluded making it even harder to achieve consensus on decisions in future.
To name a few.
These things are obviously inter-related and the situation is obviously complex. I can also, quite justifiably, be accused of not offering any answers.
But if we do know that we don't know enough to even start thinking about a solution, let alone blaming anyone we might be more likely to create the time and space within which to search for understanding on a problem which has been with us since we first started building communities larger than a handful of people.
The same people who provided the money in the first place. Investors.
Who are the investors ?
Joe Bloggs walking down the street has an insurance policy and a retirement fund. Anyone want to guess how much of the capital traded on Wall Street and Nasdaq originates with the Joe Bloggs of the world ?
Now, which is better ?
* Destroy the products built with community money because no immediate return is forthcoming, ensuring net loss for company and net loss for the community that invested in the company.
* Make the products built with community money available to the community in the hopes that there will be at least some future return ?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh this is not a new war by any means.
The idea of sharing in order to build a bigger pie for everyone goes all the way back to the time when we were unicellular organisms.
We're 15 billion years old at last count and can therefore afford to be patient.
Remember - in reality - all tyrants still require your full co-operation for their own survival.
For no man can exist alone - what would he eat ?
So make freedom the price you demand in return for your co-operation.
Eventually, everyone will get the message.
- a
I was also a child prodigy type.
If I could have one thing different I would have had my teachers and my parents expose me to nature. To the rest of the world.
Take him snorkelling, interest him in astronomy, take him hiking in the wilds, argue politics with him and make sure you don't take away his natural desire to play with the other kids.
It's taken me many bitter years to get beyond a gnawing unease that was simply caused by boredom.
Technology may be - in the context of society - to be considered difficult, challenging or hard - but ultimately it's a no-brainer with inherent limits.
Nothing compared to the complexity of a marine reef habitat or even a field of flowers.
Nothing compared to the complexity of LIFE.
To be taught as a child that life is merely a frivolous diversion from serious stuff like math and science is to have the best part of one's entire existence amputated.
There are no words to describe the pain.
- onelove
Get benchmarks from each company on one or two of the applications you run. You'd be surprised how willing they'd be to do this. - antoine
Where borders cease to exist and you suddenly realise that ancient notions of evolutionary advantage due to geography no longer apply. It's all one big ocean and you either learn to swim or you sink like a stone. 'Fair' or 'its my right' are no longer useful concepts. But adaptability and co-operation are... - antoine
One way:
What is your competitive advantage ?
a) Your ability to turn a vague idea into a concrete reality that addresses a real problem ?
b) A specific solution to a specific problem ?
If it is a) you will, by definition, always be one step in front of any imitators. If it is b) there is no power in the universe that will keep others from refining your specific solution to the point where your margins all but disappear.
Patents are a comfortable illusion for people who are not aware that reality is constantly changing.
- antoine
Haven't seen any writings that explore this - the idea sounds pretty solid though.
In a world where the ability of a company to succeed is directly related to its ability to co-operate with other players in its industry this may well give it a decisive edge over any competitors.
Only downside is, if you get it right, you may not have any competitors left.
- a
Oh chill out ! - a
Under cobalt skies
A young buck takes on the aging bull
A flurry of horns and fur
There will be a new leader tonight.
Or maybe not.
Be patient with Jon... He's just starting to see the world for the first time.
- antoine
At last count the sky has been falling ever since I first decided to hump that other real cute unicellular organism floating next to me in the primordial ooze.
It's been billions of years now since I started the long and very slow process of becoming this unspeakably complex being that I am today.
And now, as I stare at the informational detritus of 5 billion years, which is me, in a handy xterm I can't help but reflect for a moment and go...
Whooooooooaaaaaaaaaa !
Neat !
Catch a wakeup JonKatz and take a bit of time to notice where, who and what we are.
Most books have something along the following lines printed at the front:
All rights reserved. No part of this work covered by by the copyright hereon may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means - graphics, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information storaeg and retrieval systems - without the written permission of the publisher.
Oops. I hoped that didn't apply to the copyright notice I just pirated from my copy of SNMP versions 1&2, Theory and Practice ! - antoine
Evil are taking away all your power, impoverishing you and ruining your life !
And if you believe that, I have this really nice bridge I'd like to sell you...
Yes, every playground has it's bullies.
No, you don't fix the problem by making impassioned speaches, trying to rally support against some oppressive evil entity or passing laws against 'bad people', you fix the problem by punching the little fuck in the nose so hard that snot spews out of his asshole, then you help him up and become friends with him.
Evil only becomes evil when you stop seeing it for what it is.
And what is it ? Just another human being who is just as vulnerable as anyone else.
- antoine
> c) The alternative software has to offer the same or better features that the propriatry software (With it's restrictive licencse) offers
:P
It doesn't even have to offer the same or better features - it just has to offer the 10% of features used 90% of the time, a concept most of the free software developers still seem to be struggling with.
- antoine
When Mr Pike talks about innovation he is not referring to new features built on existing technologies.
Rather, he is talking about completely new technologies that, _fundamentally_, change what we can do with our computers.
Unix was an innovation.
GUI's were an innovation.
Relational Databases were an innovation.
TCP/IP was an innovation.
Linux, Gnome, KDE, Bonobo etc. - while all being supremely cool for what they are - do NOT qualify as innovation.
- antoine
To justify your solution on factors that supposedly transcend the problem space is to take a philosophically untenable position.
Both Stallman and Meyers are equally guilty of this.
If they were being honest they would not claim that there exists a 'higher moral imperitive' that justifies their particular solution. Instead, they would admit that this so-called 'higher moral imperitive' is merely another factor within the problem space, a factor which is important enough to them that they would be willing to sacrifice factors that others may feel strongly about in order to attain it.
In other words, if they were being honest we would hear less talk of perfect solutions and far more talk about solutions which are open to discussion and external input.
The correct way to engineer solutions is not to hide or defend the imperfections of your solution but rather to give full disclosure and then full attention to external proposals.
As in code, as in reality.
- a
An ideology of individualism...
How... erm... Pythonesque !
While I agree with Mr Katz that there exists a disturbing trend on our planet towards a low common demoninator determined by a small group of people I would, however, take him to task about the core problem.
Historically, it should be apparent by now that most revolutions tend to follow a similiar pattern:
1) Become dissatisfied
2) Find someone to blame
3) Blame someone
4) Gather support
5) Revolt
6) Live happily ever after until someone decides
_you_ are actually the one to blame.
To blame corporations, government, greedy people, evil people, kings and queens, neighbours, black people, geeks, criminals ad nauseum for the ills of our world may be a masterstroke of intuitive statistical correlation but it does very little to identify the underlying causality giving rise to the observed correlations.
I do not yet understand the underlying causality that has, as one effect:
* A lack of integrity in a society growing proportional to the number of members of that society.
Because I do not yet understand the underlying causality I will hold off and assigning blame and instead voice what little intuition I have on the effects I observe:
* As the numbers of members of a society increases the number of interactions required for consensus decision making increases exponentially.
* A lot of decisions have time-limits within which they have to be made.
* Decisions which do not have a lot of diverse opinion informing them often tend to be poor.
* Decisions made which exclude the opinions and needs of individuals concerned with the effects of that decision will often result in the individuals concerned feeling disempowered, angry and excluded making it even harder to achieve consensus on decisions in future.
To name a few.
These things are obviously inter-related and the situation is obviously complex. I can also, quite justifiably, be accused of not offering any answers.
But if we do know that we don't know enough to even start thinking about a solution, let alone blaming anyone we might be more likely to create the time and space within which to search for understanding on a problem which has been with us since we first started building communities larger than a handful of people.
Regards,
antoine
US$5 billion.
Who will cover the tab ?
The same people who provided the money in the first place. Investors.
Who are the investors ?
Joe Bloggs walking down the street has an insurance policy and a retirement fund. Anyone want to guess how much of the capital traded on Wall Street and Nasdaq originates with the Joe Bloggs of the world ?
Now, which is better ?
* Destroy the products built with community money because no immediate return is forthcoming, ensuring net loss for company and net loss for the community that invested in the company.
* Make the products built with community money available to the community in the hopes that there will be at least some future return ?
- antoine