I agree that it's hit or miss. My install took an extra 45 minutes, because I was using a KVM cable, and Ubuntu couldn't figure out the monitor specs, so it defaulted the resolution. Once I got that worked out, I got the real KVM working, so now I can run virtual systems on the kernel. So, I have Ubuntu with Windows XP running virtual (the only reason for XP is Visual Studio, because sometimes I need to compile stuff for Windows).
All in all, it's a good system, but I may need to duel boot to do graphics work for Windows systems. No virtual OpenGL support.
Lots of bugs in my line of work are caused by input not being validated by the person who wrote the original code. The user will enter bunk data because of no validation, then call in a month or two later to complain when the program crashes. I try to tell my manager, for fucks-sake, lets validate the flipping user input. They don't want to hear it saying that the clients will lose "features." I tell the that the data doesn't make any sense. The problem comes with indexes defined as unique, and programs not forcing the user input to be unique. Instead of validating the input to make sure it's unique, they want to add a time stamp to the fn index. WTF!
I'll one up you. Google purchased YouTube, not because they wanted to be sued, but because they couldn't get users to put their content on Google Video. Google Video seems to have more features, and I'd rather watch video their or embed their videos, but their lectures and documentaries clearly are not near as "cool."
And, if Google can't do it, I can't see how NBC is going to make this work. Are they going to publish their entire archive, so I can embed it on my site, and make ad revenue off of it? Doubt it! Are they going to force me to site through a minute of ads before a video starts, and then break-up longer videos into multiple parts that force me to watch more ads? Very likely! Will they try to use MS's media player to protect their content, making it not work on many systems? That's what they've always done in the past! To me, this sounds like a waste of money on their side.
No, phones come and go, but a simple music device that can hold all your songs is immortal. For example, I wouldn't want my mp3 player and music collection to become dated when the address book software on the phone is no longer updated.
The part that gets me is the reclassified as hourly. If I moved across the country to work for them, took a lower pay to do it, and then got reclassified, I'd be angry.
Perhaps he says they should all be published under the same paradigm, and not in clear groups as shown by the graph. If there's a concilience of the language that we use, this could happen.
Perhaps it has something to do with simplifying the language. The math I understand, I understand because I can read the equations. I know algebra, because I know that it's about doing whatever you must to find the value of x, and not really about knowing to do the same operations to both sides of an equation. It's not hard to understand calc if you know that you are looking for the rate of change, but somehow mathematicians find a way to make that incredibly hard. They should try to make it easier. Again, I'm not advocating COLBOL. But, I advocate writing your scientific findings in a way that interested people can understand without having to get an advanced degree. That way, we can share the knowledge across fields.
My gut feeling is history is often written by the winners, and it's not very accurate. Science is dispassionate, or should be, but most historians seem passionate, and have a stake in the outcome. Perhaps Wilson just saying that we apply the scientific method in a dispassionate way to our history. There are tons of questions that could be answered that way. For instance, why did the buildings collapse in NY, why did certain diseases hurt certain populations and not others, why did humans migrate in certain patterns, how were the pyramids built, how was the knowledge gained to build the pyramids? You can apply the scientific method to all these questions, and you may come up with answers that are different for what our history says. But history is just one small example of applying science to a humanity.
Perhaps take literature as an example. Why does Shakespeare write better than I? Merging that with history, and ask why does Alexander Pushkin write in a different language than Shakespeare? Seems obvious, but that could be because of our, or just my, ignorance. If you find out the real scientific reason why, then literature might be closer to neurosurgery. Toss me in the mix, and I'll want to apply it to AI.
If you get that far, you could use science to study the history of other species, and why they don't write poetry, or why some other society far away might.
I'll leave you with a poem that Wilson may or may not enjoy:
Memory, prophecy, and fantasy the past, the future, and the dreaming moment between are all one country, living one immortal day. To know that is Wisdom. To use it is the Art.
I guess the point of that is, the past isn't that far away. I doubt the past went anywhere. It's still here.
Now, you say "can't go back in time to see how Genghis Khan would have reacted to any change we might introduce." That is true, and Wilson agrees. But, I think he believes it's because the history was written poorly. That is why he's pushing for a unity of knowledge. He wants us to write the history in a more scientific and dispassionate way, so we can study these changes. Instead we rely on the corporate media in most cases.
Anyway, history is just a topic I brought up. He writes about it in his book, but I'm not sure how much of a focus it is.
Ok, one more example. We are planing a trip to the moon in ten or twenty years. NASA didn't keep a scientific record of the last Lunar landing. If they did, it would help us in the next trip. If they kept better historical records, we would benefit today. You could come up with other theories about that, apply the scientific method to that, and you may also benefit.
For example, if I say relational database, and you pull out an excel file, I'll know you're not the architect I'm looking for.
Good point. But if you say context switch, and I look confused because I learned that as a process switch, it doesn't mean I'm confused about operating systems or the multi-threaded programming used to create them.
I haven't read the book since 1999, and I haven't taken many higher level history classes, so I'm not sure how they teach it today. Though I would agree that new knowledge has broken the walls between field, by showing that the field relate, many people tend to build walls with field specific grammar.
I saw Wilson lecture on his new book, The Creation. Very interesting, but I got the feeling that he was repacking the same info for the political climate of today (ie. the culture wars). Brilliant guy though. I know he makes the point that it's not often that scientist are able to put their thoughts into words. He's an example of a scientist who can write and convey complex ideas.
That show a problem with the way people think about science. Read E. O. Wilson's Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge on why we should apply the scientific method to all field, even humanities, and why we should try to speak about all fields with a common language.
For instance, an example of applying science to humanities, would be writing about history in a scientific way. May not seem important if you view the people on Earth in as the only society, but if you were trying to compare the history of peoples on many different planets, then it would be very important.
People with a computer science background should know the importance of having a common language to speak, or speaking in the simplest terms. If someone throws acronyms at you, they likely don't know what they are talking about. All field, psychology, history, and cs are related. They should use common terms, or so Wilson would have you believe.
A truly liberal education would show you that all fields relate, and depend on one another.
No, Clinton did not do the same thing. Clinton and Bush both fired all the US attorneys at the beginning of their terms.
I know the difference you are speaking of. At the same time, to think that their is much difference between Democrats and Republicans is a mistake. Democrats provide only a kinder form of facism.
Really? Why is the that the oil money payouts or the military contract accounts are the only ones that ever get deleted? The IRS is using the same database that they've been using for the past fifty plus years, but they never seem to have that problem.
It still won't parse the DOM. Stuff that is simple in Firefox, will never work in IE 7.0. I gave up trying to get some features to work.
For instance, I have this js based terminal emulator. I don't want to edit that package, but just use js to read some fields. This is sexy in Firefox, but no chance in IE 7.0.
if (document.Form1.tsprog.value == 'fibfm' || document.Form1.tsprog.value == 'FIBFM'){
var pwrap = document.getElementById("pbsiwrap");
var cells = pbsiwrap.getElementsByTagName("span");
var item = cells[12].textContent;
document.getElementById ("headspot").innerHTML = '';
}
There's enough companies that profit from Wikimedia's existence. Think 6006. They have tons of money, and should donate. I donate enough time to *trying* to help the sorry shape of many of their articles (yes, they have many bad ones). I'm not going to spend any more time to do that is some company is benefiting from overt advertisements.
Some companies just profit by people being on the web. Some big search companies who sell ads, and who really like Jimmy. These, or this, big company wants all info on the web, but they don't want people to get spooked, so they get Jimmy to host the data, and they spend their time selling ads, and giving Jimmy the kick backs.
By the way, free web hosting sounds different than "here's your personal wiki page, good luck maintaining it."
Anyway, that's just one way the could make a buck.
Just an idea, but maybe Google is the competition of the Internet. Google indexes almost every web page worth reading, or they would have you think they do. The keep indexes over time of the changes of the pages. They index their index of the pages, and then they form opinions on the page.
This begs the question, is Google part of the Internet, or is the Internet now a subset of Google?
Last month Universal accused MySpace of infringing its copyrights by allowing its customers to post music videos from artists such as Jay-Z on the site without permission.
The basis of their argument is that they are allowing users to post Jay-Z videos, just like I'm sure they allow Universal to request there deletion. The gun manufactures tried this argument before. Guns allow people to kill each other. They also allow people to protect themselves. Allowing a crime is far from facilitating it. Myspace, sucks as it does, provides many with legal entertainment. Just because a few are able to abuse the system, doesn't mean that Rupt owes Univ a tax.
I believe that the CIA using open technologies such as a wiki or a blog only shows the strength of sharing. I don't think this is new info. Someone was fired from the CIA a while ago for blogging about torture. So, even though they got the open software, it seems like they still don't now how to use it correctly.
They have their own classified wiki? I wonder if it has different levels of classification. Like, you can see this post, but your login doesn't have clearance for this post.
Anyway, I say go open source community! You are making the world better.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that it's hit or miss. My install took an extra 45 minutes, because I was using a KVM cable, and Ubuntu couldn't figure out the monitor specs, so it defaulted the resolution. Once I got that worked out, I got the real KVM working, so now I can run virtual systems on the kernel. So, I have Ubuntu with Windows XP running virtual (the only reason for XP is Visual Studio, because sometimes I need to compile stuff for Windows). All in all, it's a good system, but I may need to duel boot to do graphics work for Windows systems. No virtual OpenGL support.
Project Teaspoon
Lots of bugs in my line of work are caused by input not being validated by the person who wrote the original code. The user will enter bunk data because of no validation, then call in a month or two later to complain when the program crashes. I try to tell my manager, for fucks-sake, lets validate the flipping user input. They don't want to hear it saying that the clients will lose "features." I tell the that the data doesn't make any sense. The problem comes with indexes defined as unique, and programs not forcing the user input to be unique. Instead of validating the input to make sure it's unique, they want to add a time stamp to the fn index. WTF!
Better now:)
I'll one up you. Google purchased YouTube, not because they wanted to be sued, but because they couldn't get users to put their content on Google Video. Google Video seems to have more features, and I'd rather watch video their or embed their videos, but their lectures and documentaries clearly are not near as "cool."
And, if Google can't do it, I can't see how NBC is going to make this work. Are they going to publish their entire archive, so I can embed it on my site, and make ad revenue off of it? Doubt it! Are they going to force me to site through a minute of ads before a video starts, and then break-up longer videos into multiple parts that force me to watch more ads? Very likely! Will they try to use MS's media player to protect their content, making it not work on many systems? That's what they've always done in the past! To me, this sounds like a waste of money on their side.
No, phones come and go, but a simple music device that can hold all your songs is immortal. For example, I wouldn't want my mp3 player and music collection to become dated when the address book software on the phone is no longer updated.
The part that gets me is the reclassified as hourly. If I moved across the country to work for them, took a lower pay to do it, and then got reclassified, I'd be angry.
Perhaps he says they should all be published under the same paradigm, and not in clear groups as shown by the graph. If there's a concilience of the language that we use, this could happen.
Perhaps it has something to do with simplifying the language. The math I understand, I understand because I can read the equations. I know algebra, because I know that it's about doing whatever you must to find the value of x, and not really about knowing to do the same operations to both sides of an equation. It's not hard to understand calc if you know that you are looking for the rate of change, but somehow mathematicians find a way to make that incredibly hard. They should try to make it easier. Again, I'm not advocating COLBOL. But, I advocate writing your scientific findings in a way that interested people can understand without having to get an advanced degree. That way, we can share the knowledge across fields.
Perhaps take literature as an example. Why does Shakespeare write better than I? Merging that with history, and ask why does Alexander Pushkin write in a different language than Shakespeare? Seems obvious, but that could be because of our, or just my, ignorance. If you find out the real scientific reason why, then literature might be closer to neurosurgery. Toss me in the mix, and I'll want to apply it to AI.
If you get that far, you could use science to study the history of other species, and why they don't write poetry, or why some other society far away might.
I'll leave you with a poem that Wilson may or may not enjoy:
I guess the point of that is, the past isn't that far away. I doubt the past went anywhere. It's still here.
Now, you say "can't go back in time to see how Genghis Khan would have reacted to any change we might introduce." That is true, and Wilson agrees. But, I think he believes it's because the history was written poorly. That is why he's pushing for a unity of knowledge. He wants us to write the history in a more scientific and dispassionate way, so we can study these changes. Instead we rely on the corporate media in most cases.
Anyway, history is just a topic I brought up. He writes about it in his book, but I'm not sure how much of a focus it is.
Ok, one more example. We are planing a trip to the moon in ten or twenty years. NASA didn't keep a scientific record of the last Lunar landing. If they did, it would help us in the next trip. If they kept better historical records, we would benefit today. You could come up with other theories about that, apply the scientific method to that, and you may also benefit.
Cheers!
For example, if I say relational database, and you pull out an excel file, I'll know you're not the architect I'm looking for.
Good point. But if you say context switch, and I look confused because I learned that as a process switch, it doesn't mean I'm confused about operating systems or the multi-threaded programming used to create them.
I haven't read the book since 1999, and I haven't taken many higher level history classes, so I'm not sure how they teach it today. Though I would agree that new knowledge has broken the walls between field, by showing that the field relate, many people tend to build walls with field specific grammar.
I saw Wilson lecture on his new book, The Creation. Very interesting, but I got the feeling that he was repacking the same info for the political climate of today (ie. the culture wars). Brilliant guy though. I know he makes the point that it's not often that scientist are able to put their thoughts into words. He's an example of a scientist who can write and convey complex ideas.
That show a problem with the way people think about science. Read E. O. Wilson's Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge on why we should apply the scientific method to all field, even humanities, and why we should try to speak about all fields with a common language.
For instance, an example of applying science to humanities, would be writing about history in a scientific way. May not seem important if you view the people on Earth in as the only society, but if you were trying to compare the history of peoples on many different planets, then it would be very important.
People with a computer science background should know the importance of having a common language to speak, or speaking in the simplest terms. If someone throws acronyms at you, they likely don't know what they are talking about. All field, psychology, history, and cs are related. They should use common terms, or so Wilson would have you believe.
A truly liberal education would show you that all fields relate, and depend on one another.
No, Clinton did not do the same thing. Clinton and Bush both fired all the US attorneys at the beginning of their terms.
I know the difference you are speaking of. At the same time, to think that their is much difference between Democrats and Republicans is a mistake. Democrats provide only a kinder form of facism.
To err is human, to really f-up requires root.
From , "nine months worth of information concerning the yearly payout from the Alaska Permanent Fund was gone."
Really? Why is the that the oil money payouts or the military contract accounts are the only ones that ever get deleted? The IRS is using the same database that they've been using for the past fifty plus years, but they never seem to have that problem.
They're working on Internet360, which is 120 times better than plain old Internet3.
Or, 120 degrees in the wrong direction.
It still won't parse the DOM. Stuff that is simple in Firefox, will never work in IE 7.0. I gave up trying to get some features to work.
For instance, I have this js based terminal emulator. I don't want to edit that package, but just use js to read some fields. This is sexy in Firefox, but no chance in IE 7.0.
if (document.Form1.tsprog.value == 'fibfm' || document.Form1.tsprog.value == 'FIBFM'){
var pwrap = document.getElementById("pbsiwrap");
var cells = pbsiwrap.getElementsByTagName("span");
var item = cells[12].textContent;
document.getElementById ("headspot").innerHTML = '';
}
All the start-ups have no chance.
Remember, no one hears you scream when you are being censored.
There's enough companies that profit from Wikimedia's existence. Think 6006. They have tons of money, and should donate. I donate enough time to *trying* to help the sorry shape of many of their articles (yes, they have many bad ones). I'm not going to spend any more time to do that is some company is benefiting from overt advertisements.
No, but you might expect that.
60 Minutes covered this about two years ago. It's a good segment if you can find the video.
Some companies just profit by people being on the web. Some big search companies who sell ads, and who really like Jimmy. These, or this, big company wants all info on the web, but they don't want people to get spooked, so they get Jimmy to host the data, and they spend their time selling ads, and giving Jimmy the kick backs.
By the way, free web hosting sounds different than "here's your personal wiki page, good luck maintaining it."
Anyway, that's just one way the could make a buck.
Just an idea, but maybe Google is the competition of the Internet. Google indexes almost every web page worth reading, or they would have you think they do. The keep indexes over time of the changes of the pages. They index their index of the pages, and then they form opinions on the page.
This begs the question, is Google part of the Internet, or is the Internet now a subset of Google?
The basis of their argument is that they are allowing users to post Jay-Z videos, just like I'm sure they allow Universal to request there deletion. The gun manufactures tried this argument before. Guns allow people to kill each other. They also allow people to protect themselves. Allowing a crime is far from facilitating it. Myspace, sucks as it does, provides many with legal entertainment. Just because a few are able to abuse the system, doesn't mean that Rupt owes Univ a tax.
I believe that the CIA using open technologies such as a wiki or a blog only shows the strength of sharing. I don't think this is new info. Someone was fired from the CIA a while ago for blogging about torture. So, even though they got the open software, it seems like they still don't now how to use it correctly.
They have their own classified wiki? I wonder if it has different levels of classification. Like, you can see this post, but your login doesn't have clearance for this post.
Anyway, I say go open source community! You are making the world better.
I'll forgo my thoughts on the 9/11 cOmmission report, only to say that today is 1911 days since the attack.