TiVo and that Xerox printer @ MIT are apples and pineapples.
The principle is exactly the same. There was software that came with the device and they wanted the ability to modify it. Just because you could treat the TiVo as a black box doesn't mean there couldn't be value in being able to alter the source code on the TiVo itself.
I'm theorizing that Java took off because despite being further behind in enterprise architecture than C at the time (remember Tuxedo et al), it had a support community that didn't encumber the companies, so they backed this stream.
Java took off because C/C++ are a bear to work with, the time was right, and Sun was good at marketing, not because of some Apache libraries that were developed behind the popularity of Java.
Dammit, Slashdot you have some of the best commenters here but you're wasting our time making us get about 30 comments in before someone posts the correction to the flawed summaries.
By the time I read it, using my Slashdot settings it was the second post I read. The moderation system mostly works.
So for a community that is expert on Forks, why can't we just Fork Slashdot?
Wasn't that essentionally what Technocrat was?
The only value they offer is the "summaries" and *every single one is wrong*.
The continuous plane is infinite too, yet the seminal math proof using computers was the four-color map theorem, which sparked a controversy that continues to this day:
"Appel and Haken's approach started by showing that there is a particular set of 1,936 maps, each of which cannot be part of a smallest-sized counterexample to the four color theorem. Appel and Haken used a special-purpose computer program to confirm that each of these maps had this property."
a summary that was quite excited to point out that computation isn't the same as proof
It doesn't say that. It says, "Notice that no computers were involved in the proof -- this is classical mathematical proof involving logical deductions rather than exhaustive search."
If you're going to bitch, at least complain about the incorrect statement of the theorem.
Ads on the Internet were interesting 10-15 years ago... Small static banners advertising stuff that might even be relevant for a student/nerd like me at that time. Today they lie ("You have won!", "You may be at risk..." etc.), flash, jump, shake, slide over content etc. and that beyond obnoxious.
Sorry, but even back then they were obnoxious. There was like maybe a year of ads that were like you describe, then it quickly degenerated into crap "Punch the monkey!" type ads, animated images, flash animations, pop-ups, pup-unders, and sound. By 1999 it was already a cesspit.
Whenever I happen to unblock ads or surf from other machines, the ads are all over the place
Same here. The unfiltered Internet is always a shock to me.
You assume that everyone will do so when provided with basic income. I very much doubt that most people would actually be satisfied with it in practice (most weren't in the Mincome experiment).
I didn't assume it would be everyone, just enough that the eventual drain on society would be too large. You also have to consider evolutionary pressures. People who don't want to work and have a lot of kids will start to flood the gene pool.
Also, you still don't provide a citation with any figures, but make claims to what "most" people did.
I should have been clearer - it is not sustainable in a sense that there simply isn't enough work to go around for everyone if you implement automation wherever possible
I understood that. However, I believe there is always work that can be done that can't be automated or would benefit from human input, just that much of it isn't done because it doesn't make economic sense. At the very least, you could mandate that they spend their time on education instead of turning into Eloi.
I do not consider everyone working to be some kind of moral imperative. It's not sustainable, in any case, with further automation
Alternatively, having people pop out kids without working isn't sustainable either. I also dispute the idea that having everybody work isn't sustainable. Maybe it isn't in a basic free market economy where so much is automated, but at the least there's always marginal work to be done that the free market doesn't address. At the minimum, workfare of at least 4 hours a day should be required.
You would still earn much more by being productive, so I don't see motivation to work as a problem.
Some people are fine with just getting by if it means not working. We've all seen the large welfare families.
And yes, it has been tried in real life, and did work just fine.
Your link contains very few details, and does not tell us if people worked more or less, or if they had more kids or fewer, or any kind of numbers to say whether the program was sustainable or not. In fact, it even contains the concern right in the article, but without any answer: " 'Politically, there was a concern that if you began a guaranteed annual income, people would stop working and start having large families,' Forget said."
I'm gonna go ahead and cite the Ken Thompson hack here:
You don't give a proper cite (as in a link), but a quick search shows that you're quoting somebody on a laid back wiki (c2 is definitely not the same league as Wikipedia) who incorrectly remembers what Ken Thompson's fundamental point was.
Rather than quote from a wiki, I'll quote from the actual Ken Thompson paper: "The moral is obvious. You can't trust code that you did not totally create yourself."
There's a big difference in the nature of the attack that Ken Thompson was talking about (trojan) versus software with security bugs. In reality, the sinister Ken Thompson trojan that infects binaries at a deep level (in his case, the compiler) is pretty rare and not the cause of the typical malware incidents seen in practice.
What's worse, the school district seems to be covering up any attempt to find out if that's the reason why she resigned.
This, to me, is the real story. From the article:
"The district denied requests for related documents through Missouri's open records law, saying they are confidential personnel records. Losos will be paid through June."
It's disgusting that the school board is even trying to keep this under wraps, let alone getting away with it. I hope the voters make them accountable.
I'm afraid so. Most people just don't have a problem with it. But as I've said, I've got my own pet peeves, so I can sympathize.
We already have a phrase that means "raises the question": it's "raises the question". It's not at all clear to me why that one could not have been used.
Probably because people like the way it sounds and that it adds emphasis.
I can only say that getting this shit wrong interferes unnecessarily with communication.
It's obvious in context what is meant.
Why I should have to carry more than my own 50% of the load of the task of communication is quite beyond me.
You don't have to, and it's presumptious of you to claim so.
I can sympathize with the principle, and I have my own pet peeves that I grumble about, but language is always under tension between popular usage and conservative, "correct" usage. This particular case I don't care about, and I agree with the viewpoint that the phrase is so prone to being misunderstood that it should be abandoned.
Think of this another way: do you encrypt your USB drives if you are just transferring your files from one computer to another in your house? Even if the files are sensitive, it's a waste of time, because the drive isn't intended to be removed from your house.
I don't run a worldwide terrorist organization that's goals are driven by religous zeal and that I'd want to keep going despite my death. He fucked up.
I do believe that Google's choice to go with Java as its main language may prove to be a mistake, though. I think it made that decision out of a desire to move quickly against Apple, but it did it in a kinda sneaky way and it ended up getting bitten. How badly remains to be seen.
I don't think it was a mistake, given the traction they've gained with it. They knew full well the whole thing could turn out ugly -- the released email from the lawsuit makes for interesting reading. They did try to play nice with Sun and get a proper license, but not too suprisingly Sun wasn't willing to relinquish control.
There's a big difference between the scenario you originally presented and what actually occurred. His own family alerted authorities (which you twisted into "more angry at his parents than the US or any 'infidels'"), and he was actively seeking outside help (which you misrepresented as "by all accounts had no prior involvement in anything radical beyond browsing the internet"). When somebody calls you on that it's poor form to complain about how far they went along before they arrested him.
But whatever, your original, mistaken post went to +5, and your followup post went to +3. Good for you and the dumb moderators who modded you up.
So first you post an inaccurate statement, then when corrected you move the goalposts and ask why did they let him follow through to the end instead of arresting him earlier.
The screaming boss monster. You know the one. It notices you, turns, opens its jaws and lets out The Scream. It's in every fucking game (or so it seems), and almost always in a trailer for the game.
Slashdot Mirror
Rather than do it via DNS or IP blocking they commanded banks and payment processors to block financial transaction to those sites instead.
Later on, they seized domains too: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/16/feds_online_poker/
TiVo and that Xerox printer @ MIT are apples and pineapples.
The principle is exactly the same. There was software that came with the device and they wanted the ability to modify it. Just because you could treat the TiVo as a black box doesn't mean there couldn't be value in being able to alter the source code on the TiVo itself.
I'm theorizing that Java took off because despite being further behind in enterprise architecture than C at the time (remember Tuxedo et al), it had a support community that didn't encumber the companies, so they backed this stream.
Java took off because C/C++ are a bear to work with, the time was right, and Sun was good at marketing, not because of some Apache libraries that were developed behind the popularity of Java.
Dammit, Slashdot you have some of the best commenters here but you're wasting our time making us get about 30 comments in before someone posts the correction to the flawed summaries.
By the time I read it, using my Slashdot settings it was the second post I read. The moderation system mostly works.
So for a community that is expert on Forks, why can't we just Fork Slashdot?
Wasn't that essentionally what Technocrat was?
The only value they offer is the "summaries" and *every single one is wrong*.
Oh really?
We lost our leader anyway
Speak for yourself.
The continuous plane is infinite too, yet the seminal math proof using computers was the four-color map theorem, which sparked a controversy that continues to this day:
"Appel and Haken's approach started by showing that there is a particular set of 1,936 maps, each of which cannot be part of a smallest-sized counterexample to the four color theorem. Appel and Haken used a special-purpose computer program to confirm that each of these maps had this property."
a summary that was quite excited to point out that computation isn't the same as proof
It doesn't say that. It says, "Notice that no computers were involved in the proof -- this is classical mathematical proof involving logical deductions rather than exhaustive search."
If you're going to bitch, at least complain about the incorrect statement of the theorem.
I can't tell if this post is intended as sarcasm or not.
Ads on the Internet were interesting 10-15 years ago... Small static banners advertising stuff that might even be relevant for a student/nerd like me at that time. Today they lie ("You have won!", "You may be at risk..." etc.), flash, jump, shake, slide over content etc. and that beyond obnoxious.
Sorry, but even back then they were obnoxious. There was like maybe a year of ads that were like you describe, then it quickly degenerated into crap "Punch the monkey!" type ads, animated images, flash animations, pop-ups, pup-unders, and sound. By 1999 it was already a cesspit.
Whenever I happen to unblock ads or surf from other machines, the ads are all over the place
Same here. The unfiltered Internet is always a shock to me.
I replied here to "shutdown -p now", who was making essentially the same points.
You assume that everyone will do so when provided with basic income. I very much doubt that most people would actually be satisfied with it in practice (most weren't in the Mincome experiment).
I didn't assume it would be everyone, just enough that the eventual drain on society would be too large. You also have to consider evolutionary pressures. People who don't want to work and have a lot of kids will start to flood the gene pool.
Also, you still don't provide a citation with any figures, but make claims to what "most" people did.
I should have been clearer - it is not sustainable in a sense that there simply isn't enough work to go around for everyone if you implement automation wherever possible
I understood that. However, I believe there is always work that can be done that can't be automated or would benefit from human input, just that much of it isn't done because it doesn't make economic sense. At the very least, you could mandate that they spend their time on education instead of turning into Eloi.
I didn't say the rich should have everything and the poor should starve. I believe in workfare, not mincome.
I do not consider everyone working to be some kind of moral imperative. It's not sustainable, in any case, with further automation
Alternatively, having people pop out kids without working isn't sustainable either. I also dispute the idea that having everybody work isn't sustainable. Maybe it isn't in a basic free market economy where so much is automated, but at the least there's always marginal work to be done that the free market doesn't address. At the minimum, workfare of at least 4 hours a day should be required.
You would still earn much more by being productive, so I don't see motivation to work as a problem.
Some people are fine with just getting by if it means not working. We've all seen the large welfare families.
And yes, it has been tried in real life, and did work just fine.
Your link contains very few details, and does not tell us if people worked more or less, or if they had more kids or fewer, or any kind of numbers to say whether the program was sustainable or not. In fact, it even contains the concern right in the article, but without any answer: " 'Politically, there was a concern that if you began a guaranteed annual income, people would stop working and start having large families,' Forget said."
I'm fine with a flat income tax, but only once there's guaranteed unconditional basic income for everyone that is enough for simple but decent living.
So you're going to reward people to sit at home and pop out kids?
I'm gonna go ahead and cite the Ken Thompson hack here:
You don't give a proper cite (as in a link), but a quick search shows that you're quoting somebody on a laid back wiki (c2 is definitely not the same league as Wikipedia) who incorrectly remembers what Ken Thompson's fundamental point was.
Rather than quote from a wiki, I'll quote from the actual Ken Thompson paper: "The moral is obvious. You can't trust code that you did not totally create yourself."
There's a big difference in the nature of the attack that Ken Thompson was talking about (trojan) versus software with security bugs. In reality, the sinister Ken Thompson trojan that infects binaries at a deep level (in his case, the compiler) is pretty rare and not the cause of the typical malware incidents seen in practice.
What's worse, the school district seems to be covering up any attempt to find out if that's the reason why she resigned.
This, to me, is the real story. From the article:
"The district denied requests for related documents through Missouri's open records law, saying they are confidential personnel records. Losos will be paid through June."
It's disgusting that the school board is even trying to keep this under wraps, let alone getting away with it. I hope the voters make them accountable.
Maybe I'm just irritable
I'm afraid so. Most people just don't have a problem with it. But as I've said, I've got my own pet peeves, so I can sympathize.
We already have a phrase that means "raises the question": it's "raises the question". It's not at all clear to me why that one could not have been used.
Probably because people like the way it sounds and that it adds emphasis.
I can only say that getting this shit wrong interferes unnecessarily with communication.
It's obvious in context what is meant.
Why I should have to carry more than my own 50% of the load of the task of communication is quite beyond me.
You don't have to, and it's presumptious of you to claim so.
I can sympathize with the principle, and I have my own pet peeves that I grumble about, but language is always under tension between popular usage and conservative, "correct" usage. This particular case I don't care about, and I agree with the viewpoint that the phrase is so prone to being misunderstood that it should be abandoned.
Think of this another way: do you encrypt your USB drives if you are just transferring your files from one computer to another in your house? Even if the files are sensitive, it's a waste of time, because the drive isn't intended to be removed from your house.
I don't run a worldwide terrorist organization that's goals are driven by religous zeal and that I'd want to keep going despite my death. He fucked up.
I do believe that Google's choice to go with Java as its main language may prove to be a mistake, though. I think it made that decision out of a desire to move quickly against Apple, but it did it in a kinda sneaky way and it ended up getting bitten. How badly remains to be seen.
I don't think it was a mistake, given the traction they've gained with it. They knew full well the whole thing could turn out ugly -- the released email from the lawsuit makes for interesting reading. They did try to play nice with Sun and get a proper license, but not too suprisingly Sun wasn't willing to relinquish control.
Find me [..] Find me [..] Find me [..] find me [..] find me
Where's Waldo?
There's a big difference between the scenario you originally presented and what actually occurred. His own family alerted authorities (which you twisted into "more angry at his parents than the US or any 'infidels'"), and he was actively seeking outside help (which you misrepresented as "by all accounts had no prior involvement in anything radical beyond browsing the internet"). When somebody calls you on that it's poor form to complain about how far they went along before they arrested him.
But whatever, your original, mistaken post went to +5, and your followup post went to +3. Good for you and the dumb moderators who modded you up.
So first you post an inaccurate statement, then when corrected you move the goalposts and ask why did they let him follow through to the end instead of arresting him earlier.
List missing cliches here
The screaming boss monster. You know the one. It notices you, turns, opens its jaws and lets out The Scream. It's in every fucking game (or so it seems), and almost always in a trailer for the game.
RIP Linux - we're all using Macs now.
Nice job, Mac fags.