Comment Re:Putin and freedom !!?? (Score 1) 500
I am pretty sure that Putin don't care about the freedom part of free software
He's into the "free as in vodka" part of it, I'm sure.
I am pretty sure that Putin don't care about the freedom part of free software
He's into the "free as in vodka" part of it, I'm sure.
They should be tossing hamsters or other small rodents into their server rooms. That'll show em.
Sure, but it's awfully hard to do that from your mom's basement.
Not really, the Internet is like a series of tubes. Like a Habitrail.
Which, ironically, you can buy at Amazon during a DDoS attack!
On that note, I wish pounds weren't used to measure anything.
If I had a pound for every time someone misused pound as a unit, I'd be rich!
(1) It's harder to *get at* the nuts an bolts now- there are far more layers of abstraction in the way.
(2) Back in the 70's and much of the 80's, home computers were owned by hobbyists, not Joe Sixpack, so most people involved were inclined towards curiosity about how shit worked. Now there still some - more on an absolute scale, but fewer percentage wise.
(3) Now it's possible to use a computer without knowing anything theoretical. Back then, it was not, so it was required that people were technical.
I'e been reading about all these neat projects about microcontrollers in the last few years and in the last month, I've gotten my new AVR dev board up and running, a fun first project on the breadboard, and I'm re-aquainting myself with C. What great fun it is to be back to programming "on the hardware" so-to-speak. I'm rediscovering just how really fast 4MHz can be. The day job/career has evolved more and more towards the business side of things and just no longer feels fascinating or even interesting in many ways. And when it is time to get into code, I'm not really learning new, clever, interesting ways to accomplish something, I'm learning yet another arbitrary framework or library - which I have to in order to keep up in the job market.
I also noticed that in the late 90's the answers to my typical "get to know you" questions when interviewing job candidates changed from "I've always been interested in electronics/computers/technology/science growing up" to "My high school counselor said there are good jobs in computers, so I took some classes ".
I've also noticed that people in the workforce are reluctant to apply themselves to learning office suites. Back in the DOS/Word Perfect days, people would take classes at night school to "learn computers" because it was becoming evident that they would need these skills in their jobs soon. Now I see that since most people haev computers with Windows at home, they all think they "know computers" but cannot find a file twice, can't map a network drive, and constantly go to a local expert rather than look in Help in their application.
Some people like to believe that our accomplishments mean something. The longer they or the follow-ons they enable endure, the better. If we wipe ourselves out all of that goes to zero instantly
Exactly my point, our "accomplishments" don't mean anything in the grand scale that those, like Hawking, should understand so well. Our accomplishments only mean something to ourselves. And if we're gone - either by natural means or by our own hand - there won't be anyone to know or care about it. People talk as if we have some impact on the universe and that our absence will be equally impactful - we don't even qualify as a blip.
If you believe none of that, shoot yourself in the head now. It's not like you'll exist to miss anything! If that doesn't strike you as a good idea, perhaps you will one day extrapolate your reasoning to the rest of humanity.
No, I'm not going to shoot myself in the head, I'm living my life now the best I can. I *do* have an impact in my local social and family circle. But really, not much beyond that. Extrapolated out, we do have an impact on our own existence and our extended human family, but not much beyond that.
Perhaps the great minds do see clearly a way around the crap that leads economists and leaders to spout platitudes about supply and demand and such while themselves suffering none of the ill effects. It is, after all illogical to claim the problems insoluble when we know that adequate resources exist (the supply) to meet the demand. Perhaps they hope that we can evolve beyond that without resorting to an ethically questionable extermination of those who can't or won't get with the program (before they proceed further with ethically challenged programs of war that could well exterminate everyone).
Then I suggest they use their great minds to solve the causes of self-destruction hear-and-now rather than try to solve the symptoms in some pie-in-the-sky far-off maybe-we'll-beat-the-odds future space utopia.
We don't even have a good *proposal* for long-term space survival (bio-environment, radiation protection, etc), let alone the ability to actually do it. It's pathetic that we sent some guys up to the moon in a relative tin-can and think that we're "space travelers" - some people have been mixing up their science fiction with their science. Just read up on how much lead, water, or voltage it takes to shield from inter-planetary radiation - that's going to be problem #1. The Apollo astronauts saw sparkles in their vision due to the radiation - even when their eyes were closed. And we're going to live how long out there? Then we're going to build a totally sustainable environment on a planet somewhere?
It looks to me like we need to solve the problems we have here now, first. But are we too entrenched in our social/economical/religious hang-ups to come out of it? If so, maybe we don't qualify for inter-planetary colonization - hence my original post regarding things turning out pretty much as they have.
Hawking has repeatedly stated that if we are to survive long term as a species, we will have to inhabit other worlds or at least colonize space
And I thought guys like this were supposed to be *smart* and understand the scope and scale of things universal. Why exactly, does the universe need or want us to survive? If the universe doesn't need us, why do *we* need us? Our likely eventual nuclear destruction won't even register as background noise. You know, if the LHC creates a black hole and sucks in the Earth and 7 billion people into in in a minute, I'm OK with that - really. Nobody will be around *not* to be OK with it.
So let's say that we do colonize space and/or other worlds. Why do these guys think that the "colonists" won't end up just like us in due time? Because they'll all be peaceful, collective "space hippies"? Puhhhleeze. How odd that incredibly intelligent people who study nature on the grandest of scales refuse to acklowledge nature's most basic laws such as supply-and-demand of limited resources which create greed, jealousy, crime, class separation, etc.
Drive a Malibu and a Belair into a lake and see who gets out before drowning.
Chances are the Belair driver will survive, because it doesn't have electric windows. The electrics go almost imediately underwater and you can't roll down the windows and with the windows closed you can't open the doors because of the pressure.
1) And you think the electrics will go out "almost immediately" why? Can you provide any basis for your statement? I believe Mythbusters tested this an found that the electric windows will operate submerged for over an hour. Electricity would much rather travel through wires than water. Fresh water is a rather poor conductor by comparison. OK, salt water will conduct much better than fresh water so don't crash into the Dead Sea.
2) The newer car may be more airtight, lengthening the time for someone to gather their wits after impact and take some good breaths of air before they...
3)
"I've seen it. It's rubbish." -- Marvin the Paranoid Android