Was it really foresight, or were they just dealing with the same issues mankind has been grappling with since we became sentient? I'll go out on a limb here, since I don't have hard evidence, but these writings were probably informed by *hindsight* more than prescience. Or to put it another way, the brilliant men and women we lump together with the term "founding fathers" were presenting solutions to problems that affected the society they were living in at the time, or societies from their past that happened to leave behind documentation about what worked and what failed.
Nobody really cares about the bigger KDE4 story. It's kind of like the "bigger hammer redesign story". It's nice to make things easy for the hammer designers, but if it can't pound in nails like it used to, it's not really a very good hammer, is it? But hey, it does wrench-stuff too now, so that old-fashioned hammer stuff that used to work perfectly isn't that important, right? You really want a wrench to pound in those nails. Yeah, we know it's not a great wrench/hammer yet, but we're working on it.
KDE4 is kind of like that. Things that used to work before suddenly were broken or "coming soon". Different ways of "striking the nail" were introduced when the old ways seemed to work just fine. Not a problem, aside from the fact that the new ways didn't always work as well.
A desktop environment is a tool as is everything else on a computer. People use a computer as a tool to *do* things, and most of those things (almost all of them) don't involve futzing around with the tool itself. If a development team doesn't understand that basic fact, they run the risk of redesigning the tool without full awareness of what needs to absolutely work and what is optional.
KDE4 is shaping up to be a fine desktop environment. It just got there in a roundabout way that could have been a lot less painful had the developers connected with the community better so that the important stuff was working first.
My biggest fear is now that things are working well, people are going to get bored, throw everything out the window and start hacking on KDE5 rather than making KDE4 realize its ful potential.
Re:Per-desktop activities assignments
on
KDE 4.3 Released
·
· Score: 1
I see that ignorance is still bliss.
Do you care to dispell that ignorance? Can you explain concisely how plasma activities are different from virtual desktops? And how they are an improvement over that approach that will make the desktop experience better?
I've been on the desktop environment treadmill since the days of Macintosh and GEM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_Environment_Manager), and I don't understand what the hell plasma activities are supposed to do either. I'd love to ascend to the next level of desktop enlightenment, having traveled so far and learned so much. But... forgive me, master... I do not know the way. Please. Enlighten me.
Yeah. Been there, done that. At some point I realized that my time was worth more than what it would take to do what you describe. Paying someone to do most of the job while I observe and ask questions, then take a few minutes or hours to fix what didn't get done right is still cheaper than days or weeks of wrangling. Once I realized I was paying for my own education rather than getting the job done exactly right, the way to maximize my investment was a lot clearer. I'll still pay for physical labor I don't want to do myself, but hiring skilled tradesmen is now a way to learn what I need to carry out a task myself.
Makes sense. I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt and retract my accusation of incompetence.
It does seem like a bit more applied science to work out the kinks in this 'relatively new bit of technology' would be in order before committing billions. Lots of cutting edge science could be done with equipment that is known to work. Just sayin'.
Installing a sink. Geez. Anyone who even understands what the LHC is would know that it's not quite the same as that. We're talking about advancing the state of human knowledge, not fraking up the commonplace. Doesn't mean it can't be screwed up by incompetetence.
The science of electricity spans something like 300 years, so when I read statements such as "The biggest, most expensive physics machine in the world is riddled with thousands of bad electrical connections", I have to wonder how this can happen. The art of creating good electrical connections is not cutting edge any longer. "Unforeseen conseqences of standard techniques applied is completely unique situations" is not a result of bad foresight, it's a result of bad engineering. In the electrical field, the abundance of examples of "non-unique" situations should be enough to provide experience to properly handle "completely unique" situations. Hell, if anything, this can be tested in a controlled environment beforehand. Electrical connections are no longer a mystery. We know how to deal with this kind of thing.
So, I can only assume incompetence is the cause of this current fiasco. Whether it is on the part of the electricians, or the people supervising the work is irrelevant. If good elecrical connections sufficient to meet the needs of the LHC are within the realm of what is known by humans, then I'll cry "incompetence".
Ok, I'm officially depressed. Or maybe elated, since my penchant for "do it myself" has been validated.
We're in danger of totally hijacking this story on a non-relevant tangent, so I don't want to add fuel to the fire any more. Please - no more posts on the specifics of the above posts.
The original premise still stands, however. I'll restate it as follows:
Are the bad electrical connections of the LHC the result of shoddy workmanship as a result of the decline in professional ethics? I'd really like to hear from people in the region. Are the tradesmen of Europe declining as they are here in North America? Do folks in the area surrounding the LHC have trouble finding competent tradesmen? Could your own experiences as a private citizen shed light on why a major (and extremely expensive) scientific endeavor is having trouble?
If this is a general trend, those of us in a position to do something about it (by influencing the next generation) will at least have a reason for being obnoxious pains-in-the-asses. In good times, I find that annoying character traits such as expecting quality services for payment rendered tends to place me in the position of "difficult and demanding elitist" rather than "conventional recipient of value recieved for value given". I'll pay you well for good work, if you are capable of providing it...
I've lived in the Southwest. Not that different, really. Most of the 'state-licensed' contractors here in Connecticut (my home for the last 2 years) haven't returned phone calls, shown up on time and are flaky or unreliable. They are decidedly NOT illegals - these are people that I've picked out of the available pool *because* they actually have a license to operate within the state. I shudder to think what havok the "illegal" population would wreak. Actually, they could not do much worse than the so-called professionals.
The explanation from the long time locals used to be that "they have more work than they can handle". Surprisingly, nobody seems to be eager for work now that the economy is down. And I'm not talking "I''ll pay you half your normal rate because you need the money and have no work" - I *still* can't get people to return my calls. I have no idea WTF they are doing to earn money. I'm not sure they want to. People just seem to put their houses up for sale and disappear.
But back to the original story - I'm still not sure whether the requirements of the LHC were just too close to the cutting edge, or whether they just could not find competent people to do good work.
I have all the respect in the world for competent tradesmen, but I loathe the incompetents. I am happy to pay for good work, but I can't abide shoddy work.
... best of what's still around.
I've noticed a distinct decline in the quality of professional services in the last decade. In the midwest and the New England region of the US, at least. Based on this story, maybe the same is happening in Europe. In the past 2 years, I've had electricians, plumbers, painters, carpenters and landscapers at the house to execute various jobs I have needed. In most cases, I have had to fix problems myself after the "professional tradesman" declared the job finished, wrote up an invoice for his/her expensive services and departed. In almost all cases, I could have done the job more carefully and better myself if only I had the time. Ironically, everyone to a man was extremely skilled at the invoicing and billing process. When it comes to getting paid, everyone is a genius. Pride in the work? Not so much.
This story about the LHC sounds eerily familiar. Assuming the work was done by the local (or imported) tradesmen, is it possible that the work was sub-par?
I guess I don't quite understand. Pushing my reading glasses up on my forehead (short term) or sticking them in my shirt pocket when I don't need them seems to work just fine. I don't really like them on my face if I'm not reading something, since I can see just fine beyond 18 inches from my eyes. Is this intended for the folks that already need corrective lenses for existing vision problems?
Bad example.
First off, a little turtle wax will fix the small scratches, so unless the data layer itself is damaged, this is a fixable problem.
Second, one's own neglect does not justify getting a replacement. If you don't take care of what you own, it's your own fault.
Third (and most pertinent to your comment), it depends on whether the item was "sold" or "licensed". If the CD was sold to me, then it's my property and my responsibility. If the content was merely "licensed" to me and the CD was just the medium used to deliver the "content", then yes, I would expect to have access to my replacement content in perpetuity. Not necessarily in the same format - I would be satisfied with perpetual access to a digital copy that I can transfer to whichever medium I prefer. Or the right to obtain a replacement copy of the content from a source of my own choosing. The original but non-functional CD can serve as proof of purchase.
To be honest, I would prefer the latter scenario and would be much more likely to act as a patron of "creative works", so that I could keep up with changes in technology, rather than being limited to a single medium that becomes obscolescent over time. In fact, I might even be willing to pay more for the privilege of owning access to the content in perpetuity.
I used that word quite deliberately, and I think it applies quite well to the topic we're discussing (why people are polarized, not the nuances of ownership of intangible property). "Opportunist" did an excellent job detailing the moral code that pervades our culture that is in direct conflict with the "moral code" imposed by money. This is polarizing because depending on the perspective one chooses to take, the same act can appear either good or evil.
(At the risk of triggering a religious tangent, which I don't want to do, I'll turn to something I learned in my youth.)
Take the "Miracle of the Loaves and Fish", for example. On the one hand, duplicating five loaves of bread and two fish to feed thousands is considered a miracle and an example of the power of generosity. On the other hand, the baker whose work was copied and distributed wasn't consulted or compensated by everyone who ate. By modern logic, the miracle would have been considered a crime because it took "other peoples work" and made and distributed copies to parasites that took "the work of others" without paying for it.
So there is the essential conflict: In the realm of non-tangible goods almost everyone with a computer has the ability to perform an act of generosity on a scale that makes the miracle above pale in comparison, yet doing so is considered a crime because payment isn't extracted from everyone for the benefit of the original source of the non-tangible good.
Polarizing indeed.
I agree with you completely. The injustice is in part due to the unfairness and one sided nature of the situation. An act that is considered a virtue is punished more severely than outright theft. That is extremely unjust, to say the least.
People are polarized because the law is in conflict with a belief many (or most) people are taught from childhood: sharing is good. Having candy? Bring enough for everyone, or at least give your friend half. Have a good book? Loan or give it to a friend. Done with the newspaper? Leave it at the coffeeshop table so the next person can read it. Can't afford books? Go to the public library and borrow them. Know a good recipe? Share it with friends and family. Know a good joke? Tell all the people at the pub. And so on. Digital technologies and the internet have allowed the act of sharing to transcend the limitation of physical goods so the act of sharing can positively affect even more people.
The reason that the "filesharing is theft" message doesn't resonate with people is that they know it isn't. Sharing is a good thing. "Don't share files because we want everyone to pay us" doesn't resonate because it is based on greed. A practice considered good since childhood is now suddenly a crime, and a practice considered bad since childhood ("Mine!") is now suddenly the paragon of virtue.
People are polarized because the situation is polarizing.
You misunderstood.
The OP was applauding the fact that of the tax money collected, less of it was lost to unnecessary or needless costs. More of the tax money was spent wisely. As someone who understands the necessity of taxes and pays them willingly, seeing the money better spent pleases me greatly.
I can see by your relatively high UID that you haven't yet evolved beyond the need to demonstrate your l33tness through hardship. When you grow up , sonny, you'll come to learn that you don't obtain l33tness from the tools you choose. Your l33tness will manifest itself through any tool you use. As such you no longer need to be afraid of newer, more modern tools, and you can work more efficiently like the guru that you are. Only fools and novices shackle themselves with inferior tools to demonstrate their worthiness.
Gratuitous changes are far more of a problem than any lack of compliance to some design dogma.
That speaks to the original point. Gratuitous is a lot easier to recognize if at least the guiding principle "people use this as a tool to get work done - if we make this change the tool will break" is kept in mind.
... they figure out a way around the "I won't buy it" problem. The sales lost to "I won't buy it" and "I don't know you exist" and "I'm not really interested in your game" and "How much? You have got to be kidding" and "No, I won't buy you that game - you just had your birthday and Christmas is 5 months away" and "I really need to pay the rent - I can't buy that game right now" and "I'll just take a walk instead" and "Wow - that sounds like a great book - I'll buy that instead of that game" vastly outnumber the number of sales lost to piracy.
Give people a reason to buy the game, and they will do so, should they be so inclined. Give people more reasons not to buy the game and they will gladly comply as well.
1. Your data (and I use the term very loosely, since you have none) is flawed. The vast and silent majority may as well not exist, since their silence provides no evidence that they do. (OMG - I just provided justification for "Works for me!" posts. I'm sorry)
2. I'm writing this from a KDE4 desktop, so I'm not a whinging anti-KDE4 hater. They need not kowtow to me.
3. Point 2 was not achieved without significant frustration and loss of time, due to misunderstanding of the parent's point on the part of KDE4 developers. I still experience "WTF?" moments often while using KDE4. Fortunately, my sense of adventure lets me enjoy the ride.
3. The problem with KDE4 was NOT the desire to move forward with respect to the design and level of innovation in the project, it was the extremely clumsy way in which it was handled. Understanding the parent's point may have helped prioritize which changes to focus on first, making the transition much less painful.
4. This is all very off-topic. We should stop now.
Microsoft wants people to remain exclusively Windows. Mono and similar implementations allow people to run their.NET code on alternate platforms (eg. Linux, Mac, BSD) if the code is sufficiently portable (not that hard to do). By refraining from exploring portable solutions on other platforms due to vague, non-specified fears about some nebulous future threat, developers are doing what Microsoft wants most: giving people a reason to stay devoted to Windows. It's the safe bet. As others have pointed out above, the threat of patent infringement didn't prevent re-implementation of other commercial technologies. Linux as we know it today wouldn't exist if people had succumbed to the same kind of fear. I always thought one of the more ethical aspects of free-as-in-freedom software was to provide an alternative to less-free proprietary software. As such, Mono should be welcomed as a way for people to escape the control of Microsoft. I'm not sure I like this new fear-driven approach to deciding what's worthy of being acceptable as FLOSS.
Even more customers and potential customers are being kept away by giving in to fear so that even the brave have no alterative but to use the only solution available to them. I thought FLOSS was about offering choice and greater freedom, not being the safe bet.
Not to mention university and community-college libraries, which are usually happy to grant access to interested members of the community. Other than inconvenience (a nominal fee, traveling to/from libraries, etc.), access to traditional journals aren't really an impediment to the motivated amateur scientist.
That said, online access to any research results paid for by public funds is what today's society should expect and demand nowadays.
I just have never understood the appeal of console gaming.
*snip* The PC is not only a much better gaming platform, it is multi-functional.
*snip*
Sigh. You have the answer right there in front of you, but you can't see it.
The multi-functional nature of the PC gets in the way of gaming, particularly if other people are involved. Move out of your mother's basement, start a family and you'll begin to understand.
First, the multi-functional nature of the PC means there will be conflicts regarding it's use. "Daddy - I want to play my game now!!!!" "Sorry, dear, Daddy has to meet his deadline. Go read a book or something." "Waaah! You suck, Daddy!" The more functions a PC can carry out, the more conflicts will be encountered. Which leads to the next point.
Multi-purpose PCs are expensive compared to dedicated gaming consoles. Sure, the conflicts mentioned above can be alleviated by buying more PCs, but they cost more. And they tend to be bigger, require more space etc. Yeah, you could save on a monitor by hooking it up to the tv, but then you are conflicting with TV watching. See above. Consoles aren't cheap, but they are priced comfortably enough to be affordable.
Multi-purpose PCs are more complicated. Even if you just use the installed OS and do nothing but gaming, you still have to install the game, manage drivers, find the game icon etc. And you won't just be using the PC for gaming, so there will be other stuff to think about. Contrast that with a console: Turn on. Insert disk. Play.
Multi-purpose PCs are more useful, so more crucial. I use my PCs for work, personal business (home finances, medical stuff via the web etc), research, entertainment etc. I'm not willing to allow DRM on to my system just to play a game. There is too much at stake if the game or the DRM messes the system up or opens up the system to spyware and such. That's not going to happen. A dedicated gaming console is separate, thus isolated from all the important stuff that happens in life when not wasting time playing games. If something goes wrong, nothing of value is lost. Press reset and keep playing.
PC's tend to provide single user experiences. Game consoles connect to the home entertainment system, so can be enjoyed by the entire family. Yeah, you can hook your PC up to the tv, but then you run into the conflicting uses problem mentioned above, or the costs-too-much problem if you're just going to play games.
I was and am still a PC gamer. I resisted consoles for a long time, but eventually realized their value and where they fit into the grand scheme of things. With the rise of stronger and more pervasive DRM in recent years, my PC game purchases have dwindled to nothing, so consoles are even more appealing. A $49 original Xbox and a handful of games from the closeout bin are just as much fun to play as the latest whizzbang title for the PC. Who knew?
Slashdot Mirror
Was it really foresight, or were they just dealing with the same issues mankind has been grappling with since we became sentient? I'll go out on a limb here, since I don't have hard evidence, but these writings were probably informed by *hindsight* more than prescience. Or to put it another way, the brilliant men and women we lump together with the term "founding fathers" were presenting solutions to problems that affected the society they were living in at the time, or societies from their past that happened to leave behind documentation about what worked and what failed.
Nobody really cares about the bigger KDE4 story. It's kind of like the "bigger hammer redesign story". It's nice to make things easy for the hammer designers, but if it can't pound in nails like it used to, it's not really a very good hammer, is it? But hey, it does wrench-stuff too now, so that old-fashioned hammer stuff that used to work perfectly isn't that important, right? You really want a wrench to pound in those nails. Yeah, we know it's not a great wrench/hammer yet, but we're working on it.
KDE4 is kind of like that. Things that used to work before suddenly were broken or "coming soon". Different ways of "striking the nail" were introduced when the old ways seemed to work just fine. Not a problem, aside from the fact that the new ways didn't always work as well.
A desktop environment is a tool as is everything else on a computer. People use a computer as a tool to *do* things, and most of those things (almost all of them) don't involve futzing around with the tool itself. If a development team doesn't understand that basic fact, they run the risk of redesigning the tool without full awareness of what needs to absolutely work and what is optional.
KDE4 is shaping up to be a fine desktop environment. It just got there in a roundabout way that could have been a lot less painful had the developers connected with the community better so that the important stuff was working first.
My biggest fear is now that things are working well, people are going to get bored, throw everything out the window and start hacking on KDE5 rather than making KDE4 realize its ful potential.
I see that ignorance is still bliss.
Do you care to dispell that ignorance? Can you explain concisely how plasma activities are different from virtual desktops? And how they are an improvement over that approach that will make the desktop experience better? I've been on the desktop environment treadmill since the days of Macintosh and GEM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_Environment_Manager), and I don't understand what the hell plasma activities are supposed to do either. I'd love to ascend to the next level of desktop enlightenment, having traveled so far and learned so much. But ... forgive me, master ... I do not know the way. Please. Enlighten me.
Yeah. Been there, done that. At some point I realized that my time was worth more than what it would take to do what you describe. Paying someone to do most of the job while I observe and ask questions, then take a few minutes or hours to fix what didn't get done right is still cheaper than days or weeks of wrangling. Once I realized I was paying for my own education rather than getting the job done exactly right, the way to maximize my investment was a lot clearer. I'll still pay for physical labor I don't want to do myself, but hiring skilled tradesmen is now a way to learn what I need to carry out a task myself.
Makes sense. I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt and retract my accusation of incompetence. It does seem like a bit more applied science to work out the kinks in this 'relatively new bit of technology' would be in order before committing billions. Lots of cutting edge science could be done with equipment that is known to work. Just sayin'.
Installing a sink. Geez. Anyone who even understands what the LHC is would know that it's not quite the same as that. We're talking about advancing the state of human knowledge, not fraking up the commonplace. Doesn't mean it can't be screwed up by incompetetence. The science of electricity spans something like 300 years, so when I read statements such as "The biggest, most expensive physics machine in the world is riddled with thousands of bad electrical connections", I have to wonder how this can happen. The art of creating good electrical connections is not cutting edge any longer. "Unforeseen conseqences of standard techniques applied is completely unique situations" is not a result of bad foresight, it's a result of bad engineering. In the electrical field, the abundance of examples of "non-unique" situations should be enough to provide experience to properly handle "completely unique" situations. Hell, if anything, this can be tested in a controlled environment beforehand. Electrical connections are no longer a mystery. We know how to deal with this kind of thing. So, I can only assume incompetence is the cause of this current fiasco. Whether it is on the part of the electricians, or the people supervising the work is irrelevant. If good elecrical connections sufficient to meet the needs of the LHC are within the realm of what is known by humans, then I'll cry "incompetence".
Ok, I'm officially depressed. Or maybe elated, since my penchant for "do it myself" has been validated. We're in danger of totally hijacking this story on a non-relevant tangent, so I don't want to add fuel to the fire any more. Please - no more posts on the specifics of the above posts. The original premise still stands, however. I'll restate it as follows: Are the bad electrical connections of the LHC the result of shoddy workmanship as a result of the decline in professional ethics? I'd really like to hear from people in the region. Are the tradesmen of Europe declining as they are here in North America? Do folks in the area surrounding the LHC have trouble finding competent tradesmen? Could your own experiences as a private citizen shed light on why a major (and extremely expensive) scientific endeavor is having trouble? If this is a general trend, those of us in a position to do something about it (by influencing the next generation) will at least have a reason for being obnoxious pains-in-the-asses. In good times, I find that annoying character traits such as expecting quality services for payment rendered tends to place me in the position of "difficult and demanding elitist" rather than "conventional recipient of value recieved for value given". I'll pay you well for good work, if you are capable of providing it ...
I've lived in the Southwest. Not that different, really. Most of the 'state-licensed' contractors here in Connecticut (my home for the last 2 years) haven't returned phone calls, shown up on time and are flaky or unreliable. They are decidedly NOT illegals - these are people that I've picked out of the available pool *because* they actually have a license to operate within the state. I shudder to think what havok the "illegal" population would wreak. Actually, they could not do much worse than the so-called professionals. The explanation from the long time locals used to be that "they have more work than they can handle". Surprisingly, nobody seems to be eager for work now that the economy is down. And I'm not talking "I''ll pay you half your normal rate because you need the money and have no work" - I *still* can't get people to return my calls. I have no idea WTF they are doing to earn money. I'm not sure they want to. People just seem to put their houses up for sale and disappear. But back to the original story - I'm still not sure whether the requirements of the LHC were just too close to the cutting edge, or whether they just could not find competent people to do good work. I have all the respect in the world for competent tradesmen, but I loathe the incompetents. I am happy to pay for good work, but I can't abide shoddy work.
... best of what's still around. I've noticed a distinct decline in the quality of professional services in the last decade. In the midwest and the New England region of the US, at least. Based on this story, maybe the same is happening in Europe. In the past 2 years, I've had electricians, plumbers, painters, carpenters and landscapers at the house to execute various jobs I have needed. In most cases, I have had to fix problems myself after the "professional tradesman" declared the job finished, wrote up an invoice for his/her expensive services and departed. In almost all cases, I could have done the job more carefully and better myself if only I had the time. Ironically, everyone to a man was extremely skilled at the invoicing and billing process. When it comes to getting paid, everyone is a genius. Pride in the work? Not so much. This story about the LHC sounds eerily familiar. Assuming the work was done by the local (or imported) tradesmen, is it possible that the work was sub-par?
I guess I don't quite understand. Pushing my reading glasses up on my forehead (short term) or sticking them in my shirt pocket when I don't need them seems to work just fine. I don't really like them on my face if I'm not reading something, since I can see just fine beyond 18 inches from my eyes. Is this intended for the folks that already need corrective lenses for existing vision problems?
Bad example. First off, a little turtle wax will fix the small scratches, so unless the data layer itself is damaged, this is a fixable problem. Second, one's own neglect does not justify getting a replacement. If you don't take care of what you own, it's your own fault. Third (and most pertinent to your comment), it depends on whether the item was "sold" or "licensed". If the CD was sold to me, then it's my property and my responsibility. If the content was merely "licensed" to me and the CD was just the medium used to deliver the "content", then yes, I would expect to have access to my replacement content in perpetuity. Not necessarily in the same format - I would be satisfied with perpetual access to a digital copy that I can transfer to whichever medium I prefer. Or the right to obtain a replacement copy of the content from a source of my own choosing. The original but non-functional CD can serve as proof of purchase. To be honest, I would prefer the latter scenario and would be much more likely to act as a patron of "creative works", so that I could keep up with changes in technology, rather than being limited to a single medium that becomes obscolescent over time. In fact, I might even be willing to pay more for the privilege of owning access to the content in perpetuity.
I used that word quite deliberately, and I think it applies quite well to the topic we're discussing (why people are polarized, not the nuances of ownership of intangible property). "Opportunist" did an excellent job detailing the moral code that pervades our culture that is in direct conflict with the "moral code" imposed by money. This is polarizing because depending on the perspective one chooses to take, the same act can appear either good or evil. (At the risk of triggering a religious tangent, which I don't want to do, I'll turn to something I learned in my youth.) Take the "Miracle of the Loaves and Fish", for example. On the one hand, duplicating five loaves of bread and two fish to feed thousands is considered a miracle and an example of the power of generosity. On the other hand, the baker whose work was copied and distributed wasn't consulted or compensated by everyone who ate. By modern logic, the miracle would have been considered a crime because it took "other peoples work" and made and distributed copies to parasites that took "the work of others" without paying for it. So there is the essential conflict: In the realm of non-tangible goods almost everyone with a computer has the ability to perform an act of generosity on a scale that makes the miracle above pale in comparison, yet doing so is considered a crime because payment isn't extracted from everyone for the benefit of the original source of the non-tangible good. Polarizing indeed.
I agree with you completely. The injustice is in part due to the unfairness and one sided nature of the situation. An act that is considered a virtue is punished more severely than outright theft. That is extremely unjust, to say the least.
People are polarized because the law is in conflict with a belief many (or most) people are taught from childhood: sharing is good. Having candy? Bring enough for everyone, or at least give your friend half. Have a good book? Loan or give it to a friend. Done with the newspaper? Leave it at the coffeeshop table so the next person can read it. Can't afford books? Go to the public library and borrow them. Know a good recipe? Share it with friends and family. Know a good joke? Tell all the people at the pub. And so on. Digital technologies and the internet have allowed the act of sharing to transcend the limitation of physical goods so the act of sharing can positively affect even more people. The reason that the "filesharing is theft" message doesn't resonate with people is that they know it isn't. Sharing is a good thing. "Don't share files because we want everyone to pay us" doesn't resonate because it is based on greed. A practice considered good since childhood is now suddenly a crime, and a practice considered bad since childhood ("Mine!") is now suddenly the paragon of virtue. People are polarized because the situation is polarizing.
You misunderstood. The OP was applauding the fact that of the tax money collected, less of it was lost to unnecessary or needless costs. More of the tax money was spent wisely. As someone who understands the necessity of taxes and pays them willingly, seeing the money better spent pleases me greatly.
I can see by your relatively high UID that you haven't yet evolved beyond the need to demonstrate your l33tness through hardship. When you grow up , sonny, you'll come to learn that you don't obtain l33tness from the tools you choose. Your l33tness will manifest itself through any tool you use. As such you no longer need to be afraid of newer, more modern tools, and you can work more efficiently like the guru that you are. Only fools and novices shackle themselves with inferior tools to demonstrate their worthiness.
Gratuitous changes are far more of a problem than any lack of compliance to some design dogma.
That speaks to the original point. Gratuitous is a lot easier to recognize if at least the guiding principle "people use this as a tool to get work done - if we make this change the tool will break" is kept in mind.
... they figure out a way around the "I won't buy it" problem. The sales lost to "I won't buy it" and "I don't know you exist" and "I'm not really interested in your game" and "How much? You have got to be kidding" and "No, I won't buy you that game - you just had your birthday and Christmas is 5 months away" and "I really need to pay the rent - I can't buy that game right now" and "I'll just take a walk instead" and "Wow - that sounds like a great book - I'll buy that instead of that game" vastly outnumber the number of sales lost to piracy. Give people a reason to buy the game, and they will do so, should they be so inclined. Give people more reasons not to buy the game and they will gladly comply as well.
1. Your data (and I use the term very loosely, since you have none) is flawed. The vast and silent majority may as well not exist, since their silence provides no evidence that they do. (OMG - I just provided justification for "Works for me!" posts. I'm sorry) 2. I'm writing this from a KDE4 desktop, so I'm not a whinging anti-KDE4 hater. They need not kowtow to me. 3. Point 2 was not achieved without significant frustration and loss of time, due to misunderstanding of the parent's point on the part of KDE4 developers. I still experience "WTF?" moments often while using KDE4. Fortunately, my sense of adventure lets me enjoy the ride. 3. The problem with KDE4 was NOT the desire to move forward with respect to the design and level of innovation in the project, it was the extremely clumsy way in which it was handled. Understanding the parent's point may have helped prioritize which changes to focus on first, making the transition much less painful. 4. This is all very off-topic. We should stop now.
Agreed. Take note, KDE4 developers. When you're baffled at the negative feedback you're getting, keep this in mind.
Microsoft wants people to remain exclusively Windows. Mono and similar implementations allow people to run their .NET code on alternate platforms (eg. Linux, Mac, BSD) if the code is sufficiently portable (not that hard to do). By refraining from exploring portable solutions on other platforms due to vague, non-specified fears about some nebulous future threat, developers are doing what Microsoft wants most: giving people a reason to stay devoted to Windows. It's the safe bet. As others have pointed out above, the threat of patent infringement didn't prevent re-implementation of other commercial technologies. Linux as we know it today wouldn't exist if people had succumbed to the same kind of fear. I always thought one of the more ethical aspects of free-as-in-freedom software was to provide an alternative to less-free proprietary software. As such, Mono should be welcomed as a way for people to escape the control of Microsoft. I'm not sure I like this new fear-driven approach to deciding what's worthy of being acceptable as FLOSS.
Even more customers and potential customers are being kept away by giving in to fear so that even the brave have no alterative but to use the only solution available to them. I thought FLOSS was about offering choice and greater freedom, not being the safe bet.
I can't believe everybody wants to get rich without doing a thing... Really, this is just going insane!
There, fixed that for you.
Not to mention university and community-college libraries, which are usually happy to grant access to interested members of the community. Other than inconvenience (a nominal fee, traveling to/from libraries, etc.), access to traditional journals aren't really an impediment to the motivated amateur scientist.
That said, online access to any research results paid for by public funds is what today's society should expect and demand nowadays.
I just have never understood the appeal of console gaming.
*snip* The PC is not only a much better gaming platform, it is multi-functional.
*snip*
Sigh. You have the answer right there in front of you, but you can't see it.
The multi-functional nature of the PC gets in the way of gaming, particularly if other people are involved. Move out of your mother's basement, start a family and you'll begin to understand.
First, the multi-functional nature of the PC means there will be conflicts regarding it's use. "Daddy - I want to play my game now!!!!" "Sorry, dear, Daddy has to meet his deadline. Go read a book or something." "Waaah! You suck, Daddy!" The more functions a PC can carry out, the more conflicts will be encountered. Which leads to the next point.
Multi-purpose PCs are expensive compared to dedicated gaming consoles. Sure, the conflicts mentioned above can be alleviated by buying more PCs, but they cost more. And they tend to be bigger, require more space etc. Yeah, you could save on a monitor by hooking it up to the tv, but then you are conflicting with TV watching. See above. Consoles aren't cheap, but they are priced comfortably enough to be affordable.
Multi-purpose PCs are more complicated. Even if you just use the installed OS and do nothing but gaming, you still have to install the game, manage drivers, find the game icon etc. And you won't just be using the PC for gaming, so there will be other stuff to think about. Contrast that with a console: Turn on. Insert disk. Play.
Multi-purpose PCs are more useful, so more crucial. I use my PCs for work, personal business (home finances, medical stuff via the web etc), research, entertainment etc. I'm not willing to allow DRM on to my system just to play a game. There is too much at stake if the game or the DRM messes the system up or opens up the system to spyware and such. That's not going to happen. A dedicated gaming console is separate, thus isolated from all the important stuff that happens in life when not wasting time playing games. If something goes wrong, nothing of value is lost. Press reset and keep playing.
PC's tend to provide single user experiences. Game consoles connect to the home entertainment system, so can be enjoyed by the entire family. Yeah, you can hook your PC up to the tv, but then you run into the conflicting uses problem mentioned above, or the costs-too-much problem if you're just going to play games.
I was and am still a PC gamer. I resisted consoles for a long time, but eventually realized their value and where they fit into the grand scheme of things. With the rise of stronger and more pervasive DRM in recent years, my PC game purchases have dwindled to nothing, so consoles are even more appealing. A $49 original Xbox and a handful of games from the closeout bin are just as much fun to play as the latest whizzbang title for the PC. Who knew?