Remember that government intervention allowed Microsoft to achieve its current position. Could Microsoft have really done what it did without the benefit of copyright laws? If OEMs could have elected to simply make copies of DOS and Windows on their own and ship it with their PCs, could Microsoft have used licensing and pricing deals to discourge OEMs from making alternatives like PC-DOS or DR-DOS or OS/2 available to those who wanted it?
Not to try to debate the merits of copyright here, but the point is that the government does regulate the industry, and Microsoft's current monopoly position could not have come about without the powers granted to it and the restrictions placed upon others by the government. Now, the government needs to act to correct the imbalance caused by its meddling by placing suitable restrictions upon Microsoft and granting suitable powers to other.
You could also apply this to the open source movement...
Open source is a great thing, and it is completely beneficial and acceptable. The only problem is, people who want to see all software free, or open source, do not see the big picture. How in God's name will people make a living? If your life or company is based on creating a program that performs a service, for one, I would much rather accept people's support by buying my product. It helps me continue my development, and live my life. If I spent my time developing a program and handed it out for free, what, would I have to have a job at McD to get by?
If my career is software development, I most definately want to be reimbursed for that time, effort and service. Open source is a great thing, but not everything can be free. If software becomes free, than everything I do needs to be free so I don't need reimbursion for the service in order to live my life. ie we end up with a utopian Star Trek universe, cashless, no currency. Even then it comes down to trading. You provide a service, and you get something in return (more than recognition).
If I'm wrong about my views on Open Source, let me know. Don't flame me...
Microsoft got to where it is today because it sees a market in the NON-hacker-esque world. Windows, while being inefficient from the view of a programmer, was not easy to set up, while Linux, to a programmer, may be easier. IMO Windows is a matter of follow the instructions and hit Next, which obviously many people in the world like...
Windows was created to help the non-layperson get acquainted with computers and shove the computer industry forward. From a programmer's point of view, PLAY WITH THE CARDS YOU'RE DEALT. If Linux is such an awesome operating system, why does it not shoot off the ground and become one of the most used? Sure it's getting better, but see how much has changed since it began? It's got user interfaces, it's looking more like Windows every day. But the bottom line is, it's still a hacker's OS.
You ask joe blow off the street what he'd like to use. Who do you think will be getting more tech calls, Microsoft tech or mr.programmer who pieced together the version of Linux he's using?
I'm about a half-programmer, and I say Windows may have it's problems, but Linux would too if it's primary goal was to make things easy as butter for someone who's never used a computer before. There's soo much more to programming than making something work. Understandability, learning curve, usability, etc. If I were a hard-core programmer, I'd love Linux.
The fact of the matter is, Windows is where it is today because of the ease of programming using the tools associated with it, and the support it has. If a program has bugs the first time, you work around it, you don't complain. If an OS locks up or crashes because of your program, quit complaining, and either report the bug or work around it! Be a programmer and not a complainer...
Hate Windows as much as you like, but don't assume that Linux is a better OS because YOU like it better.
If a version arises of Linux that keeps that stability, but adds to it the user-friendliness and user 'stupidity' level of Windows (ie extremely easy and far less painful to maintain), by all means I'll get it and love it! For now, I'm happy with Windows and maybe a crash every so often, and it's wiiiide support for software and hardware (whether buggy or not, which may not necessarily be the fault of M$). I'll set up Linux on my second box for now, but Win is still my favourite OS so far. And I am running Win2k, which personally I find far more stable than NT or 9x. But that doesn't mean it is better since I've read many many reports of problems in setting up. I'm not so closed minded to say that Win2k is flawless because I've had no problems. So don't say Linux is the best OS because it's so easy to use, because frankly, it's not, according to the market MS has taken under its wing.
Hope I don't sound flamey, I don't mean to be offensive. It just hits a nerve when I see all the *nix users trash Windows because Linux is better for them. I plan on playing with linux any day now, simply because I see it's a good OS that is rising, not because I think Win sucks or Linux is better overall.
Flame-away:) -- I like MCSE: Must Call Someone Experienced
Microsoft got to where it is today because it sees a market in the NON-hacker-esque world. Windows, as you put it, was not easy for you to set up, and Linux was easier? Well, I can't speak for you, but IMO Windows is a matter of follow the instructions and hit Next...
Windows was created to help to non-layperson get acquainted with computers and shove the computer industry forward. From a programmer's point of view, PLAY WITH THE CARDS YOU'RE DEALT. If Linux is such an awesome operating system, why does it not shoot off the ground and become one of the most used? Sure it's getting better, but see how much has changed since it began? It's got user interfaces, it's looking more like Windows every day. But the bottom line is, it's still a hacker's OS.
You ask joe blow off the street what he'd like to use. Who do you think will be getting more tech calls, Microsoft tech or mr.programmer who pieced together the version of Linux he's using?
I'm about a half-programmer, and I say Windows may have it's problems, but Linux would too if it's primary goal was to make things easy as butter for someone who's never used a computer before. There's soo much more to programming than making something work. Understandability, learning curve, etc. If I were a hard-core programmer, I'd love Linux.
The fact of the matter is, Windows is where it is today because of the ease of programming using the tools associated with it, and the support it has. If a program has bugs the first time, you work around it, you don't complain. If an OS locks up or crashes because of your program, quit complaining, and either report the bug or work around it! Be a programmer and not a complainer...
Hate Windows as much as you like, but don't assume that Linux is a better OS because YOU like it better.
Hope I don't sound flamey, I don't mean to be offensive. It just hits a nerve when I see all the *nix users trash Windows because Linux is better for them. I plan on playing with linux any day now, simply because I see it's a good OS that is rising, not because I think Win sucks or Linux is better overall.
Flame-away:) -- I like MCSE: Must Call Someone Experienced
Netscape make money from their portal site (which the browser is effectively an ad for) and for their server software (which, again, the browser is an ad for).
Widespread use and admiration for their (free) browser is definitely in their interest: the toilets in pubs are free, but you don't drink there if the toilets are revolting... But advertising is the way of anything free now. If you want to give out good free product, you need to get some kind of revenue, and businesses are realizing that including an advertising spot gets the income they need. I never said Netscape didn't make any money, but they make nowhere near enough to compete with MS. IE doesn't advertise for anything - they can still focus on making a good browser. Personally, I couldn't care less about Netscape's advertising schemes, I never go to the website, I just use the browser. But Netscape needs some form of income to balance their costs. The server? Pfft! Most agree it can't stand up to the other major servers out there. They've got to rely on their browser for income, unlike MS.
If Netscape had another excellent product outside of browser and/or internet, they could afford to continue improving their browser to compete. They're in a rut now because of all the problems they've had keeping up with MS and their internal problems. Many factors have led to Netscape's loss, but now because MS kept up with IE it's raised it's quality over NS. I feel completely that if NS had released NS 5.x to match IE, it would still be a better browser. A step over IE even (like IE4 matched NS3)
oh well. Until a new, better Netscape or Mozilla comes out, unfortunately it's IE for me...
>> But it also does tons of crazy stuff automatically with no obvious way to turn it off. Auto indenting and auto numbering mainly.
> Just a note: both are changable.
He didn't say they were unchangable, he said that figuring out how to turn them off is a pain in the ass.
Actually, if you'll note, he did say they were unchangable - 'no obvious way to turn them off'.:)
Besides that, as far as I'm concerned, this stuff shouldn't be turned *on* by default, anyways. If automatic numbered lists aren't turned on, you can still create them manually, so you still get what you want. But when they are turned on, there are situations where you have to wrestle with it to *prevent* that automatic creation, and thus have a lot of trouble getting what you want.
I agree, but you have to realize, that's us talking. The big guys would rather make things easy for the people who don't know what to do than for people who can easily figure it out. Is it harder for you to turn off a feature, knowing where/how to look, or for someone who's never used a computer to figure out how to use the feature if it's turned off? Some people like the autonumbering - I would if I were making a massive list of things and didn't want to bother with counting and indenting...
everything has it's uses, and you're not going to like every feature... take it with a grain of salt!
IE is considered to be a superior product to NS Navigator in many circles and its free
Sure, but you buy Windows don't you? (or do you?) Microsoft can afford the loss off a free browser. Netscape isn't so lucky. They have a free fully functional browser, no income off that and that's their main product. Not so with IE.
> If you don't like Office, then you haven't learned to really use Office.
Let's look at Word, as that's the Office app I'm most familiar with personally. It's quite nice, sure. It's pretty powerful, no doubt. But it also does tons of crazy stuff automatically with no obvious way to turn it off. Auto indenting and auto numbering mainly.
Just a note: both are changable. Check the AutoCorrect Options... go through all the option dialogs and fix whatever you find you don't want... auto indenting and numbering are there. Actually, auto indenting is part of the paragraph settings in the ruler...
In this case I hate to say but the person you replied to was right. If you know how to use Word, it's a good product.
> Yes, everyone - myself included - has beliefs about lots of things. But in my case, God ain't one of 'em. Why is it so hard to accept that not everyone has a need to believe in the supernatural?
Not believing in the supernatural is believing in no supernatural. Belief is not in the same boat as hair. You cannot believe in nothing. Your belief then becomes nothing is believable to you. That is your belief. Belief is not necessarily belief in supernatural. It is simply a decision you make of what makes sense to you and choose to believe that. Belief is not a bad word! Just because you believe in something does not make you a religious fanatic.
Hair color describes hair. Belief doesn't describe anything. Belief is belief. Life is dictated by beliefs, which are the results of choices. You choose something because you believe it's the best choice. Saying I believe nothing is either not literal or you're deluding yourself. Believing in nothing is precisely that, believing in nothing.
> Remember: none is just another belief:) >Yeah, and baldness is just another hair color.
That doesn't stand up. Hair is hair, and hair has color, thus hair color. If you have no hair, you have no hair color. Belief is different since everything you do, everything you are says what you believe. You believe the earth is round. You believe the sun is bright and sun. You believe that nothing is worth believing. You don't have a belief because you believe there's nothing to believe. Belief is subjective, not objective.
Care to back that up with some references? I'd say that would be revolutionary and worthy or media attention at least. Never heard of it before your post, so references please?
Somebody else mentioned in another post that there are two types of science - empirical and theoretical. It needs to be seen that you can't group science as a whole as a religion, as taken on faith. Empirical science is true science. It is the visible, testable and repeatable method. Theoretical science is the science of basically coming up with the best solution to a problem, realizing it can never be proven empirically.
Empirical science does not fall under religion or taken by faith. Non empirical science must. At the core it is based on the belief that information that has been passed on to you is truth. You weigh the difference possibilities, and in your mind you believe that one is the right one. This is the Church of Science.
So yes, science is not faith. Bu it has been mixed with fact and theoretical science, so that ideas are misunderstood as truth. Back on topic, for evolution (macro), it is a theoretical science, not empirical. Just as believing in creation and God is theoretical, essentially, and not empirical.
Creation Science, essentially, is science, since it is the study of observable, repeatable, and testable events which can be used to strengthen the belief that God created the universe. The beliefe in that is theoretical since it can never be proven, nor disproven. Just as the belief in evolution can never be proven nor disproven - thus both are beliefs, both taken on faith. The empirical science is used to present cases that may pursuade someone to believe one or the other, but that is all. It must also be noted on this basis that NO empirical science can without a doubt disprove either belief. If it does it is one of two things: 1 - it's not empirical. 2 - it IS the truth.
Until number 2 is discovered, evolution and creation are both belief systems about which debate and argument will never cease.
'Debating' in the small scale voice, ie via slashdot or usenet, etc, will not get anywhere unless some revolution hypothesis is noted and receives media attention. Insults will flare, flames will abound, tempers will grow and people will only get hurt. This is simply because the views of people differ so much from the basis of what they profess that people get pissed because they're insulted because of someone else who doesn't quite believe the same thing, and this happens on both sides...
There are fundamental evolutionists and fundamental Creationists, and there are open-minded evolutionists and open-minded Creationists, and there are those stuck in between. Everyone gets insulted at one time or another and nothing is solved.
The only safe way to debate is not to group beliefs generally, but to disprove one aspect or another, or focusing on proving your points. If you group 'evolutionists' together, you'll get flamed. If you group 'creationists' together, you'll get flamed. If someone believes something that has been disproven, don't flame them, tell them why. If someone gives you proof that your point is wrong, don't get personal - look it up, study it more to prove to yourself that it's true. Proving to yourself is the only way, generally, that you will believe something.
Even this statement won't solve anything on a large scale, maybe not even a small scale, and that's not expected. It's stimply my belief at how to solve an endless debate scientifically and an attempt to ease the suffering of people involved because no one really sees why people get hurt. sigh
Personally, I've never heard of Van Gogt, but I'm sure he was a good writer if he had a following.
People were saying how modern writers just aren't the same. That's tough, I think it depends on what you like in writing. Today a lot of people who know only modern literature will think that the older writing is wierd.
Personally, I think the idea of sci-fi has evolved as long as the media has evolved. People say older writing is better because they seemed to have a better grasp of good story and plot, character development. Today, good stories are rated on the pumping adrenaline kind of gripping action. I love good stories, and I'm always impressed when I find a book that accomplishes that kind of immersion and depth, and I've noticed that it seems to be the more real life type novels that do that. I think the sci-fi of old dealt more with expanding humanity, the importance of still recognizing one's self while growing in knowledge. Today, all that matters is that we get the technology, and try to learn as much as possible. But we lose ourselves in the process. Our Reach is exceeding our grasp. We have technologies today that people never would have tohught of long ago. But are we wise enough to handle that responsibility? That's where the good sci-fi writing comes in, IMHO.
Well, you see, the only way to support something free - that's anything, from tv to computers - is either off the sweat of someone's brow who doesn't get anything in return, but must hold some other kind of job, or by using a third party to gain revenue, since the revenue doesn't come from the customers directly.
In order to maintain any product as free, there needs to be some sort of income to support the cost and upkeep. Advertising is what you ask for when you want something free. People have to realize and understand that.
But the issue isn't how popular programming programs are to programmers. The issue is how successful will Open Source be in the general market. ANY product will be successful in its market without question. The idea is to make the product successful in a wider market, expanding the market, or the product will never grow.
Open Source is geared to programmers who understand enough to handle maintaining it. Typical users - NOT programmers - the majority of computer users, this includes kids, parents, corporate heads who rely on their employees to keep up-to-date, and anyone else who may not be programmers at heart - are the market. As long as programmers exist, Open Source will be successful -in that area-, but unless some kind of user friendliness, UI, end-user satisfaction, etc, is created, it will never grow in market and acceptibility - which is exactly what the article was trying to say.
Perhaps a lens system that causes the eyes to actually need to re-focus. Just have the lenses shift focus opposite of what you want the eye to do. That would actually enhance the realism of the visual display somewhat.
somewhat, yes. It doesn't solve the problem of distances though. You would need to refocus the entire screen, so you wouldn't get any real added depth perception from that and the problem would still remain.
The other thing is that the brain also uses the focus to determine depth. 3D perception is the main issue, but the mind also gets confused when the focusing of the scene is messed up. In other words, for a perfect VR display, your eyes need to focusing on the object being looked at, as well as having both eyes match the image at a certain distance in order to get a flawless 3D image that fools the eyes and mind. Then you obviously need to take into account the sense of balance or you'll mixed signals too. I think that's what the 'Lawnmower Man' rig took care of. There's no up or down when you're in that VR. They had the motion and balance down, but the VR display was still primitive.
Maybe if you combined the two. Update the display to handle visual and mental, rig up the rings to look after balance, and if you have the full body immersion and state of the art motion control, you could have perfect immersion. ie Let's say you're walking, the suit on the bottom of your feet would depress giving you the impression of ground, and the rig would shift you up and down to accomodate for that virtual ground. Wind I dunno about. the suit would block any actual breeze from outside, and you can't really blow wind on the inside of a skin tight suit. Maybe just pass a temperature change through the suit where the wind would wisk by... or a very light touch sensation along with that that gets your hair to stand on end...
Balance isn't the only problem with VR. Focus has proved to be another major problem causing eyesight degredation and, well, headaches.
If they could find a way to get the system to detect what the eyes would be looking at, they could adjust the display to focus on that distance (blur the display of objects at varying distances), fooling the eyes yet again into believing they're focusing. That would take care of the eye-mind connection, but I guess then you have to deal with the fact that the eyes really are not focusing. The brain thinks they are, but the whole time the eyes are focused on the one plain (screen), which could cause problems itself.
You know, the only real safe VR will be when they send signals to the brain, including sight. I guess kind of like the Matrix. They patch into your sensory inputs into the brain and emulate the world in your mind. That way your eyes and other organs will operate normally, but what you 'see' will be the program. But, as in the Matrix, it would cut you off from the world. You would be in a 'dream' world.
Otherwise, you could just go straight to holograms. They may be headmounted, but the quality of that may be much lower. If it's holographically displayed, you'd have the depth perception, motion, focusing, etc. Range might be restricted though, unless you find a way to simulate a projected hologram. If that's all possible, then you may able to create a virtual room with no wall, in front of your eyes. That may be feasible... the black interior of the headset would block the outside world and create the holographic display. It wouldn't be a 2 screen idea for each eye, but one panoramic view, so both eyes are still required to perceive depth.
> While I personally agree that Office is without a doubt the best software of it's type, I believe this should be the only factor on needs to consider when choosing a product. At the moment, this is not the case.
Which is exactly why it's not a monopoly. If you took Office stand-alone w/o Windows, you'd have a decent product, but not a monopoly. The link is what gives Microsoft the advantage. With the break-up, Office WILL become a seperate entity than Windows, so no worries about this 'monopoly'. Office will be restricted to use the same links as any other third party Windows developer after this. Then it will be a matter of which product is better, not which one is most reasonable to use because of quantity.
> Why don't people use Wordperfect or some other format for the whole company? Because of the automatic albeit handy hooks into the OS and other embeded application.
Yes, but that's not the MS Office monopoloy, that's the Microsoft monopoly. Those links are part of the OS, and they're not just for Office products. That's for anything Windows related. MS Office, essentially, has no monopoly. Closed sourced file formats cannot be considered a monopoly tactic, since everything not open source is closed source. Unless you're totally anti-closed source and want all locked up for being monopolistic, Office has no problems. You can read and write Office formats whenever you want, just like with any other productivity package (hopefully).
The links between Office and Windows are Microsoft activity, not Office.
Well, this almost looks very much like classic arcading... but I could see it becoming a big hit... cub-cars of 2000, get them boyscouts in here drafting up the best, most efficient robot fighters and earn your robotics badge!
It could start out like Ultimate Fighting, morph to (original) WWF type action, then become like the soap-type plot driven 'proffessional' wrestling... I could just see, which bot has the better looking fem-bot? Get them battling it out outside the battle-arena, while their big hunk-o-metal kicks synthetic butt in the ring... open up the arena, remove the in-house human audience and you've room for who knows what kind of (illegal) moves and special effects...
Looks interesting... what if these things develop true AI? We're developing T2 again here, people! :)
Aye, there's the rub!
Re:Katz is onto something...
on
AOL Nation
·
· Score: 1
> Your giving the average consumer too much credit. The average aol user is not that hip, and they will not even know that they are being subjected to the control of Big Brother. Don't assume that the average schmoe has a clue just because you do.
But there's the difference... with Microsoft, even those who do have a clue, don't have a choice. Sure, they have a limited choice, they can use whatever operating system they want, but if they're developing for a corporate world, guess what they need to use, unless they want their market restricted to a fraction of the possibility. That's Microshaft's monopoly. In the home world, M$ controls the people who don't (yet) know enough to make their own decisions, or maintain a Linux OS, and so on. M$ has that market too.
TW/AOL can never control all our choices unless they go out and rid all the competition ala M$. It's the type of market. People who know better can easily choose anything other than AOL, and personally, I don't care who owns the TV station I watch. People who don't know, well, they'll grab AOL because it's much less hassle for them. But nothing says they HAVE to use AOL. It's still their choice.
I think it basically comes down to whether or not people who know what they're doing have a choice as to the matter. If not, they're basically forced to utilize one product/service, and the monopoly. Someone else mentioned that TW/AOL was a vertical monopoloy - they're not a road block to our destination, we can still detour around it because the other routes still exist.
Aye, there's the rub.
Re:Katz is onto something...
on
AOL Nation
·
· Score: 1
> Unless you get your content through a TW cable franchise. Admittedly theoretical: what if every email you sent out started having an advertisement for the latest Time-Life video attached to the bottom of it...
I don't think they would get that bad. The reason why Microsoft is under so much heat is because of the way they handled being a monopoly. Being a monopoly wasn't the point, it was their attitude at being and becoming that monopoly.
I don't see TW/AOL imposing restrictions where possible, or imposing hinderances or annoying little things. In doing so, they'd lose a lot of their market simply because the market wouldn't like it, and because there are still many many other media and ISP companies, people would still have the choice. Now if TW/AOL went out and purposely eliminated that competition, THEN it would be considered a hazard. I don't think the TW/AOL merger is a bad thing. They can work together to try and bring some better products to the public via media and internet. If you're lucky enough to receive any major service from them, you may notice some differences, but I don't think it'll be anything that would turn away any customers. BUT, we'll find out sooner or later if their attitude after merging eventually mimics Microshaft...
Bottom line: look forward to some improvements, but be wary of their methods of growth.
Re:How does this mock religion?
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 1
It's not circular so much as it is a tautology. It's true because it's true.
And I don't find that anywhere near a good enough reason to believe that's the way it is. Why is it true? There has to be a reason, and explanation for everything. You can't proof something exists simply because it exists and that's the proof.
If you want to believe that, you can, but I just think it's ridiculous to believe that there's no reason to anything. What kind of a life can you lead with that?
Re:How does this mock religion?
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 1
But what are the odds of it happening over, say, a billion years? On one -- ANY one -- of a billion billion planets in a galaxy, in any one of a billion billion galaxies? The numbers may be wrong, but I hope the point is taken -- given such a huge length of time on such a huge number of planets that are probably in such a huge number of different conditions... the odds aren't that bad.
Now add to that the odds of developing multi-celled, developing reasoning, emotions, intelligence, wisdom... the chances then become infinitesmal again. There is no point to argue that it did happen, when there is no proof. You can choose to believe it happened if you like, but don't say it did. We'll all find out the truth sooner or later. And some of us won't be too pleased about the results...
Better odds than that some old guy with a beard is floating up there, somewhere, and cares about whether we fall on our knees and worship him, and also cares about where and in whom we stick our sexual organs.
Somebody's got issues! If that's how you see God, I hope you're 'open minded' enough to get a second opinion...
Re:How does this mock religion?
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 1
Nobody. It's referred to as the Strong Anthropic Principle:
The universe is structured to support our kind of life because if it wasn't, our kind of life wouldn't be here.
That's completely circular logic though. We exist because the world can support us, and if it couldn't we wouldn't exist. Big woop. Who structured the universe? Who said that the universe could support our kind of life? If you just make everything rely on something, you've got no beginning, no point, no foundation for anything. If you want to believe that, be my guess, but I find that sooo much harder to believe than that God created everything to inifinite detail. We are bound to think by our human limitations. Try to imagine eternity... is uncomprehendable. Therefore we cannot say it does not exist. We can't imagine God. We can't picture how He could create the universe so vast for a reason. It seems easier to theorize about how it could have happened based on what we see with our eyes, but there is no foundation.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember that government intervention allowed Microsoft to achieve its current position. Could Microsoft have really done what it did without the benefit of copyright laws? If OEMs could have elected to simply make copies of DOS and Windows on their own and ship it with their PCs, could Microsoft have used licensing and pricing deals to discourge OEMs from making alternatives like PC-DOS or DR-DOS or OS/2 available to those who wanted it?
Not to try to debate the merits of copyright here, but the point is that the government does regulate the industry, and Microsoft's current monopoly position could not have come about without the powers granted to it and the restrictions placed upon others by the government. Now, the government needs to act to correct the imbalance caused by its meddling by placing suitable restrictions upon Microsoft and granting suitable powers to other.
You could also apply this to the open source movement...
Open source is a great thing, and it is completely beneficial and acceptable. The only problem is, people who want to see all software free, or open source, do not see the big picture. How in God's name will people make a living? If your life or company is based on creating a program that performs a service, for one, I would much rather accept people's support by buying my product. It helps me continue my development, and live my life. If I spent my time developing a program and handed it out for free, what, would I have to have a job at McD to get by?
If my career is software development, I most definately want to be reimbursed for that time, effort and service. Open source is a great thing, but not everything can be free. If software becomes free, than everything I do needs to be free so I don't need reimbursion for the service in order to live my life. ie we end up with a utopian Star Trek universe, cashless, no currency. Even then it comes down to trading. You provide a service, and you get something in return (more than recognition).
If I'm wrong about my views on Open Source, let me know. Don't flame me...
Funny, I have to say :)
:)
But here's what I think:
Microsoft got to where it is today because it sees a market in the NON-hacker-esque world. Windows, while being inefficient from the view of a programmer, was not easy to set up, while Linux, to a programmer, may be easier. IMO Windows is a matter of follow the instructions and hit Next, which obviously many people in the world like...
Windows was created to help the non-layperson get acquainted with computers and shove the computer industry forward. From a programmer's point of view, PLAY WITH THE CARDS YOU'RE DEALT. If Linux is such an awesome operating system, why does it not shoot off the ground and become one of the most used? Sure it's getting better, but see how much has changed since it began? It's got user interfaces, it's looking more like Windows every day. But the bottom line is, it's still a hacker's OS.
You ask joe blow off the street what he'd like to use. Who do you think will be getting more tech calls, Microsoft tech or mr.programmer who pieced together the version of Linux he's using?
I'm about a half-programmer, and I say Windows may have it's problems, but Linux would too if it's primary goal was to make things easy as butter for someone who's never used a computer before. There's soo much more to programming than making something work. Understandability, learning curve, usability, etc. If I were a hard-core programmer, I'd love Linux.
The fact of the matter is, Windows is where it is today because of the ease of programming using the tools associated with it, and the support it has. If a program has bugs the first time, you work around it, you don't complain. If an OS locks up or crashes because of your program, quit complaining, and either report the bug or work around it! Be a programmer and not a complainer...
Hate Windows as much as you like, but don't assume that Linux is a better OS because YOU like it better.
If a version arises of Linux that keeps that stability, but adds to it the user-friendliness and user 'stupidity' level of Windows (ie extremely easy and far less painful to maintain), by all means I'll get it and love it! For now, I'm happy with Windows and maybe a crash every so often, and it's wiiiide support for software and hardware (whether buggy or not, which may not necessarily be the fault of M$). I'll set up Linux on my second box for now, but Win is still my favourite OS so far. And I am running Win2k, which personally I find far more stable than NT or 9x. But that doesn't mean it is better since I've read many many reports of problems in setting up. I'm not so closed minded to say that Win2k is flawless because I've had no problems. So don't say Linux is the best OS because it's so easy to use, because frankly, it's not, according to the market MS has taken under its wing.
Hope I don't sound flamey, I don't mean to be offensive. It just hits a nerve when I see all the *nix users trash Windows because Linux is better for them. I plan on playing with linux any day now, simply because I see it's a good OS that is rising, not because I think Win sucks or Linux is better overall.
Flame-away
--
I like MCSE: Must Call Someone Experienced
Here's what I think:
:)
Microsoft got to where it is today because it sees a market in the NON-hacker-esque world. Windows, as you put it, was not easy for you to set up, and Linux was easier? Well, I can't speak for you, but IMO Windows is a matter of follow the instructions and hit Next...
Windows was created to help to non-layperson get acquainted with computers and shove the computer industry forward. From a programmer's point of view, PLAY WITH THE CARDS YOU'RE DEALT. If Linux is such an awesome operating system, why does it not shoot off the ground and become one of the most used? Sure it's getting better, but see how much has changed since it began? It's got user interfaces, it's looking more like Windows every day. But the bottom line is, it's still a hacker's OS.
You ask joe blow off the street what he'd like to use. Who do you think will be getting more tech calls, Microsoft tech or mr.programmer who pieced together the version of Linux he's using?
I'm about a half-programmer, and I say Windows may have it's problems, but Linux would too if it's primary goal was to make things easy as butter for someone who's never used a computer before. There's soo much more to programming than making something work. Understandability, learning curve, etc. If I were a hard-core programmer, I'd love Linux.
The fact of the matter is, Windows is where it is today because of the ease of programming using the tools associated with it, and the support it has. If a program has bugs the first time, you work around it, you don't complain. If an OS locks up or crashes because of your program, quit complaining, and either report the bug or work around it! Be a programmer and not a complainer...
Hate Windows as much as you like, but don't assume that Linux is a better OS because YOU like it better.
Hope I don't sound flamey, I don't mean to be offensive. It just hits a nerve when I see all the *nix users trash Windows because Linux is better for them. I plan on playing with linux any day now, simply because I see it's a good OS that is rising, not because I think Win sucks or Linux is better overall.
Flame-away
--
I like MCSE: Must Call Someone Experienced
Netscape make money from their portal site (which the browser is effectively an ad for) and for their server software (which, again, the browser is an ad for).
Widespread use and admiration for their (free) browser is definitely in their interest: the toilets in pubs are free, but you don't drink there if the toilets are revolting... But advertising is the way of anything free now. If you want to give out good free product, you need to get some kind of revenue, and businesses are realizing that including an advertising spot gets the income they need. I never said Netscape didn't make any money, but they make nowhere near enough to compete with MS. IE doesn't advertise for anything - they can still focus on making a good browser. Personally, I couldn't care less about Netscape's advertising schemes, I never go to the website, I just use the browser. But Netscape needs some form of income to balance their costs. The server? Pfft! Most agree it can't stand up to the other major servers out there. They've got to rely on their browser for income, unlike MS.
If Netscape had another excellent product outside of browser and/or internet, they could afford to continue improving their browser to compete. They're in a rut now because of all the problems they've had keeping up with MS and their internal problems. Many factors have led to Netscape's loss, but now because MS kept up with IE it's raised it's quality over NS. I feel completely that if NS had released NS 5.x to match IE, it would still be a better browser. A step over IE even (like IE4 matched NS3)
oh well. Until a new, better Netscape or Mozilla comes out, unfortunately it's IE for me...
>> But it also does tons of crazy stuff automatically with no obvious way to turn it off. Auto indenting and auto numbering mainly.
:)
> Just a note: both are changable.
He didn't say they were unchangable, he said that figuring out how to turn them off is a pain in the ass.
Actually, if you'll note, he did say they were unchangable - 'no obvious way to turn them off'.
Besides that, as far as I'm concerned, this stuff shouldn't be turned *on* by default, anyways. If automatic numbered lists aren't turned on, you can still create them manually, so you still get what you want. But when they are turned on, there are situations where you have to wrestle with it to *prevent* that automatic creation, and thus have a lot of trouble getting what you want.
I agree, but you have to realize, that's us talking. The big guys would rather make things easy for the people who don't know what to do than for people who can easily figure it out. Is it harder for you to turn off a feature, knowing where/how to look, or for someone who's never used a computer to figure out how to use the feature if it's turned off? Some people like the autonumbering - I would if I were making a massive list of things and didn't want to bother with counting and indenting...
everything has it's uses, and you're not going to like every feature... take it with a grain of salt!
IE is considered to be a superior product to NS Navigator in many circles and its free
Sure, but you buy Windows don't you? (or do you?) Microsoft can afford the loss off a free browser. Netscape isn't so lucky. They have a free fully functional browser, no income off that and that's their main product. Not so with IE.
> If you don't like Office, then you haven't learned to really use Office.
Let's look at Word, as that's the Office app I'm most familiar with personally. It's quite nice, sure. It's pretty powerful, no doubt. But it also does tons of crazy stuff automatically with no obvious way to turn it off. Auto indenting and auto numbering mainly.
Just a note: both are changable. Check the AutoCorrect Options... go through all the option dialogs and fix whatever you find you don't want... auto indenting and numbering are there. Actually, auto indenting is part of the paragraph settings in the ruler...
In this case I hate to say but the person you replied to was right. If you know how to use Word, it's a good product.
You snipped out the relevent information
> Yes, everyone - myself included - has beliefs about lots of things. But in my case, God ain't one of 'em. Why is it so hard to accept that not everyone has a need to believe in the supernatural?
Not believing in the supernatural is believing in no supernatural. Belief is not in the same boat as hair. You cannot believe in nothing. Your belief then becomes nothing is believable to you. That is your belief. Belief is not necessarily belief in supernatural. It is simply a decision you make of what makes sense to you and choose to believe that. Belief is not a bad word! Just because you believe in something does not make you a religious fanatic.
Hair color describes hair. Belief doesn't describe anything. Belief is belief. Life is dictated by beliefs, which are the results of choices. You choose something because you believe it's the best choice. Saying I believe nothing is either not literal or you're deluding yourself. Believing in nothing is precisely that, believing in nothing.
> Remember: none is just another belief :)
>Yeah, and baldness is just another hair color.
That doesn't stand up. Hair is hair, and hair has color, thus hair color. If you have no hair, you have no hair color. Belief is different since everything you do, everything you are says what you believe. You believe the earth is round. You believe the sun is bright and sun. You believe that nothing is worth believing. You don't have a belief because you believe there's nothing to believe. Belief is subjective, not objective.
Care to back that up with some references? I'd say that would be revolutionary and worthy or media attention at least. Never heard of it before your post, so references please?
Somebody else mentioned in another post that there are two types of science - empirical and theoretical. It needs to be seen that you can't group science as a whole as a religion, as taken on faith. Empirical science is true science. It is the visible, testable and repeatable method. Theoretical science is the science of basically coming up with the best solution to a problem, realizing it can never be proven empirically.
Empirical science does not fall under religion or taken by faith. Non empirical science must. At the core it is based on the belief that information that has been passed on to you is truth. You weigh the difference possibilities, and in your mind you believe that one is the right one. This is the Church of Science.
So yes, science is not faith. Bu it has been mixed with fact and theoretical science, so that ideas are misunderstood as truth. Back on topic, for evolution (macro), it is a theoretical science, not empirical. Just as believing in creation and God is theoretical, essentially, and not empirical.
Creation Science, essentially, is science, since it is the study of observable, repeatable, and testable events which can be used to strengthen the belief that God created the universe. The beliefe in that is theoretical since it can never be proven, nor disproven. Just as the belief in evolution can never be proven nor disproven - thus both are beliefs, both taken on faith. The empirical science is used to present cases that may pursuade someone to believe one or the other, but that is all. It must also be noted on this basis that NO empirical science can without a doubt disprove either belief. If it does it is one of two things:
1 - it's not empirical.
2 - it IS the truth.
Until number 2 is discovered, evolution and creation are both belief systems about which debate and argument will never cease.
'Debating' in the small scale voice, ie via slashdot or usenet, etc, will not get anywhere unless some revolution hypothesis is noted and receives media attention. Insults will flare, flames will abound, tempers will grow and people will only get hurt. This is simply because the views of people differ so much from the basis of what they profess that people get pissed because they're insulted because of someone else who doesn't quite believe the same thing, and this happens on both sides...
There are fundamental evolutionists and fundamental Creationists, and there are open-minded evolutionists and open-minded Creationists, and there are those stuck in between. Everyone gets insulted at one time or another and nothing is solved.
The only safe way to debate is not to group beliefs generally, but to disprove one aspect or another, or focusing on proving your points. If you group 'evolutionists' together, you'll get flamed. If you group 'creationists' together, you'll get flamed. If someone believes something that has been disproven, don't flame them, tell them why. If someone gives you proof that your point is wrong, don't get personal - look it up, study it more to prove to yourself that it's true. Proving to yourself is the only way, generally, that you will believe something.
Even this statement won't solve anything on a large scale, maybe not even a small scale, and that's not expected. It's stimply my belief at how to solve an endless debate scientifically and an attempt to ease the suffering of people involved because no one really sees why people get hurt. sigh
g'night
Here's a site for some pointers:
:)
http://mindprod.com/unmain.html
Quite intriguing if you ask me
Personally, I've never heard of Van Gogt, but I'm sure he was a good writer if he had a following.
People were saying how modern writers just aren't the same. That's tough, I think it depends on what you like in writing. Today a lot of people who know only modern literature will think that the older writing is wierd.
Personally, I think the idea of sci-fi has evolved as long as the media has evolved. People say older writing is better because they seemed to have a better grasp of good story and plot, character development. Today, good stories are rated on the pumping adrenaline kind of gripping action. I love good stories, and I'm always impressed when I find a book that accomplishes that kind of immersion and depth, and I've noticed that it seems to be the more real life type novels that do that. I think the sci-fi of old dealt more with expanding humanity, the importance of still recognizing one's self while growing in knowledge. Today, all that matters is that we get the technology, and try to learn as much as possible. But we lose ourselves in the process. Our Reach is exceeding our grasp. We have technologies today that people never would have tohught of long ago. But are we wise enough to handle that responsibility? That's where the good sci-fi writing comes in, IMHO.
Re: Advertisin
Well, you see, the only way to support something free - that's anything, from tv to computers - is either off the sweat of someone's brow who doesn't get anything in return, but must hold some other kind of job, or by using a third party to gain revenue, since the revenue doesn't come from the customers directly.
In order to maintain any product as free, there needs to be some sort of income to support the cost and upkeep. Advertising is what you ask for when you want something free. People have to realize and understand that.
Nothing is free
But the issue isn't how popular programming programs are to programmers. The issue is how successful will Open Source be in the general market. ANY product will be successful in its market without question. The idea is to make the product successful in a wider market, expanding the market, or the product will never grow.
Open Source is geared to programmers who understand enough to handle maintaining it. Typical users - NOT programmers - the majority of computer users, this includes kids, parents, corporate heads who rely on their employees to keep up-to-date, and anyone else who may not be programmers at heart - are the market. As long as programmers exist, Open Source will be successful -in that area-, but unless some kind of user friendliness, UI, end-user satisfaction, etc, is created, it will never grow in market and acceptibility - which is exactly what the article was trying to say.
Perhaps a lens system that causes the eyes to actually need to re-focus. Just have the lenses shift focus opposite of what you want the eye to do. That would actually enhance the realism of the visual display somewhat.
somewhat, yes. It doesn't solve the problem of distances though. You would need to refocus the entire screen, so you wouldn't get any real added depth perception from that and the problem would still remain.
The other thing is that the brain also uses the focus to determine depth. 3D perception is the main issue, but the mind also gets confused when the focusing of the scene is messed up. In other words, for a perfect VR display, your eyes need to focusing on the object being looked at, as well as having both eyes match the image at a certain distance in order to get a flawless 3D image that fools the eyes and mind. Then you obviously need to take into account the sense of balance or you'll mixed signals too. I think that's what the 'Lawnmower Man' rig took care of. There's no up or down when you're in that VR. They had the motion and balance down, but the VR display was still primitive.
Maybe if you combined the two. Update the display to handle visual and mental, rig up the rings to look after balance, and if you have the full body immersion and state of the art motion control, you could have perfect immersion. ie Let's say you're walking, the suit on the bottom of your feet would depress giving you the impression of ground, and the rig would shift you up and down to accomodate for that virtual ground. Wind I dunno about. the suit would block any actual breeze from outside, and you can't really blow wind on the inside of a skin tight suit. Maybe just pass a temperature change through the suit where the wind would wisk by... or a very light touch sensation along with that that gets your hair to stand on end...
ahh ideas for the future...
Balance isn't the only problem with VR. Focus has proved to be another major problem causing eyesight degredation and, well, headaches.
If they could find a way to get the system to detect what the eyes would be looking at, they could adjust the display to focus on that distance (blur the display of objects at varying distances), fooling the eyes yet again into believing they're focusing. That would take care of the eye-mind connection, but I guess then you have to deal with the fact that the eyes really are not focusing. The brain thinks they are, but the whole time the eyes are focused on the one plain (screen), which could cause problems itself.
You know, the only real safe VR will be when they send signals to the brain, including sight. I guess kind of like the Matrix. They patch into your sensory inputs into the brain and emulate the world in your mind. That way your eyes and other organs will operate normally, but what you 'see' will be the program. But, as in the Matrix, it would cut you off from the world. You would be in a 'dream' world.
Otherwise, you could just go straight to holograms. They may be headmounted, but the quality of that may be much lower. If it's holographically displayed, you'd have the depth perception, motion, focusing, etc. Range might be restricted though, unless you find a way to simulate a projected hologram. If that's all possible, then you may able to create a virtual room with no wall, in front of your eyes. That may be feasible... the black interior of the headset would block the outside world and create the holographic display. It wouldn't be a 2 screen idea for each eye, but one panoramic view, so both eyes are still required to perceive depth.
Does that all make sense?
> While I personally agree that Office is without a doubt the best software of it's type, I believe this should be the only factor on needs to consider when choosing a product. At the moment, this is not the case.
Which is exactly why it's not a monopoly. If you took Office stand-alone w/o Windows, you'd have a decent product, but not a monopoly. The link is what gives Microsoft the advantage. With the break-up, Office WILL become a seperate entity than Windows, so no worries about this 'monopoly'. Office will be restricted to use the same links as any other third party Windows developer after this. Then it will be a matter of which product is better, not which one is most reasonable to use because of quantity.
> Why don't people use Wordperfect or some other format for the whole company? Because of the automatic albeit handy hooks into the OS and other embeded application.
Yes, but that's not the MS Office monopoloy, that's the Microsoft monopoly. Those links are part of the OS, and they're not just for Office products. That's for anything Windows related. MS Office, essentially, has no monopoly. Closed sourced file formats cannot be considered a monopoly tactic, since everything not open source is closed source. Unless you're totally anti-closed source and want all locked up for being monopolistic, Office has no problems. You can read and write Office formats whenever you want, just like with any other productivity package (hopefully).
The links between Office and Windows are Microsoft activity, not Office.
Well, this almost looks very much like classic arcading... but I could see it becoming a big hit... cub-cars of 2000, get them boyscouts in here drafting up the best, most efficient robot fighters and earn your robotics badge!
:)
It could start out like Ultimate Fighting, morph to (original) WWF type action, then become like the soap-type plot driven 'proffessional' wrestling... I could just see, which bot has the better looking fem-bot? Get them battling it out outside the battle-arena, while their big hunk-o-metal kicks synthetic butt in the ring... open up the arena, remove the in-house human audience and you've room for who knows what kind of (illegal) moves and special effects...
Looks interesting... what if these things develop true AI? We're developing T2 again here, people!
Aye, there's the rub!
> Your giving the average consumer too much credit. The average aol user is not that hip, and they will not even know that they are being subjected to the control of Big Brother. Don't assume that the average schmoe has a clue just because you do.
But there's the difference... with Microsoft, even those who do have a clue, don't have a choice. Sure, they have a limited choice, they can use whatever operating system they want, but if they're developing for a corporate world, guess what they need to use, unless they want their market restricted to a fraction of the possibility. That's Microshaft's monopoly. In the home world, M$ controls the people who don't (yet) know enough to make their own decisions, or maintain a Linux OS, and so on. M$ has that market too.
TW/AOL can never control all our choices unless they go out and rid all the competition ala M$. It's the type of market. People who know better can easily choose anything other than AOL, and personally, I don't care who owns the TV station I watch. People who don't know, well, they'll grab AOL because it's much less hassle for them. But nothing says they HAVE to use AOL. It's still their choice.
I think it basically comes down to whether or not people who know what they're doing have a choice as to the matter. If not, they're basically forced to utilize one product/service, and the monopoly. Someone else mentioned that TW/AOL was a vertical monopoloy - they're not a road block to our destination, we can still detour around it because the other routes still exist.
Aye, there's the rub.
> Unless you get your content through a TW cable franchise. Admittedly theoretical: what if every email you sent out started having an advertisement for the latest Time-Life video attached to the bottom of it...
I don't think they would get that bad. The reason why Microsoft is under so much heat is because of the way they handled being a monopoly. Being a monopoly wasn't the point, it was their attitude at being and becoming that monopoly.
I don't see TW/AOL imposing restrictions where possible, or imposing hinderances or annoying little things. In doing so, they'd lose a lot of their market simply because the market wouldn't like it, and because there are still many many other media and ISP companies, people would still have the choice. Now if TW/AOL went out and purposely eliminated that competition, THEN it would be considered a hazard. I don't think the TW/AOL merger is a bad thing. They can work together to try and bring some better products to the public via media and internet. If you're lucky enough to receive any major service from them, you may notice some differences, but I don't think it'll be anything that would turn away any customers. BUT, we'll find out sooner or later if their attitude after merging eventually mimics Microshaft...
Bottom line: look forward to some improvements, but be wary of their methods of growth.
It's not circular so much as it is a tautology. It's true because it's true.
And I don't find that anywhere near a good enough reason to believe that's the way it is. Why is it true? There has to be a reason, and explanation for everything. You can't proof something exists simply because it exists and that's the proof.
If you want to believe that, you can, but I just think it's ridiculous to believe that there's no reason to anything. What kind of a life can you lead with that?
But what are the odds of it happening over, say, a billion years? On one -- ANY one -- of a billion billion planets in a galaxy, in any one of a billion billion galaxies? The numbers may be wrong, but I hope the point is taken -- given such a huge length of time on such a huge number of planets that are probably in such a huge number of different conditions... the odds aren't that bad.
Now add to that the odds of developing multi-celled, developing reasoning, emotions, intelligence, wisdom... the chances then become infinitesmal again. There is no point to argue that it did happen, when there is no proof. You can choose to believe it happened if you like, but don't say it did. We'll all find out the truth sooner or later. And some of us won't be too pleased about the results...
Better odds than that some old guy with a beard is floating up there, somewhere, and cares about whether we fall on our knees and worship him, and also cares about where and in whom we stick our sexual organs.
Somebody's got issues!
If that's how you see God, I hope you're 'open minded' enough to get a second opinion...
Nobody. It's referred to as the Strong Anthropic Principle:
The universe is structured to support our kind of life because if it wasn't, our kind of life wouldn't be here.
That's completely circular logic though. We exist because the world can support us, and if it couldn't we wouldn't exist. Big woop. Who structured the universe? Who said that the universe could support our kind of life? If you just make everything rely on something, you've got no beginning, no point, no foundation for anything. If you want to believe that, be my guess, but I find that sooo much harder to believe than that God created everything to inifinite detail. We are bound to think by our human limitations. Try to imagine eternity... is uncomprehendable. Therefore we cannot say it does not exist. We can't imagine God. We can't picture how He could create the universe so vast for a reason. It seems easier to theorize about how it could have happened based on what we see with our eyes, but there is no foundation.