What we need is some kind of global information resource available to pretty much anyone, pretty much anywhere, that people could use to educate themselves.
This could work. Maybe some sort of interconnected network of computers...
But seriously...most people will, given time, learn how to protect themselves on the internet. The problem is that this does take time. Sure, you can tell someone not to click on popups, but then you need to teach them the difference between all the different windows that popup. You've got your windows dialogs, your anti-virus dialogs, popups from a browser and then fake versions of all of the above that might come from a browser or from malware installed on the system. To a noob these are all just different types of "popup". I would argue that noticing the subtle differences between all these different windows that appear, seemingly at random, is a skill that can't be taught directly.
I'm not saying you can't teach yourself or that people shouldn't. I'm just saying it's not as simple as telling people "don't click that" if they're not entirely sure what "that" is. I would try and explain my point better but I've just finished work and I'm going home now.
As another drummer I would say avoid rubber electric drums. However a good compromise can be mainly rubber kit with a proper skinned Roland V-drum snare. It depends on the type of music you are playing but personally most of the intricate rolls and more delicate techniques that require a decent bounce are done on the Snare drum. I only really use the toms for the occasional fill.
You seem to have the same problem that my guitarist friend does - you seem to think that Guitar Hero is actually "How To Play Guitar: Playstation Edition". It's not, it's a game. Lots of people have fun playing it, never even considering that it could make them a better player on real instruments - why would it? It's just a game. The peripherals make some sense - the whole point of Guitar Hero is to imagine yourself as an amazing guitarist which is easier to do if the controller you're wielding is "axe"-shaped. I wouldn't say it's a money sink, at least no more than any other game with peripherals is (the comparison with racing games and steering wheels is a valid one). You may be paying money in but, in theory (and for most people, in practice), you're getting a lot of fun for your money.
Any actual musical knowledge gleaned from playing it is simple a bonus.
Well I couldn't play GTA:IV on my machine even on lowest settings, despite it meeting the requirements, so I wouldn't be in a hurry to buy another Rockstar game for PC anyway.
I hope you're right. However, "huge sandbox world" could just mean a big world that you have to drive through to get between the rigidly defined points of action.
Oh what a shame. Those shops with the poor selection of the PC games that I buy from steam are refusing to sell Steam games. That means I'll have to keep on not going to those shops and carry on buying games from Steam. What a pain in the arse.
Who exactly are they "threatening" by doing this?
Is it Steam? Considering Steam are already doing very well with out them, I don't think so.
Is it the customers? They buy their stuff from where they want. If a game they want is on Steam only, they'll get it from Steam (and the shop lose out). If the game isn't on steam then they would have to buy it from the shop either way, so no-one is affected.
Is it the publishers? It seems to me that the majority of publishers are going to go the way of the majority of users (that's where the money is), which seems to be Steam. At worst they'll have to produce two versions - one steam, one non-steam. Again, Steam wins.
Insiders say Steam, run by US studio Valve, serves a massive 80 per cent of the PC download sector. And retailers preparing their own rival platforms don’t want that share to grow any more.
Ah, so they're starting up a rival company. Well, that explains it. You know, Ford have quite a big market share, what with them inventing the automobile and everything. Now that I've seen how successful they are and, years later, have decided to start a rival company I consider it very important that this share doesn't grow and I think anybody who is considering buying a car should agree with me.
You make an interesting point, albeit one that is pure unsupported speculation. However, my Steam copy of Half Life 1 has already lasted many years longer than my Half Life 1 GOTY Edition CD.
It's not propaganda, it's a true account of my experience. If you don't like it...sorry but that's the way things are - I can't do what I do with computers under Linux. I have tried.
Fair enough, Seeing as I have yet to make a living wage from any of those activities "work" might not be the correct term, but my point - that Linux does not provide what I require of an OS - still stands. Care to actually counter the argument or d'you want knock down some more straw-men?
Skype runs well on Linux. I've yet to find a problem with it.
The lack of proprietary software may not be the fault of Linux but it can be a very good reason not to use Linux. What is the benefit of running an OS that has the potential to run currently non-existent software over an OS that actually runs that software?
I'm not worried about running windows software specifically. I just want to run decent software. Most major Windows programs have a Mac version and those that don't generally have a decent Mac equivalent. There is plenty of software that has Windows and Mac versions but no Linux version or equivalent. Photoshop springs to mind. Sure there's the GIMP but personally I don't think it compares. How about Ableton Live? How about MS Office? Ok, there's Open Office which works ok until you have to work with someone who uses MS Office and then you run into lots of niggling differences which could be just go away when you use MS Office. (note: don't get me wrong, I don't like MS Office, but still. Also, we tried using OpenOffice in the office - it didn't work out)
There is plenty of good software for Linux but there are some gaping holes - music making is one of them. There is a massive library of decent software for Windows. The same goes for Mac OS. If Windows or Mac software could be run under Linux it would fill these holes and make Linux a viable alternative for a lot more people. An alternative would be for companies to release Linux versions of their software. This would be ideal but doesn't seem to be happening.
I can't do any WORK on Linux. I can on Windows. Sorry.
I've tried Linux many times. I like it. I currently have Mint Linux running on my Macbook (until I can find my OS X disc and reinstall that - long story) and it's great for what I'm using it for. The thing is that what I'm using it for is not much - basically just web browsing.
The only things in the overlap between "things I want to do on my computer" and "things I can do under Linux" are web browsing and programming. Writing/producing music? Hah! Gaming? LOL! Graphic design type stuff? Meh.
Having to hunt for a couple of drivers when you install the OS is a small price to pay for actually being able to do the things you need to do with your computer.
Slashdot Mirror
You have died of dysentery.
What we need is some kind of global information resource available to pretty much anyone, pretty much anywhere, that people could use to educate themselves.
This could work. Maybe some sort of interconnected network of computers...
But seriously...most people will, given time, learn how to protect themselves on the internet. The problem is that this does take time. Sure, you can tell someone not to click on popups, but then you need to teach them the difference between all the different windows that popup. You've got your windows dialogs, your anti-virus dialogs, popups from a browser and then fake versions of all of the above that might come from a browser or from malware installed on the system. To a noob these are all just different types of "popup". I would argue that noticing the subtle differences between all these different windows that appear, seemingly at random, is a skill that can't be taught directly.
I'm not saying you can't teach yourself or that people shouldn't. I'm just saying it's not as simple as telling people "don't click that" if they're not entirely sure what "that" is. I would try and explain my point better but I've just finished work and I'm going home now.
Maybe he searched for "Malware" and found what he was looking for...
True, but I think my point still stands - he shouldn't have to do this.
Just don't touch their Ostriches.
You can't apply, you have to wait for an invite.
You really expect him to hand-encode his URLs? Shouldn't Slashdot be able to handle that?
- Can it run Crysis?
As another drummer I would say avoid rubber electric drums. However a good compromise can be mainly rubber kit with a proper skinned Roland V-drum snare. It depends on the type of music you are playing but personally most of the intricate rolls and more delicate techniques that require a decent bounce are done on the Snare drum. I only really use the toms for the occasional fill.
You seem to have the same problem that my guitarist friend does - you seem to think that Guitar Hero is actually "How To Play Guitar: Playstation Edition". It's not, it's a game. Lots of people have fun playing it, never even considering that it could make them a better player on real instruments - why would it? It's just a game. The peripherals make some sense - the whole point of Guitar Hero is to imagine yourself as an amazing guitarist which is easier to do if the controller you're wielding is "axe"-shaped. I wouldn't say it's a money sink, at least no more than any other game with peripherals is (the comparison with racing games and steering wheels is a valid one). You may be paying money in but, in theory (and for most people, in practice), you're getting a lot of fun for your money.
Any actual musical knowledge gleaned from playing it is simple a bonus.
Well I couldn't play GTA:IV on my machine even on lowest settings, despite it meeting the requirements, so I wouldn't be in a hurry to buy another Rockstar game for PC anyway.
I hope you're right. However, "huge sandbox world" could just mean a big world that you have to drive through to get between the rigidly defined points of action.
My goodness! I can't believe you would seriously stone someone just for spamming. People like you should be shot.
Oh what a shame. Those shops with the poor selection of the PC games that I buy from steam are refusing to sell Steam games. That means I'll have to keep on not going to those shops and carry on buying games from Steam. What a pain in the arse.
Who exactly are they "threatening" by doing this?
Is it Steam? Considering Steam are already doing very well with out them, I don't think so.
Is it the customers? They buy their stuff from where they want. If a game they want is on Steam only, they'll get it from Steam (and the shop lose out). If the game isn't on steam then they would have to buy it from the shop either way, so no-one is affected.
Is it the publishers? It seems to me that the majority of publishers are going to go the way of the majority of users (that's where the money is), which seems to be Steam. At worst they'll have to produce two versions - one steam, one non-steam. Again, Steam wins.
Insiders say Steam, run by US studio Valve, serves a massive 80 per cent of the PC download sector. And retailers preparing their own rival platforms don’t want that share to grow any more.
Ah, so they're starting up a rival company. Well, that explains it. You know, Ford have quite a big market share, what with them inventing the automobile and everything. Now that I've seen how successful they are and, years later, have decided to start a rival company I consider it very important that this share doesn't grow and I think anybody who is considering buying a car should agree with me.
You make an interesting point, albeit one that is pure unsupported speculation. However, my Steam copy of Half Life 1 has already lasted many years longer than my Half Life 1 GOTY Edition CD.
Yes. They were originally designed for killing people but were later found to have a wide range of household uses.
all I know is only going by what I read on /.
No wonder you're so cheerfully optimistic.
It's not propaganda, it's a true account of my experience. If you don't like it...sorry but that's the way things are - I can't do what I do with computers under Linux. I have tried.
Fair enough, Seeing as I have yet to make a living wage from any of those activities "work" might not be the correct term, but my point - that Linux does not provide what I require of an OS - still stands. Care to actually counter the argument or d'you want knock down some more straw-men?
Skype runs well on Linux. I've yet to find a problem with it.
The lack of proprietary software may not be the fault of Linux but it can be a very good reason not to use Linux. What is the benefit of running an OS that has the potential to run currently non-existent software over an OS that actually runs that software?
I'm not worried about running windows software specifically. I just want to run decent software. Most major Windows programs have a Mac version and those that don't generally have a decent Mac equivalent. There is plenty of software that has Windows and Mac versions but no Linux version or equivalent. Photoshop springs to mind. Sure there's the GIMP but personally I don't think it compares. How about Ableton Live? How about MS Office? Ok, there's Open Office which works ok until you have to work with someone who uses MS Office and then you run into lots of niggling differences which could be just go away when you use MS Office. (note: don't get me wrong, I don't like MS Office, but still. Also, we tried using OpenOffice in the office - it didn't work out)
There is plenty of good software for Linux but there are some gaping holes - music making is one of them. There is a massive library of decent software for Windows. The same goes for Mac OS. If Windows or Mac software could be run under Linux it would fill these holes and make Linux a viable alternative for a lot more people. An alternative would be for companies to release Linux versions of their software. This would be ideal but doesn't seem to be happening.
I can't do any WORK on Linux. I can on Windows. Sorry.
I've tried Linux many times. I like it. I currently have Mint Linux running on my Macbook (until I can find my OS X disc and reinstall that - long story) and it's great for what I'm using it for. The thing is that what I'm using it for is not much - basically just web browsing.
The only things in the overlap between "things I want to do on my computer" and "things I can do under Linux" are web browsing and programming. Writing/producing music? Hah! Gaming? LOL! Graphic design type stuff? Meh.
Having to hunt for a couple of drivers when you install the OS is a small price to pay for actually being able to do the things you need to do with your computer.
Well, now you know. If you play with your Winkey you might discover something new.
move towards more proper explosion-based documentaries like we have in the US.
What, you mean like this?
Ok, so who has made something completely new?
Oh, also Chrome OS (as far as I know, the first net-based OS) and Android (as far as I know, the first Linux phone OS).
That's interesting. Which law is this? American, I'm guessing? Federal? State? Any idea if this is the case in the UK?