If open-source OSes don't develop their own human interface guidelines and find a
way to make them stick, Linux on the desktop will become a forlorn dream.
Why not just use their's ? (might as well get some use out of it, judging by the mac mouse, Apple isn't using it) Seriously, though, I agree with everything the article says. I've gotten so fed up with Gnome and KDE that I've started doing most of my work in the console.
--
I can understand that it might be a little annoying, but most programming jobs are going to set your environment for you anyway, especially if you'll be working with a team. It's a good chance to learn to write easily portable code anyway, and if it's an intro class you probably won't be dealing with any compiler or platform-specific code. Probably wouldn't have to make any changes in porting it anyway. --
Re:I still think Southpark had the best answer....
on
Video Games and ADD
·
· Score: 1
I never learned by being forced to sit down and study; in fact, it discouraged me from it. You don't instill an appreciation of learning by forcing it. Personally, I think a lot of the behavioral problems we see with young children is a result of them being forced to sit quietly for 8 hours a day. Most of what I remember from my pre-college education is the mind numbing boredom.
--
Lets face it, Republicans and the Democrates are virtually the same party, they only disagree on a very narrow list of issues.
I always hear this, but I never see it. Republicans and Democrats disagree on most major issues. Watch C-SPAN; they vote along different lines consistently. --
Suggestion: stop writing posts about how this is wrong. Everyone on slashdot knows this. All you're doing is preaching to the converted.
Anyway, this is a motion filed by a plaintiff, and was never meant to be construed as objective fact. Judges know to look at these things very, very carefully. Besides which, if you read the actual brief it's mostly about whether the court has jurisdiction over the defendant. It really doesn't have much to do with their factual error regarding the nature of the "Open Source" movement.
--
Re:Breeding population
on
TigerCloning
·
· Score: 2
You don't know what you're talking about. Firstoff, in animal husbandry "interbreed" means "crossbreed within
the same general type". Frex, a crossbred dog would be say a Malemute and a Labrador Retriever (from two
different breed groups entirely) and an interbred would be a Lab and a Golden Retriever (from two similar
breeds, but still not a purebred).
There's a difference between animal husbandry and genetics. I'm not sure what a "breed group" is,
but I don't know if it's a genetic term; all dogs represent the same species.
Second, what you meant, to wit "inbreeding", does ***NOT*** IN ITSELF ***CREATE*** problems, contrary
to popular perception. All inbreeding does is *concentrate the genes you already have*. If they're bad you
get worse results. If they're good, you get better results...
How do you "concentrate" genes? Undesirable genes tend to be both recessive and rare; undesirable dominant genes are selected out rather quickly. By breeding two organisms that both have the same recessive genes, you have a higher chance of expressing these recessive characteristics. Contrary to your initial assertion, interbreeding DOES cause problems. Humans may be particularly susceptible due to the relatively close genetic relationship we have with each other, but it affects all sexually reproducing animals. To take an animal husbandry example, I know a lot of purebred dogs have heart and respiratory problems because of this. As for cattle, they are selected by breeders mainly for size over several thousand years, and by this time they have so many harmful traits that almost none of them could survive if released into the wilderness.
The notion that inbreeding is automatically BAD comes from the fact that in animals with a LOT of genetic
defects in the gene pool, such as humans, ANY time you double up on a set of their genes, chances are you've
also doubled up on something Bad. The average human carries an average of 25 to 75 genes for LETHAL
defects. The average dog carries for one or two. Beef cattle generally carry NONE.
I'm very curious as to where you got these figures. The human genome was just now mapped (and that's just the gene's form, not their function), and scientists are discovering genetic causes for various diseases on an ongoing basis. How did you come to the figure of 25 to 75? Even if you mean lethal at birth or shortly after rather than during the entire lifetime, it still seems too small a number. And I don't know where you got the number from in the first place.
OST
animals in the wild inbreed to some extent, because they don't have any "moral" objections (they will
cheerfully breed their siblings, in fact the tendency is to *want* to breed within animals that smell the same,
ie. are closely related), and because generally there is not a lot of movement between population territories.
Now this is definitely suspect. Just about every piece of zoological literature I've read on the subject (granted, they've mostly been about primates and other mammals, but that's what we seem to be focusing on anyway) says that animals are selected to look outside of immediate family groups for mates. The only time that animals tend to inbreed is when they are forced into it through non-typical situations (i.e. zoos and animal breeders). There is a definite evolutionary advantage in creating genetically diverse offspring. I think you're mixing up the idea of animal husbandry, in which certain characteristics are aimed for, and standard evolution, where characteristics are selected for not by any objective standard of good or bad, but whether they help an animal survive or not.
--
It won't represent you if you don't participate. I AM represented by the system, because I vote in every election. Maybe my choices aren't that great, but I do have a hand in choosing between them. What do you expect to happen if enough people stop voting? Not a troll, I just don't see what end you're trying for. --
Re:I still think Southpark had the best answer....
on
Video Games and ADD
·
· Score: 1
Responding to what may be a genuine mental disorder with violence or verbal abuse won't help it I think. Maybe you can cow kids into sitting down and studying, but that won't necessarily help them learn. They'll just sit there, reading the same passage again and again, trying to focus and failing. --
I will vote when I don't feel that I'm choosing between the lesser of two evils. Let my voter apathy be my vote.
None of the above.
Abstaining does nothing except reinforce the system that you seem to hate. The DMCA and similiar laws don't pass because too many people vote. They pass because not enough voters make themselves heard on the issue. Vote for Ralph Nader (or write in John McCain) if you want to vote against corporate influence in politics.
--
I'm a total Tenchi addict, so after devouring the first 2 oav series, 3 movies, and what episodes of Tenchi Universe I could get on DVD, I ordered like 4 of the Tenchi in Tokyo DVDs. Turned it off before the first episode ended. I can't believe what they did to some extremely interesting characters; they turned it from beautifully written anime to a nauseating parody of itself. Don't judge the whole franchise by Tenchi in Tokyo. --
Then turn on any channel affiliated with Fox or Murdoch's News Corporation, and you can get the liberal bashing. Find it on AM radio too. Difference between the Today Show and the Fox News channel is the Today show doesn't try to portray itself as a serious news source. --
Here, the power of Netizens to tailor their own media is enormous and profound.
Am I the only one who cringes at the term "netizen"?
Where to begin...
Ok, the idea of "tailoring" media doesn't really seem to be much different than what we've been able to do in the past. If I want to read stock quotes, I'll go to the business section of the New York Times. If I want to access them online, I'll go to yahoo.com. How is the online experience "tailored" while the print one is not?
In both cases I can go right to what I want; I don't have to read/access any other section if I don't want to.
Now what about this idea of online news sources being somehow superior to print/broadcast ones? What Jon seems to ignore in a lot of his posts is the issue of authority. Just about anyone can throw together a "news" web page. Why should I believe what I read on it? When I read a paper in the story I can assume it passed through several people's hands to get there. I can be assured that more likely than not, it is reasonably accurate. And while some papers definitely have a bias, whether from the left (Village Voice) or right (New York Daily News),
the vast majority of them tend to be somewhat even-handed. Can't be sure about that online,
as due to the ease with which web sites can be put up, and security lapses (how often has the print version of the New York Times been hacked?)
News is not open source. It shouldn't be. If I don't like something I read in the paper, I can't alter it to suit my liking.
I think serious terminology problems arise when it comes to describing younger Americans' tastes in news. Just as many pollsters and journalists don't consider gaming a significant part of culture, entertainment and technology often aren't considered news.
Please, find me a single major news source that doesn't cover culture, entertainment, and technology.
The kids I encounter online devour enormous amounts of information on a daily basis. That makes sweeping descriptions of their information habits suspect.
But sweeping descriptions of the information habits of the over 50 crowd is ok?
I have maybe a handful of friends with whom I can discuss current events. A lot of people I know, while highly intelligent, just don't care.
Personally, I get most of my news online, because that's easier for me. I read the paper on the subway, because I think it handles the news better. For certain things (election coverage) I like CNN. Online news may be gaining in popularity, but I don't think it's inherently better than anything else that's out there. And the rise of 24-hour cable news channels is probably has had a lot more impact in recent years than online ones.
And if you've read to the end of this article, I salute you. Didn't mean to go on so much, but these whole internet/youth good, old media/age bad thing really irritates me.
--
Oh wow, this brings back some great memories of arguments I used to make flare up in rec.arts.sf.written...Especially fun there because of all the female-warrior-writing authors who hung out on it...
As for my (perhaps sexist) opinion, I think female warriors could be effective in combat, but their weapon of choice probably wouldn't be any of the heavier hand-to-hand weapons.
--
Jumping into this late, but I think you shouldn't worry about what's happening now, but rather what will be happening 7 years from now. My advice: go to college, double major in history and computer science (or major in one and minor in the other).
Then enter a PhD program in either history, history of science, or science and technology studies. If you do everything right away, max out on courses, and finish your dissertation quickly, this will take at least 7 years. By that time more people will presumably be using computers, and more universities will probably be likely to want professors to teach history. The PhD is important because it will not only make you a professional historian, but it will allow you to get a job just about anywhere. Any large history department will probably have someone who specializes in the history of science and technology, and with a PhD you'll be able to also
teach other history courses, making you a more attractive candidate for a job. There are also museum jobs, as other people mentioned, and large corporations often have positions as company historian that you might be able to get. If all else fails you can fall back on your undergrad CS work and get a higher-paying job as a programmer or admin. --
What astounds me is how every other country insists on buying some of the garbage that we put out. I will never understand Europe's (or Asia, or South America's) thirst for bad American programming. Contrary to what you may believe, we don't export our best stuff; there are good American shows, but they tend to lose out to the louder/dumber ones in terms of viewer success even here. It's also important to note that in recent years a lot of the better and more innovative programming has cropped up on American cable rather than in syndication or on networks, and Mystery Science Theater 3000 fits into this category. I was a little surprised to find so many people criticizing it on/.; I've found every episode I've watched hilarious. --
The article about the CBS digital editing controversy is here. I know it's done a lot, but I think it's pretty contemptible for a supposedly legitimate news program to do it for something as petty as removing a rival's advertisement. --
A lot of companies like to convince themselves they have the "newest thing". They're usually wrong. But they invest so emotionally in it that they become paranoid.
Solution: next time they ask, look incredously at them, then break into raucous laughter, shaking your head as you walk away.
--
You know, I could actually forgive the architects for these transgressions, if all the preoccupation with style actually produced aesthetically pleasing buildings. Maybe we're getting slightly better nowadays, but most buildings built in the last 50 years seem utterly tasteless and without artistic merit. --
My high school (the one I have since graduated from) was built in 1967. Needless to say, it showed its age. It was filled with lots of day-glo orange and green furniture, had indirect lighting, wood paneling, high ceilings and earthtones everywhere. The classrooms were huge
Wow, 1967. That was built like yesterday. After spending most of my life in New York public schools (kindergarten-college), I envy you...most of our buildings look like late 19th century factories.
--
Overdrawn just kind of depressed me. I mean, it a John Varley story, done by American Playhouse (I think they did it, can't remember for sure), with a talented actor like Julia, should have been well...watchable. The worst thing about it is a sneaking suspicion that I have that it may have prevented the PBS production companies from taking on sci-fi, which I think they could do a better job at than the networks (or cable channels) have been doing. --
Slashdot Mirror
If open-source OSes don't develop their own human interface guidelines and find a way to make them stick, Linux on the desktop will become a forlorn dream.
Why not just use their's ? (might as well get some use out of it, judging by the mac mouse, Apple isn't using it) Seriously, though, I agree with everything the article says. I've gotten so fed up with Gnome and KDE that I've started doing most of my work in the console.
--
I can understand that it might be a little annoying, but most programming jobs are going to set your environment for you anyway, especially if you'll be working with a team. It's a good chance to learn to write easily portable code anyway, and if it's an intro class you probably won't be dealing with any compiler or platform-specific code. Probably wouldn't have to make any changes in porting it anyway.
--
I never learned by being forced to sit down and study; in fact, it discouraged me from it. You don't instill an appreciation of learning by forcing it. Personally, I think a lot of the behavioral problems we see with young children is a result of them being forced to sit quietly for 8 hours a day. Most of what I remember from my pre-college education is the mind numbing boredom.
--
Are we POSIX compliant?
--
Lets face it, Republicans and the Democrates are virtually the same party, they only disagree on a very narrow list of issues.
I always hear this, but I never see it. Republicans and Democrats disagree on most major issues. Watch C-SPAN; they vote along different lines consistently.
--
Yeah? Maybe I'll try that one of these days. I prefer Tenchi dubbed because I just like the American voice actors so much...
--
Suggestion: stop writing posts about how this is wrong. Everyone on slashdot knows this. All you're doing is preaching to the converted.
Anyway, this is a motion filed by a plaintiff, and was never meant to be construed as objective fact. Judges know to look at these things very, very carefully. Besides which, if you read the actual brief it's mostly about whether the court has jurisdiction over the defendant. It really doesn't have much to do with their factual error regarding the nature of the "Open Source" movement.
--
You don't know what you're talking about. Firstoff, in animal husbandry "interbreed" means "crossbreed within the same general type". Frex, a crossbred dog would be say a Malemute and a Labrador Retriever (from two different breed groups entirely) and an interbred would be a Lab and a Golden Retriever (from two similar breeds, but still not a purebred).
There's a difference between animal husbandry and genetics. I'm not sure what a "breed group" is, but I don't know if it's a genetic term; all dogs represent the same species.
Second, what you meant, to wit "inbreeding", does ***NOT*** IN ITSELF ***CREATE*** problems, contrary to popular perception. All inbreeding does is *concentrate the genes you already have*. If they're bad you get worse results. If they're good, you get better results...
How do you "concentrate" genes? Undesirable genes tend to be both recessive and rare; undesirable dominant genes are selected out rather quickly. By breeding two organisms that both have the same recessive genes, you have a higher chance of expressing these recessive characteristics. Contrary to your initial assertion, interbreeding DOES cause problems. Humans may be particularly susceptible due to the relatively close genetic relationship we have with each other, but it affects all sexually reproducing animals. To take an animal husbandry example, I know a lot of purebred dogs have heart and respiratory problems because of this. As for cattle, they are selected by breeders mainly for size over several thousand years, and by this time they have so many harmful traits that almost none of them could survive if released into the wilderness.
The notion that inbreeding is automatically BAD comes from the fact that in animals with a LOT of genetic defects in the gene pool, such as humans, ANY time you double up on a set of their genes, chances are you've also doubled up on something Bad. The average human carries an average of 25 to 75 genes for LETHAL defects. The average dog carries for one or two. Beef cattle generally carry NONE.
I'm very curious as to where you got these figures. The human genome was just now mapped (and that's just the gene's form, not their function), and scientists are discovering genetic causes for various diseases on an ongoing basis. How did you come to the figure of 25 to 75? Even if you mean lethal at birth or shortly after rather than during the entire lifetime, it still seems too small a number. And I don't know where you got the number from in the first place.
OST animals in the wild inbreed to some extent, because they don't have any "moral" objections (they will cheerfully breed their siblings, in fact the tendency is to *want* to breed within animals that smell the same, ie. are closely related), and because generally there is not a lot of movement between population territories.
Now this is definitely suspect. Just about every piece of zoological literature I've read on the subject (granted, they've mostly been about primates and other mammals, but that's what we seem to be focusing on anyway) says that animals are selected to look outside of immediate family groups for mates. The only time that animals tend to inbreed is when they are forced into it through non-typical situations (i.e. zoos and animal breeders). There is a definite evolutionary advantage in creating genetically diverse offspring. I think you're mixing up the idea of animal husbandry, in which certain characteristics are aimed for, and standard evolution, where characteristics are selected for not by any objective standard of good or bad, but whether they help an animal survive or not.
--
It won't represent you if you don't participate. I AM represented by the system, because I vote in every election. Maybe my choices aren't that great, but I do have a hand in choosing between them. What do you expect to happen if enough people stop voting? Not a troll, I just don't see what end you're trying for.
--
Responding to what may be a genuine mental disorder with violence or verbal abuse won't help it I think. Maybe you can cow kids into sitting down and studying, but that won't necessarily help them learn. They'll just sit there, reading the same passage again and again, trying to focus and failing.
--
I will vote when I don't feel that I'm choosing between the lesser of two evils. Let my voter apathy be my vote. None of the above.
Abstaining does nothing except reinforce the system that you seem to hate. The DMCA and similiar laws don't pass because too many people vote. They pass because not enough voters make themselves heard on the issue. Vote for Ralph Nader (or write in John McCain) if you want to vote against corporate influence in politics.
--
I'm a total Tenchi addict, so after devouring the first 2 oav series, 3 movies, and what episodes of Tenchi Universe I could get on DVD, I ordered like 4 of the Tenchi in Tokyo DVDs. Turned it off before the first episode ended. I can't believe what they did to some extremely interesting characters; they turned it from beautifully written anime to a nauseating parody of itself. Don't judge the whole franchise by Tenchi in Tokyo.
--
Supposedly there will be a 3rd OAV series, hopefully wrapping up the unresolved storyline from the 2nd one...
--
Then turn on any channel affiliated with Fox or Murdoch's News Corporation, and you can get the liberal bashing. Find it on AM radio too. Difference between the Today Show and the Fox News channel is the Today show doesn't try to portray itself as a serious news source.
--
Here, the power of Netizens to tailor their own media is enormous and profound.
Am I the only one who cringes at the term "netizen"?
Where to begin...
Ok, the idea of "tailoring" media doesn't really seem to be much different than what we've been able to do in the past. If I want to read stock quotes, I'll go to the business section of the New York Times. If I want to access them online, I'll go to yahoo.com. How is the online experience "tailored" while the print one is not? In both cases I can go right to what I want; I don't have to read/access any other section if I don't want to.
Now what about this idea of online news sources being somehow superior to print/broadcast ones? What Jon seems to ignore in a lot of his posts is the issue of authority. Just about anyone can throw together a "news" web page. Why should I believe what I read on it? When I read a paper in the story I can assume it passed through several people's hands to get there. I can be assured that more likely than not, it is reasonably accurate. And while some papers definitely have a bias, whether from the left (Village Voice) or right (New York Daily News), the vast majority of them tend to be somewhat even-handed. Can't be sure about that online, as due to the ease with which web sites can be put up, and security lapses (how often has the print version of the New York Times been hacked?)
News is not open source. It shouldn't be. If I don't like something I read in the paper, I can't alter it to suit my liking.
I think serious terminology problems arise when it comes to describing younger Americans' tastes in news. Just as many pollsters and journalists don't consider gaming a significant part of culture, entertainment and technology often aren't considered news.
Please, find me a single major news source that doesn't cover culture, entertainment, and technology.
The kids I encounter online devour enormous amounts of information on a daily basis. That makes sweeping descriptions of their information habits suspect.
But sweeping descriptions of the information habits of the over 50 crowd is ok?
I have maybe a handful of friends with whom I can discuss current events. A lot of people I know, while highly intelligent, just don't care.
Personally, I get most of my news online, because that's easier for me. I read the paper on the subway, because I think it handles the news better. For certain things (election coverage) I like CNN. Online news may be gaining in popularity, but I don't think it's inherently better than anything else that's out there. And the rise of 24-hour cable news channels is probably has had a lot more impact in recent years than online ones.
And if you've read to the end of this article, I salute you. Didn't mean to go on so much, but these whole internet/youth good, old media/age bad thing really irritates me.
--
Well, those awful neon-colored kid's cereals DID claim that "purple" was a flavor...
--
Oh wow, this brings back some great memories of arguments I used to make flare up in rec.arts.sf.written...Especially fun there because of all the female-warrior-writing authors who hung out on it...
As for my (perhaps sexist) opinion, I think female warriors could be effective in combat, but their weapon of choice probably wouldn't be any of the heavier hand-to-hand weapons.
--
Jumping into this late, but I think you shouldn't worry about what's happening now, but rather what will be happening 7 years from now. My advice: go to college, double major in history and computer science (or major in one and minor in the other). Then enter a PhD program in either history, history of science, or science and technology studies. If you do everything right away, max out on courses, and finish your dissertation quickly, this will take at least 7 years. By that time more people will presumably be using computers, and more universities will probably be likely to want professors to teach history. The PhD is important because it will not only make you a professional historian, but it will allow you to get a job just about anywhere. Any large history department will probably have someone who specializes in the history of science and technology, and with a PhD you'll be able to also teach other history courses, making you a more attractive candidate for a job. There are also museum jobs, as other people mentioned, and large corporations often have positions as company historian that you might be able to get. If all else fails you can fall back on your undergrad CS work and get a higher-paying job as a programmer or admin.
--
What astounds me is how every other country insists on buying some of the garbage that we put out. I will never understand Europe's (or Asia, or South America's) thirst for bad American programming. Contrary to what you may believe, we don't export our best stuff; there are good American shows, but they tend to lose out to the louder/dumber ones in terms of viewer success even here. It's also important to note that in recent years a lot of the better and more innovative programming has cropped up on American cable rather than in syndication or on networks, and Mystery Science Theater 3000 fits into this category. I was a little surprised to find so many people criticizing it on /.; I've found every episode I've watched hilarious.
--
The article about the CBS digital editing controversy is here. I know it's done a lot, but I think it's pretty contemptible for a supposedly legitimate news program to do it for something as petty as removing a rival's advertisement.
--
Mystery Science Theatre is unknown outside the USA
Give me a break. What exactly does that prove?
--
A lot of companies like to convince themselves they have the "newest thing". They're usually wrong. But they invest so emotionally in it that they become paranoid.
Solution: next time they ask, look incredously at them, then break into raucous laughter, shaking your head as you walk away.
--
You know, I could actually forgive the architects for these transgressions, if all the preoccupation with style actually produced aesthetically pleasing buildings. Maybe we're getting slightly better nowadays, but most buildings built in the last 50 years seem utterly tasteless and without artistic merit.
--
My high school (the one I have since graduated from) was built in 1967. Needless to say, it showed its age. It was filled with lots of day-glo orange and green furniture, had indirect lighting, wood paneling, high ceilings and earthtones everywhere. The classrooms were huge
Wow, 1967. That was built like yesterday. After spending most of my life in New York public schools (kindergarten-college), I envy you...most of our buildings look like late 19th century factories.
--
Overdrawn just kind of depressed me. I mean, it a John Varley story, done by American Playhouse (I think they did it, can't remember for sure), with a talented actor like Julia, should have been well...watchable. The worst thing about it is a sneaking suspicion that I have that it may have prevented the PBS production companies from taking on sci-fi, which I think they could do a better job at than the networks (or cable channels) have been doing.
--