You don't need to violate Newtonian physics to get to Mars in considerably less than 18 months. You just need to go faster. The speedometer has a lot of room on it before you get to relativistic speeds.
Don't like what the BBC did? Don't watch BBC. Don't like Sony CD's? Stop buying them. Don't like Tivo's behavior? Sell your Tivo. Don't like what any media corporation does? Stop consuming their product. The vaunted convergence of PC's and popular media will emasculate both unless consumers organize and start fighting back.
Once there's an independent population of humans on the Moon, let them decide. Terrans can legislate the behavior of people who live on their planet, but they don't have the right to legislate for humans on the Moon, or elsewhere.
We would develop Antartica if someone found something there that was profitable to extract. Don't hold your breath waiting on treaties to protect the place under those circumstances.
And I don't think that's a terrible thing. Humans have every right to be in Antartica or on the Moon (Notice I said "be", not "destroy".) Failure to continue to explore our universe -- on-planet and off-planet -- is tantamount to the end of the species.
"...you can't really complain that much about bugs, if you havn't botherd to look through the code to find them"
Sure I can. Anyone who wants open source to remain a viable player -- either in the corporate world or on the desktop -- better drop the notion that access to source code is a magic bullet. If you have the time, patience and skill to find a bug in millions of lines of someone else's code, then more power to you. But most mortals have neither the skills nor the time. And why should they? Would you really try to debug, patch and rebuild Windows if Microsoft gave you the code, and also shut down all their customer/developer service outlets, proclaiming "You Have the Source! Fix it yourself."? Users have every right to expect released software to function as advertised and bug-free, absent a clear plain language indication that it is still alpha or beta or whatever. (The widespread propensity of the open source world to seek cover in many, successive, release numbers below 1.0 doesn't help matters. If it is really ready for public release, call it version 1.0. If it isn't, be sure to spell that out clearly and plainly, or bettter yet, don't release it. Don't pretend that every potential user knows what a sub-1.0 version number is supposed to mean.)
Microsoft can make this argument thanks to their effective monopoly position. In an open market, buyers could avoid the vulnerabilities of one product by using a competing product. The same holds for their admitted bad code.
The U.S. Government, especially the Department of Defense, has, at times, gone to some lengths to maintain at least some degree of competitiveness in what it considers an essential defense industiry. (E.g., the aerospace industry in the U.S.) Ironically, the same government may now perceive security vulnerabilities as a result of Microsoft's behavior.
Consolidation in the software industry is nothing new, and might be considered the nature of the beast. There's nothing intrinsic about commercial Linux distributors to allow them to escape that fate. What aggravates their situation is the fact that the more they try to differantiate their "product" from the competition, the more they are likely to confuse the non-techie market.
Because: 1. All distributions are pretty much the same, given a few version differences. For all practical purposes, the only things that can be changed are the install and setup routines. 2. People talk about interfaces like KDE because the thing is as close as open source has managed to get to a an unembarrassing GUI. Geez, what else are they going to talk about? This year's release of a 20-year old editor?
Yes, getting around a config file is pretty easy, once you learn the syntax. But that's the point -- you have to learn the syntax. If you are just an average person -- not a developer or an admin type --who wants to use some piece of software, why should you ever need to worry about "syntax", or even know that there is such a thing? Learning the "power" of the command line isn't worth the effort if you never have a reason to drop to the command line.
Most every "user" I know could care less how software works, and, in fact, it all seems pretty boring to them. Their judgments about "good" vs "bad" software are primarly based on ease-of-use and visual attractiveness.
Frankly, I don't know anything at all about interface design. I'm just a bit tired of the cultish "don't like it? build your own" thread that seems to permeate much of the open source community. I'm also disappointed by the lack of original ideas, as reflected in the EMACS vs VI and Apache vs IIS wars. Surely, it is possible that someone, someday, might build a better editor that either EMACS or vi, and surely it is possible that neither Apache or IIS represent the ultimate in web server technology.
Why can't the open source community generate sone truly innovative, easy to use, ideas, instead of rewriting the same old stuff and castigating as "not terribly bright outsiders" those with the temerity to suggest that Computers Are Supposed To Be East To Use??
This kind of troglodytic ignorance of the value of a good interface is all too typical. Why shouldn't this stuff be easy to use? Why should soneone need to know how to construct regular expressions in order to run a web server? Why maintain the quarter-century old text-based UNIX interface as some kind of rite of passage that the Chosen Ones use to ward off the Heathen?
If open source is really about giving people choices, then give them more than one option.
Telling people that they need to change their behavior in order to use any kind of machine is a certain ticket to obscurity. The only people who will have the incentive to change are those who are attracted by the intrinsic nature of the tool itself, not the work it can help them accomplish.
People -- even developers, geeks, and related species -- use computers to accompish some purpose. A small minority of those users will have a primary interest in the tool itself. But, everyone else will just want the tool to be fast and easy. Why should computers and software be any different?
The open source community would be better off trying to build easy software that allows users to do something they want to do and that MS software doesn't let them do. Stop building software for yourself. Get out and talk to some people. Watch what they do. Don't waste time and energy trying to build the interface that replaces the hardware-driven mouse and GUI (There is only so much you can do with a keyboard, a pointing device, and a two-dimensional work surface.)
As someone who came of age in the 1960's -- and certainly a tad older than the mainstream./ reader -- I am of the conviction that the our nascent attempts to move into space represent one of the very few things the human race can be proud about in the 20th century. The rest of the century was a dismal war-ridden bloodbath that culminated in a (so far) narrow escape from global nuclear suicide.
Space is where we live. We shouldn't be afraid to leave the house.
I don't think TV technology is more 'comprehensible' than computer technology. The point, tho, is that you don't need to know much to use a TV. Nor do we really use the "computer". What most all of us use is the software that runs on the computer. Demonstrably, that requires more skill than watching TV. It shouldn't be that way, but the software industry is a long way from knowing how to deliver products that are easy to use.
AOL is justified in being wary of offering a Linux client that sucks them into providing support for a myriad variety of Linux distributions. But... you can fit a lot of stuff on a CD. How about giving folks an option by rolling out an AOL version of Linux with the AOL client? If you want a Linux AOL client plus AOL support, you get to run AOL Linux. Sounds reasonable to me.
-- simple is better than complex -- don't let the design distract readers from your words -- use black text on white -- people dance, words stay in one place -- use more white space than you think necessary -- don't show off; don't be cute
Gedz, man. How painful. Get yourself a DOS disk or something. Just 'SYS' a floppy and add FORMAT and FDISK. i keep an old Novell DOS disk around just for that.
It's Software, Not a Moral imperative
on
ROX Desktop Update
·
· Score: 1
Open Source/Linux users have every reason to exercise their free speech and articulate what what they think without incurring any obligation to do anything at all, much less write their own code. That makes about as much sense as telling me: "So, you don't like Fords, eh? So, stop whining go build your own car!"
Blame Unsafe Code on Developer, Not Language
on
Bill Joy's Takes on C#
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Writing safe code is the developer's responsibility. The language has nothing to do with it. If you wanna write in C and also check for buffer overflows, you're gonna have to do it yourself. Otherwise, pick a new language.
Yes, paper books, please! No ebooks. I want the tactile experience of holding the book. I don't won't to worry about plugging a book into an electrical outlet, or worry about battery lifetime. God knows, I don't want to worry about rebooting my book.
Seems to me the publishing industry might want to look at a way to speed up their business cycle, so they can get books about new tech on the market before it become's old tech. Although I'm sure the longest pole in the tent is the actual writing-editing cycle, are there opportunities for innovation on the printing and distribution side? I know I'd often overlook a lot of design and craftmanship "flaws" if that meant I could buy the book a month earlier.
Actually, I blame Nixon for lots of things, but mostly for being Nixon, and specifically for letting the Apollo momentum die on the vine.
What I remember, tho, isn't SSTO, but simply a fully recoverable shuttle system based on a manned booster and a separate manned orbiter. That rather reasonable proposal went out the window once the budget weenies got in the mix, and NASA conjured up the sort-of-recoverable thing they're flying now.
In the end, what counts is getting into space, not the elegance of your engineering solution.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't need to violate Newtonian physics to get to Mars in considerably less than 18 months. You just need to go faster. The speedometer has a lot of room on it before you get to relativistic speeds.
Don't like what the BBC did? Don't watch BBC. Don't like Sony CD's? Stop buying them. Don't like Tivo's behavior? Sell your Tivo. Don't like what any media corporation does? Stop consuming their product.
The vaunted convergence of PC's and popular media will emasculate both unless consumers organize and start fighting back.
Once there's an independent population of humans on the Moon, let them decide. Terrans can legislate the behavior of people who live on their planet, but they don't have the right to legislate for humans on the Moon, or elsewhere.
And I don't think that's a terrible thing. Humans have every right to be in Antartica or on the Moon (Notice I said "be", not "destroy".) Failure to continue to explore our universe -- on-planet and off-planet -- is tantamount to the end of the species.
"...you can't really complain that much about bugs, if you havn't botherd to look through the code to find them"
Sure I can. Anyone who wants open source to remain a viable player -- either in the corporate world or on the desktop -- better drop the notion that access to source code is a magic bullet. If you have the time, patience and skill to find a bug in millions of lines of someone else's code, then more power to you. But most mortals have neither the skills nor the time. And why should they? Would you really try to debug, patch and rebuild Windows if Microsoft gave you the code, and also shut down all their customer/developer service outlets, proclaiming "You Have the Source! Fix it yourself."? Users have every right to expect released software to function as advertised and bug-free, absent a clear plain language indication that it is still alpha or beta or whatever. (The widespread propensity of the open source world to seek cover in many, successive, release numbers below 1.0 doesn't help matters. If it is really ready for public release, call it version 1.0. If it isn't, be sure to spell that out clearly and plainly, or bettter yet, don't release it. Don't pretend that every potential user knows what a sub-1.0 version number is supposed to mean.)
The U.S. Government, especially the Department of Defense, has, at times, gone to some lengths to maintain at least some degree of competitiveness in what it considers an essential defense industiry. (E.g., the aerospace industry in the U.S.) Ironically, the same government may now perceive security vulnerabilities as a result of Microsoft's behavior.
Hear, hear. This is more evidence of the unthinking U.S.-centric assumptions of much (most?) of what gets posted here.
But then, I suspect you think Opera should simply give the thing away.
Consolidation in the software industry is nothing new, and might be considered the nature of the beast. There's nothing intrinsic about commercial Linux distributors to allow them to escape that fate. What aggravates their situation is the fact that the more they try to differantiate their "product" from the competition, the more they are likely to confuse the non-techie market.
Because:
1. All distributions are pretty much the same, given a few version differences. For all practical purposes, the only things that can be changed are the install and setup routines.
2. People talk about interfaces like KDE because the thing is as close as open source has managed to get to a an unembarrassing GUI. Geez, what else are they going to talk about? This year's release of a 20-year old editor?
".....free software is usually better software"....
Why?
Most every "user" I know could care less how software works, and, in fact, it all seems pretty boring to them. Their judgments about "good" vs "bad" software are primarly based on ease-of-use and visual attractiveness.
Why can't the open source community generate sone truly innovative, easy to use, ideas, instead of rewriting the same old stuff and castigating as "not terribly bright outsiders" those with the temerity to suggest that Computers Are Supposed To Be East To Use??
If open source is really about giving people choices, then give them more than one option.
People -- even developers, geeks, and related species -- use computers to accompish some purpose. A small minority of those users will have a primary interest in the tool itself. But, everyone else will just want the tool to be fast and easy. Why should computers and software be any different?
The open source community would be better off trying to build easy software that allows users to do something they want to do and that MS software doesn't let them do. Stop building software for yourself. Get out and talk to some people. Watch what they do. Don't waste time and energy trying to build the interface that replaces the hardware-driven mouse and GUI (There is only so much you can do with a keyboard, a pointing device, and a two-dimensional work surface.)
Correction: The Jupiter-C was based on the Redstone, not the Jupiter.
Space is where we live. We shouldn't be afraid to leave the house.
I don't think TV technology is more 'comprehensible' than computer technology. The point, tho, is that you don't need to know much to use a TV. Nor do we really use the "computer". What most all of us use is the software that runs on the computer. Demonstrably, that requires more skill than watching TV. It shouldn't be that way, but the software industry is a long way from knowing how to deliver products that are easy to use.
AOL is justified in being wary of offering a Linux client that sucks them into providing support for a myriad variety of Linux distributions. But... you can fit a lot of stuff on a CD. How about giving folks an option by rolling out an AOL version of Linux with the AOL client? If you want a Linux AOL client plus AOL support, you get to run AOL Linux. Sounds reasonable to me.
...rather than create an impression or image:
-- simple is better than complex
-- don't let the design distract readers from your words
-- use black text on white
-- people dance, words stay in one place
-- use more white space than you think necessary
-- don't show off; don't be cute
Gedz, man. How painful. Get yourself a DOS disk or something. Just 'SYS' a floppy and add FORMAT and FDISK. i keep an old Novell DOS disk around just for that.
Open Source/Linux users have every reason to exercise their free speech and articulate what what they think without incurring any obligation to do anything at all, much less write their own code. That makes about as much sense as telling me: "So, you don't like Fords, eh? So, stop whining go build your own car!"
Writing safe code is the developer's responsibility. The language has nothing to do with it. If you wanna write in C and also check for buffer overflows, you're gonna have to do it yourself. Otherwise, pick a new language.
Seems to me the publishing industry might want to look at a way to speed up their business cycle, so they can get books about new tech on the market before it become's old tech. Although I'm sure the longest pole in the tent is the actual writing-editing cycle, are there opportunities for innovation on the printing and distribution side? I know I'd often overlook a lot of design and craftmanship "flaws" if that meant I could buy the book a month earlier.
What I remember, tho, isn't SSTO, but simply a fully recoverable shuttle system based on a manned booster and a separate manned orbiter. That rather reasonable proposal went out the window once the budget weenies got in the mix, and NASA conjured up the sort-of-recoverable thing they're flying now.
In the end, what counts is getting into space, not the elegance of your engineering solution.