I always thought 'n.b.' meant 'note that', but checking the dictionary, I see that it means 'nota bene' which is latin for 'mark well' ... heh, I didn't know that either.
Yes. But the fact is, if you take a look at posts moderated to -1, posts critical of Linux do tend to get moderated down.
They may not have been very good posts, but they would have been left alone had they not had been so-called 'anti-Linux' i.e. if you replaced every occurence of Linux with Windows in the message, those posts would have been left alone. This isn't Rob's fault of course, but the fault of a few mindless Linux loving moderators.
I've had this happen to me before, and I've had to write to Rob complaining about this, after which he moderated the post back up.
If true (I don't think it is), that's a terrible thing to do. As I understand it, many people in Belgrade rely on email to keep in touch with their families abroad; it's evil to cut them off like that.
It's also important for us on this side of the fence to know what people in Belgrade are thinking, so that we can see their point of view and the effect that the war has on them; even if we think their news sites are just propaganda, it still offers some insight into what is going on in Serbian minds.
How about developing a computer langauage that is as close to english as possible, in the sense that its syntax reads like english. e.g. x is two plus one
This should make any attempts at control of source code export impossible.
By 'application of computer science', I am refering to the application of the concepts, principles, discipline and ideas of computer science to these fields. And not in the sense of 'just an application'.
To repeat another message which I posted, this is a call for the expansion and movement of computer science beyond 'traditional' areas -- which KT and others are saying 'is done' -- and towards new frontiers instead, so that computer science can retain its vitality.
I think you misunderstand the position. To say that 'Computer Science is largely done' is neither a call for complacency nor a call to give up work.
Exactly the opposite: it is a call against stagnation of the field, it is to say that computer scientists should move beyond 'traditional' areas of computer science like theory, operating systems, etc., and look for new avenues for the expansion and application of computer science, such as application to biology, linguistics, etc.
"So, why would he have said that? The rest of the interview was OK. His comments about Linux could only come from ignorance or bitterness - I can find no other rational explanation. "
Given that the rest of his interview was well-done, why would he have suddenly made a spiteful, irrational remark? It doesn't make sense. Perhaps a rational explanation could be that he has encountered problems with Linux? Of course, it would have been nice if he had elaborated more on this.
"His comment about computer science being mostly done was off the wall, too. I could give you a list of things we're just starting to work on, that will not be done before I'm dead. "
Juris Hartmanis (a Turing award winner in the Cornell CS department) has said basically the same thing. I think the idea is that fundamental, theoretical computer science is largely done, and advances will come in the form of applications of computer science to other fields, such as application to computational biology (which a number of people are working on here). You may not agree with this, but it's hardly an 'off the wall' comment.
I don't see how it'll work in these cases either. A surface with sufficiently high optical variance is probably required. But I guess it should be possible to work with most real surfaces, like paper, which are actually quite rough on a microscopic level -- which means that the camera on the mouse must be of quite high resolution.
I'm aware of this definiton. But I went for a talk by a lawyer recently, and he mentioned that so far, courts have never regarded any written document as obscene -- only visual images.
Linux sounds very cool, but the thing is, I don't really have time nowadays to play with new OSes. I need a compelling reason to switch over, and there isn't really a compelling reason to switch to Linux, besides supposed greater stability, and NT seems stable enough for my needs. Linux doesn't even have the apps that I want, and since I'm really lazy, even if the same apps were available on Linux, I still might not switch because of the time and trouble involved -- I'd expect Linux to offer much much more before switching over (which it doesn't).
MATLAB. What I really want to run now is MATLAB. I know there's MATLAB for Linux, but I don't have it (lame, I know), and I don't think there's a student version for Linux either.
Decent web browser. I think Netscape is horrendous and I don't want to switch back to that. Changing from Netscape to IE improved my computing quality of life more than any other change I remember.
MS Word. WPS8 for Linux still screws up the formating of word documents.
Development environment with nice IDE i.e. something that compares with MS visual studio. In fact, when I was developing a program for unix-systems, I would develop it in Visual studio,then ftp it over and compile it with gcc.
It's not really about ease of use for me. I don't have a problem with command prompts. Linux just doesn't have the apps that I want to run and need to use for my work.
Brian, I think I do get the point..
on
ShutUp Software
·
· Score: 1
I don't find your argument very convincing at all. I'm sure you realize that in real life, people choose what they want to read and hear all the time. So what makes choosing to block you different from that?
You seem to be saying that this is more evil simply because it's so easy to do so on the net -- just block out what you don't want to hear with a click of a button. But I find this argument pretty weak; I don't see how this is qualitatively different from choosing not to, say, read a column by a columnist that you don't like or whose opinions you don't respect. Is it different or worse just because it's easier? I don't see why.
Remember that people don't choose to block you arbitrarily -- this is a considered choice that people make. You're first given a chance to be heard, before people decide that they don't want to hear anymore of what you say -- it's about credibility and convincing people that your opinions count.
And why can't it be both good and easy? Good and easy don't have to be mutually exclusive. I think Andrew Allison's comment is certainly a valid criticism.
Bill Gates seems to be confusing free with free. As RMS frequently reminds us, free software doesn't mean that you can't charge money for it, and is perfectly compatible with commercial development. Plenty of companies like Red Hat are actively developing free software, and making money doing so.
OSI has to sue MS immediately for abuse of the trademark. A trademark is only worth anything if it's promptly and regularly defended against misue.
Let MS continue abusing the term, and it'll be too late to do anything later -- MS can later argue in court that since OSI has not acted promptly to defend its trademark, the term is now public domain.
I think the function of a default score is not so much as to save moderators work, or even to try guess at the value of a particular post -- but rather to try to increase the general quality of posts, on the assumption that people, being driven by their egos, would like to be able to flaunt a high default score and hence make better posts.
But I think it's a bad idea to assign a default score to posts. It'd probably be better to have a separate 'reputation' score that appears with a message -- this will still serve the function described above, but avoids assigning artificially high or low scores to posts that may not deserve it.
I agree. The lack of availability of IE on Linux is a major factor that keeps me from trying Linux -- I can't bear the thought of having to go back to Netscape again. The guys who left netscape should get together and use the mozilla source to develop a kick-ass alternative to netscape and IE.
Slashdot Mirror
I always thought 'n.b.' meant 'note that', but checking the dictionary, I see that it means 'nota bene' which is latin for 'mark well'
... heh, I didn't know that either.
Yes. But the fact is, if you take a look at posts moderated to -1, posts critical of Linux do tend to get moderated down.
They may not have been very good posts, but they would have been left alone had they not had been so-called 'anti-Linux' i.e. if you replaced every occurence of Linux with Windows in the message, those posts would have been left alone. This isn't Rob's fault of course, but the fault of a few mindless Linux loving moderators.
I've had this happen to me before, and I've had to write to Rob complaining about this, after which he moderated the post back up.
We should have an 'Anti-Linux' option: people who post negative remarks about Linux get their score taken down by -1
(n.b. I'm being sarcastic here)
Oh, and check out some cool mpegs done in Data Explorer: .cornell.edu/Visualization/contrib/cs418-sp94/cs41 8.html
http://www.tc
I've written a Data Explorer to Matlab module.
So you can call Matlab from Data Explorer.
Take a look:
http://www.people.corne ll.edu/pages/sc110/dx2mat/dx2mat.htm
But apparently your (or at least Ryan's) stable Linux does not have a web browser capable of playing the asciimation.
Use Windows mircea.
If true (I don't think it is), that's a terrible thing to do. As I understand it, many people in Belgrade rely on email to keep in touch with their families abroad; it's evil to cut them off like that.
It's also important for us on this side of the fence to know what people in Belgrade are thinking, so that we can see their point of view and the effect that the war has on them; even if we think their news sites are just propaganda, it still offers some insight into what is going on in Serbian minds.
How about developing a computer langauage that is as close to english as possible, in the sense that its syntax reads like english.
e.g.
x is two plus one
This should make any attempts at control of source code export impossible.
By 'application of computer science', I am refering to the application of the concepts, principles, discipline and ideas of computer science to these fields. And not in the sense of 'just an application'.
To repeat another message which I posted, this is a call for the expansion and movement of computer science beyond 'traditional' areas -- which KT and others are saying 'is done' -- and towards new frontiers instead, so that computer science can retain its vitality.
I think you misunderstand the position. To say that 'Computer Science is largely done' is neither a call for complacency nor a call to give up work.
Exactly the opposite: it is a call against stagnation of the field, it is to say that computer scientists should move beyond 'traditional' areas of computer science like theory, operating systems, etc., and look for new avenues for the expansion and application of computer science, such as application to biology, linguistics, etc.
"So, why would he have said that? The rest of the interview was OK. His comments about Linux could only come from ignorance or bitterness - I can find no other rational explanation. "
Given that the rest of his interview was well-done, why would he have suddenly made a spiteful, irrational remark? It doesn't make sense. Perhaps a rational explanation could be that he has encountered problems with Linux? Of course, it would have been nice if he had elaborated more on this.
"His comment about computer science being mostly done was off the wall, too. I could give you a list of things we're just starting to work on, that will not be done before I'm dead. "
Juris Hartmanis (a Turing award winner in the Cornell CS department) has said basically the same thing. I think the idea is that fundamental, theoretical computer science is largely done, and advances will come in the form of applications of computer science to other fields, such as application to computational biology (which a number of people are working on here). You may not agree with this, but it's hardly an 'off the wall' comment.
I don't see how it'll work in these cases either. A surface with sufficiently high optical variance is probably required.
But I guess it should be possible to work with most real surfaces, like paper, which are actually quite rough on a microscopic level -- which means that the camera on the mouse must be of quite high resolution.
I'm aware of this definiton. But I went for a talk by a lawyer recently, and he mentioned that so far, courts have never regarded any written document as obscene -- only visual images.
Linux sounds very cool, but the thing is, I don't really have time nowadays to play with new OSes. I need a compelling reason to switch over, and there isn't really a compelling reason to switch to Linux, besides supposed greater stability, and NT seems stable enough for my needs. Linux doesn't even have the apps that I want, and since I'm really lazy, even if the same apps were available on Linux, I still might not switch because of the time and trouble involved -- I'd expect Linux to offer much much more before switching over (which it doesn't).
MATLAB. What I really want to run now is MATLAB. I know there's MATLAB for Linux, but I don't have it (lame, I know), and I don't think there's a student version for Linux either.
Decent web browser. I think Netscape is horrendous and I don't want to switch back to that. Changing from Netscape to IE improved my computing quality of life more than any other change I remember.
MS Word. WPS8 for Linux still screws up the formating of word documents.
Development environment with nice IDE i.e. something that compares with MS visual studio. In fact, when I was developing a program for unix-systems, I would develop it in Visual studio,then ftp it over and compile it with gcc.
And of course games....
It's not really about ease of use for me. I don't have a problem with command prompts. Linux just doesn't have the apps that I want to run and need to use for my work.
I don't find your argument very convincing at all. I'm sure you realize that in real life, people choose what they want to read and hear all the time. So what makes choosing to block you different from that?
You seem to be saying that this is more evil simply because it's so easy to do so on the net -- just block out what you don't want to hear with a click of a button. But I find this argument pretty weak; I don't see how this is qualitatively different from choosing not to, say, read a column by a columnist that you don't like or whose opinions you don't respect. Is it different or worse just because it's easier? I don't see why.
Remember that people don't choose to block you arbitrarily -- this is a considered choice that people make. You're first given a chance to be heard, before people decide that they don't want to hear anymore of what you say -- it's about credibility and convincing people that your opinions count.
"Only if Microsoft goes first."
So you're saying Linux should stay behind MS.
And why can't it be both good and easy? Good and easy don't have to be mutually exclusive.
I think Andrew Allison's comment is certainly a valid criticism.
Bill Gates seems to be confusing free with free. As RMS frequently reminds us, free software doesn't mean that you can't charge money for it, and is perfectly compatible with commercial development. Plenty of companies like Red Hat are actively developing free software, and making money doing so.
I think it's true that violent games have a very negative effect on some (very few) kids.
But the question really is, whether we should restrict of freedom of the vast majority of children, because of the actions of a small minority.
OSI has to sue MS immediately for abuse of the trademark. A trademark is only worth anything if it's promptly and regularly defended against misue.
Let MS continue abusing the term, and it'll be too late to do anything later -- MS can later argue in court that since OSI has not acted promptly to defend its trademark, the term is now public domain.
I think the function of a default score is not so much as to save moderators work, or even to try guess at the value of a particular post -- but rather to try to increase the general quality of posts, on the assumption that people, being driven by their egos, would like to be able to flaunt a high default score and hence make better posts.
But I think it's a bad idea to assign a default score to posts. It'd probably be better to have a separate 'reputation' score that appears with a message -- this will still serve the function described above, but avoids assigning artificially high or low scores to posts that may not deserve it.
Reply to this message to see your score
I agree. The lack of availability of IE on Linux is a major factor that keeps me from trying Linux -- I can't bear the thought of having to go back to Netscape again.
The guys who left netscape should get together and use the mozilla source to develop a kick-ass alternative to netscape and IE.