Jesus, why does everything have to be turned into a holy war about whose product is better? He is simply saying that he has been happy with his UTV and it does everything he needs. There is no need to respond with "So what, Tivo can do this too. So there." Nobody cares about Tivo, that's completely offtopic right now.
There are things on the radio and the telly that you could never experience without them
Agreed, but there's only so much time in a day, and I have other things to spend it on. I'm sure that there are things in Kenya that I could never experience elsewhere, but that doesn't mean I have to go there does it?
He didn't ask who is going to develop it, but who is going to use it.
That is who's going to use it: developers and people who like to tinker with thinks. This is not yet something that would appeal to the general public (whether linux is or not is, of course, debatable).
if you don't think that school projects are busywork, you haven't worked on interesting enough real-world ones.
Obviously not everyone's experiences are the same as yours. As I've seen it, academic work allows you to get involved in research and be at the cutting edge of your field, while most "real-world" programming consists of implementing variants on the same perl scripts a thousand times.
Let's face it, should they really be responsible for answering questions about installing shared libraries when it is a more general linux issue and not something specific to MPlayer?
No, they shouldn't. That doesn't mean that they are allowed to be jerks when someone asks them a question about libraries, just that they get to say "sorry, ask someone else, that's not our problem".
Remember that when the application doesn't run correctly, it is not obvious to most people whether it is an application-specific problem or one that requires general knowledge of their operating system, so they weren't being completely unreasonable to think to ask the people who wrote the app, they just happened to be wrong.
In other words, the users don't have to create "headaches" for developers because the developers are not obligated to help them for free, just to be civil. Being rude is especially inexusable in the FAQ since that's not an email that was fired off without thinking when someone was in a bad mood and can't be taken back, it's something they can easily remedy at any time, but haven't had the decency to change. I think they need to grow up.
I couldn't agree more. The movie was basically three hours of: we wander, we run into some orcs, demon, whatever and have a fight sequence, we walk some more. And that's it. It seems from talking to people that the ones who found that riveting thought so either because they had read the books and so had deep connnections to the characters and world (which you certainly wouldn't have from watching the movie) or were entertained by watching the neat special effects for the bad guys, something that doesn't interest me much.
If you think that software is as easy to produce as water
Water is easy to produce?! Please explain. I have produced plenty of software, but I have never produced water (only bought it, either through my water bill or in bottles).
top CS players aren't likely to be the top players of tomorrow's game-of-choice
Turnover of participants doesn't mean there can't be an audience. After all, in college sports, the longest anyone can stick around is four years, but plenty of people watch that.
The point is, anyone whose every applied for a job knows that you are always asked to explain any gaps on your resume. If you intend to work for a porn site for more than a few weeks, even if you don't put it on your resume, you are going to be asked what you spent that period of time doing.
C takes far longer to write in for large applications than Lisp due to the debugging time. Tracking down memory leaks, pointer bugs, etc. is a pretty tedious process that lisp programmers don't worry about.
What he's saying isn't that unreasonable. If they aren't going to intentionally make things hard to figure out, it can at least be said that a company that gives away its software for free and charges for support and books about it doesn't have as strong an incentive to make the software ultra-intuitive.
It's difficult to "lead by example", since if I just quietly run a linux desktop in my room no one would know about it. Yes, others may occassionally see my computer, but they don't sit there using it for hours so that they can conclude "hey this isn't bad".
In a free market, that doesn't happen because anyone is free to just start there own OEM, which will have no agreement with ms, and ship all of their desktops with linux.
This inertia (people not wanting to move to xp) does not work in linux's favor. What causes this inertia is that people are perfectly happy with win98 and don't see a reason to change. Even if XP is better, most people don't want to go through the effort of buying it and setting it up and getting used to a new OS. They will feel the same way about linux.
I think the customers who want streaming video far outnumber those who intend to set up "persistent client," even if you are in the latter group. If you think "fancy multimedia and porn videos" is a worse advertising concept than "you can have persistent clients!", you are severely disconnected with the real world.
Your logic is flawed, I think. I agree that governments are a tool of the public good, and that corporations are tools of the public good. However, this does not make corporations a tool of government. For one thing, I could apply the same argument the other way to say that then governments are tools of the corporations.
I agree that it is good that governments regulate corporations. You do not need to convince me that safety regulations, etc. are important.
However, the fact that these regulations exist, and that the government charters who is officially a corporation does not mean that corporations are there to aid the government. It means that the government is there to regulate the corporations. If you think that the fact that the government regulates corporations makes them an "instrument of government", does that fact that the government regulates what you can do make you an instrument of government? I hope not. As you say, the government is supposed to be there for the benefit of the people, not the other way around.
In reality, governments and corportations are both there to serve the people. Governemnts regulate corporations for the public good, but neither should be an instrument of the other.
Slashdot Mirror
Jesus, why does everything have to be turned into a holy war about whose product is better? He is simply saying that he has been happy with his UTV and it does everything he needs. There is no need to respond with "So what, Tivo can do this too. So there." Nobody cares about Tivo, that's completely offtopic right now.
Agreed, but there's only so much time in a day, and I have other things to spend it on. I'm sure that there are things in Kenya that I could never experience elsewhere, but that doesn't mean I have to go there does it?
There's nothing paradoxical about saying that two things have (or should have) one attribute in common, but differ in another. Example:
Apples are like oranges in that they are fruit
But...
Apples are not like oranges wherein they are different colors.
Is that a paradox?
Actually, there are people from this planet who don't listen to the radio or watch tv.
There's no incentive for them to provide such a service since they make their money on (web) ads.
Where's the party? I've been looking for something to do.
That is who's going to use it: developers and people who like to tinker with thinks. This is not yet something that would appeal to the general public (whether linux is or not is, of course, debatable).
Obviously not everyone's experiences are the same as yours. As I've seen it, academic work allows you to get involved in research and be at the cutting edge of your field, while most "real-world" programming consists of implementing variants on the same perl scripts a thousand times.
Remember that when the application doesn't run correctly, it is not obvious to most people whether it is an application-specific problem or one that requires general knowledge of their operating system, so they weren't being completely unreasonable to think to ask the people who wrote the app, they just happened to be wrong.
In other words, the users don't have to create "headaches" for developers because the developers are not obligated to help them for free, just to be civil. Being rude is especially inexusable in the FAQ since that's not an email that was fired off without thinking when someone was in a bad mood and can't be taken back, it's something they can easily remedy at any time, but haven't had the decency to change. I think they need to grow up.
I couldn't agree more. The movie was basically three hours of: we wander, we run into some orcs, demon, whatever and have a fight sequence, we walk some more. And that's it. It seems from talking to people that the ones who found that riveting thought so either because they had read the books and so had deep connnections to the characters and world (which you certainly wouldn't have from watching the movie) or were entertained by watching the neat special effects for the bad guys, something that doesn't interest me much.
I agree, especially with the shows about classic games or the history of the genre.
Also, during their first day on the air, they should show The Wizard.
Water is easy to produce?! Please explain. I have produced plenty of software, but I have never produced water (only bought it, either through my water bill or in bottles).
Turnover of participants doesn't mean there can't be an audience. After all, in college sports, the longest anyone can stick around is four years, but plenty of people watch that.
The point is, anyone whose every applied for a job knows that you are always asked to explain any gaps on your resume. If you intend to work for a porn site for more than a few weeks, even if you don't put it on your resume, you are going to be asked what you spent that period of time doing.
C takes far longer to write in for large applications than Lisp due to the debugging time. Tracking down memory leaks, pointer bugs, etc. is a pretty tedious process that lisp programmers don't worry about.
Good. I'd gladly pay CowboyNeal for an ad-free /.
What he's saying isn't that unreasonable. If they aren't going to intentionally make things hard to figure out, it can at least be said that a company that gives away its software for free and charges for support and books about it doesn't have as strong an incentive to make the software ultra-intuitive.
It's difficult to "lead by example", since if I just quietly run a linux desktop in my room no one would know about it. Yes, others may occassionally see my computer, but they don't sit there using it for hours so that they can conclude "hey this isn't bad".
In a free market, that doesn't happen because anyone is free to just start there own OEM, which will have no agreement with ms, and ship all of their desktops with linux.
Those who have tried this have failed.
This inertia (people not wanting to move to xp) does not work in linux's favor. What causes this inertia is that people are perfectly happy with win98 and don't see a reason to change. Even if XP is better, most people don't want to go through the effort of buying it and setting it up and getting used to a new OS. They will feel the same way about linux.
So you believe that terrorists read slashdot, but have their threshold set at 1?
I think the customers who want streaming video far outnumber those who intend to set up "persistent client," even if you are in the latter group. If you think "fancy multimedia and porn videos" is a worse advertising concept than "you can have persistent clients!", you are severely disconnected with the real world.
Your logic is flawed, I think. I agree that governments are a tool of the public good, and that corporations are tools of the public good. However, this does not make corporations a tool of government. For one thing, I could apply the same argument the other way to say that then governments are tools of the corporations.
I agree that it is good that governments regulate corporations. You do not need to convince me that safety regulations, etc. are important.
However, the fact that these regulations exist, and that the government charters who is officially a corporation does not mean that corporations are there to aid the government. It means that the government is there to regulate the corporations. If you think that the fact that the government regulates corporations makes them an "instrument of government", does that fact that the government regulates what you can do make you an instrument of government? I hope not. As you say, the government is supposed to be there for the benefit of the people, not the other way around.
In reality, governments and corportations are both there to serve the people. Governemnts regulate corporations for the public good, but neither should be an instrument of the other.
Why should corporations be instruments of govenrment? That sounds like an unpleasant situation to me.