My iPod has taken flight from the treadmill on several occasions. I just don't feel comfortable with it on my hip, so I set it on the console...once in a while a swinging arm snags it, and I attempt to not step on it while it shoots off the back of the treadmil...
Though I'll agree that latex is great for this, for so many people, it's just not something they're willing to use when something like Endnote really does have a great UI, and ability to import tons of data for you.
Ref-software (hint for you OSS developers out there) is crucial for people in academia. Though a lot still do use latex, that number is nothing compared to those using Word + Endnote + Adobe Acrobat.
Just in case you were wondering, the list above wasn't just retrieved by a quick search at Amazon. My Master's degree, completed last summer, dealt with the topic of software security, and those are the titles I've read preparing to write the theoretical part.
It's kind of sad that a statement like this is even necessary. It's an interesting statement regarding what kind of qualifications are often necessary just to get a typical reader to give you credit for not being an idiot.
The more chaotic (overloaded in your terms) that data tends to be, then the greater the information contained in that data (think compression). So what they're going after is not "catogorizing" the internet, they're going after making some sense out of all of that data. Information overload begins to necesitate an intermediary to help filter out the data that you're interested in.
The interesting thing becomes what sort of biases are built into a system like this? That is what I'm curious about. Right now when we search on Google (which of course has it's own biases), we decide which links end up mattering (if we have the will to root through it). If a computer system is doing this, it will inevitably alter the way in which we come to understand the data we're looking through.
I think you're saying (or am I (mis)reading you?) that, "it doesn't matter," isn't the right direction of thinking here. Sure spam and security are issues too, spam actually being a related problem, but it seems unfair to delegate this to the "bad idea" stack already.
Some of it is plain loony - saying that writing code once and sharing it is a commercial advantage is ludicrous - the *point* of OSS is that we write stuff once then share it. Commercial development does exactly the opposite, by protecting everything with patents and forcing everyone to re-invent the wheel when they write anything.
Ummm...a large percentage of commericial code DOESN'T patent. They just don't share the code. It's closed source. You can't see what it does. That's all. You can't (of course our glorious patent office does stick their head in their bum quite often...) patent every piece of software under the sun. Most copanies that do patent, only have certain pieces that make them special/unique/whatever patented, but the rest of it is just copyrighted.
>...they are the equivalent of brain-dead humans > [until they are proven to be sentient].
So, about those brain-dead humans...not to mention eggs, embryos, fetuses, (oh, my) etc.
I'm so curious why there has been so little discussion about when life/death happens. There's all sorts of funny stuff going on out there.
"Life happens at conception." - Ok...when the sperm goes in the egg. But a lot of eggs that this happens to gets flushed during a women's menstrual cycle (I can say menstruation on/. right?).
"Death happens when your EEG shows no brain activity." - But...this is rooted entirely in the notion that your brain is the only place where thought comes from. Think of it as the modern soul. Your brain makes your "self."
There is all sorts of research out there about how our notions about life/death are all wrapped up in western philosophical notions, not to mention judeo-christian belief systems. Read up about cryonics and you get a very different notion of life/death than you do from other places.
So the question becomes, where is it most productive for life/death to happen? Because either way we're making it up. So lets make it up in a way that does the least amount of harm.
Go to the section: Usability and Open Source Software Development |- Commercial Software Establishes State of the Art so that OSS can Only Play Catch-Up
First paragraph...Last Sentence: "As a result it had to follow the interface design ideas of Excel regardless of whether or not they could have been improved upon."
I want the ability to work with my stuff like files and folders, but in other ways all at once. I'm not talking just file-systems, and yes I know about journaling file systems and the like, storing lots of meta data (BeOS comes first to mind).
> What more can YOU think of that hasn't already been done?
Hence my statement, "Of course here I am nit-picking, and don't really have anything helpful to add..."
But...
How about a better analogy to how people work than a "desktop" with some files and folders? Honestly, stuff gets lost this way more than it gets organized. How about something more useful, like being able to organize things, and create cross referencing capabilities...For example...
While I read I like to take a lot of notes, so I do this now using folder structures:
Author |-Book Title
With a file for each chapter. When I go to do a review of the book, I start a new file...I have to rummage through the author's directories and files (and sometimes other notes I've taken on his references) to make sure I'm using the right quotes and looking at the right places.
Wouldn't it be nice if there some means that during the process of creating the original files I could have set up associations (or something... again, I'm not an expert) between quotes and references and other things.
I know you're probably thinking, "thats a program, not a desktop." But why not change our metaphor? I just think there are OTHER ideas out there, and I never claimed to HAVE those ideas.
Is there any reason people keep mimicing the same old desktop? The same old office applications? Is anyone out there trying to break the mold (I give Apple credit for doing this to a greater degree than others)? I mean, I still see Win98 and above emulation here (not emulation like that...emulation as in, "the child emulates his parents actions"), why not work on something a bit more revolutionary?
Of course here I am nit-picking, and don't really have anything helpful to add...
Visio hasn't been ported...and as far as I know, there aren't any plans to port it. Given the recent relationship between MS and Apple, I wouldn't count on more apps being available on MacOS X, but less.
I liked someone's suggestion of using OmniGraffle. It's awesome for UML, and flow-charts. Wonder if someone could make up a pallete with walls, windows and doors...I like that idea...
I would agree, there are a lot of good people out there working as public servants. However...
A certain number of people out there ARE fawking off and trying to screw me. I could care less about "downloading music." The issues that I think a lot of us are worried about are things like:
* The Patriot Act and it's Big Brother.
* Our public servants being sent off to WAR by a bunch of leaders that don't really have any idea about the people they're sending off to war. Remember, it's typically not your rich/white/sons going into the military.
I could go on, but I think I would be going overboard. The issue really comes down to that some of us have had run-ins with the type of people that give our public servants a bad name. Others of us just really understand that power corrupts, and we'd at least like to pretend that there are some checks and balances in place.
So you're telling me that all those managers have actually been useful over the years?
:) At least the good ones. Though most of them wouldn't know a design spec if you showed it to them, told them what it was, and walked them through it, beat them with it, and shoved where the sun doesn't shine. Two days later they'll come up and ask, "is this how [feature X] is supposed to work?"
This is not just a problem with free, Free or open source software, but also with planned, structured development of commerical model software such as Windows.
However, I would venture that there are more commercial products with some sort of functional and or design specification.
Not to say that these specifications mean anything when they're done by incompitent people.
I guess my only point is that it certainly wouldn't hurt to have not only more communication among OS development teams, but a little more planning about their interfaces. Why not solicit some software engineers who have background doing this sort of thing, and not just soliciting coders?
And lastly...Everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that so many people doing OS projects, do have the "not invented here" mentality. However, using middleware takes time to research and test, not to mention that you've got to have a better idea of how things interop before that's helpful. So, it does come back to the issue of planning.
So what else does.net have to offer? This whole XML thing? Can't say I've ever considered that a necessity for game play. Maybe it'll allow the player to enjoy games which are Office compatible or such, doesn't seem relevant.
XML is great for game development. Would I ever distribute a game that uses XML at run time? Probably not. Will I use it for development, and "compile" things down later? Heck yes. A lot of developers forget how nice it is to be able to let your artists play with all sorts of settings and make things dynamically, XML isn't the nicest interface, but easier than bugging a programmer to tweak something for you. However, you really don't need.NET for XML. It's easy to use, sure. However, Xerces C++ interface isn't that bad, and just about anyone can stick a simpler interface on it.
I tend to agree that the CLR is slower than compiling down to machine code. However, I've also seen some pretty cool Java based game development. I think it comes down to the game itself...if it's pushing hardware limits, then.NET is a no go. If it doesn't push the hardware, why not?
The thing that amazes me is that people assume just because we make someone physically "better" than someone that they're going to be an olympic athelete. I just don't buy it. Most of those people work their as*es off to get there. Just because someone has a genetic pre-disposition to being an athelete doesn't make you one.
Seriously, GATTACA has an excellent point. "There is no gene for the human spirit." I'd go further, there is no gene for life.
You must admit, if we could genetically protect our immune systems from AIDS, that it would be a good thing really. But who knows...maybe that new immune system wouldn't work against something else...
"Hey lets waste a ton of money while were barely profitable to buy into an industry that everyone _knows_ is dying..."
Unless of course, they're looking to PROVE that the other record labels are full of sh*t, by building a new buisness model that will be successful. This way they get a boat load of artists and music that they can use to prove their point.
The Record industry is dying not because people don't want music, but because the old means of production and consumption are dying. If Apple can figure out a new means that the average person likes and uses, then they'll make a BOATLOAD of cash. The record industry made a lot of money in the past, because it worked. It doesn't any more. That doesn't mean it's broken and can never come back. Heck, if anyone can come up with a good solution, Apple is it.
Some of the worst code I have ever seen written was written by people with physics and engineering degrees. Seriously...just because these people are smart (and they tend to be) doesn't mean they can write good maintainable code. Sure, sometimes they write cool programs, but I sure as hell don't want to look at the code. Makes your mind bleed.
Slashdot Mirror
Or...
Duck, duck, duck... grey duck!
If you are from Minnesotta.
My iPod has taken flight from the treadmill on several occasions. I just don't feel comfortable with it on my hip, so I set it on the console...once in a while a swinging arm snags it, and I attempt to not step on it while it shoots off the back of the treadmil...
:)
Keeps on tickin though.
Hockey has some pretty sweet physics too.
Unfortunately a good number of them didn't think it was a bad idea until after the fact.
Though I'll agree that latex is great for this, for so many people, it's just not something they're willing to use when something like Endnote really does have a great UI, and ability to import tons of data for you.
Ref-software (hint for you OSS developers out there) is crucial for people in academia. Though a lot still do use latex, that number is nothing compared to those using Word + Endnote + Adobe Acrobat.
If OO.org had ref software, I'd use it.
Right...so I would agree with short blurbs about authors. No question there.
/. more often has statements like the former. Perhaps a rationale for why a particular person was selected for a review would be useful.
However,
Just in case you were wondering, the list above wasn't just retrieved by a quick search at Amazon. My Master's degree, completed last summer, dealt with the topic of software security, and those are the titles I've read preparing to write the theoretical part.
It's kind of sad that a statement like this is even necessary. It's an interesting statement regarding what kind of qualifications are often necessary just to get a typical reader to give you credit for not being an idiot.
I think the inverse is the case.
The more chaotic (overloaded in your terms) that data tends to be, then the greater the information contained in that data (think compression). So what they're going after is not "catogorizing" the internet, they're going after making some sense out of all of that data. Information overload begins to necesitate an intermediary to help filter out the data that you're interested in.
The interesting thing becomes what sort of biases are built into a system like this? That is what I'm curious about. Right now when we search on Google (which of course has it's own biases), we decide which links end up mattering (if we have the will to root through it). If a computer system is doing this, it will inevitably alter the way in which we come to understand the data we're looking through.
I think you're saying (or am I (mis)reading you?) that, "it doesn't matter," isn't the right direction of thinking here. Sure spam and security are issues too, spam actually being a related problem, but it seems unfair to delegate this to the "bad idea" stack already.
Ummm...a large percentage of commericial code DOESN'T patent. They just don't share the code. It's closed source. You can't see what it does. That's all. You can't (of course our glorious patent office does stick their head in their bum quite often...) patent every piece of software under the sun. Most copanies that do patent, only have certain pieces that make them special/unique/whatever patented, but the rest of it is just copyrighted.
Certainly not, but it does change the self.
Don't believe me? Ask them if it's afected their sense of self.
> ...they are the equivalent of brain-dead humans
/. right?).
> [until they are proven to be sentient].
So, about those brain-dead humans...not to mention eggs, embryos, fetuses, (oh, my) etc.
I'm so curious why there has been so little discussion about when life/death happens. There's all sorts of funny stuff going on out there.
"Life happens at conception." - Ok...when the sperm goes in the egg. But a lot of eggs that this happens to gets flushed during a women's menstrual cycle (I can say menstruation on
"Death happens when your EEG shows no brain activity." - But...this is rooted entirely in the notion that your brain is the only place where thought comes from. Think of it as the modern soul. Your brain makes your "self."
There is all sorts of research out there about how our notions about life/death are all wrapped up in western philosophical notions, not to mention judeo-christian belief systems. Read up about cryonics and you get a very different notion of life/death than you do from other places.
So the question becomes, where is it most productive for life/death to happen? Because either way we're making it up. So lets make it up in a way that does the least amount of harm.
-CKO
Not really...
1 /nichols /index.html
I'm talking about:
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_
Go to the section:
Usability and Open Source Software Development
|- Commercial Software Establishes State of the Art so that OSS can Only Play Catch-Up
First paragraph...Last Sentence:
"As a result it had to follow the interface design ideas of Excel regardless of whether or not they could have been improved upon."
I want the ability to work with my stuff like files and folders, but in other ways all at once. I'm not talking just file-systems, and yes I know about journaling file systems and the like, storing lots of meta data (BeOS comes first to mind).
The point is WHY JUST MIMIC?
> What more can YOU think of that hasn't already been done?
Hence my statement, "Of course here I am nit-picking, and don't really have anything helpful to add..."
But...
How about a better analogy to how people work than a "desktop" with some files and folders? Honestly, stuff gets lost this way more than it gets organized. How about something more useful, like being able to organize things, and create cross referencing capabilities...For example...
While I read I like to take a lot of notes, so I do this now using folder structures:
Author
|-Book Title
With a file for each chapter. When I go to do a review of the book, I start a new file...I have to rummage through the author's directories and files (and sometimes other notes I've taken on his references) to make sure I'm using the right quotes and looking at the right places.
Wouldn't it be nice if there some means that during the process of creating the original files I could have set up associations (or something... again, I'm not an expert) between quotes and references and other things.
I know you're probably thinking, "thats a program, not a desktop." But why not change our metaphor? I just think there are OTHER ideas out there, and I never claimed to HAVE those ideas.
Is there any reason people keep mimicing the same old desktop? The same old office applications? Is anyone out there trying to break the mold (I give Apple credit for doing this to a greater degree than others)? I mean, I still see Win98 and above emulation here (not emulation like that...emulation as in, "the child emulates his parents actions"), why not work on something a bit more revolutionary?
Of course here I am nit-picking, and don't really have anything helpful to add...
Carry On.
Visio hasn't been ported...and as far as I know, there aren't any plans to port it. Given the recent relationship between MS and Apple, I wouldn't count on more apps being available on MacOS X, but less.
I liked someone's suggestion of using OmniGraffle. It's awesome for UML, and flow-charts. Wonder if someone could make up a pallete with walls, windows and doors...I like that idea...
A certain number of people out there ARE fawking off and trying to screw me. I could care less about "downloading music." The issues that I think a lot of us are worried about are things like:
* The Patriot Act and it's Big Brother.
* Our public servants being sent off to WAR by a bunch of leaders that don't really have any idea about the people they're sending off to war. Remember, it's typically not your rich/white/sons going into the military.
I could go on, but I think I would be going overboard. The issue really comes down to that some of us have had run-ins with the type of people that give our public servants a bad name. Others of us just really understand that power corrupts, and we'd at least like to pretend that there are some checks and balances in place.
However, I would venture that there are more commercial products with some sort of functional and or design specification.
Not to say that these specifications mean anything when they're done by incompitent people.
I guess my only point is that it certainly wouldn't hurt to have not only more communication among OS development teams, but a little more planning about their interfaces. Why not solicit some software engineers who have background doing this sort of thing, and not just soliciting coders?
And lastly...Everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that so many people doing OS projects, do have the "not invented here" mentality. However, using middleware takes time to research and test, not to mention that you've got to have a better idea of how things interop before that's helpful. So, it does come back to the issue of planning.
Just my thoughts...
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/403124954.j pg
Go them!
Monty Python - Dead Parrot Sketch
Funniest thing ever...
XML is great for game development. Would I ever distribute a game that uses XML at run time? Probably not. Will I use it for development, and "compile" things down later? Heck yes. A lot of developers forget how nice it is to be able to let your artists play with all sorts of settings and make things dynamically, XML isn't the nicest interface, but easier than bugging a programmer to tweak something for you. However, you really don't need .NET for XML. It's easy to use, sure. However, Xerces C++ interface isn't that bad, and just about anyone can stick a simpler interface on it.
I tend to agree that the CLR is slower than compiling down to machine code. However, I've also seen some pretty cool Java based game development. I think it comes down to the game itself...if it's pushing hardware limits, then .NET is a no go. If it doesn't push the hardware, why not?
Seriously, GATTACA has an excellent point. "There is no gene for the human spirit." I'd go further, there is no gene for life.
You must admit, if we could genetically protect our immune systems from AIDS, that it would be a good thing really. But who knows...maybe that new immune system wouldn't work against something else...
Unless of course, they're looking to PROVE that the other record labels are full of sh*t, by building a new buisness model that will be successful. This way they get a boat load of artists and music that they can use to prove their point.
The Record industry is dying not because people don't want music, but because the old means of production and consumption are dying. If Apple can figure out a new means that the average person likes and uses, then they'll make a BOATLOAD of cash. The record industry made a lot of money in the past, because it worked. It doesn't any more. That doesn't mean it's broken and can never come back. Heck, if anyone can come up with a good solution, Apple is it.
Some of the worst code I have ever seen written was written by people with physics and engineering degrees. Seriously...just because these people are smart (and they tend to be) doesn't mean they can write good maintainable code. Sure, sometimes they write cool programs, but I sure as hell don't want to look at the code. Makes your mind bleed.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnword2k/h tml/odc_expwordtoxml.asp?frame=true
Or you can just use their XML exporter.
Seriously, if you need XML, you'll have to teach people to "save as..." anyway, why not just have them run a macro instead?