I'm not sure that allowing verbing _does_ make language more difficult to understand. It makes perfect sense that "a run" is the thing you do when you "run", that "access" is what you are doing when you "gain access". It's certainly clearer than a lot of the other complexities english has.
It's a fairly obvious parallel. It's entirely possible it has its root in an ad-campaign somewhere, but it's equally possible that a number of different people made the observation independently.
As for the wording, the analogy is basically a straight reflection of the parent post's words.
Surely they're just more examples demonstrating Disney's pattern of plumbing public domain art for ideas while working to extend Mickey Mouse's copyright another 50 years.
(Actually, Tarzan may not be public domain, but he's still not a Disney original - Hercules is as public domain as you can get).
You seem to be describing standard issues regarding adoption of a new technology. Your arguments apply equally to a credit card: Why would anyone ever go out and go through the rigmarole of getting a credit card when they could just pay by cash or cheque?
Because the hassle of not having one will eventually outweigh the hassle of getting one...
Yeh, you can directly order them, but are they in the shops? Last time I looked in a toy store, Lego was specialised sets as far as the eye could see. Granted, I could've looked harder, but when this is the first impression kids and parents are getting, is it any wonder they lose interest?
Developers are probably frightened of the idea since MS Office 2000's shifting menu options were so poorly received. A menu dedicated to (say) the last 12 options selected would be very useful though.
My understanding is that you are able to assign keyboard options to menu items as you work in GNOME applications (including the GIMP), so if you find yourself using the same option a lot you could add the new shortcut yourself...
I think the new trend is that aesthetics have become a subject of study/development in their own right. eg. the rise of the 'brand as product' culture.
While ornamentation has certainly been used throughout the ages, I doubt its effects have ever been comprehensively investigated like they have in this PR-happy age...
Craploads of people have vision. Far less have the drive to follow through and do what's necessary to make it come true. Say what you like about RMS (a lot of it's justified, no doubt!), but you can't question his commitment and determination...
I think you've forgotten that you also have to pay for the costs of:
* composing the music * training the artists (incl. practice) * design and printing of CD cover art * advertising * the video clip * instruments and equipment * shipping
Sure, there's a heavy markup on CDs, but there _is_ more that goes into it than just recording media and studio time.
One of the big problems with the internet for content provider is that all the costs fall onto the content provider's head, and they scale to the number of users.
While P2P increases overall bandwidth usage (and hence costs), it also distributes it amongst users so that the individual hit is neglible.
IMO, _this_ is the massive potential benefit of P2P, It will allow anyone who wants to to provide content - not just those who can afford the bandwidth.
Of course, for P2P to serve that purpose, the interface has to be considerably more sophisticated than existing gnutella clients'. Freenet is a step in the right direction.
Actually, at least some of the events ARE ironic, in the sense of "10. The quality of an occurrence being so unexpected or ill-timed that it appears to be deliberately perverse." - Oxford Paperback Dictionary (4th edition, 1994) or "A condition in which one seems to be mocked by fate or the facts." - The Chambers Dictionary, 1998"
..or like him thinking up new games? People can innovate, or change their strategy, computers can't.
Yup. And since the whole point of the contest was to compare what computers can do vs what humans can do (at chess, anyway), then both should be restricted to their innate strengths and weaknesses for the duration of the match.
Actually, I suspect this isn't so difficult. Many of the great inventions & insights of history were 'simply' the result of people applying insights from one field to another. The printing press being modelled on a coin press being modelled on a grape press, for example.
As a result to have a more creative/mad AI, 'all' you would have to do, is have it throw random ideas from unrelated fields at each other so often, and discard impossible results.
Not easy, but not that big a step up from an 'unimaginative' AI.
IMO, Free Software is a socialist approach. Free Software essentially says "software code should be available to the entire community to". It's a communal property system.
However, it isn't comparable to Communism. Communism is an economic system featuring centralised control of limited communal resources. Free Software is fundamentally different, as it deals with a resource (code) that can be duplicated and distributed at near-zero cost, and is not centrally controlled.
The government could mandate DRM enabled machines, but that will take years to have any effect as most people aren't going to buy new machines until their old ones are outdated. The government isn't going to mandate that everyone scrap their perfectly good computers for DRM enabled ones. Even the most apathetic citizen isn't going to sit still while the government requires him to buy a new computer.
They don't have to mandate DRM enabled machines. So long as new DRM content isn't playable on the old machines, people will upgrade pretty quickly. They'll grumble, but they'll do it...
George Lucas seems to have (wisely) dropped all mention of Midichlorians, allowing us a more acceptable explanation in our own heads:
Midichlorians don't cause the force - they are simply a microsocopic life form that is attracted to it. Thus someone "strong in the force" would attract a lot of midichlorians.
As someone who uses Excel everyday, I have to say it makes sense having 'multiple documents' per tab.
The reason is, that, unlike Word, Excel documents are nested - an Excel "Workbook" contains multiple sheets. This enables the user to keep together multiple inter-linked sheets. And given that it takes _forever_ for Excel to update links to closed sheets, having all the relevant sheets open at once in one neat package makes a lot of sense.
Corporations are a SYSTEM whose purpose is to make profit to the exclusion of all else. Yes, Corporations are composed of people, but the SYSTEM will slap down any member of the corporation who tries to put anything else (say, human rights issues, unemployment, natural capital) before profit (vide Nike, Shell et. al.).
Corporations are owned by people, but they are not _controlled_ by people. The system constraints force them into doing what they're designed for - making as much profit as inhumanly possible...
I found Total Annihilation had a LOT of units but few of them were really terribly distinctive. Often you could win by creating large groups of random unit types and flinging them at your enemy. Being able to add new units made very little difference under these circumstances.
OTOH, while Starcraft was technically inferior in a lot of ways, and had a lot less units, each unit felt distinctive and it mattered a _lot_ what sort of units you produced in what type of situation.
As a result, I much preferred Starcraft. TA just felt bland.
You make a pretty large logical leap there - you fail to explain how being in one big project (OBP) would solve these problems. You fail to explain how this would in any way address the issue of Linux software being 'by geeks for geeks'.
Sure, OBP'd make compatibility issues go away (though in the most restrictive way possible), but design and user-friendliness issues won't be affected. In fact they'll probably be slightly worsened because you won't have the evolution effect.
No, what is needed is not to roll all the projects into one. What is needed is a set of goals and (non-constrictive) standards, and perhaps a certification process. And what is needed is for these goals and standards to be developed by people at LEAST as familiar with interface design and user friendliness as they are with coding...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure that allowing verbing _does_ make language more difficult to understand. It makes perfect sense that "a run" is the thing you do when you "run", that "access" is what you are doing when you "gain access". It's certainly clearer than a lot of the other complexities english has.
Anyway, I'm off to TV now...
Okay, so you cringe. And think. Do you do anything else?
Do you explain to the old lady, the risks of broadband and how to deal with them? Maybe even give her a pamphlet?
You're right that the problem is that she has no clue.
So given that YOU do have a clue, AND you know that her lack of knowledge is potentially dangerous, do you do anything about it?
I'm seeing that argument far too often lately:
"The other side plays dirty, so there's nothing wrong with doing the same". Uh, yeh there is.
If it's wrong when they do it, it's wrong when you do it. Period.
Unless someone has the strength to do the right thing regardless, the wrong will just keep growing.
It's a fairly obvious parallel. It's entirely possible it has its root in an ad-campaign somewhere, but it's equally possible that a number of different people made the observation independently.
As for the wording, the analogy is basically a straight reflection of the parent post's words.
Erm, if you're feeling indignant should you be going to Disneyland?
Actually, you _can_ be dangerous and edgy as a public company - you just have to offset the risks.
Much as I dislike Disney in some ways, things like Cinderella 2 enable Disney to support more dangerous and edgy flicks like Dogma.
Umm, Tarzan and Hercules were original?
Surely they're just more examples demonstrating Disney's pattern of plumbing public domain art for ideas while working to extend Mickey Mouse's copyright another 50 years.
(Actually, Tarzan may not be public domain, but he's still not a Disney original - Hercules is as public domain as you can get).
You seem to be describing standard issues regarding adoption of a new technology. Your arguments apply equally to a credit card: Why would anyone ever go out and go through the rigmarole of getting a credit card when they could just pay by cash or cheque?
Because the hassle of not having one will eventually outweigh the hassle of getting one...
Yeh, you can directly order them, but are they in the shops? Last time I looked in a toy store, Lego was specialised sets as far as the eye could see. Granted, I could've looked harder, but when this is the first impression kids and parents are getting, is it any wonder they lose interest?
Developers are probably frightened of the idea since MS Office 2000's shifting menu options were so poorly received. A menu dedicated to (say) the last 12 options selected would be very useful though.
My understanding is that you are able to assign keyboard options to menu items as you work in GNOME applications (including the GIMP), so if you find yourself using the same option a lot you could add the new shortcut yourself...
I think the new trend is that aesthetics have become a subject of study/development in their own right. eg. the rise of the 'brand as product' culture.
While ornamentation has certainly been used throughout the ages, I doubt its effects have ever been comprehensively investigated like they have in this PR-happy age...
Craploads of people have vision. Far less have the drive to follow through and do what's necessary to make it come true. Say what you like about RMS (a lot of it's justified, no doubt!), but you can't question his commitment and determination...
I think you've forgotten that you also have to pay for the costs of:
* composing the music
* training the artists (incl. practice)
* design and printing of CD cover art
* advertising
* the video clip
* instruments and equipment
* shipping
Sure, there's a heavy markup on CDs, but there _is_ more that goes into it than just recording media and studio time.
One of the big problems with the internet for content provider is that all the costs fall onto the content provider's head, and they scale to the number of users.
While P2P increases overall bandwidth usage (and hence costs), it also distributes it amongst users so that the individual hit is neglible.
IMO, _this_ is the massive potential benefit of P2P, It will allow anyone who wants to to provide content - not just those who can afford the bandwidth.
Of course, for P2P to serve that purpose, the interface has to be considerably more sophisticated than existing gnutella clients'. Freenet is a step in the right direction.
Actually, at least some of the events ARE ironic, in the sense of "10. The quality of an occurrence being so unexpected or ill-timed that it appears to be deliberately perverse." - Oxford Paperback Dictionary (4th edition, 1994) or "A condition in which one seems to be mocked by fate or the facts." - The Chambers Dictionary, 1998"
See http://www.geocities.com/eirig/
Yup. And since the whole point of the contest was to compare what computers can do vs what humans can do (at chess, anyway), then both should be restricted to their innate strengths and weaknesses for the duration of the match.
Actually, I suspect this isn't so difficult. Many of the great inventions & insights of history were 'simply' the result of people applying insights from one field to another. The printing press being modelled on a coin press being modelled on a grape press, for example.
As a result to have a more creative/mad AI, 'all' you would have to do, is have it throw random ideas from unrelated fields at each other so often, and discard impossible results.
Not easy, but not that big a step up from an 'unimaginative' AI.
IMO, Free Software is a socialist approach. Free Software essentially says "software code should be available to the entire community to". It's a communal property system.
However, it isn't comparable to Communism. Communism is an economic system featuring centralised control of limited communal resources. Free Software is fundamentally different, as it deals with a resource (code) that can be duplicated and distributed at near-zero cost, and is not centrally controlled.
The government could mandate DRM enabled machines, but that will take years to have any effect as most people aren't going to buy new machines until their old ones are outdated. The government isn't going to mandate that everyone scrap their perfectly good computers for DRM enabled ones. Even the most apathetic citizen isn't going to sit still while the government requires him to buy a new computer.
They don't have to mandate DRM enabled machines. So long as new DRM content isn't playable on the old machines, people will upgrade pretty quickly. They'll grumble, but they'll do it...
I'm not entirely familiar with your country's ways, but isn't Public Access television basically open to anyone who wants to use it?
George Lucas seems to have (wisely) dropped all mention of Midichlorians, allowing us a more acceptable explanation in our own heads:
Midichlorians don't cause the force - they are simply a microsocopic life form that is attracted to it. Thus someone "strong in the force" would attract a lot of midichlorians.
As someone who uses Excel everyday, I have to say it makes sense having 'multiple documents' per tab.
The reason is, that, unlike Word, Excel documents are nested - an Excel "Workbook" contains multiple sheets. This enables the user to keep together multiple inter-linked sheets. And given that it takes _forever_ for Excel to update links to closed sheets, having all the relevant sheets open at once in one neat package makes a lot of sense.
Corporations are a SYSTEM whose purpose is to make profit to the exclusion of all else. Yes, Corporations are composed of people, but the SYSTEM will slap down any member of the corporation who tries to put anything else (say, human rights issues, unemployment, natural capital) before profit (vide Nike, Shell et. al.).
Corporations are owned by people, but they are not _controlled_ by people. The system constraints force them into doing what they're designed for - making as much profit as inhumanly possible...
I found Total Annihilation had a LOT of units but few of them were really terribly distinctive. Often you could win by creating large groups of random unit types and flinging them at your enemy. Being able to add new units made very little difference under these circumstances.
OTOH, while Starcraft was technically inferior in a lot of ways, and had a lot less units, each unit felt distinctive and it mattered a _lot_ what sort of units you produced in what type of situation.
As a result, I much preferred Starcraft. TA just felt bland.
You make a pretty large logical leap there - you fail to explain how being in one big project (OBP) would solve these problems. You fail to explain how this would in any way address the issue of Linux software being 'by geeks for geeks'.
Sure, OBP'd make compatibility issues go away (though in the most restrictive way possible), but design and user-friendliness issues won't be affected. In fact they'll probably be slightly worsened because you won't have the evolution effect.
No, what is needed is not to roll all the projects into one. What is needed is a set of goals and (non-constrictive) standards, and perhaps a certification process. And what is needed is for these goals and standards to be developed by people at LEAST as familiar with interface design and user friendliness as they are with coding...