If Adobe really cared about piracy, they would have put in better copy protection (besides the weak serial number thing).
Let's do some substitution here. How about, "If Joe Sixpack really cared about his personal belongings, he would have put in [a] better security system (besides the weak deadbolt thing)." Sounds silly, doesn't it? You're blaming the victim for the crime of the pirate. How about, "If Mary really cared about not being raped, she would have worn different clothing (besides that miniskirt thing)." I could go on all day. This kind of reasoning is flawed. (You may be right that Adobe expects their software to be stolen to increase their mindshare, but I wouldn't bet on it, and their copy protection scheme does not necessarily reflect their opinion on the matter.)
Here's a thought -- communicate effectively and your manager(s) will not have any spelling/grammar errors to pick on. Instead, s/he will be forced to actually read the doc to be able to appear competent. As it is, you're giving them an easy excuse not to bother reading it.
You may assert that there's no difference between "there", "their", and "they're" ("thier" is not a word) when you can determine the meaning through context, and perhaps you're correct. However, ignoring the significance between such constructs (the afore-mentioned example, excessive apostraphication, misspellings, incoherent grammar, etc) reflects poorly on you, not on those criticizing your writing style rather than the content you've written. It's about being a professional, and correctly using the language in which you're communicating. I'm sure you've ran into plenty of syntax errors, if you program at all. Why should the compiler complain that you wrote "suhlect" rather than "select", when the meaning is obvious? Yes, people are more flexible than any currently-available compiler out there, but the same concept holds -- the point you're trying to make is more easily communicated when you use the proper syntax (ie, correct English).
Then again, if you still feel that you're too good to bother with proper English, go ahead. Just don't blame me when your managers, coworkers, and (god forbid you have any!) subordinates begin to think of you as a fool for your inability to communicate.
I do hate the self-important grammar police that patrol Slashdot. This is an INFORMAL forum in which people type up quick replies and then click submit. To criticize someone and then begin to lecture them on the importance of a college education is beyond arrogant. Step back and realize that a snapshot of someone's life is not necessarily (and most likely not) inidicative of their true abilities.
Except that in this scenario, the original poster was trying to assert that he was a college-educated person, and thus it would stand to reason that he should be able to communicate effectively. However, he couldn't, and that skews his entire post. By pointing that out, I'm not policing his spelling or grammar, but nullifying the argument he was trying to make. And besides, perhaps next time he ought to click that "Preview" button first and read over what he typed before hitting the "Submit" button. There's a reason a preview is available. (IMHO, the "Submit" button shouldn't be available until "Preview" has been hit at least once.)
I go to collage for CS and there are many, many, MANY poeple in my class(s) that know absolutely nothing about CS exept what is in the books. This is a problem because they get better grades than most of the people that do know computers for real.
(and so on)
Perhaps while you're at college, you might consider taking some non-Engineering courses. Learn to spell, use proper grammar. Become a well-rounded individual. Learn to communicate concepts and ideas effectively. From all indications, while you may be one of those "people that do know computers for real," you're not a very appealing employment candidate due to your poor communication skills. Then again, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "know computers for real," since if you're not getting good grades in your CS classes, how much can you really know about CS? (Computer Science != just computers. there's a metric pantload of theory and algorithms to learn. It doesn't matter if you're the fastest linux installer in the West, if you don't learn that theory you'll never be able to call yourself a Computer Scientist, regardless of what your degree eventually says.)
College is about more than just hunkering down and focusing strictly on your one chosen subject. Sure, there's a time and place for that, but as long as you're going to be there for 4+ years (milk another year or two out of the parents while the economy's in the pooper), you may as well take some time and attend some interesting classes that will grow your knowledge in other directions than just computers computers computers.
As far as stability? hard to say. at work my XP Pro workstation never BSOD's (like 98SE did) but it locks up solid probably around a dozen times a day, requiring a trip to the reset button.
This is highly indicative of some sort of hardware problem (maybe the machine's overheating?). Rather than just assuming that it's XP and living with it, try hunting down the problem.
I also find its "cutesy-wutesyness" slightly offensive, but that's just me.
So use the Classic theme. Or head on over to ThemeXP and get a different visual style for XP. If you don't like the Luna interface, there are plenty of other options (none of which include "using the Luna interface and bitching about it"). You can turn off other "cutesy" things, too, like the fancy login screen (just turn off "fast user switching", or connect to a domain or AD), so there's no use complaining about those either.
I'm not saying that Teflon wasn't used in the space program, only that it wasn't originally invented for such a use. It may very well have been used, since it was certainly used for many other things including military applications (nosecones of missiles and such). Just because something was used for the space program doesn't mean it originated there, nor that it wouldn't be publicly available now if it weren't for that use.
this is, by the way, exactly how we have teflon today
Sorry, but no. Try DuPont's history of Teflon page. 1938 was waaay before space travel was practical. That said, there are plenty of other advancements that have come out of the space program (like Tang!), so next time pick one of those rather than something that has no relation at all.
By the time they got their act together with the 3000 series it was too late.
Uh... wha? I wouldn't quite call the V3 "getting their act together". It was little more than a juiced up Banshee with faster clock speed and a little more power. I mean, seriously -- 22bpp 3D rendering? 256x256 max texture size? An AGP card that treated the AGP bus as little more than a faster PCI bus? The card had problems, and 3dfx (note the capitalization -- they were 3dfx (little d) at the time of the V3 release, but 3Dfx (big d) before that. They were never 3DFX, except maybe on the stock tickers) refused to acknowledge them, even to the point where they insisted that nobody would ever need 32bpp 3D graphics, and their 22bpp (I don't know how they decided on that) mode was "good enough". Of course, nVidia had proven 3D performance at 32bpp with the TNT and TNT2, and were to go on with the whole GeForce line, and we all know what happened to 3dfx.
Unless you happen to enjoy blurry, grainy 3D graphics, the world is better off without 3dfx.
You forget that anyone with an iota of sense will buy the vastly superiour PS2 controllers and a couple of these
Or not. Just speaking from personal experience, the XBox controller (the large, original US one -- I haven't had a chance to try the new, smaller S/Japanese version yet) is the most comfortable console controller I've used. The PS2 controller is exactly the same as the PSOne controller, styling-wise, and those controllers always cramped my hands (I don't have especially large or small hands, btw). Just to round out the bunch, the GameCube controller feels like it took the worst of the PS2 (tiny size, flimsy design) and the N64 (oddly-placed buttons) and combined them into the single worst controller I've ever used.
The only people I know who have actually tried the XBox controller and had a problem with it were using it on one of the store displays, where the controller is locked into an uncomfortable position. These controllers were designed to fit well into your hand while reclining comfortably on your couch (thus the extra-long cords). If you've not tried an XBox controller in such a scenario, I suggest you try it. Play for a couple hours, and then see how you like it. Unless you have extremely small hands, I'll bet you'll end up preferring the XBox controller. It fits well in your hand, gives you easy access to the main controls, feels like a good sturdy power tool rather than a flimsy piece of plastic, and doesn't leave you all cramped up after an extended playing session.
And yet, Microsoft has had a phenomenal attach rate, much higher than the PS2 had even months after its launch. Let's do the math. Assume at $200, the XBox is losing $150 (the commonly quoted (but unconfirmed) numbers were losing $100 at $300, but six months after the launch, we can assume that production costs have started to go down so that this price drop won't be losing a full $200). If the XBox has an attach rate of 4 games at purchase (assume $50 each, Microsoft would make say $15 on 3rd party titles, $40 on 1st party, also assume 2 of these are Microsoft titles), plus three controllers at $50 a piece (say, $30 back to Microsoft) because halo's great fun with four players, another $30 for the DVD kit (say, $15 back to MS), and $20 ($10 to MS) for advanced connectors (S-Video or component video and digital audio). That's $15 * 2 + $40 * 2 + $30 * 3 + $15 + $10 = $225, or a $75 profit on the sale of the XBox and attached games and peripherals.
My numbers may be off, but the point here is to show that, even though the XBox console itself is sold at a loss, a profit can still be made. And a profit very likely is being made, because it's already been shown that the XBox is attaching very well (and the recent price drops in Europe et al have actually increased the attach rate of new XBoxes -- do a google search).
And just as a preemptive strike against those who would invoke the Gord on me, I'm linking there already. He's a PS2 fanboy, and a funny author, but his maths don't add up.
Pushbutton gear-shifting, joystick steering, semi-automatic transmissions - they've been tried, and they failed.
<voice style="Jon Stewart">Whaa?</voice>
Pushbutton gear-shifting is the preferred method of gear-shifting in most all forms of racing. Throwing a gear stick around is just too inefficient, especially when you only have a limited amount of cockpit space as in some racers (others have much more cockpit room, like rally cars, but even they tend to prefer a "pushbutton"-ish shifting interface rather than a gear stick). As for "semi-automatic transmissions", I guess Porsche, Audi, etc didn't know that this has been tried and failed, since they still sell their Tiptronic/Multitronic drive systems, and they're actually quite popular (and work very well, though I'm the type that still prefers the manual shifter). BMW's SMG is also a pretty slick system.
There are plenty of other "tried and failed" automotive ideas that are still being used. Take the previously mentioned Multitronic system from Audi, for example. It's just a continuously variable transmission, which has been done several times before, but Audi has made advances with the technology and so the Multitronic CVT system is much better than previous implementations by other manufacturers.
Just because Ford, GM, or Chrysler don't do it or tried and failed doesn't mean it's not being done and done successfully by other, arguably better automobile manufacturers.
Any vehicle that has a user interface so non-intuitive that one needs to pull out the owners manual to adjust the mirrors, figure out how to shift, and turn on headlights is just plain bad design.
Current car layouts (gear shifter generally obvious, steering wheel, key ignition in one of several common places, etc) are not "intuitive", either. Rather, they're "comfortable", because they don't deviate much from what you've been driving. Think about it. A Ford Model T and a Porsche 911 are still pretty similar in layout of the steering wheel, gear shift, gas, breaks, etc. Yes, the 911 may have things in slightly different places, and it certainly has many more options, but the point is that the layout is still similar to everything that's come before.
Now, before you say that the reason cars have the layout they do is because that layout is intuitive, let me say instead that that's certainly not the case. When cars were first being made, why didn't they use a "horse reigns"-like steering system, since that's what everybody was using before and thus must've been "intuitive"? Or why not a rudder lever like on a smaller boat, rather than the steering wheel from larger boats? Why gas on the right, break on the left? These things are not intuitive, but they're ingrained in us from long use. Think back when you first started driving. Did you just hop in the car and know how to do everything? Of course not, because it's not intuitive. But you learned, and having learned a certain way that's what you're comfortable with. And so, when a company tries to innovate and do something new, you complain because you have to read the manual to do what you think are "intuitive" tasks, even though you should be reading that manual anyway before driving the car away from the dealer.
Where's the one-trick pony? Easy installation doesn't contradict any other sort of functionality. I find the default install of the Linux distros I've seen generally well-laid out, with plenty of built in "things to do." I know little about Windows, but the Windows default desktops I've seen have been considerably poorer. On common hardware, I don't think X has been a big drawback for several years.
The "one-trick pony" I was referring to was about focusing mostly on the installation (of a distribution -- I'm not talking about single-app installers, here, like apt/dpkg, rpm, Loki's installer thing, etc), taking away effort that could be spent on making a truly useable computing experience. We're getting there, but had Redhat, Mandrake, SuSE, et al focused on their environment of choice (KDE, GNOME, something else) rather than focusing on flashy initial installation routines two and three years ago, we'd be that much further along today. As it is, GNOME still has a number of useability faults, and while KDE is getting much better they still have a long way to go.
OK, I didn't say anything about whether installers should be X-based or not, or include a solitaire game, and frankly I don't care that much about either one, necessarily. You're right -- a pretty install isn't necessarily well-done, and a simple-text based install procedure can be just as good as any graphical one. There might be particular examples I'd say a graphical one would be better (sliders to allocate hard drive space visually would be nice, say), but in general, I have no argument with you there. We all have different ideas about what constitutes "good enough" but I think it's healthy to always look for improvements.
The X-based installers, the games and web browsers during installation, etc were my main point. Effort was expended on software that ideally will only be used once or twice per person. And it's not just the developer's fault, either. Redhat and Mandrake touted their flashy new installation routines while many reviews focused on nothing but the installation of a system. Those reviews are as much at fault for focusing on the wrong areas as the developers were. Anyway, I agree that it's healthy to look for improvements, but there comes a time where a certain area (installation, in this case) has gotten "good enough" (or better), and it's time to start looking for improvements in other components. I'm of the opinion that we hit that mark something around two years ago, yet the major players are still fiddling with their installers to the neglect of other components (for example, Linux still falls way short in accessibility for the physically handicapped (blind, paralyzed, etc). It's coming along, but slowly). If a distribution is truly targetting the desktop user, then they need to realize that there's more to making the system user-friendly and approachable than just making it easy to install.
The big weak point that I currently find with installing Linux for someone who never has before is disk partitioning. With a new, blank drive and an "automatic" setting, no problem, but trying to explain why one wants a/home partition (and others), must specifically set up a/swap partition etc is a pain. More pain if setting up a system to dual-[boot]. This is a major point I'd like to see improved in installation procedures -- would be good to see a number of percentage-based disk-partitioning schemes set up to choose from, so people new to it could choose a plausible configuration to start with.
You make it more complicated than it needs to be. Why would a desktop user care about having a separate/home partition, or a separate/var, or even a separate/swap? (swap files are seriously underused. They are a great way to reduce the complexity of an installation.) For a server install, or for the advanced user, I can see those scenarios being useful and a proper installer would have an "advanced" mode that allows someone who knows what s/he's doing to have more control. For your average run-of-the-mill desktop install, forget all of that stuff and just use one big/.
(Just so you don't respond to the wrong thing, let me state that I do understand the importance of separating your filesystems onto different partitions, and even different drives. It makes backups and recoveries easier, and it enhances your local security if used right. However, it's so much extra stuff that Joe Sixpack neither needs to know about nor care about, and so it shouldn't even be mentioned except in the manual that's never read anyway.)
Linux is getting better. I'm still not of the opinion that it's ready for desktop use by the "unwashed masses", but it seems I'm in the minority with that opinion. That's fine, it's just my opinion. However, it bugs me to no end every time I see a review of a new distro that focus 95% of the review on the installation and maybe 5% on actually using the system. It bugs me when I see cash-strapped companies wasting time and effort on "solved" problems when they could be targetting their limited resources on areas that would net them more significant returns such as making the system as a whole easier to use. I can't count the number of times I've seen people bitten in the rear by shoddy system management software provided by various distributions (Redhat, Mandrake) (for my qualifications on this, I op on #Linux on EFNet, and see a metric pantload of these problems every day). For many of these people, the only recourse is to go "down to the metal" and start mucking around with tools like route and ifconfig. There's no reason they should need to do this, except that the config tools provided by their distro break more often than not.
We don't want or need more flashy installers. We need secure, robust, EASY TO USE system configuration tools, user interfaces, applications that make Linux (and *BSDs, and other unices like Solaris that may piggy-back on the "movement") more approachable and easier to use. 95% of your computing time is spent outside the installer, so all I ask is that a proportionate amount of time be spent on areas other than the installer.
(Please excuse the rant. This issue just gets me a bit riled becaues I see so many people having so many problems, most of which could be solved if distro developers would get their priorities straight.)
a) I like free software to be popular, especially software for Linux or BSD, because that leads to more of it being available to me:)
Wouldn't it better to be popular because the software is good, not because it's a one-trick pony? "Sure, the installation was slick, and I had a blast playing tetris while the files copied, but once that was done I couldn't figure anything out. That X thing sure is confusing and ugly."
b) for free software to be popular, people must be willing to install some of it; a tough install is a big stumbling block to get over.
You misunderstand me. I'm not advocating tough or confusing installers. I'm saying that there's a point when things are "good enough", especially when you're dealing with a very small part of the overall experience, and when you hit that point it's time to move on to other problems. Do you really think letting a user play solitaire while the files copy from the CD is a useful feature? Was it really worth spending development time (and possibly money) on adding that? One can even argue that making X-based installers was a waste of time and effort. Text-based installers don't have to be bad or confusing, and GUI-based installers are not inherently "easier". Point: "good enough" != "tough install" && X > "good enough" = "waste of effort".
d) neither of my parents have even my small experience in installing things like Mandrake -- perhaps the easiest of the mainstream Linux distros to put on.* That's why I told my mom to get a Mac;) For my own hardware, I think putting on Mandrake is considerably easier than Windows + Assorted Drivers, but I have not installed Windows recently except for the idiotic ghosted-image-no-choices variety.
I don't know anything about your parents, but if they're like the majority of parents out there, Linux in any flavor is not right for them just yet and not because of the initial installation. Sure, maybe they'll be able to get through the install (possibly not -- most of those people can't even get through a Windows install (okay, upgrade, since most people will have Windows pre-installed)), but will they be able to do anything with it afterwards? And I don't mean with liberal help from you or others. I'm talking about being able to power up the computer, fire up a web browser, e-mail client, or word processor, do what they need to do, and turn it off. With Linux, probably not. With Windows, maybe (leaning towards "yes"). With Mac OS, almost certainly (Mac OS 9 moreso than Mac OS X, but OS X is getting better).
Oh, and that.sig of yours: "NoPopIE [daishar.com], Internet Explorer popup killer (win2k/xp only, for now) " - Nothing beats mozilla at eliminating popups.
The fact that mozilla has the ability to block popups and IE seemingly doesn't is the reason I wrote that tool. Try it out, if you use win2k or xp (rationalization for limiting it to those operating systems -- they're what I have available to test with. Also, it uses UNICODE for all string handling, which win9x doesn't like). IE can block pop-ups just as well, because IE is extendable (through Browser Helper Objects, just COM objects in dlls that implement certain interfaces). It's still a work-in-progress, and it's got its share of rough edges, but it works quite well. Well enough that it proves that IE can do just as well as Mozilla, even if it does require a bit more work on the IE side.
I think the section on installation -- notably its length -- speaks volumes about the 'which is easier, Linux or MS' debate, too.
Why is it that so much effort is spent on a task that should be only a very minor part of your computing experience? X-based GUI installers, playing games during installation, focusing on installation during reviews, etc. All wasted effort, unless you're the kind of person that likes to reinstall once a week or so. Once a distribution has a "good enough" installer (say, Redhat's installer circa 5.x, or SuSE's YAST, pre-7.x), shouldn't they focus more on common computing tasks? KDE is gettting much more useable (GNOME's taking its time...), but there's still plenty of work to be done, and if these distributions truly cared about being "easy to use" they should be focusing their energies and monies on that area of development.
Surely I can't be the only one who thinks that it's completely silly to put so much work into installation for an operating system which advertises its robustness (thus implying that installation is a rare task).
Meanwhile, triumphant original films that remind us of what all that is good in the art (Frailty, Baran, Jason X) are all but ignored.
Sorry, but you lose. Jason X was anything but an original film. It was campy, it was fun in a cheesy sort of way, but it was not really original, and it was not very good. As for the other two, you may be right. More likely, though, you're a pretentious movie snob that hates everything Hollywood because it's cool to do so, even when there's actually a good Hollywood movie.
The only reason any of you went to see this movie is because you heard you were supposed to. Despite the awful casting and poor special effects, you had to feed your disposable income to the corporate beast.
I don't know about you, but I went to see it because I think the Spider-Man story is a very good story. I thought the casting was spot-on, the acting was terrific, and the effects were great (yes, a couple effects scenes came off as cheesy, but within the context of the movie, they worked well).
That would be Electronic Entertainment Expo (thus, E3). Electronic Arts (EA) is a game publishing house, most famous for their sports lines (Madden, NHL, FIFA, etc). While they're big, I don't think they're big enough to have such an important expo dedicated solely to their products.
I believe that the setup for freshmeat would be perfect to track different revisions and releases. Plus, in this period of economic downturn and unrest, companies are spread pretty thin in the employee department. This leads to a lack of available web programmers to do the job.
And that requires them to be on freshmeat's domain how? I'm sorry, but the original poster was asking why they redirect to a site on freshmeat.net rather than just staying at themes.org. I agree that the current freshmeat codebase (which in turn was originally adapted from sourceforge) is a good fit for themes, but that doesn't mean that they can't use that codebase on their own domain, rather than going over to freshmeat.net.
Fucking Waaahh!!! Get off you're stupid, lazy, bitchy, fagot ass and install it chump:
I don't think the point was that Real player was unavailable. Rather, it was that Real player is a huge steaming pile of shit, and many people refuse to install it (even if it is available for their platform). There are many better streaming codecs out there; why anyone would still use Real is beyond my comprehension.
has anyone have any sucess running this under wine? since this is now the lite version, i doubt that it needs IE and should therefore work?
"Lite" in this case means removing all the scumware from Kazaa, not removing IE (because it uses IE for content, and while you may think IE is "bad", it's not typically considered scumware). Thus, it still requires IE, and if that keeps the normal Kazaa from working under WINE, this version will be no different.
By caching files in RAM(tmpfs) I was able to impove load times, connect times, and fps (since the hdd does not support dma disk access still requires lots of CPU cycles).
And you can do this perfectly well in Windows, as well. It's called a RAM disk, and has been around for ages. Try it some time.
Of course, you'll gain much more performance by simply buying a decent 3D card if you're going to do 3D gaming. Caching files in RAM is minor compared to using proper hardware. You can buy a GeForce or GeForce 2 for cheap (or one of the MX cards for even cheaper, but they're pretty neutered; it's usually better to buy the "full" chipset from one generation older than it is to buy an MX chipset, imho).
It's refreshing to hear that Reingold hasn't changed in the last two decades.
And to think that I always just assumed he sucked as a teacher because I got him right off of sabbatical and he had forgotten how to teach. It feels good to know that my class wasn't the only one he fucked.
As a UIUC alum (BS in CS, '00), I'd have to say this statement is somewhat false. There definitely were a number of courses where group work was encouraged, but those were generally at the higher levels. For lower-level classes (CS125, CS173, CS223/225, even CS273 to some extent, though I don't know how you could pass that one without some collaboration. Maybe it helps not to have Reingold. 32% == C! Woohoo!), the policy was generally "Feel free to discuss the problem, and potential solutions, but when it comes time to code, go your separate ways." This is good. It encourages discussion of algorithmic techniques and design problems, while forcing each student to write his/her own code (this was not always followed -- I can't remember how many times I got stuck in DCL after finishing an assignment by future business majors wanting me to help them write their code).
Once you make it to the higher-level courses, the assumption is that you already know how to program, and know the basics (CS225 data structures, CS173 discreete math, CS273 intro to algos, etc). That's when you get into things like CS323 (OS design), CS331 (embedded systems), CS373 (advanced algorithms. I wonder if Jeff Erickson is still teaching that class?), CS348 (AI), etc, where you'll often be working in groups of two or four on assignments and labs.
Just as a disclaimer, I've been away from UIUC for almost 2 years. I was a class or two ahead of the major java change-over, as well. Thus, these classes may have changed (I know for a fact that CS125 is Java now rather than Scheme, and CS223 (C++ lab) no longer exists, and CS225 (data structures) is likely java now, too). The above account is true of my four years there, things may be quite different now.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's do some substitution here. How about, "If Joe Sixpack really cared about his personal belongings , he would have put in [a] better security system (besides the weak deadbolt thing)." Sounds silly, doesn't it? You're blaming the victim for the crime of the pirate. How about, "If Mary really cared about not being raped , she would have worn different clothing (besides that miniskirt thing)." I could go on all day. This kind of reasoning is flawed. (You may be right that Adobe expects their software to be stolen to increase their mindshare, but I wouldn't bet on it, and their copy protection scheme does not necessarily reflect their opinion on the matter.)
Here's a thought -- communicate effectively and your manager(s) will not have any spelling/grammar errors to pick on. Instead, s/he will be forced to actually read the doc to be able to appear competent. As it is, you're giving them an easy excuse not to bother reading it.
You may assert that there's no difference between "there", "their", and "they're" ("thier" is not a word) when you can determine the meaning through context, and perhaps you're correct. However, ignoring the significance between such constructs (the afore-mentioned example, excessive apostraphication, misspellings, incoherent grammar, etc) reflects poorly on you, not on those criticizing your writing style rather than the content you've written. It's about being a professional, and correctly using the language in which you're communicating. I'm sure you've ran into plenty of syntax errors, if you program at all. Why should the compiler complain that you wrote "suhlect" rather than "select", when the meaning is obvious? Yes, people are more flexible than any currently-available compiler out there, but the same concept holds -- the point you're trying to make is more easily communicated when you use the proper syntax (ie, correct English).
Then again, if you still feel that you're too good to bother with proper English, go ahead. Just don't blame me when your managers, coworkers, and (god forbid you have any!) subordinates begin to think of you as a fool for your inability to communicate.
(quoted completely, for the parent is an AC)
Except that in this scenario, the original poster was trying to assert that he was a college-educated person, and thus it would stand to reason that he should be able to communicate effectively. However, he couldn't, and that skews his entire post. By pointing that out, I'm not policing his spelling or grammar, but nullifying the argument he was trying to make. And besides, perhaps next time he ought to click that "Preview" button first and read over what he typed before hitting the "Submit" button. There's a reason a preview is available. (IMHO, the "Submit" button shouldn't be available until "Preview" has been hit at least once.)
(emphasis added by me)
(and so on)
Perhaps while you're at college, you might consider taking some non-Engineering courses. Learn to spell, use proper grammar. Become a well-rounded individual. Learn to communicate concepts and ideas effectively. From all indications, while you may be one of those "people that do know computers for real," you're not a very appealing employment candidate due to your poor communication skills. Then again, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "know computers for real," since if you're not getting good grades in your CS classes, how much can you really know about CS? (Computer Science != just computers. there's a metric pantload of theory and algorithms to learn. It doesn't matter if you're the fastest linux installer in the West, if you don't learn that theory you'll never be able to call yourself a Computer Scientist, regardless of what your degree eventually says.)
College is about more than just hunkering down and focusing strictly on your one chosen subject. Sure, there's a time and place for that, but as long as you're going to be there for 4+ years (milk another year or two out of the parents while the economy's in the pooper), you may as well take some time and attend some interesting classes that will grow your knowledge in other directions than just computers computers computers.
This is highly indicative of some sort of hardware problem (maybe the machine's overheating?). Rather than just assuming that it's XP and living with it, try hunting down the problem.
So use the Classic theme. Or head on over to ThemeXP and get a different visual style for XP. If you don't like the Luna interface, there are plenty of other options (none of which include "using the Luna interface and bitching about it"). You can turn off other "cutesy" things, too, like the fancy login screen (just turn off "fast user switching", or connect to a domain or AD), so there's no use complaining about those either.
I'm not saying that Teflon wasn't used in the space program, only that it wasn't originally invented for such a use. It may very well have been used, since it was certainly used for many other things including military applications (nosecones of missiles and such). Just because something was used for the space program doesn't mean it originated there, nor that it wouldn't be publicly available now if it weren't for that use.
Sorry, but no. Try DuPont's history of Teflon page. 1938 was waaay before space travel was practical. That said, there are plenty of other advancements that have come out of the space program (like Tang!), so next time pick one of those rather than something that has no relation at all.
(emphasis added be me)
Uh ... wha? I wouldn't quite call the V3 "getting their act together". It was little more than a juiced up Banshee with faster clock speed and a little more power. I mean, seriously -- 22bpp 3D rendering? 256x256 max texture size? An AGP card that treated the AGP bus as little more than a faster PCI bus? The card had problems, and 3dfx (note the capitalization -- they were 3dfx (little d) at the time of the V3 release, but 3Dfx (big d) before that. They were never 3DFX, except maybe on the stock tickers) refused to acknowledge them, even to the point where they insisted that nobody would ever need 32bpp 3D graphics, and their 22bpp (I don't know how they decided on that) mode was "good enough". Of course, nVidia had proven 3D performance at 32bpp with the TNT and TNT2, and were to go on with the whole GeForce line, and we all know what happened to 3dfx.
Unless you happen to enjoy blurry, grainy 3D graphics, the world is better off without 3dfx.
Or not. Just speaking from personal experience, the XBox controller (the large, original US one -- I haven't had a chance to try the new, smaller S/Japanese version yet) is the most comfortable console controller I've used. The PS2 controller is exactly the same as the PSOne controller, styling-wise, and those controllers always cramped my hands (I don't have especially large or small hands, btw). Just to round out the bunch, the GameCube controller feels like it took the worst of the PS2 (tiny size, flimsy design) and the N64 (oddly-placed buttons) and combined them into the single worst controller I've ever used.
The only people I know who have actually tried the XBox controller and had a problem with it were using it on one of the store displays, where the controller is locked into an uncomfortable position. These controllers were designed to fit well into your hand while reclining comfortably on your couch (thus the extra-long cords). If you've not tried an XBox controller in such a scenario, I suggest you try it. Play for a couple hours, and then see how you like it. Unless you have extremely small hands, I'll bet you'll end up preferring the XBox controller. It fits well in your hand, gives you easy access to the main controls, feels like a good sturdy power tool rather than a flimsy piece of plastic, and doesn't leave you all cramped up after an extended playing session.
And yet, Microsoft has had a phenomenal attach rate, much higher than the PS2 had even months after its launch. Let's do the math. Assume at $200, the XBox is losing $150 (the commonly quoted (but unconfirmed) numbers were losing $100 at $300, but six months after the launch, we can assume that production costs have started to go down so that this price drop won't be losing a full $200). If the XBox has an attach rate of 4 games at purchase (assume $50 each, Microsoft would make say $15 on 3rd party titles, $40 on 1st party, also assume 2 of these are Microsoft titles), plus three controllers at $50 a piece (say, $30 back to Microsoft) because halo's great fun with four players, another $30 for the DVD kit (say, $15 back to MS), and $20 ($10 to MS) for advanced connectors (S-Video or component video and digital audio). That's $15 * 2 + $40 * 2 + $30 * 3 + $15 + $10 = $225, or a $75 profit on the sale of the XBox and attached games and peripherals.
My numbers may be off, but the point here is to show that, even though the XBox console itself is sold at a loss, a profit can still be made. And a profit very likely is being made, because it's already been shown that the XBox is attaching very well (and the recent price drops in Europe et al have actually increased the attach rate of new XBoxes -- do a google search).
And just as a preemptive strike against those who would invoke the Gord on me, I'm linking there already. He's a PS2 fanboy, and a funny author, but his maths don't add up.
<voice style="Jon Stewart">Whaa?</voice>
Pushbutton gear-shifting is the preferred method of gear-shifting in most all forms of racing. Throwing a gear stick around is just too inefficient, especially when you only have a limited amount of cockpit space as in some racers (others have much more cockpit room, like rally cars, but even they tend to prefer a "pushbutton"-ish shifting interface rather than a gear stick). As for "semi-automatic transmissions", I guess Porsche, Audi, etc didn't know that this has been tried and failed, since they still sell their Tiptronic/Multitronic drive systems, and they're actually quite popular (and work very well, though I'm the type that still prefers the manual shifter). BMW's SMG is also a pretty slick system.
There are plenty of other "tried and failed" automotive ideas that are still being used. Take the previously mentioned Multitronic system from Audi, for example. It's just a continuously variable transmission, which has been done several times before, but Audi has made advances with the technology and so the Multitronic CVT system is much better than previous implementations by other manufacturers.
Just because Ford, GM, or Chrysler don't do it or tried and failed doesn't mean it's not being done and done successfully by other, arguably better automobile manufacturers.
Current car layouts (gear shifter generally obvious, steering wheel, key ignition in one of several common places, etc) are not "intuitive", either. Rather, they're "comfortable", because they don't deviate much from what you've been driving. Think about it. A Ford Model T and a Porsche 911 are still pretty similar in layout of the steering wheel, gear shift, gas, breaks, etc. Yes, the 911 may have things in slightly different places, and it certainly has many more options, but the point is that the layout is still similar to everything that's come before.
Now, before you say that the reason cars have the layout they do is because that layout is intuitive, let me say instead that that's certainly not the case. When cars were first being made, why didn't they use a "horse reigns"-like steering system, since that's what everybody was using before and thus must've been "intuitive"? Or why not a rudder lever like on a smaller boat, rather than the steering wheel from larger boats? Why gas on the right, break on the left? These things are not intuitive, but they're ingrained in us from long use. Think back when you first started driving. Did you just hop in the car and know how to do everything? Of course not, because it's not intuitive. But you learned, and having learned a certain way that's what you're comfortable with. And so, when a company tries to innovate and do something new, you complain because you have to read the manual to do what you think are "intuitive" tasks, even though you should be reading that manual anyway before driving the car away from the dealer.
The "one-trick pony" I was referring to was about focusing mostly on the installation (of a distribution -- I'm not talking about single-app installers, here, like apt/dpkg, rpm, Loki's installer thing, etc), taking away effort that could be spent on making a truly useable computing experience. We're getting there, but had Redhat, Mandrake, SuSE, et al focused on their environment of choice (KDE, GNOME, something else) rather than focusing on flashy initial installation routines two and three years ago, we'd be that much further along today. As it is, GNOME still has a number of useability faults, and while KDE is getting much better they still have a long way to go.
The X-based installers, the games and web browsers during installation, etc were my main point. Effort was expended on software that ideally will only be used once or twice per person. And it's not just the developer's fault, either. Redhat and Mandrake touted their flashy new installation routines while many reviews focused on nothing but the installation of a system. Those reviews are as much at fault for focusing on the wrong areas as the developers were. Anyway, I agree that it's healthy to look for improvements, but there comes a time where a certain area (installation, in this case) has gotten "good enough" (or better), and it's time to start looking for improvements in other components. I'm of the opinion that we hit that mark something around two years ago, yet the major players are still fiddling with their installers to the neglect of other components (for example, Linux still falls way short in accessibility for the physically handicapped (blind, paralyzed, etc). It's coming along, but slowly). If a distribution is truly targetting the desktop user, then they need to realize that there's more to making the system user-friendly and approachable than just making it easy to install.
You make it more complicated than it needs to be. Why would a desktop user care about having a separate /home partition, or a separate /var, or even a separate /swap? (swap files are seriously underused. They are a great way to reduce the complexity of an installation.) For a server install, or for the advanced user, I can see those scenarios being useful and a proper installer would have an "advanced" mode that allows someone who knows what s/he's doing to have more control. For your average run-of-the-mill desktop install, forget all of that stuff and just use one big /.
(Just so you don't respond to the wrong thing, let me state that I do understand the importance of separating your filesystems onto different partitions, and even different drives. It makes backups and recoveries easier, and it enhances your local security if used right. However, it's so much extra stuff that Joe Sixpack neither needs to know about nor care about, and so it shouldn't even be mentioned except in the manual that's never read anyway.)
Linux is getting better. I'm still not of the opinion that it's ready for desktop use by the "unwashed masses", but it seems I'm in the minority with that opinion. That's fine, it's just my opinion. However, it bugs me to no end every time I see a review of a new distro that focus 95% of the review on the installation and maybe 5% on actually using the system. It bugs me when I see cash-strapped companies wasting time and effort on "solved" problems when they could be targetting their limited resources on areas that would net them more significant returns such as making the system as a whole easier to use. I can't count the number of times I've seen people bitten in the rear by shoddy system management software provided by various distributions (Redhat, Mandrake) (for my qualifications on this, I op on #Linux on EFNet, and see a metric pantload of these problems every day). For many of these people, the only recourse is to go "down to the metal" and start mucking around with tools like route and ifconfig. There's no reason they should need to do this, except that the config tools provided by their distro break more often than not.
We don't want or need more flashy installers. We need secure, robust, EASY TO USE system configuration tools, user interfaces, applications that make Linux (and *BSDs, and other unices like Solaris that may piggy-back on the "movement") more approachable and easier to use. 95% of your computing time is spent outside the installer, so all I ask is that a proportionate amount of time be spent on areas other than the installer.
(Please excuse the rant. This issue just gets me a bit riled becaues I see so many people having so many problems, most of which could be solved if distro developers would get their priorities straight.)
Wouldn't it better to be popular because the software is good, not because it's a one-trick pony? "Sure, the installation was slick, and I had a blast playing tetris while the files copied, but once that was done I couldn't figure anything out. That X thing sure is confusing and ugly."
You misunderstand me. I'm not advocating tough or confusing installers. I'm saying that there's a point when things are "good enough", especially when you're dealing with a very small part of the overall experience, and when you hit that point it's time to move on to other problems. Do you really think letting a user play solitaire while the files copy from the CD is a useful feature? Was it really worth spending development time (and possibly money) on adding that? One can even argue that making X-based installers was a waste of time and effort. Text-based installers don't have to be bad or confusing, and GUI-based installers are not inherently "easier". Point: "good enough" != "tough install" && X > "good enough" = "waste of effort".
I don't know anything about your parents, but if they're like the majority of parents out there, Linux in any flavor is not right for them just yet and not because of the initial installation. Sure, maybe they'll be able to get through the install (possibly not -- most of those people can't even get through a Windows install (okay, upgrade, since most people will have Windows pre-installed)), but will they be able to do anything with it afterwards? And I don't mean with liberal help from you or others. I'm talking about being able to power up the computer, fire up a web browser, e-mail client, or word processor, do what they need to do, and turn it off. With Linux, probably not. With Windows, maybe (leaning towards "yes"). With Mac OS, almost certainly (Mac OS 9 moreso than Mac OS X, but OS X is getting better).
The fact that mozilla has the ability to block popups and IE seemingly doesn't is the reason I wrote that tool. Try it out, if you use win2k or xp (rationalization for limiting it to those operating systems -- they're what I have available to test with. Also, it uses UNICODE for all string handling, which win9x doesn't like). IE can block pop-ups just as well, because IE is extendable (through Browser Helper Objects, just COM objects in dlls that implement certain interfaces). It's still a work-in-progress, and it's got its share of rough edges, but it works quite well. Well enough that it proves that IE can do just as well as Mozilla, even if it does require a bit more work on the IE side.
Why is it that so much effort is spent on a task that should be only a very minor part of your computing experience? X-based GUI installers, playing games during installation, focusing on installation during reviews, etc. All wasted effort, unless you're the kind of person that likes to reinstall once a week or so. Once a distribution has a "good enough" installer (say, Redhat's installer circa 5.x, or SuSE's YAST, pre-7.x), shouldn't they focus more on common computing tasks? KDE is gettting much more useable (GNOME's taking its time ...), but there's still plenty of work to be done, and if these distributions truly cared about being "easy to use" they should be focusing their energies and monies on that area of development.
Surely I can't be the only one who thinks that it's completely silly to put so much work into installation for an operating system which advertises its robustness (thus implying that installation is a rare task).
Sorry, but you lose. Jason X was anything but an original film. It was campy, it was fun in a cheesy sort of way, but it was not really original, and it was not very good. As for the other two, you may be right. More likely, though, you're a pretentious movie snob that hates everything Hollywood because it's cool to do so, even when there's actually a good Hollywood movie.
I don't know about you, but I went to see it because I think the Spider-Man story is a very good story. I thought the casting was spot-on, the acting was terrific, and the effects were great (yes, a couple effects scenes came off as cheesy, but within the context of the movie, they worked well).
I think I've just been trolled.
That would be Electronic Entertainment Expo (thus, E3). Electronic Arts (EA) is a game publishing house, most famous for their sports lines (Madden, NHL, FIFA, etc). While they're big, I don't think they're big enough to have such an important expo dedicated solely to their products.
And that requires them to be on freshmeat's domain how? I'm sorry, but the original poster was asking why they redirect to a site on freshmeat.net rather than just staying at themes.org. I agree that the current freshmeat codebase (which in turn was originally adapted from sourceforge) is a good fit for themes, but that doesn't mean that they can't use that codebase on their own domain, rather than going over to freshmeat.net.
I don't think the point was that Real player was unavailable. Rather, it was that Real player is a huge steaming pile of shit, and many people refuse to install it (even if it is available for their platform). There are many better streaming codecs out there; why anyone would still use Real is beyond my comprehension.
"Lite" in this case means removing all the scumware from Kazaa, not removing IE (because it uses IE for content, and while you may think IE is "bad", it's not typically considered scumware). Thus, it still requires IE, and if that keeps the normal Kazaa from working under WINE, this version will be no different.
And you can do this perfectly well in Windows, as well. It's called a RAM disk, and has been around for ages. Try it some time.
Of course, you'll gain much more performance by simply buying a decent 3D card if you're going to do 3D gaming. Caching files in RAM is minor compared to using proper hardware. You can buy a GeForce or GeForce 2 for cheap (or one of the MX cards for even cheaper, but they're pretty neutered; it's usually better to buy the "full" chipset from one generation older than it is to buy an MX chipset, imho).
And to think that I always just assumed he sucked as a teacher because I got him right off of sabbatical and he had forgotten how to teach. It feels good to know that my class wasn't the only one he fucked.
As a UIUC alum (BS in CS, '00), I'd have to say this statement is somewhat false. There definitely were a number of courses where group work was encouraged, but those were generally at the higher levels. For lower-level classes (CS125, CS173, CS223/225, even CS273 to some extent, though I don't know how you could pass that one without some collaboration. Maybe it helps not to have Reingold. 32% == C! Woohoo!), the policy was generally "Feel free to discuss the problem, and potential solutions, but when it comes time to code, go your separate ways." This is good. It encourages discussion of algorithmic techniques and design problems, while forcing each student to write his/her own code (this was not always followed -- I can't remember how many times I got stuck in DCL after finishing an assignment by future business majors wanting me to help them write their code).
Once you make it to the higher-level courses, the assumption is that you already know how to program, and know the basics (CS225 data structures, CS173 discreete math, CS273 intro to algos, etc). That's when you get into things like CS323 (OS design), CS331 (embedded systems), CS373 (advanced algorithms. I wonder if Jeff Erickson is still teaching that class?), CS348 (AI), etc, where you'll often be working in groups of two or four on assignments and labs.
Just as a disclaimer, I've been away from UIUC for almost 2 years. I was a class or two ahead of the major java change-over, as well. Thus, these classes may have changed (I know for a fact that CS125 is Java now rather than Scheme, and CS223 (C++ lab) no longer exists, and CS225 (data structures) is likely java now, too). The above account is true of my four years there, things may be quite different now.
You're correct. Typo on my part (that totally blew my whole argument). I obviously meant to say "does not".