Unix compatibility and mainstream Application compatibility. It would ROCK SO HARD. [...] If only this existed already... Ah, one can dream.
Actually, I half agree with you, but 1) it only has a small (though, important) subset of mainstream applications, and 2) it doesn't (officially) run on mainstream, commodity hardware, which I should've added to my dream operating system list.
My god, the Unix kernel isn't the be all end all of OSes. What is with this attitude that Unix was the best?
To paraphrase a quote, "Unix is the worst operating system, except for all the others."
There's a reason that Unix dominates so many different areas, from the smallest embedded systems to the largest supercomputers: it's very, very flexible, and gets out of your way. It doesn't straight-arm you into "my way or the highway" like most operating systems.
How many years and which operating system? Microsoft did sell a Unix at one time (Xenix) and they did release "Windows services for Unix," which is the Unix tools.
Xenix was a full attempt at Unix, but the hardware wasn't ready. It was much too slow and too limited. Then Microsoft made the huge mistake of putting Dave Cutler, a VMS guy, in charge of NT. That gave us the steaming pile of unmanageable crap called the NT kernel, and Unix was abandoned. The irony is that Bill Gates was Unix guy! He's the one who tried Xenix.
If Microsoft had put a Unix guy in charge of NT, the world would be very, very different, and Windows probably wouldn't suck nearly as much.
Windows services for Unix was a crappy attempt at being able to check off the "POSIX Compatibility" checkbox on government requirements forms. In practice, it's totally worthless.
I've begged for YEARS to the non-existent God for Microsoft to get a clue and make their operating system Unix-like (if not completely replace their kernel with a Unix kernel). It would literally be the perfect operating system: Unix compatibility and mainstream Application compatibility. It would ROCK SO HARD.
Unfortunately, I just can't see it happening. It would be far too smart for Microsoft. --weeps--
I agree that, overall, the world would be much better if everyone just admits the truth that God doesn't exist, and was created by man to deal with his fears.
That said, don't underestimate the positive influence of organized religion. It keeps a *lot* of people in line who otherwise would have no reason to behave in a moral way. Some people really believe there's a "big daddy in the sky" watching their every move, and it keeps them in line the same way a child stays in line when their parents are watching.
There's also the charity role of the churches, which is not insignificant. Many people do it because they think they're required to.
I don't think religion can be eliminated until there's something mainstream to replace it -- some sort of church without supernaturalism. A place where people can go to talk and learn about morals and ethics. There really isn't anything like that except religion in modern life. I wish there was, actually. I've managed to protect my kids from religious influence so far (they're six and eight), but I do wish there was a place for the positive moral teachings.
There's nothing like that "new spacesuit smell"! Too bad it doesn't last forever. Then you have to get one of the cheezy aerosol new-spacesuit-smell sprays. Or a hang a little starfleet symbol air freshener on your helmet's rear-view mirror. The chicks really dig those.
I don't know how we can recover from the Chinese gaining the secrets of the 1 MHz computers, and two billion dollar per-launch "reusable" technology. Ah well, the US probably stole that advanced technology from the crashed aliens anyway. It's only fair.
Green, my friend, is not green; green is yellow and blue. I'm not even going to touch "green plus red," though I suspect it might be Christmas.
I wouldn't quit your job either. You're speaking of subtractive color, which is only applicable to paint. Vision is based on light, of which the primary colors are red, green and blue.
I understand it's a small business and money is tight, but one thing I've found is that you either have the "eye" or you don't. Geeks with no artistic eye make really horrible web sites. I have the same problem. I actually have taste; I can look at a web site and tell you if it's good or not, but taking a blank page and putting something tasteful (key word) on it is just something I can't do.
To quote Clint Eastwood: "A man has gotta know his own limitations."
Unfortunately, you're going to get terrible advice from this site ("Just make it black/white text! That's the best for readability, navigation, and accessibility"). Geeks all too typically have no appreciation for design, but it's critical for appealing to regular, everyday people (I'm assuming your site is not targeted at geeks).
If your boss wants a nice looking web site, get someone who knows what they're doing. There's more to design than just easy navigation.
some who are running are sufficiently anti-science as to deny evolution. [...] This isn't even remotely objective and all I have read so far was the submission.
If the sentence said, "some who are running are sufficiently anti-science as to deny that the earth is round," would you still think it wasn't objective?
Denying evolution is exactly the same as denying the earth is round. The only difference is that the round earth isn't in conflict with the bible.
Why is this so hard for so many people to understand? The reason Linux doesn't get adopted has nothing to do with how the desktop works. I have news for you: Linux, Windows and the Mac are effectively identical when it comes to operating them.
I shout this from the rooftops everytime this comes up: PEOPLE USE APPLICATIONS, NOT OPERATING SYSTEMS.
Applications are EVERYTHING. Microsoft has long understood this. Why are people so upset at Vista? It's not because of the popups... it's because of the compatability problems. People want absolute, "it just works" compatability. People want to be able to walk into Best Buy, grab a box off the shelf (software OR hardware), and install it. No muss, no fuss. That's why the Mac has long had single digit adoption rates. People don't to figure anything out, they just want to buy a damn box and load it on.
Linux will be adopted with a) it has nearly perfect Windows compatibility, or b) the major companies start producing Linux version of their commercial software.
And yes, I understand that there are typically free versions of various commercial software. But again, people don't want to figure anything out. They want to know that if they see a box, it will work. If they buy that fancy computerized sewing machine (such as my mother-in-law), it will work.
I can never quite understand how people think that making a copy of themselves means they personally will live forever.
That's actually not the biggest issue of "scan and download brain". People think that the brain is solely the repository of who they are, but the body is an integrated unit. A computer with just a copy of the state of the neurons *might* be intelligent, but it wouldn't be human any longer, and wouldn't respond as a human does.
That, incidently, is why I think we'll never have "human-level" intelligence. We may have intelligence, even higher levels of cognition and self-awareness, but it'll never be like a human. Humans are too complex and haphazard to be able to simulate all the crazy biochemical interactions.
Do you know what a theory is? Flat earth is not a theory, holocaust is not a theory. Those can't be denied.
I didn't actually say they were theories; they are actually more properly hypotheses. But while the round earth hypothesis isn't typically denied, the holocaust is denied all the time (someone was put in jail over it in Europe, as a matter of fact).
Anyone is free to deny a theory until (and if) proven...
Of course, anyone is free to think anything they want (except in Europe, where you can be put in jail for it). But that doesn't mean they're not totally wrong. And, theories are never "proven", they can only be disproven. You can only look at the body of evidence (gigantic, in the case of evolution).
...and not be judged for it.
Likewise, I'm free to judge anyone I want if I think what they believe is ludicrous, such as denying the holocaust and denying evolution.
Five questions, and you waste one on, "Have you stopped beating your wife", I mean, "Why do you lie to us", I mean, "why can't I get a straight answer"?
What do you expect the candidate to say? All the questions were pretty sucky, IMO.
It being Ron Paul, I wish one of the questions was, "How can you, as a doctor, be a evolution denier? And will you, once President, have a scientist explain what a theory is?
We wouldn't allow a person who believes in a flat earth to become President. We wouldn't allow a holocaust denier to become President. Why would we allow an evolution denier to become President?
Calling someone a wacko for their religious belief isn't all that tolerant, and isn't really any better than racism. When you add to it Paul's outspoken opposition to religion in politics, that just makes you more of an asshole for calling him wacko for his beliefs.
At what point in your philosophy can someone be called a wacko? If they don't believe humans went to the moon? If they believe the earth is flat? If they believe that they themselves are the rebirth of Jesus Christ?
Sorry, but not believing in evolution is EXACTLY equivalent to believing in a flat earth. I would seriously vote for a Democrat before I would vote for someone who doesn't believe in evolution. There are some things in this world that simply should automatically preclude one from being president. Not knowing the alphabet. Not knowing how to add single digits. And not believing in evolution.
Your statement is self-contradictory. You need imagination to define hunger correctly? So, what is the correct definition of hunger?
Seeing hunger as only a lack of food is like seeing a heart attack as only a lack of oxygen molecules at the point of the cell membrane. Both are technically true, but both are focusing too much on trees and not enough on the forest.
You admitted it was wrong, now you're just backpedalling.
If it makes you happy to believe you've scored some big debate point, be my guest! I'm happy to oblige. I live to make people happy.
I would love to know a good resource to consult on how to tune the OS to get better performance w/o having to get into non-novice registry tweaks.
You don't say how much memory the thing has, but it sounds like it needs more memory. Also, as someone else pointed out, go to add/remove programs and get rid of all the crapware it's probably loaded down with. Also for faster start up, use the "Hibernate" function that writes the state of RAM to disk.
You might also consider using IE instead of Firefox; Firefox is an incredible memory hog, and that could be dooming you (the next version is supposed to be better). I used to use Firefox, but have switched back to IE7. It's much better these days, and does have tabs.
I bought a $500 Toshiba laptop with Vista and a gig of memory, and while Vista annoys me, it seems reasonably quick for most tasks.
All platforms had good and bad games, it's useless to compare them. BUT -- in terms of technical coolness and uniqueness, I have to give it to my good ol' Vectrex. Clearly vector graphics don't work for every type of game, but for the games it did work with, it was awesome.
If hunger is not caused by a lack of food, then what is it caused by?
Ah, that's the important question. The important question isn't what biochemically triggers hunger, the important question is what causes the lack of food. Too many people try and solve problems by just "feeding the hunger" (or dumping money on poverty) rather than focusing on the problem of solving why there is a lack of capability to get food.
Eh? Apple obviously allows labels to offer DRM-free music, as they offer it from EMI.
Yes -- for ripoff prices. Why doesn't Apple dump the DRM version entirely?
Furthermore, there have been comments from the labels about how they want to stick it to Apple and give others (like Amazon) a competitive example.
I have not read any comments about "sticking it to Apple". Perhaps you'd give a link. I might believe they mentioned wanting more outlets, but there's nothing remarkable about that.
I'm not sure why "proof" is needed for the idea that labels have to authorize Apple to sell their wares DRM-free, as it's rather self-evident.
That has nothing to do with the point. The point is that Amazon has set a precedent for selling DRM-free, industry-standard format MP3s. Steve has publically declared that he would like to see DRM-free music. Given Jobs' huge ego and notorious lack of shyness about getting what he wants, I highly doubt that if he truly wanted Amazon-style MP3s, he couldn't get them. Or at the very least, we would have heard something about the stink.
On the other hand, it's VERY much typical behavior for Steve to try and lock people into his products.
Steve Jobs claimed a while back that he didn't like DRM, and had to do it because of the labels. Now we have Amazon selling true MP3s for all four major labels. So where's Steve?
Wow, could it be that he really wants DRM to lock people into iTunes and the iPod? Nahhhhh, not our Steve! He'd NEVER do that! Maybe he's just not as crafty as Amazon.
Slashdot Mirror
Unix compatibility and mainstream Application compatibility. It would ROCK SO HARD. [...] If only this existed already... Ah, one can dream.
Actually, I half agree with you, but 1) it only has a small (though, important) subset of mainstream applications, and 2) it doesn't (officially) run on mainstream, commodity hardware, which I should've added to my dream operating system list.
My god, the Unix kernel isn't the be all end all of OSes. What is with this attitude that Unix was the best?
To paraphrase a quote, "Unix is the worst operating system, except for all the others."
There's a reason that Unix dominates so many different areas, from the smallest embedded systems to the largest supercomputers: it's very, very flexible, and gets out of your way. It doesn't straight-arm you into "my way or the highway" like most operating systems.
How many years and which operating system? Microsoft did sell a Unix at one time (Xenix) and they did release "Windows services for Unix," which is the Unix tools.
Xenix was a full attempt at Unix, but the hardware wasn't ready. It was much too slow and too limited. Then Microsoft made the huge mistake of putting Dave Cutler, a VMS guy, in charge of NT. That gave us the steaming pile of unmanageable crap called the NT kernel, and Unix was abandoned. The irony is that Bill Gates was Unix guy! He's the one who tried Xenix.
If Microsoft had put a Unix guy in charge of NT, the world would be very, very different, and Windows probably wouldn't suck nearly as much.
Windows services for Unix was a crappy attempt at being able to check off the "POSIX Compatibility" checkbox on government requirements forms. In practice, it's totally worthless.
I've begged for YEARS to the non-existent God for Microsoft to get a clue and make their operating system Unix-like (if not completely replace their kernel with a Unix kernel). It would literally be the perfect operating system: Unix compatibility and mainstream Application compatibility. It would ROCK SO HARD.
Unfortunately, I just can't see it happening. It would be far too smart for Microsoft. --weeps--
I agree that, overall, the world would be much better if everyone just admits the truth that God doesn't exist, and was created by man to deal with his fears.
That said, don't underestimate the positive influence of organized religion. It keeps a *lot* of people in line who otherwise would have no reason to behave in a moral way. Some people really believe there's a "big daddy in the sky" watching their every move, and it keeps them in line the same way a child stays in line when their parents are watching.
There's also the charity role of the churches, which is not insignificant. Many people do it because they think they're required to.
I don't think religion can be eliminated until there's something mainstream to replace it -- some sort of church without supernaturalism. A place where people can go to talk and learn about morals and ethics. There really isn't anything like that except religion in modern life. I wish there was, actually. I've managed to protect my kids from religious influence so far (they're six and eight), but I do wish there was a place for the positive moral teachings.
There's nothing like that "new spacesuit smell"! Too bad it doesn't last forever. Then you have to get one of the cheezy aerosol new-spacesuit-smell sprays. Or a hang a little starfleet symbol air freshener on your helmet's rear-view mirror. The chicks really dig those.
Exactly. He's smelling the effects of the exposing the suit chemicals to vacuum. This story is really stupid.
I don't know how we can recover from the Chinese gaining the secrets of the 1 MHz computers, and two billion dollar per-launch "reusable" technology. Ah well, the US probably stole that advanced technology from the crashed aliens anyway. It's only fair.
Green, my friend, is not green; green is yellow and blue. I'm not even going to touch "green plus red," though I suspect it might be Christmas.
I wouldn't quit your job either. You're speaking of subtractive color, which is only applicable to paint. Vision is based on light, of which the primary colors are red, green and blue.
I understand it's a small business and money is tight, but one thing I've found is that you either have the "eye" or you don't. Geeks with no artistic eye make really horrible web sites. I have the same problem. I actually have taste; I can look at a web site and tell you if it's good or not, but taking a blank page and putting something tasteful (key word) on it is just something I can't do.
To quote Clint Eastwood: "A man has gotta know his own limitations."
Unfortunately, you're going to get terrible advice from this site ("Just make it black/white text! That's the best for readability, navigation, and accessibility"). Geeks all too typically have no appreciation for design, but it's critical for appealing to regular, everyday people (I'm assuming your site is not targeted at geeks).
If your boss wants a nice looking web site, get someone who knows what they're doing. There's more to design than just easy navigation.
some who are running are sufficiently anti-science as to deny evolution. [...] This isn't even remotely objective and all I have read so far was the submission.
If the sentence said, "some who are running are sufficiently anti-science as to deny that the earth is round," would you still think it wasn't objective?
Denying evolution is exactly the same as denying the earth is round. The only difference is that the round earth isn't in conflict with the bible.
Why is this so hard for so many people to understand? The reason Linux doesn't get adopted has nothing to do with how the desktop works. I have news for you: Linux, Windows and the Mac are effectively identical when it comes to operating them.
I shout this from the rooftops everytime this comes up: PEOPLE USE APPLICATIONS, NOT OPERATING SYSTEMS.
Applications are EVERYTHING. Microsoft has long understood this. Why are people so upset at Vista? It's not because of the popups... it's because of the compatability problems. People want absolute, "it just works" compatability. People want to be able to walk into Best Buy, grab a box off the shelf (software OR hardware), and install it. No muss, no fuss. That's why the Mac has long had single digit adoption rates. People don't to figure anything out, they just want to buy a damn box and load it on.
Linux will be adopted with a) it has nearly perfect Windows compatibility, or b) the major companies start producing Linux version of their commercial software.
And yes, I understand that there are typically free versions of various commercial software. But again, people don't want to figure anything out. They want to know that if they see a box, it will work. If they buy that fancy computerized sewing machine (such as my mother-in-law), it will work.
I can never quite understand how people think that making a copy of themselves means they personally will live forever.
That's actually not the biggest issue of "scan and download brain". People think that the brain is solely the repository of who they are, but the body is an integrated unit. A computer with just a copy of the state of the neurons *might* be intelligent, but it wouldn't be human any longer, and wouldn't respond as a human does.
That, incidently, is why I think we'll never have "human-level" intelligence. We may have intelligence, even higher levels of cognition and self-awareness, but it'll never be like a human. Humans are too complex and haphazard to be able to simulate all the crazy biochemical interactions.
Please, show me the gigantic bodies of evidence of one species evolving into another. The elusive transitional fossil.
*sigh* I'll give you the link, but I doubt you will really read it and accept it. See the fifth question.
Do you know what a theory is? Flat earth is not a theory, holocaust is not a theory. Those can't be denied.
I didn't actually say they were theories; they are actually more properly hypotheses. But while the round earth hypothesis isn't typically denied, the holocaust is denied all the time (someone was put in jail over it in Europe, as a matter of fact).
Anyone is free to deny a theory until (and if) proven...
Of course, anyone is free to think anything they want (except in Europe, where you can be put in jail for it). But that doesn't mean they're not totally wrong. And, theories are never "proven", they can only be disproven. You can only look at the body of evidence (gigantic, in the case of evolution).
Likewise, I'm free to judge anyone I want if I think what they believe is ludicrous, such as denying the holocaust and denying evolution.
Five questions, and you waste one on, "Have you stopped beating your wife", I mean, "Why do you lie to us", I mean, "why can't I get a straight answer"?
What do you expect the candidate to say? All the questions were pretty sucky, IMO.
It being Ron Paul, I wish one of the questions was, "How can you, as a doctor, be a evolution denier? And will you, once President, have a scientist explain what a theory is?
We wouldn't allow a person who believes in a flat earth to become President. We wouldn't allow a holocaust denier to become President. Why would we allow an evolution denier to become President?
Calling someone a wacko for their religious belief isn't all that tolerant, and isn't really any better than racism. When you add to it Paul's outspoken opposition to religion in politics, that just makes you more of an asshole for calling him wacko for his beliefs.
At what point in your philosophy can someone be called a wacko? If they don't believe humans went to the moon? If they believe the earth is flat? If they believe that they themselves are the rebirth of Jesus Christ?
Sorry, but not believing in evolution is EXACTLY equivalent to believing in a flat earth. I would seriously vote for a Democrat before I would vote for someone who doesn't believe in evolution. There are some things in this world that simply should automatically preclude one from being president. Not knowing the alphabet. Not knowing how to add single digits. And not believing in evolution.
Your statement is self-contradictory. You need imagination to define hunger correctly? So, what is the correct definition of hunger?
Seeing hunger as only a lack of food is like seeing a heart attack as only a lack of oxygen molecules at the point of the cell membrane. Both are technically true, but both are focusing too much on trees and not enough on the forest.
You admitted it was wrong, now you're just backpedalling.
If it makes you happy to believe you've scored some big debate point, be my guest! I'm happy to oblige. I live to make people happy.
I would love to know a good resource to consult on how to tune the OS to get better performance w/o having to get into non-novice registry tweaks.
You don't say how much memory the thing has, but it sounds like it needs more memory. Also, as someone else pointed out, go to add/remove programs and get rid of all the crapware it's probably loaded down with. Also for faster start up, use the "Hibernate" function that writes the state of RAM to disk.
You might also consider using IE instead of Firefox; Firefox is an incredible memory hog, and that could be dooming you (the next version is supposed to be better). I used to use Firefox, but have switched back to IE7. It's much better these days, and does have tabs.
I bought a $500 Toshiba laptop with Vista and a gig of memory, and while Vista annoys me, it seems reasonably quick for most tasks.
All platforms had good and bad games, it's useless to compare them. BUT -- in terms of technical coolness and uniqueness, I have to give it to my good ol' Vectrex. Clearly vector graphics don't work for every type of game, but for the games it did work with, it was awesome.
Right, so lack of food does cause hunger, making your .sig incorrect.
No, my sig is absolutely correct. It only seems incorrect to those who 1) lack imagination, and 2) don't define hunger correctly.
If hunger is not caused by a lack of food, then what is it caused by?
Ah, that's the important question. The important question isn't what biochemically triggers hunger, the important question is what causes the lack of food. Too many people try and solve problems by just "feeding the hunger" (or dumping money on poverty) rather than focusing on the problem of solving why there is a lack of capability to get food.
Eh? Apple obviously allows labels to offer DRM-free music, as they offer it from EMI.
Yes -- for ripoff prices. Why doesn't Apple dump the DRM version entirely?
Furthermore, there have been comments from the labels about how they want to stick it to Apple and give others (like Amazon) a competitive example.
I have not read any comments about "sticking it to Apple". Perhaps you'd give a link. I might believe they mentioned wanting more outlets, but there's nothing remarkable about that.
I'm not sure why "proof" is needed for the idea that labels have to authorize Apple to sell their wares DRM-free, as it's rather self-evident.
That has nothing to do with the point. The point is that Amazon has set a precedent for selling DRM-free, industry-standard format MP3s. Steve has publically declared that he would like to see DRM-free music. Given Jobs' huge ego and notorious lack of shyness about getting what he wants, I highly doubt that if he truly wanted Amazon-style MP3s, he couldn't get them. Or at the very least, we would have heard something about the stink.
On the other hand, it's VERY much typical behavior for Steve to try and lock people into his products.
Duh. The record labels (except for EMI) won't let "Steve" sell their tracks in DRM-free format, but will let Amazon do it.
Proof?
Steve Jobs claimed a while back that he didn't like DRM, and had to do it because of the labels. Now we have Amazon selling true MP3s for all four major labels. So where's Steve?
Wow, could it be that he really wants DRM to lock people into iTunes and the iPod? Nahhhhh, not our Steve! He'd NEVER do that! Maybe he's just not as crafty as Amazon.