As you run up Q, doesn't the radioactive output also rise? IIRC, the particles are mostly netrinos, but still... I don't want to give angry Luddites more reasons to want to take away my tech toys.
Not to mention which, if you thought Chernobyl was a big disaster, just imagine what would happen with a breach on one of these babies! I don't think radioactive plasma would just melt a big hole in the ground....
Well, the good thing about Woz's acronym / backronym is that it lets him claim "lightning fast responses" and when people laugh, it's not because he's lying. (No claim about real system performance intended.) Also, I have this funny feeling the protocol and/or service will be called CHARIOT. Then we can all laugh uproariously when we talk about the "CHARIOT of Woz". (Oh, Von Danniken, how I live to mock thee!)
(c. 1923) Police in an unamed mertoplitan area banned all sale of alcohol, after noting its' strong correlation to domestic crimes. "People expect the police to protect them," a spokesperson said. "We can't do that if these crime-enducing liquors are on sale."
Wow, you'd think people could learn from history. Two things may be related, but changing one doesn't neccessarily change the other (cause & effect).
No no no, you worry more about being trampled while the two monsters are locked arm-in-arm and can't see anything except their opponent. Sheesh, did you really never watch the cheesy monster movies? All the collateral damage occurs during battles.
That's the real reason I use Linux. Whatever the fallout from the current "rend Microsoft" legal frenzy, I will have all my options open when I move on afterward, whether to something else (Linux, BSD, MacOS) or back to Windows. [note: I realize the first to fall to collateral damage will probably be OS software. Oh well, that's life.]
IIRC, Netscape sold (still sells?) their Communicator at about $40 a licence (for Windows version, unknown about other OSes). Sure, the browser was free, but it was just a marketing method to get more people to buy their retail software (a suite with newsgroups/email and WYSIWIG HTML editor). When Microsoft bundles software that does the same things into their OS packages, Netscape watches their product sales plummet.
The real "killed Netscape" culprit isn't Explorer, but Outlook (or Outlook Express, but the point holds). That just ups the irony now that Outlook seems to be sounding the death knell of Windows with the hordes of script k1dd13 virii.
What happened to The First Troll Post Inv. is a perfect example of community forming around an issue online and getting slapped for their trouble. Many users trying improve the quality of communication and community on/. got whacked because of the childish insecurity of some editors.
Or maybe...
What happened to The First Troll Post Inv. is a perfect example of community rallying around an online issue and slapping the people who give them trouble.
I agree that communiation on/. could use a lot of improvement; I even agree that maybe moderation and M2 is broken. However I also think the forum chosen was inappropriate. Perhaps if you had not been off topic (trolling woes in a forum on Oracle's latest ad campaign)- but then again see my comment in the thread. (Fast posters: consider its' format a lesson as to why to use the "Preview" button. That was a rare occasion when I did not.)
Obnoxiousness may come in many forms.
Yes, obnoxiousness ranges from the vandal who spray paints grafitti on buildings to the idiot politician who filibusters for hours to stall voting on a bill. Fighting one form of obnoxiousness does not give you licence to yourself become as obnoxious in another form (or the same, for that matter).
How can an online community like/. engender real community
I think what is required for that opportunity has been placed in the user's hands. Slashdot now has user journals and user made forums. By writing in your journal you can allow others a glimpse into your life; by crafting forums you can discuss what you want while remaining on topic. the hurdle is that the community must be proactive about moving together and remaining so; so far I've not seen widespread signs of that. Perhaps a community will form, but I wouldn't expect it to include all of slashdot's readers.
Counterargument to your very silly counterargument:
Doctors study illness not to cause it, but to cure it.
I know that politicians, when dealing with computer technology, like to follow your facetious argument. The problem is that the general public has a hard time realizing programs are more like a leatherman multitool (wide purpose) and less like an EEG machine (one purpose). I've used Word to doodle, or play games (it's quite fun mangling the program using VBScript). Is it a crime for me to do so? After all, the same skills have been used to write virii or munge the security of a LAN.
I understand the twin concepts of responsibility and accountability: those are what keep me from considering any hacking. I've almost always known how to break security on any computer system I used; those two ethical precepts kept me from actually doing it (despite often strong temptation to the contrary). And if they were taught in public schools- and made to stick- script kiddies probably would be managable.
This is not to absolve network admins of their responsibility (to have a good firewall, practice proper security, etc). I just think that maybe we need consider the possibility that where the slashdot community stands isn't pro or con, but a sensible and logical medium.
Everyone is out to make a profit.
All trite religious-saying books aside, life does not come with an instuction manual. [At least, I didn't get one. If you did, could you fax a copy to me?:)] Unless you want to make a visibly false statement, don't claim all people have X quality. Especally don't say all people aim for maximal profits. Consider ministers (probably true for all religions but I'm basing this on Christianity)- they pay big $$$ for postgrad education (yes: it is required for ordination in several denominations) and then get one of the lowest-paying jobs available. What profit is in that?
Till then I'll be out to make a profit. Just like you.
Personally, I hope to leave the world a better place than I found it. I may only end up not making more of a mess myself, but I try; I act as a political and social activist with my Open Source actions and try to help other people broaden their views by (occasionally) posting
moderately intelligent comments here on/.
I will admit that in America (or any other capitalistic society), profit is the game; yet there is no force that says you must play. Although the incentive to join the game is quite strong (general society is geared toward players), you always have the option of a monastic lifestyle.
On one of the mailing lists, Linus said that he wants the Linux kernel to gain low latency the cleanest way: find all parts that are slow, and instead of hacking them to yield, re-write them so they are faster (but still clean code that is easy to understand). This is of course the ideal, but when will it be finished?
Well, I'm just going to hazard a wild guess here, but maybe that sort of change would only occur when all of the different areas' (primary) developers were interested in it.
This is more like putting 5900 women in a room and trying to get a baby in one hour.
You're a little low. It would take 9 months x 30 days x 24 hours = 6480 women.
The *BSDs are PnP (no need for Kudzu)
Linux supports PnP with tools like isapnp. Kudzu is, so far as I can tell, just for automagically manipulating (read: breaking:-( ) all your config files when you install new hardware. For example, I have a broken video card that changes it's chip ID (depending on whether boot is cold/warm). When this happens (normally after I played a windows game), Kudzu comes up and offers to mangle^W fix my XF86config file. The hardware in question is not PnP based, ergo Kudzo has nothing to do with PnP. (Well, except for doing your config like Windows does, and I do mean just like Windows does.)
Re:The first Slashdot troll post investigation
on
KaZaa Suspends Downloads
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
Please, I want to read discussions related to the story they're posted under. Don't tell me about Slashdot's moderators when the parent story is about Oracle's faulty advertizements.
You are right; I was wrong. Thank you for correcting my historical errors. However, this doesn't change my main point, which is that copoyright originally protected the publisher, not the artist/author.
The four words, "availability of source code". Maybe I skipped a track, but I was suggesting that since the users of OSS systems can fix it themselves, a software liability law means that the end users of OSS systems can only hold themselves liable. Adding code would unquestionably shift the responsibility, but I think it would/should shift even in the absence of such changes.
Not to give a dissertation, but after learning in World History classes where copyright came from, I saw clearly where it goes wrong for the Internet.
Modern copyright laws originate from the French Revolution, where publishers were granted the exclusivity rights we all know about. Publishers, not artists.
How would your boss respond if your business' web page was copyright Rackspace? You'd probably self-host quick (not that I'm saying many don't already, but it shows the difference).
Copyright law is a holdback to when it was highly difficult to publish; in the internet age, it needs to be reconsidered. After all, does everyone's weblog need life+70 years of protection when the data often isn't interesting or relevant for more than about 10 years?
Couldn't the GPL be modified for this even without a OSS clause? Something along the lines of "By using this program, you acknowledge the availability of source code and accept responsibility for any and all warranty requirements." (IANAL so that's probably well below the threshold of what's required, but my idea of what would work.)
Basically, everything has to be on the upside versus propriatary software.
Hmm.
Cheaper Software: less taxes (or shifted budget)
Available Souce: expandability
Security Minded System: fewer virii or successful hacks
Standards Driven: wider availability
Everything is on the upside versus proprietary systems. Sure, you'll fire a dozen MSCE monkeys, and may have to change your hardware, but just don't mention that.
Oh and when your opponent calls you a Commie, call him a Nazi in Microsoft's pay. (Name calling can fly both ways; in these 'politically charged' times, it is also highly dangerous)
While it[ubiquitous computing moniker] isn't really valid for computers that you are supposed to interact with as a computer... Apple is definitely not going this direction.
Well, yes. Ubiqueous computing (in its' proper use) refers to the chips in the MP3/CD players, and in your car, or hidden in a digital picture frame: the low-powered processors that perform one function. And that's not what I want for my computer (nor is it the way I imagine ubiqueous computing). Apple is close to what I want, but not quite there.
I would certainly say that computers shouldn't draw your attention. Look around an automated office; generally the largest thing on anyone's desk will be the monitor, and more likely than not it will also serve as the sole focal point. That's bad. Better would be an LCD; more improvement can be gained if the screen saver is a slide show of digital photograhy. Ubiqueous would be when you aren't using the computer, you don't even notice it. I mentally extend that concept to the desktop, even though the term technically does not apply there. I want the whole thing to dissapear, but be summonable when I want, where I want.
I imagine a world where I could walk up to any screen- all blending in a ubiqueious (or nearly so) manner- and summon my personal desktop. (The method would probably be similar to the way remote X desktops work). There would be a 'trusted environment' filter- like IE provides for websites, but in reverse- that keeps me from opening internal corporate documents anywhere but at work. Other controls would exist, but the concept is that where ever I go, there a computer is (within reason: I don't plan to share the bathroom with a computer, for one).
You mention the dread beige boxes. Unfortunatly, that is what all a PC is right now: a beige box. Something "merely" physical. Radios are not, to my mind, in the same category; it is content, not form or physicality, that defines "radio" to my mind. This is (mostly) because of the fact I get the same information stream seamlessly everywhere- in my car, in the office, and when I exercise; it does not matter that the device that recieves the information changed. I no longer notice the device as much as I do the content. And to me, that defines ubiqueious computing (digital content that transparently follows me from device to device with a minimum of user effort).
H*ll no! The companies out there make their money not by selling product, but brand. "You're not fully clean until you're Zest(TM)fully clean!"(TM) That silly Intel Pentium chime. The Nike swoosh. All the signs of branding surround us; to quote (perhaps misquote) Ayn Rand, "Trademarks are the coat of arms of our age."
Sadly, once you've slipped consumers the branding drug, you can't ever go back. Just look at music, and how it's suffering from branding: every boy band has a Really*Cool name, but all sound just the same. The sales drop the RIAA reports seems to be the fallout of these tactics (IP can't be branded as easily); and IMHO it was branding that started the.BOMB debacle-- brand name alone won't keep you solvent when you've got a poor business plan.
Oh, sorry to ramble and rant so, but I'll get back to my point. How in the world do you brand something that the consumer isn't aware of? If your computer is supposed to blend seamlessly into the background, you can't just put a glossy brand sticker on it- then the sticker stands out. Sadly, marketing will not permit a transparent computing environment. The two ideas are mutually exclusive. This isn't to say the idea won't be realized, but I don't see it rising above the level of the hobbyist's hack.
...toward having computers that you don't notice anymore. I would love to have a computer that wasn't subject any manifestation of 'beige box syndrome'. Unforunately, what I think of as beige box syndrome includes connecting cables from mouse (keyboard, monitor, scanner, network hub, etc) to computer, not just visual astetics. One look behind my desk at home (or the office) shows just what I worry about. Sure, you can bundle the cables together, but even then they make an auful mess.
My dream computer is one that stands out while I activly interact with it, but when I'm not using it seamlessly blends right into the background. Kindof the way the computer works on Star Trek.
While we're still years away from having this concept being actively sold to the consumer (though all the pieces seem to be falling into place), in the past few years I have considered Macs ever more seriously when thinking about new computers (and know that now, with WinXP, if&when I succumb to the lure of a laptop, it will be an iBook- unless Linux has become the dominant x86 OS in the interim).
Maybe tobacco and Microsoft are also the same in that they want to hide the dangers inherent in their product?
You won't find a single tobacco executive that smokes; oh no, they're too smart for that. Reminds me of the rumors that Bill Gates' home servers never ran NT. True or not, it does a lot to hurt your image when people say you don't trust your own product.
Unfortunately for IBM the one that caught up to them was Microsoft:-/.
I don't see where you are coming from: Microsoft (at that time) only sold software- specifically, MS-DOS. IBM only manufactured PC hardware, not their own operating system. So how could Microsoft 'catch up to' IBM if they aren't in the same market?
Before you flame me for that subject line let me explain.
Browse Slashdot at -1. How many of those trolls would you not need to beat with a clue-by-four within an inch of their lives to get them to post on-topic? (I don't mean just once or sometimes, I mean forever and always.)
My sister is like this. Every six months I get another chain letter from her ("Re: New Virus Warning" or maybe "Re:Great Internet Snowball Fight 2005"). I do not like chain letters. They are spam; I filter them as such. Each time she sends me a chain letter, I send a very polite "don't do this again; chain letters go to my trashcan"-style response.
Maybe I ought to take a clue from RMS; tell her that I believe chain letters consumes network resources, that massive numbers can become counter productive-- in short all the standard anti-spam arguments. If I present myself calmly and rationally I expect (from experience) that she will stop. If I do a really good job, maybe she'll change her opinion. Take this example from letter 2: "Receiving Word attachments is bad for you because they can carry viruses" is calm, well spoken, and provides a reason that the sender may never want to see another Word file themselves. Spoken in this manner they might see your "opinion" against Word.DOCs not as just a unreasoned preference but as an intelligent decision.
Something tells me that's the reason my sister keeps sending me spam: I've never really told her why I want her to stop (just been a prick and threatened to trash her emails to me, if in a polite manner).
Slashdot Mirror
As you run up Q, doesn't the radioactive output also rise? IIRC, the particles are mostly netrinos, but still... I don't want to give angry Luddites more reasons to want to take away my tech toys.
Not to mention which, if you thought Chernobyl was a big disaster, just imagine what would happen with a breach on one of these babies! I don't think radioactive plasma would just melt a big hole in the ground....
Well, the good thing about Woz's acronym / backronym is that it lets him claim "lightning fast responses" and when people laugh, it's not because he's lying. (No claim about real system performance intended.) Also, I have this funny feeling the protocol and/or service will be called CHARIOT. Then we can all laugh uproariously when we talk about the "CHARIOT of Woz". (Oh, Von Danniken, how I live to mock thee!)
(c. 1923) Police in an unamed mertoplitan area banned all sale of alcohol, after noting its' strong correlation to domestic crimes. "People expect the police to protect them," a spokesperson said. "We can't do that if these crime-enducing liquors are on sale."
Wow, you'd think people could learn from history. Two things may be related, but changing one doesn't neccessarily change the other (cause & effect).
No no no, you worry more about being trampled while the two monsters are locked arm-in-arm and can't see anything except their opponent. Sheesh, did you really never watch the cheesy monster movies? All the collateral damage occurs during battles.
That's the real reason I use Linux. Whatever the fallout from the current "rend Microsoft" legal frenzy, I will have all my options open when I move on afterward, whether to something else (Linux, BSD, MacOS) or back to Windows. [note: I realize the first to fall to collateral damage will probably be OS software. Oh well, that's life.]
IIRC, Netscape sold (still sells?) their Communicator at about $40 a licence (for Windows version, unknown about other OSes). Sure, the browser was free, but it was just a marketing method to get more people to buy their retail software (a suite with newsgroups/email and WYSIWIG HTML editor). When Microsoft bundles software that does the same things into their OS packages, Netscape watches their product sales plummet.
The real "killed Netscape" culprit isn't Explorer, but Outlook (or Outlook Express, but the point holds). That just ups the irony now that Outlook seems to be sounding the death knell of Windows with the hordes of script k1dd13 virii.
What happened to The First Troll Post Inv. is a perfect example of community forming around an issue online and getting slapped for their trouble. Many users trying improve the quality of communication and community on /. got whacked because of the childish insecurity of some editors.
/. could use a lot of improvement; I even agree that maybe moderation and M2 is broken. However I also think the forum chosen was inappropriate. Perhaps if you had not been off topic (trolling woes in a forum on Oracle's latest ad campaign)- but then again see my comment in the thread. (Fast posters: consider its' format a lesson as to why to use the "Preview" button. That was a rare occasion when I did not.)
/. engender real community
Or maybe...
What happened to The First Troll Post Inv. is a perfect example of community rallying around an online issue and slapping the people who give them trouble.
I agree that communiation on
Obnoxiousness may come in many forms.
Yes, obnoxiousness ranges from the vandal who spray paints grafitti on buildings to the idiot politician who filibusters for hours to stall voting on a bill. Fighting one form of obnoxiousness does not give you licence to yourself become as obnoxious in another form (or the same, for that matter).
How can an online community like
I think what is required for that opportunity has been placed in the user's hands. Slashdot now has user journals and user made forums. By writing in your journal you can allow others a glimpse into your life; by crafting forums you can discuss what you want while remaining on topic. the hurdle is that the community must be proactive about moving together and remaining so; so far I've not seen widespread signs of that. Perhaps a community will form, but I wouldn't expect it to include all of slashdot's readers.
Counterargument to your very silly counterargument:
Doctors study illness not to cause it, but to cure it.
I know that politicians, when dealing with computer technology, like to follow your facetious argument. The problem is that the general public has a hard time realizing programs are more like a leatherman multitool (wide purpose) and less like an EEG machine (one purpose). I've used Word to doodle, or play games (it's quite fun mangling the program using VBScript). Is it a crime for me to do so? After all, the same skills have been used to write virii or munge the security of a LAN.
I understand the twin concepts of responsibility and accountability: those are what keep me from considering any hacking. I've almost always known how to break security on any computer system I used; those two ethical precepts kept me from actually doing it (despite often strong temptation to the contrary). And if they were taught in public schools- and made to stick- script kiddies probably would be managable.
This is not to absolve network admins of their responsibility (to have a good firewall, practice proper security, etc). I just think that maybe we need consider the possibility that where the slashdot community stands isn't pro or con, but a sensible and logical medium.
Everyone is out to make a profit. :)] Unless you want to make a visibly false statement, don't claim all people have X quality. Especally don't say all people aim for maximal profits. Consider ministers (probably true for all religions but I'm basing this on Christianity)- they pay big $$$ for postgrad education (yes: it is required for ordination in several denominations) and then get one of the lowest-paying jobs available. What profit is in that?
/.
All trite religious-saying books aside, life does not come with an instuction manual. [At least, I didn't get one. If you did, could you fax a copy to me?
Till then I'll be out to make a profit. Just like you.
Personally, I hope to leave the world a better place than I found it. I may only end up not making more of a mess myself, but I try; I act as a political and social activist with my Open Source actions and try to help other people broaden their views by (occasionally) posting moderately intelligent comments here on
I will admit that in America (or any other capitalistic society), profit is the game; yet there is no force that says you must play. Although the incentive to join the game is quite strong (general society is geared toward players), you always have the option of a monastic lifestyle.
On one of the mailing lists, Linus said that he wants the Linux kernel to gain low latency the cleanest way: find all parts that are slow, and instead of hacking them to yield, re-write them so they are faster (but still clean code that is easy to understand). This is of course the ideal, but when will it be finished?
Well, I'm just going to hazard a wild guess here, but maybe that sort of change would only occur when all of the different areas' (primary) developers were interested in it.
This is more like putting 5900 women in a room and trying to get a baby in one hour.
You're a little low. It would take 9 months x 30 days x 24 hours = 6480 women.
The *BSDs are PnP (no need for Kudzu) :-( ) all your config files when you install new hardware. For example, I have a broken video card that changes it's chip ID (depending on whether boot is cold/warm). When this happens (normally after I played a windows game), Kudzu comes up and offers to mangle^W fix my XF86config file. The hardware in question is not PnP based, ergo Kudzo has nothing to do with PnP. (Well, except for doing your config like Windows does, and I do mean just like Windows does.)
Linux supports PnP with tools like isapnp. Kudzu is, so far as I can tell, just for automagically manipulating (read: breaking
This is the sort of post your journal is designed for. After you drop in a journal entry, change your ".sig file". And before anyone asks, the only reason I don't do this myself is that I'm still working on entry #1.
Please, I want to read discussions related to the story they're posted under. Don't tell me about Slashdot's moderators when the parent story is about Oracle's faulty advertizements.
You are right; I was wrong. Thank you for correcting my historical errors. However, this doesn't change my main point, which is that copoyright originally protected the publisher, not the artist/author.
The four words, "availability of source code". Maybe I skipped a track, but I was suggesting that since the users of OSS systems can fix it themselves, a software liability law means that the end users of OSS systems can only hold themselves liable. Adding code would unquestionably shift the responsibility, but I think it would/should shift even in the absence of such changes.
Not to give a dissertation, but after learning in World History classes where copyright came from, I saw clearly where it goes wrong for the Internet.
Modern copyright laws originate from the French Revolution, where publishers were granted the exclusivity rights we all know about. Publishers, not artists.
How would your boss respond if your business' web page was copyright Rackspace? You'd probably self-host quick (not that I'm saying many don't already, but it shows the difference).
Copyright law is a holdback to when it was highly difficult to publish; in the internet age, it needs to be reconsidered. After all, does everyone's weblog need life+70 years of protection when the data often isn't interesting or relevant for more than about 10 years?
Couldn't the GPL be modified for this even without a OSS clause? Something along the lines of "By using this program, you acknowledge the availability of source code and accept responsibility for any and all warranty requirements." (IANAL so that's probably well below the threshold of what's required, but my idea of what would work.)
OOhhh, darn "Submit" and "Preview" buttons are right beside one another!
Hmm.
Everything is on the upside versus proprietary systems. Sure, you'll fire a dozen MSCE monkeys, and may have to change your hardware, but just don't mention that.
Oh and when your opponent calls you a Commie, call him a Nazi in Microsoft's pay. (Name calling can fly both ways; in these 'politically charged' times, it is also highly dangerous)
Basically, everything has to be on the upside versus propriatary software.
Hmm.
While it[ubiquitous computing moniker] isn't really valid for computers that you are supposed to interact with as a computer ... Apple is definitely not going this direction.
Well, yes. Ubiqueous computing (in its' proper use) refers to the chips in the MP3/CD players, and in your car, or hidden in a digital picture frame: the low-powered processors that perform one function. And that's not what I want for my computer (nor is it the way I imagine ubiqueous computing). Apple is close to what I want, but not quite there.
I would certainly say that computers shouldn't draw your attention. Look around an automated office; generally the largest thing on anyone's desk will be the monitor, and more likely than not it will also serve as the sole focal point. That's bad. Better would be an LCD; more improvement can be gained if the screen saver is a slide show of digital photograhy. Ubiqueous would be when you aren't using the computer, you don't even notice it. I mentally extend that concept to the desktop, even though the term technically does not apply there. I want the whole thing to dissapear, but be summonable when I want, where I want.
I imagine a world where I could walk up to any screen- all blending in a ubiqueious (or nearly so) manner- and summon my personal desktop. (The method would probably be similar to the way remote X desktops work). There would be a 'trusted environment' filter- like IE provides for websites, but in reverse- that keeps me from opening internal corporate documents anywhere but at work. Other controls would exist, but the concept is that where ever I go, there a computer is (within reason: I don't plan to share the bathroom with a computer, for one).
You mention the dread beige boxes. Unfortunatly, that is what all a PC is right now: a beige box. Something "merely" physical. Radios are not, to my mind, in the same category; it is content, not form or physicality, that defines "radio" to my mind. This is (mostly) because of the fact I get the same information stream seamlessly everywhere- in my car, in the office, and when I exercise; it does not matter that the device that recieves the information changed. I no longer notice the device as much as I do the content. And to me, that defines ubiqueious computing (digital content that transparently follows me from device to device with a minimum of user effort).
H*ll no! The companies out there make their money not by selling product, but brand. "You're not fully clean until you're Zest(TM)fully clean!"(TM) That silly Intel Pentium chime. The Nike swoosh. All the signs of branding surround us; to quote (perhaps misquote) Ayn Rand, "Trademarks are the coat of arms of our age."
.BOMB debacle-- brand name alone won't keep you solvent when you've got a poor business plan.
Sadly, once you've slipped consumers the branding drug, you can't ever go back. Just look at music, and how it's suffering from branding: every boy band has a Really*Cool name, but all sound just the same. The sales drop the RIAA reports seems to be the fallout of these tactics (IP can't be branded as easily); and IMHO it was branding that started the
Oh, sorry to ramble and rant so, but I'll get back to my point. How in the world do you brand something that the consumer isn't aware of? If your computer is supposed to blend seamlessly into the background, you can't just put a glossy brand sticker on it- then the sticker stands out. Sadly, marketing will not permit a transparent computing environment. The two ideas are mutually exclusive. This isn't to say the idea won't be realized, but I don't see it rising above the level of the hobbyist's hack.
...toward having computers that you don't notice anymore. I would love to have a computer that wasn't subject any manifestation of 'beige box syndrome'. Unforunately, what I think of as beige box syndrome includes connecting cables from mouse (keyboard, monitor, scanner, network hub, etc) to computer, not just visual astetics. One look behind my desk at home (or the office) shows just what I worry about. Sure, you can bundle the cables together, but even then they make an auful mess.
My dream computer is one that stands out while I activly interact with it, but when I'm not using it seamlessly blends right into the background. Kindof the way the computer works on Star Trek. While we're still years away from having this concept being actively sold to the consumer (though all the pieces seem to be falling into place), in the past few years I have considered Macs ever more seriously when thinking about new computers (and know that now, with WinXP, if&when I succumb to the lure of a laptop, it will be an iBook- unless Linux has become the dominant x86 OS in the interim).
Maybe tobacco and Microsoft are also the same in that they want to hide the dangers inherent in their product?
You won't find a single tobacco executive that smokes; oh no, they're too smart for that. Reminds me of the rumors that Bill Gates' home servers never ran NT. True or not, it does a lot to hurt your image when people say you don't trust your own product.
Unfortunately for IBM the one that caught up to them was Microsoft :-/.
I don't see where you are coming from: Microsoft (at that time) only sold software- specifically, MS-DOS. IBM only manufactured PC hardware, not their own operating system. So how could Microsoft 'catch up to' IBM if they aren't in the same market?
Before you flame me for that subject line let me explain.
.DOCs not as just a unreasoned preference but as an intelligent decision.
Browse Slashdot at -1. How many of those trolls would you not need to beat with a clue-by-four within an inch of their lives to get them to post on-topic? (I don't mean just once or sometimes, I mean forever and always.)
My sister is like this. Every six months I get another chain letter from her ("Re: New Virus Warning" or maybe "Re:Great Internet Snowball Fight 2005"). I do not like chain letters. They are spam; I filter them as such. Each time she sends me a chain letter, I send a very polite "don't do this again; chain letters go to my trashcan"-style response.
Maybe I ought to take a clue from RMS; tell her that I believe chain letters consumes network resources, that massive numbers can become counter productive-- in short all the standard anti-spam arguments. If I present myself calmly and rationally I expect (from experience) that she will stop. If I do a really good job, maybe she'll change her opinion. Take this example from letter 2: "Receiving Word attachments is bad for you because they can carry viruses" is calm, well spoken, and provides a reason that the sender may never want to see another Word file themselves. Spoken in this manner they might see your "opinion" against Word
Something tells me that's the reason my sister keeps sending me spam: I've never really told her why I want her to stop (just been a prick and threatened to trash her emails to me, if in a polite manner).