An analogue watch shows the time graphically, a digital watch shows six digits. This is why an analogue watch is considered by many, myself included, to be more intuitive.
Exactly. I typically do not want to know the exact time time, but want to know how far away I am from some past or future time.
Grand Central Terminal used to have analog clocks, and if I was running for a train it was easy to see if I had time to make it, but when they changed to digital I had to stop and do time math to figure things out. Sounds trivial, but looking at the distance between the minute hand and some numeral was easier to parse than a string of digits.
My god man, what are you doing? The flamewar that a comment like that could spark would have the potential to bring down all of slashdot!
Yeah, well,...
Two seconds after I posted I realized my comment might trigger a cascade of "Oh yeah, well what about #{my_favorite_language}? It has #{lang.features.join( ' and ' )}"
Ruby isn't the only choice that would have been better than Perl; one of the strong factors typically in Perl's favor, the large number of available third-party libs, likely isn't useful here. Judged solely on what's available in the core language, there are many better choices than Perl.
I mean, I's rather use Perl than Java for many tasks, but if Nokia wanted a good, clean interpreted language, why not Ruby, which has the power of Perl but a far cleaner design.
None of this matters anymore because in common usage, people now use acronym to refer to both
In common usage, some people make the distinction, and some don't. That doesn't make the sloppy usage correct. Wishing to promote clarity in language does not make one a pedant.
Erm, the commercial is ABOUT OSS. Think about it. They say "we have this kid, his name is Linux" Linux learns everyday from the foremost experts around the world.
Yeah, but that's bullshit. Some experts contribute to software that runs (among other OS's) on Linux. But mostly it's a range of typical geeks with free time writing softwwre to scratch an itch.
As Linux grows he becomes stronger, faster, better, smarter. Linux absorbs everything around him.
Like I said, a bad sci-fi plot. And maybe you think that's the point of the commercial, but I'm not so sure that's a common interpretation.
That is the essence of OSS, and that is what happens in the commercial. The idea is to get people who do not understand software to understand this fundamental fact of OSS.
See above. It just simply isn't true. There is a good amount of top-grade OSS, but the same is true of closed-source coprorate product.
I'd love to have spent 4 or 5 years in school only to graduate and find that I can make more money as a waiter than in my "profession," assuming I could find a position.
I'd say the educational process has failed you big time if, in those 4-5 years, it never occured to you to go see what your degree would be worth.
I'd also be quite stunned to meet any English or History major who honestly expected to leave school and go make big bucks.
seems to equate the use of linux with all the worlds best in their respective fields of expertice.
See, now, that's funny, because, to me, that commercial seems to equate Linux with a dopey sci-fi movie or one-season TV show.
What it *doesn't* equate to is the fleeting suspicion that anybody in the commercial knows anything about computers, software, operating systems, or OSS. I mean, they *might*, but you'd never know it from the commercial
Memo to Microsoft - stick with the formula that got you where you are today - cloning and rebranding other ppl's ideas - give up on inventing your own.
Yeah! Go find a good open-source OS and stick a nice GUI over it.
Did you know that you are not allowed to use Visual Studio to develop a word processor? Nor are you allowed to use FrontPage or InterDev to create web pages which criticise Microsoft.
Do you have references for these claims, or is it simply FUD?
And how many of those come with Windows? You can't even rip music to MP3s without loading extra software.
So, Microsoft should bundle *more* software?
I'm all for it, but you that for every item added, there's gonna be somebody unhappy because MSFT has (somehow or other) reduced the user's choice. And they'll be right in line behind those bemoaning the disk space reuqired to install Windows.
Before: Windows doesn't include MP3 ripping software!
After: Call the laywers! Microsoft is freezing out competitors by including MP3 ripping software!
In other words, pre-planned well-written presentations - the antithesis of PowerPoint.
One does not preclude the other. Using PowerPoint does not stop you from also using Word (or whatever) and writing a proper speech.
If you believe in that perspective, then bullet-point agenda-style visuals with off-the-cuff or even pre-planned spoken commentary are "bad".
But I don't believe in that; I believe that written articles and spoken presentations are different, and work in different ways, and offer different things. And different people will respond, well, differently. Some will get more from the slides than from the talk, and vice versa. Talk and slides need to play off each other.
What's the point of simply reading off a piece of paper that you could just as well give to people to read at their leisure? It's similar to the mentality that treats the Web as being "just like" magazines or TV, ignoring the qualities unique to a particular medium.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. I typically do not want to know the exact time time, but want to know how far away I am from some past or future time.
Grand Central Terminal used to have analog clocks, and if I was running for a train it was easy to see if I had time to make it, but when they changed to digital I had to stop and do time math to figure things out. Sounds trivial, but looking at the distance between the minute hand and some numeral was easier to parse than a string of digits.
Free? No. It's just paid for by other people.
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
Then, when that doesn't seem to help, you switch to
#!/usr/bin/ruby -w# :)
Perhaps we can start calling DRM by its real name, Digital Restriction Management, instead of just playing along and using some cutesy euphemism.
Yeah, well, ...
Two seconds after I posted I realized my comment might trigger a cascade of "Oh yeah, well what about #{my_favorite_language}? It has #{lang.features.join( ' and ' )}"
Ruby isn't the only choice that would have been better than Perl; one of the strong factors typically in Perl's favor, the large number of available third-party libs, likely isn't useful here. Judged solely on what's available in the core language, there are many better choices than Perl.
I mean, I's rather use Perl than Java for many tasks, but if Nokia wanted a good, clean interpreted language, why not Ruby, which has the power of Perl but a far cleaner design.
In common usage, some people make the distinction, and some don't. That doesn't make the sloppy usage correct. Wishing to promote clarity in language does not make one a pedant.
And not only that, but "IBM" was never an acronymn , but an initialism.
Yeah, but that's bullshit. Some experts contribute to software that runs (among other OS's) on Linux. But mostly it's a range of typical geeks with free time writing softwwre to scratch an itch.
As Linux grows he becomes stronger, faster, better, smarter. Linux absorbs everything around him.
Like I said, a bad sci-fi plot. And maybe you think that's the point of the commercial, but I'm not so sure that's a common interpretation.
That is the essence of OSS, and that is what happens in the commercial. The idea is to get people who do not understand software to understand this fundamental fact of OSS.
See above. It just simply isn't true. There is a good amount of top-grade OSS, but the same is true of closed-source coprorate product.
I'd say the educational process has failed you big time if, in those 4-5 years, it never occured to you to go see what your degree would be worth.
I'd also be quite stunned to meet any English or History major who honestly expected to leave school and go make big bucks.
See, now, that's funny, because, to me, that commercial seems to equate Linux with a dopey sci-fi movie or one-season TV show.
What it *doesn't* equate to is the fleeting suspicion that anybody in the commercial knows anything about computers, software, operating systems, or OSS. I mean, they *might*, but you'd never know it from the commercial
Do you *know* this, or were you just typing until you thought of something to say?
Well then, I stand corrected. Make that, "Go *buy* a nice OS and build a GUI for it."
Yeah! Go find a good open-source OS and stick a nice GUI over it.
It can mean either?
Oh, great; precison engineering.
Do you have references for these claims, or is it simply FUD?
The EULA for what? The ISO/ECMA standard? Or a particular implementation, such as from Microsoft, or from the Mono project?
Anyone is free to implement the standard, and do whatever comparisons they like against it.
Unlike Java(tm), the CLR is an actual standard.
Why? Because they get nothing out of this, instead of the extra paymanets they were asking? From the article:
No. More like the Tony Manero character from Saturday Night Fever, with the almost-but-not-queer obsession with primping and preening.
Um, not to be quarrelsome or anything, but I'm not sure sure you'll find anyone here willing to make that distinction.
Present company execpted, of course. :)
So, Microsoft should bundle *more* software?
I'm all for it, but you that for every item added, there's gonna be somebody unhappy because MSFT has (somehow or other) reduced the user's choice. And they'll be right in line behind those bemoaning the disk space reuqired to install Windows.
Before: Windows doesn't include MP3 ripping software!
After: Call the laywers! Microsoft is freezing out competitors by including MP3 ripping software!
That's just begging the question. Try again, but without putting your conclusion in the premise.
You'll want to be boning up on your irony and meta-cultural references.
One does not preclude the other. Using PowerPoint does not stop you from also using Word (or whatever) and writing a proper speech.
If you believe in that perspective, then bullet-point agenda-style visuals with off-the-cuff or even pre-planned spoken commentary are "bad".
But I don't believe in that; I believe that written articles and spoken presentations are different, and work in different ways, and offer different things. And different people will respond, well, differently. Some will get more from the slides than from the talk, and vice versa. Talk and slides need to play off each other.
What's the point of simply reading off a piece of paper that you could just as well give to people to read at their leisure? It's similar to the mentality that treats the Web as being "just like" magazines or TV, ignoring the qualities unique to a particular medium.
Well, that comment is true of any claim about any security setup. Or pretty much anything else, for that matter, making it pretty much meaningless.
But thanks for contributing to the discussion.