Funny thing is, they call grabbing shows like these from P2P networks illegal. What's illegal is keeping people 3 years behind in programming.
Man, you Canadians really do things differently. Down here, taking things that you don't have the right to take is illegal, while making legitimate choices about what television programming to carry-- for free!-- is perfectly okay.
Dude, you're basing all of your complaints on the show's marketing. Stop and think for a minute. Does that really make sense?
Why don't you just sit down and watch the show. Or TiVo it, or whatever. Then you can bitch.
Besides, complaints about how it's not original will fall on deaf ears. Wasn't it Joesph Campbell who said there were only about seven stories? Most of 'em can be found in The Odyssey, if you just look. The theme of the story isn't what makes it interesting. It's the execution that matters. And none of us will know anything about that until 8:00 PM, Eastern and Pacific.
I just do not see Sun and SGI going backwards in order to run Linux on their proprietary mid to high-end systems.
I'm sorry to say that SGI is, in fact, running Linux on their high-end systems. The decision was made several years ago not to port IRIX to the IA-64 architecture, but to instead work to get Linux to the point where it could be usable in a large-scale technical computing environment.
By all reports, expect to see very large-scale SGI servers based on the Itanium 2 to be released either this winter or next spring with, yeah, a Linux kernel.
So, so with that in mind, ebonics is really legitimate?
Your use of the word "legitimate" implies that you don't really understand the subject. The primary purpose of language is communication. If two people who want to communicate can do so, their language or dialect is accomplishing its purpose. One of the many secondary purposes of language is to identify a speaker as being part of a group. In that sense, there's no "legitimate" or "illegitimate" language or dialect.
It's entirely natural that a person would tend to make judgments about another person based on his language or dialect. Language can be a good sign that a person belongs to a particular group, and members of a particular group often have certain characteristics in common. If by reading this you'd guess that I'm American, white, moderately well-educated, and of median age, you'd be pretty close to correct. But that doesn't necessarily describe me completely. Likewise, you might assume that a person is black, poor, and uneducated by the way he speaks. In that case you might be right... but you could very easily be wrong, too. Swim in that pool at your own risk. No social lifeguard will be on duty for you.
To see the canonical example of this principle, read your Bible. Book of Judges, chapter 12.
When the science skeptics get ahold of the rabbit-o-saurus....
Is anybody else enjoying the irony here? Although they derive from different roots, "skeptic" and "science" are startlingly close in meaning. "Skeptic" comes from the Greek skeptesthai ("to look carefully"). "Science" came from the Latin "scire" ("to know").
Sounds to me like skepticism and science go hand in hand. They're not opposites like you seem to want to imply they are. Maybe you should choose your words more carefully next time, guacamolefoo.
So you're trying to say that Linux may be a useful desktop operating system someday? Can't hardly argue with that. Can't hardly bring myself to care, either. In three years Linux may reach the point where it's comparable to the Windows or Mac OS operating systems of today... by which time those operating systems will be three years further along.
First of all, you don't need an HD tuner to record HD programming. You only need a set of component analog video inputs. Outboard satellite, cable, and OTA HD tuners all have component video outputs.
Furthermore, there's a ton of HD programming out there. HBO and Showtime are broadcasting about half a dozen movies per day in HD, via satellite, and the OTA networks are rolling out more HD programming all the time. Most of CBS's prime-time schedule is simulcast in HD, and a good deal of ABC's is as well, including big-ticket items like Alias and Push, Nevada. NBC and Fox have been relatively slow to adopt HD, but they're coming along.
There's something on in HD every night of the week. And I'm not counting demo loops.
Finally, I have it on reasonably good authority that TiVo demonstrated an HD version of their Series 2 device at NAB back in April. It's rumored to have been a closed-door demonstration, so I didn't see it myself, but many others corroborate the story. So "not even in alpha planning stages" isn't quite right.
Well, actually, no. Languages do evolve, yes, but the purpose of things like schools is to limit that evolution. If a language evolves too quickly, it fractures into dialects that eventually become mutually incomprehensible. Suddenly what were once dialects become completely separate languages sharing only their immediate ancestor. Think French, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese here.
And language serves a far more important purpose than to merely allow us to communicate with each other. Language allows us to communicate with our past. (Okay, it's strictly a one-way communication, but communication nonetheless.) I can go back and read things that were written five hundred years ago because the modern English language hasn't changed too much in that time. But going back much further than that, things get difficult.
Here's a version of the Lord's Prayer published in 1611.
Our father which art in heauen, hallowed be thy name.Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth as it is in heauen.Giue us this day our daily bread.And forgiue us our debts as we forgiue our debters.And lead us not into temptation, but deliuer us from euill. Amen.
The most notable difference is the use of the letter "u" where we would use "v." Other than that, this passage is totally legible. It's slightly under 400 years old.
Here's the same prayer in Middle English, dated around 1384. (Apologies to anybody whose computer doesn't display the thorn, the eth, or the ae dipthong correctly. If somebody wants to go through there and add HTML entities, be my guest.)
Oure fadir at art in heuenes halwid be i name;i reume or kyngdom come to be. Be i wille don in here as it is doun in heuene.yeue to us today oure eche dayes bred.And foryeue to us oure dettis at is oure synnys as we foryeuen to oure dettouris at is to men at han synned in us. And lede us not into temptacion but delyuere us from euyl.
This version is pretty radically different in spelling some word choice, but it's fundamentally recognizable. But look at the same prayer dated circa 1000.
Fæder ure u e eart on heofonumsi in nama gehalgod tobecume in rice gewure in willa on eorðan swa swa on heofonumurne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us to dægand forgyf us ure gyltas swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendumand ne gelæd u us on costnunge ac alys us of yfele solice.
Pretty much incomprehensible.
I would say that your typical "1337-speak" version of the Lord's Prayer would resemble the 600-year-old version more than the other two: it would be fundamentally comprehensible, but only after certain letter substitutions are made by the reader. A more exotic rendering using constructions like "sux0r" (although I know "sucks" doesn't appear in the Lord's Prayer; bear with me) would quickly start to resemble the 1000-year-old version.
So there's a good argument to be made that the kind of writing we're talking about here is surprisingly close to becoming another language entirely.
Patience my lad. Remember the days when you could put things like "A plausible office suite" and "a fully functional web browser" in those parentheses?
You mean, like, today?
Face it, man. Linux desktop software is of uniformly bad design and low quality. Even in those cases where you could replace a better desktop system-- a Mac or a PC-- with Windows, you'd be a fool to bother.
Re:Why don't you just get a REAL operating system.
on
Mac OS X 10.2.1 Released
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
Well, let's just say I never praise Slashdot on a first date.
You're both right and wrong, I think. Scheduling is a big part of what makes Exchange cool, but public folders, forms, and journals are pretty damn useful as well. Public folders make NAS systems obsolete. Forms are like little mini-applications that can be used for anything from sending out birthday party announcements to expense reports. Journals are a little known, seldom used, incredibly powerful feature. Not only can I tell you, for example, that I worked on this document, but I can tell you exactly when I worked on it, because it's all recorded in my journal
Wasn't there a System 5.0.2 or something like that? I can't find reference to it on the web. I definitely remember the 6.0.x releases, though. That was some good stuff. Mmmm... Multifinder.
Re:Why don't you just get a REAL operating system.
on
Mac OS X 10.2.1 Released
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Hey, finally the "real operating system" guy is back! Cool!
So Outlook roughly triples the number of times you have to install Windows, huh? Well, considering the number of times I've had to reinstall Windows is zero, I guess you're right. Three times zero is zero.
And as for your comment about "no sane admin," the majority is always sane, my small-minded friend. More of the Global 2000 use Microsoft Exchange and Outlook than don't. Obviously they are not all insane, as you would have us believe.
You should post more. I like the cut of your jib. These freaks who honestly believe that Linux is a decent, professional operating system need a wake-up call, and you and I are about the only people around here willing to give it to them.
Man, you are such an asshole. Nevertheless, I will respond. Except to the stuff that just annoyed me, which I will simply ignore.
Yes, Outlook is an absolutely necessary tool for many-- possibly even most-- companies. I make no statement about whether this is good or bad, but it's true anyway. If your company has an Exchange/Outlook system in place, and you try to deploy Linux on the desktop, you will end up wasting a fortune and then going back to Windows anyway.
Look at it this way: you have a system that works. Not just well, it works really well. That system depends on Exchange and Outlook. You then try to bring in something like Linux, where the best you can do is Evolution with their connector product. Which isn't very well at all, because the connector uses WebDAV instead of MAPI, meaning you have to do a significant amount of work to your server to even support the connector, and it doesn't support key features like journals or forms. So you end up with a system that sort-of works, except for the things that don't. Not to mention the fact that you have to spend another fortune training up your support staff to deal with two different operating systems and two entirely different sets of troubleshooting procedures. It's a waste of time and money.
It's cheaper to just maintain the status quo.
I assert to you that it will not be possible for anybody to build a desktop system that fits into the modern enterprise as well as a Windows system can. The Exchange-based enterprise is not perfect. It could be improved in lots of ways. The only way to get on the desktop of the typical enterprise is to come up with something significantly better than the combination of Windows desktops, Windows servers, Outlook, and Exchange. It hasn't happened so far. Maybe it will some day, but if that newer, better system comes from the "free" software world, I'll eat my shoe.
Oh, and to address your comment about viruses, in the past three years my company has not been affected by a single virus. Why? Because we run virus scanners where they're appropriate. No problem there. So associating Windows with viruses like they're intrinsically linked is just FUD in the most literal sense: you're trying to spread fear by relying on the uncertainty of your audience to plant the seeds of doubt.
Now if you'd said 'a decent GUI based file manager', that might have been different.
What file manager? Use Outlook's public folders. All the important data gets stored on secure servers, indexed for easy retrieval, and backed up every hour on the hour. File managers are obsolete, my friend. Most people just don't know it yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny thing is, they call grabbing shows like these from P2P networks illegal. What's illegal is keeping people 3 years behind in programming.
Man, you Canadians really do things differently. Down here, taking things that you don't have the right to take is illegal, while making legitimate choices about what television programming to carry-- for free!-- is perfectly okay.
You wacky Canucks...
Dude, you're basing all of your complaints on the show's marketing. Stop and think for a minute. Does that really make sense?
Why don't you just sit down and watch the show. Or TiVo it, or whatever. Then you can bitch.
Besides, complaints about how it's not original will fall on deaf ears. Wasn't it Joesph Campbell who said there were only about seven stories? Most of 'em can be found in The Odyssey, if you just look. The theme of the story isn't what makes it interesting. It's the execution that matters. And none of us will know anything about that until 8:00 PM, Eastern and Pacific.
With a nickname like "crm114" your post is almost redundant. Why didn't you just write, "Kubrick rules!"
You obviously lack clue. McKinley is really quite impressive.
I just do not see Sun and SGI going backwards in order to run Linux on their proprietary mid to high-end systems.
I'm sorry to say that SGI is, in fact, running Linux on their high-end systems. The decision was made several years ago not to port IRIX to the IA-64 architecture, but to instead work to get Linux to the point where it could be usable in a large-scale technical computing environment.
By all reports, expect to see very large-scale SGI servers based on the Itanium 2 to be released either this winter or next spring with, yeah, a Linux kernel.
Does anyone know the event horizon for a big bang?
Zero. Well, infinity. Okay, both.
"Rest assured I was on the internet within minutes registering my disgust throughout the world."
-- Comic Book Guy
And I hate people who don't know how to use this "shift" key on their keyboards. Fuckwit.
So, so with that in mind, ebonics is really legitimate?
Your use of the word "legitimate" implies that you don't really understand the subject. The primary purpose of language is communication. If two people who want to communicate can do so, their language or dialect is accomplishing its purpose. One of the many secondary purposes of language is to identify a speaker as being part of a group. In that sense, there's no "legitimate" or "illegitimate" language or dialect.
It's entirely natural that a person would tend to make judgments about another person based on his language or dialect. Language can be a good sign that a person belongs to a particular group, and members of a particular group often have certain characteristics in common. If by reading this you'd guess that I'm American, white, moderately well-educated, and of median age, you'd be pretty close to correct. But that doesn't necessarily describe me completely. Likewise, you might assume that a person is black, poor, and uneducated by the way he speaks. In that case you might be right... but you could very easily be wrong, too. Swim in that pool at your own risk. No social lifeguard will be on duty for you.
To see the canonical example of this principle, read your Bible. Book of Judges, chapter 12.
When the science skeptics get ahold of the rabbit-o-saurus....
Is anybody else enjoying the irony here? Although they derive from different roots, "skeptic" and "science" are startlingly close in meaning. "Skeptic" comes from the Greek skeptesthai ("to look carefully"). "Science" came from the Latin "scire" ("to know").
Sounds to me like skepticism and science go hand in hand. They're not opposites like you seem to want to imply they are. Maybe you should choose your words more carefully next time, guacamolefoo.
I am glad He has a sense of humor (He created us all, after all)
Or is that the other way around? It's true either way, you see.
So you're trying to say that Linux may be a useful desktop operating system someday? Can't hardly argue with that. Can't hardly bring myself to care, either. In three years Linux may reach the point where it's comparable to the Windows or Mac OS operating systems of today... by which time those operating systems will be three years further along.
First of all, you don't need an HD tuner to record HD programming. You only need a set of component analog video inputs. Outboard satellite, cable, and OTA HD tuners all have component video outputs.
Furthermore, there's a ton of HD programming out there. HBO and Showtime are broadcasting about half a dozen movies per day in HD, via satellite, and the OTA networks are rolling out more HD programming all the time. Most of CBS's prime-time schedule is simulcast in HD, and a good deal of ABC's is as well, including big-ticket items like Alias and Push, Nevada. NBC and Fox have been relatively slow to adopt HD, but they're coming along.
There's something on in HD every night of the week. And I'm not counting demo loops.
Finally, I have it on reasonably good authority that TiVo demonstrated an HD version of their Series 2 device at NAB back in April. It's rumored to have been a closed-door demonstration, so I didn't see it myself, but many others corroborate the story. So "not even in alpha planning stages" isn't quite right.
Man, you were wrong three ways!
That was just a letter-by-letter transliteration, right? It gets even worse if you start changing spellings or substituting words, as one often sees.
0ur D4D, wH0 b33z n h34V3n....
Well, actually, no. Languages do evolve, yes, but the purpose of things like schools is to limit that evolution. If a language evolves too quickly, it fractures into dialects that eventually become mutually incomprehensible. Suddenly what were once dialects become completely separate languages sharing only their immediate ancestor. Think French, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese here.
And language serves a far more important purpose than to merely allow us to communicate with each other. Language allows us to communicate with our past. (Okay, it's strictly a one-way communication, but communication nonetheless.) I can go back and read things that were written five hundred years ago because the modern English language hasn't changed too much in that time. But going back much further than that, things get difficult.
Here's a version of the Lord's Prayer published in 1611.
Our father which art in heauen, hallowed be thy name.Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth as it is in heauen.Giue us this day our daily bread.And forgiue us our debts as we forgiue our debters.And lead us not into temptation, but deliuer us from euill. Amen.
The most notable difference is the use of the letter "u" where we would use "v." Other than that, this passage is totally legible. It's slightly under 400 years old.
Here's the same prayer in Middle English, dated around 1384. (Apologies to anybody whose computer doesn't display the thorn, the eth, or the ae dipthong correctly. If somebody wants to go through there and add HTML entities, be my guest.)
Oure fadir at art in heuenes halwid be i name;i reume or kyngdom come to be. Be i wille don in here as it is doun in heuene.yeue to us today oure eche dayes bred.And foryeue to us oure dettis at is oure synnys as we foryeuen to oure dettouris at is to men at han synned in us.
And lede us not into temptacion but delyuere us from euyl.
This version is pretty radically different in spelling some word choice, but it's fundamentally recognizable. But look at the same prayer dated circa 1000.
Fæder ure u e eart on heofonumsi in nama gehalgod tobecume in rice gewure in willa on eorðan swa swa on heofonumurne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us to dægand forgyf us ure gyltas swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendumand ne gelæd u us on costnunge ac alys us of yfele solice.
Pretty much incomprehensible.
I would say that your typical "1337-speak" version of the Lord's Prayer would resemble the 600-year-old version more than the other two: it would be fundamentally comprehensible, but only after certain letter substitutions are made by the reader. A more exotic rendering using constructions like "sux0r" (although I know "sucks" doesn't appear in the Lord's Prayer; bear with me) would quickly start to resemble the 1000-year-old version.
So there's a good argument to be made that the kind of writing we're talking about here is surprisingly close to becoming another language entirely.
Patience my lad. Remember the days when you could put things like "A plausible office suite" and "a fully functional web browser" in those parentheses?
You mean, like, today?
Face it, man. Linux desktop software is of uniformly bad design and low quality. Even in those cases where you could replace a better desktop system-- a Mac or a PC-- with Windows, you'd be a fool to bother.
Well, let's just say I never praise Slashdot on a first date.
You're both right and wrong, I think. Scheduling is a big part of what makes Exchange cool, but public folders, forms, and journals are pretty damn useful as well. Public folders make NAS systems obsolete. Forms are like little mini-applications that can be used for anything from sending out birthday party announcements to expense reports. Journals are a little known, seldom used, incredibly powerful feature. Not only can I tell you, for example, that I worked on this document, but I can tell you exactly when I worked on it, because it's all recorded in my journal
Your comment was too long and boring. Didn't read it. Don't care.
Oh, I wouldn't go as far as that.
Wasn't there a System 5.0.2 or something like that? I can't find reference to it on the web. I definitely remember the 6.0.x releases, though. That was some good stuff. Mmmm... Multifinder.
Hey, finally the "real operating system" guy is back! Cool!
So Outlook roughly triples the number of times you have to install Windows, huh? Well, considering the number of times I've had to reinstall Windows is zero, I guess you're right. Three times zero is zero.
And as for your comment about "no sane admin," the majority is always sane, my small-minded friend. More of the Global 2000 use Microsoft Exchange and Outlook than don't. Obviously they are not all insane, as you would have us believe.
You should post more. I like the cut of your jib. These freaks who honestly believe that Linux is a decent, professional operating system need a wake-up call, and you and I are about the only people around here willing to give it to them.
Man, you are such an asshole. Nevertheless, I will respond. Except to the stuff that just annoyed me, which I will simply ignore.
Yes, Outlook is an absolutely necessary tool for many-- possibly even most-- companies. I make no statement about whether this is good or bad, but it's true anyway. If your company has an Exchange/Outlook system in place, and you try to deploy Linux on the desktop, you will end up wasting a fortune and then going back to Windows anyway.
Look at it this way: you have a system that works. Not just well, it works really well. That system depends on Exchange and Outlook. You then try to bring in something like Linux, where the best you can do is Evolution with their connector product. Which isn't very well at all, because the connector uses WebDAV instead of MAPI, meaning you have to do a significant amount of work to your server to even support the connector, and it doesn't support key features like journals or forms. So you end up with a system that sort-of works, except for the things that don't. Not to mention the fact that you have to spend another fortune training up your support staff to deal with two different operating systems and two entirely different sets of troubleshooting procedures. It's a waste of time and money.
It's cheaper to just maintain the status quo.
I assert to you that it will not be possible for anybody to build a desktop system that fits into the modern enterprise as well as a Windows system can. The Exchange-based enterprise is not perfect. It could be improved in lots of ways. The only way to get on the desktop of the typical enterprise is to come up with something significantly better than the combination of Windows desktops, Windows servers, Outlook, and Exchange. It hasn't happened so far. Maybe it will some day, but if that newer, better system comes from the "free" software world, I'll eat my shoe.
Oh, and to address your comment about viruses, in the past three years my company has not been affected by a single virus. Why? Because we run virus scanners where they're appropriate. No problem there. So associating Windows with viruses like they're intrinsically linked is just FUD in the most literal sense: you're trying to spread fear by relying on the uncertainty of your audience to plant the seeds of doubt.
Now if you'd said 'a decent GUI based file manager', that might have been different.
What file manager? Use Outlook's public folders. All the important data gets stored on secure servers, indexed for easy retrieval, and backed up every hour on the hour. File managers are obsolete, my friend. Most people just don't know it yet.