There are significant technical issues to surrmount wrt latency for quality voice transmission in this model. Also, switching the network would be a fascinating exercise in either telepathy or very very powerfull phone handsets, afaict.
~cHris
--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
Re:What's Not To Like
on
Just For Fun
·
· Score: 1
*DOH* and that was a truly stupid typo. LinuS!!
~cHris --
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
Re:What's Not To Like
on
Just For Fun
·
· Score: 2
The most depressing part for me is the lack of appreciation shown for the other contributors.
That would be because this is a biography of Linux, not Linux.
~cHris
--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
The Japanese are in the process of westernizing to a more individual society.
I have to ask this. Are you seriously contending here that the American Way is better? That, as you strongly imply, 'westernizing' could be substituted for 'developing' or 'improving' or 'growing up' in this quote?
In what way is western individualism, lack of integrity, and placement of the personal above the important a good thing?
~cHris
--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
I agree with you about Hush. Not least because the cast of teenaged characters were almost entirely silent from beginning to end. *8-)
~cHris --
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
Re:-1, Redundant (or, why UI is not the problem)
on
The Humane Interface
·
· Score: 1
"The real problem is system configuration/administration... Until someone manages to address those concerns, UI may be great but human-computer interaction will not move far forward."
I completely agree with you on this: I have frequently found myself in the position of being the arts student among geeks, and I frequently have the same argument with them. "No, the fact that KDE actually works now does not make Linux user-friendly. Yes, there may be *beginning* to be tools for system config in graphical/menu-based form. Still doesn't solve the problem"
The problem is that people have to make decisions about causes rather than about effects. Non-specialists frequently have a very clear idea about what they want to happen. About a difference in behaviour that they want to observe as a result of their action. Take, for example, the installation of a new piece of hardware.
What the user actually *wants* is for this new network card to start pinging. They do not want to choose between xirc2_ps and ieee_1.3_utils and then make informed decisions about which card out of a line this is, and which driver from the list is closest if the exact one is not visible. What the user knows are things like: 'If this video card works I get better resolution on my monitor and I want Quake to look better'. The decisions they *don't* know about are 'What resolution and colour depth do I need to set X to if I want this monitor model to produce this kind of display from this graphics card on this kernel?'
Let's take software for a moment. Driving sendmail.cf makes even real geeks wary. Even configuring something like Exim to do virtualdomains properly can take some serious work and effort. Why can't the user be offered the option of saying to the computer "I want this domain to be the one the computer uses, but I also want to accept email for this, this domain". The software will then examine the domains given and ask "Do you want ALL users to have mail addresses in ALL domains? [y/n]" End of story. Instead of the user playing with multiple text files listing aliases, and configurations in the.conf file which tell exim whether this is a local, virtual, relay domain, etc., you have a question about *results* which the user will understand, and a system for the computer to interpret that result accurately.
In both hardware contexts and system software administration contexts, the biggest issue is that people are expected to know how to achieve what they want, rather than just knowing what they want. Most users know what they want to have happen (in some cases they don't: that's an occupational hazard. Not everyone knows which way is up but the rain still falls.) Percentage-wise, very few users know or want to know *how* it happens. Therefore, we need to look at designing the *back-end* systems in such a way that they're actually compatible, use vaguely standardised concepts, all the things that the FSF is campaigning for. We need to do that so that the computer can be taught to take care of how, allowing the user to take care of what.
This sounds, I admit, suspiciously like Raskin's kind of viewpoint. I don't in fact share his viewpoint: like other people in this thread I see little practicality in the suggestions. However, I do believe that the biggest issue, particularly for BSD/Linux/Etc and attempts to get these systems into the desktop, is that the questions asked in adminstration tools, gui though those tools may be, are simply the wrong questions for 80% of the userbase to answer.
~cHris
--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
Personally, I doubt it. I really do. Teasing, bullying and ostracism are not in any way new trends among children, or adults for that matter. Anthropological studies of societies which are effectively stone-aged have indicated that these, like sex drive and hunger, are human universals. Children are cruel. They make fun of each other. They will physically bully each other, and emotionally torment each other. And they grow up.
I know alot of kids who got bullied. Badly. I've worked with some on a therapy basis. They dealt. They grew up. They never killed anyone, including themselves, and most of them are now highly motivated geeks who work very hard to obtain a high standard of living. I know children, 16 and 17 now, who have been subjected to years of being a child, just like the children who Mr. Katz is discussing, and who similarly are growing up,a nd are dealing. These are also children who've played Doom. Children who've seen Terminator. They're grown up with the same society, and yet, they've actually grown up.
I am querying the assumption that the only thing society could teach is violence to others. Is it possible that the (truly disturbing) rise in suicide rates among under-16's might be due not to children being bullied more, which I seriously doubt is the case, but in fact to society accepting and presenting suicide in a way it has never done before? Suicide as an option for 'dealing', being perceived as a way to deal, enjoys a status it has never enjoyed before.
I do not take suicide lightly. Suicide is not a new thing, and I'm not trying to claim that it is. It's a very serious, deeply distressing thing. But modern society treats it differently than society in the past. In the past, suicide was one of two things; it was either honourable, in the sense of saving others from shame on your behalf (rare) or it was deeply dishonourable as it constituted the ultimate admission that you were not strong enough for life as an adult.
That was the past. This is the present. Nowadays, suicide is viewed and presented as something that happens. It is 'understood'; it is a 'cry for help'; it's 'attention-seeking'.
Attention-seeking! We're talking about someone trying to take their own life, for goodness sake. Any society in which suicide has become so much a part of everyday life that children will consider attempting to take their own life as a gesture has made suicide far too easy an option on the individual. It has lowered the shame barrier, which ultimately is the only thing which keeps the human animal within bounds of socially acceptable behaviour, so far that the act is considered near-trivial.
Hypothetically, then, if (as I would argue) the premise that children have become fundamentally more unpleasant is untenable, what might be transmitting society's inured attitude to suicide into an advanced death rate for minors?
Why do people kill themselves? Be it loneliness or pressure or depression or spite, ultimately, it all comes back to one thing. Despair. It comes back to the point where one's image of oneself and of one's own worth is in deficit compared to the effort and strength required to continue being. So maybe the problem, then, is in that image? That sense of one's own worth?
What's changed, perhaps, is that children are no longer being taught about strength of will, about persistance, about self-confidence. Children are not being supported, given strong self-image.
They are not being given the tools required to survive life. Life is hard. Life is nasty. People are nasty, and that is the way it's always been. If, however, you're not taught how to cope, not given something to cling to (be it religion, science, self-image, money, whateverthehell) then coping with Life can be made exponentially more difficult. And it is a famous refrain of the social reformers in these days the The Family Group is Dying, and Parents Aren't Helping Enough, and Teachers Need More Respect, and so on. All these things are true, and not true. Many parents are teaching their children what those children need in terms of self-worth and positive reinforcement, and discipline (at least as important). Many teachers are dedicated to their vocation of helping children grow into erudite adults. But, many aren't. And society has created a culture for children in which adolescence can start at 7 and go on till 25... It's bad enough when it used to last three years, 18 is ridiculous!
Attempting to imply that children now are more nasty than children fifty years ago is just not a sensible suggestion. Suggesting that parents now are not, on average, doing as good a job of giving their children the tools to survive life, due to societal change, working habits, etc, strikes me as much more plausible.
So, Mr. Katz, in answer to your postulate, I do not believe that kids are turning other kids into killers. I believe that society is turning kids into victims.
~cHris --
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
It ticks me off just to see commercials that are directly targetting children in a manipulative 'buy-me-to-fit-in-at-school' sort of way.
You might find it interesting to know that in Sweden, and I believe in other places, the government will actively prosecute companies if they are suspected of targetting advertisement at minors, rather than advertising goods for minors which are targetted at people on whom said minors depend.
I rather liked that idea.
~cHris
--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
*grin* it appears that I was a little unclear here. the point I was trying to make is that the 'Protestant Work Ethic' wasn't, and what significances this had. I wasn't trying to comprehensively catalogue teh origins of the industrial revolution.
~cHris
--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
I greatly dislike using the phrase 'paradigm shift', which is the reason for the title I've provided for this posting. However, it best describes the subject. The process of chaging one way of approaching life, to another way of approaching life. This is the point about the so-called Hacker Ethic, and was the point about the infamous Protestant Work Ethic.
Quoting from the review:
"Creativity does not feature prominently in the Protestant ethic, the typical creations of which are the government agency and the monasterylike business enterprise. Neither one of them encourages the individual to engage in creative activity."
Contention ratios are built into every model of bandwidth provision lower than IP transit at the AS level. In fact, even there. That's life. Live it.
~cHris --
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
if Windowmaker wasn't the standard distro before then you'd have to do this anyway so why the belly-aching?
My apologies if I cam across as belly-aching. I tried to imply ("That's the way it goes") that I was quite happy with the fact that I would have to build my WM of choice. I know perfectly well that mine is not a good choice for a default. I would argue, neither is Gnome; certainly no better than CDE. I was, in fact, saying exactly what you do here: I'd have to do this anywa.y. That was precisely my point.
My suggestion (which you have not quoted, I notice) was that instead, the best way to make Solaris easily accessible for those who want to use unusual managers would be to use the *X platform* which most of these managers run with, ie XFree86. This would make the process of building your manager of choice much easier. I was trying to point out that for alot of users, GNOME as opposed to CDE does not save them anything (all the KDE, WindowMaker, FVWM, etc. users), whereas using XFree86 instead of Sun X *would* save them something.
~cHris
--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
2. When will solaris be shipped with GNOME as the default desktop?
There is a much more usefull question to be asking at this point. How about:
2. Why should Solaris be shipped with GNOME as the default desktop?
I'm posting this using a Sun Ultra machine, running Solaris, with a window manager called Windowmaker. I like it; I run it on my laptop and my home desktop; I see no reason not to use it at work. In order to build this working environment, I had to get hold of WindowMaker, and some libs so that it would compile for Solaris, and then hack the configuration of the Solaris X graphical login and session handler in such a way that it recognized Windowmaker as existing and was willing to start Windowmaker for me instead of CDE. This took a while, but that's the way it goes.
Imagine if this box had been shipped with GNOME as the default window manager. I would have had to get hold of WindowMaker, and some libs so that it would compile for Solaris, and then hack the configuration of the Solaris X graphical login and session handler in such a way that it recognized Windowmaker as existing and was willing to start Windowmaker for me instead of GNOME. I do not see why this would improve my quality of life or my ease of use.
Personally, I would argue that using XFree86 instead of Sun X would be a much more significant thing, since that would allow me to load a program such as GDM in place of the graphical login handler already loaded, which would make the process of building the WM of my choice much easier. This is, of course, not going to happen, but that does not diminish the significance of my point, which is that you are making the same assumptions as Sun (that you can predict what WM people will want to use).
~cHris
--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
I believe, based on teh comments I've read, that what most people are objecting to are the following: firstly, that any encouragement of annonymous informatn society is a... risky strategy at best. Secondly, that children particularly are easiest to manipulate and least likely to understand the full significances of their actions. Thirdly, that having such a program operated by a commercial, investigatorial agency is probably unwise. And lastly, that children, along with most adults, are not particularly well equipped to make very significant judgement calls such as those suggested by the part of your comment that I quoted. What, to a kid, constitutes 'severe' rage for seemingly minor reasons? Would you have wanted every tantrum in your childhood to land you in an NSA database?
~cHris
--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
I'd like to group two things you've mentioned in your first point together here, for clarity:
I resent your implication that parents that are not opposed to the teaching of sex education and evolution, etc are not concerned about their children's education and that they are party to "indoctrination".
my child's district has written policies on both the teaching of/about religion and controversial subjects
So. Would you class the teaching of the Theory of Evolution as a 'religio[us] and controversial' subject? It's definitely controversial, and I at least would argue that it's religious. The tone of your comments implied that you did not believe it to be 'indoctrination'. That isn't the word I'd use, admittedly, but I would argue that there is a case for claiming that the manner in which the Theory of Evolution tends to be taught qualifies at the least as a dogma, if not actually a doctrine.
thanks,
~cHris
--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
You see, there was only two ways to avoid the bullying when I was in school. You either had to kick everyones asses, or kiss everyones asses. I did the former, because it was the "proper" way to handle things.
I can't argue with this. I've been put in situations very much like it myself, and have not dealt with them as well as I'd like. However:
...I taught them all the same lesson (one is forever blinded in his left eye because of me).
... There *must* be a better way to deal with someone than permanent injury, if (as you clearly imply) you are a proficient martial artist. I'm not a 'student of the Te' but I know a bit, and even I could stop someone harrassing me without permanent injury, unless they're on something like speed or heroin (I know that of which I speak here). But that is, quite definitely, none of my business. I replied to say:
But what is that kid likely to learn when he's forced to hide his intellectual superiority because "it'll make the other kids jealous", or "it's unfair"? Smart kids want to be as socially accepted as any other kid, and if you drive it into them that using their intelligence is what causes people to not like them, they will eventually turn away from their intelligence and stop learning.
This was not implied by the original or the subsequent post. None of it was. 'hide his intellectual superiority'... 'using their intelligence is what causes people not to like them' != 'present their knowledge and intelligence in a way that is not arrogant or antagonistic'... 'being an asshole is what causes people not to like you'.
The original author was saying (imo rightly) that it is not being intelligent or using their intelligence that causes 'smart' kids (in modern society, read 'mathematically inclined kids') to get picked on. It's being an asshole who chips in with every answer ahead, and who is proud thereof. The kind of guy who posts his high school (A-level) grades on his dorm room door (and yes, I do know people who did this) so that people who meet him 'know a little about him(her)'. People do know a little about that person: they immediately know that they're arrogant little berks with nothing interesting to say about themselves beyond a 4.0 average.
Like the original author, it took me years to work out that people weren't calling me pompous for my knowledge but for my style of delivery. I'm working on it. So can anyone who gets the appropriate guidance. So the trick is not to "drive it into them that using their intelligence is what causes people to not like them" but to demonstrate that there are ways and means and some will get you liked and picked on, some will get you dispised and picked on, and some will get you respected.
~cHris --
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
But those days are over; there's no reason someone should be biting their nails after ordering from Amazon.com or CDNow.
I disagree; shoppers have every reason to be worried after ordering something from Amazon.com Amazon are known and self-admitted to pass confidential customer information to spam-hausen.
~cHris
--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
I trust there`ll be a concerted effort to keep this sexist, homophobic, retarded, redneck trash off the internet! .... Um, why?
~cHris --
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
t's the best email client currently available, except Eudora IMHO.
Hrrrm. The best email client I know of is called Mutt; I like it alot better than either Outlook or Eudora.
Oh, you mean windows email client. Pegasus mail, for me.
~cHris --
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
We the "owners" of the sites should have the power to decide whether or not our info is displayed, other-wise it could just say
Anonymous Coward!!!
The problem with this is abuse tracking. If the information currently contained at places like internic (nsi, whatever) for domain names, and much more significantly RIPE etc, for admins of IP blocks, was not universally public, no-one could ever prosecute a case of abuse, because the first move for a spammer/cracker/incompetent admin would be to remove their details from public record and disable Postmaster@foo.com
~cHris --
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
Sure, the movie dumbed some of it down, but book was really very groundbraking, and the sequel was even better.
It's probably also worthy of note that the novel came out in 1991, whereas the film came out two years later. In '91, the whole area was alot less in the public eye than by the time the film came out (principly because of the book). Re. The Lost World, I have avoided it in both it's forms.
~cHris --
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
The main thing that pissed me off about the movie is the fact that they took DNA from a frog to patch the missing pieces.
Standard Disclaimer: IANAGeneticist.
However, it is pointed out in the book that the difference between, for eg, a single-celled organism and a human is approximately 15% of the DNA strand, and that provided the proteins match it don't matter *where* they came from (theoretically).
...Stephen Jay Gould asking Crichton why he put a dinosaur not from the Jurassic era on a book titled Jurassic Park.
Well, the obvious answer is that 'Jurrassic Park' is a name created by marketroids in the book as a good slogan, and the point is made that the creatures reproduced are not all or even predominantly Jurrassic: that is, the point is made in the book, iirc several times.
A further answer would be that since you say 'on' a book titled Jurrassic Park, I assume you're talking about the cover picture; Michael Crichton would not have designed the cover picture, that would (again) have been Marketroids.
It is unfortunate that hollywood can not embrace this simple philosophy. ... the simplest objection is 'It's dark in cinemas', but that really is a simple objection.
~cHris --
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
Slashdot Mirror
There are significant technical issues to surrmount wrt latency for quality voice transmission in this model. Also, switching the network would be a fascinating exercise in either telepathy or very very powerfull phone handsets, afaict.
~cHris--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
*DOH* and that was a truly stupid typo. LinuS!!
~cHris
--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
That would be because this is a biography of Linux, not Linux.
~cHris--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
I have to ask this. Are you seriously contending here that the American Way is better? That, as you strongly imply, 'westernizing' could be substituted for 'developing' or 'improving' or 'growing up' in this quote?
In what way is western individualism, lack of integrity, and placement of the personal above the important a good thing?
~cHris--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
I agree with you about Hush. Not least because the cast of teenaged characters were almost entirely silent from beginning to end. *8-)
~cHris--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
I completely agree with you on this: I have frequently found myself in the position of being the arts student among geeks, and I frequently have the same argument with them. "No, the fact that KDE actually works now does not make Linux user-friendly. Yes, there may be *beginning* to be tools for system config in graphical/menu-based form. Still doesn't solve the problem"
The problem is that people have to make decisions about causes rather than about effects. Non-specialists frequently have a very clear idea about what they want to happen. About a difference in behaviour that they want to observe as a result of their action. Take, for example, the installation of a new piece of hardware.
What the user actually *wants* is for this new network card to start pinging. They do not want to choose between xirc2_ps and ieee_1.3_utils and then make informed decisions about which card out of a line this is, and which driver from the list is closest if the exact one is not visible. What the user knows are things like: 'If this video card works I get better resolution on my monitor and I want Quake to look better'. The decisions they *don't* know about are 'What resolution and colour depth do I need to set X to if I want this monitor model to produce this kind of display from this graphics card on this kernel?'
Let's take software for a moment. Driving sendmail.cf makes even real geeks wary. Even configuring something like Exim to do virtualdomains properly can take some serious work and effort. Why can't the user be offered the option of saying to the computer "I want this domain to be the one the computer uses, but I also want to accept email for this, this domain". The software will then examine the domains given and ask "Do you want ALL users to have mail addresses in ALL domains? [y/n]" End of story. Instead of the user playing with multiple text files listing aliases, and configurations in the .conf file which tell exim whether this is a local, virtual, relay domain, etc., you have a question about *results* which the user will understand, and a system for the computer to interpret that result accurately.
In both hardware contexts and system software administration contexts, the biggest issue is that people are expected to know how to achieve what they want, rather than just knowing what they want. Most users know what they want to have happen (in some cases they don't: that's an occupational hazard. Not everyone knows which way is up but the rain still falls.) Percentage-wise, very few users know or want to know *how* it happens. Therefore, we need to look at designing the *back-end* systems in such a way that they're actually compatible, use vaguely standardised concepts, all the things that the FSF is campaigning for. We need to do that so that the computer can be taught to take care of how, allowing the user to take care of what.
This sounds, I admit, suspiciously like Raskin's kind of viewpoint. I don't in fact share his viewpoint: like other people in this thread I see little practicality in the suggestions. However, I do believe that the biggest issue, particularly for BSD/Linux/Etc and attempts to get these systems into the desktop, is that the questions asked in adminstration tools, gui though those tools may be, are simply the wrong questions for 80% of the userbase to answer.
~cHris--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
Personally, I doubt it. I really do. Teasing, bullying and ostracism are not in any way new trends among children, or adults for that matter. Anthropological studies of societies which are effectively stone-aged have indicated that these, like sex drive and hunger, are human universals. Children are cruel. They make fun of each other. They will physically bully each other, and emotionally torment each other. And they grow up.
I know alot of kids who got bullied. Badly. I've worked with some on a therapy basis. They dealt. They grew up. They never killed anyone, including themselves, and most of them are now highly motivated geeks who work very hard to obtain a high standard of living. I know children, 16 and 17 now, who have been subjected to years of being a child, just like the children who Mr. Katz is discussing, and who similarly are growing up,a nd are dealing. These are also children who've played Doom. Children who've seen Terminator. They're grown up with the same society, and yet, they've actually grown up.
I am querying the assumption that the only thing society could teach is violence to others. Is it possible that the (truly disturbing) rise in suicide rates among under-16's might be due not to children being bullied more, which I seriously doubt is the case, but in fact to society accepting and presenting suicide in a way it has never done before? Suicide as an option for 'dealing', being perceived as a way to deal, enjoys a status it has never enjoyed before.
I do not take suicide lightly. Suicide is not a new thing, and I'm not trying to claim that it is. It's a very serious, deeply distressing thing. But modern society treats it differently than society in the past. In the past, suicide was one of two things; it was either honourable, in the sense of saving others from shame on your behalf (rare) or it was deeply dishonourable as it constituted the ultimate admission that you were not strong enough for life as an adult.
That was the past. This is the present. Nowadays, suicide is viewed and presented as something that happens. It is 'understood'; it is a 'cry for help'; it's 'attention-seeking'.
Attention-seeking! We're talking about someone trying to take their own life, for goodness sake. Any society in which suicide has become so much a part of everyday life that children will consider attempting to take their own life as a gesture has made suicide far too easy an option on the individual. It has lowered the shame barrier, which ultimately is the only thing which keeps the human animal within bounds of socially acceptable behaviour, so far that the act is considered near-trivial.
Hypothetically, then, if (as I would argue) the premise that children have become fundamentally more unpleasant is untenable, what might be transmitting society's inured attitude to suicide into an advanced death rate for minors?
Why do people kill themselves? Be it loneliness or pressure or depression or spite, ultimately, it all comes back to one thing. Despair. It comes back to the point where one's image of oneself and of one's own worth is in deficit compared to the effort and strength required to continue being. So maybe the problem, then, is in that image? That sense of one's own worth?
What's changed, perhaps, is that children are no longer being taught about strength of will, about persistance, about self-confidence. Children are not being supported, given strong self-image. They are not being given the tools required to survive life. Life is hard. Life is nasty. People are nasty, and that is the way it's always been. If, however, you're not taught how to cope, not given something to cling to (be it religion, science, self-image, money, whateverthehell) then coping with Life can be made exponentially more difficult. And it is a famous refrain of the social reformers in these days the The Family Group is Dying, and Parents Aren't Helping Enough, and Teachers Need More Respect, and so on. All these things are true, and not true. Many parents are teaching their children what those children need in terms of self-worth and positive reinforcement, and discipline (at least as important). Many teachers are dedicated to their vocation of helping children grow into erudite adults. But, many aren't. And society has created a culture for children in which adolescence can start at 7 and go on till 25... It's bad enough when it used to last three years, 18 is ridiculous!
Attempting to imply that children now are more nasty than children fifty years ago is just not a sensible suggestion. Suggesting that parents now are not, on average, doing as good a job of giving their children the tools to survive life, due to societal change, working habits, etc, strikes me as much more plausible.
So, Mr. Katz, in answer to your postulate, I do not believe that kids are turning other kids into killers. I believe that society is turning kids into victims.
~cHris--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
You might find it interesting to know that in Sweden, and I believe in other places, the government will actively prosecute companies if they are suspected of targetting advertisement at minors, rather than advertising goods for minors which are targetted at people on whom said minors depend.
I rather liked that idea.
~cHris
--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
Well, actually, the *correct* response would be ALL YOUR BASE not ALL YOUR BASES...
~cHris
--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
*grin* it appears that I was a little unclear here. the point I was trying to make is that the 'Protestant Work Ethic' wasn't, and what significances this had. I wasn't trying to comprehensively catalogue teh origins of the industrial revolution.
~cHris--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
~cHris
--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
Contention ratios are built into every model of bandwidth provision lower than IP transit at the AS level. In fact, even there. That's life. Live it.
~cHris
--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
My apologies if I cam across as belly-aching. I tried to imply ("That's the way it goes") that I was quite happy with the fact that I would have to build my WM of choice. I know perfectly well that mine is not a good choice for a default. I would argue, neither is Gnome; certainly no better than CDE. I was, in fact, saying exactly what you do here: I'd have to do this anywa.y. That was precisely my point.
My suggestion (which you have not quoted, I notice) was that instead, the best way to make Solaris easily accessible for those who want to use unusual managers would be to use the *X platform* which most of these managers run with, ie XFree86. This would make the process of building your manager of choice much easier. I was trying to point out that for alot of users, GNOME as opposed to CDE does not save them anything (all the KDE, WindowMaker, FVWM, etc. users), whereas using XFree86 instead of Sun X *would* save them something.
~cHris--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
There is a much more usefull question to be asking at this point. How about:
2. Why should Solaris be shipped with GNOME as the default desktop?
I'm posting this using a Sun Ultra machine, running Solaris, with a window manager called Windowmaker. I like it; I run it on my laptop and my home desktop; I see no reason not to use it at work. In order to build this working environment, I had to get hold of WindowMaker, and some libs so that it would compile for Solaris, and then hack the configuration of the Solaris X graphical login and session handler in such a way that it recognized Windowmaker as existing and was willing to start Windowmaker for me instead of CDE. This took a while, but that's the way it goes.
Imagine if this box had been shipped with GNOME as the default window manager. I would have had to get hold of WindowMaker, and some libs so that it would compile for Solaris, and then hack the configuration of the Solaris X graphical login and session handler in such a way that it recognized Windowmaker as existing and was willing to start Windowmaker for me instead of GNOME. I do not see why this would improve my quality of life or my ease of use.
Personally, I would argue that using XFree86 instead of Sun X would be a much more significant thing, since that would allow me to load a program such as GDM in place of the graphical login handler already loaded, which would make the process of building the WM of my choice much easier. This is, of course, not going to happen, but that does not diminish the significance of my point, which is that you are making the same assumptions as Sun (that you can predict what WM people will want to use).
~cHris--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
I believe, based on teh comments I've read, that what most people are objecting to are the following: firstly, that any encouragement of annonymous informatn society is a ... risky strategy at best. Secondly, that children particularly are easiest to manipulate and least likely to understand the full significances of their actions. Thirdly, that having such a program operated by a commercial, investigatorial agency is probably unwise. And lastly, that children, along with most adults, are not particularly well equipped to make very significant judgement calls such as those suggested by the part of your comment that I quoted. What, to a kid, constitutes 'severe' rage for seemingly minor reasons? Would you have wanted every tantrum in your childhood to land you in an NSA database?
~cHris--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
... PERL?
~cHris--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
So. Would you class the teaching of the Theory of Evolution as a 'religio[us] and controversial' subject? It's definitely controversial, and I at least would argue that it's religious. The tone of your comments implied that you did not believe it to be 'indoctrination'. That isn't the word I'd use, admittedly, but I would argue that there is a case for claiming that the manner in which the Theory of Evolution tends to be taught qualifies at the least as a dogma, if not actually a doctrine.
thanks,
~cHris
--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
This was not implied by the original or the subsequent post. None of it was. 'hide his intellectual superiority' ... 'using their intelligence is what causes people not to like them' != 'present their knowledge and intelligence in a way that is not arrogant or antagonistic' ... 'being an asshole is what causes people not to like you'.
The original author was saying (imo rightly) that it is not being intelligent or using their intelligence that causes 'smart' kids (in modern society, read 'mathematically inclined kids') to get picked on. It's being an asshole who chips in with every answer ahead, and who is proud thereof. The kind of guy who posts his high school (A-level) grades on his dorm room door (and yes, I do know people who did this) so that people who meet him 'know a little about him(her)'. People do know a little about that person: they immediately know that they're arrogant little berks with nothing interesting to say about themselves beyond a 4.0 average.
Like the original author, it took me years to work out that people weren't calling me pompous for my knowledge but for my style of delivery. I'm working on it. So can anyone who gets the appropriate guidance. So the trick is not to "drive it into them that using their intelligence is what causes people to not like them" but to demonstrate that there are ways and means and some will get you liked and picked on, some will get you dispised and picked on, and some will get you respected.
~cHris--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
~cHris
--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
I trust there`ll be a concerted effort to keep this sexist, homophobic, retarded, redneck trash off the internet!
.... Um, why?
~cHris
--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
t's the best email client currently available, except Eudora IMHO.
Hrrrm. The best email client I know of is called Mutt; I like it alot better than either Outlook or Eudora.
~cHrisOh, you mean windows email client. Pegasus mail, for me.
--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
~cHris
--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
Sure, the movie dumbed some of it down, but book was really very groundbraking, and the sequel was even better.
It's probably also worthy of note that the novel came out in 1991, whereas the film came out two years later. In '91, the whole area was alot less in the public eye than by the time the film came out (principly because of the book). Re. The Lost World, I have avoided it in both it's forms.
~cHris--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"
The main thing that pissed me off about the movie is the fact that they took DNA from a frog to patch the missing pieces.
Standard Disclaimer: IANAGeneticist.
However, it is pointed out in the book that the difference between, for eg, a single-celled organism and a human is approximately 15% of the DNA strand, and that provided the proteins match it don't matter *where* they came from (theoretically).
Well, the obvious answer is that 'Jurrassic Park' is a name created by marketroids in the book as a good slogan, and the point is made that the creatures reproduced are not all or even predominantly Jurrassic: that is, the point is made in the book, iirc several times.
A further answer would be that since you say 'on' a book titled Jurrassic Park, I assume you're talking about the cover picture; Michael Crichton would not have designed the cover picture, that would (again) have been Marketroids.
It is unfortunate that hollywood can not embrace this simple philosophy.
... the simplest objection is 'It's dark in cinemas', but that really is a simple objection.
~cHris--
Chris Naden
"Sometimes, home is just where you pour your coffee"