People consistently tend to forget that TV sucks as a display. Really, really sucks. That may change in the future with the HDTV/digital TV/the great PC-TV convergence, etc. etc. but I expect that to take a while and necessitate shelling out mucho bucks for new hardware.
Basically, you cannot get high-rez high-quality computer graphics on the TV. That's no problem for Mario kind of games, but highly graphical games (such as Baldur's Gate, even though it's only 640x480) would be painful on a TV. Don't even think about any serious word processing. And, of course, once you add the cost of a decent monitor, if the machine can drive it, that is, the price rapidly approaches $1000 and there the PCs can compete perfectly well. Don't forget upgradability, software base, etc.
To me, consoles are cheapo hardware for kids. They have the right to cost up to $200 (YMMV), but if I were to spend, say $800 for my kids' computing hardware, I would definitely buy them a PC.
Monitors are analog devices with numerous ways to be mis-tuned. Yes, you can buy a monitor for under $100. Try looking at it for hours at a stretch and you'll get a headache, an eye strain, or worse.
In any case, I believe that free-for-all generic PC hardware will handily outperform, on a cost-performance basis, custom-built solutions.
The most expensive part in a PC (with a non-Xeon CPU;)) is the monitor. You cannot really economize on it, since you'll be just buying yourself eye problems. Also note that you cannot buy yourself a small/cheap hard drive, because hard drives no longer come in size Small. You can get yourself a reasonably-priced large drive, and you can get yourself a cheap low-quality large drive, but that's it. Everything else can be integrated on the motherboard and be really cheap.
But, mostly because of monitor, you can never sell a complete computer system for $150 or so (at least in the near future). Even if it is oriented towards non-CPU-intensive tasks (writing) and avoids Wintel chips/OSes.
I don't like the idea at all. First, all certification tests I took (and I took a few) were really stupid and had very little relevance to the actual work being done in this particular field. Basically, you get a thick folder of "preparation materials", you cram for 1 day - 2 weeks, you pass, and then you forget it all and get on with your life.
Second, this is an invitation to get programming highly regulated by everybody under the sun. Government, "self-regulatory organziations", etc., etc. Mucho work for lawyers, mucho hassle for everybody else. Besides, how about a prereq of Master in CompSci in order to be licensed?
Third, most such organizations are basically set u p to raise barriers to entry, thus to make it more difficult to get in, thus to raise the price of services of those already in. Again, lawyers are a classic example. Now to become a lawyer you have to have a J.D. and pass a grueling bar examination (which, again, has little relevance to actual work). The point is to make people who are inside "special" and different from those outside. I doubt very much this would be a good thing for programming.
Granted, conceptual integrity is a good thing. However, consider two points:
(1) What is a system? For the purposes of this discussion I would call Linux a platform, and an application a system. An application (e.g. text editor) should have conceptual integrity or suffer from bloat, feeping creaturism and other horrors (but see EMACS for a kitchen sink counterexample). But a platform -- no. There is no need for all applications to share the same underlying design concepts. All they have to share is *user interface* design concepts, which are pretty much standard by now in the GUI world. Gnome and KDE should be internally consistent -- true. All Linux applications should be designed on the basis of the same principles -- false.
(2) What if I don't like the underlying design? Let's say KDE is the only desktop for Linux, full of conceptual integrity, but I, personally, hate some of its features. Must I therefore, not use Linux or be limited to command-line interface?
Conceptual integrity in a small system is elegant. Conceptual integrity in a huge system is boring.
The rights of Intel to control their own servers is not in doubt. In fact, I wonder why Intel didn't implement a global killfile across its mail servers instead of going to court -- that would have been the easiest way to deal with the problem. Remember the discussion on/. some time ago -- your right to talk does not imply my obligation to listen.
However, the issue in this case was different. The question was, did the guy have the right to SEND e-mail. The right of Intel to block it was not in doubt, but Intel wanted the sending of e-mail to stop, and the judge supported them.
This is rather interesting: the ruling implies that the owner of a mail server has rights with regard to people sending mail to his server. Leaving aside the denial-of-service attacks, I belive this is new and I don't really like it. Think about it: can AOL prohibit you from sending any e-mail to any @aol.com address? Do you want it to be able to?
Well, in my XEmacs double-clicking a word selects it. Shift-cursor doesn't select anything, but I am sure that all it takes is a couple of lines in your.emacs file...
I don't see the parallel existence of KDE and Gnome as a bad thing. On the contrary, I believe it to be very good for Linux to have competing desktops. The reasons are, basically, (1) Choice is good; (2) Competition stimulates improvement and destroys complacency; (3) Two parallel systems are good for robustness and insurance; (4) Forcing applications to be able to deal with both reduces their tendency to exploit "undocumented features" in the API and in the end makes them more robust and upgradeable.
I don't buy the duplication of effort argument. If Gnome didn't exist, its developers would NOT have all been working on KDE. Besides, the outcome of the Mongolian Hordes approach is well known.
The networking arguments (as in, the more fax machines are in the world, the more useful yours becomes) for a single desktop environment make some sense, but not all that much. There is a fine line between too much standardization and not enough standardization. Clearly it's good that most everybody can talk TCP/IP. Clearly, it's not good if everyone is forced to use the same key mappings in, say, an editor. This fine line is shifty and blurry, but IMHO a single desktop for Linux is too much standardization. Again, choice is good.
The main argument of the article is that GPL hasn't been tested in courts and until this happens it's hard to be sure whether it will stand up in its entirety. This is a very valid point. You can write as clever a contract or a license as you want, but if the court refuses to enforce it (and courts have been known to do pretty weird things), you are completely out of luck. I'm actually betting more on the huge reputation backlash for any company that tries to break GPL.
I mean, look at this: world domination at hand and nary a lawyer in sight! That will never do. Lawyers are well known for being able to create work for themselves, so now that Linux has grown the esteemed members of the legal profession are looking to charg^H^H^H^H^H apply their legal skills in the service of Linux's friends and enemies. Never mind that nobody asked them in (so far), they are quite capable of inviting themselves.
I guess it's inevitable. Sigh.
The article does make one encouraging note, thought. A company that tries to break GPL is sure to generate enormous hostility on the Net and among computer professionals. This must be hammered into the whatever they use for heads of suits who might get ideas.
Choice is good. As long as I get the option to buy the same piece of software without the ads, I have no problems. Such programs will probably make good demos.
I don't think the idea is going to fly, though, for the following reasons:
(1) To target the ads the software will have to be intrusive. It'll be interested in your household income and whether you subscribe to Hustler. Obvious problems here.
(2) The ads have to be updated, so the software will demand a semi-permanent connection to the Net. It's going to be a hassle for modem users. Besides, it's going to take a lot of trust before I allow a program with a vested interest in my identity and habits to freely communicate with outside.
(3) Hacking the programs to be ad-free (or display something more fun) will become the favorite pasttime for all teenage hackers. Anybody remember the disk-protection schemes from the late eighties? Guess who won the war?
To summarize: I think the idea sucks, but I'll be perfectly happy to watch it crash and burn.
Heh. At that time I was much more poor than you are used to. I think by then I actually had the minimum legally needed insurance (which pays the guy you hit, but not you), but theft insurance? That was way out of my budget.
Generally, no, you're not responsible for whatever is done with your stolen car. There are a couple of exceptions, one dealing with conspiracy (you basically let someone steal your car), and another one dealing with gross negligence (you leave the car at the curb with keys in the ignition, a five-year-old climbs in and runs down a granny). None of these applied.
And again, this was not a civil case where you can sue anybody for pretty much anything. I think it was a misdemeanor I was convicted of, and there all the criminal prereqs apply (mens rea, etc.)
The whole story doesn't surprise me in the least. I had my own wonderful experience with the US justice system.
I had a car stolen. Oh well, life sucks, what's new? I reported it and forgot about it (in a while). About a year after that I get some piece of paper in the mail that says that my driver's license has been suspended. wtf? I made some phone calls and found out that it's been suspended because my car insurance has been terminated. WTF?? After more phone calls it turns out that my insurance was cancelled because I have an outstanding ticket against me. Huh? What's the ticket for? Abandonment of car on public property?? What the fuck is going on???
It turns out that the loser who stole my car eventually got tired of it (it wasn't all that hot, I must confess) and left it in a municipal parking lot. After some time the car was towed away and, as far as I could tell, was junked. I was still listed as an owner, so I got the ticket. For some still unknown to me reason, the ticket was never sent to me. O-Okay. I call the cops, explain the situation. They check their records, find the car listed as stolen, and tell me that yeah, it's all a mistake, but since the trial date has already been set for my ticket, the case has to go forward and I just have to appear and explain everything to the judge.
Well, a first courtroom appearance for me. Armed with a printout of the stolen vehicle report I arrive. The hearing of my case takes 30 seconds and goes as follows (and yes, that's the literal conversation):
Judge: Is the car yours? Me: It was stolen from me a year ago. Judge: But it's your car? Me: But it was stolen, here's the report Judge : But this is your car, right? Me: But I had no control over it, it was stolen... Judge: Guilty. Next case.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how I got to pay a $140 fine and was reaffirmed by the Philadelphia Traffic Court in my faith in truth and justice for all.
Epilogue: I filed for appeal, but because at that time it would have cost me ~$500 to come to Philadelphia on that day, I didn't go. The ticket wasn't a 'moving violation' so my car insurance didn't go up. Basically, I paid $140 plus a week of major hassle for an educational experience. I wouldn't say it was fun, but now I can post to Slashdot and say "Been there, done that!".
The law specifies *a communication*... with intent to annoy, harass, etc. It doesn't say anything about where it is addressed. So yes, if you repeatedly flame Joe Loser on alt.navel.gazing he could go and file a complaint against you. Whether the DA will be willing to prosecute is another matter. OTOH, God knows, there are enough idiots out there... Kaa
Just because you breed faster doesn't mean you leave more copies of your genes around. People in Mozambique, for example, have higher birth rates than in the United States, and yet the population of Mozambique declines (AIDS + civil war).
And you are not taking a long-term view. Having a BMW is not a survival trait. However, having a working society is. Ineffective societies die out, successful societies let their members multiply. Just don't think in terms of years, think in terms of centuries.
Please note that our two flamethrower-toting friends are free people and clearly have the right to say anything they want in any public forum. I hope nobody is really disputing this.
The real question thus becomes, was this public flamage a wise thing to do? Before your average Slashdot AC starts jumping up and down and shouting "Stupid! Stupid! Losers! Assholes!" I would like to point out that both Raymond and Perens are highly intelligent and articulate people. I am quite sure that they can decide on the wisdom of their actions without the help of more flamage directed at them. I really don't see the point of tsk-tsking at them.
Having said that, I would like to point out that my carefree attitude towards this spat is mostly based on my belief in social Darwinian evolution: the losers will die out (and, yes, I know, they breed faster). I do NOT think that the corporate attitude towards Open Source is going to be influenced by private disagreements, even if vocal and highly visible.
(1) It's fun! You get to lead a (mostly) independent lifestyle, meet friends and chicks, and have free time to do interesting things.
(2) It'll improve your thinking. I tend to believe that education's value is not in acquiring information, but in training (think gym) for the mind. In college you'll be forced to think in a more-or-less organized way about more-or-less different subjects. Majors do not matter -- some of the smarter people I know took classics as majors.
(3) That piece of paper that the college gives you in the end is quite important. Other people tend to be very disimpressed when you cannot produce it.
The major qualifier: all this applies only if you go to a good, preferably a top college. Going through a top 10 college is very worthwhile experience. If you college didn't make it into top 200 or so, don't bother. Read books instead.
The only thing I object to is the licensing program for computer usage. I am sure that if you think about it for a while, you'll also shudder in horror.
Imagine: Department of Computer Usage. Licensing test -- open a (Microsoft) word processor, compose and send an e-mail (using Outlook). Find the DCU's homepage using Internet Explorer. Three misclicks and out you go... And then: "computer usage is a privilege, not a right!". Two speeding convictions on the Internet and your license is suspended!
"A steep learning curve is counterintuitive to using a tool." -- says sinator.
I beg to disagree. In life there are simple tasks and complex tasks. Complex tasks require complex tools. If the complexity of the problem is high, you cannot help things by simplifying the tools.
There are actually two issues here. One is that to solve complex problems you need to learn things. Sure, a soldering iron is a simple tool. I'll teach you how to use it in five minutes. Now take it and go assemble a TV out of those resistors and other stuff over there...
The second issue is that complex problems frequently require complicated tools. I don't think anything can be done about it. Again, it is the irreducable complexity of the problem that determine what can and cannot be done simply.
I agree that a world where you have to "roll your own" for all computing that you do is not viable. But this does not mean that computers always have to be as simple as toasters. For simple tasks -- e.g. writing a letter -- yes. For complicated tasks -- e.g. tracking an intermittent hardware fault -- no.
Slashdot Mirror
People consistently tend to forget that TV sucks as a display. Really, really sucks. That may change in the future with the HDTV/digital TV/the great PC-TV convergence, etc. etc. but I expect that to take a while and necessitate shelling out mucho bucks for new hardware.
Basically, you cannot get high-rez high-quality computer graphics on the TV. That's no problem for Mario kind of games, but highly graphical games (such as Baldur's Gate, even though it's only 640x480) would be painful on a TV. Don't even think about any serious word processing. And, of course, once you add the cost of a decent monitor, if the machine can drive it, that is, the price rapidly approaches $1000 and there the PCs can compete perfectly well. Don't forget upgradability, software base, etc.
To me, consoles are cheapo hardware for kids. They have the right to cost up to $200 (YMMV), but if I were to spend, say $800 for my kids' computing hardware, I would definitely buy them a PC.
Kaa
Monitors are analog devices with numerous ways to be mis-tuned. Yes, you can buy a monitor for under $100. Try looking at it for hours at a stretch and you'll get a headache, an eye strain, or worse.
In any case, I believe that free-for-all generic PC hardware will handily outperform, on a cost-performance basis, custom-built solutions.
Kaa
The most expensive part in a PC (with a non-Xeon CPU ;)) is the monitor. You cannot really economize on it, since you'll be just buying yourself eye problems. Also note that you cannot buy yourself a small/cheap hard drive, because hard drives no longer come in size Small. You can get yourself a reasonably-priced large drive, and you can get yourself a cheap low-quality large drive, but that's it. Everything else can be integrated on the motherboard and be really cheap.
But, mostly because of monitor, you can never sell a complete computer system for $150 or so (at least in the near future). Even if it is oriented towards non-CPU-intensive tasks (writing) and avoids Wintel chips/OSes.
Kaa
I don't like the idea at all. First, all certification tests I took (and I took a few) were really stupid and had very little relevance to the actual work being done in this particular field. Basically, you get a thick folder of "preparation materials", you cram for 1 day - 2 weeks, you pass, and then you forget it all and get on with your life.
Second, this is an invitation to get programming highly regulated by everybody under the sun. Government, "self-regulatory organziations", etc., etc. Mucho work for lawyers, mucho hassle for everybody else. Besides, how about a prereq of Master in CompSci in order to be licensed?
Third, most such organizations are basically set u p to raise barriers to entry, thus to make it more difficult to get in, thus to raise the price of services of those already in. Again, lawyers are a classic example. Now to become a lawyer you have to have a J.D. and pass a grueling bar examination (which, again, has little relevance to actual work). The point is to make people who are inside "special" and different from those outside. I doubt very much this would be a good thing for programming.
Kaa
Asking moderators to impose YOUR taste on the discussion... Tsk, tsk.
Kaa
A society that only does 'useful' things would be a horrible place to live in.
Kaa
Now if they wanted to set up a trust that will maintain in perpetuity a server dedicated to Turing, that might be something to think about.
Kaa
Granted, conceptual integrity is a good thing. However, consider two points:
(1) What is a system? For the purposes of this discussion I would call Linux a platform, and an application a system. An application (e.g. text editor) should have conceptual integrity or suffer from bloat, feeping creaturism and other horrors (but see EMACS for a kitchen sink counterexample). But a platform -- no. There is no need for all applications to share the same underlying design concepts. All they have to share is *user interface* design concepts, which are pretty much standard by now in the GUI world. Gnome and KDE should be internally consistent -- true. All Linux applications should be designed on the basis of the same principles -- false.
(2) What if I don't like the underlying design? Let's say KDE is the only desktop for Linux, full of conceptual integrity, but I, personally, hate some of its features. Must I therefore, not use Linux or be limited to command-line interface?
Conceptual integrity in a small system is elegant. Conceptual integrity in a huge system is boring.
Kaa
The rights of Intel to control their own servers is not in doubt. In fact, I wonder why Intel didn't implement a global killfile across its mail servers instead of going to court -- that would have been the easiest way to deal with the problem. Remember the discussion on /. some time ago -- your right to talk does not imply my obligation to listen.
However, the issue in this case was different. The question was, did the guy have the right to SEND e-mail. The right of Intel to block it was not in doubt, but Intel wanted the sending of e-mail to stop, and the judge supported them.
This is rather interesting: the ruling implies that the owner of a mail server has rights with regard to people sending mail to his server. Leaving aside the denial-of-service attacks, I belive this is new and I don't really like it. Think about it: can AOL prohibit you from sending any e-mail to any @aol.com address? Do you want it to be able to?
Kaa
Well, in my XEmacs double-clicking a word selects it. Shift-cursor doesn't select anything, but I am sure that all it takes is a couple of lines in your .emacs file...
Kaa
I don't see the parallel existence of KDE and Gnome as a bad thing. On the contrary, I believe it to be very good for Linux to have competing desktops. The reasons are, basically, (1) Choice is good; (2) Competition stimulates improvement and destroys complacency; (3) Two parallel systems are good for robustness and insurance; (4) Forcing applications to be able to deal with both reduces their tendency to exploit "undocumented features" in the API and in the end makes them more robust and upgradeable.
I don't buy the duplication of effort argument. If Gnome didn't exist, its developers would NOT have all been working on KDE. Besides, the outcome of the Mongolian Hordes approach is well known.
The networking arguments (as in, the more fax machines are in the world, the more useful yours becomes) for a single desktop environment make some sense, but not all that much. There is a fine line between too much standardization and not enough standardization. Clearly it's good that most everybody can talk TCP/IP. Clearly, it's not good if everyone is forced to use the same key mappings in, say, an editor. This fine line is shifty and blurry, but IMHO a single desktop for Linux is too much standardization. Again, choice is good.
Kaa
The main argument of the article is that GPL hasn't been tested in courts and until this happens it's hard to be sure whether it will stand up in its entirety. This is a very valid point. You can write as clever a contract or a license as you want, but if the court refuses to enforce it (and courts have been known to do pretty weird things), you are completely out of luck. I'm actually betting more on the huge reputation backlash for any company that tries to break GPL.
Kaa
I mean, look at this: world domination at hand and nary a lawyer in sight! That will never do. Lawyers are well known for being able to create work for themselves, so now that Linux has grown the esteemed members of the legal profession are looking to charg^H^H^H^H^H apply their legal skills in the service of Linux's friends and enemies. Never mind that nobody asked them in (so far), they are quite capable of inviting themselves.
I guess it's inevitable. Sigh.
The article does make one encouraging note, thought. A company that tries to break GPL is sure to generate enormous hostility on the Net and among computer professionals. This must be hammered into the whatever they use for heads of suits who might get ideas.
Kaa
Choice is good. As long as I get the option to buy the same piece of software without the ads, I have no problems. Such programs will probably make good demos.
I don't think the idea is going to fly, though, for the following reasons:
(1) To target the ads the software will have to be intrusive. It'll be interested in your household income and whether you subscribe to Hustler. Obvious problems here.
(2) The ads have to be updated, so the software will demand a semi-permanent connection to the Net. It's going to be a hassle for modem users. Besides, it's going to take a lot of trust before I allow a program with a vested interest in my identity and habits to freely communicate with outside.
(3) Hacking the programs to be ad-free (or display something more fun) will become the favorite pasttime for all teenage hackers. Anybody remember the disk-protection schemes from the late eighties? Guess who won the war?
To summarize: I think the idea sucks, but I'll be perfectly happy to watch it crash and burn.
Kaa
Heh. At that time I was much more poor than you are used to. I think by then I actually had the minimum legally needed insurance (which pays the guy you hit, but not you), but theft insurance? That was way out of my budget.
Kaa
Generally, no, you're not responsible for whatever is done with your stolen car. There are a couple of exceptions, one dealing with conspiracy (you basically let someone steal your car), and another one dealing with gross negligence (you leave the car at the curb with keys in the ignition, a five-year-old climbs in and runs down a granny). None of these applied.
And again, this was not a civil case where you can sue anybody for pretty much anything. I think it was a misdemeanor I was convicted of, and there all the criminal prereqs apply (mens rea, etc.)
Kaa
The whole story doesn't surprise me in the least. I had my own wonderful experience with the US justice system.
I had a car stolen. Oh well, life sucks, what's new? I reported it and forgot about it (in a while). About a year after that I get some piece of paper in the mail that says that my driver's license has been suspended. wtf? I made some phone calls and found out that it's been suspended because my car insurance has been terminated. WTF?? After more phone calls it turns out that my insurance was cancelled because I have an outstanding ticket against me. Huh? What's the ticket for? Abandonment of car on public property?? What the fuck is going on???
It turns out that the loser who stole my car eventually got tired of it (it wasn't all that hot, I must confess) and left it in a municipal parking lot. After some time the car was towed away and, as far as I could tell, was junked. I was still listed as an owner, so I got the ticket. For some still unknown to me reason, the ticket was never sent to me. O-Okay. I call the cops, explain the situation. They check their records, find the car listed as stolen, and tell me that yeah, it's all a mistake, but since the trial date has already been set for my ticket, the case has to go forward and I just have to appear and explain everything to the judge.
Well, a first courtroom appearance for me. Armed with a printout of the stolen vehicle report I arrive. The hearing of my case takes 30 seconds and goes as follows (and yes, that's the literal conversation):
Judge: Is the car yours?
Me: It was stolen from me a year ago.
Judge: But it's your car?
Me: But it was stolen, here's the report
Judge : But this is your car, right?
Me: But I had no control over it, it was stolen...
Judge: Guilty. Next case.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how I got to pay a $140 fine and was reaffirmed by the Philadelphia Traffic Court in my faith in truth and justice for all.
Epilogue: I filed for appeal, but because at that time it would have cost me ~$500 to come to Philadelphia on that day, I didn't go. The ticket wasn't a 'moving violation' so my car insurance didn't go up. Basically, I paid $140 plus a week of major hassle for an educational experience. I wouldn't say it was fun, but now I can post to Slashdot and say "Been there, done that!".
Kaa
Sun optical mice needed a special cross-hatched mousepad to work. The new MS mouse claims to be able to use any surface at all, your knee included.
Kaa
The law specifies *a communication* ... with intent to annoy, harass, etc. It doesn't say anything about where it is addressed. So yes, if you repeatedly flame Joe Loser on alt.navel.gazing he could go and file a complaint against you. Whether the DA will be willing to prosecute is another matter. OTOH, God knows, there are enough idiots out there...
Kaa
Just because you breed faster doesn't mean you leave more copies of your genes around. People in Mozambique, for example, have higher birth rates than in the United States, and yet the population of Mozambique declines (AIDS + civil war).
And you are not taking a long-term view. Having a BMW is not a survival trait. However, having a working society is. Ineffective societies die out, successful societies let their members multiply. Just don't think in terms of years, think in terms of centuries.
Kaa
Heh. Does a Ph.D. in history count as missing out on a decent liberal arts education?
Kaa
Please note that our two flamethrower-toting friends are free people and clearly have the right to say anything they want in any public forum. I hope nobody is really disputing this.
The real question thus becomes, was this public flamage a wise thing to do? Before your average Slashdot AC starts jumping up and down and shouting "Stupid! Stupid! Losers! Assholes!" I would like to point out that both Raymond and Perens are highly intelligent and articulate people. I am quite sure that they can decide on the wisdom of their actions without the help of more flamage directed at them. I really don't see the point of tsk-tsking at them.
Having said that, I would like to point out that my carefree attitude towards this spat is mostly based on my belief in social Darwinian evolution: the losers will die out (and, yes, I know, they breed faster). I do NOT think that the corporate attitude towards Open Source is going to be influenced by private disagreements, even if vocal and highly visible.
Kaa
Three major reasons:
(1) It's fun! You get to lead a (mostly) independent lifestyle, meet friends and chicks, and have free time to do interesting things.
(2) It'll improve your thinking. I tend to believe that education's value is not in acquiring information, but in training (think gym) for the mind. In college you'll be forced to think in a more-or-less organized way about more-or-less different subjects. Majors do not matter -- some of the smarter people I know took classics as majors.
(3) That piece of paper that the college gives you in the end is quite important. Other people tend to be very disimpressed when you cannot produce it.
The major qualifier: all this applies only if you go to a good, preferably a top college. Going through a top 10 college is very worthwhile experience. If you college didn't make it into top 200 or so, don't bother. Read books instead.
Kaa
The only thing I object to is the licensing program for computer usage. I am sure that if you think about it for a while, you'll also shudder in horror.
Imagine: Department of Computer Usage. Licensing test -- open a (Microsoft) word processor, compose and send an e-mail (using Outlook). Find the DCU's homepage using Internet Explorer. Three misclicks and out you go... And then: "computer usage is a privilege, not a right!". Two speeding convictions on the Internet and your license is suspended!
Nah, I am sure you didn't mean all that.
Kaa
"A steep learning curve is counterintuitive to using a tool." -- says sinator.
I beg to disagree. In life there are simple tasks and complex tasks. Complex tasks require complex tools. If the complexity of the problem is high, you cannot help things by simplifying the tools.
There are actually two issues here. One is that to solve complex problems you need to learn things. Sure, a soldering iron is a simple tool. I'll teach you how to use it in five minutes. Now take it and go assemble a TV out of those resistors and other stuff over there...
The second issue is that complex problems frequently require complicated tools. I don't think anything can be done about it. Again, it is the irreducable complexity of the problem that determine what can and cannot be done simply.
I agree that a world where you have to "roll your own" for all computing that you do is not viable. But this does not mean that computers always have to be as simple as toasters. For simple tasks -- e.g. writing a letter -- yes. For complicated tasks -- e.g. tracking an intermittent hardware fault -- no.
Kaa